thestream--2020-09-22--Rebuke Injustice with the Force of Law: Divided Hearts of America

In the desert , the devil tried to tempt Jesus Christ Himself by trotting out scripture quotes .
Even the best maxims , from divinely inspired authors , can be misused and turned to evil .
That ’ s what I recall when putative “ pro-lifers ” choose the eve of a life-changing election to suddenly remind us “ Politics is downstream of culture.
” Sometimes they ’ ll get really Classical and produce a quote from Plato : “ Give me the songs of the city and I care not who writes the laws.
” As someone who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ producing , and distributing films that affirm the sanctity of life and defend the vulnerable , I have an answer .
“ Ya think ?
” Art Builds the Road , But You Need the Courage to Walk It It took decades of solemn movies decrying racism , and thousands of news stories in the national press to shame white Americans about segregation and legal racism .
Those culture-moving productions helped prepare the way for the Civil Rights Act of 1965 .
But what should a black American have said to someone who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to support that law — because culture , not law , was crucial to rectifying injustice ?
What did Civil Rights leaders think of those who opposed anti-racist laws , insisting instead on only “ building anti-racist culture ” ?
We actually have the answer .
Rev .
Martin Luther King ’ s “ Letter from the Birmingham Jail ” was aimed at “ white moderates ” who denied their black fellow citizens the remedy of law .
Instead they should rely on “ changing hearts.
” great stumbling block in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice ; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice ; who constantly says , “ I agree with you in the goal you seek , but I can ’ t agree with your methods of direct action ” ; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man ’ s freedom ; who lives by the myth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Negro to wait until a “ more convenient season.
” I agree with Rev .
King .
Today the roadblock holding us back from protecting unborn children is not so much the abortion profiteers , like Kermit Gosnell and Planned Parenthood .
It ’ s the tepid , half-convinced pro-lifer who doesn ’ t really believe what his words plainly say .
If you believe that abortion is the killing of innocent children , of course you want the law to ban such a wicked , cruel practice .
If you believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should you even want the culture to discourage it ?
Why not leave women alone ?
Perhaps the cruelest possible stance to take is this half-way position .
You claim that abortion is not quite so bad that you want the government to ban it .
You want to let almost a million women per year go ahead and do it .
But then you want movies , TV , books , and social media to make them feel terrible about having done so .
Shout Your Abortion ?
Few Want To .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ endpoint .
That ’ s why they ’ re goading women to “ shout their abortions.
” If it ’ s such a wholesome , natural practice , why not shout it—the way people shout their everythings these days , from their favorite microbrew to their sex change operations .
But the natural law written on the human heart says otherwise .
And not many women are actually happy or proud of having abortions .
Millions have broken hearts .
Our job as pro-life advocates isn ’ t to rub salt in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law to stop the abortion industry from carving up more human hearts , as we use the police to stop thieves from holding up banks .
The law is a powerful teacher , and ought to serve the powerless .
Change Enough Hearts to Change the Law That ’ s the purpose of humane art , to change enough hearts that we can change the laws , and stop the cycle of heartbreak .
And that ’ s why I ’ m proud both to be active in this year ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work with Movie to Movement .
At this crucial time for our nation , we have just released a powerful new film .
Divided Hearts of America reminds our nation at this critical time of the importance of America ’ s Declaration principle .
Our country ’ s existence wasn ’ t justified on self-interest , raw power , or mindless tribalism .
No , the men who risked bankruptcy and hanging to declare its independence explicitly made their case for a whole new country on theological grounds .
Man is made to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may tread on , because he ’ s the image of God .
Abraham Lincoln , who did more than anyone to apply this principle universally to all Americans , said sagely that the Constitution was a sturdy , well-crafted frame .
But the artwork it protected was the Declaration of Independence .
The central truth of America , which drove its founders , and Abolitionists , and Suffragettes , Civil Rights activists , and pro-lifers is simple , profound , and timeless .
Man is the child of God , and as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Each innocent human life is the Ark of the Covenant : touch it and die .
Jason Jones is a senior contributor to The Stream .
He is a film producer , author , activist and human rights worker .
You can follow him @ JasonJonesShow .

In the desert, the devil tried to tempt Jesus Christ Himself by trotting out scripture quotes. Even the best maxims, from divinely inspired authors, can be misused and turned to evil. That’s what I recall when putative “pro-lifers” choose the eve of a life-changing election to suddenly remind us “Politics is downstream of culture.” Sometimes they’ll get really Classical and produce a quote from Plato: “Give me the songs of the city and I care not who writes the laws.”
As someone who has spent the past 20 years making, producing, and distributing films that affirm the sanctity of life and defend the vulnerable, I have an answer. “Ya think?”
Art Builds the Road, But You Need the Courage to Walk It
It took decades of solemn movies decrying racism, and thousands of news stories in the national press to shame white Americans about segregation and legal racism. Those culture-moving productions helped prepare the way for the Civil Rights Act of 1965.
What did Civil Rights leaders think of those who opposed anti-racist laws, insisting instead on only “building anti-racist culture”?
But what should a black American have said to someone who told him, in that era, not to support that law — because culture, not law, was crucial to rectifying injustice? What did Civil Rights leaders think of those who opposed anti-racist laws, insisting instead on only “building anti-racist culture”?
We actually have the answer. Rev. Martin Luther King’s “Letter from the Birmingham Jail” was aimed at “white moderates” who denied their black fellow citizens the remedy of law. Instead they should rely on “changing hearts.”
Moderately Opposed to Injustice
As Rev. King wrote, the
great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”
I agree with Rev. King. Today the roadblock holding us back from protecting unborn children is not so much the abortion profiteers, like Kermit Gosnell and Planned Parenthood. It’s the tepid, half-convinced pro-lifer who doesn’t really believe what his words plainly say.
If you believe that abortion is the killing of innocent children, of course you want the law to ban such a wicked, cruel practice. If you believe it isn’t, then why should you even want the culture to discourage it? Why not leave women alone?
Perhaps the cruelest possible stance to take is this half-way position. You claim that abortion is not quite so bad that you want the government to ban it. You want to let almost a million women per year go ahead and do it. But then you want movies, TV, books, and social media to make them feel terrible about having done so.
Shout Your Abortion? Few Want To.
Pro-choicers have followed this logic to its endpoint. That’s why they’re goading women to “shout their abortions.” If it’s such a wholesome, natural practice, why not shout it—the way people shout their everythings these days, from their favorite microbrew to their sex change operations.
But the natural law written on the human heart says otherwise. And not many women are actually happy or proud of having abortions. Millions have broken hearts. Our job as pro-life advocates isn’t to rub salt in their wounds. It’s to use the law to stop the abortion industry from carving up more human hearts, as we use the police to stop thieves from holding up banks. The law is a powerful teacher, and ought to serve the powerless.
Change Enough Hearts to Change the Law
That’s the purpose of humane art, to change enough hearts that we can change the laws, and stop the cycle of heartbreak. And that’s why I’m proud both to be active in this year’s presidential election, and of my latest work with Movie to Movement. At this crucial time for our nation, we have just released a powerful new film.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Divided Hearts of America reminds our nation at this critical time of the importance of America’s Declaration principle. Our country’s existence wasn’t justified on self-interest, raw power, or mindless tribalism. No, the men who risked bankruptcy and hanging to declare its independence explicitly made their case for a whole new country on theological grounds. Man is made to be free, with rights no one may tread on, because he’s the image of God.
Touch It and Die
Abraham Lincoln, who did more than anyone to apply this principle universally to all Americans, said sagely that the Constitution was a sturdy, well-crafted frame. But the artwork it protected was the Declaration of Independence.
The central truth of America, which drove its founders, and Abolitionists, and Suffragettes, Civil Rights activists, and pro-lifers is simple, profound, and timeless. Man is the child of God, and as such shares in His inviolable dignity. Each innocent human life is the Ark of the Covenant: touch it and die.
Jason Jones is a senior contributor to The Stream. He is a film producer, author, activist and human rights worker. You can follow him @JasonJonesShow.


thestream--2020-09-23--Military Photo of the Day: Stocking Up at Sea

The amphibious assault ship USS America , left , conducts a replenishment-at-sea with the dry cargo/ammunition ship USNS Washington Chambers @ @ @ @ @ , in the Philippine Sea .
Thank you to the crews of these U.S. Navy @ @ @ @ @ overseas .

The amphibious assault ship USS America, left, conducts a replenishment-at-sea with the dry cargo/ammunition ship USNS Washington Chambers on September 14, 2020, in the Philippine Sea.
Thank you to the crews of these U.S. Navy ships for defending our nation overseas.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.


thestream--2020-09-23--Election 2020: Mitt Shocks, Biden Sleeps and Big Ten Football Fans Reward Trump

Just six weeks out from the election and Joe Biden was AWOL yesterday .
His campaign announced a lid — meaning no public events or news from the campaign — at 9:22 am .
Of the 22 days so far in September , Joe Biden ’ s campaign has called a full lid before noon eight times .
And it ’ s not like he ’ s barnstorming the nation … or even barn-drizzling the nation … the rest of the time .
Sure , Joe ’ s doing occasional private fund raisers , but what else has he got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There are mummies in Egyptian museums not kept under wraps like Joe .
Quick question , undecided America : You ’ ve got two full-time interns vying for a job .
One quits at noon .
Disappears .
The other doesn ’ t seem to sleep .
Is sending you proposals and updates at 2 AM and starting up again at 6 AM .
Who are you hiring ?
Six Days Until the Debate We think we know where Joe Biden will be next Tuesday .
At his first presidential debate with Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In recent appearances , Trump ’ s been playing up Biden ’ s debate skills , saying “ He ’ s actually quite good.
” I would point out that this is the first time in four years , a Trump comment hasn ’ t been fact checked by the media .
The Presidential Debate Commission released the topics for the first debate : • Race and Violence in our Cities • The Integrity of the Election No matter .
We ’ re talking Donald Trump .
Chris Wallace keeping to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep a wave from breaking on his sandcastle with a tiny plastic shovel .
And we ’ re talking Joe Biden .
Who knows where his mind will go : Record players , leg hair .
Creative renderings of the Pledge of Allegiance ?
President Trump will be at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast Wednesday morning .
This comes as Democrats gear up to attack Supreme Court Contender Amy Comey Barrett for her deep Catholic faith .
Again .
Remember her earlier confirmation hearing .
What Sen. Dianne Feinstein said was chilling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you .
And that ’ s a concern.
” That ’ s no young radical .
Or a snarky Sen. Kamala Harris .
That ’ s Dianne Feinstein , the formerly moderate Senator who ’ s been around since the Reformation .
Undecided America : Does it bother you the same party that ’ s keeping churches shut — while allowing rioting and gambling — seems to think one ’ s faith should keep them from public service ?
If Barrett is the nominee it looks she is guaranteed to at least get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
Thanks to Mitt Romney .
Yes .
That Mitt Romney .
After feeling Democratic love all year for voting to impeach Trump , Romney is back to being hated by the left .
He announced today that he ’ s okay with the Senate moving ahead on a Supreme Court nomination before the election .
He also basically told Democrats “ tough toe-nails.
” Of course the stars are losing their minds .
And CNN ’ s Don Lemon .
Monday night , he declared “ We ’ re going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Get rid of the electoral college , pack the courts.
” These poor sports don ’ t want to take their ball home .
They want to stuff the ball with C4 and drop on Lady Liberty ’ s lap .
Why ?
Protecting the altar of abortion .
This election is a fight for life .
Fittingly , tomorrow starts the “ 40 Days for Life.
” The theme ?
“ The Power of One.
” It ’ s the Little Things and the Big Ten Things .
What makes for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … and the Big Ten Things .
Morning Consult has released data showing a majority of college football fans give Trump credit for the Big Ten returning to play .
34 % say he ’ s somewhat responsible .
19 % say he ’ s completely responsible .
If you don ’ t know , Trump pushed hard for the Big Ten college football conference to return to play .
And the conference finally caved .
Outkick predicts Trump ’ s role in bringing football back can help him in three Big Ten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pennsylvania .
In fact , the survey showed Trump ’ s intervention has gained him support with both Democrats and Independents .
( Ah , but would there be an equal drop in support from football widows ? )
Finally , Hillary Clinton is launching a podcast this month .
According to People magazine , it ’ s going to be called “ You and Me Both with Hillary Clinton.
” The podcast actually would have launched a few months ago … but Hillary kept erasing the tapes .
( Yes , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to The Stream for the latest on the election .
Like Josh Shepherd ’ s look at the Values Voters Summit which kicked off last night .
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 .

Just six weeks out from the election and Joe Biden was AWOL yesterday. His campaign announced a lid — meaning no public events or news from the campaign — at 9:22 am. Of the 22 days so far in September, Joe Biden’s campaign has called a full lid before noon eight times. And it’s not like he’s barnstorming the nation … or even barn-drizzling the nation … the rest of the time.
Alec Sears offered a pretty graph.
This is every day so far in the month of September that the Biden Campaign has called a full lid before Noon pic.twitter.com/dqdJlqdjMc — Alec Sears (@alec_sears) September 22, 2020
Sure, Joe’s doing occasional private fund raisers, but what else has he got to do? Watch The View? There are mummies in Egyptian museums not kept under wraps like Joe.
Quick question, undecided America: You’ve got two full-time interns vying for a job. One quits at noon. Disappears. The other doesn’t seem to sleep. Is sending you proposals and updates at 2 AM and starting up again at 6 AM. Who are you hiring?
Six Days Until the Debate
We think we know where Joe Biden will be next Tuesday. At his first presidential debate with Donald Trump at Case Western University in Ohio. In recent appearances, Trump’s been playing up Biden’s debate skills, saying “He’s actually quite good.” I would point out that this is the first time in four years, a Trump comment hasn’t been fact checked by the media.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
The Presidential Debate Commission released the topics for the first debate:
The Trump and Biden Records
The Supreme Court
Covid-19
The Economy
Race and Violence in our Cities
The Integrity of the Election
No matter. We’re talking Donald Trump. Chris Wallace keeping to the list will be like a kid trying to keep a wave from breaking on his sandcastle with a tiny plastic shovel.
And we’re talking Joe Biden. Who knows where his mind will go: Record players, leg hair. Creative renderings of the Pledge of Allegiance? Because … you know, the thing.
Courting Anger
President Trump will be at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast Wednesday morning. This comes as Democrats gear up to attack Supreme Court Contender Amy Coney Barrett for her deep Catholic faith. Again.
Remember her earlier confirmation hearing. What Sen. Dianne Feinstein said was chilling. “The dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s a concern.”
That’s no young radical. Or a snarky Sen. Kamala Harris. That’s Dianne Feinstein, the formerly moderate Senator who’s been around since the Reformation.
Undecided America: Does it bother you the same party that’s keeping churches shut — while allowing rioting and gambling — seems to think one’s faith should keep them from public service?
Thanking Mitt?
If Barrett is the nominee it looks she is guaranteed to at least get a vote by the end of the year. Thanks to Mitt Romney. Yes. That Mitt Romney.
After feeling Democratic love all year for voting to impeach Trump, Romney is back to being hated by the left. He announced today that he’s okay with the Senate moving ahead on a Supreme Court nomination before the election. He also basically told Democrats “tough toe-nails.”
I recognize that we may have a Court which has more of a conservative bent than it has had over the last few decades, but my liberal friends have over many decades gotten used to the idea of having a liberal court and that’s not written in the stars.
Of course the stars are losing their minds. And CNN’s Don Lemon. Monday night, he declared “We’re going to have to blow up the entire system. Get rid of the electoral college, pack the courts.”
These poor sports don’t want to take their ball home. They want to stuff the ball with C4 and drop on Lady Liberty’s lap.
Why? Protecting the altar of abortion. This election is a fight for life. Fittingly, tomorrow starts the “40 Days for Life.” The theme? “The Power of One.”
It’s the Little Things and the Big Ten Things.
What makes for a winning campaign? The little things … and the Big Ten Things.
Morning Consult has released data showing a majority of college football fans give Trump credit for the Big Ten returning to play. 34% say he’s somewhat responsible. 19% say he’s completely responsible. If you don’t know, Trump pushed hard for the Big Ten college football conference to return to play. And the conference finally caved.
Outkick predicts Trump’s role in bringing football back can help him in three Big Ten swing states: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. In fact, the survey showed Trump’s intervention has gained him support with both Democrats and Independents. (Ah, but would there be an equal drop in support from football widows?)
Finally, Hillary Clinton is launching a podcast this month. According to People magazine, it’s going to be called “You and Me Both with Hillary Clinton.” The podcast actually would have launched a few months ago … but Hillary kept erasing the tapes. (Yes, we jest.)
Note: Keep close to The Stream for the latest on the election. Like Josh Shepherd’s look at the Values Voters Summit which kicked off last night.
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--2020-09-23--Why Are They Capitalizing ‘Black’?

Why Are They Capitalizing ‘Black’?

A few months ago , I noticed that my published column spelled “ black ” “ Black.
” As I had submitted the column with “ black ” spelled with a lower case “ b , ” I contacted my editor to find out why what I had written was changed .
She responded that the syndicate was following the Associated Press ’ rules of style , a common practice in journalism and book writing .
On July 20 , 2020 , the AP published “ Explaining AP style on Black and white , ” in which it explained : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There is no “ shared sense of history , identity and community among people who identify as Black , including those in the African diaspora and within Africa.
” Only left-wingers believe such nonsense .
Not only is there no shared culture or sense of identity that unites blacks outside and inside Africa , but there is also no shared culture among blacks in Africa and none among blacks outside of Africa ( “ the African diaspora ” ) .
The only thing all blacks have in common is geographic origin ( but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emanate from Africa , that means little ) and color .
Historically , the only identity Africans shared with other Africans was a tribal identity .
That is why ( black ) Hutus could perpetrate the most concentrated mass murder since the Holocaust against ( black ) Tutsis .
That is why black Africans were indispensable to the transatlantic slave trade .
Those who rounded up other Africans to sell to Europeans felt no moral obligation , let alone a “ shared identity , ” with the Africans they sold .
What Do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a black raised in the Bronx have in common with a black raised in Cameroon ?
The answer is : nothing .
They have as little in common as a white from the Bronx and a black from Cameroon .
What does a Brazilian black have in common with a black from Chicago or a black from Uganda ?
Nothing .
Does Sen. Kamala Harris , the California daughter of a black and an ( Asian ) Indian , have more in common with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or with a tribal chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter , more in common with white Pelosi or black Candace Owens or black Larry Elder ?
The AP decision , adopted by The New York Times and followed by the rest of the media herd , is based on lies .
And , like the rest of the left ’ s race-based lies , it is pure pandering .
It is another attempt to depict blacks as inherently different from nonblack human beings .
That ’ s why the AP offered this explanation for why “ white ” should not be capitalized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not capitalizing “ white ” is also based on a lie : “ White people generally do not share the same history and culture.
” Whites Share More History and Culture Than Blacks As it happens , white people “ generally ” share far more history and culture than do blacks .
Whites come from Europe , and the vast majority of them have shared the Christian religion and the Bible .
There is nothing analogous among the vast majority of blacks .
Moreover , even today , in a post-Christian Europe , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in common than a Kenyan and a Congolese , let alone a black from the Bronx .
As for giving succor to white supremacists if “ white ” were capitalized , given that white supremacists agree with The New York Times and the rest of the left that there is something inherently different about blacks , why doesn ’ t capitalizing “ black ” also risk “ conveying legitimacy ” to white supremacist beliefs ?
Yes , there is such a thing as African American culture and shared experience .
There is such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shared experience .
But there is no such thing as a shared black culture .
So , if you want to tell the world how woke you are , how you follow the herd and how little truth matters to you , capitalize “ black.
” But if you respect blacks , respect the truth and respect yourself , don ’ t .
Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist .
His latest book , published by Regnery in May 2019 , is The Rational Bible , a commentary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ film , “ No Safe Spaces , ” will be released to home entertainment nationwide on September 15 , 2020 .
He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com .

A few months ago, I noticed that my published column spelled “black” “Black.” As I had submitted the column with “black” spelled with a lower case “b,” I contacted my editor to find out why what I had written was changed. She responded that the syndicate was following the Associated Press’ rules of style, a common practice in journalism and book writing.
On July 20, 2020, the AP published “Explaining AP style on Black and white,” in which it explained:
AP’s style is now to capitalize Black in a racial, ethnic or cultural sense, conveying an essential and shared sense of history, identity and community among people who identify as Black, including those in the African diaspora and within Africa. The lowercase black is a color, not a person. AP style will continue to lowercase the term white in racial, ethnic and cultural senses.
The AP explanation is drivel.
No Shared Sense of Culture or Identity
There is no “shared sense of history, identity and community among people who identify as Black, including those in the African diaspora and within Africa.”
Only left-wingers believe such nonsense. Not only is there no shared culture or sense of identity that unites blacks outside and inside Africa, but there is also no shared culture among blacks in Africa and none among blacks outside of Africa (“the African diaspora”). The only thing all blacks have in common is geographic origin (but since it is said that we all emanate from Africa, that means little) and color.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Historically, the only identity Africans shared with other Africans was a tribal identity. That is why (black) Hutus could perpetrate the most concentrated mass murder since the Holocaust against (black) Tutsis. That is why black Africans were indispensable to the transatlantic slave trade. Those who rounded up other Africans to sell to Europeans felt no moral obligation, let alone a “shared identity,” with the Africans they sold.
What Do They Have in Common?
What does a black raised in the Bronx have in common with a black raised in Cameroon? The answer is: nothing. They have as little in common as a white from the Bronx and a black from Cameroon.
What does a Brazilian black have in common with a black from Chicago or a black from Uganda? Nothing.
Does Sen. Kamala Harris, the California daughter of a black and an (Asian) Indian, have more in common with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or with a tribal chief in Togo? Or, for that matter, more in common with white Pelosi or black Candace Owens or black Larry Elder?
AP Decision Based on Lies
The AP decision, adopted by The New York Times and followed by the rest of the media herd, is based on lies. And, like the rest of the left’s race-based lies, it is pure pandering. It is another attempt to depict blacks as inherently different from nonblack human beings. That’s why the AP offered this explanation for why “white” should not be capitalized:
After a review and period of consultation, we found, at this time, less support for capitalizing white. White people generally do not share the same history and culture, or the experience of being discriminated against because of skin color. … capitalizing the term white, as is done by white supremacists, risks subtly conveying legitimacy to such beliefs.
The reason the AP offers for not capitalizing “white” is also based on a lie: “White people generally do not share the same history and culture.”
Whites Share More History and Culture Than Blacks
As it happens, white people “generally” share far more history and culture than do blacks. Whites come from Europe, and the vast majority of them have shared the Christian religion and the Bible. There is nothing analogous among the vast majority of blacks. Moreover, even today, in a post-Christian Europe, a Croatian and an Irishman have more in common than a Kenyan and a Congolese, let alone a black from the Bronx.
As for giving succor to white supremacists if “white” were capitalized, given that white supremacists agree with The New York Times and the rest of the left that there is something inherently different about blacks, why doesn’t capitalizing “black” also risk “conveying legitimacy” to white supremacist beliefs?
Black is a Color
Yes, there is such a thing as African American culture and shared experience. There is such a thing as African Brazilian culture and shared experience. But there is no such thing as a shared black culture.
So, if you want to tell the world how woke you are, how you follow the herd and how little truth matters to you, capitalize “black.” But if you respect blacks, respect the truth and respect yourself, don’t.
Black is a color, not a culture.
Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His latest book, published by Regnery in May 2019, is The Rational Bible, a commentary on the book of Genesis. His film, “No Safe Spaces,” will be released to home entertainment nationwide on September 15, 2020. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM


thestream--2020-09-23--Hunter Biden’s Business Dealings Created ‘Counterintelligence and Extortion Concerns,’ Senate Report

Hunter Biden’s Business Dealings Created ‘Counterintelligence and Extortion Concerns,’ Senate Report Says

• Hunter Biden ’ s financial dealings with Ukrainian , Russian and Chinese businesses created potential “ criminal financial , counterintelligence and extortion concerns , ” according to a report by two Senate committees .
• The report details a series of wire transfers between Biden and a businessman with extensive ties to the Chinese Communist Party .
• The report , written by the Senate Homeland Security and Senate Finance committees , also states that State Department officials repeatedly raised concerns about Hunter Biden ’ s work for Burisma Holdings .
• One official testified that he told Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s links to Burisma “ enabled Russian disinformation efforts.
” U.S. banks flagged suspicious financial transactions between Hunter Biden ’ s firms and Russian and Chinese nationals , including a businessman with extensive ties to the Chinese Communist Party , according to a highly-anticipated report released Wednesday by two Republican-controlled Senate committees .
The report asserts that the wire transfers , which total in the millions of dollars , raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest involving Biden , as well as “ criminal financial , counterintelligence and extortion concerns.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foundation obtained ahead of its release , also states that State Department officials expressed reservations in 2015 and 2016 about Biden ’ s links to Burisma Holdings , a Ukrainian energy company that has been dogged by bribery allegations .
One official , Amos Hochstein , told the Senate Homeland Security and Senate Finance committees that he said to then-Vice President Joe Biden in October 2015 that Hunter Biden ’ s position on the board of Burisma “ enabled Russian disinformation efforts and risked undermining U.S. policy in Ukraine.
” Hunter Biden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ board of directors in April 2014 , shortly after his father , Joe Biden , took over as the Obama administration ’ s chief liaison to Ukraine .
One of the administration ’ s goals was to help Ukraine fix its problems with corruption .
But State Department officials questioned whether the younger Biden ’ s work for Burisma posed a problem because the company ’ s owner , Mykola Zlochevsky , was under investigation for money laundering and extortion .
George Kent , who served as deputy chief of mission to Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an “ odious ” oligarch who likely paid a $ 7 million bribe to a Ukrainian prosecutor general in December 2014 , months after Hunter Biden joined Burisma ’ s board , according to the report .
Emails cited in the report show that Kent raised Burisma ’ s issues with corruption to other State Department officials .
Kent also told the committees on July 24 , 2020 , that he said to Joe Biden ’ s national security staff in February 2015 that Hunter Biden ’ s role at Burisma “ could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest.
” Kent told Joe Biden ’ s staff that “ someone needed to talk to Hunter Biden , and he should [ step ] down from the board of Burisma , ” according to the report .
Hochstein and Kent ’ s warnings went unheeded , the Senate report says .
Joe Biden avoided publicly criticizing Burisma or Zlochevsky , and Hunter Biden remained on Burisma ’ s board until his father announced his presidential campaign in April 2019 .
The report says that Burisma paid a consulting firm controlled by Hunter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partner and fellow Burisma director , more than $ 3.5 million from May 2014 to February 2016 .
Burisma sent nine wire transfers from January 2016 to November 2016 totaling $ 752,054 to Biden ’ s law firm , Owasco , according to the report .
The report does not produce any direct evidence of wrongdoing on Hunter Biden ’ s part .
But Republicans say the documents paint a troubling picture of Biden receiving “ millions of dollars from foreign sources as a result of business relationships that he built during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the United States and after.
” The report says that several transactions involving Biden-controlled firms were flagged for “ potential criminal financial activity , ” including wire transfers that Biden sent to his uncle , James Biden , and payments that he received from a mysterious Chinese businessman believed to have ties to the People ’ s Liberation Army ( PLA ) .
Suspicious Financial Transactions with Ties to China The report focuses on millions of dollars in wire payments that Hunter Biden ’ s firms received from Ye Jianming , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Gongwen Dong , a U.S.-based associate of Ye ’ s .
According to Republicans , Ye has “ extensive ” connections to the Chinese government .
He reportedly served as deputy secretary for the China Association for International Friendly Contacts ( CAIFC ) , a front group for the PLA .
A report from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in 2011 said that CAIFC has “ dual roles of intelligence collection and conducting People ’ s Republic of China propaganda.
” The Senate report says that on Aug. 4 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s company called CEFC Infrastructure Investment ( US ) LLC , wired $ 100,000 to Owasco , the Biden law firm .
A month later , on Sept. 8 , 2017 , Hunter Biden and Gongwen Dong applied for a $ 100,000 line of credit under a shell company they formed called Hudson West III LLC , according to the Senate report .
Biden , his uncle James , and James ’ s wife , Sara Biden , accessed the account through credit cards , and spent $ 101,291 on what Republicans call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tickets , hotels , restaurants and items at Apple stores .
The wires were “ identified for potential financial criminal activity , ” the report says .
According to the report , CEFC Infrastructure Investment wired $ 5 million to the bank account for Hudson West III on Aug. 8 , 2017 .
Of that , nearly $ 4.8 million was wired to Biden ’ s law firm over the next year .
The committees relied on confidential Treasury Department records for details about the transactions .
The records are not fully described @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to committee requests for Suspicious Activity Reports ( SARs ) , which banks are required to file with the Treasury Department when they spot suspicious transactions .
The report also flags wire transfers that Biden received from Elena Baturina , a Russian billionaire who was married to Yuri Luzhkov .
Luzhkov served as Moscow ’ s mayor until his death in 2010 .
The report states that Baturina wired $ 3.5 million on Feb. 14 , 2014 , to a bank account for Rosemont Seneca Thornton LLC , which Hunter Biden co-founded with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year before .
Baturina transferred another $ 241,797 to a bank account for Rosemont Seneca Thornton from May-December 2015 , according to the report .
“ These transactions were identified because of Baturina ’ s reported criminal activity , ” the report states .
The report also refers to potential payments from Biden to women from Russia and Eastern Europe who may have had links to “ prostitution or human trafficking ring [ s ] ” in Eastern Europe .
“ These foreign nationals have questionable backgrounds that have been identified as being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including but not limited to organized prostitution and/or human trafficking , money laundering , fraud and embezzlement , ” according to the Republicans .
The alleged payments are not detailed in the report .
Joe Biden ’ s presidential campaign did not respond to an email seeking comment .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

Hunter Biden’s financial dealings with Ukrainian, Russian and Chinese businesses created potential “criminal financial, counterintelligence and extortion concerns,” according to a report by two Senate committees.
The report details a series of wire transfers between Biden and a businessman with extensive ties to the Chinese Communist Party.
The report, written by the Senate Homeland Security and Senate Finance committees, also states that State Department officials repeatedly raised concerns about Hunter Biden’s work for Burisma Holdings.
One official testified that he told Joe Biden in October 2015 that his son’s links to Burisma “enabled Russian disinformation efforts.”
Suspicious Financial Transactions
U.S. banks flagged suspicious financial transactions between Hunter Biden’s firms and Russian and Chinese nationals, including a businessman with extensive ties to the Chinese Communist Party, according to a highly-anticipated report released Wednesday by two Republican-controlled Senate committees.
The report asserts that the wire transfers, which total in the millions of dollars, raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest involving Biden, as well as “criminal financial, counterintelligence and extortion concerns.”
The report, which The Daily Caller News Foundation obtained ahead of its release, also states that State Department officials expressed reservations in 2015 and 2016 about Biden’s links to Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company that has been dogged by bribery allegations.
Potential Corruption Issues — Burisma Holdings Board of Directors
One official, Amos Hochstein, told the Senate Homeland Security and Senate Finance committees that he said to then-Vice President Joe Biden in October 2015 that Hunter Biden’s position on the board of Burisma “enabled Russian disinformation efforts and risked undermining U.S. policy in Ukraine.”
Hunter Biden, now 50, joined Burisma’s board of directors in April 2014, shortly after his father, Joe Biden, took over as the Obama administration’s chief liaison to Ukraine.
One of the administration’s goals was to help Ukraine fix its problems with corruption. But State Department officials questioned whether the younger Biden’s work for Burisma posed a problem because the company’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, was under investigation for money laundering and extortion.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
George Kent, who served as deputy chief of mission to Ukraine through 2018, testified that Zlochevsky was an “odious” oligarch who likely paid a $7 million bribe to a Ukrainian prosecutor general in December 2014, months after Hunter Biden joined Burisma’s board, according to the report.
Emails cited in the report show that Kent raised Burisma’s issues with corruption to other State Department officials. Kent also told the committees on July 24, 2020, that he said to Joe Biden’s national security staff in February 2015 that Hunter Biden’s role at Burisma “could create the perception of a conflict of interest.”
Kent told Joe Biden’s staff that “someone needed to talk to Hunter Biden, and he should [step] down from the board of Burisma,” according to the report.
Hochstein and Kent’s warnings went unheeded, the Senate report says. Joe Biden avoided publicly criticizing Burisma or Zlochevsky, and Hunter Biden remained on Burisma’s board until his father announced his presidential campaign in April 2019. Millions of Dollars From Foreign Sources The report says that Burisma paid a consulting firm controlled by Hunter Biden and Devon Archer, his business partner and fellow Burisma director, more than $3.5 million from May 2014 to February 2016. Burisma sent nine wire transfers from January 2016 to November 2016 totaling $752,054 to Biden’s law firm, Owasco, according to the report. The report does not produce any direct evidence of wrongdoing on Hunter Biden’s part. But Republicans say the documents paint a troubling picture of Biden receiving “millions of dollars from foreign sources as a result of business relationships that he built during the period when his father was Vice President of the United States and after.” The report says that several transactions involving Biden-controlled firms were flagged for “potential criminal financial activity,” including wire transfers that Biden sent to his uncle, James Biden, and payments that he received from a mysterious Chinese businessman believed to have ties to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Suspicious Financial Transactions with Ties to China The report focuses on millions of dollars in wire payments that Hunter Biden’s firms received from Ye Jianming, the founder of CEFC China Energy Co., and Gongwen Dong, a U.S.-based associate of Ye’s. According to Republicans, Ye has “extensive” connections to the Chinese government. He reportedly served as deputy secretary for the China Association for International Friendly Contacts (CAIFC), a front group for the PLA. A report from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in 2011 said that CAIFC has “dual roles of intelligence collection and conducting People’s Republic of China propaganda.” The Senate report says that on Aug. 4, 2017, a subsidiary of Ye’s company called CEFC Infrastructure Investment (US) LLC, wired $100,000 to Owasco, the Biden law firm. A month later, on Sept. 8, 2017, Hunter Biden and Gongwen Dong applied for a $100,000 line of credit under a shell company they formed called Hudson West III LLC, according to the Senate report. Biden, his uncle James, and James’s wife, Sara Biden, accessed the account through credit cards, and spent $101,291 on what Republicans call “extravagant items,” including plane tickets, hotels, restaurants and items at Apple stores. The wires were “identified for potential financial criminal activity,” the report says. According to the report, CEFC Infrastructure Investment wired $5 million to the bank account for Hudson West III on Aug. 8, 2017. Of that, nearly $4.8 million was wired to Biden’s law firm over the next year. The committees relied on confidential Treasury Department records for details about the transactions. The records are not fully described in the report, but Republicans refer to committee requests for Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs), which banks are required to file with the Treasury Department when they spot suspicious transactions. Potential Links to “Prostitution or Human Trafficking Ring(s)”
The report also flags wire transfers that Biden received from Elena Baturina, a Russian billionaire who was married to Yuri Luzhkov. Luzhkov served as Moscow’s mayor until his death in 2010.
The report states that Baturina wired $3.5 million on Feb. 14, 2014, to a bank account for Rosemont Seneca Thornton LLC, which Hunter Biden co-founded with Archer, his business partner, the year before.
Baturina transferred another $241,797 to a bank account for Rosemont Seneca Thornton from May-December 2015, according to the report.
“These transactions were identified because of Baturina’s reported criminal activity,” the report states.
The report also refers to potential payments from Biden to women from Russia and Eastern Europe who may have had links to “prostitution or human trafficking ring[s]” in Eastern Europe.
“These foreign nationals have questionable backgrounds that have been identified as being consistent with a range of criminal activities, including but not limited to organized prostitution and/or human trafficking, money laundering, fraud and embezzlement,” according to the Republicans.
The alleged payments are not detailed in the report.
No Comment
Joe Biden’s presidential campaign did not respond to an email seeking comment.
Copyright 2020 The Daily Caller News Foundation
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


thestream--2020-09-23--We’re Seeing an ‘Armageddon’ About Abortion Following Ginsburg’s Death

It ’ s not often you hear the word “ Armageddon ” tossed around in D.C. politics , but it ’ s been the operative word when it comes to filling the seat of Justice Ginsburg .
Why all this talk about an “ Armageddon option ” ?
Why references to “ Apocalypse Now ” ?
The answer can be summed up in one word : abortion .
The battle for Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s seat on the Supreme Court is the battle over abortion .
There is no issue more volatile in America .
Not race .
Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economy or foreign policy or LGBTQ activism or the Middle East .
Not even COVID-19 is this volatile .
Nothing divides America like the debate over abortion .
And nothing is more an issue of life and death .
Those who identify as pro-choice can point to many heart-rending stories where abortion seems to be the compassionate option .
Your 12-year-old daughter is raped and abused by a serial criminal , only to find out that she is now pregnant .
Must she now bear the shame and pain of carrying that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality of this horrific event shout out to her every day for months on end ?
Must she then give birth to a child who carries the DNA of a moral monster ?
And , even if she gives up the baby for adoption , for the rest of her life , she will remember that a child of hers is somewhere out there , in the world .
Or what if she was raped by her older brother ?
Must she now carry the result of incest in her womb — perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the result of a shameful union into the world ?
Or what about a 44-year-old married woman in fragile health , mentally and physically ?
To the shock of this woman and her husband , they learn that their birth control has failed and she is expecting again .
Then , four months later , they learn that their baby has a severe handicap , likely to live at most 6 months to a year , and even then , needing constant medical attention and experiencing terrible pain .
Doesn ’ t compassion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ baby while still in the womb ?
And isn ’ t this in the best interest of the mother ?
These really are heartrending stories , and they make for compelling “ pro-choice ” arguments .
Statistics Indicate Very Few Women Abort Because of Rape , Incest or Fetal Health Problems But the fact is that tragic cases like this make up the tiniest percentage of abortions .
In fact , “ Just 1 % of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape , and less than 0.5 % do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Guttmacher Institute.
” ( Note that the Guttmacher Institute is itself “ pro-choice.
” ) National surveys indicate that only 3 % of abortions take place because of “ fetal health problems.
” And in Florida , where a reason must be given for every abortion , in 2018 , only 0.27 % of abortions — meaning one-quarter of one-percent — were performed because the woman ’ s life was allegedly in danger .
If these statistics are accurate , then at least 95 % of all abortions performed have nothing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health of the fetus , or the health of the mother .
Most abortions are performed because a pregnancy would get in the way of the mother ’ s career or education .
Or there were financial concerns about caring for another child .
Or the mother didn ’ t feel ready to have a baby .
Coming to Terms With the Carnage of Abortion And for these reasons , a tiny life is terminated in its own mother ’ s life-giving womb .
A divinely-formed baby , with its own DNA and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all kinds of destiny and potential , is sucked out of the womb .
Or sliced up in the womb .
Or burned up in the womb .
That ’ s why abortion workers who have looked at jars marked “ POC ( standing for the Products of Conception ) have wept on my radio show as they came to grips with what they have done .
( In contrast , one website describes a D & E abortion in these cold medical terms , where the human being is merely tissue : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a bottle and a pump that provides a gentle vacuum to remove tissue in the uterus.
” ) Stop for a moment , click on this link , and look at these images of aborted babies .
( I especially urge you to do this if you consider yourself pro-choice . )
And then multiply these images by more than 60 million .
And then ask yourself , “ Is this what it means ‘ to remove tissue in the uterus ’ ?
” That is the carnage of America ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of almost 50 years of Roe v. Wade .
That is the carnage celebrated by New York State , when legislators cheered after passing a law allowing for abortions through the end of the 9th month .
And that is the carnage defended by the women who scratched and clawed at the Supreme Court doors during the Kavanaugh hearings .
That ’ s why I wrote in 2018 , “ And what would happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned ?
What would happen if ‘ abortion rights ’ were severely restricted ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state ?
“ All hell would break loose on the streets .
Fierce protests would arise .
Things would get ugly overnight — and by ugly , I mean very ugly.
” And this , again in 2018 : That ’ s why there is talk about “ Armageddon ” and “ Apocalypse.
” That ’ s why the battle over Ginsburg ’ s seat is so fierce .
It is the battle between life and death , and something tragic happens to a nation that chooses death over life .
Abortion is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. and the World Thankfully , abortions have been steadily decreasing in America for a good number of years .
But that only means that the carnage has decreased from numbers as high as 1,360,000 abortions in 1996 to 862,000 in 2017 .
( Yes , chew on that : less than 900,000 babies terminated in their mother ’ s wombs is considered to be progress . )
As stated on LifeNews.com in 2019 , “ Though abortion rates have been dropping in the past decade , abortion remains the leading cause of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and this is the case in the rest of the world as well .
( According to LifeNews , “ Abortion Was the Leading Cause of Death Worldwide in 2019 , Killing 42 Million People.
” ) We really are in a literal battle of life and death here in America , a battle of epic proportions .
May we choose life .
May life prevail .
May the spirit of death be vanquished .
Dr. Michael Brown ( www.askdrbrown.org ) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Crossroads : Will We Pass the Trump Test ?
Connect with him on Facebook , Twitter or YouTube .

It’s not often you hear the word “Armageddon” tossed around in D.C. politics, but it’s been the operative word when it comes to filling the seat of Justice Ginsburg. Why all this talk about an “Armageddon option”? Why references to “Apocalypse Now”? The answer can be summed up in one word: abortion. The battle for Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court is the battle over abortion.
There is no issue more volatile in America.
Not race. Not religious freedom. Not immigration. Not the economy or foreign policy or LGBTQ activism or the Middle East. Not even COVID-19 is this volatile.
Nothing divides America like the debate over abortion. And nothing is more an issue of life and death.
Those who identify as pro-choice can point to many heart-rending stories where abortion seems to be the compassionate option.
Heart-Rending Stories of Rape and Incest
Your 12-year-old daughter is raped and abused by a serial criminal, only to find out that she is now pregnant. Must she now bear the shame and pain of carrying that child to full term? Must the reality of this horrific event shout out to her every day for months on end? Must she then give birth to a child who carries the DNA of a moral monster? And, even if she gives up the baby for adoption, for the rest of her life, she will remember that a child of hers is somewhere out there, in the world.
Isn’t abortion the righteous and loving choice?
Or what if she was raped by her older brother? Must she now carry the result of incest in her womb — perhaps with genetic defects? Must she bring the result of a shameful union into the world?
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Or what about a 44-year-old married woman in fragile health, mentally and physically? To the shock of this woman and her husband, they learn that their birth control has failed and she is expecting again. Then, four months later, they learn that their baby has a severe handicap, likely to live at most 6 months to a year, and even then, needing constant medical attention and experiencing terrible pain.
Doesn’t compassion call for a merciful termination of this baby while still in the womb? And isn’t this in the best interest of the mother?
These really are heartrending stories, and they make for compelling “pro-choice” arguments.
Statistics Indicate Very Few Women Abort Because of Rape, Incest or Fetal Health Problems
But the fact is that tragic cases like this make up the tiniest percentage of abortions. In fact, “Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute.” (Note that the Guttmacher Institute is itself “pro-choice.”)
National surveys indicate that only 3% of abortions take place because of “fetal health problems.” And in Florida, where a reason must be given for every abortion, in 2018, only 0.27% of abortions — meaning one-quarter of one-percent — were performed because the woman’s life was allegedly in danger.
If these statistics are accurate, then at least 95% of all abortions performed have nothing to do with rape, incest, the health of the fetus, or the health of the mother.
Most abortions are performed because a pregnancy would get in the way of the mother’s career or education. Or there were financial concerns about caring for another child. Or the mother didn’t feel ready to have a baby.
Coming to Terms With the Carnage of Abortion
And for these reasons, a tiny life is terminated in its own mother’s life-giving womb. A divinely-formed baby, with its own DNA and a beating heart, not to mention all kinds of destiny and potential, is sucked out of the womb. Or sliced up in the womb. Or burned up in the womb.
That’s why abortion workers who have looked at jars marked “POC (standing for the Products of Conception) have wept on my radio show as they came to grips with what they have done. (In contrast, one website describes a D&E abortion in these cold medical terms, where the human being is merely tissue: “The cannula is attached by tubing to a bottle and a pump that provides a gentle vacuum to remove tissue in the uterus.”)
It is the battle between life and death, and something tragic happens to a nation that chooses death over life.
Stop for a moment, click on this link, and look at these images of aborted babies. (I especially urge you to do this if you consider yourself pro-choice.) And then multiply these images by more than 60 million. And then ask yourself, “Is this what it means ‘to remove tissue in the uterus’?”
That is the carnage of America’s abortion obsession. That is the carnage of almost 50 years of Roe v. Wade.
That is the carnage celebrated by New York State, when legislators cheered after passing a law allowing for abortions through the end of the 9th month.
And that is the carnage defended by the women who scratched and clawed at the Supreme Court doors during the Kavanaugh hearings.
A Fierce “Apocalyptic” Battle
That’s why I wrote in 2018, “And what would happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned? What would happen if ‘abortion rights’ were severely restricted (or entirely removed) from state after state?
“All hell would break loose on the streets. Fierce protests would arise. Things would get ugly overnight — and by ugly, I mean very ugly.”
And this, again in 2018:
What happens if Roe v. Wade gets overturned? What can we expect? We can expect fury. We can expect feces. We can expect vitriol. We can expect vandalism. We can expect violence. Watch this short video of antifa and other leftists stealing and destroying pro-life signs in a Boston park. Then ask yourself: What happens when it’s not just pro-life signs that are the issue? What happens when pro-life laws are the issue? What then?”
That’s why there is talk about “Armageddon” and “Apocalypse.” That’s why the battle over Ginsburg’s seat is so fierce.
It is the battle between life and death, and something tragic happens to a nation that chooses death over life.
Abortion is the Leading Cause of Death in the U.S. and the World
Thankfully, abortions have been steadily decreasing in America for a good number of years. But that only means that the carnage has decreased from numbers as high as 1,360,000 abortions in 1996 to 862,000 in 2017. (Yes, chew on that: less than 900,000 babies terminated in their mother’s wombs is considered to be progress.)
As stated on LifeNews.com in 2019, “Though abortion rates have been dropping in the past decade, abortion remains the leading cause of death in the United States” — and this is the case in the rest of the world as well. (According to LifeNews, “Abortion Was the Leading Cause of Death Worldwide in 2019, Killing 42 Million People.”)
We really are in a literal battle of life and death here in America, a battle of epic proportions. May we choose life. May life prevail. May the spirit of death be vanquished.
Dr. Michael Brown (www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is Evangelicals at the Crossroads: Will We Pass the Trump Test? Connect with him on Facebook, Twitter or YouTube.


thestream--2020-09-23--Actor Jim Caviezel Gives ‘Powerful’ Recitation of Reagan Speech on Fox & Friends Supporting the Righ

Actor Jim Caviezel Gives ‘Powerful’ Recitation of Reagan Speech on Fox & Friends Supporting the Right to Freely Worship

During an interview about his new film Infidel , actor Jim Caviezel launched into a nearly two-minute-long recitation of President Ronald Reagan ’ s 1964 famous speech , “ A Time for Choosing , ” adapted to emphasize that Christians should stand against violations of the right to worship freely in church .
Caviezel , who portrayed Jesus in The Passion of the Christ , discussed his starring role in Infidel in an interview with Fox & Friends host Pete Hegseth .
In the thriller , which released Sept. 18 , an American journalist played by Caviezel is kidnapped in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after saying Jesus is God .
His wife goes to Iran and search for him and is helped by a group of underground Christians .
In the interview Caviezel tied the meaning of the film not only to an awareness of the persecution of Christians in countries like Iran and China , but also to standing against restrictions on churches in the U.S. in response to COVID-19 .
“ People have taken their faith for granted , especially here in the United States .
But now , with not being able to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our inalienable rights — we need to start standing up , ” Caviezel said .
Caviezel Adapts “ A Time for Choosing ” Speech for Resisting Restrictions on Churches Hegseth then asked a question about what Americans today can learn from then President Ronald Reagan ’ s 1964 speech “ A Time for Choosing.
” Hegseth said it was a topic Caviezel “ wanted to touch on.
” Seemingly prepared , Caviezel then recited a significant portion of the speech .
Caviezel adapted Reagan ’ s words in several places , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the phrase “ well-meaning Christian liberal friends ” and adding “ our priests , bishops , and pastors ” right after that .
He also changed “ Nikita Khrushchev , ” the then Premier of the Soviet Union , to “ Satan.
” That ’ s right .
He said that .
… Now also , he said : “ Now , let ’ s set the record straight .
There ’ s no argument over the choice between peace and war .
But there ’ s only one guaranteed way you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it in the next second : Surrender.
” “ Admittedly there ’ s a risk in any course we follow other than this , but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement .
And this is a specter our well-meaning Christian liberal friends — our priests , bishops , and pastors — refuse to face : that their policy of accommodation is appeasement.
” “ And it gives us no choice between peace and war , only between fight and surrender .
If we continue to accommodate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eventually we will have to face the final demand , the final ultimatum .
And what then ?
When Satan has told the people of this world , he knows what your answer is going to be .
He has told them that we ’ re retreating out of the pressure of his cold war , and someday , when the time is right to deliver his final ultimatum , our surrender will be voluntary .
Because you see by then we will have been so weakened from within spiritually , morally , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from our side he ’ s heard voices pleading for ‘ peace at any price , ’ or ‘ better red than dead , ’ or as one commentator put it , he ’ d rather ‘ live on his knees than die on his feet.
’ ” “ And therein lies the road to war , because those voices don ’ t speak for the rest of us .
You and I know it , and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If nothing in life is worth dying for , when did this begin ?
Just in the face of this enemy ?
Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs ?
Should Christ have refused the cross ?
Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have refused to fire the shot heard around the world ?
The martyrs of history were not fools , and our beloved dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis did not die in vain.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peace ?
Well it ’ s a simple answer after all : that you and I have the courage to tell our enemies ‘ there is a price we will not pay , ’ ‘ there is a point beyond which evil must not advance.
’ ” In the words of Reagan , “ evil is powerless if the good are unafraid.
” For the full effect of the actor ’ s dramatic reading , watch here : Conservative political commentator Dan Bongino highlighted Cavizel ’ s answer on The Dan Bongino Show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ labeling it “ one of the most powerful things I ’ ve seen on TV in a LONG time.
” After playing the clip , Bongino seemed stunned for a moment and then said , “ Wow.
” “ Folks , this fight ’ s coming — for all of you , ” Bongino added .
“ I ’ ve warned you it ’ s gon na knock on your door.
” Aliya Kuykendall is a staff writer and proofreader for The Stream .
You can follow Aliya on Twitter @ AliyaKuykendall and @ @ @ @ @ @

During an interview about his new film Infidel, actor Jim Caviezel launched into a nearly two-minute-long recitation of President Ronald Reagan’s famous 1964 speech, “A Time for Choosing,” adapted to emphasize that Christians should stand against violations of the right to worship freely in church.
Caviezel, who portrayed Jesus in The Passion of the Christ, discussed his starring role in Infidel in a Sept. 19 interview with Fox & Friends host Pete Hegseth. In the thriller, which released Sept. 18, an American journalist played by Caviezel is kidnapped in Cairo by members of the Iranian regime after saying Jesus is God. His wife goes to Iran to search for him and is helped by a group of underground Christians. In the interview Caviezel tied the meaning of the film not only to an awareness of the persecution of Christians in countries like Iran and China, but also to standing against restrictions on churches in the U.S. in response to COVID-19.
“People have taken their faith for granted, especially here in the United States. But now, with not being able to go to churches — which is a violation of our inalienable rights — we need to start standing up,” Caviezel said.
Caviezel Adapts “A Time for Choosing” Speech for Resisting Restrictions on Churches
Hegseth then asked a question about what Americans today can learn from then President Ronald Reagan’s 1964 speech “A Time for Choosing.” Hegseth said it was a topic Caviezel “wanted to touch on.”
Seemingly prepared, Caviezel then recited a significant portion of the speech. Caviezel adapted Reagan’s words in several places, including adding the word “Christian” in the phrase “well-meaning Christian liberal friends” and adding “our priests, bishops, and pastors” right after that. He also changed “Nikita Khrushchev,” the then premier of the Soviet Union, to “Satan.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Read Caviezel’s answer:
That’s right. He said that. … Now also, he said: “Now, let’s set the record straight. There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war. But there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace, and you can have it in the next second: Surrender.” “Admittedly there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement. And this is a specter our well-meaning Christian liberal friends — our priests, bishops, and pastors — refuse to face: that their policy of accommodation is appeasement.” “And it gives us no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we will have to face the final demand, the final ultimatum. And what then? When Satan has told the people of this world, he knows what your answer is going to be. He has told them that we’re retreating out of the pressure of his cold war, and someday, when the time is right to deliver his final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary. Because you see by then we will have been so weakened from within spiritually, morally, economically.” “He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for ‘peace at any price,’ or ‘better red than dead,’ or as one commentator put it, he’d rather ‘live on his knees than die on his feet.’” “And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us. You and I know it, and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin? Just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have refused to fire the shot heard around the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our beloved dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis did not die in vain.” “Where then lies the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all: that you and I have the courage to tell our enemies ‘there is a price we will not pay,’ ‘there is a point beyond which evil must not advance.’” In the words of Reagan, “evil is powerless if the good are unafraid.”
For the full effect of the actor’s dramatic reading, watch here:
Conservative political commentator Dan Bongino highlighted Cavizel’s answer on The Dan Bongino Show on Sept. 21, saying it gave him goosebumps and labeling it “one of the most powerful things I’ve seen on TV in a LONG time.” After playing the clip, Bongino seemed stunned for a moment and then said, “Wow.” “Folks, this fight’s coming — for all of you,” Bongino added. “I’ve warned you it’s gonna knock on your door.”
Aliya Kuykendall is a staff writer and proofreader for The Stream. You can follow Aliya on Twitter @AliyaKuykendall and follow The Stream @Streamdotorg.


thestream--2020-09-23--Trump Announces He Will Sign ‘Born Alive Executive Order’

President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that he intends to sign the Born Alive Executive Order to protect babies born alive after failed abortions .
The president spoke Tuesday morning at the virtual National Catholic Prayer Breakfast where he said Catholics are “ amazing people … great , great people , ” and thanked religious Americans for their prayers for him and his wife .
He also said that he will safeguard “ the eternal truth that every child , born and unborn , is made in the image of God.
” “ I will always protect the vital role of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I will always defend the sacred right to life , ” Trump said .
“ Today I am announcing that I will be signing the Born Alive Executive Order to ensure that all precious babies born alive , no matter their circumstances , receive the medical care that they deserve.
” “ This is our sacrosanct moral duty , ” he added .
“ We are also increasing federal funding for the neonatal research to ensure that every child has the very best chance to thrive and grow.
” March for Life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s announcement in a Tuesday statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation .
“ These steps had to be taken because some Democrats in the Senate promised to block legislation that mandates basic medical care for children who survive an abortion — an extremist view shared by Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris , ” she said .
“ While any abortion is one too many , the reality is that Americans overwhelmingly want to see greater protections for the most vulnerable , ” she continued .
“ These protections are a strong step @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should move quickly to codify the President ’ s Executive Order and pass Senator Ben Sasse ’ s ( R-Neb . )
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
” Trump ’ s words come ahead of his Saturday announcement of his Supreme Court nominee .
Trump will reportedly choose between federal judges Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa .
The president reportedly favors Barrett , a mother of seven who has sparked liberal anxieties through her Catholic faith and pro-life stances .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that he intends to sign the Born Alive Executive Order to protect babies born alive after failed abortions.
The president spoke Tuesday morning at the virtual National Catholic Prayer Breakfast where he said Catholics are “amazing people … great, great people,” and thanked religious Americans for their prayers for him and his wife. He also said that he will safeguard “the eternal truth that every child, born and unborn, is made in the image of God.”
“I will always protect the vital role of religion and prayer in American society, and I will always defend the sacred right to life,” Trump said. “Today I am announcing that I will be signing the Born Alive Executive Order to ensure that all precious babies born alive, no matter their circumstances, receive the medical care that they deserve.”
“This is our sacrosanct moral duty,” he added. “We are also increasing federal funding for the neonatal research to ensure that every child has the very best chance to thrive and grow.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
March for Life President Jeanne Mancini praised the president’s announcement in a Tuesday statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation.
“These steps had to be taken because some Democrats in the Senate promised to block legislation that mandates basic medical care for children who survive an abortion — an extremist view shared by Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris,” she said.
“While any abortion is one too many, the reality is that Americans overwhelmingly want to see greater protections for the most vulnerable,” she continued. “These protections are a strong step in the right direction and the Senate should move quickly to codify the President’s Executive Order and pass Senator Ben Sasse’s (R-Neb.) Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.”
Trump’s words come ahead of his Saturday announcement of his Supreme Court nominee. Trump will reportedly choose between federal judges Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa. The president reportedly favors Barrett, a mother of seven who has sparked liberal anxieties through her Catholic faith and pro-life stances.
WATCH:
Copyright 2020 The Daily Caller News Foundation
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


thestream--2020-09-23--The Cuties Tragedy, and How it Highlights Our Country’s Cultural Divide

Do you want to see just how breathtaking the divide is in our culture ?
Look up the Rotten Tomatoes page for Cuties .
The page presents film critics ’ consensus , along with an average score from the general audience .
The early critics ’ consensus score was an extraordinarily high 91 % .
The audience score was as low as it gets : 11 % .
Most films are generally close in the two scores .
For example , The Shawshank Redemption has a 90 % critic consensus and 98 % audience rating .
Although , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a contrast between the critics and general population .
Consider how the biggest blockbusters of the year never win any Academy Awards .
In the case of Cuties , though the contrast is stark — and telling .
Monica Castillo opened her RogerEbert.com of Cuties , “ There ’ s a saying in criticism that ‘ depiction does not equal endorsement.
’ ” True enough ; but then she continued , “ Art should be able to address taboos without necessarily advocating for them , but some surface-level readings miss what the work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obvious at first glance.
” She was compelled to defend the film that way in order to justify the four stars she gave it .
She said the rush to judgment was unwarranted and premature .
I must disagree .
The judgments are fully warranted , and obviously so , to my mind .
You ’ d think both conservatives and liberals could get behind the idea it ’ s wrong to sexualize children .
Yet here we are in an ongoing battle over Cuties .
So , why the controversy ?
Who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Many have read the divide as being between right vs. left .
I don ’ t think that explains it well enough , though .
People across the political spectrum — from far-right Paul Joseph Watson to far-left Tulsi Gabbard — have condemned the movie .
Cuties ’ defenders aren ’ t the political left , broadly speaking .
The most visible of them are in a sub-category of the Left : film critics and their oh-so-sophisticated sycophants .
I haven ’ t seen anyone defend Cuties except the film critic class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approved of by these “ experts.
” Richard Brody at the New Yorker called it “ remarkable.
” The prestigious Sundance Film Festival gave director Maïmouna Doucouré an award for it .
She defended the film , saying , “ It ’ s bold , it ’ s feminist , but it ’ s so important and necessary.
” Bold ?
Maybe .
Necessary ?
No , disturbing .
As Brett McCracken at The Gospel Coalition wrote , “ Many ostensibly sophisticated , ‘ cultured ’ people seem bent on defending and redeeming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an irredeemably problematic film.
” How do they try to justify it ?
Let ’ s take a look at their argument .
Cuties Doesn ’ t Get a Pass for Being “ Art ” According to Todd Spangler in Variety , Netflix ’ s defense is based on its being a “ statement about pressures young girls face in conforming to societal role models of female sexuality.
” The film ’ s lascivious portrayal of children , they said , was actually “ a social commentary against the sexualization of young children.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s an award-winning film , “ about the pressure young girls face on social media and from society more generally growing up.
” Richard Brody at The New Yorker says it ’ s a piece of art which tells a coming-of-age story ; that it warns of the effects of “ sexualized media and pop culture ” on very poor , very young girls , who are often left alone and unsupervised .
That ’ s the argument .
How well does it work ?
First , all can agree that depiction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ artists should be able to shed light on dark topics through creative expression .
Outstanding examples of this would be Spielberg ’ s Schindler ’ s List and Martin Scorsese ’ s Silence .
Both films are graphic and disturbing as they portray the reality of humanity ’ s brutality against one another .
Sometimes that really does make for important art .
Cuties defenders argue that the same standard should apply to this movie .
Just being “ art , ” however , doesn ’ t give Cuties a pass .
Cuties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to anyone who appreciates true art .
For even when creating art , filmmakers who intend to depict while not endorsing must do so with a sense of responsibility .
They need utmost precision , so as not to cross ethical boundaries .
They must avoid being transgressive for the sake of shock .
One can not make a film warning against the effects of pornography while presenting gratuitous nudity and sexual content .
A filmmaker who tried to do that would be exploiting real people ’ s bodies in front of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing they are doing .
Cuties is no different .
This film casts actual children , 11 year-old girls , to portray highly sexual content .
It tries to warn against sexualizing children by sexualizing children .
Cuties ’ defenders think the film ’ s “ social commentary ” gives them moral ground to stand upon , but this is moronic nonsense .
As Justin Lee wrote at Arc Digital : Not only does the movie transgress that which it claims to warn against , Doucoure was explicit in her intentions for making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explained to her actresses “ the real activism that this movie was coming from , and the feminist ideology it represented.
” Activism .
Ideology .
It ’ s not a film , it ’ s a statement .
It calls to mind Francis Schaeffer ’ s prescient 1976 observation , “ The further question is : Is this really art ?
Is it not rather a bare philosophic , intellectual statement ?
… The more it tends to be only an intellectual statement , rather than a work of art , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you listen to Cuties defenders , I ’ m a right-wing pearl clutcher for having any problem with such a film .
Tim Robey at The Telegraph calls the film a “ provocative powder-keg for an age terrified of child sexuality.
” Translation : If I don ’ t like the film , it ’ s because I ’ m weak and sexually repressive .
That ’ s just gaslighting .
It ’ s the 91 % -approving critics abusing the power of their position , against the 11 % -approving rest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ window on an even deeper , more insidious problem with the Cuties controversy .
C. S. Lewis warned in The Abolition of Man about a class of people who would attempt to remake society .
He called them the “ Conditioners.
” Their main job would be to debunk traditional values and mold a new mankind into shape .
Lewis wrote , “ They are , if you like , men who have sacrificed their own share in traditional humanity in order to devote themselves to the task of deciding what ‘ Humanity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ and ‘ bad ’ , applied to them , are words without content : for it is from them that the content of these words is henceforth to be derived.
” Lewis explained the Conditioners ’ prime strategy : to re-train the heart as much as the mind , the affections as much as ideas .
They seek to cut out the part of humanity which has an appropriate emotional reaction to reality ; to create ( in Lewis ’ s memorable phrasing ) “ Men without Chests ” : people with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our approval or disapproval , our reverence or our contempt.
” The Conditioners position themselves as elites , cultured , and intellectuals .
They view themselves as anointed and progressive .
“ This gives them the chance to say that he who attacks them attacks Intelligence , ” Lewis wrote .
Instead , he countered , “ It is not excess of thought but defect of fertile and generous emotion that marks them out .
Their heads are no bigger than the ordinary : it is the atrophy of chest beneath that makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great divide once again revealed by Cuties .
The Cuties defenders are the Conditioners of our society .
Beware of them .
Do not fall for their nonsense .
Do not be allured by their “ expertise.
” We do not need these anointed ones ’ approval .
Aaron Shamp is a writer , speaker , and the lead pastor of Redeemer City Church .
He holds an M.A .
in Christian Apologetics from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary .
Aaron lives in Lafayette , La.
, with his wife and daughter .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ at @ aaronmshamp on Facebook , Instagram and Twitter .

Do you want to see just how breathtaking the divide is in our culture? Look up the Rotten Tomatoes page for Cuties. The page presents film critics’ consensus, along with an average score from the general audience. The early critics’ consensus score was an extraordinarily high 91%. The audience score was as low as it gets: 11%.
Most films are generally close in the two scores. For example, The Shawshank Redemption has a 90% critic consensus and 98% audience rating. Although, it’s not uncommon for there to be a contrast between the critics and general population. Consider how the biggest blockbusters of the year never win any Academy Awards. In the case of Cuties, though the contrast is stark — and telling.
Monica Castillo opened her RogerEbert.com of Cuties, “There’s a saying in criticism that ‘depiction does not equal endorsement.’” True enough; but then she continued, “Art should be able to address taboos without necessarily advocating for them, but some surface-level readings miss what the work digs into because it’s not obvious at first glance.”
She was compelled to defend the film that way in order to justify the four stars she gave it. She said the rush to judgment was unwarranted and premature.
I must disagree. The judgments are fully warranted, and obviously so, to my mind. You’d think both conservatives and liberals could get behind the idea it’s wrong to sexualize children. Yet here we are in an ongoing battle over Cuties. So, why the controversy? Who exactly is defending this movie and why?
The Cuties Defenders
Many have read the divide as being between right vs. left. I don’t think that explains it well enough, though. People across the political spectrum — from far-right Paul Joseph Watson to far-left Tulsi Gabbard — have condemned the movie. Cuties’ defenders aren’t the political left, broadly speaking. The most visible of them are in a sub-category of the Left: film critics and their oh-so-sophisticated sycophants.
I haven’t seen anyone defend Cuties except the film critic class, and those who wish to be approved of by these “experts.” Richard Brody at the New Yorker called it “remarkable.” The prestigious Sundance Film Festival gave director Maïmouna Doucouré an award for it. She defended the film, saying, “It’s bold, it’s feminist, but it’s so important and necessary.”
Bold? Maybe. Necessary? No, disturbing. As Brett McCracken at The Gospel Coalition wrote, “Many ostensibly sophisticated, ‘cultured’ people seem bent on defending and redeeming what is, in the end, an irredeemably problematic film.”
How do they try to justify it? Let’s take a look at their argument.
Cuties Doesn’t Get a Pass for Being “Art”
According to Todd Spangler in Variety, Netflix’s defense is based on its being a “statement about pressures young girls face in conforming to societal role models of female sexuality.” The film’s lascivious portrayal of children, they said, was actually “a social commentary against the sexualization of young children.” Naturally, they highlight that it’s an award-winning film, “about the pressure young girls face on social media and from society more generally growing up.”
For even when creating art, filmmakers who intend to depict while not endorsing must do so with a sense of responsibility. They need utmost precision, so as not to cross ethical boundaries. They must avoid being transgressive for the sake of shock.
Richard Brody at The New Yorker says it’s a piece of art which tells a coming-of-age story; that it warns of the effects of “sexualized media and pop culture” on very poor, very young girls, who are often left alone and unsupervised.
That’s the argument. How well does it work? First, all can agree that depiction does not equal endorsement, and that artists should be able to shed light on dark topics through creative expression. Outstanding examples of this would be Spielberg’s Schindler’s List and Martin Scorsese’s Silence. Both films are graphic and disturbing as they portray the reality of humanity’s brutality against one another. Sometimes that really does make for important art.
Cuties defenders argue that the same standard should apply to this movie. Just being “art,” however, doesn’t give Cuties a pass. Cuties is anti-art. It should be offensive to anyone who appreciates true art.
For even when creating art, filmmakers who intend to depict while not endorsing must do so with a sense of responsibility. They need utmost precision, so as not to cross ethical boundaries. They must avoid being transgressive for the sake of shock.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
One cannot make a film warning against the effects of pornography while presenting gratuitous nudity and sexual content. A filmmaker who tried to do that would be exploiting real people’s bodies in front of the camera while trying to protest the very thing they are doing. Cuties is no different. This film casts actual children, 11 year-old girls, to portray highly sexual content. It tries to warn against sexualizing children by sexualizing children.
Cuties’ defenders think the film’s “social commentary” gives them moral ground to stand upon, but this is moronic nonsense. As Justin Lee wrote at Arc Digital:
If one only reflects on the amount of practice these 11-year-old girls had to do in order to master dance moves simulating rough sex, the wretchedness of the whole enterprise becomes apparent. An actor must become proficient in martial arts before starring in a martial arts film. In Cuties, these young actors had to become proficient in their own sexual commodification.
Not only does the movie transgress that which it claims to warn against, Doucoure was explicit in her intentions for making it. She told Refinery29 that she explained to her actresses “the real activism that this movie was coming from, and the feminist ideology it represented.”
Activism. Ideology. It’s not a film, it’s a statement. It calls to mind Francis Schaeffer’s prescient 1976 observation, “The further question is: Is this really art? Is it not rather a bare philosophic, intellectual statement? … The more it tends to be only an intellectual statement, rather than a work of art, the more it becomes anti-art.”
Cuties is anti-art child abuse.
Beware the Conditioners
However, if you listen to Cuties defenders, I’m a right-wing pearl clutcher for having any problem with such a film. Tim Robey at The Telegraph calls the film a “provocative powder-keg for an age terrified of child sexuality.” Translation: If I don’t like the film, it’s because I’m weak and sexually repressive.
That’s just gaslighting. It’s the 91%-approving critics abusing the power of their position, against the 11%-approving rest of us. And it opens a window on an even deeper, more insidious problem with the Cuties controversy.
C. S. Lewis warned in The Abolition of Man about a class of people who would attempt to remake society. He called them the “Conditioners.” Their main job would be to debunk traditional values and mold a new mankind into shape. Lewis wrote, “They are, if you like, men who have sacrificed their own share in traditional humanity in order to devote themselves to the task of deciding what ‘Humanity’ shall henceforth mean. ‘Good’ and ‘bad’, applied to them, are words without content: for it is from them that the content of these words is henceforth to be derived.”
Lewis explained the Conditioners’ prime strategy: to re-train the heart as much as the mind, the affections as much as ideas. They seek to cut out the part of humanity which has an appropriate emotional reaction to reality; to create (in Lewis’s memorable phrasing) “Men without Chests”: people with no power to discern what merits “our approval or disapproval, our reverence or our contempt.”
The Conditioners position themselves as elites, cultured, and intellectuals. They view themselves as anointed and progressive. “This gives them the chance to say that he who attacks them attacks Intelligence,” Lewis wrote. Instead, he countered, “It is not excess of thought but defect of fertile and generous emotion that marks them out. Their heads are no bigger than the ordinary: it is the atrophy of chest beneath that makes them seem so.”
This is the great divide once again revealed by Cuties. The Cuties defenders are the Conditioners of our society. Beware of them. Do not fall for their nonsense. Do not be allured by their “expertise.” We do not need these anointed ones’ approval.
Aaron Shamp is a writer, speaker, and the lead pastor of Redeemer City Church. He holds an M.A. in Christian Apologetics from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. Aaron lives in Lafayette, La., with his wife and daughter. You can follow him at aaronshamp.com and at @aaronmshamp on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.