thestream--2020-05-27--Pixar Targets Your Children With Their First Gay Lead Character

“ We ’ ll get you through your children !
” These words were shouted to Norman Podhoretz in 1958 by beat poet and pioneer gay activist Allen Ginsberg at the end of an unsuccessful summit .
According to Daniel Oppenheimer in his book Exit Right , “ A decade later ( 1968 ) that threat would prove one of the fulcrums around which Podhoretz would execute his hard pivot to the right.
” Ginsberg ’ s words have proven true .
Leftists and LGBTQ activists and their allies have waged an effective ideological war on our children , proclaiming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sex is changeable , and that heterosexual unions are really no different than homosexual unions .
Now , Pixar , that incredibly gifted animation studio , is joining in the culture wars , for the first time featuring an openly gay lead character .
In fact , his gayness is a central part of the story .
As explained in the New York Times , “ The animated film follows a gay man ’ s journey into acceptance as he prepares to move into a city with his boyfriend.
” And he comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his dog .
How delightful !
To be sure , this is just a 9-minute film , but there ’ s not much of a leap from 9 minutes to 90 minutes .
You might say , “ You need to chill !
What ’ s the big deal ?
This is not some full-length release , plus you can ’ t expect Pixar to quote the Bible.
” Well , if it ’ s so insignificant why are gay activists so excited about the film ?
And why is Disney Streaming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ touting it so highly ?
As the Disney tweet announced last week , “ The latest heartwarming tale from @ Pixar ’ s # SparkShorts .
Start streaming Out tomorrow on # DisneyPlus.
” ( Yes , the name of the film is “ Out.
” ) The Times quoted Jeremy Blacklow , director of entertainment media at Glaad , who said , “ Over the past few years , L.G.B.T.Q .
characters and stories have become common in the kids and family entertainment space with little controversy , but with large celebration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have longed to see themselves represented .
By centering on a young gay man , ‘ Out ’ just raised the bar for inclusion in kids and family programming.
” But this is not simply a matter of allegedly gay children seeing themselves represented in a movie .
This is a matter of little children being influenced by a narrative that some of them surely can not understand .
After all , what does a 5-year-old boy , who might really think he can have a conversation with his dog , understand about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our Children for Years The fact is that gay activists have long recognized the importance of influencing children , even if they were doing it with ( in their minds ) the purest of intentions .
In other words , they would say they don ’ t want other kids to struggle the way they did when they were growing up .
Or they want other kids to be more tolerant and accepting .
Or they want to break down the gender binary , since not everyone fits into it .
Whatever the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly been targeting your children for many years now , from sex-ed curricula in the schools to drag queen reading hours in the libraries , and from Hollywood to social media platforms and beyond .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
The headline to Daniel Villareal ’ s May , 2011 in Queerty article said it all : “ Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids ?
” To quote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of exploiting children and in response we say , ‘ NOOO !
We ’ re not gon na make kids learn about homosexuality , we swear !
It ’ s not like we ’ re trying to recruit your children or anything.
’ But let ’ s face it—that ’ s a lie .
We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality .
In fact , our very future depends on it.
” But of course !
He also said , “ Why would we push anti-bullying programs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal ?
” Yes , why else would they push these programs and classes ?
Yet here we are , almost 10 years later , and many LGBTQ activists still shy away from admitting that they are trying to indoctrinate or recruit our children .
Really ?
About two weeks ago , our grandson Connor , now 16-years-old , sent me the link to a Facebook page , celebrating a new , first of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LGBTQ history course for high school students .
( He sent me the link because the program was being introduced in the county next to his , where my family once lived . )
But it ’ s a far cry from an elective class for high school students , as open and clear as its agenda will be , to a Pixar animated film for children telling the story of a gay man about to move in with his boyfriend .
Now is a great time to send a clear message to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our business , please stop offending our values and please leave the culture wars to others .
And let ’ s be proactive and alert .
Ginsberg ’ s strategy , now over 60 years old , should not be catching us by surprise in 2020 .
Dr. Michael Brown ( www.askdrbrown.org ) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program .
His latest book is When the World Stops : Words of Faith , Hope , and Wisdom in the Midst of Crisis .
Connect with him on @ @ @ @ @ @

“We’ll get you through your children!” These words were shouted to Norman Podhoretz in 1958 by beat poet and pioneer gay activist Allen Ginsberg at the end of an unsuccessful summit. According to Daniel Oppenheimer in his book Exit Right, “A decade later (1968) that threat would prove one of the fulcrums around which Podhoretz would execute his hard pivot to the right.”
Ginsberg’s words have proven true. Leftists and LGBTQ activists and their allies have waged an effective ideological war on our children, proclaiming that gay is good, that biological sex is changeable, and that heterosexual unions are really no different than homosexual unions.
“A Gay Man’s Journey to Acceptance”
Now, Pixar, that incredibly gifted animation studio, is joining in the culture wars, for the first time featuring an openly gay lead character. In fact, his gayness is a central part of the story.
As explained in the New York Times, “The animated film follows a gay man’s journey into acceptance as he prepares to move into a city with his boyfriend.”
And he comes out to his family with the help of his dog. How delightful!
To be sure, this is just a 9-minute film, but there’s not much of a leap from 9 minutes to 90 minutes.
What’s the Big Deal?
You might say, “You need to chill! What’s the big deal? This is not some full-length release, plus you can’t expect Pixar to quote the Bible.”
Well, if it’s so insignificant why are gay activists so excited about the film? And why is Disney Streaming, where the film was released, touting it so highly? As the Disney tweet announced last week, “The latest heartwarming tale from @Pixar’s #SparkShorts. Start streaming Out tomorrow on #DisneyPlus.” (Yes, the name of the film is “Out.”)
This is a matter of little children being influenced by a narrative that some of them surely cannot understand.
The Times quoted Jeremy Blacklow, director of entertainment media at Glaad, who said, “Over the past few years, L.G.B.T.Q. characters and stories have become common in the kids and family entertainment space with little controversy, but with large celebration from L.G.B.T.Q. families with children who have longed to see themselves represented. By centering on a young gay man, ‘Out’ just raised the bar for inclusion in kids and family programming.”
But this is not simply a matter of allegedly gay children seeing themselves represented in a movie. This is a matter of little children being influenced by a narrative that some of them surely cannot understand. After all, what does a 5-year-old boy, who might really think he can have a conversation with his dog, understand about sexuality?
Gay Activists Have Been Targeting Our Children for Years
The fact is that gay activists have long recognized the importance of influencing children, even if they were doing it with (in their minds) the purest of intentions. In other words, they would say they don’t want other kids to struggle the way they did when they were growing up. Or they want other kids to be more tolerant and accepting. Or they want to break down the gender binary, since not everyone fits into it.
Whatever the motivation might be, gay activists have certainly been targeting your children for many years now, from sex-ed curricula in the schools to drag queen reading hours in the libraries, and from Hollywood to social media platforms and beyond.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
The headline to Daniel Villareal’s May, 2011 in Queerty article said it all: “Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?”
To quote Villareal directly, “They accuse us of exploiting children and in response we say, ‘NOOO! We’re not gonna make kids learn about homosexuality, we swear! It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything.’ But let’s face it—that’s a lie. We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.”
But of course!
Activist Admits Goal: ‘Educate Children to Accept Queer Sexuality as Normal’
He also said, “Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?”
Yes, why else would they push these programs and classes?
Yet here we are, almost 10 years later, and many LGBTQ activists still shy away from admitting that they are trying to indoctrinate or recruit our children. Really?
Let’s Be Proactive and Alert
About two weeks ago, our grandson Connor, now 16-years-old, sent me the link to a Facebook page, celebrating a new, first of its kind, intensive, elective, LGBTQ history course for high school students. (He sent me the link because the program was being introduced in the county next to his, where my family once lived.)
But it’s a far cry from an elective class for high school students, as open and clear as its agenda will be, to a Pixar animated film for children telling the story of a gay man about to move in with his boyfriend.
Now is a great time to send a clear message to Pixar and Disney: If you want our business, please stop offending our values and please leave the culture wars to others.
And let’s be proactive and alert. Ginsberg’s strategy, now over 60 years old, should not be catching us by surprise in 2020.
Dr. Michael Brown (www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is When the World Stops: Words of Faith, Hope, and Wisdom in the Midst of Crisis. Connect with him on Facebook, Twitter or YouTube.


thestream--2020-05-27--The Lockdown, Evangelicals and the Afterlife: A Response to Steven Pinker

“ Belief in an afterlife is a malignant delusion , since it devalues actual lives and discourages action that would make them longer , safer , and happier .
Exhibit A : What ’ s really behind Republicans wanting a swift reopening ?
Evangelicals.
” Before responding to Pinker ’ s remarkably ignorant tweet , I want to praise him .
He is one of the few professors in America to call out the left ’ s destruction of our universities .
Most human beings lack courage , but no group is more cowardly than academics .
This has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ German universities to today , professors have almost never taken a position that required courage .
Indeed , one might say that when you send your child to college , your child is taught to be a coward by the cowardly .
“ Universities are becoming laughing stocks of intolerance , with non-leftist speakers drowned out by jeering mobs , professors subjected to Stalinesque investigations for unorthodox opinions , risible guidelines on ‘ microaggressions ’ ( such as saying ‘ I believe the most qualified person should get the job ’ ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invited them to discuss Halloween costumes , and much else .
These incidents have drawn worldwide ridicule , and damage the credibility of university scientists and scholars when they weigh on critical matters , such as climate change.
” It takes courage for a professor to write that our universities are “ laughing stocks of intolerance , ” that they engage in “ Stalinesque investigations ” and draw “ worldwide ridicule.
” Having praised Pinker , let me now respond to his tweet .
First , “ Belief in an afterlife is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Christian , evangelical or otherwise .
I am a religious Jew who has written and lectured extensively on the afterlife .
My belief in the afterlife is based entirely on a logical argument : If there is a just God , it is axiomatic there is an afterlife .
There is little justice and fairness in this life , so if there is a just God , there has to be an afterlife .
There is only one honest atheist response to this : “ There is no God , so there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a God , you are right that there must be an afterlife.
” Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
So , belief in an afterlife is no more a “ delusion ” than belief in God .
But it takes an unsophisticated arrogance to dismiss belief that the world has a designer and that intelligence must be created by intelligence as a “ delusion.
” I was disappointed in Pinker , who I respect for his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dialogued on my radio show .
His tweet reveals a truly shallow atheism .
In fact , I would argue that it is atheism that is a “ malignant delusion.
” Regarding the delusion part , I asked one of America ’ s leading thinkers of the last half-century , the late Charles Krauthammer , a secular agnostic , what he thought of atheism .
To my surprise , he responded : “ I believe atheism is the least plausible of all the theologies .
It is clearly so contrary to what is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ universe always existed , created itself ?
I mean , talk about the violation of human rationality.
” And as regards the “ malignant ” charge , while there are , obviously , good individuals who are atheist , atheism is morally worthless .
It makes no moral demands , whereas Judaism and Christianity posit a God who demands people obey , for example , the Ten Commandments .
Atheism demands nothing ; it only destroys the Judeo-Christian bases of morality in Western civilization , the civilization that gave the world democracy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an end to slavery .
In fact , evangelical Christians are the greatest defenders of Western civilization , while Pinker ’ s atheist colleagues at Harvard and elsewhere are the most active opponents of Western civilization .
How does Pinker explain that ?
Which exactly is the “ malignant delusion ” ?
Finally , evangelical Christians and other religious opponents of the continuing lockdown do not oppose continuation of the irrational , fear-driven , life-destroying lockdown — projected to result in more deaths worldwide and even in parts of America than the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the afterlife .
This is both stupid and a smear .
It shows how even a Steven Pinker can be rendered foolish by atheism .
No one who actually knows evangelicals believes they oppose continuation of the lockdown because they value life less than secular proponents of continuing this lockdown .
Do evangelicals love their children and grandchildren less than atheists ?
Do evangelicals not do everything possible to save lives ?
There are evangelical hospitals and doctors serving in the poorest countries in the world .
Where are the atheist hospitals ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they , more than any other large community in America , continue to believe in freedom .
Without the evangelical community , we will no longer have liberty .
From before the birth of America , liberty has been the cornerstone belief because it was a cornerstone Christian value .
The founders engraved a liberty-affirming verse from the Bible ( Leviticus 25:10 ) in the Liberty Bell .
At the same time , from Lenin to Soros and today ’ s Democratic Party , liberty has never been a left-wing value .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Henry ’ s famous plea , “ Give me liberty , or give me death , ” the foundational principle of our republic , must sound truly foolish .
It must have been the product of a malignant delusion .
Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist .
His latest book , published by Regnery in May 2019 , is The Rational Bible , a commentary on the book of Genesis .
His film , “ No Safe Spaces , ” came to theaters fall 2019 .
He is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be contacted at dennisprager.com .

Harvard professor of psychology Steven Pinker tweeted last week:
“Belief in an afterlife is a malignant delusion, since it devalues actual lives and discourages action that would make them longer, safer, and happier. Exhibit A: What’s really behind Republicans wanting a swift reopening? Evangelicals.”
Before responding to Pinker’s remarkably ignorant tweet, I want to praise him. He is one of the few professors in America to call out the left’s destruction of our universities. Most human beings lack courage, but no group is more cowardly than academics. This has been true for 100 years. From the German universities to today, professors have almost never taken a position that required courage. Indeed, one might say that when you send your child to college, your child is taught to be a coward by the cowardly.
It Takes Courage
Two years ago, Pinker wrote:
“Universities are becoming laughing stocks of intolerance, with non-leftist speakers drowned out by jeering mobs, professors subjected to Stalinesque investigations for unorthodox opinions, risible guidelines on ‘microaggressions’ (such as saying ‘I believe the most qualified person should get the job’), students mobbing and cursing a professor who invited them to discuss Halloween costumes, and much else. These incidents have drawn worldwide ridicule, and damage the credibility of university scientists and scholars when they weigh on critical matters, such as climate change.”
It takes courage for a professor to write that our universities are “laughing stocks of intolerance,” that they engage in “Stalinesque investigations” and draw “worldwide ridicule.”
Having praised Pinker, let me now respond to his tweet.
Unsophisticated Arrogance
First, “Belief in an afterlife is a malignant delusion … ”
I am not a Christian, evangelical or otherwise. I am a religious Jew who has written and lectured extensively on the afterlife. My belief in the afterlife is based entirely on a logical argument: If there is a just God, it is axiomatic there is an afterlife. There is little justice and fairness in this life, so if there is a just God, there has to be an afterlife. There is only one honest atheist response to this: “There is no God, so there is no afterlife. But if there is a God, you are right that there must be an afterlife.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
So, belief in an afterlife is no more a “delusion” than belief in God. But it takes an unsophisticated arrogance to dismiss belief that the world has a designer and that intelligence must be created by intelligence as a “delusion.” I was disappointed in Pinker, who I respect for his courageous comments and with whom I have dialogued on my radio show. His tweet reveals a truly shallow atheism.
In fact, I would argue that it is atheism that is a “malignant delusion.”
The Malignant Delusion
Regarding the delusion part, I asked one of America’s leading thinkers of the last half-century, the late Charles Krauthammer, a secular agnostic, what he thought of atheism. To my surprise, he responded:
“I believe atheism is the least plausible of all the theologies. It is clearly so contrary to what is possible. The idea that all this universe always existed, created itself? I mean, talk about the violation of human rationality.”
And as regards the “malignant” charge, while there are, obviously, good individuals who are atheist, atheism is morally worthless. It makes no moral demands, whereas Judaism and Christianity posit a God who demands people obey, for example, the Ten Commandments. Atheism demands nothing; it only destroys the Judeo-Christian bases of morality in Western civilization, the civilization that gave the world democracy, liberty, women’s equality and an end to slavery.
In fact, evangelical Christians are the greatest defenders of Western civilization, while Pinker’s atheist colleagues at Harvard and elsewhere are the most active opponents of Western civilization. How does Pinker explain that? Which exactly is the “malignant delusion”?
Rendered Foolish by Atheism
Finally, evangelical Christians and other religious opponents of the continuing lockdown do not oppose continuation of the irrational, fear-driven, life-destroying lockdown — projected to result in more deaths worldwide and even in parts of America than the coronavirus itself — because of our belief in the afterlife. This is both stupid and a smear. It shows how even a Steven Pinker can be rendered foolish by atheism.
No one who actually knows evangelicals believes they oppose continuation of the lockdown because they value life less than secular proponents of continuing this lockdown.
Do evangelicals love their children and grandchildren less than atheists? Do evangelicals not do everything possible to save lives? There are evangelical hospitals and doctors serving in the poorest countries in the world. Where are the atheist hospitals?
A Cornerstone Christian Value
Evangelicals oppose the continuing of the lockdown because they, more than any other large community in America, continue to believe in freedom. Without the evangelical community, we will no longer have liberty. From before the birth of America, liberty has been the cornerstone belief because it was a cornerstone Christian value. The founders engraved a liberty-affirming verse from the Bible (Leviticus 25:10) in the Liberty Bell. At the same time, from Lenin to Soros and today’s Democratic Party, liberty has never been a left-wing value.
To Pinker and his colleagues, Patrick Henry’s famous plea, “Give me liberty, or give me death,” the foundational principle of our republic, must sound truly foolish. It must have been the product of a malignant delusion.
Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His latest book, published by Regnery in May 2019, is The Rational Bible, a commentary on the book of Genesis. His film, “No Safe Spaces,” came to theaters fall 2019. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM


thestream--2020-05-27--Reopening Ourselves to God

Reopening Ourselves to God

Do you remember when Pope John Paul II went back to his native Poland , about eight months into his pontificate ?
The Communist officials couldn ’ t not let him in — he was too beloved .
As Pulitzer Prize winner Peggy Noonan , author of John Paul the Great , has written , from the moment he eventually arrived behind the Iron Curtain , “ the boundaries of the world began to shift.
” Despite the government ’ s attempts to keep Poles from getting too emotionally invested in the visit , the people lined the streets to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Warsaw , the crowd thundered , “ We want God , ” stopping the Pope ’ s words with a cry from the human heart so deep and insistent — and resilient — that the coming victory over Communism could be envisioned .
The Polish people saw their pope ’ s visit as a sign like no other that freedom was coming , that God was not leaving them orphaned in their suffering .
In his sermon , Pope John Paul II said : “ Christ can not be kept out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the globe , at any longitude or latitude of geography .
The exclusion of Christ from the history of man is an act against man … The history of the nation is above all the history of people .
And the history of each person unfolds in Jesus Christ .
In him it becomes the history of salvation.
” Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
He went on to say : “ It is right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man , each human being of this nation .
At the same time , man can not be understood apart from this community that is constituted by the nation .
Of course , it is not the only community , but it is a special community , perhaps that most intimately linked with the family , the most important for the spiritual history of man.
” He was talking about Poland , but he could have been talking about us today .
On Ascension Thursday in New York , Cardinal Timothy Dolan announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making clear to anyone in doubt that the Church is essential .
That needed to be said .
For months now , supermarkets and liquor stores have been operating , but many church doors have been locked .
Not all of them , but none of them have had regularly scheduled public Masses .
In Poland , as I understand it , they didn ’ t close churches or cancel Masses ; in fact , they increased the number of Masses so people could continue to pray the greatest prayer in person , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know what they want .
Do we know what we want ?
Do we know what is most important to us ?
It takes a time of loss sometimes to help us put things in perspective .
People miss the sacramental life of the Church .
I confess I don ’ t even know who I am without it .
Of course , during this time , there have been myriad opportunities to connect with the Mass virtually .
But that isn ’ t the same .
Organized religion is about community , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Church from quarantine change something ?
Over the past weeks and months , there has been a clamor for the sacraments .
An open letter to bishops pled early for some creativity so that people could celebrate the Easter season properly , albeit prudently .
It was one of many modern American versions of “ We want God.
” These days have left people on edge , needless to say .
Can the gradual reopening of churches — most slow , perhaps , in the northeast — lead us to a spiritual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anniversary of the birth of Pope John Paul II .
Can the courage of his people who suffered the tyranny of Communist atheism be an inspiration ?
To courage ?
To love as a cure for loneliness and anxiety ?
We want God , don ’ t we ?
Let ’ s get back to churches so we can get to know God better , so we can be examples of God ’ s love to people who need it .
Kathryn Jean Lopez is senior fellow at the National Review Institute , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the new book A Year With the Mystics : Visionary Wisdom for Daily Living .
She is also chair of Cardinal Dolan ’ s pro-life commission in New York .
She can be contacted at klopez @ nationalreview.com .

Do you remember when Pope John Paul II went back to his native Poland, about eight months into his pontificate? The Communist officials couldn’t not let him in — he was too beloved. As Pulitzer Prize winner Peggy Noonan, author of John Paul the Great, has written, from the moment he eventually arrived behind the Iron Curtain, “the boundaries of the world began to shift.”
Despite the government’s attempts to keep Poles from getting too emotionally invested in the visit, the people lined the streets to see him. During his first Mass in Warsaw, the crowd thundered, “We want God,” stopping the Pope’s words with a cry from the human heart so deep and insistent — and resilient — that the coming victory over Communism could be envisioned.
The History of Man
The Polish people saw their pope’s visit as a sign like no other that freedom was coming, that God was not leaving them orphaned in their suffering. In his sermon, Pope John Paul II said: “Christ cannot be kept out of the history of man in any part of the globe, at any longitude or latitude of geography. The exclusion of Christ from the history of man is an act against man … The history of the nation is above all the history of people. And the history of each person unfolds in Jesus Christ. In him it becomes the history of salvation.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
He went on to say: “It is right to understand the history of the nation through man, each human being of this nation. At the same time, man cannot be understood apart from this community that is constituted by the nation. Of course, it is not the only community, but it is a special community, perhaps that most intimately linked with the family, the most important for the spiritual history of man.”
He was talking about Poland, but he could have been talking about us today.
The Essential Church
On Ascension Thursday in New York, Cardinal Timothy Dolan announced plans for getting the Church reopened, making clear to anyone in doubt that the Church is essential. That needed to be said. For months now, supermarkets and liquor stores have been operating, but many church doors have been locked. Not all of them, but none of them have had regularly scheduled public Masses. In Poland, as I understand it, they didn’t close churches or cancel Masses; in fact, they increased the number of Masses so people could continue to pray the greatest prayer in person, while still following social-distance guidelines.
They know what they want.
Putting Things Into Perspective
Do we know what we want? Do we know what is most important to us? It takes a time of loss sometimes to help us put things in perspective. People miss the sacramental life of the Church. I confess I don’t even know who I am without it. Of course, during this time, there have been myriad opportunities to connect with the Mass virtually. But that isn’t the same. Organized religion is about community, after all.
Will the reemergence of the Church from quarantine change something? Over the past weeks and months, there has been a clamor for the sacraments. An open letter to bishops pled early for some creativity so that people could celebrate the Easter season properly, albeit prudently. It was one of many modern American versions of “We want God.”
A Spiritual Reawakening
These days have left people on edge, needless to say. Can the gradual reopening of churches — most slow, perhaps, in the northeast — lead us to a spiritual reawakening? This month marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of Pope John Paul II. Can the courage of his people who suffered the tyranny of Communist atheism be an inspiration? To courage? To love as a cure for loneliness and anxiety?
We want God, don’t we? Let’s get back to churches so we can get to know God better, so we can be examples of God’s love to people who need it.
Kathryn Jean Lopez is senior fellow at the National Review Institute, editor-at-large of National Review magazine and author of the new book A Year With the Mystics: Visionary Wisdom for Daily Living. She is also chair of Cardinal Dolan’s pro-life commission in New York. She can be contacted at [email protected].


Forget Fools

“ Show me your friends and I will tell you what you are.
” So goes the Spanish proverb .
But do our friends make us or do we choose our friends according to who we are ?
Good question , and one that could be argued either way .
One thing is clear : our friends reveal much about our judgment and character .
A fool is someone who lacks good judgment or common sense .
You can give them the best advice in the world , and they will ignore it .
I once had a college friend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adventurous .
He had a great sense of humor , which I thoroughly enjoyed .
Generally , my kind of friend .
But soon , he started exhibiting signs of bad judgment .
It showed up first with his words , then his actions .
He was from another state , so for Spring Break we drove halfway across the country to visit his family .
As we planned our mini-vacation , he suggested some things that made me uncomfortable .
Things I knew were wrong .
I blew off his talk .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ his parents welcomed me .
His father was a pastor and my friend talked a good game around his family .
His foolish talk seemed to be just that — talk .
After all , we were in college , which means most of us said some stupid things from time to time .
That night , we went to visit a friend of his .
That ’ s when they started smoking something that was definitely illegal .
Turned out the only phony talk was what had taken place around his parents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their illicit activity .
The next morning , I got up before he was awake , packed my car , and drove a few hours to stay with another college friend .
I figured he could find his own way back to school .
He made it back , but the friendship was over .
I wasn ’ t rude , I just quit hanging out with him .
I made my share of mistakes in college ( no illegal substances ! )
, but his foolishness sent me running away from him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is now or how he ’ s doing .
I wish him well , but our brief friendship is long forgotten .
We all have lapses in judgment .
We all make mistakes .
The difference is the pattern .
Is foolishness the exception or the rule ?
Are lapses in judgment recognized as mistakes or defended as “ no big deal ” or “ me doing my thing ” or “ my truth ” ?
True friends impart wise counsel .
They help steer you in the right direction with sound thinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t always tell you what you want to hear , but what you need to hear .
They may even confront you or challenge your decisions , but it will always be with your best interest at heart .
That ’ s not something you will get from a fool .
Their reasoning is not to be admired , emulated , or followed .
Most of what they tell you should go in one ear and out the other .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Day .
There ’ s a great illustration in nature .
Nothing is more terrifying while swimming in the ocean than the sight of a shark fin headed your way .
But it could just be a curious or playful dolphin .
The most obvious difference between the two is in the shape of the dorsal fin , but that can be hard to distinguish when you are out in the water with them .
Another thing to look for is the motion of it .
The tail fin of a dolphin is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and down to propel it through the water .
A shark ’ s is vertical , so it goes side to side .
You likely won ’ t see the tail above water , but the motion means the dolphin ’ s dorsal fin usually bobs up and down , disappearing and reappearing .
A shark ’ s fin won ’ t do that .
If it ’ s swimming near the surface and heading for you , the fin will be consistent .
That ’ s when you panic .
We can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nature and sporadically bobbing between smart decisions and dumb ones .
That ’ s where wise friends help keep us on course .
Sharks are consistently foolish .
They won ’ t heed good advice .
Wise counsel is wasted breath .
They may even despise your advice .
That ’ s when you panic .
The reason for keeping a safe distance from fools is not to make yourself feel superior , protect your image , prove your righteousness , or anything like that .
I ’ m not suggesting you cut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just that you limit how close you bring them in .
You should continue giving good advice but refrain from confiding in them .
It is not necessary to eliminate your influence on them but critical to mitigate their influence on you .
Recognize that they are not someone in whom you place your trust .
They are acquaintances , not friends .
And when one turns out to be a dangerous shark , get out of the water .
Randy Robison is a writer , producer and host for the television program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other materials can be found at randyrobison.com .
Join him every weekday at noon central for “ LIFE Today Live ” on Facebook , YouTube and Twitter .

“Show me your friends and I will tell you what you are.” So goes the Spanish proverb. But do our friends make us or do we choose our friends according to who we are? Good question, and one that could be argued either way. One thing is clear: our friends reveal much about our judgment and character.
A fool is someone who lacks good judgment or common sense. You can give them the best advice in the world, and they will ignore it. I once had a college friend who was easy-going, good-natured, and adventurous. He had a great sense of humor, which I thoroughly enjoyed. Generally, my kind of friend.
But soon, he started exhibiting signs of bad judgment. It showed up first with his words, then his actions. He was from another state, so for Spring Break we drove halfway across the country to visit his family. As we planned our mini-vacation, he suggested some things that made me uncomfortable. Things I knew were wrong. I blew off his talk. When we arrived at his house, his parents welcomed me. His father was a pastor and my friend talked a good game around his family. His foolish talk seemed to be just that — talk. After all, we were in college, which means most of us said some stupid things from time to time.
That night, we went to visit a friend of his. That’s when they started smoking something that was definitely illegal. Turned out the only phony talk was what had taken place around his parents. I politely refused to participate in their illicit activity. The next morning, I got up before he was awake, packed my car, and drove a few hours to stay with another college friend. I figured he could find his own way back to school.
He made it back, but the friendship was over. I wasn’t rude, I just quit hanging out with him. I made my share of mistakes in college (no illegal substances!), but his foolishness sent me running away from him. I have no idea where he is now or how he’s doing. I wish him well, but our brief friendship is long forgotten.
True Friends Impart Wise Counsel
We all have lapses in judgment. We all make mistakes. The difference is the pattern. Is foolishness the exception or the rule? Are lapses in judgment recognized as mistakes or defended as “no big deal” or “me doing my thing” or “my truth”?
True friends impart wise counsel. They help steer you in the right direction with sound thinking and proven values. They don’t always tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to hear. They may even confront you or challenge your decisions, but it will always be with your best interest at heart.
That’s not something you will get from a fool. Their reasoning is not to be admired, emulated, or followed. Most of what they tell you should go in one ear and out the other.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
There’s a great illustration in nature. Nothing is more terrifying while swimming in the ocean than the sight of a shark fin headed your way. But it could just be a curious or playful dolphin. The most obvious difference between the two is in the shape of the dorsal fin, but that can be hard to distinguish when you are out in the water with them. Another thing to look for is the motion of it. The tail fin of a dolphin is positioned horizontally, meaning it goes up and down to propel it through the water. A shark’s is vertical, so it goes side to side. You likely won’t see the tail above water, but the motion means the dolphin’s dorsal fin usually bobs up and down, disappearing and reappearing. A shark’s fin won’t do that. If it’s swimming near the surface and heading for you, the fin will be consistent. That’s when you panic.
We can all be like dolphins, curious in nature and sporadically bobbing between smart decisions and dumb ones. That’s where wise friends help keep us on course. Sharks are consistently foolish. They won’t heed good advice. Wise counsel is wasted breath. They may even despise your advice. That’s when you panic.
The reason for keeping a safe distance from fools is not to make yourself feel superior, protect your image, prove your righteousness, or anything like that. I’m not suggesting you cut every one of them off completely, just that you limit how close you bring them in. You should continue giving good advice but refrain from confiding in them. It is not necessary to eliminate your influence on them but critical to mitigate their influence on you. Recognize that they are not someone in whom you place your trust. They are acquaintances, not friends. And when one turns out to be a dangerous shark, get out of the water.
Randy Robison is a writer, producer and host for the television program LIFE Today. His books, interviews and other materials can be found at randyrobison.com. Join him every weekday at noon central for “LIFE Today Live” on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.


thestream--2020-05-27--Grenell Declassifies Document Said to be ‘Very Significant’ to Origins of Russia Probe

As one of his last acts in office , Richard Grenell , the outgoing director of national intelligence , declassified a batch of Trump-Russia documents , including one that a senior U.S. intelligence official said is “ very significant ” to the origins of the Russia probe .
Grenell also declassified transcripts of phone calls between Michael Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak , Fox News reported Tuesday .
A senior U.S. intelligence official confirmed the Fox News report to The Daily Caller News Foundation .
Grenell left office on Tuesday after swearing in his replacement , former Texas Rep. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when to release the documents that Grenell declassified .
The official told Fox News that the document related to the origins of the Russia probe is “ very significant in understanding how intelligence was manipulated to support launching the Russia investigation.
” Grenell released a slew of documents related to the Russia investigation during his short tenure as the temporary chief of national intelligence .
President Donald Trump called Grenell a “ superstar ” on Sunday for declassifying the records .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our Day .
Grenell declassified footnotes from the Justice Department inspector general ’ s report on the FBI probe that showed the FBI had evidence of Russian disinformation in the Steele dossier .
He also finalized a review of 53 transcripts from the House Intelligence Committee ’ s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia .
The transcripts showed that Obama administration officials saw no evidence of collusion while they still worked in government .
On May 8 , Grenell declassified a list of Obama administration officials who requested the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He also declassified an email that former national security adviser Susan Rice sent herself on her last day in office regarding a Jan. 5 , 2017 , meeting in the Oval Office where Flynn was discussed .
Grenell said on Friday that he was conducting a declassification review of transcripts of Flynn ’ s calls with Kislyak , which occurred on Dec. 29 , 2016 .
Flynn pleaded guilty in the special counsel ’ s probe on Dec. 1 , 2017 , to making false statements to the FBI regarding his contacts with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ motion to drop those charges on May 7 , citing FBI documents discovered during an internal review of the case against Flynn .
Attorney General William Barr ordered the review after Flynn filed a motion on Jan. 29 retracting his claim to have lied to the FBI .
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined comment on Tuesday when asked about the declassification and whether Ratcliffe plans to release the documents .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

As one of his last acts in office, Richard Grenell, the outgoing director of national intelligence, declassified a batch of Trump-Russia documents, including one that a senior U.S. intelligence official said is “very significant” to the origins of the Russia probe.
Grenell also declassified transcripts of phone calls between Michael Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, Fox News reported Tuesday.
A senior U.S. intelligence official confirmed the Fox News report to The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Grenell left office on Tuesday after swearing in his replacement, former Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe.
Ratcliffe will ultimately decide when to release the documents that Grenell declassified.
The official told Fox News that the document related to the origins of the Russia probe is “very significant in understanding how intelligence was manipulated to support launching the Russia investigation.”
Grenell released a slew of documents related to the Russia investigation during his short tenure as the temporary chief of national intelligence. President Donald Trump called Grenell a “superstar” on Sunday for declassifying the records.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Grenell declassified footnotes from the Justice Department inspector general’s report on the FBI probe that showed the FBI had evidence of Russian disinformation in the Steele dossier.
He also finalized a review of 53 transcripts from the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The transcripts showed that Obama administration officials saw no evidence of collusion while they still worked in government.
On May 8, Grenell declassified a list of Obama administration officials who requested the unmasking of Flynn in intelligence reports. He also declassified an email that former national security adviser Susan Rice sent herself on her last day in office regarding a Jan. 5, 2017, meeting in the Oval Office where Flynn was discussed.
Grenell said on Friday that he was conducting a declassification review of transcripts of Flynn’s calls with Kislyak, which occurred on Dec. 29, 2016.
Flynn pleaded guilty in the special counsel’s probe on Dec. 1, 2017, to making false statements to the FBI regarding his contacts with Kislyak. The Justice Department filed a motion to drop those charges on May 7, citing FBI documents discovered during an internal review of the case against Flynn.
Attorney General William Barr ordered the review after Flynn filed a motion on Jan. 29 retracting his claim to have lied to the FBI.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined comment on Tuesday when asked about the declassification and whether Ratcliffe plans to release the documents.
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--2020-05-27--UPDATED: Did Mueller Even Blow the Most Basic Question About Russian Interference?

UPDATE : The recent release of transcripts from congressional testimony revealed some startling information .
CrowdStrike , the tech company tasked by the DNC and Hillary Clinton ’ s lawfirm Perkins Coie to determine how a treasure trove of John Podesta and DNC emails ended up snatched from DNC computers , made a shocking confession : They actually have zero proof Russians actually extracted the emails .
You read that right .
The president of CrowdStrikes Services Shawn Henry testified , under oath : “ We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There are times when we can see data exfiltrated , and we can say conclusively .
But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated , but we just don ’ t have the evidence that says it actually left.
” ( emphasis ours . )
This is further proof that the meme “ Russia hacked the DNC ” — like so many stories sold by Obama ’ s officials and the media and held as gospel — is likely fiction .
And remember , “ Russia hacked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counter-terrorism investigation against the Trump campaign .
George Papadapolous telling an Aussie diplomat he had heard Russia had dirt on Hillary supposedly indicated the Trump campaign knew what Russia had been up to , thus giving the FBI an excuse to launch a counter-terrorism probe .
Also , it was the allegation that Roger Stone had pre-knowledge Russia had the emails that sent a SWAT Team charging into his house with CNN in tow .
The foundation , it appears , is made of fairy dust .
This new revelation is a good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published last year when the Mueller Report came out and slyly hid the lack of proof behind “ Russia hacked the DNC ” meme .
It ’ s worth a second look .
The hyenas , their throats sore from a week of screaming “ racist , ” have taken a lozenge .
Then restarted the chant of “ Obstruction !
Collusion !
” On Wednesday , Robert Mueller is being dragged up to Congress to give Democrats the chance to breath life into the dead bones of the Russia hoax .
Yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions from Republicans .
Sooooo many questions .
The Daily Caller ‘ s Chuck Ross has laid out 27 the former Special Counsel should be asked .
The Federalist has 21 .
I have my own .
But I ’ ll start with one : Did you blow the big one ?
Even Its Central Claim is Not Supported Did you know Mueller does not even back up a central claim of his report ?
A claim repeated so often the past couple years that it is taken as gospel ?
The claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Mueller ’ s narrative goes like this : The Russians military GRU unit hacked the DNC computers via fake hacker personas “ DC Leaks ” and “ Guccifer 2.0.
” GRU got the emails to Wikileaks .
And Wikileaks published them .
Mueller just couldn ’ t find evidence that Trump or his team knew about it or were involved in Russia ’ s interference in our election .
Certainly , if Mueller ’ s report did anything , it proved the Russians hacked the DNC computers .
Right ?
After all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 17 intelligence agencies verified it .
( Actually , he later admitted it was just four hand-picked agents , including Peter Strzok , but who ’ s counting ? )
So Mueller must have confirmed it .
Well … according to liberal journalist Aaron Mate , Mueller did no such thing .
Mate has written a must-read , detailed analysis of the Mueller Report .
His conclusion ?
Mueller doesn ’ t back up his claim of the DNC being hacked by Russia .
In fact , Mueller uses hedges like GRU officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emails and attachments… .
” We spent tens of millions and three years of investigations to hear the word “ appear ” ?
!
As Mike Huckabee noted , Mate also cites a report in the New Yorker by Raffi Khatchadourian .
The documents released directly by Guccifer 2.0 were “ nowhere near the quality ” of the material published by WikiLeaks .
Also , they contained “ easily discoverable Russian metadata.
” In other words , there were Russian footprints all over it .
Even though , as an intelligence source tells @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been masters at covering their tracks .
It ’ s almost as if someone wanted us to think the Russians did it .
Hold that thought .
Mueller also does not state with any certainty how the Russian hacks got to WikiLeaks .
In the report ’ s own words , “ The Office can not rule out that stolen documents were transferred to WikiLeaks through intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016.
” Willie Wonka couldn ’ t come up with a fudge that impressive .
Former FBI Special Agent Coleen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s certainly curious as to why this discrepancy exists between the language of Mueller ’ s [ earlier Russian ] indictment and the extra wiggle room inserted into his report a year later.
” Most amazing thing of all : According to Robert Mueller , Julian Assange is a time traveler .
As Mate puts it , according to Mueller “ WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of the emails not only before he received the documents , but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.
” Assange told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton , which is great.
” Yet , it was two days later when @ DCLeaks , citing the comment reached out to WikiLeaks and said , “ We are ready to support you .
We have some sensitive information too , in particular , her financial documents.
” Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
The WikiLeaks release of DNC and John Podesta emails is pivotal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ d want to talk to Julian Assange , right ?
Wrong .
Mueller ’ s team interviewed 500 witness across the globe .
Yet they didn ’ t speak with the WikiLeaks founder .
Why not , Mr. Mueller ?
Afraid the answers might not go your way ?
They Didn ’ t Even Verify the Hack Happened The FBI and DHS did not examine the DNC computers .
The DNC refused to let them .
Sure , the DNC could have had plenty to hide and would resist the eyes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But why didn ’ t Comey ’ s FBI push the issue ?
We keep being told Russian interference was a threat to our very democracy , and yet the FBI was okay with being denied access to the crime scene ?
They hit Roger Stone ’ s house with enough firepower to take down a small country , yet were too meek to insist on a peek at the DNC computers ?
Sure .
We were told the FBI was given a duplicate data base from a progressive tech firm brought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And from this , the FBI made its determination the Russians did it .
Ah .
Except the FBI now admits even that is not true .
Roger Stone ’ s lawyers went to court to get the unredacted CrowdStrike report sent to the FBI/DOJ .
The DOJ admitted it never got such a report .
( Thank you , Sundance at TheConservativeTreeHouse.com . )
As Sundance says , “ The FBI and DOJ were only allowed to see a ‘ draft ’ report prepared by Crowdstrike , and that report was redacted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ lost version of the report produced ’ ; meaning , there are no unredacted & final versions.
” And on this flimsy foundation all claims about Russia hacking the DNC rests .
Every assumption , conclusion and innuendo by DOJ , FBI , John Brennan , James Clapper , the mainstream media , congressional Democrats … and one Robert Mueller .
All accusations based on the word of a “ hired contractor for the Democrat party.
” And not contractor hired by just anybody .
Who paid for CrowdStrike to do the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The same law firm hired by Hillary to create the Steele Dossier .
You read that right .
The very same people who told you Trump had colluded with Russia in the 2016 election are the same people telling you Russia hacked the DNC .
And they are given credibility why ?
Take it one a step further : Perkins Coie was Hillary ’ s firm .
And as former DNC head Donna Brazile said in her book , by spring of 2016 , Hillary ’ s campaign was making all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s logical to conclude the decision to keep the FBI/DHS from the DNC computers came from Hillary ’ s camp .
The same woman who deleted and destroyed at least 30,000 emails to keep them from investigators .
And we don ’ t consider any conclusions by Hillary-controlled functionaries garbage … why ?
Trusting a Clinton-funded tech firm with investigating the DNC emails is like trusting Clinton-pal Jeffrey Epstein with your teenage daughter .
Yet Mueller swallowed its story … every single word of it .
So Who Lifted the Emails ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ came from inside the DNC .
Assange associate and former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray also said they came from inside the DNC .
Murray claims they were handed to him in a DC park .
Again , Mueller didn ’ t bother to interview Assange .
And despite all the resources and intelligence capabilities of the US at his disposal , Mueller can ’ t even tell you how the Russians got the emails to WikiLeaks .
Is there technical evidence that puts Mueller ’ s claim in doubt ?
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported in 2017 on former NSA experts who laid out forensic evidence demolishing the Russian hack story .
They say the evidence points towards a local download .
For that matter , “ NSA ’ s known programs are fully capable of capturing all electronic transfers of data.
” In other words , if someone hacked the DNC and grabbed a bunch of emails NSA could flag it as easy as a cop nabbing a speeder .
The analysts even wrote President Obama Obama , “ We strongly suggest that you ask NSA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the results of Russian hacking were given to WikiLeaks .
If NSA can not produce such evidence — and quickly — this would probably mean it does not have any.
” As shown , Mueller has offered no such evidence .
So right now your choices are : • An insider downloading emails onto a drive and handing it over to a WikiLeaks middle man .
• Careless , but technology-defying Russians hacking the system and Julian Assange traveling back in time to retrieve the data .
Option 1 is what WikiLeaks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is what the Hillary and DNC funded people behind the Russia Collusion hoax say happened — and Mueller ’ s team of anti-Trump activists accepted as gospel but did not prove .
Now let ’ s and another new wrinkle lost in the week ’ s hubbub .
Not just a wrinkle , but a trigger for the Left .
Businessman Ed Butowsky claimed in a lawsuit filed last week that Julian Assange admitted he got the emails from Seth Rich .
Assange supposedly laid the bombshell on Fox News analyst Ellen Ratner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He allegedly wanted Ratner to pass the information onto Rich ’ s family .
Ratner ’ s no random media figure .
She ’ s the sister of Assange ’ s late lawyer , Michael Ratner .
Who better to trust with the message ?
Assange insinuated shortly after Rich ’ s 2016 murder that the young DNC staffer had been the whistle blower .
Even offered a reward for the capture of his murderer .
Of course , Assange ’ s claim has been dismissed as a deflection away from Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalist to trumpet the Trump-Russia Collusion hoax has just published an article arguing Russia was behind all the Seth Rich conspiracy talk .
( Unconvincingly , one might add . )
And though there ’ s video of Ratner discussing her Assange meeting — and how Assange told her the emails came from inside the DNC — Ratner has not confirmed that Assange named Rich as the whistleblower .
For that matter , Assange could be using Rich to draw attention away from the real DNC leaker .
The point ?
Robert Mueller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when he sits there Wednesday attempting to defend a report so completely flawed , an investigation so clearly corrupt , attempting to perpetuate the sabotaging of the president , the first question must be , “ What the heck were you doing for two years ?
” Because it certainly wasn ’ t looking for the truth .
Al Perrotta is the Managing Editor of The Stream and co-author , with @ JZmirak , of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration .
You can follow him at @ StreamingAl .
And if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Stream at @ Streamdotorg .

UPDATE: The recent release of transcripts from congressional testimony revealed some startling information. CrowdStrike, the tech company tasked by the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s lawfirm Perkins Coie to determine how a treasure trove of John Podesta and DNC emails ended up snatched from DNC computers, made a shocking confession: They actually have zero proof Russians actually extracted the emails. You read that right.
The president of CrowdStrikes Services Shawn Henry testified, under oath: “We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated. There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.” (emphasis ours.)
This is further proof that the meme “Russia hacked the DNC” — like so many stories sold by Obama’s officials and the media and held as gospel — is likely fiction. And remember, “Russia hacked the DNC” is foundational to the counter-terrorism investigation against the Trump campaign. George Papadapolous telling an Aussie diplomat he had heard Russia had dirt on Hillary supposedly indicated the Trump campaign knew what Russia had been up to, thus giving the FBI an excuse to launch a counter-terrorism probe. Also, it was the allegation that Roger Stone had pre-knowledge Russia had the emails that sent a SWAT Team charging into his house with CNN in tow. The foundation, it appears, is made of fairy dust.
This new revelation is a good time to bring back a story we published last year when the Mueller Report came out and slyly hid the lack of proof behind “Russia hacked the DNC” meme. It’s worth a second look.
__________________
The hyenas, their throats sore from a week of screaming “racist,” have taken a lozenge. Then restarted the chant of “Obstruction! Collusion!” On Wednesday, Robert Mueller is being dragged up to Congress to give Democrats the chance to breath life into the dead bones of the Russia hoax.
Yet, Mueller will also have to face questions from Republicans. Sooooo many questions. The Daily Caller‘s Chuck Ross has laid out 27 the former Special Counsel should be asked. The Federalist has 21. I have my own.
But I’ll start with one: Did you blow the big one?
Even Its Central Claim is Not Supported
Did you know Mueller does not even back up a central claim of his report? A claim repeated so often the past couple years that it is taken as gospel? The claim that “Russia hacked the DNC computers.”
Mueller’s narrative goes like this: The Russians military GRU unit hacked the DNC computers via fake hacker personas “DC Leaks” and “Guccifer 2.0.” GRU got the emails to Wikileaks. And Wikileaks published them. Mueller just couldn’t find evidence that Trump or his team knew about it or were involved in Russia’s interference in our election.
Certainly, if Mueller’s report did anything, it proved the Russians hacked the DNC computers. Right? After all, the ever-trusty James Clapper told us 17 intelligence agencies verified it. (Actually, he later admitted it was just four hand-picked agents, including Peter Strzok, but who’s counting?) So Mueller must have confirmed it. Well … according to liberal journalist Aaron Mate, Mueller did no such thing.
Mate has written a must-read, detailed analysis of the Mueller Report. His conclusion? Mueller doesn’t back up his claim of the DNC being hacked by Russia. In fact, Mueller uses hedges like GRU officers “appear to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments… .” We spent tens of millions and three years of investigations to hear the word “appear”?!
As Mike Huckabee noted, Mate also cites a report in the New Yorker by Raffi Khatchadourian. The documents released directly by Guccifer 2.0 were “nowhere near the quality” of the material published by WikiLeaks. Also, they contained “easily discoverable Russian metadata.” In other words, there were Russian footprints all over it. Even though, as an intelligence source tells The Stream, the Russians have long been masters at covering their tracks. It’s almost as if someone wanted us to think the Russians did it. Hold that thought.
The very same people who told you Trump had colluded with Russia in the 2016 election are the same people telling you Russia hacked the DNC. And they are given credibility why?
Mueller also does not state with any certainty how the Russian hacks got to WikiLeaks. In the report’s own words, “The Office cannot rule out that stolen documents were transferred to WikiLeaks through intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016.” Willie Wonka couldn’t come up with a fudge that impressive. Former FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley tells Mate, “It’s certainly curious as to why this discrepancy exists between the language of Mueller’s [earlier Russian] indictment and the extra wiggle room inserted into his report a year later.”
Most amazing thing of all: According to Robert Mueller, Julian Assange is a time traveler.
Julian Assange, Time Traveler
As Mate puts it, according to Mueller “WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of the emails not only before he received the documents, but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.” Assange told an interviewer on June 12, 2016, “We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton, which is great.” Yet, it was two days later when @DCLeaks, citing the comment reached out to WikiLeaks and said, “We are ready to support you. We have some sensitive information too, in particular, her financial documents.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
The WikiLeaks release of DNC and John Podesta emails is pivotal to the Russia interference story. Naturally, you’d want to talk to Julian Assange, right? Wrong. Mueller’s team interviewed 500 witness across the globe. Yet they didn’t speak with the WikiLeaks founder. Why not, Mr. Mueller? Afraid the answers might not go your way?
They Didn’t Even Verify the Hack Happened
The FBI and DHS did not examine the DNC computers. The DNC refused to let them. Sure, the DNC could have had plenty to hide and would resist the eyes of the law peaking into their business. But why didn’t Comey’s FBI push the issue? We keep being told Russian interference was a threat to our very democracy, and yet the FBI was okay with being denied access to the crime scene?
They hit Roger Stone’s house with enough firepower to take down a small country, yet were too meek to insist on a peek at the DNC computers? Sure.
We were told the FBI was given a duplicate data base from a progressive tech firm brought in by the DNC called CrowdStrike, And from this, the FBI made its determination the Russians did it. Ah. Except the FBI now admits even that is not true. Roger Stone’s lawyers went to court to get the unredacted CrowdStrike report sent to the FBI/DOJ. The DOJ admitted it never got such a report. (Thank you, Sundance at TheConservativeTreeHouse.com.)
As Sundance says, “The FBI and DOJ were only allowed to see a ‘draft’ report prepared by Crowdstrike, and that report was redacted … and that redacted draft is the ‘lost version of the report produced’; meaning, there are no unredacted & final versions.”
And on this flimsy foundation all claims about Russia hacking the DNC rests. Every assumption, conclusion and innuendo by DOJ, FBI, John Brennan, James Clapper, the mainstream media, congressional Democrats … and one Robert Mueller. All accusations based on the word of a “hired contractor for the Democrat party.” And not contractor hired by just anybody.
CrowdStrike
Who paid for CrowdStrike to do the work? The law firm Perkins Coie. The same law firm hired by Hillary to create the Steele Dossier.
You read that right. The very same people who told you Trump had colluded with Russia in the 2016 election are the same people telling you Russia hacked the DNC. And they are given credibility why?
Take it one a step further: Perkins Coie was Hillary’s firm. And as former DNC head Donna Brazile said in her book, by spring of 2016, Hillary’s campaign was making all the decisions for the DNC. So it’s logical to conclude the decision to keep the FBI/DHS from the DNC computers came from Hillary’s camp. The same woman who deleted and destroyed at least 30,000 emails to keep them from investigators. And we don’t consider any conclusions by Hillary-controlled functionaries garbage … why?
Trusting a Clinton-funded tech firm with investigating the DNC emails is like trusting Clinton-pal Jeffrey Epstein with your teenage daughter. Yet Mueller swallowed its story … every single word of it.
So Who Lifted the Emails?
Julian Assange himself says the DNC emails came from inside the DNC. Assange associate and former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray also said they came from inside the DNC. Murray claims they were handed to him in a DC park. Again, Mueller didn’t bother to interview Assange. And despite all the resources and intelligence capabilities of the US at his disposal, Mueller can’t even tell you how the Russians got the emails to WikiLeaks.
Is there technical evidence that puts Mueller’s claim in doubt? The Nation — not exactly Fox News — reported in 2017 on former NSA experts who laid out forensic evidence demolishing the Russian hack story. They say the evidence points towards a local download. For that matter, “NSA’s known programs are fully capable of capturing all electronic transfers of data.” In other words, if someone hacked the DNC and grabbed a bunch of emails NSA could flag it as easy as a cop nabbing a speeder.
The analysts even wrote President Obama Obama, “We strongly suggest that you ask NSA for any evidence it may have indicating that the results of Russian hacking were given to WikiLeaks. If NSA cannot produce such evidence — and quickly — this would probably mean it does not have any.”
As shown, Mueller has offered no such evidence.
So right now your choices are:
An insider downloading emails onto a drive and handing it over to a WikiLeaks middle man. Careless, but technology-defying Russians hacking the system and Julian Assange traveling back in time to retrieve the data.
Option 1 is what WikiLeaks itself says what happened.
Option 2 is what the Hillary and DNC funded people behind the Russia Collusion hoax say happened — and Mueller’s team of anti-Trump activists accepted as gospel but did not prove.
The Final Wrinkle
Now let’s and another new wrinkle lost in the week’s hubbub. Not just a wrinkle, but a trigger for the Left.
Businessman Ed Butowsky claimed in a lawsuit filed last week that Julian Assange admitted he got the emails from Seth Rich. Assange supposedly laid the bombshell on Fox News analyst Ellen Ratner during a meeting at the Ecuadorian embassy. He allegedly wanted Ratner to pass the information onto Rich’s family. Ratner’s no random media figure. She’s the sister of Assange’s late lawyer, Michael Ratner. Who better to trust with the message?
Assange insinuated shortly after Rich’s 2016 murder that the young DNC staffer had been the whistle blower. Even offered a reward for the capture of his murderer. Of course, Assange’s claim has been dismissed as a deflection away from Russia. In fact, the first major journalist to trumpet the Trump-Russia Collusion hoax has just published an article arguing Russia was behind all the Seth Rich conspiracy talk. (Unconvincingly, one might add.)
And though there’s video of Ratner discussing her Assange meeting — and how Assange told her the emails came from inside the DNC — Ratner has not confirmed that Assange named Rich as the whistleblower. For that matter, Assange could be using Rich to draw attention away from the real DNC leaker.
The point? Robert Mueller did not even ask.
Which means when he sits there Wednesday attempting to defend a report so completely flawed, an investigation so clearly corrupt, attempting to perpetuate the sabotaging of the president, the first question must be, “What the heck were you doing for two years?”
Because it certainly wasn’t looking for the truth.
Al Perrotta is the Managing Editor of The Stream and co-author, with @JZmirak, of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration. You can follow him at @StreamingAl. And if you aren’t already, please follow The Stream at @Streamdotorg.


thestream--2020-05-27--Big Tech Adds More Censorship of PragerU. Terrified of Its Influence?

PragerU puts out some of the most brilliant videos on the right .
Such as “ The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party.
” Carol Swain , a retired black professor of political science at Vanderbilt University , explains how the Democrats are the party of racism , all the way back to days of slavery .
These powerful videos infuriate Democrats .
What do infuriated Democrats do ?
They go on a campaign to get big tech to censor the videos .
None of the videos contain explicit , vulgar or obscene material .
But a video of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a dirty movie .
A few days ago , Facebook reduced the reach of PragerU ’ s page .
It also implemented restrictions under the guise of “ repeated sharing of false news.
” Is PragerU denying the Holocaust ?
Promoting quack medicines ?
Selling vacation homes on Venus ?
No .
PragerU gave evidence that a favorite P.C .
story isn ’ t true .
The video that triggered the censorship challenges the claim that climate change drives polar bears to extinction .
Facebook grayed out the video and put a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As a result , the video has only 239,133 YouTube views .
PragerU videos often get millions of views .
Facebook employs multiple “ fact checkers ” who look for false information .
But they are overwhelmingly on the left .
Left-wing billionaire George Soros provides a large amount of funding to the International Fact-Checking Network .
The IFCN coordinates fact-checking between individuals and groups around the world , including Facebook .
The operation is run by the Poynter Institute .
I used to visit the Poynter Institute ’ s section on fake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I made videos about fake news .
They don ’ t even try to hide their bias .
Fake news was often , and erroneously , attributed to conservatives , while fake news accusations of liberals were often dismissed as false .
PragerU sued Google-owned YouTube in 2017 and 2019 for classifying some of its videos as containing “ mature content.
” In this “ restricted mode , ” the 1.5 % of viewers who opted out of seeing mature content would not be able to see them .
Some may be categorized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ selectively YouTube applies that label .
One of the PragerU videos placed in this category is “ Are 1 in 5 women in college raped ?
” That would be “ mature content.
” Whereas videos about campus rape put out by prominent left-wing organizations and individuals aren ’ t labeled .
For example : “ A Real Time With Bill Maher video about The Hunting Ground , an interview with former Vice President Joe Biden on how to end the campus rape crisis , and Lady Gaga singing about rape all can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Hollywood Reporter observed .
PragerU argued that YouTube should be treated like a public utility because it had grown so large .
The court ruled against PragerU in February , saying the Constitution protects individuals only from government censorship .
The First Amendment does not apply to big tech .
YouTube claims it wasn ’ t censorship regardless , saying “ Giving viewers the choice to opt in to a more restricted experience is not censorship.
” But when it suits them , liberal judges have ruled the other way .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that President Trump can ’ t block people on Twitter since the First Amendment applies .
An appeals court upheld the decision .
The suppression of PragerU ’ s work goes even further .
Twitter and Spotify have banned PragerU from advertising on their sites .
A Twitter spokesperson told Fox News , “ The @ PragerU Twitter Ads account is ineligible to advertise on the Twitter Ads platform due to repeated violation of our Twitter Ads policies .
The account may , however , continue to tweet organically as long as it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tech leadership is dominated by those on the left .
Founder Dennis Prager observed last year , “ If it is pro-America , if it ’ s pro-Israel if it is pro-religion , it is likely to be censored by Google or YouTube.
” Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
Maybe this is why the left wants to shut down PragerU ’ s videos .
Last year , PragerU videos racked up more than one billion views @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school and college promoters .
They shoot videos interviewing left-wing students on campus that make the students look foolish and ignorant .
They host on-campus meetings and hold an annual convention .
Thousands of college and high school teachers play their videos in their classrooms .
They ’ re starting a book club and a show catering to Hispanics called “ Americanos.
” PragerU is almost completely self-funded , raising $ 22 million in donations last year .
They are ranked among the top 10 political advertisers on Facebook .
They are making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in academia , something the right has had difficulty in doing .
Tara McGowan knows the threat felt on the left .
She ’ s the chief executive of Acronym , a nonprofit that advises progressives on digital campaigning , She sums up the left ’ s fear .
“ It is a sophisticated campaign to indoctrinate young people .
The amount of money they are putting behind it is alarming and significant .
They seem to have created a savvy way to push an ideology onto an audience and get a tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s just one story of PragerU ’ s effect .
It got the attention of The New York Times .
Cody Thompson , an undergraduate at Augsburg University in Minneapolis , used to be a social justice activist .
But after seeing Professor Swain ’ s video , something changed .
He watched more PragerU videos .
And more .
And became a conservative .
That ’ s what really worries the left .
Calling it fake news and convincing major social media sites to block PragerU is their way to keep PragerU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alexander is a senior editor of The Stream .
Follow her on Twitter at Rach_IC .
Follow The Stream at streamdotorg .
Send tips to rachel.alexander @ stream.org .

PragerU puts out some of the most brilliant videos on the right. Such as “The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party.” Carol Swain, a retired black professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, explains how the Democrats are the party of racism, all the way back to days of slavery.
These powerful videos infuriate Democrats. What do infuriated Democrats do? They go on a campaign to get big tech to censor the videos.
Whose False News?
None of the videos contain explicit, vulgar or obscene material. But a video of the Ten Commandments is now treated the same as a dirty movie.
A few days ago, Facebook reduced the reach of PragerU’s page. It also implemented restrictions under the guise of “repeated sharing of false news.”
BREAKING:@Facebook has reduced our page reach and implemented restrictions for "repeated sharing of false news." Facebook is using biased 3rd party fact-checkers to flag content and censor conservatives. Is Facebook now the arbiter of truth? RETWEET TO STAND UP TO CENSORSHIP pic.twitter.com/i9RjeBR3Yp — PragerU (@prageru) May 19, 2020
Is PragerU denying the Holocaust? Promoting quack medicines? Selling vacation homes on Venus? No. PragerU gave evidence that a favorite P.C. story isn’t true. The video that triggered the censorship challenges the claim that climate change drives polar bears to extinction.
Facebook grayed out the video and put a “false” label on it. As a result, the video has only 239,133 YouTube views. PragerU videos often get millions of views.
Facebook employs multiple “fact checkers” who look for false information. But they are overwhelmingly on the left. Left-wing billionaire George Soros provides a large amount of funding to the International Fact-Checking Network. The IFCN coordinates fact-checking between individuals and groups around the world, including Facebook.
The operation is run by the Poynter Institute. I used to visit the Poynter Institute’s section on fake news every week for two years when I made videos about fake news. They don’t even try to hide their bias. Fake news was often, and erroneously, attributed to conservatives, while fake news accusations of liberals were often dismissed as false.
PragerU’s Lawsuits
PragerU sued Google-owned YouTube in 2017 and 2019 for classifying some of its videos as containing “mature content.” In this “restricted mode,” the 1.5% of viewers who opted out of seeing mature content would not be able to see them.
Some may be categorized correctly. But the problem is how selectively YouTube applies that label. One of the PragerU videos placed in this category is “Are 1 in 5 women in college raped?” That would be “mature content.” Whereas videos about campus rape put out by prominent left-wing organizations and individuals aren’t labeled. For example: “A Real Time With Bill Maher video about The Hunting Ground, an interview with former Vice President Joe Biden on how to end the campus rape crisis, and Lady Gaga singing about rape all can be seen by YouTube users,” the Hollywood Reporter observed.
The court ruled against PragerU in February, saying the Constitution protects individuals only from government censorship.
PragerU argued that YouTube should be treated like a public utility because it had grown so large. The court ruled against PragerU in February, saying the Constitution protects individuals only from government censorship. The First Amendment does not apply to big tech. YouTube claims it wasn’t censorship regardless, saying “Giving viewers the choice to opt in to a more restricted experience is not censorship.”
But when it suits them, liberal judges have ruled the other way. A federal district court judge ruled in March that President Trump can’t block people on Twitter since the First Amendment applies. An appeals court upheld the decision.
Twitter and Spotify Censorship
The suppression of PragerU’s work goes even further. Twitter and Spotify have banned PragerU from advertising on their sites.
A Twitter spokesperson told Fox News, “The @PragerU Twitter Ads account is ineligible to advertise on the Twitter Ads platform due to repeated violation of our Twitter Ads policies. The account may, however, continue to tweet organically as long as it complies with the Twitter Rules.”
Big tech leadership is dominated by those on the left. Founder Dennis Prager observed last year, “If it is pro-America, if it’s pro-Israel if it is pro-religion, it is likely to be censored by Google or YouTube.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Maybe this is why the left wants to shut down PragerU’s videos. Last year, PragerU videos racked up more than one billion views. The nonprofit has over 6,500 high school and college promoters. They shoot videos interviewing left-wing students on campus that make the students look foolish and ignorant. They host on-campus meetings and hold an annual convention. Thousands of college and high school teachers play their videos in their classrooms.
They’re starting a book club and a show catering to Hispanics called “Americanos.” PragerU is almost completely self-funded, raising $22 million in donations last year. They are ranked among the top 10 political advertisers on Facebook. They are making vast inroads into countering the left-wing bias in academia, something the right has had difficulty in doing.
The Left is Terrified
Tara McGowan knows the threat felt on the left. She’s the chief executive of Acronym, a nonprofit that advises progressives on digital campaigning, She sums up the left’s fear. “It is a sophisticated campaign to indoctrinate young people. The amount of money they are putting behind it is alarming and significant. They seem to have created a savvy way to push an ideology onto an audience and get a tax break in the process.”
Here’s just one story of PragerU’s effect. It got the attention of The New York Times. Cody Thompson, an undergraduate at Augsburg University in Minneapolis, used to be a social justice activist. But after seeing Professor Swain’s video, something changed. He watched more PragerU videos. And more. And became a conservative.
That’s what really worries the left. Calling it fake news and convincing major social media sites to block PragerU is their way to keep PragerU from creating more Cody Thompsons.
Rachel Alexander is a senior editor of The Stream. Follow her on Twitter at Rach_IC. Follow The Stream at streamdotorg. Send tips to [email protected].


thestream--2020-05-28--What if the Coronavirus is the Least of Our Worries Now?

I had an unsettling experience this weekend when I attempted to go to Confession at a local church .
I described it in a short Facebook post because I believe it is important that we realize what ’ s happening , or what likely will happen in parishes around the country .
Briefly , here ’ s what happened .
Waiting at the open church door was a masked woman holding a clipboard .
She said hello and asked for my full name .
I replied that I only wanted to go to Confession .
She said that she was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contact information for tracing purposes .
I made the decision not to go inside , and I quietly turned around and left .
I do not believe it is right nor necessary to require a penitent to give his/her name and contact info in order to go to Confession , and I will not do it .
I have exactly zero confidence that all this contact tracing will not be used and abused by the State to take greater control and to further erode religious liberty in our country — not to mention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m also uncertain how this squares with canon law regarding anonymity in Confession , but I did not raise that issue in my post . )
I did not expect everyone to agree with my takeaway on the situation .
There ’ s plenty of room for differing opinions .
There are valid points to be made on many sides .
I was stunned at the heat and viciousness of the responses I got .
Complete strangers came out with their verbal knives to get some blood .
I was called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insisted I ’ d made the entire incident up out of thin air .
I lost count of how many people called me selfishly indifferent to the health of others ; pridefully obsessed with my own rights ; lacking in even an iota of charity for my neighbor and thus , a hypocrite and a terrible Christian ; and a dangerous Catholic for “ misrepresenting the faith and the rules about the sacraments.
” I was inciting “ rotten fruit ” with my public “ tantrum ” and refusing the grace of God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my terms .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
More than a few folks flat out accused me of idolatry .
Yes , it seems I idolize my freedom and privacy above all else .
Mine is a “ spirit of insubordination ” and my values “ have nothing to do with faith.
” One woman decided it was her place to chastise me that when I finally make it to Confession , I should confess my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health and safety of others ” and then added , “ If you can ’ t be bothered to make minor sacrifices for the lives of others — ask yourself , is it sloth , greed or gluttony you need to confess ?
” Remember , these responses came from other Christians , all in the name of charity .
Church , we have a grave problem indeed , and it isn ’ t the virus .
What is the single identifying factor by which Christ said the world would know us as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; in non-essentials , liberty ; in all things , charity.
” — St. Augustine As I said , there are serious issues at stake here and there is much to discuss and debate .
There are valid and differing views that should be considered honestly .
We must address them like rational adults .
More than that , we who are Christians are obliged to respond with honesty , self-control , respect — with love .
We may disagree , even vehemently .
We can and should debate the merits and demerits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to combat this wretched virus .
Yet if my experience is any indication , discussion and debate are being fed to the lions of viciousness , self-righteous judgment , condemnation , nastiness and hatred .
Friends are writing each other off with shocking ease .
Acquaintances are slitting one another ’ s throats .
Strangers are mowing down strangers with self-satisfied glee and smug assurance .
We Are Battling Fear as Much as a Virus The crisis we are living through didn ’ t come with a guidebook or a map or a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ love have died , are dying , are sick , are suffering , have lost jobs and businesses , have lost homes , have lost hope , have been overcome .
It is frightening to say the least .
Our only defense is charity .
To remember , with due humility , that you may be right , I may be wrong , or a little of both , but we are obligated to love one another .
We sin by slashing each other with our pompous words of condemnation .
We sin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with unjust accusations .
Stop it .
We need to discuss , debate , disagree , hash it all out and show the world how to do it with love .
Come , Holy Spirit , fill our hearts .
Enkindle in us the fire of Your love .
Jennifer Hartline is a senior contributor to The Stream .
You can follow her at @ jenniehartline .

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” — St. Augustine
I had an unsettling experience this weekend when I attempted to go to Confession at a local church. I described it in a short Facebook post because I believe it is important that we realize what’s happening, or what likely will happen in parishes around the country.
Briefly, here’s what happened. Waiting at the open church door was a masked woman holding a clipboard. She said hello and asked for my full name. I replied that I only wanted to go to Confession. She said that she was required to get my full name and contact information for tracing purposes.
I made the decision not to go inside, and I quietly turned around and left. I do not believe it is right nor necessary to require a penitent to give his/her name and contact info in order to go to Confession, and I will not do it. I have exactly zero confidence that all this contact tracing will not be used and abused by the State to take greater control and to further erode religious liberty in our country — not to mention every other form of liberty. (I’m also uncertain how this squares with canon law regarding anonymity in Confession, but I did not raise that issue in my post.)
I did not expect everyone to agree with my takeaway on the situation. There’s plenty of room for differing opinions. There are valid points to be made on many sides.
I was stunned at the heat and viciousness of the responses I got.
Irony, Much?
Complete strangers came out with their verbal knives to get some blood. I was called a total liar by one man who insisted I’d made the entire incident up out of thin air. I lost count of how many people called me selfishly indifferent to the health of others; pridefully obsessed with my own rights; lacking in even an iota of charity for my neighbor and thus, a hypocrite and a terrible Christian; and a dangerous Catholic for “misrepresenting the faith and the rules about the sacraments.”
I was inciting “rotten fruit” with my public “tantrum” and refusing the grace of God because it didn’t come on my terms.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
More than a few folks flat out accused me of idolatry. Yes, it seems I idolize my freedom and privacy above all else. Mine is a “spirit of insubordination” and my values “have nothing to do with faith.”
One woman decided it was her place to chastise me that when I finally make it to Confession, I should confess my “massive and selfish indifference to the health and safety of others” and then added, “If you can’t be bothered to make minor sacrifices for the lives of others — ask yourself, is it sloth, greed or gluttony you need to confess?”
Remember, these responses came from other Christians, all in the name of charity.
A Greater Threat
Church, we have a grave problem indeed, and it isn’t the virus. What is the single identifying factor by which Christ said the world would know us as His?
As I said, there are serious issues at stake here and there is much to discuss and debate. There are valid and differing views that should be considered honestly. We must address them like rational adults. More than that, we who are Christians are obliged to respond with honesty, self-control, respect — with love. We may disagree, even vehemently. We can and should debate the merits and demerits of the steps being taken right now to combat this wretched virus.
Our only defense is charity.
Yet if my experience is any indication, discussion and debate are being fed to the lions of viciousness, self-righteous judgment, condemnation, nastiness and hatred. Friends are writing each other off with shocking ease. Acquaintances are slitting one another’s throats. Strangers are mowing down strangers with self-satisfied glee and smug assurance.
We Are Battling Fear as Much as a Virus
The crisis we are living through didn’t come with a guidebook or a map or a formula for guaranteed success. People we love have died, are dying, are sick, are suffering, have lost jobs and businesses, have lost homes, have lost hope, have been overcome. It is frightening to say the least.
Our only defense is charity. To remember, with due humility, that you may be right, I may be wrong, or a little of both, but we are obligated to love one another. We sin by slashing each other with our pompous words of condemnation. We sin by devouring one another’s character with unjust accusations.
Stop it. We need to discuss, debate, disagree, hash it all out and show the world how to do it with love.
Come, Holy Spirit, fill our hearts. Enkindle in us the fire of Your love.
Jennifer Hartline is a senior contributor to The Stream. You can follow her at @jenniehartline.


thestream--2020-05-28--Military Photo of the Day: Rapid Testing in Puerto Rico

A medical technician conducts a COVID-19 rapid test for Puerto Rico National Guard members at Muñiz Air National Guard Base @ @ @ @ @ Rico , on May 22 , 2020 .
Thank you to our military and health @ @ @ @ @ fight the coronavirus !
Stay safe .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to @ @ @ @ @ , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .

A medical technician conducts a COVID-19 rapid test for Puerto Rico National Guard members at Muñiz Air National Guard Base, in Carolina, Puerto Rico, on May 22, 2020.
Thank you to our military and health care heroes for continuing to fight the coronavirus! Stay safe.
React to This Article What do you think of our coverage in this article? We value your feedback as we continue to grow.