thestream--2020-05-18--Unmasking Dates Suggest Even CIA Spied on Flynn

There ’ s something odd about the transcript of Michael Flynn ’ s December 29 , 2016 , phone call with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak , the one that apparently contained some mention of sanctions .
There ’ s no unmasking request that corresponds to that call .
Believe it or not , in the list of unmasking requests passed along to Sens .
Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson by acting Director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell , who assures them it is complete , there is no request on December 29 .
There are quite a few before December @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tell just from the list what transcripts they involved , but the dates tell us they couldn ’ t possibly have been for the Kislyak call because it hadn ’ t happened yet .
Everyone and his dog seemed to want Flynn ’ s name unmasked on December 14-15-16 , and on December 28 there ’ s a request by the U.S. ambassador to Turkey ( huh ? )
Then it gets quiet till January 5 , 2017 , which is the date of that big Oval Office meeting and also the day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calls for Flynn ’ s name to be unmasked .
There are still more calls for unmasking after that , including on January 17 , when Vice President Joe Biden did it .
So How ’ d They Get Flynn ’ s Name ?
But since Obama and James Comey were already aware of the December 29 “ sanctions ” call between Flynn and Kislyak on January 5 — we know this from Sally Yates ’ testimony — how did they get Flynn ’ s name ?
In fact , we know Andrew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3 , because that ’ s when he briefed Mary McCord of the DOJ ’ s National Security Division .
ALL the unmaskings on this list took place either before that call took place or after the Oval Office meeting .
It ’ s a mystery .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
Dan Bongino talked about this in his Friday podcast but I wanted to do a little research before coming to any conclusions .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own take , which is that Flynn ’ s name must have been gathered in some other way that had not masked his name in the first place .
The call would have been intercepted , he said , “ under an intelligence program not subject to the masking rules , probably by the CIA or a friendly foreign spy service acting in a nod-and-wink arrangement with our intelligence community .
McCarthy explains how intelligence collection under FISA is supposed to work .
There are actually two kinds : the “ traditional ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monitoring of a suspected clandestine operative of a foreign power inside the U.S. ( which can incidentally intercept the communications of Americans who happen to talk to him/her ) ; and the “ Section 702 ” version , which targets non-Americans outside the U.S. ( which can also incidentally intercept the communications of Americans ) .
Both kinds of FISA transcripts are subject to what they call minimization procedures , which is the masking of the names of those whose communications are incidentally intercepted .
Their names are replaced with the generic designation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name of an American is a Big Deal , McCarthy says , as “ foreign intelligence must never be used as a pretext for spying on Americans.
” ( I ’ ll pause here for laughter . )
It ’ s been assumed that Kislyak was routinely subjected to “ traditional ” FISA monitoring , and perhaps “ 702 ” monitoring when he was abroad .
Both of those would have called for Flynn ’ s name to be masked .
Flynn Out of the Country and in CIA Crosshairs ?
McCarthy postulates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being spied on by the CIA , which is not subject to FISA law because its intelligence operations are conducted outside the United States .
Guess what ?
Flynn was not in the United States on December 29 .
He was in the Dominican Republic for a brief vacation .
We don ’ t know where Kislyak was , but it ’ s very likely he was in Russia , as Washington was shut down for the holiday and in Russia they celebrate Christmas on January 7 .
McCarthy makes a compelling case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his book Ball of Confusion , that Flynn was being monitored either directly by the CIA or by “ a friendly foreign intelligence service.
” He makes it clear that , yes , all the unmasking that was done on Flynn was truly scandalous .
But now we ’ re seeing another dirty layer of spying and sabotage that was thrown at Trump ’ s campaign and incoming administration .
This has got to be exposed for what it was so it never happens in America again .
And all those involved need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Mike Huckabee is the former governor of Arkansas and longtime conservative commentator on issues in culture and current events .
A New York Times best-selling author , he hosts the weekly talk show Huckabee on TBN .

There’s something odd about the transcript of Michael Flynn’s December 29, 2016, phone call with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, the one that apparently contained some mention of sanctions. There’s no unmasking request that corresponds to that call.
What?
Believe it or not, in the list of unmasking requests passed along to Sens. Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson by acting Director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell, who assures them it is complete, there is no request on December 29. There are quite a few before December 29, and we can’t tell just from the list what transcripts they involved, but the dates tell us they couldn’t possibly have been for the Kislyak call because it hadn’t happened yet.
Everyone and his dog seemed to want Flynn’s name unmasked on December 14-15-16, and on December 28 there’s a request by the U.S. ambassador to Turkey (huh?) Then it gets quiet till January 5, 2017, which is the date of that big Oval Office meeting and also the day White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough calls for Flynn’s name to be unmasked. There are still more calls for unmasking after that, including on January 17, when Vice President Joe Biden did it.
So How’d They Get Flynn’s Name?
But since Obama and James Comey were already aware of the December 29 “sanctions” call between Flynn and Kislyak on January 5 — we know this from Sally Yates’ testimony — how did they get Flynn’s name? In fact, we know Andrew McCabe knew about the call on January 3, because that’s when he briefed Mary McCord of the DOJ’s National Security Division. ALL the unmaskings on this list took place either before that call took place or after the Oval Office meeting. It’s a mystery.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Dan Bongino talked about this in his Friday podcast but I wanted to do a little research before coming to any conclusions. On Saturday, Andrew C. McCarthy offered his own take, which is that Flynn’s name must have been gathered in some other way that had not masked his name in the first place. The call would have been intercepted, he said, “under an intelligence program not subject to the masking rules, probably by the CIA or a friendly foreign spy service acting in a nod-and-wink arrangement with our intelligence community.
McCarthy explains how intelligence collection under FISA is supposed to work. There are actually two kinds: the “traditional” FISA warrant, which is the targeted monitoring of a suspected clandestine operative of a foreign power inside the U.S. (which can incidentally intercept the communications of Americans who happen to talk to him/her); and the “Section 702” version, which targets non-Americans outside the U.S. (which can also incidentally intercept the communications of Americans).
Both kinds of FISA transcripts are subject to what they call minimization procedures, which is the masking of the names of those whose communications are incidentally intercepted. Their names are replaced with the generic designation “U.S. Person.” Unmasking the name of an American is a Big Deal, McCarthy says, as “foreign intelligence must never be used as a pretext for spying on Americans.” (I’ll pause here for laughter.)
It’s been assumed that Kislyak was routinely subjected to “traditional” FISA monitoring, and perhaps “702” monitoring when he was abroad. Both of those would have called for Flynn’s name to be masked.
Flynn Out of the Country and in CIA Crosshairs?
McCarthy postulates that for this phone call Flynn was being spied on by the CIA, which is not subject to FISA law because its intelligence operations are conducted outside the United States. Guess what? Flynn was not in the United States on December 29. He was in the Dominican Republic for a brief vacation. We don’t know where Kislyak was, but it’s very likely he was in Russia, as Washington was shut down for the holiday and in Russia they celebrate Christmas on January 7.
McCarthy makes a compelling case, consistent with claims he made in his book Ball of Confusion, that Flynn was being monitored either directly by the CIA or by “a friendly foreign intelligence service.” He makes it clear that, yes, all the unmasking that was done on Flynn was truly scandalous. But now we’re seeing another dirty layer of spying and sabotage that was thrown at Trump’s campaign and incoming administration. This has got to be exposed for what it was so it never happens in America again. And all those involved need to pay dearly for what they did.
Originally published at MikeHuckabee.com. Reprinted with permission.
Mike Huckabee is the former governor of Arkansas and longtime conservative commentator on issues in culture and current events. A New York Times best-selling author, he hosts the weekly talk show Huckabee on TBN.


thestream--2020-05-18--Al Qaeda Linked to Deadly Shooting at US Military Base in Florida, Investigators Say

The Saudi national who shot three Americans at a military base in Pensacola , Florida , in December had been in contact with Al Qaeda before the attack , according to law enforcement officials .
Cell phone evidence links Second Lt. Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani , a Saudi Air Force cadet who trained at the Naval Air Station Pensacola alongside American military officials , to the terrorist organization , according to government officials who spoke with the New York Times .
The FBI discovered cell phone communication between Alshamrani and an Al Qaeda operative from before the December 2019 shooting spree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passed through the encryption on one of two phones belonging to the gunman , according to the sources .
Apple reportedly did not help investigators bypass the security features , the NYT reported .
Attorney General William Barr is expected to give details about the new discovery during a press conference on Monday .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
It ’ s not immediately clear to what degree the Al Qaeda operative directed Alshamrani to carry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which ultimately killed three sailors and wounded another eight individuals .
However , an audio recording discovered this year included the chief of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claiming responsibility for the attack .
Alshamrani , a member of the Saudi Royal Air Force , had obtained a state hunting license and bought a Glock 45 9-millimeter handgun , which was used in the deadly shooting .
The attack prompted U.S. lawmakers to demand a change in how foreign military students are vetted .
After the shooting , federal authorities began to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after a trip to Saudi Arabia in 2018 .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

The Saudi national who shot three Americans at a military base in Pensacola, Florida, in December had been in contact with Al Qaeda before the attack, according to law enforcement officials.
Cell phone evidence links Second Lt. Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, a Saudi Air Force cadet who trained at the Naval Air Station Pensacola alongside American military officials, to the terrorist organization, according to government officials who spoke with the New York Times. The FBI discovered cell phone communication between Alshamrani and an Al Qaeda operative from before the December 2019 shooting spree.
The evidence was uncovered after investigators passed through the encryption on one of two phones belonging to the gunman, according to the sources. Apple reportedly did not help investigators bypass the security features, the NYT reported.
Attorney General William Barr is expected to give details about the new discovery during a press conference on Monday.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
It’s not immediately clear to what degree the Al Qaeda operative directed Alshamrani to carry out the deadly December 6 shooting, which ultimately killed three sailors and wounded another eight individuals. However, an audio recording discovered this year included the chief of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claiming responsibility for the attack.
Alshamrani, a member of the Saudi Royal Air Force, had obtained a state hunting license and bought a Glock 45 9-millimeter handgun, which was used in the deadly shooting.
The attack prompted U.S. lawmakers to demand a change in how foreign military students are vetted. After the shooting, federal authorities began to investigate whether Alshamrani might have been radicalized after a trip to Saudi Arabia in 2018.
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--2020-05-18--The Crucial Missing Piece In Our Witness for Christ Today

I keep hearing about new approaches to telling non-believers about Jesus Christ .
The big one is service ministry , and especially service together with non-believers .
That ’ s a new-old approach , of course ; it stands out only in contrast to what a lot of ministers said in the 20th century : “ We just need to tell them the simple gospel.
” And I still hear evangelism that ’ s pure , simple gospel .
Both of these miss the most crucial piece of all : Who is Jesus ?
Why do we make such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any man be all we say He is ?
It ’ s a tougher issue these days than most Christians have accounted for .
That ’ s okay ; it ’ s got a big enough answer , if we just take both the question and the answer seriously enough .
But if we ignore the question , set it aside , or assume most people already know then answer , and unbelievers won ’ t just reject Jesus , they ’ ll think we ’ re crazy .
Here ’ s how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book Too Good To Be False : How Jesus ’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality ( DeWard Publishing , August 1 ) .
The Question We Must Take More Seriously Not long ago in an online conversation , a skeptic admonished me , “ Whatever else you might think about life , it ’ s foolish to pin your whole hopes on a man who lived 2,000 years ago and died young.
” … I get his objection , in a way .
Think of it from his point of view .
Christianity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who lived a very long time ago , in a remote part of the world ( for most of us ) .
His ways were simple .
He walked dusty roads , wearing the ordinary sandals and robe of the common person .
He raised no army and wrote no philosophy .
Instead , for a few short years he gathered a small band of followers , none of whom had anything special going for them , either .
He taught with common words and everyday images .
Somehow , he gained a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and created a bit of a stir in the process .
Far from winning him great influence at the time , though , his works and his words annoyed the local people of power .
So they had him executed at the young age of thirty-three .
And now , two thousand years later , we believe that all human history , all human destiny , indeed the life of every single individual who ’ s ever lived , rests entirely on this one young man ’ s shoulders and his alone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Imagine hearing that for the first time .
Wouldn ’ t it seem outrageous ?
What kind of man could bear that much weight — every person ’ s fate , for all history and even beyond ?
Isn ’ t this way too far beyond any individual ’ s capacity ?
The one who would shoulder that kind of weight would have to be far more than extraordinary — spectacularly more , even .
That ’ s who Christ would have to be , for us to have any reason to follow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Must Be Ready to Tell That ’ s the problem .
I left out one key sentence , though .
It ’ s the answer I gave that online skeptic .
“ Don ’ t be so quick to dismiss the one man who lived the only perfect human life that ’ s ever been lived.
” ( He didn ’ t answer , so that was the end of that discussion . )
And naturally I ’ ve left out the entire rest of the book , too , in which I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how far beyond extraordinary Jesus was — more than most Christians realize , even .
More than I realized until recently myself .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
Yes , Jesus was God in the flesh .
He really did live the only perfect human life that ’ s ever been lived .
He rose from the dead .
Thirty to forty years ago , most folks in North America might have known this much of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s how far behind we are on this . )
Not anymore .
We ’ ve got to explain it , including the part where we tell how we know it ’ s not just a story , it ’ s the truth .
If we don ’ t , then we shouldn ’ t be the least bit surprised if unbelievers to stare at us like we ’ re nuts .
And we can expect them to turn away and dismiss the Jesus we haven ’ t even really told them about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) is a senior editor with The Stream , and ( in addition to Too Good To Be False ) , the author of A Christian Mind : Thoughts on Life and Truth in Jesus Christ and Critical Conversations : A Christian Parent ’ s Guide to Discussing Homosexuality with Teens , and the lead editor of True Reason : Confronting the Irrationality of the New Atheism .

I keep hearing about new approaches to telling non-believers about Jesus Christ. The big one is service ministry, and especially service together with non-believers. That’s a new-old approach, of course; it stands out only in contrast to what a lot of ministers said in the 20th century: “We just need to tell them the simple gospel.” And I still hear evangelism that’s pure, simple gospel.
Both of these miss the most crucial piece of all: Who is Jesus? Why do we make such a big deal about Him? How could any man be all we say He is?
It’s a tougher issue these days than most Christians have accounted for. That’s okay; it’s got a big enough answer, if we just take both the question and the answer seriously enough.
Imagine hearing this for the first time. Wouldn’t it seem outrageous? What kind of man could bear that much weight — every person’s fate, for all history and even beyond?
But if we ignore the question, set it aside, or assume most people already know then answer, and unbelievers won’t just reject Jesus, they’ll think we’re crazy.
Here’s how I put the problem in my forthcoming book Too Good To Be False: How Jesus’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality (DeWard Publishing, August 1).
The Question We Must Take More Seriously
Not long ago in an online conversation, a skeptic admonished me, “Whatever else you might think about life, it’s foolish to pin your whole hopes on a man who lived 2,000 years ago and died young.” … I get his objection, in a way. Think of it from his point of view. Christianity centers around one individual, a man who lived a very long time ago, in a remote part of the world (for most of us). His ways were simple. He walked dusty roads, wearing the ordinary sandals and robe of the common person. He raised no army and wrote no philosophy. Instead, for a few short years he gathered a small band of followers, none of whom had anything special going for them, either. He taught with common words and everyday images. Somehow, he gained a reputation for being a worker of miracles, and created a bit of a stir in the process. Far from winning him great influence at the time, though, his works and his words annoyed the local people of power. So they had him executed at the young age of thirty-three. And now, two thousand years later, we believe that all human history, all human destiny, indeed the life of every single individual who’s ever lived, rests entirely on this one young man’s shoulders and his alone, now and throughout all eternity. Imagine hearing that for the first time. Wouldn’t it seem outrageous? What kind of man could bear that much weight — every person’s fate, for all history and even beyond? Isn’t this way too far beyond any individual’s capacity? The one who would shoulder that kind of weight would have to be far more than extraordinary — spectacularly more, even. That’s who Christ would have to be, for us to have any reason to follow him at all.
The Answer We Must Be Ready to Tell
That’s the problem. I left out one key sentence, though. It’s the answer I gave that online skeptic. “Don’t be so quick to dismiss the one man who lived the only perfect human life that’s ever been lived.” (He didn’t answer, so that was the end of that discussion.)
And naturally I’ve left out the entire rest of the book, too, in which I tell in dozens of other ways just how far beyond extraordinary Jesus was — more than most Christians realize, even. More than I realized until recently myself.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Yes, Jesus was God in the flesh. He really did live the only perfect human life that’s ever been lived. He rose from the dead.
Thirty to forty years ago, most folks in North America might have known this much of the basic story. (That’s how far behind we are on this.) Not anymore.
We’ve got to explain it, including the part where we tell how we know it’s not just a story, it’s the truth. If we don’t, then we shouldn’t be the least bit surprised if unbelievers stare at us like we’re nuts. And we can expect them to turn away and dismiss the Jesus we haven’t even really told them about yet.
Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) is a senior editor with The Stream, and (in addition to Too Good To Be False), the author of A Christian Mind: Thoughts on Life and Truth in Jesus Christ and Critical Conversations: A Christian Parent’s Guide to Discussing Homosexuality with Teens, and the lead editor of True Reason: Confronting the Irrationality of the New Atheism.


thestream--2020-05-18--Awarding of the Pulitzer Prize to the Deeply-Flawed ‘1619 Project’ Highlights What’s Wrong With Many

Awarding of the Pulitzer Prize to the Deeply-Flawed ‘1619 Project’ Highlights What’s Wrong With Many of Our Institutions

The New York Times ’ “ 1619 Project ” — despite being riddled with historical inaccuracies – is now the winner of a Pulitzer Prize , an outcome that is unfortunate but utterly unsurprising .
The award was given specifically to journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones , the architect of the 1619 Project .
But her lead essay in the project has been lambasted by historians as inaccurate , in large part because of her assertion that the American colonists fought the Revolution to protect slavery .
That contention flowed from the project ’ s stated goal of showing that the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when the first slaves from Africa were brought to the United States , rather than 1776 , when the Colonies declared their independence from England .
After months of pressure , The New York Times finally issued a correction — which it called a “ clarification ” — to the claim that slavery was the “ one primary reason the colonists fought the American Revolution.
” As my colleague , Jonathan Butcher , a senior policy analyst in The Heritage Foundation ’ s Center for Education Policy , wrote , The Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ some of ” the colonists fought in the American Revolution to preserve slavery .
The idea that the American Revolution was motivated primarily by the desire to uphold slavery has been rightly assailed by numerous respected historians of all stripes , from conservative to liberal to even socialist .
The World Socialist Website , of all things , called the project “ a politically motivated falsification of history.
” I ’ ve seldom , if ever , agreed with a socialist on anything , but that is spot on .
As I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ History : The Conspiracy to Rewrite America ’ s Past , there has been a long-term and accelerating trend of distorting our history , to bury our accomplishments , and embellish our country ’ s sins .
The 1619 Project is even upfront with its stated intention to “ reframe ” America ’ s past .
It does this not simply by making a different argument or interpretation , but by distorting the record as so many historians have noted .
It ’ s important that when we discuss the past we do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accuracy .
That shouldn ’ t be a left or right thing .
Fake news is problematic , whether it has to do with reporting on the president or what happened in 1776 .
Why Would the Pulitzer Prize Board Honor Such a Flawed Piece of Work ?
So why would the Pulitzer Prize board , which supposedly gives awards for excellence in writing and journalism , give an esteemed award to what is at the very least a deeply flawed piece of work ?
The truth , as those with common sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prize recipients are chosen through a lens of politics .
The 1619 Project might not be correct in fact , but it ’ s “ correct ” in feeling .
It ’ s correct by the measure of the identity-politics ideology that has become the de facto ideological lens of our country ’ s elite , liberal institutions .
This is hardly the first or only wild miss by Pulitzer .
After all , Walter Duranty , The New York Times ’ onetime Moscow bureau chief who lied about the Soviet Union ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , never had his award rescinded , and The Times still occasionally touts Duranty as a past winner of the prize .
It seems that if you want accolades without regard to truth or accuracy , your best bet is to be on the political left and write for The New York Times .
The 1619 Project didn ’ t have to be excellent .
It just had to be politically correct and written by the right people at America ’ s liberal publication of record .
None of the criticism or flaws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hardly any different .
Remember when then-President Barack Obama , after just nine months in office , was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 ?
Can anyone actually recall what he did to deserve it , other than being a liberal president and not George W. Bush ?
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
If one wants to look for an indication of why trust in America ’ s leading institutions — from Congress to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collapse , this is a prime example .
Being Woke is More Important Than Being Right Our meritocracy , to many Americans , is not very meritocratic .
Our cultural elites are not so elite , but rather , committed to self-aggrandizement .
Being “ woke ” is more important than being right .
And the cultural elites are not content to simply hold those views and leave the rest of us alone .
Instead , they work relentlessly to ensure that entire generations are all taught to think this same way , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homeschooling .
Despite the 1619 Project ’ s being so clearly flawed , and how obviously political the Pulitzer Prize board was , the award nevertheless provides an “ official ” stamp of approval that makes it a more effective tool to use in schools around the country .
My wife , Inez Stepman , explained why in The Federalist : That ’ s bad enough , but now frustrated parents will be told that it ’ s all good , because after all , it won a Pulitzer Prize .
The left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cultural institutions , a power wholly unjustified by its record .
If there ’ s a characteristic that Americans from the time of the Founding to today have maintained through the centuries , it ’ s our utter intolerance of a false aristocracy .
That ’ s why it ’ s essential that Americans now have a choice and the tools to work around those institutions and commit to giving themselves and their children those tools and the education necessary , such as those provided by the Woodson Center ’ s excellent “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tide of miseducation .
Jarrett Stepman is a contributor to The Daily Signal and co-host of The Right Side of History podcast .
Send an email to Jarrett .
He is also the author of the new book , The War on History : The Conspiracy to Rewrite America ’ s Past .

The New York Times’ “1619 Project” — despite being riddled with historical inaccuracies – is now the winner of a Pulitzer Prize, an outcome that is unfortunate but utterly unsurprising.
The award was given specifically to journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, the architect of the 1619 Project.
But her lead essay in the project has been lambasted by historians as inaccurate, in large part because of her assertion that the American colonists fought the Revolution to protect slavery. That contention flowed from the project’s stated goal of showing that the country’s true founding was in 1619, when the first slaves from Africa were brought to the United States, rather than 1776, when the Colonies declared their independence from England.
After months of pressure, The New York Times finally issued a correction — which it called a “clarification” — to the claim that slavery was the “one primary reason the colonists fought the American Revolution.”
As my colleague, Jonathan Butcher, a senior policy analyst in The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy, wrote, The Times hedged on this assertion to say that “some of” the colonists fought in the American Revolution to preserve slavery.
Revolution Motivated by Slavery? Nonsense, Historians Say
The idea that the American Revolution was motivated primarily by the desire to uphold slavery has been rightly assailed by numerous respected historians of all stripes, from conservative to liberal to even socialist.
The World Socialist Website, of all things, called the project “a politically motivated falsification of history.”
I’ve seldom, if ever, agreed with a socialist on anything, but that is spot on.
As I detailed in my book The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America’s Past, there has been a long-term and accelerating trend of distorting our history, to bury our accomplishments, and embellish our country’s sins.
The 1619 Project is even upfront with its stated intention to “reframe” America’s past. It does this not simply by making a different argument or interpretation, but by distorting the record as so many historians have noted.
It’s important that when we discuss the past we do so with a commitment to truth and accuracy. That shouldn’t be a left or right thing. Fake news is problematic, whether it has to do with reporting on the president or what happened in 1776.
Why Would the Pulitzer Prize Board Honor Such a Flawed Piece of Work?
So why would the Pulitzer Prize board, which supposedly gives awards for excellence in writing and journalism, give an esteemed award to what is at the very least a deeply flawed piece of work?
The truth, as those with common sense already know, is that the Pulitzer Prize recipients are chosen through a lens of politics. The 1619 Project might not be correct in fact, but it’s “correct” in feeling. It’s correct by the measure of the identity-politics ideology that has become the de facto ideological lens of our country’s elite, liberal institutions.
Our cultural elites are not so elite, but rather, committed to self-aggrandizement. Being “woke” is more important than being right.
This is hardly the first or only wild miss by Pulitzer. After all, Walter Duranty, The New York Times’ onetime Moscow bureau chief who lied about the Soviet Union’s starvation of Ukraine in the 1930s, never had his award rescinded, and The Times still occasionally touts Duranty as a past winner of the prize.
It seems that if you want accolades without regard to truth or accuracy, your best bet is to be on the political left and write for The New York Times.
The 1619 Project didn’t have to be excellent. It just had to be politically correct and written by the right people at America’s liberal publication of record. None of the criticism or flaws even mattered.
The Nobel Prize is hardly any different. Remember when then-President Barack Obama, after just nine months in office, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009? Can anyone actually recall what he did to deserve it, other than being a liberal president and not George W. Bush?
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
If one wants to look for an indication of why trust in America’s leading institutions — from Congress to the media — is in a state of collapse, this is a prime example.
Being Woke is More Important Than Being Right
Our meritocracy, to many Americans, is not very meritocratic. Our cultural elites are not so elite, but rather, committed to self-aggrandizement. Being “woke” is more important than being right. And the cultural elites are not content to simply hold those views and leave the rest of us alone. Instead, they work relentlessly to ensure that entire generations are all taught to think this same way, hence their war on school choice and homeschooling.
Despite the 1619 Project’s being so clearly flawed, and how obviously political the Pulitzer Prize board was, the award nevertheless provides an “official” stamp of approval that makes it a more effective tool to use in schools around the country. My wife, Inez Stepman, explained why in The Federalist:
Unfortunately, endorsement of the 1619 Project goes beyond the establishment media and attendant self-congratulatory organizations. In large part due to the Pulitzer Center’s blessing, Common Core-compliant curricular materials based on the inaccurate history in the project are used in more than 3,500 schools across all 50 states. Thousands of American students are learning false historical information that gives them an unduly negative view of this country.
That’s bad enough, but now frustrated parents will be told that it’s all good, because after all, it won a Pulitzer Prize.
The left wields enormous power over our most powerful cultural institutions, a power wholly unjustified by its record. If there’s a characteristic that Americans from the time of the Founding to today have maintained through the centuries, it’s our utter intolerance of a false aristocracy.
That’s why it’s essential that Americans now have a choice and the tools to work around those institutions and commit to giving themselves and their children those tools and the education necessary, such as those provided by the Woodson Center’s excellent “1776” project, to withstand the tide of miseducation.
Jarrett Stepman is a contributor to The Daily Signal and co-host of The Right Side of History podcast. Send an email to Jarrett. He is also the author of the new book, The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America’s Past.
Copyright 2020 The Daily Signal


thestream--2020-05-18--Military Photo of the Day: In Formation Over Alaska

A U.S. Air Force E-3 Sentry and F-22 Raptors conduct a formation flight over Alaska on May 5 , 2020 @ @ @ @ @ : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of @ @ @

A U.S. Air Force E-3 Sentry and F-22 Raptors conduct a formation flight over Alaska on May 5, 2020.
Have a safe week, everyone!
React to This Article What do you think of our coverage in this article? We value your feedback as we continue to grow.


thestream--2020-05-18--Dear SNL: Do Not Joke About a ‘Hitler Beauty Contest’

There are some things that are off limits .
One of them is jokes about a Hitler Beauty Contest .
Yet within the last ten days , Saturday Night Live responded with its own attempt at humor over news of a beauty contest by this very name .
Where is the outcry over SNL ’ s foolishness ?
I only learned about SNL ’ s “ humor ” via Twitter .
But when I went to search for “ Hitler Beauty Contest , ” I was shocked with what I found .
First , there has been talk of such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a 2014 article on Vice.com explaining that an internet announcement had created undue attention .
That ’ s because there was not “ going to be an actual pageant , with bouquets of swastikas and contestants explaining to judges how much they admired Eva Braun .
It was a social media goof , a post on VKontakte ’ s Adolf Hitler fan page requesting entries .
The eligibility requirements consisted of six items amounting to , basically ‘ Be a female Nazi with a sexy photo.
’ ” Forgive me if I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Then , in March , 2019 , BBC reported that a female terror suspect entered a “ Miss Hitler beauty contest.
” ( The actual contest took place in 2016 . )
Yes , “ Alice Cutter , 22 , of Halifax , allegedly entered the contest after taking on the nickname Buchenwald Princess in reference to the Nazi death camp.
” It is an understatement to call this sick .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is why it is no surprise that the Times of Israel reported on May 7 that , “ The GoDaddy.com web hosting company said Thursday that it had taken down the domain of the site running the ‘ Miss Hitler 2020 ’ pageant , following pressure from Australia ’ s Anti-Defamation Commission , a Jewish group aimed at fighting against anti-Semitism and racism .
“ The competition , run by the so-called World Truth Historical Revisionism website , encourages women to enter by posting sexy Nazi-themed photos together with an entry explaining why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reich of Adolf Hitler.
’ ” Still , despite the realities of sinful human nature , every word of this report seems surreal .
First , there are people who actually revel in things like this .
This is not fiction .
Second , the event made its way to a Go Daddy hosted site .
How did that happen ?
And third , it was only after pressure from a group fighting antisemitism and racism that the domain was taken down .
That is what it took .
But there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to Saturday Night Live , which reported on this fiasco .
As recounted by the Jerusalem Post on May 10 , with reference to the previous night ’ s broadcast , “ Saturday Night Live ’ s Michael Che made light of the pageant website for ‘ Miss Hitler ’ being shut down , in which he stated that the winner for the contest was Miss Israel.
” Yes , that was how SNL responded to the news , with its own sick satire .
“ Haha !
How funny !
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The winner of the Miss Hitler beauty contest was Miss Israel.
” To say it once more , forgive me if I don ’ t find this funny .
On second thought , I don ’ t need to apologize for not laughing .
There ’ s no need for forgiveness .
Of course , no one will ever accuse SNL of being tasteful .
Being SNL means being irreverent .
And pushing the boundaries .
And making people uncomfortable .
But there are lines not to be crossed , and this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imagine a Pol Pot beauty contest , with contestants posing next to pictures of the victims of his genocidal madness ?
Or , thinking of a mass murderer on a different level , a Ted Bundy beauty pageant , with voters deciding which of his victims was more attractive ?
Even to write such words is repulsive .
In fact , I feel sick to my stomach as I type them .
Yet the Hitler Beauty Pageant is even more offensive since it is was not a matter of sick fiction .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should issue a genuine apology for its poor attempt at humor .
That being said , I ’ m not holding my breath .
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 .

There are some things that are off limits. One of them is jokes about a Hitler Beauty Contest. Yet within the last ten days, Saturday Night Live responded with its own attempt at humor over news of a beauty contest by this very name. Where is the outcry over SNL’s foolishness?
I only learned about SNL’s “humor” via Twitter. But when I went to search for “Hitler Beauty Contest,” I was shocked with what I found.
Hitler Beauty Contests are a Real Thing
First, there has been talk of such “beauty pageants” for years, with a 2014 article on Vice.com explaining that an internet announcement had created undue attention. That’s because there was not “going to be an actual pageant, with bouquets of swastikas and contestants explaining to judges how much they admired Eva Braun. It was a social media goof, a post on VKontakte’s Adolf Hitler fan page requesting entries. The eligibility requirements consisted of six items amounting to, basically ‘Be a female Nazi with a sexy photo.’”
Forgive me if I don’t find this funny.
Then, in March, 2019, BBC reported that a female terror suspect entered a “Miss Hitler beauty contest.” (The actual contest took place in 2016.) Yes, “Alice Cutter, 22, of Halifax, allegedly entered the contest after taking on the nickname Buchenwald Princess in reference to the Nazi death camp.”
It is an understatement to call this sick.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
But such is human nature. This is why it is no surprise that the Times of Israel reported on May 7 that, “The GoDaddy.com web hosting company said Thursday that it had taken down the domain of the site running the ‘Miss Hitler 2020’ pageant, following pressure from Australia’s Anti-Defamation Commission, a Jewish group aimed at fighting against anti-Semitism and racism.
“The competition, run by the so-called World Truth Historical Revisionism website, encourages women to enter by posting sexy Nazi-themed photos together with an entry explaining why they ‘love and revere the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler.’”
Still, despite the realities of sinful human nature, every word of this report seems surreal.
First, there are people who actually revel in things like this. This is not fiction. Second, the event made its way to a Go Daddy hosted site. How did that happen? And third, it was only after pressure from a group fighting antisemitism and racism that the domain was taken down. That is what it took.
Back to Saturday Night Live
But there’s more to story, as we come back to Saturday Night Live, which reported on this fiasco.
As recounted by the Jerusalem Post on May 10, with reference to the previous night’s broadcast, “Saturday Night Live’s Michael Che made light of the pageant website for ‘Miss Hitler’ being shut down, in which he stated that the winner for the contest was Miss Israel.”
Yes, that was how SNL responded to the news, with its own sick satire. “Haha! How funny! We can tell great jokes here at SNL. The winner of the Miss Hitler beauty contest was Miss Israel.”
To say it once more, forgive me if I don’t find this funny.
On second thought, I don’t need to apologize for not laughing. There’s no need for forgiveness.
Of course, no one will ever accuse SNL of being tasteful. Being SNL means being irreverent. And pushing the boundaries. And making people uncomfortable.
But there are lines not to be crossed, and this is one of them.
Could you imagine a Pol Pot beauty contest, with contestants posing next to pictures of the victims of his genocidal madness? Or, thinking of a mass murderer on a different level, a Ted Bundy beauty pageant, with voters deciding which of his victims was more attractive?
Even to write such words is repulsive. In fact, I feel sick to my stomach as I type them. Yet the Hitler Beauty Pageant is even more offensive since it is was not a matter of sick fiction. It was sick reality.
Saturday Night Live should issue a genuine apology for its poor attempt at humor.
That being said, I’m not holding my breath.
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--2020-05-17--Chinese Official Confirms China Ordered Labs to Destroy Coronavirus Samples

A senior Chinese government official confirmed Friday that authorities ordered laboratories to destroy samples of coronavirus in early January .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had accused Chinese officials of ordering the samples ’ destruction as part of the regime ’ s cover-up of the coronavirus outbreak in its early stages .
Pompeo said on April 22 that China “ censored those who tried to warn the world , it ordered a halt to testing of new samples , and it destroyed existing samples.
” He offered more specificity on May 6 , stating that China ’ s National Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destroyed on Jan. 3 .
NHC official Liu Dengfeng conceded at a briefing on Friday that the agency had ordered the labs to destroy the samples , but said that the order was given for safety reasons .
“ If the laboratory conditions can not meet the requirements for the safe preservation of samples , the samples should be destroyed on the spot or transferred to a professional institution for safekeeping , ” Dengfend said , according to The Wall Street Journal .
“ Based on comprehensive research and expert opinion , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pneumonia as Class II — highly pathogenic — and imposed biosafety requirements on sample collection , transport and experimental activities , as well as destroying the samples , ” Dengfeng said , according to the South China Morning Post .
Chinese officials repeatedly suppressed the truth about coronavirus .
Chinese authorities silenced doctors , whistleblowers and journalists who sought to warn the public about the virus .
The majority view among the U.S. intelligence community agencies is that COVID-19 is a naturally occurring virus that accidentally leaked out of a laboratory in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ official previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation .
China has stonewalled the rest of the world , including the China-friendly World Health Organization , from its investigation into the virus ’ s origins .

A senior Chinese government official confirmed Friday that authorities ordered laboratories to destroy samples of coronavirus in early January.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had accused Chinese officials of ordering the samples’ destruction as part of the regime’s cover-up of the coronavirus outbreak in its early stages.
Pompeo said on April 22 that China “censored those who tried to warn the world, it ordered a halt to testing of new samples, and it destroyed existing samples.” He offered more specificity on May 6, stating that China’s National Health Commission [NHC] ordered virus samples destroyed on Jan. 3.
NHC official Liu Dengfeng conceded at a briefing on Friday that the agency had ordered the labs to destroy the samples, but said that the order was given for safety reasons.
“If the laboratory conditions cannot meet the requirements for the safe preservation of samples, the samples should be destroyed on the spot or transferred to a professional institution for safekeeping,” Dengfend said, according to The Wall Street Journal.
“Based on comprehensive research and expert opinion, we decided to temporarily manage the pathogen causing the pneumonia as Class II — highly pathogenic — and imposed biosafety requirements on sample collection, transport and experimental activities, as well as destroying the samples,” Dengfeng said, according to the South China Morning Post.
Chinese officials repeatedly suppressed the truth about coronavirus. Chinese authorities silenced doctors, whistleblowers and journalists who sought to warn the public about the virus.
The majority view among the U.S. intelligence community agencies is that COVID-19 is a naturally occurring virus that accidentally leaked out of a laboratory in Wuhan, China, a senior intelligence official previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
China has stonewalled the rest of the world, including the China-friendly World Health Organization, from its investigation into the virus’s origins.
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]. Copyright 2020 The Daily Caller News Foundation


thestream--2020-05-19--Dear Christian Supporters of Israel: Please Do Not Become Enemies of the Gospel

Shortly after I came to faith in Jesus as a 16-year-old , Jewish , hippie rock drummer late in 1971 , my father asked me to meet with the local rabbi .
My dad was thrilled that I had stopped using drugs .
But he said to me , “ Michael , we ’ re Jewish .
We don ’ t believe this.
” The local rabbi and I became friends , spending hours in intense discussion and debate .
And in one of our early meetings , he gave me a book detailing the history of “ Christian ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
How could it be that so many famous Christian leaders seemed to have such hatred for the Jewish people ?
How could it be that Jews were offered baptism or death ?
How could it be non-baptized Jews were expelled from many “ Christian ” countries ?
How could it be that Luther ’ s recommendations to the German princes of his day , counseling them on how to deal with the “ insufferable devilish burden — the Jews , ” were carried out in detail by the Nazis ?
All this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the church where I came to faith had a real love for the Jewish people and Israel ; 2 ) the spirit of the New Testament was one of love , even for those who opposed the faith ; and 3 ) I was not familiar with church history .
But the more I shared my faith with fellow Jews , the more they referenced this ugly history , a history that was still fresh in their minds , especially if they were religious Jews .
Ironically , as I traveled around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I met Christians who had a deep love for the Jewish people , who supported the modern state of Israel , and who too were shocked by the horrible history of “ Christian ” antisemitism .
In fact the book that I wrote sharing this history , Our Hands Are Stained with Blood , became my most translated book , remaining in print from 1992 until last year , when we released an expanded and updated edition .
Just like me , Christians were shocked to hear about this history and wanted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s why I am so deeply grateful to you who are Christian supporters of Israel .
For so many years now , despite the imperfections of the people of Israel , you have served my people there .
You have cared for their poor .
You have ministered to their sick .
You have given and you have sacrificed and you have loved .
And you have done it because of your faith , not despite your faith .
You have done it unconditionally .
And that has made a great difference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is less suspicion .
Less fear of heavy-handed proselytizing .
Less concern of ulterior motive .
You have loved as Jesus taught , putting others first .
And you have sought to undo the terrible reputation of “ Christianity ” in the eyes of the Jewish world .
For that , as a Jewish follower of Jesus , I am deeply grateful .
Some of you have pledged not to proselytize in order to prove that you have no ulterior motives .
I respect that and can understand that , as long as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clarity as well .
In other words , you have said , “ We are Christians , and we want everyone to believe in Jesus , Jew and Gentile alike .
But we are not here to missionize.
” Again , I understand that and can respect that .
What I can not respect and what I can not understand is when you oppose others from sharing their faith with Jews .
Why on earth would you do such a thing , especially when it comes to Messianic Jews in Israel sharing their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you , even for a split second , contemplate standing against this sacred task ?
If Christians did not share the gospel with me in 1971 I might not have lived to see my 18th birthday , let alone had a ministry that , by God ’ s grace , has touched millions .
If Christians did not share the gospel with my wife Nancy , whom I met when she was a 19-year-old Jewish atheist , we would not be married today .
The thought is unimaginable .
As for Jews living @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the gospel is not for them , then it is for no one .
If a Jewish person can be saved without Jesus , then the Cross is a not only unnecessary .
It is an absolute mockery .
If Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah , then the New Testament is false and the Christian faith is a lie .
And if the gospel is not for the Jew first , then it is not also for the Gentile .
Why would you ever want to hinder this good news from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israel ?
In recent days , since the announcement of GOD TV ’ s Hebrew-speaking channel , Shelanu ( meaning , “ ours ” ) , there has been an outcry of protest from some Orthodox Jews and counter-missionary rabbis .
That is no surprise .
But there have been Christian supporters of Israel who have also raised their voices in protest , speaking against Israeli Messianic Jews preaching the good news of Yeshua to their own people , in Hebrew , on Israeli TV .
How can this be ?
And for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your standing in solidarity with Israel , which I affirm , I can give you 10 ( or many more ) calling you to share the good news with the Jewish people .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
Your public stance has been a shock to many in the Messianic Jewish community , not just in Israel , but around the world , feeling like the ultimate stab in the back .
From you , dear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to every Christian Zionist and every Christian friend of Israel , I urge you with all my heart : Please do not oppose us as we share the water of life with our thirsty people .
Please do not withhold from them the very message that brought you salvation .
Please do not keep Jesus to yourself .
And please do not hinder Jews from taking the message of redemption , paid for with the Messiah ’ s own blood , to their fellow Jews .
To do so would be an act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ love so much .
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 .

Shortly after I came to faith in Jesus as a 16-year-old, Jewish, hippie rock drummer late in 1971, my father asked me to meet with the local rabbi. My dad was thrilled that I had stopped using drugs. But he said to me, “Michael, we’re Jewish. We don’t believe this.”
The local rabbi and I became friends, spending hours in intense discussion and debate. And in one of our early meetings, he gave me a book detailing the history of “Christian” antisemitism. The contents were absolutely shocking.
How could it be that so many famous Christian leaders seemed to have such hatred for the Jewish people? How could it be that Jews were offered baptism or death? How could it be non-baptized Jews were expelled from many “Christian” countries? How could it be that Luther’s recommendations to the German princes of his day, counseling them on how to deal with the “insufferable devilish burden — the Jews,” were carried out in detail by the Nazis?
All this was shocking to me because 1) the church where I came to faith had a real love for the Jewish people and Israel; 2) the spirit of the New Testament was one of love, even for those who opposed the faith; and 3) I was not familiar with church history.
But the more I shared my faith with fellow Jews, the more they referenced this ugly history, a history that was still fresh in their minds, especially if they were religious Jews.
Christians With a Deep Love for Jews, Changing Perceptions
Ironically, as I traveled around the world preaching in nation after nation, I met Christians who had a deep love for the Jewish people, who supported the modern state of Israel, and who too were shocked by the horrible history of “Christian” antisemitism.
In fact the book that I wrote sharing this history, Our Hands Are Stained with Blood, became my most translated book, remaining in print from 1992 until last year, when we released an expanded and updated edition. Just like me, Christians were shocked to hear about this history and wanted to help make the story known.
That’s why I am so deeply grateful to you who are Christian supporters of Israel.
For so many years now, despite the imperfections of the people of Israel, you have served my people there.
You have cared for their poor. You have ministered to their sick. You have given and you have sacrificed and you have loved. And you have done it because of your faith, not despite your faith. You have done it unconditionally.
And that has made a great difference in Jewish perceptions of Christianity. There is less suspicion. Less fear of heavy-handed proselytizing. Less concern of ulterior motive.
You have loved as Jesus taught, putting others first. And you have sought to undo the terrible reputation of “Christianity” in the eyes of the Jewish world.
For that, as a Jewish follower of Jesus, I am deeply grateful.
As for Jews living in Israel and around the world, if the gospel is not for them, then it is for no one.
Some of you have pledged not to proselytize in order to prove that you have no ulterior motives. I respect that and can understand that, as long as you also stated your Christian beliefs with clarity as well. In other words, you have said, “We are Christians, and we want everyone to believe in Jesus, Jew and Gentile alike. But we are not here to missionize.”
Again, I understand that and can respect that.
Opposing Messianic Jews Who Share Their Faith?
What I cannot respect and what I cannot understand is when you oppose others from sharing their faith with Jews. Why on earth would you do such a thing, especially when it comes to Messianic Jews in Israel sharing their faith with other Jews? How could you, even for a split second, contemplate standing against this sacred task?
If Christians did not share the gospel with me in 1971 I might not have lived to see my 18th birthday, let alone had a ministry that, by God’s grace, has touched millions.
If Christians did not share the gospel with my wife Nancy, whom I met when she was a 19-year-old Jewish atheist, we would not be married today. The thought is unimaginable.
As for Jews living in Israel and around the world, if the gospel is not for them, then it is for no one.
If a Jewish person can be saved without Jesus, then the Cross is a not only unnecessary. It is an absolute mockery.
If Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah, then the New Testament is false and the Christian faith is a lie.
And if the gospel is not for the Jew first, then it is not also for the Gentile.
Why would you ever want to hinder this good news from going to my people, especially in Israel?
In recent days, since the announcement of GOD TV’s Hebrew-speaking channel, Shelanu (meaning, “ours”), there has been an outcry of protest from some Orthodox Jews and counter-missionary rabbis. That is no surprise.
But there have been Christian supporters of Israel who have also raised their voices in protest, speaking against Israeli Messianic Jews preaching the good news of Yeshua to their own people, in Hebrew, on Israeli TV.
How can this be?
And for every verse you can give me supporting your standing in solidarity with Israel, which I affirm, I can give you 10 (or many more) calling you to share the good news with the Jewish people.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Your public stance has been a shock to many in the Messianic Jewish community, not just in Israel, but around the world, feeling like the ultimate stab in the back. From you, dear friends? Really?
And so, to every Christian Zionist and every Christian friend of Israel, I urge you with all my heart: Please do not oppose us as we share the water of life with our thirsty people. Please do not withhold from them the very message that brought you salvation. Please do not keep Jesus to yourself. And please do not hinder Jews from taking the message of redemption, paid for with the Messiah’s own blood, to their fellow Jews.
To do so would be an act of utter cruelty towards the people you love so much.
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--2020-05-19--Atheists in Praise of Christianity?

Atheists in Praise of Christianity?

Historian Tom Holland is known primarily as a storyteller of the ancient world .
Thus , his new book Dominion : How the Christian Revolution Remade the World , came as something of a surprise for several reasons .
First , Tom Holland is not a Christian .
Second , Holland ’ s book is one of the most ambitious historical defenses of Christianity in a very long time .
While studying the ancient world , Holland writes , he realized something .
Simply , the ancients were cruel , and their values utterly foreign to him .
The Spartans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The bodies of slaves were treated like outlets for the physical pleasure of those with power .
Infanticide was common .
The poor and the weak had no rights .
From There to Here … How did we get from there to here ?
It was Christianity , Holland writes .
Christianity revolutionized sex and marriage , demanding that men control themselves and prohibiting all forms of rape .
Christianity confined sexuality within monogamy .
( It is ironic , Holland notes , that these are now the very standards for which Christianity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In short , Christianity utterly transformed the world .
In fact , Holland points out that without Christianity , the Western world would not exist .
Even the claims of the social justice warriors who despise the faith of their ancestors rest on a foundation of Judeo-Christian values .
Those who make arguments based on love , tolerance , and compassion are borrowing fundamentally Christian arguments .
If the West had not become Christian , Holland writes , “ no one would have gotten woke.
” Holland ’ s book-length defense of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despise has unsurprisingly attracted some criticism .
He faced off with militant atheist and prominent philosopher A.C. Grayling on the question “ Did Christianity give us our human values ?
” Grayling struggled to rebut Holland , sounding more petty than philosophical .
Holland , on the other hand , became positively passionate in his defense of Christianity .
If Western civilization is the fishbowl , he stated , then the water is Christianity .
In fact , the very critiques of those who condemn Christianity for various perceived injustices are rooted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense of Christianity is fascinating because it appears to be part of a trend .
As the West becomes definitively post-Christian , many secularists are suddenly realizing that Christianity may have been more valuable than they thought .
While many — including Holland — can not quite bring themselves to believe Christianity is true , they are starting to believe that Christianity might be necessary .
Douglas Murray , the conservative author and columnist , is also an atheist .
In recent years , however , he has started to warn that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Society now faces three options .
First , Murray says , is to reject the idea that all human life is precious .
“ Another is to work furiously to nail down an atheist version of the sanctity of the individual.
” And if that doesn ’ t work ?
“ Then there is only one other place to go .
Which is back to faith , whether we like it or not.
” Murray now occasionally refers to himself as a “ Christian atheist.
” Speaking with Esther O ’ Reilly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ revolutionary moral insights ” of Christianity .
He told her that while visiting the Sea of Galilee , he couldn ’ t shake the feeling that “ something happened here.
” And he admitted that as atheists consider morality , “ the more we may have to accept that … the sanctity of human life is a Judeo-Christian notion which might very easily not survive [ the disappearance of ] Judeo-Christian civilization.
” Speaking on The Darren Grimes Show last month , he was even blunter .
“ There seems to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life spent talking about Labour Party politics rather than God.
” The phenomenon of atheists praising Christianity appears to be growing .
Gone are the days when Christopher Hitchens ( a good friend of Murray ’ s ) and his fellow secularists raged against the “ poison ” of religion .
Even Richard Dawkins has now admitted that Christianity might be preferable to the alternatives .
He once called for Christianity to be destroyed .
Now he begrudgingly says it has good effects on society .
There is also Jordan Peterson .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believes in God .
Or at least , he refuses to say what he means by God , or Christ or faith .
Peterson is attempting to synthesize Scripture with Jung and Darwin , and the result is predictably tortured .
But Peterson knows that without Christianity , unspeakable cruelty is inevitable .
He speaks like a secular Calvinist .
He believes in human depravity , but has not yet worked out redemption .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American social scientist and sociologist , is an agnostic .
Yet , he told me in an interview that he believes the American republic will not survive without a resurgence of Christianity .
“ You can not have a free society with a constitution ” like the American one “ unless you are trying to govern a religious people , ” he observed .
The late Sir Roger Scruton , too , headed back to church .
He struggled with many of Christianity ’ s truth claims .
But still , he came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While nursing doubts , he played the organ in his local Anglican church during Sunday services .
Perhaps practice , he once said , would help him along .
He wasn ’ t sure he could believe it all .
But he wanted to .
These men are King Agrippa Christians .
As King Agrippa told the Apostle Paul : “ Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
” They almost believe it .
They believe Christianity is good .
Some believe it is necessary .
As Murray put it , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not ( yet ) bring themselves to believe that it is literally true — that Jesus Christ actually rose from the dead .
Listen to the Warnings of the Atheists – Christianity is Necessary .
These strange struggles also deliver a warning to the West .
Without Christianity , we are heading into a thick and impenetrable darkness .
Christianity gave us human rights .
It gave us protection for the weak .
Compassion rooted in commands to love .
Forgiveness for enemies .
It revolutionized the world .
We are now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , we are replacing it with the Sexual Revolution .
We should look at what we are destroying before we carry on .
We should ask why fences were built before tearing them down .
We should listen to the atheists nervously telling us that Christianity is necessary .
And we should fight to ensure that our post-Christian culture is again a pre-Christian one .
Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker , writer , and pro-life activist .
He is the author of The Culture War and Seeing Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Victims of Abortion , and co-author of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide .

Historian Tom Holland is known primarily as a storyteller of the ancient world. Thus, his newest book Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World, came as something of a surprise for several reasons. First, Tom Holland is not a Christian. Second, Holland’s book is one of the most ambitious historical defenses of Christianity in a very long time.
While studying the ancient world, Holland writes, he realized something. Simply, the ancients were cruel, and their values utterly foreign to him. The Spartans routinely murdered “imperfect” children. The bodies of slaves were treated like outlets for the physical pleasure of those with power. Infanticide was common. The poor and the weak had no rights.
From There to Here …
How did we get from there to here? It was Christianity, Holland writes. Christianity revolutionized sex and marriage, demanding that men control themselves and prohibiting all forms of rape. Christianity confined sexuality within monogamy. (It is ironic, Holland notes, that these are now the very standards for which Christianity is derided.) Christianity elevated women. In short, Christianity utterly transformed the world.
In fact, Holland points out that without Christianity, the Western world would not exist. Even the claims of the social justice warriors who despise the faith of their ancestors rest on a foundation of Judeo-Christian values. Those who make arguments based on love, tolerance, and compassion are borrowing fundamentally Christian arguments. If the West had not become Christian, Holland writes, “no one would have gotten woke.”
Attracting Criticism
Holland’s book-length defense of the belief system the elites love to despise has unsurprisingly attracted some criticism. He faced off with militant atheist and prominent philosopher A.C. Grayling on the question “Did Christianity give us our human values?” Grayling struggled to rebut Holland, sounding more petty than philosophical. Holland, on the other hand, became positively passionate in his defense of Christianity. If Western civilization is the fishbowl, he stated, then the water is Christianity.
While many — including Holland — cannot quite bring themselves to believe Christianity is true, they are starting to believe that Christianity might be necessary.
In fact, the very critiques of those who condemn Christianity for various perceived injustices are rooted in Christian precepts.
A Trend Identified — Defense of Christianity
Holland’s passionate defense of Christianity is fascinating because it appears to be part of a trend. As the West becomes definitively post-Christian, many secularists are suddenly realizing that Christianity may have been more valuable than they thought. While many — including Holland — cannot quite bring themselves to believe Christianity is true, they are starting to believe that Christianity might be necessary.
Douglas Murray, the conservative author and columnist, is also an atheist. In recent years, however, he has started to warn that the decline of Christianity is a dangerous thing. Society now faces three options. First, Murray says, is to reject the idea that all human life is precious. “Another is to work furiously to nail down an atheist version of the sanctity of the individual.” And if that doesn’t work? “Then there is only one other place to go. Which is back to faith, whether we like it or not.”
Murray now occasionally refers to himself as a “Christian atheist.” Speaking with Esther O’Reilly on the Unbelievable podcast, Murray lauded the “revolutionary moral insights” of Christianity. He told her that while visiting the Sea of Galilee, he couldn’t shake the feeling that “something happened here.” And he admitted that as atheists consider morality, “the more we may have to accept that … the sanctity of human life is a Judeo-Christian notion which might very easily not survive [the disappearance of] Judeo-Christian civilization.”
Speaking on The Darren Grimes Show last month, he was even blunter. “There seems to be little point to me in a life spent talking about Labour Party politics rather than God.”
King Agrippa Christians
The phenomenon of atheists praising Christianity appears to be growing. Gone are the days when Christopher Hitchens (a good friend of Murray’s) and his fellow secularists raged against the “poison” of religion. Even Richard Dawkins has now admitted that Christianity might be preferable to the alternatives. He once called for Christianity to be destroyed. Now he begrudgingly says it has good effects on society.
There is also Jordan Peterson. The famous psychologist refuses to say whether he believes in God. Or at least, he refuses to say what he means by God, or Christ or faith. Peterson is attempting to synthesize Scripture with Jung and Darwin, and the result is predictably tortured. But Peterson knows that without Christianity, unspeakable cruelty is inevitable. He speaks like a secular Calvinist. He believes in human depravity, but has not yet worked out redemption.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Charles Murray, the American social scientist and sociologist, is an agnostic. Yet, he told me in an interview that he believes the American republic will not survive without a resurgence of Christianity. “You cannot have a free society with a constitution” like the American one “unless you are trying to govern a religious people,” he observed.
The late Sir Roger Scruton, too, headed back to church. He struggled with many of Christianity’s truth claims. But still, he came to believe that Christianity was necessary. While nursing doubts, he played the organ in his local Anglican church during Sunday services. Perhaps practice, he once said, would help him along. He wasn’t sure he could believe it all. But he wanted to.
These men are King Agrippa Christians. As King Agrippa told the Apostle Paul: “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” They almost believe it. They believe Christianity is good. Some believe it is necessary. As Murray put it, he “believes in belief.” But they cannot (yet) bring themselves to believe that it is literally true — that Jesus Christ actually rose from the dead.
Listen to the Warnings of the Atheists — Christianity is Necessary
These strange struggles also deliver a warning to the West. Without Christianity, we are heading into a thick and impenetrable darkness. Christianity gave us human rights. It gave us protection for the weak. Compassion rooted in commands to love. Forgiveness for enemies. It revolutionized the world. We are now in the process of undoing that revolution. In fact, we are replacing it with the Sexual Revolution.
We should look at what we are destroying before we carry on. We should ask why fences were built before tearing them down. We should listen to the atheists nervously telling us that Christianity is necessary. And we should fight to ensure that our post-Christian culture is again a pre-Christian one.
Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker, writer, and pro-life activist. He is the author of The Culture War and Seeing Is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of Abortion, and co-author of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide.


thestream--2020-05-19--Military Photo of the Day: Vet Beats His Battle With COVID-19

U.S. Army veteran Arvin McCray leaves the Milwaukee VA Medical Center on May 5 , 2020 , after a 50-day @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 as hundreds of employees line the hallway and cheer .
We are so glad @ @ @ @ @ and are grateful to all the nurses and doctors who helped him along the way @ @ @ @ @ !
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , @ @ @ @ @ Our Day .

U.S. Army veteran Arvin McCray leaves the Milwaukee VA Medical Center on May 5, 2020, after a 50-day hospitalization for complications related to COVID-19 as hundreds of employees line the hallway and cheer.
We are so glad this warrior survived the coronavirus and are grateful to all the nurses and doctors who helped him along the way. God bless you all!
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.


thestream--2020-05-19--How Intensely Does the Leftwing Media Hate Trump?

I can not prove this , but the caller to my radio show seemed totally credible .
If what he said is true , then the animosity towards Trump in left-wing circles is even more extreme than some of us would have believed .
And that is saying a lot .
The caller , named Rob , from Tampa , Florida , said he had previously worked at an NBC News affiliate up north .
( He didn ’ t want to give further details so he could speak with total freedom . )
As a committed Christian , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the minority .
He was alone .
All the other newsroom staffers , totaling at least 30 people , identifying as either atheists or agnostics .
And , he said , “ Every single one of them was a hardcore leftist.
” Rob said his last year working at the station was the first year of Trump ’ s presidency , so , 2017 .
During that time , a story about Trump was run for a few days , a story that “ everyone knew was a lie.
” So he reached @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ What you ’ re putting on TV is a lie .
Why are you doing it ?
” According to Rob , “ The guy looked at me stone cold and said , ‘ It ’ s not my duty or my obligation to tell the truth .
It ’ s my obligation to get Donald Trump out of the White House.
’ ” Again , I can ’ t verify this story .
Although , to repeat , Rob did seem credible and he was quite aware of Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Question That the Media is Hostile to Trump But what I can say is this : there is no question that the TV media leans overwhelmingly to the left .
And there is no question that the leftist media is overtly and unapologetically hostile to Trump .
Let ’ s look first at the media ’ s anti-Trump reporting .
In October , 2017 , NBC News reported , “ The Pew Research Center , in a content analysis of the early days of the Trump presidency , found that 62 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent was positive .
In contrast , President Barack Obama ’ s coverage in early 2009 was 42 percent positive and 20 percent negative , the study said.
” Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
So , the coverage of Trump was more than 12 to 1 negative .
The coverage of Obama was more than 2 to 1 positive .
One year later , in October , 2018 , the Media Research Center stated that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ networks have continued to pound Donald Trump and his team with the most hostile coverage of a president in TV news history — 92 % negative , vs. just 8 % positive.
” By January , 2020 , the figure had risen to 93 % negative .
Certainly , Trump ’ s provocation of the media plays into these numbers .
But whatever the cause , the anti-Trump sentiments have only intensified .
And in increasingly unvarnished fashion at that .
There ’ s No Question That the Media Leans Left As for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nate Silver wrote in 2017 that , “ As of 2013 , only 7 percent of [ journalists ] identified as Republicans.
” ( This was down from 25.7 percent in 1971 ; strikingly , as of 2013 , half identified as independent . )
And , a 2017 article in Politico points out , “ The national media really does work in a bubble , something that wasn ’ t true as recently as 2008 .
And the bubble is growing more extreme .
Concentrated heavily along the coasts , the bubble @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re a working journalist , odds aren ’ t just that you work in a pro-Clinton county — odds are that you reside in one of the nation ’ s most pro-Clinton counties ” ( their emphasis ) .
With good reason , the article , written by Jack Shafer and Tucker Doherty , carried this title and subtitle : “ The Media Bubble Is Worse Than You Think .
We crunched the data on where journalists work and how fast it ’ s changing .
The results should worry you.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Okrent ’ s analysis was shockingly candid ( and note that the Times itself published it ) .
To the headline ’ s question , “ Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper ?
” he responded , “ Of course it is.
” ( Again , this was back in 2004 . )
With regard to “ the social issues : gay rights , gun control , abortion and environmental regulation , among others , ” Okrent was equally blunt .
He said , “ if you think The Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them , you ’ ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.
” As for “ the editorial page , ” he described it as “ so thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right.
” Does Their Bias Affect What Americans Consume ?
Although I can not get my hands on the research right now , more than one decade ago I read with interest a relevant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the nation held to radically leftist views on abortion and other social issues .
I would imagine those numbers would look similar today .
It is true that an academic article published by Science Advances in April , 2020 , argued that , “ Although a dominant majority of journalists identify as liberals/Democrats and many Americans and public officials frequently decry supposedly high and increasing levels of media bias , little compelling evidence exists as to ( i ) the ideological or partisan leanings of the many journalists who fail to answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ii ) whether journalists ’ political leanings bleed into the choice of which stories to cover that Americans ultimately consume.
” Rob , and a host of other observers , including me , would beg to differ .
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 .

I cannot prove this, but the caller to my radio show seemed totally credible. If what he said is true, then the animosity towards Trump in left-wing circles is even more extreme than some of us would have believed. And that is saying a lot.
The caller, named Rob, from Tampa, Florida, said he had previously worked at an NBC News affiliate up north. (He didn’t want to give further details so he could speak with total freedom.)
As a committed Christian, he claims, he was not just in the minority. He was alone. All the other newsroom staffers, totaling at least 30 people, identifying as either atheists or agnostics. And, he said, “Every single one of them was a hardcore leftist.”
Rob said his last year working at the station was the first year of Trump’s presidency, so, 2017. During that time, a story about Trump was run for a few days, a story that “everyone knew was a lie.”
So he reached out to the assignment editor and said, “What you’re putting on TV is a lie. Why are you doing it?”
According to Rob, “The guy looked at me stone cold and said, ‘It’s not my duty or my obligation to tell the truth. It’s my obligation to get Donald Trump out of the White House.’”
Again, I can’t verify this story. Although, to repeat, Rob did seem credible and he was quite aware of Trump’s shortcomings.
There’s No Question That the Media is Hostile to Trump
But what I can say is this: there is no question that the TV media leans overwhelmingly to the left. And there is no question that the leftist media is overtly and unapologetically hostile to Trump.
Let’s look first at the media’s anti-Trump reporting. In October, 2017, NBC News reported, “The Pew Research Center, in a content analysis of the early days of the Trump presidency, found that 62 percent of the coverage was negative and only 5 percent was positive. In contrast, President Barack Obama’s coverage in early 2009 was 42 percent positive and 20 percent negative, the study said.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
So, the coverage of Trump was more than 12 to 1 negative. The coverage of Obama was more than 2 to 1 positive.
One year later, in October, 2018, the Media Research Center stated that, “Over the summer, the broadcast networks have continued to pound Donald Trump and his team with the most hostile coverage of a president in TV news history — 92% negative, vs. just 8% positive.”
By January, 2020, the figure had risen to 93% negative.
Certainly, Trump’s provocation of the media plays into these numbers. But whatever the cause, the anti-Trump sentiments have only intensified. And in increasingly unvarnished fashion at that.
There’s No Question That the Media Leans Left
As for the political leanings of the media, Nate Silver wrote in 2017 that, “As of 2013, only 7 percent of [journalists] identified as Republicans.” (This was down from 25.7 percent in 1971; strikingly, as of 2013, half identified as independent.)
And, a 2017 article in Politico points out, “The national media really does work in a bubble, something that wasn’t true as recently as 2008. And the bubble is growing more extreme. Concentrated heavily along the coasts, the bubble is both geographic and political. If you’re a working journalist, odds aren’t just that you work in a pro-Clinton county — odds are that you reside in one of the nation’s most pro-Clinton counties” (their emphasis).
With good reason, the article, written by Jack Shafer and Tucker Doherty, carried this title and subtitle: “The Media Bubble Is Worse Than You Think. We crunched the data on where journalists work and how fast it’s changing. The results should worry you.”
And then, this striking observation:
The people who report, edit, produce and publish news can’t help being affected — deeply affected — by the environment around them. Former New York Times public editor Daniel Okrent got at this when he analyzed the decidedly liberal bent of his newspaper’s staff in a 2004 column that rewards rereading today. The ‘heart, mind, and habits’ of the Times, he wrote, cannot be divorced from the ethos of the cosmopolitan city where it is produced. On such subjects as abortion, gay rights, gun control and environmental regulation, the Times’ news reporting is a pretty good reflection of its region’s dominant predisposition.
Okrent’s analysis was shockingly candid (and note that the Times itself published it). To the headline’s question, “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?” he responded, “Of course it is.” (Again, this was back in 2004.)
With regard to “the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others,” Okrent was equally blunt. He said, “if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.”
As for “the editorial page,” he described it as “so thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right.”
Does Their Bias Affect What Americans Consume?
Although I cannot get my hands on the research right now, more than one decade ago I read with interest a relevant survey. It indicated that news anchors across the nation held to radically leftist views on abortion and other social issues. I would imagine those numbers would look similar today.
It is true that an academic article published by Science Advances in April, 2020, argued that, “Although a dominant majority of journalists identify as liberals/Democrats and many Americans and public officials frequently decry supposedly high and increasing levels of media bias, little compelling evidence exists as to (i) the ideological or partisan leanings of the many journalists who fail to answer surveys and/or identify as independents and (ii) whether journalists’ political leanings bleed into the choice of which stories to cover that Americans ultimately consume.”
Rob, and a host of other observers, including me, would beg to differ.
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.