thestream--2020-12-11--Another Migrant Caravan is Headed to the US. How Will an Incoming Biden Administration Handle It?

A caravan of hundreds of migrants from Honduras is making its way to the U.S. after widespread damage caused by hurricanes , Reuters reported Wednesday .
The caravan , comprised largely of young people and a few women carrying children , presents a challenge to the incoming Boden administration ’ s immigration policies , Reuters reported .
The caravan organized in San Pedro Sula , Honduras , through social media advertising before departing to Guatemala .
“ We lost everything , we have no choice but to go to the United States , ” a middle-aged man with his wife @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Honduran television , Reuters reported .
He said he was from La Lima , an area that experienced major flooding during the hurricanes .
Hurricanes Eta and Iota caused extensive damage over two weeks to Honduran infrastructure , agriculture and homes , Reuters reported .
Around 100 people died .
Guatemalan migration authorities reportedly told the caravan that each migrant would need to provide a negative COVID-19 test and a passport , according to Reuters .
If numbers continue to join the caravan , it could become the first major movement of migrants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , Reuters reported .
President Donald Trump focused on stopping illegal immigration with the help of Mexico , Reuters reported .
A caravan of thousands from Central America was dispersed in Mexico in October .
President-elect Joe Biden said he will maintain a “ humane ” migration policy and propose aid to Central America , Reuters reported .
Biden said he will reverse several Trump administration immigration policies including hiring a Department of Justice official to focus on undoing Trump-era policies , according to Politico .
Content created by The Daily Caller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

A caravan of hundreds of migrants from Honduras is making its way to the U.S. after widespread damage caused by hurricanes, Reuters reported Wednesday.
The caravan, comprised largely of young people and a few women carrying children, presents a challenge to the incoming Boden administration’s immigration policies, Reuters reported. The caravan organized in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, through social media advertising before departing to Guatemala.
“We lost everything, we have no choice but to go to the United States,” a middle-aged man with his wife and cousin traveling with the caravan told Honduran television, Reuters reported. He said he was from La Lima, an area that experienced major flooding during the hurricanes.
Honduran migrants flee distaster-stricken country, head to US border https://t.co/68fuLDgv41 pic.twitter.com/hlEVhqUY6s — New York Post (@nypost) December 10, 2020
Hurricanes Eta and Iota caused extensive damage over two weeks to Honduran infrastructure, agriculture and homes, Reuters reported. Around 100 people died.
Guatemalan migration authorities reportedly told the caravan that each migrant would need to provide a negative COVID-19 test and a passport, according to Reuters.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
If numbers continue to join the caravan, it could become the first major movement of migrants attempting to reach the U.S. since the election, Reuters reported.
President Donald Trump focused on stopping illegal immigration with the help of Mexico, Reuters reported. A caravan of thousands from Central America was dispersed in Mexico in October.
President-elect Joe Biden said he will maintain a “humane” migration policy and propose aid to Central America, Reuters reported. Biden said he will reverse several Trump administration immigration policies including hiring a Department of Justice official to focus on undoing Trump-era policies, according to Politico.
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--2020-12-11--The Presidency Could Still Go Either Way. Here’s How Trump Could Still Win

Republicans like Kellyanne Conway and supposed conservative publications are bending the knee to a Biden win .
They are calling for Trump to concede .
Meanwhile , millions of Americans are fixated on the merits of the election cases before the US Supreme Court .
But in reality , there are several paths being ignored that could change the election results .
We could still see President Trump return to the White House .
The Presidency Can Go Either Way Constitutionally speaking , there are still 3 inflection points in this process where the Presidency can go either way .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ details emerge .
The first scenario has been gaining steam , but the window is closing rapidly .
State Legislatures should fulfill their duty under Article 2 , Section 1 of the Constitution .
They should choose the electors themselves .
The Supreme Court has affirmed this power over and over again .
There are uncertain outcomes in several states , even now .
So , this is the only sure way of a state being represented in the Electoral College in January .
The legislatures of PA , GA , MI , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Based on the lawlessness of democrat election officials and the overwhelming evidence of fraud , these Republican majority legislatures should award their electors whom they believe , based on the evidence , won the election .
When some Constitutional scholars first talked about this weeks ago , everyone scoffed .
But dozens of legislators are now pushing for this option .
That ’ s because the hearings in several states , like GA , have highlighted just how bad the election was compromised .
Unfortunately , several poorly informed members of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this Constitutional authority and history .
They are blocking this logical solution to the chaos .
While brazen , shameless audacity abounds among Democrats , the Republican response of the day is too often cowardice and timidity .
These Republican legislators fail to realize that to not act is to endorse the lawlessness that has occurred .
The next option is the Supreme Court can do its job .
It can protect the Constitution and rule of law .
This option does not actually depend on the widespread fraud allegations .
It deals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of whether election officials in a state can change election laws without the approval of the state legislature .
Government executives have become so accustomed to being COVID dictators with no accountability .
It carried over into the election laws being changed on a whim by people with zero authority to do so .
Just one example of this is Pennsylvania .
Pennsylvania decided to extend the deadline for receiving ballots .
The lawsuit from Texas , now joined by other states , adds that these actions by states like Pennsylvania violated the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in other states .
The Supreme Court has indicated they will take up this issue and it could be a game changer .
Prior to 2020 , the courts have been acting in ways they were never given authority to act .
However , throughout 2020 , the courts have failed to do their one actual job in protecting the Constitutional rights of Americans .
They have also failed to protect the republican form of government guaranteed by Article 4 , Section 4 .
The Supreme Court could end the year with another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could begin the process of restoring our Constitutional Republic and the rule of law .
The final option is the one that could be the most interesting and the most chaotic .
This option involves Congress doing its job and upholding the Constitution .
It meets in a Joint Session on Jan. 6th to open and count the Electoral College votes .
The process involved is laid out in the 12th Amendment and further detailed in federal law .
The action begins once any objection is raised by at least one Senator and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State Legislators from PA have asked their Senators and House Members to do exactly this .
But any Senator from any state and any House Member from any state can be the ones to object .
They ’ ve done this several times over the years , including as recently as 2005 and 1969 .
Once the objection is filed , the Joint Session recesses so the Senators can return to the Senate and debate the issue .
The House Members do the same .
This option would bring a lot of fireworks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the English Parliament as portrayed on SNL than the typical CSPAN coverage of a boring Congressional debate .
With a very narrow Republican majority in the Senate and a very narrow Democrat majority in the House , anything could happen .
However , most likely the Senate will uphold objections and the House will reject the objections .
Scholars agree that federal law on what to do next is confusing at best , and perhaps even impractical .
The big uncertainty will be whether the Senate alone rejecting is enough , which was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law in question .
Part of that confusion stems from the fact that the counting of the electoral votes is governed by the Constitution .
So , Article 2 , Section 1.2 would supersede any federal statute .
Some experts argue that the process can be modified by the added federal statutes , but this question has yet to be answered .
If enough electors are rejected that no candidate gets to the magic 270 , the 12th Amendment would then give the final decision to the state delegations in the U.S. House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would vote to elect the vice president .
If that happens , President Trump and VP Pence will have four more years .
So , when Republican talking heads cave to the pressure and say it ’ s just time to move on , remember one thing : These legal remedies and Constitutional processes are absolutely essential to preserving our electoral system and preventing unlawful actions of petty tyrants from using chaos to undermine the entire Constitutional Republic .
Rick Green is a former Texas State Representative , national speaker , author , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family travel the nation speaking on America ’ s forgotten history and heroes , with an emphasis on our moral , religious and constitutional heritage .
Rick is the author and executive producer of Constitution Alive , America ’ s most engaging and entertaining study of the U.S. Constitution .

Republicans like Kellyanne Conway and supposed conservative publications are bending the knee to a Biden win. They are calling for Trump to concede. Meanwhile, millions of Americans are fixated on the merits of the election cases before the US Supreme Court.
But in reality, there are several paths being ignored that could change the election results. We could still see President Trump return to the White House.
The Presidency Can Go Either Way
Constitutionally speaking, there are still 3 inflection points in this process where the Presidency can go either way. The options get more interesting as more details emerge.
The first scenario has been gaining steam, but the window is closing rapidly. State Legislatures should fulfill their duty under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. They should choose the electors themselves. The Supreme Court has affirmed this power over and over again. There are uncertain outcomes in several states, even now. So, this is the only sure way of a state being represented in the Electoral College in January. The legislatures of PA, GA, MI, WI, and AZ should do this. Based on the lawlessness of democrat election officials and the overwhelming evidence of fraud, these Republican majority legislatures should award their electors whom they believe, based on the evidence, won the election.
State Legislators Push to Choose the Electors
When some Constitutional scholars first talked about this weeks ago, everyone scoffed. But dozens of legislators are now pushing for this option. That’s because the hearings in several states, like GA, have highlighted just how bad the election was compromised. Unfortunately, several poorly informed members of the leadership in these states do not understand this Constitutional authority and history. They are blocking this logical solution to the chaos. While brazen, shameless audacity abounds among Democrats, the Republican response of the day is too often cowardice and timidity. These Republican legislators fail to realize that to not act is to endorse the lawlessness that has occurred.
The Supreme Court Can Decide
The next option is the Supreme Court can do its job. It can protect the Constitution and rule of law. This option does not actually depend on the widespread fraud allegations. It deals more with the black and white question of whether election officials in a state can change election laws without the approval of the state legislature. Government executives have become so accustomed to being COVID dictators with no accountability. It carried over into the election laws being changed on a whim by people with zero authority to do so.
Just one example of this is Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania decided to extend the deadline for receiving ballots. The lawsuit from Texas, now joined by other states, adds that these actions by states like Pennsylvania violated the 14th Amendment. It defrauded the voters in other states. The Supreme Court has indicated they will take up this issue and it could be a game changer.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Prior to 2020, the courts have been acting in ways they were never given authority to act. However, throughout 2020, the courts have failed to do their one actual job in protecting the Constitutional rights of Americans. They have also failed to protect the republican form of government guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4. The Supreme Court could end the year with another swing and a miss, or it could begin the process of restoring our Constitutional Republic and the rule of law.
Congress Can Uphold the Constitution
The final option is the one that could be the most interesting and the most chaotic. This option involves Congress doing its job and upholding the Constitution. It meets in a Joint Session on Jan. 6th to open and count the Electoral College votes. The process involved is laid out in the 12th Amendment and further detailed in federal law. The action begins once any objection is raised by at least one Senator and one Member of the House. Seventy-Eight State Legislators from PA have asked their Senators and House Members to do exactly this. But any Senator from any state and any House Member from any state can be the ones to object. They’ve done this several times over the years, including as recently as 2005 and 1969.
These legal remedies and Constitutional processes are absolutely essential to preserving our electoral system and preventing unlawful actions of petty tyrants from using chaos to undermine the entire Constitutional Republic.
Once the objection is filed, the Joint Session recesses so the Senators can return to the Senate and debate the issue. The House Members do the same. This option would bring a lot of fireworks. It would play out more like the English Parliament as portrayed on SNL than the typical CSPAN coverage of a boring Congressional debate.
Anything Could Happen
With a very narrow Republican majority in the Senate and a very narrow Democrat majority in the House, anything could happen. However, most likely the Senate will uphold objections and the House will reject the objections. Scholars agree that federal law on what to do next is confusing at best, and perhaps even impractical. The big uncertainty will be whether the Senate alone rejecting is enough, which was the case prior to the 1888 federal law in question.
Part of that confusion stems from the fact that the counting of the electoral votes is governed by the Constitution. So, Article 2, Section 1.2 would supersede any federal statute. Some experts argue that the process can be modified by the added federal statutes, but this question has yet to be answered.
Preserving the Electoral System
If enough electors are rejected that no candidate gets to the magic 270, the 12th Amendment would then give the final decision to the state delegations in the U.S. House choosing the president. The U.S. Senate would vote to elect the vice president. If that happens, President Trump and VP Pence will have four more years.
So, when Republican talking heads cave to the pressure and say it’s just time to move on, remember one thing: These legal remedies and Constitutional processes are absolutely essential to preserving our electoral system and preventing unlawful actions of petty tyrants from using chaos to undermine the entire Constitutional Republic.
Rick Green is a former Texas State Representative, national speaker, author, and radio host. He and his family travel the nation speaking on America’s forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on our moral, religious and constitutional heritage. Rick is the author and executive producer of Constitution Alive, America’s most engaging and entertaining study of the U.S. Constitution.


thestream--2020-12-12--The Media Has Never Been More Dangerous

The Media Has Never Been More Dangerous

Editor ’ s Note : This article was originally published on Stream contributor Lael Arrington ’ s blog and is reprinted with her kind permission .
In his essay , “ The Weight of Glory , ” C.S .
Lewis went on record snorting at “ the cataract of nonsense that pours from the press and the microphone ” of his own age .
And yet , if a Christian felt called to journalism and broadcasting , I think he would say , as he said of philosophy , “ Good [ journalism ] must exist [ because ] bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” And bad journalism is multiplying exponentially , er , algorithmically , out there .
The election of 2016 changed journalism .
The line between reporting and advocacy has all but disappeared .
The New York Times vs the Truth Not long after the 2016 election , The New York Times launched a new subscription campaign featuring hooks like , “ We ’ re passionate about the truth .
Are you ?
” And , “ Truth is what we do better , ” and “ Read news that values the truth.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
I respond in two ways : I read my New York Times digest almost every day because they , like many secular news organizations , work hard to report the facts .
It is the newspaper of record in the U.S. and sets the agenda for mainstream news .
They gain respect by , as New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen says , “ Knowing your stuff , mastering your beat , being right on the facts , digging under the surface of things , calling around to find out what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ I ’ m there , you ’ re not , let me tell you about it.
’ ” But something has snapped at the Times and most other main stream media outlets .
A Harvard study documented that the tone of the coverage in Trump ’ s first 100 days was 87 % negative .
Even the coverage of the 2017 White House Easter Egg Roll went negative , comparing the hunt to a “ legally dubious travel ban and a collapsed health care bill , ” and , of course , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Egg Roll facts may have been technically correct , but the meaning — the snide comments , allusions ( one more failure ) — was totally distorted .
By contrast , USA Today ’ s headline verdict was far more objective : “ Soggy but Solid.
” “ No signs of disarray.
” It used to be that the Times drew a firm line between reporting and advocacy journalism .
But Jim Rutenberg , its reporter at large , who at the time of Trump ’ s election was their media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ age of Trump , their overwhelmingly negative coverage was “ justified.
” “ It is journalism ’ s job to be true to the readers and viewers , and true to the facts , in a way that will stand up to history ’ s judgment .
To do anything less would be untenable.
” This is the staggering presumption upon which the New York Times new ethics is founded .
It used to be a commitment to accurately report the facts .
Then it became to report the controversy — give the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a controversy — let the reader decide .
Now it is to report the facts in a way that is loyal to their very liberal readers and will stand up to the progressive values they are certain will prevail and will be deemed morally virtuous as the years and centuries pass .
Think about The Times ’ Egg Roll story — true to its liberal readers who want to read about another fail by Donald Trump .
True to the facts — a heavily edited selection of facts that supports their bias @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will stand up to history ’ s judgment is again brazenly biased toward progressive values and a progressive worldview .
The Way the New York Times and the Media Used to Be It used to be — writes Michael Goodwin , a former reporter for the Times — that former Times editor Abe Rosenthal drew a hard line against reporting news when you had a conflict of interest .
He quoted him as telling a reporter , “ I don ’ t care if you f*** an elephant on your personal time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cover the circus for the paper.
” “ Case closed , ” wrote Goodwin .
“ The conflict-of-interest policy was clear , absolute , and unforgettable.
” If you were too emotionally or philosophically committed to your own subjective view of issues , then you didn ’ t write about it at all .
Furthermore , you kept your opinions out of your reporting .
Period .
Rosenthal wanted the words , “ He kept the paper straight , ” inscribed on his tombstone .
And it was .
( By the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excellent summary of how The Times and media have changed since the 60s and 70s . )
And wow , have they changed , just in my lifetime .
Stacking progressive sources most heavily .
Labeling sources as ultra-conservative , but never ultra-liberal .
Framing issues to favor pro-choice , pro-LGBTQ vs. anti-women , anti-choice , homophobic .
And in 2016 , abandoning any pretext of objectivity and writing furiously about Trump and forgivingly about Clinton — and now Biden .
Reading Rutenberg ’ s justification to abandon the journalistic standards taught in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couldn ’ t help but think of what Watergate convicted felon and Nixon aide Chuck Colson told the students at the Harvard Business School after he served his sentence .
Reflecting on his own motives to deceive he said , When people believe that the absolute best decision for everyone would be to defend or attack the president ( depending upon their political sympathies ) , then anything is permissible as long as the fate of the nation is in the “ right ” hands .
Any degree of bias .
Any distortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the truth in unrighteousness.
” This is immoral .
This is bad journalism .
This is the spirit of Watergate among us .
This is propaganda .
Pravda .
Orwellian 1984 .
And , in their heart of hearts , everyone knows it .
The mainstream media has never been more dangerous .
The Even More Dangerous Election of 2020 What was done in 2016 pales in comparison with what is happening in 2020 .
Particularly the unapologetic suppression of any news detrimental to Biden ’ s election .
Before the election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of mainstream journalists to investigate any meetings between Joe and Hunter Biden and Burisma executives ?
Or whether Biden knew about or was involved in his son ’ s business proposals in Ukraine or China ?
Or the texts and documents turned over to the FBI by Tony Bobulinsky , the former marine recruited by the Bidens to help them with international business deals , and his accusation that Joe Biden flat out lied when he denied any involvement ?
How could they be so disinterested in Joe Biden ’ s alleged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manically interested in Trump ’ s collusion with Russia ?
Why were Twitter and Facebook suspending accounts that published information about the Bidens and Bobulinsky ?
Why has the mainstream and social media been set against helping the American people understand the allegations of election fraud ?
As the editors of The Stream have said , why are they telling us “ that claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election are ‘ baseless ’ and ‘ unsubstantiated ?
’ Twitter flags every article alleging voter fraud , and even stories about allegations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may even put ‘ voter fraud ’ in scare quotes.
” Why have they suppressed the eye-witness testimonies of hundreds of people saying they saw irregularities or fraud ?
Hundreds !
Isn ’ t this important information at least bearing on the future of election laws that our elected representatives may address — and , perhaps still , the outcome of the election ?
If the courts should rule in favor of these allegations , don ’ t the American people need to be “ brought along ” so they will be prepared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Or does the mainstream media want riots in the streets ?
Why suppress eye-witness testimony ?
( Of which there was none for Democrats to relentlessly pursue Trump ’ s collusion with Russia , or his impeachment hearings . )
In the Georgia video of the rolling cases of ballots that were pulled out from under a table to be scanned soon after the Republican observers left , why did Lead Stories aka Facebook , Twitter and ByteDance/TikTok release a video that claims to “ debunk ” the original video ?
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debunking video ” exposes its deception .
If you are skeptical about voter fraud , I highly encourage you to read it .
Who do you believe ?
Two Georgia officials covering their butts ?
Or the many Republicans who swore they were told to leave and ABC and NBC who were also told counting was halted for the night and left ?
Even as I write this , YouTube is informing us that today and going forward it will no longer upload “ content that alleges that widespread fraud or errors changed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election.
” If your job is truth telling and you keep deceiving and suppressing the facts , it becomes impossible to regain people ’ s trust .
The mainstream and social media giants have broken faith with over half the country .
A Gallup poll tells us only 27 % trust the newspapers any more .
So how do we find sources of news and information we can trust ?
Especially about this election .
They are hard to find .
We can watch and read news from progressive mainstream sources like ABC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MSNBC and balance it by getting news from conservative sources like Fox News , Newsmax , One America News and conservative talk radio .
Some friends I know prefer the BBC , although it does not report from a declared conservative or Christian worldview .
My favorite source for in-depth reporting from a Christian worldview is World magazine .
Marvin Olasky , a former communist who became a believer , is the editor in chief who steers the ship straight — acknowledging a Christian worldview , but committed to pursuing the facts wherever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can trust , subscribe or contribute so they can keep going .
I also appreciate the work of the editors at The Stream , also written from a biblical worldview .
Some contributors write in a more sensational style than I ’ m comfortable with , but the editors have written a very helpful summary piece on “ Everything You Need to Know about 2020 Election Fraud but the Media Won ’ t Let you ask.
” Facebook is suppressing it big time , but this direct link will take you to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sources ( videos of the legislative hearings themselves ) , testimony and affidavits as well as other good short summary articles .
I can ’ t promote it strongly enough .
Finally , I am making changes to my social media and web and broadcast news .
If you checked the results of your search engine per The Stream ’ s article linked above , you will have noticed that sometimes you have to scroll through pages of results before you find any more balanced , or conservative , or even primary sourced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So I ’ m checking out these options and have already made some of these changes .
After the first of the year I will be more engaged on my new MeWe account .
I encourage you to consider them too .
If those who promote the new ethics in journalism claim legitimacy based on their certainty that history will show their values and worldview to be superior , isn ’ t it ironic that most ignore or deny the knowledge found in our source of the best information about how history ends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the King of Kings and Lord of Lords on the throne , defeating a corrupt world system of government and religion , and every knee bowing to him and his rule .
May we join him on the real “ right side of history , ” and may we always seek the truth with the Bible in one hand and the news in another .
May we seek truth as God sees it , even if it challenges our assumptions .
May the news we read prompt us to pray for the welfare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is hidden will be revealed .
Even if it can ’ t be shown on YouTube .
Lael Arrington is a national speaker and author of four books — most recently , Faith and Culture : The Guide to a Culture Shaped by Faith .

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published on Stream contributor Lael Arrington’s blog and is reprinted with her kind permission.
In his sermon “Learning in Wartime,” C.S. Lewis went on record snorting at “the cataract of nonsense that pours from the press and the microphone” of his own age. And yet, if a Christian felt called to journalism and broadcasting, I think he would say, as he said of philosophy, “Good [journalism] must exist [because] bad [journalism] needs to be answered.”
And bad journalism is multiplying exponentially, er, algorithmically, out there. The election of 2016 changed journalism. The line between reporting and advocacy has all but disappeared.
The New York Times vs the Truth
Not long after the 2016 election, The New York Times launched a new subscription campaign featuring hooks like, “We’re passionate about the truth. Are you?” And, “Truth is what we do better,” and “Read news that values the truth.”
How do you respond to that pitch?
I respond in two ways: I read my New York Times digest almost every day because they, like many secular news organizations, work hard to report the facts. It is the newspaper of record in the U.S. and sets the agenda for mainstream news.
They gain respect by, as New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen says, “Knowing your stuff, mastering your beat, being right on the facts, digging under the surface of things, calling around to find out what happened, verifying what you heard. ‘I’m there, you’re not, let me tell you about it.’”
But something has snapped at the Times and most other main stream media outlets. A Harvard study documented that the tone of the coverage in Trump’s first 100 days was 87% negative.
Even the coverage of the 2017 White House Easter Egg Roll went negative, comparing the hunt to a “legally dubious travel ban and a collapsed health care bill,” and, of course, throwing in Russian collusion for good measure.
The Egg Roll facts may have been technically correct, but the meaning — the snide comments, allusions (one more failure) — was totally distorted. By contrast, USA Today’s headline verdict was far more objective: “Soggy but Solid.” “No signs of disarray.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
It used to be that the Times drew a firm line between reporting and advocacy journalism. But Jim Rutenberg, its reporter at large, who at the time of Trump’s election was their media reporter, insisted that, in the age of Trump, their overwhelmingly negative coverage was “justified.” “It is journalism’s job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history’s judgment. To do anything less would be untenable.”
This is the staggering presumption upon which the New York Times new ethics is founded. It used to be a commitment to accurately report the facts. Then it became to report the controversy — give the facts and supporting comments from both sides of a controversy — let the reader decide.
Now it is to report the facts in a way that is loyal to their very liberal readers and will stand up to the progressive values they are certain will prevail and will be deemed morally virtuous as the years and centuries pass.
Think about The Times’ Egg Roll story — true to its liberal readers who want to read about another fail by Donald Trump. True to the facts — a heavily edited selection of facts that supports their bias and ignores other facts. But believing it will stand up to history’s judgment is again brazenly biased toward progressive values and a progressive worldview.
The Way the New York Times and the Media Used to Be
It used to be — writes Michael Goodwin, a former reporter for the Times — that former Times editor Abe Rosenthal drew a hard line against reporting news when you had a conflict of interest. He quoted him as telling a reporter, “I don’t care if you f*** an elephant on your personal time, but then you can’t cover the circus for the paper.” “Case closed,” wrote Goodwin. “The conflict-of-interest policy was clear, absolute, and unforgettable.” If you were too emotionally or philosophically committed to your own subjective view of issues, then you didn’t write about it at all.
Furthermore, you kept your opinions out of your reporting. Period. Rosenthal wanted the words, “He kept the paper straight,” inscribed on his tombstone. And it was. (By the way, Goodwin’s article is an excellent summary of how The Times and media have changed since the 60s and 70s.)
And wow, have they changed, just in my lifetime. Stacking progressive sources most heavily. Labeling sources as ultra-conservative, but never ultra-liberal.
When people believe that the absolute best decision for everyone would be to defend or attack the president (depending upon their political sympathies), then anything is permissible as long as the fate of the nation is in the “right” hands.
Framing issues to favor pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ vs. anti-women, anti-choice, homophobic. And in 2016, abandoning any pretext of objectivity and writing furiously about Trump and forgivingly about Clinton — and now Biden.
What Drives Today’s Media Bias Drove the Watergate Cover-Up
Reading Rutenberg’s justification to abandon the journalistic standards taught in every school in the country, I couldn’t help but think of what Watergate convicted felon and Nixon aide Chuck Colson told the students at the Harvard Business School after he served his sentence.
Reflecting on his own motives to deceive he said,
You get caught up in a situation where you are absolutely convinced that the fate of the republic rests on the reelection of, in my case, Richard Nixon. … There’s an enormous amount of peer pressure, and you don’t take time to stop and think, “Wait a minute. Is this right by some absolute standard or does this seem right in the circumstances?” … In my self-righteousness, I was never more dangerous.
When people believe that the absolute best decision for everyone would be to defend or attack the president (depending upon their political sympathies), then anything is permissible as long as the fate of the nation is in the “right” hands. Any degree of bias. Any distortion of facts. Any “suppression of the truth in unrighteousness.”
This is immoral. This is bad journalism.
This is the spirit of Watergate among us. This is propaganda. Pravda. Orwellian 1984. And, in their heart of hearts, everyone knows it.
The mainstream media has never been more dangerous.
The Even More Dangerous Election of 2020
What was done in 2016 pales in comparison with what is happening in 2020. Particularly the unapologetic suppression of any news detrimental to Biden’s election.
Before the election, why was there zero interest on the part of mainstream journalists to investigate any meetings between Joe and Hunter Biden and Burisma executives? Or whether Biden knew about or was involved in his son’s business proposals in Ukraine or China?
Or the texts and documents turned over to the FBI by Tony Bobulinsky, the former marine recruited by the Bidens to help them with international business deals, and his accusation that Joe Biden flat out lied when he denied any involvement?
How could they be so disinterested in Joe Biden’s alleged conflict of interest when they were so manically interested in Trump’s collusion with Russia?
Why were Twitter and Facebook suspending accounts that published information about the Bidens and Bobulinsky?
Why has the mainstream and social media been set against helping the American people understand the allegations of election fraud? As the editors of The Stream have said, why are they telling us “that claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election are ‘baseless’ and ‘unsubstantiated?’ Twitter flags every article alleging voter fraud, and even stories about allegations of voter fraud. Hostile news stories may even put ‘voter fraud’ in scare quotes.”
Why have they suppressed the eye-witness testimonies of hundreds of people saying they saw irregularities or fraud? Hundreds! Isn’t this important information at least bearing on the future of election laws that our elected representatives may address — and, perhaps still, the outcome of the election? If the courts should rule in favor of these allegations, don’t the American people need to be “brought along” so they will be prepared to thoughtfully consider the courts’ rulings? Or does the mainstream media want riots in the streets? Why suppress eye-witness testimony? (Of which there was none for Democrats to relentlessly pursue Trump’s collusion with Russia, or his impeachment hearings.)
If your job is truth telling and you keep deceiving and suppressing the facts, it becomes impossible to regain people’s trust.
In the Georgia video of the rolling cases of ballots that were pulled out from under a table to be scanned soon after the Republican observers left, why did Lead Stories aka Facebook, Twitter and ByteDance/TikTok release a video that claims to “debunk” the original video? The Federalist’s review of the “debunking video” exposes its deception. If you are skeptical about voter fraud, I highly encourage you to read it. Who do you believe? Two Georgia officials covering their butts? Or the many Republicans who swore they were told to leave and ABC and NBC who were also told counting was halted for the night and left?
Even as I write this, YouTube is informing us that today and going forward it will no longer upload “content that alleges that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election.”
News We Can Trust
If your job is truth telling and you keep deceiving and suppressing the facts, it becomes impossible to regain people’s trust. The mainstream and social media giants have broken faith with over half the country. A Gallup poll tells us only 27% trust the newspapers any more.
So how do we find sources of news and information we can trust? Especially about this election. They are hard to find. We can watch and read news from progressive mainstream sources like ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC and balance it by getting news from conservative sources like Fox News, Newsmax, One America News and conservative talk radio. Some friends I know prefer the BBC, although it does not report from a declared conservative or Christian worldview.
My favorite source for in-depth reporting from a Christian worldview is World magazine. Marvin Olasky, a former communist who became a believer, is the editor in chief who steers the ship straight — acknowledging a Christian worldview, but committed to pursuing the facts wherever they lead. Wherever you find sources you can trust, subscribe or contribute so they can keep going.
I also appreciate the work of the editors at The Stream, also written from a biblical worldview. Some contributors write in a more sensational style than I’m comfortable with, but the editors have written a very helpful summary piece on “Everything You Need to Know about 2020 Election Fraud but the Media Won’t Let you ask.” Facebook is suppressing it big time, but this direct link will take you to the article and its links to primary sources (videos of the legislative hearings themselves), testimony and affidavits as well as other good short summary articles. I can’t promote it strongly enough.
Finally, I am making changes to my social media and web and broadcast news. If you checked the results of your search engine per The Stream’s article linked above, you will have noticed that sometimes you have to scroll through pages of results before you find any more balanced, or conservative, or even primary sourced articles on political or cultural stories. So I’m checking out these options and have already made some of these changes. After the first of the year I will be more engaged on my new MeWe account. I encourage you to consider them too.
The Ultimate ‘Right Side of History’
If those who promote the new ethics in journalism claim legitimacy based on their certainty that history will show their values and worldview to be superior, isn’t it ironic that most ignore or deny the knowledge found in our source of the best information about how history ends — the Bible.
History ends with the King of Kings and Lord of Lords on the throne, defeating a corrupt world system of government and religion, and every knee bowing to him and his rule. May we join him on the real “right side of history,” and may we always seek the truth with the Bible in one hand and the news in another.
May we seek truth as God sees it, even if it challenges our assumptions. May the news we read prompt us to pray for the welfare of our country. And that what is hidden will be revealed. Even if it can’t be shown on YouTube.
Lael Arrington is a national speaker and author of four books — most recently, Faith and Culture: The Guide to a Culture Shaped by Faith.


thestream--2020-12-12--What Would It Have Been Like to Live With the Boy Jesus?

What would it have been like to live with the boy Jesus ?
I gave that some thought in my book Too Good to be False : How Jesus ’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality , excerpted here .
We don ’ t know much about His boyhood , but we do know He was God in the flesh from the moment of His conception .
Hebrews 4:15 says of Him , “ For we do not have a high priest who can not with our weaknesses , but One who has been tempted in all things as we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2:22 says He “ committed no sin , nor was deceit found in his mouth.
” Can you imagine sharing a home with a boy like that ?
It isn ’ t easy , is it ?
You ’ d think there could be nothing left to astonish us in Jesus … but there is .
Think of a great leader you admire from afar , or a celebrity you ’ d most love to spend time with .
Imagine being on a first-name basis with him .
I ’ ve had the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of prominent leaders that well .
And I ’ ve discovered there remains some distance from “ first-name basis ” to “ true friends , ” which is a smaller , more privileged circle yet .
Jesus , the leader of all leaders , the Man who was literally perfect , master of humanity and of all the universe , includes us in that circle .
He calls us His brothers and friends .
What could a man of His greatness want to do with such small , flawed people as us ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and on one level it is : He is God , and God is love .
He created us for fellowship with Him .
That ’ s straight Christian doctrine , one of the very first things Christian parents teach their kids , impossible to miss in even the simplest , briefest study of God .
So it ’ s easy for us to get used to it .
Imagine not being used to it , though .
Picture James or Jude , Jesus ’ younger half-brothers ( or , as Catholics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up with a perfect big brother — morally and spiritually perfect , that is .
Jesus might have made some kinds of mistakes , cutting or fastening a board wrong , maybe , but He never lied , never acted selfishly , never dishonored His heavenly Father in any way .
Come to think of it , imagine what it was like for Mary or Joseph ?
“ Honey , I thought parents were supposed to teach their kids how to love one another .
Why do I get the sense this one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the answer , and yet I still can ’ t help but think how unsettling — disturbing , even — that must have been .
Who wants to raise a child like that ?
The angel had called Mary “ Blessed among women.
” Surely at times she must have thought , “ Yes , it is indeed a blessing to raise the boy Jesus , but I ’ ll never get used to it.
” A Question I Want to Ask in Heaven Back to James and Jude .
Don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when they said to Him , “ You think you ’ re so perfect !
” Someday in heaven I want to ask them how Jesus answered .
( It ’ s another scene I can ’ t quite picture . )
They must have felt envious , even intimidated .
Surely they must have baited Him , trying to get Him to slip up .
Just as surely , though , Jesus kept loving them persistently .
Even His great love didn ’ t fully get through to them until much later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members didn ’ t believe in Him as Savior until after His resurrection ( John 7:5 ) .
Could it be they were put off by His perfection ?
Intimidated , maybe ?
Who wouldn ’ t be ?
And yet many followed Jesus gladly during His earthly ministry , and after He rose from the grave , James and Jude put all that aside and followed Him , too .
Tom Gilson ( @ TomGilsonAuthor ) is a senior editor with The Stream and the author or editor of six books , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Be False : How Jesus ’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality .

What would it have been like to live with the boy Jesus? I gave that some thought in my book Too Good to be False: How Jesus’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality, excerpted here.
We don’t know much about His boyhood, but we do know He was God in the flesh from the moment of His conception. Hebrews 4:15 says of Him, “For we do not have a high priest who cannot with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.” First Peter 2:22 says He “committed no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth.” Can you imagine sharing a home with a boy like that? It isn’t easy, is it?
Chapter 8
You’d think there could be nothing left to astonish us in Jesus … but there is. Think of a great leader you admire from afar, or a celebrity you’d most love to spend time with. Imagine being on a first-name basis with him. I’ve had the honor and privilege of knowing a couple of prominent leaders that well. And I’ve discovered there remains some distance from “first-name basis” to “true friends,” which is a smaller, more privileged circle yet.
Jesus, the leader of all leaders, the Man who was literally perfect, master of humanity and of all the universe, includes us in that circle. He calls us His brothers and friends. What could a man of His greatness want to do with such small, flawed people as us?
Maybe that seems like an easy question, and on one level it is: He is God, and God is love. He created us for fellowship with Him. That’s straight Christian doctrine, one of the very first things Christian parents teach their kids, impossible to miss in even the simplest, briefest study of God. So it’s easy for us to get used to it. Imagine not being used to it, though.
Who’s Teaching Whom?
Picture James or Jude, Jesus’ younger half-brothers (or, as Catholics believe, His cousins), growing up with a perfect big brother — morally and spiritually perfect, that is. Jesus might have made some kinds of mistakes, cutting or fastening a board wrong, maybe, but He never lied, never acted selfishly, never dishonored His heavenly Father in any way.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Come to think of it, imagine what it was like for Mary or Joseph? “Honey, I thought parents were supposed to teach their kids how to love one another. Why do I get the sense this one is teaching us?” They knew the answer, and yet I still can’t help but think how unsettling — disturbing, even — that must have been. Who wants to raise a child like that?
The angel had called Mary “Blessed among women.” Surely at times she must have thought, “Yes, it is indeed a blessing to raise the boy Jesus, but I’ll never get used to it.”
A Question I Want to Ask in Heaven
Back to James and Jude. Don’t you think there must have been times when they said to Him, “You think you’re so perfect!” Someday in heaven I want to ask them how Jesus answered. (It’s another scene I can’t quite picture.) They must have felt envious, even intimidated. Surely they must have baited Him, trying to get Him to slip up. Just as surely, though, Jesus kept loving them persistently.
Even His great love didn’t fully get through to them until much later, though. We know His family members didn’t believe in Him as Savior until after His resurrection (John 7:5).
Could it be they were put off by His perfection? Intimidated, maybe? Who wouldn’t be? And yet many followed Jesus gladly during His earthly ministry, and after He rose from the grave, James and Jude put all that aside and followed Him, too.
Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) is a senior editor with The Stream and the author or editor of six books, including the recently released Too Good To Be False: How Jesus’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality.


thestream--2020-12-12--7 Things You Need to Know About Monday’s Electoral College Vote

Monday essentially will be the real presidential Election Day , or is scheduled to be , as electors gather in their respective state capitols to cast votes .
When voters pick their candidate for president on Election Day every four years , as well as in early and mail-in voting this year , they actually choose a slate of electors associated with a candidate .
Each of those electors later casts his or her vote for president on behalf of the state and according to its election results .
In past presidential election years , the day the Electoral College @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as most of the public stops paying attention after Election Day .
This year is different .
Amid allegations of voter fraud , litigation in key states , and state legislative hearings , the public is more focused on the electors ’ voting set for Monday .
In 2016 , some Democrats attempted to raise the prospect of an Electoral College revolt to overturn the state results in the presidential election , but the haphazard effort was unsuccessful .
This year major media outlets projected beginning Nov. 7 that former Vice President Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electoral votes to President Donald Trump ’ s 232 electoral votes , with 270 needed to win .
Trump hasn ’ t conceded , but has said he would do so if the Electoral College votes for Biden .
Here are seven things to know before the Electoral College meets , what ’ s different about this year , and what past controversies looked like .
1 .
Is the Electoral College Sure to Vote Dec. 14 ?
It ’ s likely but not certain that electors will meet in each state Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for president and vice president .
“ Yes , there is time [ to pursue legal issues ] , ” Trump campaign lawyer Joe diGenova , a former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia , said at a virtual press conference Tuesday , the deadline for states to certify electors .
DiGenova said that Dec. 14 is “ not set in constitutional stone , ” but “ statutory stone , ” adding : Texas sued Pennsylvania , Georgia , Wisconsin , and Michigan on Tuesday , alleging the four states imposed unconstitutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to order them to conduct new elections .
All four states made changes to election laws without the approval of their legislatures , either through the state bureaucracy or state courts .
The high court was set to review the matter Thursday before deciding whether to hear or dismiss the Texas case .
Briefs in the case were due at 3 p.m. Should Texas prevail , the result would by necessity at least delay certification of electors from Georgia , Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin .
2 .
How Does the Electoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respective state capitols , electors in each state record their vote on six Certificates of Vote .
Those will be paired Monday with six Certificates of Ascertainment , according to the National Archives and Records Administration , the agency that coordinates certain Electoral College functions between the states and Congress .
The electors then sign , seal , and certify the electoral votes .
A set of electoral votes consists of one Certificate of Ascertainment and one Certificate of Vote , according to NARA .
The certificates of results from each state are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mike Pence , in his role as president of the Senate ; each state ’ s secretary of state ; the National Archives and Records Administration ; and the presiding federal judge in the district where the electors meet .
The votes are provided to the judge as a backup copy to replace the official copy sent to the president of the Senate if votes are lost or destroyed , according to the National Conference of State Legislatures .
After that , all of the total electoral votes , or Certificates of Vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate and the National Archives and Records Administration no later than nine days after each state ’ s electors meet .
This would be Dec. 23 , two days before Christmas .
The Trump legal team has appealed to Republican-controlled state legislatures to appoint a new slate of electors in battleground states where they allege fraud occurred .
At this juncture , if any legislature acted to do this , it would delay voting by electors in that state .
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal Tuesday by Rep. Mike Kelly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received in Pennsylvania after Election Day or that were suspicious for other reasons .
Before the high court announced that ruling , diGenova had expressed hope that a victory in Pennsylvania would prompt state legislators there and in other battleground states to act .
“ We hope that the momentum created by that decision will in fact wake up some state legislatures and make them have what are called electoral sessions , ” diGenova said .
“ Not joint sessions , not special sessions , but sessions the legislators themselves can call without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state , and either give their electoral votes to Trump or deny either candidate the electoral votes — thus denying each candidate the necessary 270 electoral votes , ” the former U.S. attorney and Trump lawyer said .
“ That ’ s what we ’ re shooting for .
I think everything is proceeding in every other state.
” Each state legislature has the legal and constitutional power to appoint a new slate of electors that might contradict the popular vote count in that state , Hans von Spakovsky , a senior legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of Heritage ’ s Election Law Reform Initiative , said in an interview .
Depending on the state , it likely would require a change in state law before appointing new electors if the existing statute specifies that the popular vote determines the slate of electors .
“ The U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures the power to appoint electors , but the state constitutions would specify how they go about doing that , ” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal .
Nevertheless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slim chance that state legislatures would follow through on this strategy .
“ I ’ m sure there would be all kinds of political consequences , no matter whether legislators did or didn ’ t do it , ” von Spakovsky said .
“ Unless state legislators are presented with incontrovertible evidence the election was stolen in their state , I wouldn ’ t expect lawmakers to do anything like that.
” Legislatures absolutely have the right to appoint electors , but doing so after the popular vote is cast would raise numerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director of the Honest Elections Project .
“ The reality is the legislatures have the authority , ” Snead told The Daily Signal .
“ But if you reverse the slate of electors after Election Day , that would raise legal and constitutional questions and lead to a vitriolic fight in Congress , where they would probably debate over two sets of electors.
” Each state is taking its own measures regarding social distancing as electors prepare to meet .
Nevada , one of the closely contested states where the Trump legal team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske , a Republican , will preside at a meeting conducted over Zoom .
Nevada has six electoral votes .
A spokeswoman for the Nevada Secretary of State ’ s Office , Jennifer Russell , confirmed Thursday to The Daily Signal that the state plans to hold a virtual vote .
Some states have considered instituting remote processes and then having electors cast their ballots in person .
Small states such as Wyoming and Rhode Island have few electors ( three and four , respectively ) and social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a problem .
States with many electors could have a bigger challenge .
For a state such as New York , with 29 electoral votes and one of the hardest hit in the country by the COVID-19 pandemic , remote voting by electors is not an option , New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo has said .
“ We ’ re actually going to have to convene people in the Capitol in the midst of this situation .
It ’ s not a large group , but you can ’ t do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe , legally , you can do it virtually , ” Cuomo said , adding : “ I don ’ t want to give anyone an opportunity to legally challenge the actions of the electors .
… They ’ re going to have to come assemble in the Capitol.
” Some states are restricting their gatherings to electors , with no family or other outside guests .
Alabama , Maine , and Rhode Island will livestream their respective meetings Monday for public viewing , but the electors will meet in person .
Larger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold in-person meetings of electors , but the events have been scaled back with precautions such as social distancing requirements , according to one election administration expert .
5 .
What ’ s Next After the Electoral College Vote ?
It won ’ t entirely be over procedurally after Monday .
The next big date will be Jan. 6 , when the matter moves to Congress .
And , if the election still isn ’ t settled , it could spill over to the House of Representatives , where each state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nov. 27 , a reporter asked Trump : “ If the Electoral College does elect President-elect Joe Biden , are you not going to leave this building ?
” Trump responded : “ Certainly , I will .
Certainly , I will , and you know that .
But I think that there will be a lot of things happening between now and the 20th of January .
A lot of things .
Massive fraud has been found .
We ’ re like a Third World country.
” Trump didn ’ t specify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race after the Electoral College votes , or would wait until Jan. 20 , the day Biden would be inaugurated as president presuming he wins the Electoral College vote , as expected .
But what other options does Trump have ?
The states have until Dec. 23 to submit their electors ’ votes to Congress , which is scheduled to convene to count the votes in a joint session Jan. 6 .
This event will make it official .
Pence , in the vice president ’ s role as president of the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At this point , at least one member of the House and Senate may make an objection to certification of the Electoral College count as an attempt to prevent it .
Presuming Biden wins the count , Pence will play a role similar to that of then-Vice Presidents Dan Quayle in 1993 and Walter Mondale in 1981 , by certifying the defeat of his own ticket .
Vice Presidents Al Gore in 2001 , Hubert Humphrey in 1969 , and Richard Nixon in 1961 were among presidential candidates who presided over the certification @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as president of the Senate , will declare the winner of the election after the counting concludes .
In 2017 , numerous House Democrats objected to the results of the presidential election pitting Trump against Democrat Hillary Clinton .
However , an objection requires a sponsor from both the House and the Senate , and no Senate Democrats participated .
Likewise , should any congressional Republicans want to challenge the apparent 2020 outcome , they would need support from members in both the House and Senate .
Any objection to electoral votes must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least one House member and one senator .
“ If objections are presented , the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider the merits of the objection ( s ) under procedures set out in federal law , ” according to the National Archives and Records Administration .
In theory , an objection at this point could prevent certification of the presidential election .
That ’ s because , under the Constitution ’ s 12th Amendment , if no presidential candidate wins at least 270 electoral votes then the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the National Archives .
Democrats have a House majority , but Republicans hold a majority in more state delegations .
And in the House , each state — not each member — gets one vote .
This would give Trump a partisan advantage and possibly one last chance to hold on to the presidency .
In this case , the District of Columbia , which has three electoral votes , would not vote because it doesn ’ t have voting members in the House .
Also , presuming the same stalemate occurs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate would elect a vice president by majority vote .
Unlike in the House , each senator would have one vote .
In U.S. history , two presidential elections ultimately were decided by the House .
In 1824 , four candidates divided the Electoral College vote and no one had a majority .
The House elected John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson .
In 1800 , the House decided the election after both Thomas Jefferson and his disloyal running mate , Aaron Burr , got the same number of electoral votes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly designated Jefferson as its presidential candidate and Burr as the vice presidential candidate , Burr didn ’ t yield .
The lame-duck Federalist-controlled House considered making mischief and making Burr the president , but backed away from this idea .
Election-related litigation , making the case to state legislatures , and potential activity in Congress most certainly have precedent in presidential elections .
The elections of 2000 , 1876 , and 1824 come to mind , but it ’ s not necessary to go back that far .
“ Four years ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foot when the left went into overtime to delegitimize the election and open calls to throw the Electoral College to Hillary Clinton after Election Day , ” said Snead , of the Honest Elections Project .
“ We risk the country on both parties ’ only viewing an election as legitimate if their candidate wins.
” After Trump won the 2016 election , several Democrats pushed movements to encourage Republican electors to vote for either Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton or someone other than Trump to deny him the presidency .
After that election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said : Also in 2016 , Democratic elector Christine Pelosi of California , daughter of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , led a letter signed by 53 other electors asking then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper for a briefing on Russian interference for the full Electoral College before the electors convened in their respective states .
The Democratic electors ’ letter said that the Constitution “ envisions the Electoral College as a deliberative body that plays a critical role in our system of government — ensuring that the American people elect a president who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” A group calling itself the Hamilton Electors , founded by Democratic electors Bret Chiafalo of Washington state and Michael Baca of Colorado , pushed for a revolt in the Electoral College .
It sought at first to unite 135 Republicans and 135 Democrats behind a compromise Republican candidate for president such as 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney or Ohio Gov .
John Kasich .
Chiafalo and Baca eventually backed away and tried to convince 37 Republican electors to stray from Trump , bringing his total below the needed 270 electoral votes and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Neither gambit worked .
The two founders of Hamilton Electors challenged state laws against faithless electors and lost in the Supreme Court earlier this year .
Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig and Boston lawyer R.J. Lyman founded the Electors Trust after the 2016 election to provide legal advice to electors who might stray from their state ’ s winner .
Another group , United For America , sponsored commercials featuring celebrities who pleaded with Republican electors to switch their votes .
Actor Martin Sheen , who played a president on the NBC series @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other Hollywood actors such as Debra Messing , Richard Schiff , and Bob Odenkirk for a political ad aimed at Republican electors .
In the ad , each actor stated , “ I ’ m not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton.
” But they urged Republicans in the Electoral College to become an “ American hero ” by keeping Trump out of the White House .
On Dec. 19 , 2016 , a total of seven electors bolted from either Trump or Clinton , but the defections did not change the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore took their 2000 fight for Florida ’ s electoral votes to the Supreme Court , which ruled in favor of Bush .
In 1876 , during Reconstruction , the presidential election was disputed in the Southern states of South Carolina , Florida , and Louisiana , as was one of Oregon ’ s electoral votes .
At first it appeared that Democrat Samuel Tilden carried the three Southern states , but Republicans alleged election fraud .
To settle the matter , Congress created an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five senators , and five Supreme Court justices .
The panel eventually ruled 8-7 to give the electoral votes in each of the states to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes , who became president .
Fred Lucas is the chief national affairs correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “ The Right Side of History ” podcast .
Lucas is also the author of Abuse of Power : Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump .
Send an email to Fred .

Monday essentially will be the real presidential Election Day, or is scheduled to be, as electors gather in their respective state capitols to cast votes.
When voters pick their candidate for president on Election Day every four years, as well as in early and mail-in voting this year, they actually choose a slate of electors associated with a candidate. Each of those electors later casts his or her vote for president on behalf of the state and according to its election results.
In past presidential election years, the day the Electoral College convenes to vote goes largely ignored, as most of the public stops paying attention after Election Day. This year is different. Amid allegations of voter fraud, litigation in key states, and state legislative hearings, the public is more focused on the electors’ voting set for Monday.
In 2016, some Democrats attempted to raise the prospect of an Electoral College revolt to overturn the state results in the presidential election, but the haphazard effort was unsuccessful.
This year major media outlets projected beginning Nov. 7 that former Vice President Joe Biden had won the election by 306 electoral votes to President Donald Trump’s 232 electoral votes, with 270 needed to win. Trump hasn’t conceded, but has said he would do so if the Electoral College votes for Biden.
Here are seven things to know before the Electoral College meets, what’s different about this year, and what past controversies looked like.
1. Is the Electoral College Sure to Vote Dec. 14?
It’s likely but not certain that electors will meet in each state Monday as is the custom to cast votes for president and vice president.
“Yes, there is time [to pursue legal issues],” Trump campaign lawyer Joe diGenova, a former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, said at a virtual press conference Tuesday, the deadline for states to certify electors.
DiGenova said that Dec. 14 is “not set in constitutional stone,” but “statutory stone,” adding:
They can be bent because if the Supreme Court were to find that there was fraud, that there were illegal ballots, that states violated their own constitutions allowing mail-in ballots, and the court were to nullify those votes, it could take enough time to have an oral argument in those matters and could issue an order saying the Electoral College would be postponed for a week or so. There is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent them from doing that. The dates for the Electoral College are not in the Constitution.
Texas sued Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan on Tuesday, alleging the four states imposed unconstitutional election rules and asking the high court to order them to conduct new elections.
All four states made changes to election laws without the approval of their legislatures, either through the state bureaucracy or state courts. The high court was set to review the matter Thursday before deciding whether to hear or dismiss the Texas case. Briefs in the case were due at 3 p.m.
Should Texas prevail, the result would by necessity at least delay certification of electors from Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
2. How Does the Electoral College Meet?
Traditionally meeting in their respective state capitols, electors in each state record their vote on six Certificates of Vote. Those will be paired Monday with six Certificates of Ascertainment, according to the National Archives and Records Administration, the agency that coordinates certain Electoral College functions between the states and Congress.
The electors then sign, seal, and certify the electoral votes.
A set of electoral votes consists of one Certificate of Ascertainment and one Certificate of Vote, according to NARA. The certificates of results from each state are sent to multiple offices: Vice President Mike Pence, in his role as president of the Senate; each state’s secretary of state; the National Archives and Records Administration; and the presiding federal judge in the district where the electors meet.
The votes are provided to the judge as a backup copy to replace the official copy sent to the president of the Senate if votes are lost or destroyed, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
After that, all of the total electoral votes, or Certificates of Vote, must reach the president of the Senate and the National Archives and Records Administration no later than nine days after each state’s electors meet. This would be Dec. 23, two days before Christmas.
3. Can State Legislatures Appoint New Electors?
The Trump legal team has appealed to Republican-controlled state legislatures to appoint a new slate of electors in battleground states where they allege fraud occurred.
At this juncture, if any legislature acted to do this, it would delay voting by electors in that state.
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal Tuesday by Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., seeking to disqualify mail-in votes received in Pennsylvania after Election Day or that were suspicious for other reasons.
Before the high court announced that ruling, diGenova had expressed hope that a victory in Pennsylvania would prompt state legislators there and in other battleground states to act.
“We hope that the momentum created by that decision will in fact wake up some state legislatures and make them have what are called electoral sessions,” diGenova said.
“Not joint sessions, not special sessions, but sessions the legislators themselves can call without the governor, without the secretary of state, and either give their electoral votes to Trump or deny either candidate the electoral votes — thus denying each candidate the necessary 270 electoral votes,” the former U.S. attorney and Trump lawyer said. “That’s what we’re shooting for. I think everything is proceeding in every other state.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Each state legislature has the legal and constitutional power to appoint a new slate of electors that might contradict the popular vote count in that state, Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of Heritage’s Election Law Reform Initiative, said in an interview.
Depending on the state, it likely would require a change in state law before appointing new electors if the existing statute specifies that the popular vote determines the slate of electors.
“The U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures the power to appoint electors, but the state constitutions would specify how they go about doing that,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal.
Nevertheless, von Spakovsky said there is a slim chance that state legislatures would follow through on this strategy.
“I’m sure there would be all kinds of political consequences, no matter whether legislators did or didn’t do it,” von Spakovsky said. “Unless state legislators are presented with incontrovertible evidence the election was stolen in their state, I wouldn’t expect lawmakers to do anything like that.”
Legislatures absolutely have the right to appoint electors, but doing so after the popular vote is cast would raise numerous issues, said Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project.
“The reality is the legislatures have the authority,” Snead told The Daily Signal. “But if you reverse the slate of electors after Election Day, that would raise legal and constitutional questions and lead to a vitriolic fight in Congress, where they would probably debate over two sets of electors.”
4. Does COVID-19 Change Anything?
Each state is taking its own measures regarding social distancing as electors prepare to meet.
Nevada, one of the closely contested states where the Trump legal team sued, is going to virtual voting. Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske, a Republican, will preside at a meeting conducted over Zoom. Nevada has six electoral votes.
A spokeswoman for the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office, Jennifer Russell, confirmed Thursday to The Daily Signal that the state plans to hold a virtual vote.
Some states have considered instituting remote processes and then having electors cast their ballots in person.
Small states such as Wyoming and Rhode Island have few electors (three and four, respectively) and social distancing inside a legislative chamber would not be a problem. States with many electors could have a bigger challenge.
For a state such as New York, with 29 electoral votes and one of the hardest hit in the country by the COVID-19 pandemic, remote voting by electors is not an option, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has said.
“We’re actually going to have to convene people in the Capitol in the midst of this situation. It’s not a large group, but you can’t do it virtually or we don’t believe, legally, you can do it virtually,” Cuomo said, adding: “I don’t want to give anyone an opportunity to legally challenge the actions of the electors. … They’re going to have to come assemble in the Capitol.”
Some states are restricting their gatherings to electors, with no family or other outside guests.
Alabama, Maine, and Rhode Island will livestream their respective meetings Monday for public viewing, but the electors will meet in person.
Larger states such as Florida and Pennsylvania will hold in-person meetings of electors, but the events have been scaled back with precautions such as social distancing requirements, according to one election administration expert.
5. What’s Next After the Electoral College Vote?
It won’t entirely be over procedurally after Monday. The next big date will be Jan. 6, when the matter moves to Congress.
And, if the election still isn’t settled, it could spill over to the House of Representatives, where each state’s delegation would get one vote.
On Nov. 27, a reporter asked Trump: “If the Electoral College does elect President-elect Joe Biden, are you not going to leave this building?”
Trump responded: “Certainly, I will. Certainly, I will, and you know that. But I think that there will be a lot of things happening between now and the 20th of January. A lot of things. Massive fraud has been found. We’re like a Third World country.”
Trump didn’t specify whether that meant he would concede the race after the Electoral College votes, or would wait until Jan. 20, the day Biden would be inaugurated as president presuming he wins the Electoral College vote, as expected.
But what other options does Trump have?
The states have until Dec. 23 to submit their electors’ votes to Congress, which is scheduled to convene to count the votes in a joint session Jan. 6.
This event will make it official. Pence, in the vice president’s role as president of the Senate, will preside over the counting.
At this point, at least one member of the House and Senate may make an objection to certification of the Electoral College count as an attempt to prevent it.
Presuming Biden wins the count, Pence will play a role similar to that of then-Vice Presidents Dan Quayle in 1993 and Walter Mondale in 1981, by certifying the defeat of his own ticket.
Vice Presidents Al Gore in 2001, Hubert Humphrey in 1969, and Richard Nixon in 1961 were among presidential candidates who presided over the certification of their own losses.
Pence, as president of the Senate, will declare the winner of the election after the counting concludes.
6. Could Congress Decide the Results?
In 2017, numerous House Democrats objected to the results of the presidential election pitting Trump against Democrat Hillary Clinton. However, an objection requires a sponsor from both the House and the Senate, and no Senate Democrats participated.
Likewise, should any congressional Republicans want to challenge the apparent 2020 outcome, they would need support from members in both the House and Senate.
Any objection to electoral votes must be submitted in writing and signed by at least one House member and one senator.
“If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider the merits of the objection(s) under procedures set out in federal law,” according to the National Archives and Records Administration.
In theory, an objection at this point could prevent certification of the presidential election. That’s because, under the Constitution’s 12th Amendment, if no presidential candidate wins at least 270 electoral votes then the House would decide the election, according to the National Archives.
Democrats have a House majority, but Republicans hold a majority in more state delegations. And in the House, each state — not each member — gets one vote. This would give Trump a partisan advantage and possibly one last chance to hold on to the presidency.
In this case, the District of Columbia, which has three electoral votes, would not vote because it doesn’t have voting members in the House.
Also, presuming the same stalemate occurs in the contest for vice president, the Senate would elect a vice president by majority vote. Unlike in the House, each senator would have one vote.
In U.S. history, two presidential elections ultimately were decided by the House.
In 1824, four candidates divided the Electoral College vote and no one had a majority. The House elected John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson.
In 1800, the House decided the election after both Thomas Jefferson and his disloyal running mate, Aaron Burr, got the same number of electoral votes, 73.
Although the Democratic-Republican Party had clearly designated Jefferson as its presidential candidate and Burr as the vice presidential candidate, Burr didn’t yield. The lame-duck Federalist-controlled House considered making mischief and making Burr the president, but backed away from this idea.
7. Is This Post-Election Dispute Unprecedented?
Election-related litigation, making the case to state legislatures, and potential activity in Congress most certainly have precedent in presidential elections.
The elections of 2000, 1876, and 1824 come to mind, but it’s not necessary to go back that far.
“Four years ago, the shoe was on the other foot when the left went into overtime to delegitimize the election and open calls to throw the Electoral College to Hillary Clinton after Election Day,” said Snead, of the Honest Elections Project. “We risk the country on both parties’ only viewing an election as legitimate if their candidate wins.”
After Trump won the 2016 election, several Democrats pushed movements to encourage Republican electors to vote for either Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton or someone other than Trump to deny him the presidency.
After that election, Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., said:
I do think the Electoral College should choose someone other than Donald Trump to be president. That will lead to a fascinating legal issue … but I would rather have a legal problem — a constitutional legal problem — than to find out the White House was now the Kremlin’s chief ally.
Also in 2016, Democratic elector Christine Pelosi of California, daughter of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, led a letter signed by 53 other electors asking then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper for a briefing on Russian interference for the full Electoral College before the electors convened in their respective states.
The Democratic electors’ letter said that the Constitution “envisions the Electoral College as a deliberative body that plays a critical role in our system of government — ensuring that the American people elect a president who is constitutionally qualified and fit to serve.”
A group calling itself the Hamilton Electors, founded by Democratic electors Bret Chiafalo of Washington state and Michael Baca of Colorado, pushed for a revolt in the Electoral College. It sought at first to unite 135 Republicans and 135 Democrats behind a compromise Republican candidate for president such as 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney or Ohio Gov. John Kasich.
Chiafalo and Baca eventually backed away and tried to convince 37 Republican electors to stray from Trump, bringing his total below the needed 270 electoral votes and sending the election to the House. Neither gambit worked.
The two founders of Hamilton Electors challenged state laws against faithless electors and lost in the Supreme Court earlier this year.
Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig and Boston lawyer R.J. Lyman founded the Electors Trust after the 2016 election to provide legal advice to electors who might stray from their state’s winner.
Another group, United For America, sponsored commercials featuring celebrities who pleaded with Republican electors to switch their votes.
Actor Martin Sheen, who played a president on the NBC series “The West Wing,” joined other Hollywood actors such as Debra Messing, Richard Schiff, and Bob Odenkirk for a political ad aimed at Republican electors.
In the ad, each actor stated, “I’m not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton.” But they urged Republicans in the Electoral College to become an “American hero” by keeping Trump out of the White House.
On Dec. 19, 2016, a total of seven electors bolted from either Trump or Clinton, but the defections did not change the outcome.
As for other overtime elections, Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore took their 2000 fight for Florida’s electoral votes to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of Bush.
In 1876, during Reconstruction, the presidential election was disputed in the Southern states of South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana, as was one of Oregon’s electoral votes.
At first it appeared that Democrat Samuel Tilden carried the three Southern states, but Republicans alleged election fraud.
To settle the matter, Congress created an Electoral Commission with five House members, five senators, and five Supreme Court justices. The panel eventually ruled 8-7 to give the electoral votes in each of the states to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, who became president.
Fred Lucas is the chief national affairs correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of Abuse of Power: Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump. Send an email to Fred.
Copyright 2020 The Daily Signal


The Christmas Vaccine

Suppose you had a vaccine you wanted to get to people quickly , to save lives around the world .
You ’ d need someone with a tried-and-true distribution network , used to sending things out in a flash at the end of the year .
You ’ d want someone who could have to fly high to keep the vaccine cold , preferably one who ’ s fine dealing with low temperatures .
The FAA would want them to emit a bright red light to warn other aviators .
People aren ’ t always home , so delivery vehicles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Good customer service would be important , perhaps someone who could shed antivax skepticism with a friendly “ Ho , ho , ho !
” Who you gon na call ?
Saint Bezos ?
Or Saint Nick ?
Do you think we ’ re blurring the boundary between myth and technology ?
Christmas has always done that .
It brought the ultimate life-saving vaccine to people around the world .
Carolers sing about “ a savior ” who “ comes to make His blessings flow / far as the curse is found.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christmas blessing is more universal than COVID-19 .
It is a sickness that leads to death , and we are all symptomatic .
Christians may not believe in Saint Nick , but we believe in his boss , whose blood provides the antibodies that overcome the sickness of sin and death .
Rather than flying reindeer or Amazon drones , though , his delivery method is more organic and gradual , because it involves us .
When my son was small , he planted a noble fir sapling in the garden .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good-sized Christmas tree .
Given centuries , such conifers become the monarchs of the forest .
Jesus said the Kingdom of Heaven is like that .
It is not a magical one-night sleigh ride , or even a multi-national with a million worker elves and an independent fleet of jets .
Christmas is more like a vast tree that grows from a little seed over centuries , providing moral , social and intellectual habitat for the nations .
Vaccine science is a great example .
Modern science itself developed in Europe for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Allan Chapman at Oxford , David Landes at Harvard , James Hannam , and the great sociologist Rodney Stark , say among reasons include Christianity ’ s view of the rational and worthwhile nature of creation .
The faith also calls all to “ give gifts ” to all peoples , a charge that goes back to Abraham ( or Adam ) , but whose full fruition really began on Christmas morning .
So vaccines were first developed in a society long nursed in biblical values , and equipped with technology also developed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added to it the “ corrective spice ” of biblical charity , as Francis Bacon said it .
( Oxford historian of science Allan Chapman is good on this . )
Europeans weren ’ t the first to think of inoculating people against diseases .
The idea had occurred to people in ancient China , in Africa and the Middle East .
In Europe it was found that milk maids , many of whom had had cowpox , were immune to smallpox .
Cotton Mather launched a crusade to inoculate the people of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killed 850 Bostonians out of a population of 11,000 .
( His African slave Onesimus had taught him the trick . )
Not everyone agreed with him .
One opponent launched a bomb through Mather ’ s window with the message attached : “ Cotton Mather , you dog , damn you !
I ’ ll inoculate you with this ; with a pox to you.
” A young printer of a skeptical cast of mind , Benjamin Franklin , also scoffed at Mather ’ s innovation .
In 1796 Edward Jenner followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first vaccine for smallpox .
Jenner ’ s vaccine , and the understanding derived from it , would ultimately lead to the end of this horrible disease , which had killed hundreds of millions or even billions of people .
These experiments also led to vaccines for other diseases .
Jenner , a pious believer , wrote , “ I am not surprised that men are not grateful to me ; but I wonder that they are not grateful to God for the good which He has made me the instrument of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pasteur , a faithful Catholic , later proved the germ theory of contamination , which led to “ pasteurization.
” He also developed vaccines for rabies and anthrax .
This is how the tree of life branches out , bringing many gifts to the nations .
It is hardly the only way , though .
I am presently writing a book showing that Jesus has liberated billions of women ( and the men they love ) around the world .
But that freedom we can use to bless or to curse .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Third Education Revolution.
” The Church has educated entire nations in the past .
Christmas is coming .
We tell children about Santa Claus for fun , hopefully with a wink and a smile .
But the true Christmas has distributed healing to every nation by the natural growth of the Kingdom of God , with each believer a needle , a twig , a root , or part of the trunk on that tower in the forest .
The world loves to talk about Santa Claus because a children ’ s story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true story of how Mary ’ s little baby child spread grace to the world , because it challenges political correctness .
Followers of Christ , you , too , get to wear the Santa hat .
But when you bring someone the “ vaccine ” of spiritual life , be careful how you ask , “ Have you been naughty or nice ?
” Naughtiness is just a symptom of the disease .
Jesus ’ blood carries the antibodies to heal .
And true virtue means being integrated into the tree which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marshall holds a B.A .
in “ the Russian and Chinese Languages and Marxism , ” an M.A .
in Chinese Religions , and a Ph.D. in Christian Thought and Chinese Tradition .
His most recent book is Jesus is No Myth : The Fingerprints of God on the Gospels.r

Suppose you had a vaccine you wanted to get to people quickly, to save lives around the world. You’d need someone with a tried-and-true distribution network, used to sending things out in a flash at the end of the year. You’d want someone who could have to fly high to keep the vaccine cold, preferably one who’s fine dealing with low temperatures.
The FAA would want them to emit a bright red light to warn other aviators. People aren’t always home, so delivery vehicles capable of rooftop landings would be optimal. Good customer service would be important, perhaps someone who could shed antivax skepticism with a friendly “Ho, ho, ho!”
Who you gonna call? Saint Bezos? Or Saint Nick? Do you think we’re blurring the boundary between myth and technology? Christmas has always done that. It brought the ultimate life-saving vaccine to people around the world. Carolers sing about “a savior” who “comes to make His blessings flow / far as the curse is found.” The curse that calls for a Christmas blessing is more universal than COVID-19. It is a sickness that leads to death, and we are all symptomatic.
Organic, Gradual, Life-Giving
Christians may not believe in Saint Nick, but we believe in his boss, whose blood provides the antibodies that overcome the sickness of sin and death. Rather than flying reindeer or Amazon drones, though, his delivery method is more organic and gradual, because it involves us.
When my son was small, he planted a noble fir sapling in the garden. In fifteen years, it has grown into a good-sized Christmas tree. Given centuries, such conifers become the monarchs of the forest. Jesus said the Kingdom of Heaven is like that. It is not a magical one-night sleigh ride, or even a multi-national with a million worker elves and an independent fleet of jets. Christmas is more like a vast tree that grows from a little seed over centuries, providing moral, social and intellectual habitat for the nations.
Vaccine science is a great example. Modern science itself developed in Europe for many reasons. Historians of science like Allan Chapman at Oxford, David Landes at Harvard, James Hannam, and the great sociologist Rodney Stark, say among reasons include Christianity’s view of the rational and worthwhile nature of creation. The faith also calls all to “give gifts” to all peoples, a charge that goes back to Abraham (or Adam), but whose full fruition really began on Christmas morning.
Christianity’s Vaccine Role
So vaccines were first developed in a society long nursed in biblical values, and equipped with technology also developed from within Christian civilization had developed, added to it the “corrective spice” of biblical charity, as Francis Bacon said it. (Oxford historian of science Allan Chapman is good on this.)
Europeans weren’t the first to think of inoculating people against diseases. The idea had occurred to people in ancient China, in Africa and the Middle East. In Europe it was found that milk maids, many of whom had had cowpox, were immune to smallpox.
Cotton Mather launched a crusade to inoculate the people of Boston during a small pox outbreak which killed 850 Bostonians out of a population of 11,000. (His African slave Onesimus had taught him the trick.) Not everyone agreed with him. One opponent launched a bomb through Mather’s window with the message attached: “Cotton Mather, you dog, damn you! I’ll inoculate you with this; with a pox to you.” A young printer of a skeptical cast of mind, Benjamin Franklin, also scoffed at Mather’s innovation.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
In 1796 Edward Jenner followed these clues up with experiments and created the first vaccine for smallpox. Jenner’s vaccine, and the understanding derived from it, would ultimately lead to the end of this horrible disease, which had killed hundreds of millions or even billions of people. These experiments also led to vaccines for other diseases. Jenner, a pious believer, wrote, “I am not surprised that men are not grateful to me; but I wonder that they are not grateful to God for the good which He has made me the instrument of conveying to my fellow creatures.”
Louis Pasteur, a faithful Catholic, later proved the germ theory of contamination, which led to “pasteurization.” He also developed vaccines for rabies and anthrax.
Jesus’ Blood Carries Antibodies to Heal Us.
This is how the tree of life branches out, bringing many gifts to the nations. It is hardly the only way, though. I am presently writing a book showing that Jesus has liberated billions of women (and the men they love) around the world. But that freedom we can use to bless or to curse. I just edited another book proposing a “Third Education Revolution.” The Church has educated entire nations in the past.
Christmas is coming. We tell children about Santa Claus for fun, hopefully with a wink and a smile. But the true Christmas has distributed healing to every nation by the natural growth of the Kingdom of God, with each believer a needle, a twig, a root, or part of the trunk on that tower in the forest. The world loves to talk about Santa Claus because a children’s story threatens no one. They hide the true story of how Mary’s little baby child spread grace to the world, because it challenges political correctness.
Followers of Christ, you, too, get to wear the Santa hat. But when you bring someone the “vaccine” of spiritual life, be careful how you ask, “Have you been naughty or nice?” Naughtiness is just a symptom of the disease. Jesus’ blood carries the antibodies to heal. And true virtue means being integrated into the tree which brings healing to the nations.
David Marshall holds a B.A. in “the Russian and Chinese Languages and Marxism,” an M.A. in Chinese Religions, and a Ph.D. in Christian Thought and Chinese Tradition. His most recent book is Jesus is No Myth: The Fingerprints of God on the Gospels.r