thestream--2020-10-06--Woke As the Papacy (WAP): Pope Francis’ New Rap on Capitalism, Borders, and Politics

Those of you who aren ’ t Catholic might not know that Pope Francis just dropped a 43,000 word brick of an encyclical on the world , Fratelli Tutti .
Those of you who are Catholic , as I am , are frantically looking around for someone else who read and reported on the thing .
So you won ’ t have to .
I helped edit the English translation of Pope Francis ’ first book in English .
At the time , I remember thinking , “ I can ’ t discern his theology or his politics .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work .
I ’ d hate to have him in Confession.
” It ’ s a comical understatement to say that Pope Francis is no Pope Benedict XVI .
In fact , he ’ s no Benny Hinn .
The only Christian evangelist whom Francis really recalls , with his worldly preoccupations and self-referential digressions , is the late late-night TV rambler , the Rev .
Gene Scott .
Like Scott , Francis often seems much more concerned about the Benjamins than about Matthew , Mark , Luke , or John .
Francis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has wealth and who hasn ’ t , and offering justifications for seizing it and spreading it around .
Via , of course , the government — aided by non-profit agencies such as those run by U.S. bishops , getting forty percent of their income from Uncle Sam .
He blames the free market for environmental destruction , inequality , and even the ravages of COVID .
It ’ s not surprising , really , that Francis doesn ’ t mention China ’ s intentional effort to spread that plague worldwide — locking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of China , but letting virus carriers fly out to the rest of the world .
After all , Francis just renewed his alliance with China against the West , and reportedly collects $ 2 billion annually from that government .
We don ’ t know a lot here , because large parts of this deal are still secret .
Perhaps we can ask the man Francis sent to China to negotiate , disgraced pedophile Theodore McCarrick .
We do know that Francis has been completely silent on the vicious persecution of Christians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the elderly hero and survivor of Communist persecution Cardinal Joseph Zen flew to Rome to meet with Francis last week , the pope refused to see him .
He was too busy writing about love , compassion , and mercy .
It ’ s curious how the great self-styled “ humanitarians ” of history are rarely fond of actual people .
Read Henry Sire ’ s The Dictator Pope for a tour of the burned bridges and deeply-stabbed backs that mark Jorge Bergoglio ’ s climb to the apex of the Church .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a good thing , since in the new one Pope Francis contradicts statements of many previous popes on a list of important subjects .
These include capital punishment , border control , economics , and even the right of private property .
Which means that Catholics have two choices .
We can weigh the merits of each pope ’ s statements like rational believers , or else just accept the party line of the current pope like good little Stalinists .
Count on those who share the pope ’ s Woke , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like a club , trying to banish from U.S. voters ’ minds little things like abortion , religious liberty , and the growing power of Beijing .
Pope Francis decided to release Fratelli Tutti on the eve of a U.S. election , as he chose to visit America on the eve of the last one .
Francis is deeply worried that Trump might win , and reportedly wouldn ’ t meet with Mike Pompeo to talk about Chinese persecution of Christians , lest he give Trump a boost .
This new Woke encyclical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s big push to portray the candidate as a “ nuanced , ” not a “ single-issue , ” Catholic .
But I ’ m sure that ’ s a 100 percent total coincidence .
Especially since the hard-left group PICO that used George Soros ’ money to spin Francis ’ 2016 U.S. tour to help the Democrats is still in Francis ’ good graces .
See the fulsome message he sent PICO ’ s 2017 Modesto Meeting , where 24 U.S. bishops , plus a Vatican cardinal , urged Americans to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ break our laws .
I can point you to brave souls who swam through it and critiqued Fratelli Tutti from various angles .
Samuel Gregg explains here that Pope Francis completely misconstrues Francis of Assisi — the saint whose name Jorge Bergoglio took .
Francis makes much of the saint ’ s peaceful visit to an Islamic ruler during the Crusades .
He completely leaves out the fact that St. Francis preached Christ to the whole royal court .
He was there to proselytize , a dirty word for Francis .
This pope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and whitewashing their creed ’ s baked-in intolerance of Christians .
Jules Gomes , at Church Militant , notes that Francis doesn ’ t bother to quote the Bible much , or the words of previous popes .
He does give a lot of space to quotes from the Quran , Muslim leaders , Desmond Tutu , and Mahatma Gandhi .
Mostly , though , Francis just quotes … himself .
Some 60 % of the footnotes are to Francis ’ own writings .
When he condemns capital punishment — which God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and popes have defended for 2,000 years — Francis reverts to his favorite go-to argument .
“ As I have clearly said , ” Francis writes , as if that clinches the issue .
Sorry , Holy Father , the only person who gets to argue from His own personal authority is Jesus .
You ’ re not a second Christ , just a second St. Peter .
Keep that in mind .
Gomes notes that Francis uses those words not wasted on Jesus Christ or eternal salvation instead to talk about … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is .
The dangers of “ separatism ” ( Brexit ) , “ nationalism ” ( Trump ) , and “ xenophobia , ” ( any limits on immigration ) .
Francis also rides like Don Quixote on a white charger , knocking down straw men .
As Eric Sammons notes , Francis has a long-time habit of portraying his critics , or those whom he dislikes , in lurid cartoonish caricatures .
Once he ’ s finished his parody of his opponents ’ views , he triumphantly demolishes them .
The effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The same is true of Francis ’ rants about economics .
Read Brad Polumbo .
He shows how Francis ’ grim picture of a heartless , rapacious capitalism spoiling the earth has nothing to do with reality .
It ’ s so off , it ’ s not even wrong .
It ’ s a nightmare fantasy of the kind you ’ d find in some North Korean textbook .
But the worst thing in the encyclical ?
That ’ s where Pope Francis directly contradicts the very words of his saintly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a crucial topic .
That is , the nature of private property rights .
On Twitter , alert reader Mitch Skywalker caught this intentional slap at a previous pope .
They can ’ t both be right .
Since each was a pope , it ’ s pointless to try to settle this ( even for Catholics , except for Stalinists ) by an argument from authority .
And that ’ s just fine by me .
Economics , like other public policy issues , ought to be argued based on the natural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearts .
And the natural law case for private property rights is rock-solid and primordial .
Put simply , it ’ s the same case we offer against slavery .
Property is nothing more or less than a person ’ s time , the fruit of his labors .
If our labors don ’ t belong to us but instead to the State , or some global agency , or the next band of rioting looters , then we aren ’ t really free .
Every day of labor that ’ s taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slave labor .
And slavery is evil .
I ’ ve written about this before .
Perhaps I should be more like Pope Francis , and settle the matter by quoting myself .
I can even cite the Bible , “ What I have written , I have written.
” That has a nice ring to it .
But seriously , people .
As the author of nine Catholic books , my advice to those who want to read Fratelli Tutti is this .
Prepare yourself spiritually and intellectually .
Brew a pot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Are you done ?
Now find Francis ’ encyclical on the Vatican website , and read it aloud in Señor Wences ’ s voice .
Trust me , it will help .
John Zmirak is a senior editor at The Stream , and author or co-author of ten books , including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism .
He is co-author with Jason Jones of “ God , Guns , & the Government .
”

Those of you who aren’t Catholic might not know that Pope Francis just dropped a 43,000 word brick of an encyclical on the world, Fratelli Tutti. Those of you who are Catholic, as I am, are frantically looking around for someone else who read and reported on the thing. So you won’t have to.
I helped edit the English translation of Pope Francis’ first book in English. At the time, I remember thinking, “I can’t discern his theology or his politics. But this guy is a nasty piece of work. I’d hate to have him in Confession.”
It’s a comical understatement to say that Pope Francis is no Pope Benedict XVI. In fact, he’s no Benny Hinn.
It’s a comical understatement to say that Pope Francis is no Pope Benedict XVI. In fact, he’s no Benny Hinn. The only Christian evangelist whom Francis really recalls, with his worldly preoccupations and self-referential digressions, is the late late-night TV rambler, the Rev. Gene Scott.
Caesar, Mammon, and Sodom
Like Scott, Francis often seems much more concerned about the Benjamins than about Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Francis spends thousands of words complaining about who has wealth and who hasn’t, and offering justifications for seizing it and spreading it around. Via, of course, the government — aided by non-profit agencies such as those run by U.S. bishops, getting forty percent of their income from Uncle Sam. He blames the free market for environmental destruction, inequality, and even the ravages of COVID.
It’s not surprising, really, that Francis doesn’t mention China’s intentional effort to spread that plague worldwide — locking down travel from Wuhan to the rest of China, but letting virus carriers fly out to the rest of the world. After all, Francis just renewed his alliance with China against the West, and reportedly collects $2 billion annually from that government. We don’t know a lot here, because large parts of this deal are still secret. Perhaps we can ask the man Francis sent to China to negotiate, disgraced pedophile Theodore McCarrick.
We do know that Francis has been completely silent on the vicious persecution of Christians and Uighur Muslims in China. When the elderly hero and survivor of Communist persecution Cardinal Joseph Zen flew to Rome to meet with Francis last week, the pope refused to see him. He was too busy writing about love, compassion, and mercy. It’s curious how the great self-styled “humanitarians” of history are rarely fond of actual people. Read Henry Sire’s The Dictator Pope for a tour of the burned bridges and deeply-stabbed backs that mark Jorge Bergoglio’s climb to the apex of the Church.
Dueling Papacies
Encyclicals aren’t infallible — which is a good thing, since in the new one Pope Francis contradicts statements of many previous popes on a list of important subjects. These include capital punishment, border control, economics, and even the right of private property. Which means that Catholics have two choices.
We can weigh the merits of each pope’s statements like rational believers, or else just accept the party line of the current pope like good little Stalinists. Count on those who share the pope’s Woke, globalist views to wield this new document like a club, trying to banish from U.S. voters’ minds little things like abortion, religious liberty, and the growing power of Beijing.
Meddling in U.S. Elections
Pope Francis decided to release Fratelli Tutti on the eve of a U.S. election, as he chose to visit America on the eve of the last one. Francis is deeply worried that Trump might win, and reportedly wouldn’t meet with Mike Pompeo to talk about Chinese persecution of Christians, lest he give Trump a boost. This new Woke encyclical coincides exactly with the Biden campaign’s big push to portray the candidate as a “nuanced,” not a “single-issue,” Catholic. But I’m sure that’s a 100 percent total coincidence.
Especially since the hard-left group PICO that used George Soros’ money to spin Francis’ 2016 U.S. tour to help the Democrats is still in Francis’ good graces. See the fulsome message he sent PICO’s 2017 Modesto Meeting, where 24 U.S. bishops, plus a Vatican cardinal, urged Americans to “disrupt Trump” and help illegal aliens break our laws.
Painting St. Francis as a Hippie
I can point you to brave souls who swam through it and critiqued Fratelli Tutti from various angles. Samuel Gregg explains here that Pope Francis completely misconstrues Francis of Assisi — the saint whose name Jorge Bergoglio took. Francis makes much of the saint’s peaceful visit to an Islamic ruler during the Crusades. He completely leaves out the fact that St. Francis preached Christ to the whole royal court. He was there to proselytize, a dirty word for Francis. This pope prefers making diplomatic deals with Muslim leaders, and whitewashing their creed’s baked-in intolerance of Christians.
Jules Gomes, at Church Militant, notes that Francis doesn’t bother to quote the Bible much, or the words of previous popes. He does give a lot of space to quotes from the Quran, Muslim leaders, Desmond Tutu, and Mahatma Gandhi. Mostly, though, Francis just quotes … himself. Some 60% of the footnotes are to Francis’ own writings. When he condemns capital punishment — which God demanded in the Covenant of Noah, and popes have defended for 2,000 years — Francis reverts to his favorite go-to argument. “As I have clearly said,” Francis writes, as if that clinches the issue.
Sorry, Holy Father, the only person who gets to argue from His own personal authority is Jesus. You’re not a second Christ, just a second St. Peter. Keep that in mind.
Fighting Brexit, From Rome
Gomes notes that Francis uses those words not wasted on Jesus Christ or eternal salvation instead to talk about … the European Union and how wonderful it is. The dangers of “separatism” (Brexit), “nationalism” (Trump), and “xenophobia,” (any limits on immigration).
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Francis also rides like Don Quixote on a white charger, knocking down straw men. As Eric Sammons notes, Francis has a long-time habit of portraying his critics, or those whom he dislikes, in lurid cartoonish caricatures. Once he’s finished his parody of his opponents’ views, he triumphantly demolishes them. The effect is … wearying, and frankly sophomoric.
Recycling Socialist Fantasies
The same is true of Francis’ rants about economics. Read Brad Polumbo. He shows how Francis’ grim picture of a heartless, rapacious capitalism spoiling the earth has nothing to do with reality. It’s so off, it’s not even wrong. It’s a nightmare fantasy of the kind you’d find in some North Korean textbook.
But the worst thing in the encyclical? That’s where Pope Francis directly contradicts the very words of his saintly, gifted predecessor Pope Leo XIII on a crucial topic. That is, the nature of private property rights. On Twitter, alert reader Mitch Skywalker caught this intentional slap at a previous pope.
Pope Francis, quoting himself in Fratelli Tutti vs Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum, 15. pic.twitter.com/YJmyAwSSw1 — Mitch Skywalker (@pennysizedbrain) October 4, 2020
They can’t both be right. Since each was a pope, it’s pointless to try to settle this (even for Catholics, except for Stalinists) by an argument from authority. And that’s just fine by me. Economics, like other public policy issues, ought to be argued based on the natural law, which God wrote on human hearts. And the natural law case for private property rights is rock-solid and primordial.
Put simply, it’s the same case we offer against slavery. Property is nothing more or less than a person’s time, the fruit of his labors. If our labors don’t belong to us but instead to the State, or some global agency, or the next band of rioting looters, then we aren’t really free. Every day of labor that’s taken gets turned, in retrospect, into slave labor. And slavery is evil.
I’ve written about this before. Perhaps I should be more like Pope Francis, and settle the matter by quoting myself. I can even cite the Bible, “What I have written, I have written.” That has a nice ring to it.
But seriously, people. As the author of nine Catholic books, my advice to those who want to read Fratelli Tutti is this. Prepare yourself spiritually and intellectually. Brew a pot of coffee and watch the following video:
Are you done? Now find Francis’ encyclical on the Vatican website, and read it aloud in Señor Wences’s voice. Trust me, it will help.
John Zmirak is a senior editor at The Stream, and author or co-author of ten books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism. He is co-author with Jason Jones of “God, Guns, & the Government.”


thestream--2020-10-06--There Is No Catholic Case For Biden

There Is No Catholic Case For Biden

The effort by so many Catholics to make a “ Catholic case ” for Joe Biden is irrational .
It makes as much sense as a case for a pacifist assassin or a meat-loving vegan , except it ’ s worse because it reduces the Christian faith to social causes and platitudes .
In Our Sunday Visitor , Sam Rocha recently wrote an editorial attempting to make a “ Catholic case for Joe Biden.
” Rocha bases his argument on two principles : social realism and minimal reason .
Social realism involves recognizing that we have only two realistic options @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better options and wish to choose a write-in or third-party candidate or abstain from voting , “ but these reflect an individualistic rather than social option , because they are ultimately forms of self-expression , not public participation .
Social realism , then , asserts that there are only two real and social options : President Donald Trump or former Vice President Joe Biden.
” Referencing the Catholic bishops ’ “ Faithful Citizenship ” document , Rocha says , “ Social realism also affirms the bishops ’ teaching : ‘ As Catholics we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violates the principle of social realism.
” That ’ s a true statement as far as it goes , but Rocha fails to mention that Catholic teaching also clearly states that not all issues have the same moral weight or importance .
Some issues truly do take moral precedence and so must take precedence in the voter ’ s decision-making .
As issues go , the Right to Life ranks as preeminent over all else .
He explains minimal reason as “ … the lowest standards that are nonetheless sufficient to call someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ Which candidate best fulfills the principle of minimal reason ?
Who will read , listen and take counsel ?
Who will conduct himself as a rational person while in office ?
I believe that person is Joe Biden.
” Why ?
Because Biden ’ s platform is laid out in “ 48 parts on his campaign website , each responding to a particular policy , issue and interest group .
At minimum , this platform shows an ability to listen and take counsel … ” ( Shouldn ’ t we ask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ? )
Rocha claims that since Trump has met with Republican resistance to his policies or actions , it demonstrates he is unable/unwilling to listen and take counsel .
That ’ s an unconvincing argument .
Career-politicians bristling at a man who will not do things their way is hardly proof of an inability to take counsel .
For Rocha , this means Trump lacks minimal reason and is irrational .
He asserts that this makes the principle of minimal reason as he described it “ a proportional moral and political criterion ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s entirely subjective opinion that Trump lacks a willingness to take counsel is suddenly morally equivalent to Biden and the Democrats ’ open promotion of abortion-on-demand ; their vow to codify Roe into law ; their vow to use taxpayer dollars to fund abortion ; their vow to restore more taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood .
Rocha adds , “ Catholics will surely not agree with every proposed policy or issue , but in Biden the principle of minimal reason is sufficiently present to a degree that one can not find in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Is that the standard here ?
That ’ s funny , I thought Catholics had a duty to actively oppose moral evils , not merely “ not agree ” with them .
A Few of Those 48 Points And what of “ every proposed policy or issue ” ?
Shall we look at the actual moral content of the issues in Biden ’ s platform ( on which he ’ ll listen and take counsel ) ?
His “ Agenda for Women ” commits to everything I mentioned above regarding abortion .
More @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatsoever .
No legal protection for any business owner who declines to pay for contraception/abortion coverage .
“ Devout ” Catholic Joe Biden and his henchwoman , Kamala Harris , will soon have the Little Sisters of the Poor back in court .
His “ Plan to Advance LGBTQ+ Equality ” : He promises to enact the “ Equality Act ” within his first 100 days .
Catholics who do not know what this Act entails and what it will mean MUST find out before November 3rd , especially those who care about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Biden boasts of his record of becoming “ the highest-ranking U.S. official to support marriage equality ” in 2012 .
Meaning , he openly rejects Church teaching about marriage , and he is proud of it .
This “ devout ” Catholic has officiated at a same-sex wedding .
( Is it minimally reasonable to be morally incoherent ? )
Men claiming to be women must have the “ right ” to female-only spaces , says Biden .
Women ’ s shelters , for example , should not be able to deny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , changing rooms , every public female-only space will cease to be if Biden and the Equality Act take over .
Any male can claim womanhood and Democrats say women better shut up and not complain .
To recap , Joe Biden openly rejects his Church ’ s teaching on such grave moral issues as the sanctity of life , marriage , and God ’ s design of the human person as male and female .
These are not issues about which faithful Catholics can merely “ not agree ” with him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ evils in our society , evils Catholics are obliged to vigorously oppose .
I ’ ve asked myself lately , “ If they just built 3-story high statues of Baal in every city and had the babies killed there on the steps instead of behind closed clinic doors , would Catholics still be so inclined to vote for the politicians who love Baal ?
” There is no morally coherent “ Catholic case for Biden.
” Jennifer Hartline is a senior contributor to The Stream .
You can follow her at @ jenniehartline @

The effort by so many Catholics to make a “Catholic case” for Joe Biden is irrational. It makes as much sense as a case for a pacifist assassin or a meat-loving vegan, except it’s worse because it reduces the Christian faith to social causes and platitudes.
In Our Sunday Visitor, Sam Rocha recently wrote an editorial attempting to make a “Catholic case for Joe Biden.” Rocha bases his argument on two principles: social realism and minimal reason. Social realism involves recognizing that we have only two realistic options for this election. We may desire better options and wish to choose a write-in or third-party candidate or abstain from voting, “but these reflect an individualistic rather than social option, because they are ultimately forms of self-expression, not public participation. Social realism, then, asserts that there are only two real and social options: President Donald Trump or former Vice President Joe Biden.”
“Minimal Reason”
Referencing the Catholic bishops’ “Faithful Citizenship” document, Rocha says, “Social realism also affirms the bishops’ teaching: ‘As Catholics we are not single-issue voters.’ Single-issue voting violates the principle of social realism.”
That’s a true statement as far as it goes, but Rocha fails to mention that Catholic teaching also clearly states that not all issues have the same moral weight or importance. Some issues truly do take moral precedence and so must take precedence in the voter’s decision-making. As issues go, the Right to Life ranks as preeminent over all else.
He explains minimal reason as “… the lowest standards that are nonetheless sufficient to call someone a rational person.” Then he asks, “Which candidate best fulfills the principle of minimal reason? Who will read, listen and take counsel? Who will conduct himself as a rational person while in office? I believe that person is Joe Biden.”
Why? Because Biden’s platform is laid out in “48 parts on his campaign website, each responding to a particular policy, issue and interest group. At minimum, this platform shows an ability to listen and take counsel …” (Shouldn’t we ask what sort of counsel, from whom?)
A Biden/Harris administration would advance grave moral evils in our society, evils Catholics are obliged to vigorously oppose.
Rocha claims that since Trump has met with Republican resistance to his policies or actions, it demonstrates he is unable/unwilling to listen and take counsel. That’s an unconvincing argument. Career-politicians bristling at a man who will not do things their way is hardly proof of an inability to take counsel.
For Rocha, this means Trump lacks minimal reason and is irrational. He asserts that this makes the principle of minimal reason as he described it “a proportional moral and political criterion” for voting for Joe Biden.
Rocha’s entirely subjective opinion that Trump lacks a willingness to take counsel is suddenly morally equivalent to Biden and the Democrats’ open promotion of abortion-on-demand; their vow to codify Roe into law; their vow to use taxpayer dollars to fund abortion; their vow to restore more taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood.
That is irrational.
Rocha adds, “Catholics will surely not agree with every proposed policy or issue, but in Biden the principle of minimal reason is sufficiently present to a degree that one cannot find in Trump.”
“Not agree”? Is that the standard here? That’s funny, I thought Catholics had a duty to actively oppose moral evils, not merely “not agree” with them.
A Few of Those 48 Points
And what of “every proposed policy or issue”? Shall we look at the actual moral content of the issues in Biden’s platform (on which he’ll listen and take counsel)?
His “Agenda for Women” commits to everything I mentioned above regarding abortion. More, more, more. No restrictions whatsoever. No legal protection for any business owner who declines to pay for contraception/abortion coverage. “Devout” Catholic Joe Biden and his henchwoman, Kamala Harris, will soon have the Little Sisters of the Poor back in court.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
His “Plan to Advance LGBTQ+ Equality”: He promises to enact the “Equality Act” within his first 100 days. Catholics who do not know what this Act entails and what it will mean MUST find out before November 3rd, especially those who care about women. It is most deceptively named. Biden boasts of his record of becoming “the highest-ranking U.S. official to support marriage equality” in 2012. Meaning, he openly rejects Church teaching about marriage, and he is proud of it. This “devout” Catholic has officiated at a same-sex wedding. (Is it minimally reasonable to be morally incoherent?)
Men claiming to be women must have the “right” to female-only spaces, says Biden. Women’s shelters, for example, should not be able to deny men entrance. Bathrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, every public female-only space will cease to be if Biden and the Equality Act take over. Any male can claim womanhood and Democrats say women better shut up and not complain.
Biden is Incoherent
To recap, Joe Biden openly rejects his Church’s teaching on such grave moral issues as the sanctity of life, marriage, and God’s design of the human person as male and female. These are not issues about which faithful Catholics can merely “not agree” with him. A Biden/Harris administration would advance grave moral evils in our society, evils Catholics are obliged to vigorously oppose.
I’ve asked myself lately, “If they just built 3-story high statues of Baal in every city and had the babies killed there on the steps instead of behind closed clinic doors, would Catholics still be so inclined to vote for the politicians who love Baal?”
There is no morally coherent “Catholic case for Biden.”
Jennifer Hartline is a senior contributor to The Stream. You can follow her at @jenniehartline.


thestream--2020-10-06--When Truth Causes a Riot

When Truth Causes a Riot

Interested in taking a deep-dive into the topic of public riots ?
Me neither .
Nevertheless , we ’ ve sure had our fair share of them this year .
For many of us , scenes of burning cars , toppled statues , smashed storefront windows , and blatant attacks on law enforcement officers have left us feeling bewildered and asking ourselves , “ Umm…what did I just watch ?
” As we dig a little deeper , perhaps the underlying question is “ Why do riots happen ?
” Are they just products of happenstance ?
Or is there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scenes to bring people to a place of participating in a “ noisy , violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons ” that is “ a disturbance of the public peace in a disrupting and tumultuous manner in carrying out their private purposes ” ?
Did the dictionary ’ s definition of a riot just tip us off ?
Did it imply that riots actually don ’ t “ just happen , ” but are in fact , many times set off by a group “ carrying out their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oftentimes , an underlying group that is feeling cheated , unheard , or even betrayed ?
Obviously “ yes , ” but are there even more insidious reasons that purposefully attempt to induce rioting ?
Like ones that want to quell the truth to profit off a lie ?
Look no further than a riot that engulfed the city of ancient Ephesus , as told in Acts 19 .
Apostle Paul and the Temple of Artemis Paul was just doing what Paul did : preaching the Gospel .
Paul probably would have agreed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would bring him into near-guaranteed conflict .
He knew full well that Ephesus was home to The Temple of Artemis ( or Diana ) , one of the Seven Wonders of the World at the time .
Pilgrims from all over would come to see what Pliny the Elder described as “ the most wonderful monument of Grecian magnificence.
” Cult-like worship of Diana had become big business for the seaside city , and shrewd businessmen capitalized off the built-in money-making opportunities found there .
One of these businessmen was Demetrius , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ brought no little business to the craftsmen ” ( Acts 19:24 ) .
With this backdrop in mind , soon “ there arose no little disturbance about the Way ” ( Acts 19:23 ) and Demetrius was spearheading it .
He had figured out : A ) The preaching of the Gospel turned people away from idol worship and , B ) When people turned away from idol worship , they no longer needed what Demetrius and his clan of craftsmen were selling , regardless of the fact that his entire business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What followed next is a five-step “ recipe for a riot ” : Demetrius brought together disgruntled and discontented men like himself , rallying them around a message that fed their unmet desires and stoked their worst fears .
He ignited a common goal of shutting down The Way by appealing to the preservation of their shared profiteering off Diana worship ( Acts 19:25 ) .
The next ingredient for inciting a riot is identifying the “ blame group.
” Ironically , Demetrius used the mainstream media of his day — word @ @ @ @ @ @ @ step in the process .
He said , “ You see and hear that not only in Ephesus but in almost all of Asia this Paul has persuaded and turned away a great many people , saying that gods made with hands are not gods ” ( Acts 19:26 , my emphasis added ) .
Fact , truth .
And one they couldn ’ t handle .
From there he added fuel to the fire with phrases like “ there is danger , ” “ this trade of ours may come into disrepute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our great goddess Artemis may be counted as nothing.
” In his final statement , Demetrius seals his manipulation of public opinion by implying that the truth and power of the Gospel threatens to depose Artemis from her magnificence , “ she whom all Asia and the world worship.
” That was it .
The fury of the mob had been ignited .
Get the Public on Board With Propaganda Here ’ s where the story pivots .
From this point on , we don ’ t hear anything more about Demetrius and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ successfully protected his real idol ( love of money ) with a front message rooted in a false , but widely-held belief .
The mantra was now the incessant cry of “ Great is Artemis of the Ephesians , ” an easy sell to a gullible public who prided themselves and their city in their own glorious “ Artemis Ephesia.
” The growing crowd embraced and spread the slogan , unaware that they were actually public pawns for the special-interest group of silversmiths who had much to gain from their outcry .
Create @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emotions running high , the growing group of rioters spilled into the streets and rushed into the amphitheater , dragging with them two of Paul ’ s traveling companions .
Now with plenty of space in the amphitheater , confusion reigned .
“ Some cried out one thing , some another.
” The message was now convoluted and compromised and that was the point .
Mixed messaging and confusion go hand-in-hand so that “ most of them did not know why they had come together ” ( Acts 19:32 ) .
Crazy what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put forth Alexander , who was a Jew , to make a defense to the crowd ( 19:33 ) .
“ But when they recognized that he was a Jew , for about two hours they all cried out with one voice , ‘ Great is Artemis of the Ephesians !
’ ” Paraphrasing , it ’ s as if they said , “ Get him off the stage !
He ’ s Jewish .
No matter what he says , we are not listening to him.
” Finally , the town clerk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deception .
He said , “ Men of Ephesus , who is there who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is temple keeper of the great Artemis and of the sacred stone that fell from the sky ?
Seeing that these things can not be denied , you ought to be quiet and do nothing rash ” ( 19:36-37 ) .
Seeing that what things can ’ t be denied ?
Things like a sacred stone falling from the sky ?
Last I checked , Artemis is enshrined only in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the only way to quell the crowd and disperse a riot , societally speaking we are in grave danger of unknown proportions .
Even now , we are confronting various Demetrius-types all over our culture as we watch history repeat itself .
Certain voices in the media , government , medicine , education and entertainment all have much to lose if we lose faith in their false gods , and much to gain if they follow this recipe for a riot .
As we continue not to buy into what they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the faith .
Even if that faith is falsely accused of inciting a riot .
Annemarie McLean is a four-girl mom , freelance writer , and co-founder of Brave & Beautiful , a ministry focused on challenging young women to live purpose-driven lives full of courage and character , while developing Christ-centered inner beauty .
Annemarie holds a journalism degree from Oral Roberts University , with graduate work in organizational leadership at Palm Beach Atlantic University .

Interested in taking a deep-dive into the topic of public riots? Me neither. Nevertheless, we’ve sure had our fair share of them this year.
For many of us, scenes of burning cars, toppled statues, smashed storefront windows, and blatant attacks on law enforcement officers have left us feeling bewildered and asking ourselves, “Umm…what did I just watch?”
Why Riots Happen
As we dig a little deeper, perhaps the underlying question is “Why do riots happen?” Are they just products of happenstance? Or is there far more that goes on behind the scenes to bring people to a place of participating in a “noisy, violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons” that is “a disturbance of the public peace in a disrupting and tumultuous manner in carrying out their private purposes”?
Did the dictionary’s definition of a riot just tip us off? Did it imply that riots actually don’t “just happen,” but are in fact, many times set off by a group “carrying out their private purposes”? Is there, oftentimes, an underlying group that is feeling cheated, unheard, or even betrayed? Obviously “yes,” but are there even more insidious reasons that purposefully attempt to induce rioting? Like ones that want to quell the truth to profit off a lie? Look no further than a riot that engulfed the city of ancient Ephesus, as told in Acts 19.
Apostle Paul and the Temple of Artemis
Paul was just doing what Paul did: preaching the Gospel. Paul probably would have agreed that preaching the Gospel unapologetically in Ephesus would bring him into near-guaranteed conflict. He knew full well that Ephesus was home to The Temple of Artemis (or Diana), one of the Seven Wonders of the World at the time. Pilgrims from all over would come to see what Pliny the Elder described as “the most wonderful monument of Grecian magnificence.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Cult-like worship of Diana had become big business for the seaside city, and shrewd businessmen capitalized off the built-in money-making opportunities found there. One of these businessmen was Demetrius, a silversmith who made shrines of Artemis and “brought no little business to the craftsmen” (Acts 19:24).
With this backdrop in mind, soon “there arose no little disturbance about the Way” (Acts 19:23) and Demetrius was spearheading it. He had figured out: A) The preaching of the Gospel turned people away from idol worship and, B) When people turned away from idol worship, they no longer needed what Demetrius and his clan of craftsmen were selling, regardless of the fact that his entire business model was built on perpetuating a lie.
What followed next is a five-step “recipe for a riot”:
Gather the Malcontents
Demetrius brought together disgruntled and discontented men like himself, rallying them around a message that fed their unmet desires and stoked their worst fears. He ignited a common goal of shutting down The Way by appealing to the preservation of their shared profiteering off Diana worship (Acts 19:25).
Vilify Truth as a Dangerous Threat
The next ingredient for inciting a riot is identifying the “blame group.” Ironically, Demetrius used the mainstream media of his day — word of mouth — to accomplish this critical step in the process. He said, “You see and hear that not only in Ephesus but in almost all of Asia this Paul has persuaded and turned away a great many people, saying that gods made with hands are not gods” (Acts 19:26, my emphasis added). Fact, truth. And one they couldn’t handle.
From there he added fuel to the fire with phrases like “there is danger,” “this trade of ours may come into disrepute,” and “the temple of our great goddess Artemis may be counted as nothing.” In his final statement, Demetrius seals his manipulation of public opinion by implying that the truth and power of the Gospel threatens to depose Artemis from her magnificence, “she whom all Asia and the world worship.” That was it. The fury of the mob had been ignited.
Get the Public on Board With Propaganda
Here’s where the story pivots. From this point on, we don’t hear anything more about Demetrius and his economic doomsday message. He had successfully protected his real idol (love of money) with a front message rooted in a false, but widely-held belief. The mantra was now the incessant cry of “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians,” an easy sell to a gullible public who prided themselves and their city in their own glorious “Artemis Ephesia.” The growing crowd embraced and spread the slogan, unaware that they were actually public pawns for the special-interest group of silversmiths who had much to gain from their outcry.
Create Space for an Atmosphere of Confusion
With emotions running high, the growing group of rioters spilled into the streets and rushed into the amphitheater, dragging with them two of Paul’s traveling companions. Now with plenty of space in the amphitheater, confusion reigned. “Some cried out one thing, some another.” The message was now convoluted and compromised and that was the point. Mixed messaging and confusion go hand-in-hand so that “most of them did not know why they had come together” (Acts 19:32).
Incite Racism to Ignore Voices of Reason
Crazy what happens next. Some of the crowd put forth Alexander, who was a Jew, to make a defense to the crowd (19:33). “But when they recognized that he was a Jew, for about two hours they all cried out with one voice, ‘Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!’” Paraphrasing, it’s as if they said, “Get him off the stage! He’s Jewish. No matter what he says, we are not listening to him.”
Finally, the town clerk placates the crowd by agreeing with their deception. He said, “Men of Ephesus, who is there who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is temple keeper of the great Artemis and of the sacred stone that fell from the sky? Seeing that these things cannot be denied, you ought to be quiet and do nothing rash” (19:36-37).
Seeing that what things can’t be denied? Things like a sacred stone falling from the sky? Last I checked, Artemis is enshrined only in Greek mythology.
When agreeing with deception is the only way to quell the crowd and disperse a riot, societally speaking we are in grave danger of unknown proportions. Even now, we are confronting various Demetrius-types all over our culture as we watch history repeat itself. Certain voices in the media, government, medicine, education and entertainment all have much to lose if we lose faith in their false gods, and much to gain if they follow this recipe for a riot.
As we continue not to buy into what they’re selling, let us stand firm in the faith. Even if that faith is falsely accused of inciting a riot.
Annemarie McLean is a four-girl mom, freelance writer, and co-founder of Brave & Beautiful, a ministry focused on challenging young women to live purpose-driven lives full of courage and character, while developing Christ-centered inner beauty. Annemarie holds a journalism degree from Oral Roberts University, with graduate work in organizational leadership at Palm Beach Atlantic University.


thestream--2020-10-07--The Pope Just Called Private Property a ‘Secondary Right.’ He Couldn’t Be More Wrong

Since becoming the head of the Catholic Church in 2013 , Pope Francis has not shied away from the political domain .
On Sunday , the religious leader used the COVID-19 pandemic to renew his criticisms of free-market capitalism .
“ The fragility of world systems in the face of the pandemic has demonstrated that not everything can be resolved by market freedom , ” Francis wrote in part of a lengthy religious text .
“ To care for the world in which we live means to care for ourselves .
Yet we need to think of ourselves more and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a common home .
Such care does not interest those economic powers that demand quick profits.
” “ In today ’ s world , many forms of injustice persist , fed by … a profit-based economic model that does not hesitate to exploit , discard and even kill human beings , ” Francis lamented .
The Pope decried the free-market “ dogma of neo-liberal faith ” that views “ the magic theories of ‘ spillover ’ or ‘ trickle ’ … as the only solution to societal problems.
” He went on to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supersede the rights of peoples and the dignity of the poor.
” Francis reiterated his belief that “ if one person lacks what is necessary to live with dignity , it is because another person is detaining it.
” He concluded that “ the right to private property can only be considered a secondary natural right , derived from the principle of the universal destination of created goods.
” There ’ s a lot to unpack here .
But breaking down the Pope ’ s arguments one-by-one shows that his criticisms of free-market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ available facts , empirical evidence , or a basic understanding of how economics actually works .
This is probably Pope Francis ’ s weakest argument of all .
For one , the coronavirus has wrought havoc across the globe in countries regardless of economic system .
It started in Communist China , which has made some market reforms in recent decades but can by no stretch reasonably be called a free-market society .
And let ’ s not forget that the story of how COVID-19 spread globally is largely a story of countless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deadly results .
When the outbreak first reached U.S. shores , the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention botched our response horribly .
By foolishly monopolizing testing kit production and putting up red tape , the two government bureaucracies set our ability to contain the virus back irreparably .
The crisis was also compounded by the failure of government officials from both parties to take it seriously initially .
Even after the government woke up to the threat , the inconsistent and confused messaging on best prevention practices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collective response .
Worst of all , elected officials such as Gov .
Andrew Cuomo of New York made the deadly decision to force nursing homes to accept patients who had tested positive for COVID-19 and so endanger their entire community .
More than 6,400 New York nursing home residents have subsequently died from the coronavirus .
A cursory glance at this timeline makes it clear that the COVID-19 crisis was exacerbated by the failure of government central planning and bureaucracy — not free markets .
If anything , the private sector has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s unprecedented needs .
Examples abound .
Amazon has delivered necessities to millions of peoples ’ doors and enabled social distancing .
Restaurants have shaken up their business models , embracing outdoor dining and takeout .
And don ’ t forget the many manufacturing companies that switched to the mass production of masks and other protective gear , as well as medical equipment .
No system is perfect , but broadly , the private sector has responded admirably to the COVID-19 crisis — when the government hasn ’ t gotten in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the most prevalent fallacies in progressive thinking to frame markets as at odds with the interests of the people .
In reality , market exchange only happens when all parties stand to benefit .
It doesn ’ t matter whether it is a grocery store purchase , the hiring of a new employee , or the importation of a new pair of shoes from Vietnam .
Any exchange on a free market inevitably leaves both parties better off — or they wouldn ’ t both choose to participate .
Markets are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pope Francis advocates is not .
The Pope ’ s view that markets are opposed to the people ’ s interests is undercut by empirical data .
In the last 50 years , the spread of free-trade and capitalism has driven unprecedented global economic progress .
Here are some great highlights courtesy of the Cato Institute ’ s HumanProgress.org : • In 1966 , average life expectancy was only 56 years .
In 2016 , it was 72 .
That ’ s an increase of 29 percent .
• Out of every 1,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first birthday .
In 2016 , only 32 died .
That ’ s a reduction of 72 percent .
• Average income per person rose from $ 3,698 to over $ 17,469 , or by 372 percent — and that ’ s adjusted for inflation .
• The food supply rose from about 2,300 calories per person per day to over 2,800 calories , an increase of 22 percent , thus reducing hunger .
• The length of schooling that a person could typically expect to receive was 4.15 years .
In 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 110 percent increase .
• On a scale from 0 , which denotes autocracy , to 10 , which denotes democracy , political freedom rose from 4.55 in 1966 to 7.05 in 2016 .
That ’ s an improvement of 55 percent .
A graph of global income per person from HumanProgress shows that “ for thousands of years , economic growth was negligible .
At the end of the 18th century , however , economic growth and , consequently , the standard of living , started to accelerate.
” What coincides with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simple : The advent of free-market capitalism , the formation of institutions protecting private property rights , and the spread of global trade .
Pope Francis explicitly argues that property rights are only a “ secondary natural right ; ” superseded by the needs and wants of others .
Taken to its logical conclusion , arguing that property rights are second to the needs of others really means property rights aren ’ t valid at all , because human needs and scarcity of resources are permanent realities .
Famed economists such as Thomas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all members of society , because they are the building blocks of the market system that leads to greater prosperity and flourishing for all .
Sowell wrote that property rights “ belong legally to individuals , but their real function is social , to benefit vast numbers of people who do not themselves exercise these rights.
” Property rights strongly correlate with economic prosperity , and that ’ s not a coincidence .
Only in a society with secure and strong property can businesses create jobs and invest in communities .
Not convinced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the least secure property rights , from Venezuela to North Korea , are the most miserable places on Earth to live .
Moreover , Francis is wrong philosophically to dismiss property rights as secondary .
We would all agree that the right to life is paramount .
But property rights are an extension of the right to life —because a man ’ s right to life necessarily depends on his livelihood .
“ The right to life is the source of all rights — and the right to property is their only implementation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Without property rights , no other rights are possible .
Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort , the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life.
” This is why protecting property rights is the government ’ s most crucial role .
It is , as the economist Frederic Bastiat pointed out , the reason we have the law in the first place .
When it fails , everyday citizens — not the rich — pay the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the very evil it was created to prevent .
There ’ s no doubt that the Pope is a learned man in matters of religion , and he likely has the best of intentions in preaching his collectivist gospel .
But his elementary arguments against free-market capitalism are incredibly weak .
More importantly , if Pope Francis ’ s teachings against free markets catch on , the resulting economic dysfunction will only sabotage the interests of the same underprivileged people he is trying to help .
That ’ s an outcome we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Brad Polumbo is a libertarian-conservative journalist and the Eugene S. Thorpe Writing Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education .

Since becoming the head of the Catholic Church in 2013, Pope Francis has not shied away from the political domain.
On Sunday, the religious leader used the COVID-19 pandemic to renew his criticisms of free-market capitalism.
“The fragility of world systems in the face of the pandemic has demonstrated that not everything can be resolved by market freedom,” Francis wrote in part of a lengthy religious text. “To care for the world in which we live means to care for ourselves. Yet we need to think of ourselves more and more as a single family dwelling in a common home. Such care does not interest those economic powers that demand quick profits.”
“In today’s world, many forms of injustice persist, fed by … a profit-based economic model that does not hesitate to exploit, discard and even kill human beings,” Francis lamented.
Pope says free market, 'trickle-down' policies fail society https://t.co/I5PNyrNzAO pic.twitter.com/S2TakojfY6 — Reuters UK (@ReutersUK) October 4, 2020
The Pope decried the free-market “dogma of neo-liberal faith” that views “the magic theories of ‘spillover’ or ‘trickle’ … as the only solution to societal problems.” He went on to write that “market freedom cannot supersede the rights of peoples and the dignity of the poor.”
Francis reiterated his belief that “if one person lacks what is necessary to live with dignity, it is because another person is detaining it.” He concluded that “the right to private property can only be considered a secondary natural right, derived from the principle of the universal destination of created goods.”
There’s a lot to unpack here. But breaking down the Pope’s arguments one-by-one shows that his criticisms of free-market capitalism don’t mesh well with available facts, empirical evidence, or a basic understanding of how economics actually works.
1. Blaming Free-Market Capitalism for the COVID-19 Crisis
This is probably Pope Francis’s weakest argument of all.
For one, the coronavirus has wrought havoc across the globe in countries regardless of economic system. It started in Communist China, which has made some market reforms in recent decades but can by no stretch reasonably be called a free-market society. And let’s not forget that the story of how COVID-19 spread globally is largely a story of countless government errors, many of which had deadly results.
As I previously explained:
When the outbreak first reached U.S. shores, the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention botched our response horribly. By foolishly monopolizing testing kit production and putting up red tape, the two government bureaucracies set our ability to contain the virus back irreparably. The crisis was also compounded by the failure of government officials from both parties to take it seriously initially. Even after the government woke up to the threat, the inconsistent and confused messaging on best prevention practices coming out of the CDC sabotaged our collective response. Worst of all, elected officials such as Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York made the deadly decision to force nursing homes to accept patients who had tested positive for COVID-19 and so endanger their entire community. More than 6,400 New York nursing home residents have subsequently died from the coronavirus.
A cursory glance at this timeline makes it clear that the COVID-19 crisis was exacerbated by the failure of government central planning and bureaucracy — not free markets.
If anything, the private sector has risen to the challenge and met people’s unprecedented needs.
Examples abound. Amazon has delivered necessities to millions of peoples’ doors and enabled social distancing. Restaurants have shaken up their business models, embracing outdoor dining and takeout. And don’t forget the many manufacturing companies that switched to the mass production of masks and other protective gear, as well as medical equipment.
No system is perfect, but broadly, the private sector has responded admirably to the COVID-19 crisis — when the government hasn’t gotten in the way, that is.
2. False Framing: The Poor vs. Markets
It is one of the most prevalent fallacies in progressive thinking to frame markets as at odds with the interests of the people. In reality, market exchange only happens when all parties stand to benefit.
It doesn’t matter whether it is a grocery store purchase, the hiring of a new employee, or the importation of a new pair of shoes from Vietnam. Any exchange on a free market inevitably leaves both parties better off — or they wouldn’t both choose to participate. Markets are fundamentally voluntary; whereas the heavy state-planning Pope Francis advocates is not.
The Pope’s view that markets are opposed to the people’s interests is undercut by empirical data. In the last 50 years, the spread of free-trade and capitalism has driven unprecedented global economic progress.
Here are some great highlights courtesy of the Cato Institute’s HumanProgress.org: In 1966, average life expectancy was only 56 years. In 2016, it was 72. That’s an increase of 29 percent.
Out of every 1,000 infants born, 113 died before their first birthday. In 2016, only 32 died. That’s a reduction of 72 percent.
Average income per person rose from $3,698 to over $17,469, or by 372 percent — and that’s adjusted for inflation.
The food supply rose from about 2,300 calories per person per day to over 2,800 calories, an increase of 22 percent, thus reducing hunger.
The length of schooling that a person could typically expect to receive was 4.15 years. In 2016, it was 8.71 years — a 110 percent increase.
On a scale from 0, which denotes autocracy, to 10, which denotes democracy, political freedom rose from 4.55 in 1966 to 7.05 in 2016. That’s an improvement of 55 percent. A graph of global income per person from HumanProgress shows that “for thousands of years, economic growth was negligible. At the end of the 18th century, however, economic growth and, consequently, the standard of living, started to accelerate.” Image Credit: Human Progress What coincides with this magnificent development? It’s simple: The advent of free-market capitalism, the formation of institutions protecting private property rights, and the spread of global trade. 3. Dismissing Property Rights as a ‘Secondary Right’ Pope Francis explicitly argues that property rights are only a “secondary natural right;” superseded by the needs and wants of others. Taken to its logical conclusion, arguing that property rights are second to the needs of others really means property rights aren’t valid at all, because human needs and scarcity of resources are permanent realities. Here Francis runs directly against basic economics. Famed economists such as Thomas Sowell have argued that property rights benefit all members of society, because they are the building blocks of the market system that leads to greater prosperity and flourishing for all. Sowell wrote that property rights “belong legally to individuals, but their real function is social, to benefit vast numbers of people who do not themselves exercise these rights.” Property rights strongly correlate with economic prosperity, and that’s not a coincidence. Only in a society with secure and strong property can businesses create jobs and invest in communities.
https://twitter.com/brad_polumbo/status/1268675652548530176?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1268675652548530176%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_1&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ffee.org%2Farticles%2Fthe-pope-just-called-private-property-a-secondary-right-he-couldnt-be-more-wrong%2F
Not convinced? Just consider that the countries with the least secure property rights, from Venezuela to North Korea, are the most miserable places on Earth to live.
Moreover, Francis is wrong philosophically to dismiss property rights as secondary. We would all agree that the right to life is paramount. But property rights are an extension of the right to life —because a man’s right to life necessarily depends on his livelihood.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
“The right to life is the source of all rights — and the right to property is their only implementation,” Ayn Rand once wrote. “Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life.”
This is why protecting property rights is the government’s most crucial role. It is, as the economist Frederic Bastiat pointed out, the reason we have the law in the first place. When it fails, everyday citizens — not the rich — pay the price, and the government becomes guilty of the very evil it was created to prevent.
Pope Francis’s Economic Proselytizing is Deeply Flawed
There’s no doubt that the Pope is a learned man in matters of religion, and he likely has the best of intentions in preaching his collectivist gospel. But his elementary arguments against free-market capitalism are incredibly weak.
More importantly, if Pope Francis’s teachings against free markets catch on, the resulting economic dysfunction will only sabotage the interests of the same underprivileged people he is trying to help. That’s an outcome we should all pray never comes to fruition.
Brad Polumbo is a libertarian-conservative journalist and the Eugene S. Thorpe Writing Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education.
Originally published at FEE.org. Reprinted with permission.


thestream--2020-10-07--Born in Utopia: Kamala Harris, Willie Brown and Jim Jones

Willie Brown has been staple of California politics since the early 1960s .
He omits any mention of his sixtysomething-twentysomething romance with Kamala Harris during the mid-1990s in his 2008 autobiography Basic Brown : My Life and Our Times .
Harris took money donated by the mayor of San Francisco and raised under the signature of the mayor of San Francisco .
But she called her association with Brown “ an albatross hanging around my neck ” in a successful 2003 run for county district attorney .
They both seemingly entered a pact , implicit or explicit , to avoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the transactional relationship — one imagines something other than Brown ’ s height or hairline attracted Harris — proved anything but an albatross .
Brown , technically married but open about his open relationship , gave Harris a new European car during their affair .
So Peter Byrne wrote in a lengthy 2003 SF Weekly profile of Harris .
He continued : In accordance with Harris ’ s stated wishes , Brown largely keeps mute about the relationship .
But earlier this year , he broke that silence — sort of — for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Yes , we dated , ” he wrote .
“ It was more than 20 years ago .
Yes , I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was Assembly speaker.
” He continued , “ And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco .
I have also helped the careers of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , Gov .
Gavin Newsom , Sen. Dianne Feinstein and a host of other politicians.
” Want to know another career Willie Brown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jim Jones , the Peoples Temple pastor who orchestrated the deaths of more than 900 of his followers in Guyana in November 1978 .
I document this claim in my book Cult City : Jim Jones , Harvey Milk , and 10 Days That Shook San Francisco .
The same transactional relationship he later enjoyed with Kamala Harris , trading off power in exchange for favors , Brown vigorously pursued with the eager partner Jones .
From Brown and other city leaders , Jones received legitimacy , immunity from press and prosecutorial scrutiny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others in his flock .
From Jones , San Francisco ’ s powerful received conscripted campaign volunteers , rent-a-rallies priced right at free , letter-writing campaigns on behalf of their causes , and a clergyman counted on to mouth progressive platitudes to cameras as he wore a collar .
Brown brokered the initial meeting between the cult leader and George Moscone , Democratic candidate for mayor of San Francisco .
It resulted in Jones ’ s followers , through means fair and foul , electing Moscone .
And then in the new mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointment to a less powerful post ) to the city ’ s Housing Authority Commission .
Jones soon became chairman , essentially making Jones , as Brown himself conceded , the largest landlord in all of San Francisco .
Brown legitimized Jones by publicly comparing him to Martin Luther King ( and Albert Einstein ) .
That ’ s right , Brown said that , during a testimonial dinner fawning over Jones in which the then-assemblyman served as master of ceremonies .
Jones would go on to kill more African Americans than any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s 1977 trip to Cuba , Brown wrote a letter to Fidel Castro in which he vouched for the Peoples Temple leader as “ a close personal friend and a highly trusted brother in the struggle for liberation.
” He urged Castro to treat Jones ’ s trip as a state visit ( something the dictator did not do ) as though the leader of a congregation of a few thousand people amounted to the leader of a nation .
Jones , at least in his own mind , effectively became a national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 3,000-acre South American jungle commune he named after himself .
But even in San Francisco in 1977 , the raven-haired Hoosier hiding behind dark glasses came under increasing scrutiny .
So Brown signed , alongside Jane Fonda , Harvey Milk , and others , a public letter defending the “ clergyman.
” ( Remember that Jones ’ theology literally taught the divinity of socialism and , therefore , the divinity of its greatest human exemplar , Jim Jones . )
In Jonestown , Jones became less guarded about the flock ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regard for him as a god-like figure .
Brown ignored credible reports of abuse in San Francisco and insanity in South America .
So Brown claimed in a solo public endorsement of the Communist preacher .
He went on , even more fulsomely : Gulling the Natives Before the Massacre As questions about Jones reached the authorities in Guyana , Brown reassured the nation ’ s prime minister of the benefits one of the country ’ s newest immigrants brought from America .
“ Rev .
Jim Jones is that person who can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost and hope is just about gone , ” the powerful California politician wrote Prime Minister Forbes Burnham .
“ Having him as a resident in your country can only be a plus no matter how short or long his stay.
” Jones ’ s stay lasted one year beyond the date of Willie Brown ’ s letter .
It ended in the deaths of 918 people , about two-thirds of whom were African American .
A Democratic congressman , three prominent journalists , and hundreds of children lost their lives .
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bullied his flock , surrounded by gunmen and archers , conditioned by drills , and brainwashed into believing a murderous attack by reactionaries imminent , into ingesting cyanide .
Brown ’ s assessment of Jones to the prime minister proved disastrously wrong .
Even as he appeared in fliers as the master of ceremonies for a December 2 fundraiser at the San Francisco Hyatt Regency for the same Peoples Temple Medical Program that poisoned hundreds of people on November 18 , the assemblyman reacted to the tragedy with defiance .
He told the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about his alliance with the mass murderer .
He insisted , “ I ’ m not taking any responsibility.
” On this score , he showed himself a man true to his word .
Over the years , that initial defiance morphed into feigned ignorance .
In his memoirs , Brown describes Jones as a “ marginal figure , ” “ an obscure but charismatic San Francisco religious cult figure , ” and someone who “ never got too close to politicians.
” He never so much as intimates his close , mutually-beneficial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writes with detachment that “ the enormity of the tragedy involving his followers makes one wonder how politicians and police failed to notice his sinister hold on people.
” Brown forgot the senator he once dated just as he forgot the reverend he once feted .
In the latter case , the expediency served himself .
In the former case , it served his cause .
If Jones threatened Brown as an albatross , Brown threatened Harris in the same way .
Although the FBI investigated Brown for corruption as mayor , strangely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harris , never did .
Her see-no-evil approach carried over from when a Harris predecessor hired Jim Jones ’ s second-in-command and then repeatedly failed to find wrongdoing in sham investigations of Peoples Temple .
Chesa Boudin , the Bill Ayers-Bernardine Dohrn-raised son of two Weathermen colleagues convicted of murder , now holds Harris ’ s former position .
Justice rarely reigns in one-party towns .
Kamala Harris emerged from that milieu of crackpot politics and you-scratch-my-back-I ’ ll-scratch-yours corruption .
The Bay Area witnessed the start of the Manson Family , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Murders , the taking of Patty Hearst , the bizarre bombings of the New World Liberation Front , and the assassinations of George Moscone and Harvey Milk .
Before moving to Montreal , Kamala Harris , a child of the Bay Area , witnessed much of all that at close range .
Part One of two columns .
Part Two will appear tomorrow .
Daniel J. Flynn , a senior editor of The American Spectator , is the author of Cult City : Harvey Milk , Jim Jones , and 10 Days That @ @ @ @

Willie Brown has been staple of California politics since the early 1960s. He omits any mention of his sixtysomething-twentysomething romance with Kamala Harris during the mid-1990s in his 2008 autobiography Basic Brown: My Life and Our Times.
Harris took money donated by the mayor of San Francisco and raised under the signature of the mayor of San Francisco. But she called her association with Brown “an albatross hanging around my neck” in a successful 2003 run for county district attorney. They both seemingly entered a pact, implicit or explicit, to avoid discussion of the strange courtship.
Baby, Won’t You Buy Me a Mercedes Benz?
But the transactional relationship — one imagines something other than Brown’s height or hairline attracted Harris — proved anything but an albatross. Brown, technically married but open about his open relationship, gave Harris a new European car during their affair.
Aside from handing her an expensive BMW, Brown appointed her to two patronage positions in state government that paid handsomely—more than $400,000 over five years.
So Peter Byrne wrote in a lengthy 2003 SF Weekly profile of Harris. He continued:
In 1994, she took a six-month leave of absence from her Alameda County job to join the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. Brown then appointed her to the California Medical Assistance Commission, where she served until 1998, attending two meetings a month for a $99,000 annual salary.
For Sugar Daddy, Mum’s the Word
In accordance with Harris’s stated wishes, Brown largely keeps mute about the relationship. But earlier this year, he broke that silence — sort of — for 137 words in a newspaper column.
“Yes, we dated,” he wrote. “It was more than 20 years ago. Yes, I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was Assembly speaker.”
Brown appointed Harris to the California Medical Assistance Commission, where she served until 1998, attending two meetings a month for a $99,000 annual salary.
He continued, “And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco. I have also helped the careers of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and a host of other politicians.”
Another Willie Brown Protege, the Rev. Jim Jones
Want to know another career Willie Brown really, really helped? That of Jim Jones, the Peoples Temple pastor who orchestrated the deaths of more than 900 of his followers in Guyana in November 1978. I document this claim in my book Cult City: Jim Jones, Harvey Milk, and 10 Days That Shook San Francisco.
The same transactional relationship he later enjoyed with Kamala Harris, trading off power in exchange for favors, Brown vigorously pursued with the eager partner Jones. From Brown and other city leaders, Jones received legitimacy, immunity from press and prosecutorial scrutiny, and powerful perches for himself and others in his flock.
From Jones, San Francisco’s powerful received conscripted campaign volunteers, rent-a-rallies priced right at free, letter-writing campaigns on behalf of their causes, and a clergyman counted on to mouth progressive platitudes to cameras as he wore a collar.
Brown brokered the initial meeting between the cult leader and George Moscone, Democratic candidate for mayor of San Francisco. It resulted in Jones’s followers, through means fair and foul, electing Moscone. And then in the new mayor eventually appointing Jones (who balked at appointment to a less powerful post) to the city’s Housing Authority Commission. Jones soon became chairman, essentially making Jones, as Brown himself conceded, the largest landlord in all of San Francisco.
Another Einstein or MLK?
Brown legitimized Jones by publicly comparing him to Martin Luther King (and Albert Einstein). That’s right, Brown said that, during a testimonial dinner fawning over Jones in which the then-assemblyman served as master of ceremonies. Jones would go on to kill more African Americans than any Klansman in history,
Before Jones’s 1977 trip to Cuba, Brown wrote a letter to Fidel Castro in which he vouched for the Peoples Temple leader as “a close personal friend and a highly trusted brother in the struggle for liberation.” He urged Castro to treat Jones’s trip as a state visit (something the dictator did not do) as though the leader of a congregation of a few thousand people amounted to the leader of a nation.
Jones, at least in his own mind, effectively became a national leader when he migrated that year to the 3,000-acre South American jungle commune he named after himself.
Joining Jane Fonda to Praise the Cult Leader
But even in San Francisco in 1977, the raven-haired Hoosier hiding behind dark glasses came under increasing scrutiny. So Brown signed, alongside Jane Fonda, Harvey Milk, and others, a public letter defending the “clergyman.” (Remember that Jones’ theology literally taught the divinity of socialism and, therefore, the divinity of its greatest human exemplar, Jim Jones.)
In Jonestown, Jones became less guarded about the flock’s Communism, rejection of Christianity, and regard for him as a god-like figure. Brown ignored credible reports of abuse in San Francisco and insanity in South America.
Rev. Jim Jones is one of the most principled voices for social justice in the nation, and he has been instrumental in providing forceful leadership in developing practical solutions to serious urban problems, such as crime, drug abuse, and neglect of the elderly.
So Brown claimed in a solo public endorsement of the Communist preacher. He went on, even more fulsomely:
Because he is an extremely effective leader in the arena of social progress, Jim Jones has been the object of some malicious attacks from various individuals who (out of personal vindictiveness, racism, and other despicable motives) have mounted a smear campaign. This campaign has been denounced by progressive community leaders and public officials who are working effortlessly for the interest of blacks and other minority people in our society.
Gulling the Natives Before the Massacre
As questions about Jones reached the authorities in Guyana, Brown reassured the nation’s prime minister of the benefits one of the country’s newest immigrants brought from America. “Rev. Jim Jones is that person who can be helpful when all appears to be lost and hope is just about gone,” the powerful California politician wrote Prime Minister Forbes Burnham. “Having him as a resident in your country can only be a plus no matter how short or long his stay.”
Jones’s stay lasted one year beyond the date of Willie Brown’s letter. It ended in the deaths of 918 people, about two-thirds of whom were African American. A Democratic congressman, three prominent journalists, and hundreds of children lost their lives. After attacking a party of defectors, Jones bullied his flock, surrounded by gunmen and archers, conditioned by drills, and brainwashed into believing a murderous attack by reactionaries imminent, into ingesting cyanide. Brown’s assessment of Jones to the prime minister proved disastrously wrong.
No Regrets
Even as he appeared in fliers as the master of ceremonies for a December 2 fundraiser at the San Francisco Hyatt Regency for the same Peoples Temple Medical Program that poisoned hundreds of people on November 18, the assemblyman reacted to the tragedy with defiance. He told the press he harbored “no regrets” about his alliance with the mass murderer. He insisted, “I’m not taking any responsibility.” On this score, he showed himself a man true to his word.
Over the years, that initial defiance morphed into feigned ignorance. In his memoirs, Brown describes Jones as a “marginal figure,” “an obscure but charismatic San Francisco religious cult figure,” and someone who “never got too close to politicians.” He never so much as intimates his close, mutually-beneficial relationship with Jones. Instead, he writes with detachment that “the enormity of the tragedy involving his followers makes one wonder how politicians and police failed to notice his sinister hold on people.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Kamala Harris Helped Cover Up Brown’s Corruption
Brown forgot the senator he once dated just as he forgot the reverend he once feted. In the latter case, the expediency served himself. In the former case, it served his cause. If Jones threatened Brown as an albatross, Brown threatened Harris in the same way. Although the FBI investigated Brown for corruption as mayor, strangely, the local district attorney, Kamala Harris, never did. Her see-no-evil approach carried over from when a Harris predecessor hired Jim Jones’s second-in-command and then repeatedly failed to find wrongdoing in sham investigations of Peoples Temple. Chesa Boudin, the Bill Ayers-Bernardine Dohrn-raised son of two Weathermen colleagues convicted of murder, now holds Harris’s former position. Justice rarely reigns in one-party towns.
Kamala Harris emerged from that milieu of crackpot politics and you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours corruption. The Bay Area witnessed the start of the Manson Family, the stage for the Zodiac Killings and Zebra Murders, the taking of Patty Hearst, the bizarre bombings of the New World Liberation Front, and the assassinations of George Moscone and Harvey Milk. Before moving to Montreal, Kamala Harris, a child of the Bay Area, witnessed much of all that at close range.
Part One of two columns. Part Two will appear tomorrow.
Daniel J. Flynn, a senior editor of The American Spectator, is the author of Cult City: Harvey Milk, Jim Jones, and 10 Days That Shook San Francisco.


thestream--2020-10-07--Killer Kamala Harris Against Gentleman Mike Pence: A (Vice) Presidential Debate Preview

Traditionally , Vice Presidential Debates have all the high stakes of a game of Parcheesi .
Quick , can you remember anything memorable about any VP debate this century ?
Maybe Sarah Palin charging across the stage to greet Joe Biden in 2008 .
Or Joe Biden repeatedly and rudely interrupting Paul Ryan in 2012 .
How about a memorable VP debate moment in history ?
There ’ s been one .
ONE .
Sen. Lloyd Bentsen in 1988 , obliterating Republican Sen. Dan Quayle .
Here it is , if you ’ ve never seen it … or want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beauty .
“ I knew Jack Kennedy .
Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine .
Senator , you are no Jack Kennedy.
” Dang .
Forensic technicians are still picking up pieces of Quayle all over Omaha .
But did Sen. Bentsen ’ s smackdown mean anything ?
No .
George Herbert Walker Bush won the presidency and Dan Quayle became Vice President of the United States .
VP Debates Were Meaningless … Until This One Yes , VP debates have been meaningless .
Up until Wednesday night .
On Wednesday night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Kamala Harris .
With President Trump still recovering from a potentially fatal illness and Joe Biden being so ill that a majority of voters don ’ t think he ’ d live out a single term , we are looking — for the first time — at two VP candidates who could each realistically inherit the presidency .
Add to the stakes Harris already talking about a “ Harris Administration , ” and Joe Biden talking about a “ Harris-Biden ” ticket .
We are not witnessing a VP debate .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witnessing a Presidential Debate .
As if that wasn ’ t enough , we are witnessing a tectonic clash between two world views , two futures for America .
One that sees America as a “ shining city on a hill , ” and one that sees America as systemically racist and fundamentally flawed .
One that celebrates our founding in 1776 .
And one that has no problem with the toppling of statues of our founders and insists our nation ’ s origin is the arrival of slaves in 1619 .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stop them .
The other literally helps violent rioters and child rapists get out of jail .
One that understands BLM and Antifa are violent anti-American , anti-capitalist , anti-police and in the case of BLM , anti-family movements .
And one who thinks “ BLM ” is “ brilliant ” and “ essential.
” Can you imagine Pence asking : “ Tell me , Senator .
What is so essential about a group that blocks a hospital entrance where two ambushed cops are fighting for their lives , shouting ‘ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me .
What ’ s so brilliant about burning black businesses and assaulting innocent restaurant guests ?
” Harris ’ camp requested and was granted a partition to separate the two candidates .
It ’ s hardly necessary .
Harris and Pence are already divided by an ocean of differences .
To name just a couple more : Mike Pence is pro-life .
He is all in on protecting the unborn .
Kamala Harris isn ’ t just pro-abortion with zero restrictions .
She is an active protector of the abortion mill industry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harris charged and tried to imprison the journalist who exposed Planned Parenthood ’ s baby part selling operation .
( Imagine what she ’ ll do to journalists and critics who run afoul of her in a Harris Administration ? )
Harris has no interest in protecting the unborn .
She has no interest in protecting children .
Did you know that the minute Harris had the power all prosecutions of pedophile priests stopped ?
In fact , as Peter Schweizer wrote in Profiles in Corruption : And this was right in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Catholic Church ’ s sex abuse scandal .
Mike Pence supports a secure border .
Kamala Harris supports open borders and wants you to pay for the health care of illegal immigrants .
Pence forcefully fights for religious liberty .
Kamala Harris is for religious litmus tests .
She famously opposed a judicial candidate simply because he was a member of the Knights of Columbus .
She was hit for her anti-Catholic bigotry .
The list of differences goes on and on .
Since we can not expect any debate moderator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Susan Page — to actually press Harris on her radical positions , that will be up to Pence .
So how will the debate go ?
The Hill thinks Pence has a “ tall task.
” Primarily , defending the Administration ’ s response to COVID-19 .
Pence , of course , chairs the White House Task Force .
Except that Pence can flip the script .
Most people have no idea of all the different things the Administration has done , starting while Harris and her fellow Democrats were ignoring the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ” game .
And unlike Trump , Pence is so measured and methodical , his answers about COVID will come across as completely right and rational .
It doesn ’ t hurt that Pence also looks like every male doctor in every medical commercial for the past 60 years .
Dr. Mike will handle that one with ease .
Meanwhile , Kamala has three problems with assaulting the Trump administration on COVID : First , given the President has COVID it can come across as tacky and tasteless .
Harris has to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not exactly one of her strengths .
Second , Pence can not only counter her with facts , he can hit Biden too .
“ So , Senator .
Do you believe as Joe Biden does , that President Trump is responsible for every single COVID death in America ?
All 200,000 … or 200 million , as he says ?
” How does she answer ?
If she says “ Yes , ” she sounds like an idiot .
If she says “ No , ” she is contradicting Biden .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either contradict Biden or confirm his progressive agenda all night long . )
Third , if Harris keeps pressing the gentlemanly Pence , she will smack dab into her biggest problem .
Well , beyond being the most left-wing radical Senator in the nation .
No One Likes Her , Not Even Her Friends Harris , the more you hear her , the more annoying she becomes .
Just ask Democratic primary voters .
When she tries to “ prosecute the case against Trump , ” as she likes to say , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Dapper Dr. Mike .
She will evoke memories of her nasty , dreadful treatment of Brett Kavanaugh .
And yes , Harris is nasty .
Don ’ t believe me , go look up her response to Tulsi Gabbard and her comments about Gabbard after Gabbard leveled her in a July 2019 debate .
The Washington Post ’ s Eugene Scott wasn ’ t impressed .
“ Kamala Harris ’ s post-debate diss on Tulsi Gabbard ’ s polling reveals something about her candidacy.
” And it wasn ’ t good .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ destroyed her in about 90 seconds .
Here ’ s the clip : The Gabbard exchange exposes another huge potential problem for Harris .
Her glass jaw .
Gabbard laid her out with one punch , and she never recovered .
Gabbard took her apart in about 90 seconds .
What will Pence do to Harris over the course of 90-minutes ?
Pence isn ’ t a brawler .
You ’ re not going to see what we saw last week with Trump and Biden .
He ’ s more like a martial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pour you tea , then puncture your windpipe with a finger .
For all his “ Aw , shucks , ” good guy image .
Pence is slick and shrewd and unflappable .
If Trump is a bull in a china shop , Pence is a shark .
In 2016 , he steadily dismantled Sen. Tim Kaine , until Kaine was left , in Buck Saxton ’ s words “ rude , snippy and snide.
” Pence presented a strong case for Trump when Trump was still a huge question mark and on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump record to run on , the positions that Americans support , and a demeanor America can use a bit more of .
Harris has positions she can ’ t defend , a personality that can ’ t be stomached , and a penchant for hitting the canvas … then the gutter .
And she ’ s representing a presidential candidate who had 47 years to enrich the nation , but instead enriched his family and foreign countries .
A candidate so frail and unfocused , America is forced to imagine Harris in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it seems very likely that by the end of the night , Dr. Mike will have delivered a strong booster shot to the Trump re-election campaign .
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 .

Traditionally, Vice Presidential Debates have all the high stakes of a game of Parcheesi. Quick, can you remember anything memorable about any VP debate this century? Maybe Sarah Palin charging across the stage to greet Joe Biden in 2008. Or Joe Biden repeatedly and rudely interrupting Paul Ryan in 2012.
How about a memorable VP debate moment in history? There’s been one. ONE. Sen. Lloyd Bentsen in 1988, obliterating Republican Sen. Dan Quayle. Here it is, if you’ve never seen it … or want to watch again to appreciate its awful beauty.
“I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy.” Dang. Forensic technicians are still picking up pieces of Quayle all over Omaha.
But did Sen. Bentsen’s smackdown mean anything? No. George Herbert Walker Bush won the presidency and Dan Quayle became Vice President of the United States.
VP Debates Were Meaningless … Until This One
Yes, VP debates have been meaningless. Up until Wednesday night. On Wednesday night, Vice President Mike Pence will debate Sen. Kamala Harris. With President Trump still recovering from a potentially fatal illness and Joe Biden being so ill that a majority of voters don’t think he’d live out a single term, we are looking — for the first time — at two VP candidates who could each realistically inherit the presidency.
Add to the stakes Harris already talking about a “Harris Administration,” and Joe Biden talking about a “Harris-Biden” ticket. We are not witnessing a VP debate. For all practical purposes, we’re witnessing a Presidential Debate.
As if that wasn’t enough, we are witnessing a tectonic clash between two world views, two futures for America. One that sees America as a “shining city on a hill,” and one that sees America as systemically racist and fundamentally flawed.
One that celebrates our founding in 1776. And one that has no problem with the toppling of statues of our founders and insists our nation’s origin is the arrival of slaves in 1619.
One campaign sees riots and destruction and wants to stop them. The other literally helps violent rioters and child rapists get out of jail.
One that understands BLM and Antifa are violent anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-police and in the case of BLM, anti-family movements. And one who thinks “BLM” is “brilliant” and “essential.”
Can you imagine Pence asking: “Tell me, Senator. What is so essential about a group that blocks a hospital entrance where two ambushed cops are fighting for their lives, shouting ‘We hope they die!’? Tell me. What’s so brilliant about burning black businesses and assaulting innocent restaurant guests?”
Harris’ camp requested and was granted a partition to separate the two candidates. It’s hardly necessary. Harris and Pence are already divided by an ocean of differences. To name just a couple more:
Life
Mike Pence is pro-life. He is all in on protecting the unborn. Kamala Harris isn’t just pro-abortion with zero restrictions. She is an active protector of the abortion mill industry. While Attorney General of California, Harris charged and tried to imprison the journalist who exposed Planned Parenthood’s baby part selling operation. (Imagine what she’ll do to journalists and critics who run afoul of her in a Harris Administration?)
Harris has no interest in protecting the unborn. She has no interest in protecting children. Did you know that the minute Harris had the power all prosecutions of pedophile priests stopped? In fact, as Peter Schweizer wrote in Profiles in Corruption:
During her decade-and-a-half tenure as a chief prosecutor, Harris would fail to prosecute a single case of priest abuse and her office would strangely hide vital records on abuses that had occurred despite the protests of victim groups.
And this was right in the middle of the initial wave of prosecutions in the Catholic Church’s sex abuse scandal.
Immigration
Mike Pence supports a secure border. Kamala Harris supports open borders and wants you to pay for the health care of illegal immigrants.
Religious Liberty
Pence forcefully fights for religious liberty. Kamala Harris is for religious litmus tests. She famously opposed a judicial candidate simply because he was a member of the Knights of Columbus. She was hit for her anti-Catholic bigotry.
The list of differences goes on and on. Since we cannot expect any debate moderator — in this case USA Today’s Susan Page — to actually press Harris on her radical positions, that will be up to Pence.
So how will the debate go?
Harris Will Press, Pence Will Slice-and-Dice
The Hill thinks Pence has a “tall task.” Primarily, defending the Administration’s response to COVID-19. Pence, of course, chairs the White House Task Force. Except that Pence can flip the script. Most people have no idea of all the different things the Administration has done, starting while Harris and her fellow Democrats were ignoring the pending threat to play the “Impeach Trump” game.
And unlike Trump, Pence is so measured and methodical, his answers about COVID will come across as completely right and rational. It doesn’t hurt that Pence also looks like every male doctor in every medical commercial for the past 60 years. Dr. Mike will handle that one with ease.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Kamala’s Burden
Meanwhile, Kamala has three problems with assaulting the Trump administration on COVID:
First, given the President has COVID it can come across as tacky and tasteless. Harris has to be sensitive, and that’s not exactly one of her strengths.
Second, Pence can not only counter her with facts, he can hit Biden too. “So, Senator. Do you believe as Joe Biden does, that President Trump is responsible for every single COVID death in America? All 200,000 … or 200 million, as he says?” How does she answer? If she says “Yes,” she sounds like an idiot. If she says “No,” she is contradicting Biden. (Look for Pence to get Harris to either contradict Biden or confirm his progressive agenda all night long.)
Third, if Harris keeps pressing the gentlemanly Pence, she will run smack dab into her biggest problem. Well, beyond being the most left-wing radical Senator in the nation.
No One Likes Her, Not Even Her Friends
Harris, the more you hear her, the more annoying she becomes. Just ask Democratic primary voters. When she tries to “prosecute the case against Trump,” as she likes to say, she will come across as unlikable … particularly against Dapper Dr. Mike. She will evoke memories of her nasty, dreadful treatment of Brett Kavanaugh.
And yes, Harris is nasty. Don’t believe me, go look up her response to Tulsi Gabbard and her comments about Gabbard after Gabbard leveled her in a July 2019 debate.
Kamala Harris on Tulsi Gabbard’s comments regarding her record as a prosecutor: “I’m obviously a top tier candidate and so I did expect that I would be on the stage and take hits tonight. … I'm prepared to move on” #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/kPNYfBs2rB — CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) August 1, 2019
The Washington Post’s Eugene Scott wasn’t impressed. “Kamala Harris’s post-debate diss on Tulsi Gabbard’s polling reveals something about her candidacy.” And it wasn’t good.
Gabbard Exposed Harris’ Glass Jaw
Harris was a top-tiered candidate until Gabbard destroyed her in about 90 seconds. Here’s the clip:
The Gabbard exchange exposes another huge potential problem for Harris. Her glass jaw. Gabbard laid her out with one punch, and she never recovered.
Mike Pence Plays the Long Game
Gabbard took her apart in about 90 seconds. What will Pence do to Harris over the course of 90 minutes? Pence isn’t a brawler. You’re not going to see what we saw last week with Trump and Biden. He’s more like a martial artist you see in movies who will pour you tea, then puncture your windpipe with a finger. For all his “Aw, shucks,” good guy image. Pence is slick and shrewd and unflappable. If Trump is a bull in a china shop, Pence is a shark.
In 2016, he steadily dismantled Sen. Tim Kaine, until Kaine was left, in Buck Saxton’s words “rude, snippy and snide.” Pence presented a strong case for Trump when Trump was still a huge question mark and on the ropes. Now Pence has the Trump record to run on, the positions that Americans support, and a demeanor America can use a bit more of.
Harris has positions she can’t defend, a personality that can’t be stomached, and a penchant for hitting the canvas … then the gutter. And she’s representing a presidential candidate who had 47 years to enrich the nation, but instead enriched his family and foreign countries. A candidate so frail and unfocused, America is forced to imagine Harris in the Oval Office.
All told, it seems very likely that by the end of the night, Dr. Mike will have delivered a strong booster shot to the Trump re-election campaign.
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--2020-10-07--Military Photo of the Day: 19 Years in Afghanistan

A Tomahawk cruise missile is launched from the Philippine Sea against al Qaeda terrorist training camps and the Taliban in @ @ @ @ @ 2001 .
Today is the 19th anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion to topple the Taliban @ @ @ @ @ Afghanistan .
We honor the hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops who have stepped forward @ @ @ @ @ s longest war , and especially the 2,451 heroes who paid the ultimate price .
@ @ @ @ @ nation ’ s fallen warriors , veterans or their families .
Thank you for your @ @ @ @

A Tomahawk cruise missile is launched from the Philippine Sea against al Qaeda terrorist training camps and the Taliban in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001.
Today is the 19th anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion to topple the Taliban regime and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We honor the hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops who have stepped forward to serve during America’s longest war, and especially the 2,451 heroes who paid the ultimate price. We will never forget our nation’s fallen warriors, veterans or their families. Thank you for your service and sacrifice.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.