Archive for the ‘Eric Holder’ Category

Scoop: Coming Up on a New Episode of REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER on HBO – Friday, May 1, 2020 – Broadway World

REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER continues its 18th season FRIDAY, MAY 1 (10:00-11:00 p.m. ET/PT), with a replay at 12:30 a.m., exclusively on HBO. Allowing Maher to offer his unique perspective on contemporary issues, the show, which is currently being filmed remotely from his home, includes virtual one-on-one interviews with guests. This week's guests include former Chair of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, Eric Holder; New York Times columnist and MSNBC contributor Bret Stephens; and Rolling Stone contributing editor and podcast host, Matt Taibbi.

The show is also available on HBO NOW, HBO GO, HBO On Demand and partners' streaming platforms.

Politico has hailed Maher as "a pugnacious debater and a healthy corrective to the claptrap of cable news," while Variety noted, "There may not be a more eclectic guest list on all of television."

Maher headlined his first special on the network in 1989 and has starred in 11 HBO solo specials to date.

The executive producers of REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER are Bill Maher, Sheila Griffiths, Marc Gurvitz, Dean Johnsen, Billy Martin; co-executive producer, Chris Kelly; producer, Matt Wood; director, Paul Casey.

View original post here:
Scoop: Coming Up on a New Episode of REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER on HBO - Friday, May 1, 2020 - Broadway World

Factors That Should Have Started the Next Online Poker Boom – BestUSCasinos.org

The poker boom represented a time of bliss for pros and amateurs alike. Spanning from 2003 to 2006, the boom saw live and online poker explode in terms of players, tournament prize pools, and news coverage.

Not surprisingly, many players hoped and prayed for a second upsurge. They grabbed hold of any bit of hope that they thought could result in another rapid growth period.

Below, you can see the 7 biggest factors that were supposed to cause another boom. None of these aspects have come to fruition and caused a poker goldrush to date.

Poker experienced its biggest rise when the internet game operated in a grey area. Most governments completely ignored online poker up until the mid-2000s.

This lack of government regulation allowed the game to thrive.

Sites like Partypoker, PokerStars, Absolute Poker, UltimateBet, and Full Tilt made fortunes by serving the global market.

However, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) and Black Friday (U.S. v. Scheinberg) put a damper on this unchecked market.

Happening in 2006 and 2011, respectively, these US legal actions convinced payment processors to quit serving Americans and even led to the downfall of certain sites.

Ever since, the US and other countries have begun regulating online poker. Nations like the UK, Denmark, France, Italy, and Spain offer broad legislation that covers their national playing pools.

America, however, has yet to legalize the game on a federal level. Instead, only a handful of states (e.g. New Jersey, Pennsylvania) have legalized and regulated online poker.

Given that the US was key to the original poker boom, this broken-up market has really hurt the internet games development. Regulation has also been too slow to provide any substantial growth or benefits from legal online poker.

The rest of America is served by smaller grey-market sites that dont generate a fraction of the traffic that Partypoker, Stars, and Full Tilt drew at their heights.

Barack Obama was inaugurated as the US President in 2008. Players had high hopes that the poker-loving President would undo all the harm caused by the UIGEA.

As a senator in Illinois, Obama regularly hosted a home game. The Democrat also expressed hope that Congress would repeal the UIGEA and regulate online poker on a federal level.

However, Republicans controlled Congress at the time and had no intentions of lightening up on internet gambling. The Obama administration didnt really have the power nor political motivation to wage a war for the game.

During Obamas time in office, Preet Bharara, US District Attorney for the Southern District of New York, initiated Black Friday.

Bharara didnt seek permission from the Obama-appointed Attorney General Eric Holder at the time. This is just one more sign that Barack didnt have any real control over online pokers fate.

With close to 2.8 billion people between them, China and India represent 35% of the worlds population. It only stands to reason that they could collectively usher in their own poker boom.

Many have been waiting for poker to take off in either country. India is experiencing its own boom today. Adda52 has been particularly popular among Indian players.

However, Indias poker boom isnt having much of a global effect. Its instead confined to the countrys borders.

China, meanwhile, still has extremely restrictive gambling laws in place. It also exhibits quite a bit of control over its citizens.

India and China could still cause a mini-poker boom. As for now, though, theyve yet to bring these dreams to fruition.

Released in 1998, Rounders has become a cult classic thats still popular among poker players today. It was especially impactful shortly after it was released and has inspired notable pros to take up the game.

2003 WSOP Main Event champ Chris Moneymaker cites Rounders as one of the key reasons why he began playing. Coincidentally, Moneymaker is considered the biggest sparkplug for the poker boom.

Rumors have been floated about a potential Rounders sequel for years. Co-star Ed Norton mentioned the possibility during a 2014 appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman.

Co-writer Brian Koppelman also mentioned the possibility in 2019 by tweeting, Its never too late [for a Rounders sequel].

But more than two decades later, Rounders 2 isnt in production or even scheduled with a major studio. Assuming it is made, the sequel would face a near-impossible task of living up to the first movie.

After paying a $731 million fine to the US Department Justice following Black Friday, PokerStars avoided having to admit to money laundering charges. This agreement helped them remain eligible for return to the US online poker market.

Stars legally made their way back into America in 2016. They gained licensing through the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement.

Some viewed this NJ foothold as a launching point for PokerStars expanding across the country. The enthusiasm was well warranted given that Stars still dominated the online poker market at the time.

Four years later, PokerStars has only managed to expand to Pennsylvania. Theyre also much more committed to casino gaming and sports betting (through Fox Sports deal) than poker these days.

Perhaps Stars may dedicate more effort towards the game that made them famous if regulation opens up. For now, though, theyre capitalizing on casino and sports gambling.

In the fall of 2008, Michael Phelps was fresh off another dominating Olympic performance. He captured eight gold medals and set multiple records in Beijing.

Phelps mania was at an all time high. So, the poker world jumped when they read news of The Baltimore Bullet hanging out in poker rooms.

Friends with pro player Jeff Gross, Phelps began dedicating more time to his poker hobby in 2008. He piqued more interest after finishing ninth place ($5,213) in a Caesars Palace Classic tournament.

Given Phelps status, some wondered if he could be the marquee attraction that would inspire millions of people to take up the game. Many speculated on what sites might sponsor Phelps.

In the end, though, he was just enjoying his time away from the pool. Michael Phelps eventually returned to competitive swimming and won four golds and two silvers at the 2012 London Olympic Games.

Now retired from swimming, Phelps still enjoys playing poker from time to time. But he shows no interest in being the bannerman for the game.

A reverberation from Black Friday, popular poker TV shows went off the air in the early 2010s. High Stakes Poker, Poker After Dark, and PokerStars Big Game were the most-notable shows to disappear.

The sites and companies that sponsored these programs pulled their advertising after Black Friday. Poker TV remained largely in limbo until Poker After Dark (2017-19) and Poker Night in America (2017 onwards) returned.

These shows offered the promise of bringing poker to the masses again. Each show featured prominent players just as programs before it had done.

Poker After Dark went off air in 2019. PNIA continues to run and offers entertaining action. But as a whole, the poker TV scene isnt quite what it used to be.

As it were, the poker boom is a one-time event thatll never be replicated. Another mini boom could potentially happen but nothing like what occurred during the mid-2000s.

A perfect mixture of factors came together to rapidly increase the popularity of online poker and the game as a whole.

The internet game was new, Moneymaker showed that any amateur could win, and TV shows began interesting casual viewers.

Online poker is far from new today. The game is also tougher due to the average players skill level being much higher today.

The good news is that live tournaments are more popular than ever. The World Series of Poker keeps setting attendance records year after year.

Countries and states are also sharing their online player pools in some cases. The more linked player pools there are, the bigger cash games and tournaments can grow.

Nevertheless, a second poker boom just doesnt seem in the cards. After believing in one or more of the previously discussed 7 factors, many people have given up on the notion of boom #2.

Read the original:
Factors That Should Have Started the Next Online Poker Boom - BestUSCasinos.org

Veepstakes in the age of coronavirus – CBS News

Even as a pandemic hastrapped voters and candidates indoorsand consumed American politics, one key element of the presidential campaign may remain virtually unaltered: the vice presidential selection process.

Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden has said he is modeling his vice presidential search after the efforts of past Democratic presidential campaigns, including thevetting discreetly helmedby Eric Holder and Caroline Kennedy in 2008 that yielded his own selection to President Barack Obama's ticket.

Biden must make the choice at an unprecedented time for American politics, when typical campaign rallies have been replaced with virtual town halls from his Delaware home. But while much of traditional campaigning is reliant on door knocking and voter interactions, the process that has informed recent vice presidential campaigns was done remotely to begin with.

Sources with insight into the "pre-vetting" process tell CBS News that Biden's picks have further winnowed since March, when the former vice presidenttold "The View" thathis shortlist hovered around 11 women, citing the immense resources required to investigate each candidate.

Five to eight candidates are now being seriously considered, CBS News has learned, though the sources said a "dark horse" candidate could be added.

The former vice president has yet to publicly name who will lead the effort, which will likely be manned by a fleet of accountants and attorneys. Lawyers from Holder's powerhouse firm, Covington & Burling,already serve as counselto Biden's presidential campaign.

"It doesn't mean that strategists inside the campaign have no input. But you want to give security to the people who are being vetted that the information they turn over will remain private," explained Bob Shrum, a top adviser to John Kerry's 2004 campaign.

The first stage of the search has likely already begun, say veterans of past vice presidential picks, with aides scouring the internet, press clippings, and public records. Similar to the routine carried out by campaign opposition research teams, this probe can largely be carried out even during quarantine.

"Oftentimes, that first and even second round of vetting is really remote. They don't even know about it. You just sort of announce they're being vetted," said Robby Mook, Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign manager.

Once Biden's list is sufficiently narrowed, vetters need shortlisters' cooperation to continue the audition. Potential running mates must complete lengthy questionnaires, turn over troves of personal records, and submit their families to invasive interrogations of their public and private lives.

"I got a call from Senator Obama, I think it was probably late May or early June," said former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who was extensively vetted by Mr. Obama's search in 2008. "I was in the middle of the meeting. And he basically asked me if I'd be willing to be vetted for vice president."

James Johnson, the Democratic operative who helped lead Mr. Obama's vetting processin its early days, was already waiting downstairs for Sebelius.

"He made two things very clear. First, not to talk about the process with anyone. And two, I needed to alert my family that this was coming," Sebelius said.

When Mr. Obama asked Biden, the then-Delaware senator immediately turned down the vetting offer as he feared, in part, turning into a "punchline" like some previous former vice presidents with limited duties, he wrote in his 2017 memoir. Biden called the vetting process a "difficult" decision, but after prodding by his family and a secretive trip to Minneapolis for an additional meeting, Biden felt more comfortable with the process going forward.

While a presidential candidate can sometimes overcome a blemish on his or her past by publicly confronting it, a potential vice president needs to survive vetting in a vacuum.

"Sometimes there are presidential candidates who probably would have a greater chance of being a presidential nominee than a vice presidential nominee," said Joel Goldstein, a scholar of the vice presidency who teaches at St. Louis University Law School.

Several running mate finalists recounted thorough searches by vetters, uncovering embarrassing details untouched even by other official and campaign background checks.

"I would call it skeletons and lawsuits," said former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who faced vetting by the presidential campaigns of Al Gore, John Kerry, and Obama. "In other words, rumors. Sometimes you are asked directly, and you try to be as candid as you can."

One strategist familiar with Hillary Clinton's 2016 vice presidential search worried candidates being vetted this year could be wary of divulging personal information over the phone or on a video call. As past candidates have narrowed their lists to a handful of names, they or at least their trusted advisors have met with the finalists, taking extraordinary measures to keep their encounters secret and secure.

"Kerry interviewed me at the top of a warehouse before choosing Edwards in Phoenix. James Johnson held our secret meeting at a hotel room near Dulles Airport, wearing a rain jacket like those detectives do," joked Richardson.

However, social distancing wrought by the spread of COVID-19 has already reshaped one assessment: a potential running mate's performance on stage with the nominee's message.

"You need to see how each candidate matches each other at these rallies and the personal chemistry, you can't really do it virtually. You want to see the candidates in front of voters, in front of crowds," said Richardson.

Bans on large gatherings have transformed Biden's public campaign, forcing him to broadcast events online from his Delaware home.

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer fueled speculation last week, joining Bidenon his campaign's podcast. Another rumored running mate -- California Senator Kamala Harris -- called in Wednesday to a virtual fundraiser with Biden.

"You want someone who can do well in the vice presidential debate. Because the job of the vice presidential candidate, in their highest moment of visibility, is that debate. To go after the other nominee and the other party and do it effectively," says Shrum.

When Senator Amy Klobuchar recalled the previous Democratic debates as she endorsed Biden in early March, he interrupted her to point out "all which you won."

But beyond a pick's public chemistry with the nominee and their campaign, Democratic campaign veterans say the nominee's final decision often ends with an intensely private assessment.

"I met with Barack Obama for three and a half hours. They want to see what the comfort level is like, after all you're going to be in a foxhole together," recalled former Indiana Senator Evan Bayh.

Obama's selection in 2008 came down to Biden and Bayh, according to multiple Democrats on the campaign at the time, but an additional disadvantage plagued Bayh: a Republican governor would have selected Bayh's replacement in the Senate.

"It was an honor to be considered, but to be in that final three, anyone will tell you that it can feel like a colonoscopy. Except they use the Hubble Telescope," Bayh said.

Jack Turman contributed reporting

Read more here:
Veepstakes in the age of coronavirus - CBS News

ICC Afghanistan Torture Investigation Likely to Turn on Criminal Intent – Just Security

The recent decision by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to authorize Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda to investigate alleged war crimes in Afghanistan includes allegations that U.S. personnel committed torture when interrogating prisoners there and in other ICC member countries. The prosecutor has identified the potential defendants as CIA and Department of Defense (DOD) officials who devised, authorized, or oversaw the interrogations. Whether those officials are ultimately charged will likely turn on whether they had the required criminal intent or whether they justifiably relied in good faith on assurances by the Justice Department that the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques they participated in were lawful.

Article 30 of the ICCs Rome Statute requires that the defendant had the mental state of intent and knowledge. Article 32 acknowledges that some mistakes of law may negate that mental state. Therefore, U.S. personnel who relied on the Department of Justices (DOJs) legal advice may not be criminally responsible even if that advice turned out to be wrong.

This notion of reliance in good faith to negate criminal responsibility is not new. The U.S. Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, adopted by a vote of 90-9 in the Senate, provides that:

it shall be a defense that such officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent did not know that the practices were unlawful and a person of ordinary sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful. Good faith reliance on advice of counsel should be an important factor, among others, to consider in assessing whether a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the practices to be unlawful.

In 2009, President Barack Obama said that it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution. Attorney General Eric Holder later affirmed that the Department of Justice will not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees. And the Senates May 2018 confirmation of Gina Haspel as CIA director was an implicit endorsement of her explanation that CIA personnel involved with the detention and interrogation program relied on legal guidance, and adhered to it in good faith.

CIA Reliance on Legal Guidance

When CIA Director George Tenet was first presented with a proposal to use enhanced interrogation techniques in April 2002, he did what international humanitarian law wants a superior to do: he asked if it was legal. Despite intense pressure to prevent a second attack on the United States after 9/11, Tenet waited four months for DOJ to answer that question. He authorized the use of proposed interrogation techniques only after he was assured that they were legal. During the next two years, whenever any doubt was raised over the legality of those techniques, Tenet said the CIA would not continue using the techniques unless DOJ found them to be legal. In each instance, DOJ affirmed the techniques legality.

The original advice of DOJ attorneys John Yoo and Jay Bybee that the techniques were legal was reaffirmed, in one form or another, throughout Tenets tenure by DOJ attorneys Jack Goldsmith, Daniel Levin and Steven Bradbury, and consistently supported by Attorney General John Ashcroft. Ashcroft briefed Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Secretary of State Colin Powell. They endorsed the techniques. President George W. Bush wrote in his book that he, too, approved the interrogation techniques.

Of course, a defendant cannot claim to have relied on DOJ advice if he knew DOJ was misled or if he authorized or condoned interrogation techniques materially different than those approved by DOJ. The Senate Intelligence Committees 2014 report claims that the CIAs use of enhanced interrogation techniques in the field diverged from what the CIA requested to use and later reported to DOJ. To overcome the defense of good faith reliance on DOJ opinions, the ICC prosecutor will have to examine such claims as to each potential defendant, as well as whether the acts known to that defendant were so egregious that a person of ordinary sense and understanding would know the practices were unlawful, despite the legal advice.

Not Yet Tested at the ICC

Although good faith reliance on advice of counsel is a well-established defense in American criminal law, it has not yet been tested at the ICC. The advice at issue in the Afghanistan investigation context was that the enhanced interrogation techniques should not result in the infliction of severe pain. The ICC statutes accompanying list of elements of crimesprovides thatit is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator intended that the pain would be severe. However, the ICC will likely not be prosecuting the actual persons who inflicted the pain, but rather higher-level officials. So any prosecution of top officials would have to be brought under a theory of co-perpetration, which requires that the remote defendant had to be aware that his conduct would bring about the elements of the war crime of torture, which includes the infliction of severe pain.

Now that the Appeals Chamber has settled the question of jurisdiction, the criminal intent issue appears to be the ICC prosecutors greatest obstacle in bringing charges against U.S. personnel.

The ICC also has a requirement to ensure that it is the court of last resort (admissibility). It can only bring charges where national authorities are unwilling or unable to prosecute the case themselves (complementarity) and where the crimes are sufficiently important (gravity). Since the United States has decided not to prosecute those who devised, authorized, or oversaw the interrogations, the defendants cannot benefit from complementarity. And the ICCs bar for gravity has been set very low in the recent Appeals Chamber decision in the Al Hassan case, likely dooming the argument that the number of torture victims is too few for the ICC.

Bensouda already has shown her willingness to assign some of her limited resources to investigating those crimes. Having devoted those resources, she or her successor would not, in the end, decline to bring charges against U.S. personnel simply for fear of alienating the United States and its allies or because the defendants may not be easily arrested. While U.S. nationals accused at the ICC may never be arrested unless they travel to an ICC member country, threats and bluster by a U.S. administration will not deter the prosecutor from seeking an arrest warrant. It also is unlikely that the fractured United Nations Security Council will bail out the United States by ordering the Afghanistan investigation be deferred, as it has the power to do under Article 16 of the ICC Statute, or outright ban prosecution of non-party nationals, as proposed by Senator Ted Cruz.

Instead, if charges are not brought at the ICC, it will likely be based on the inability to establish the criminal intent of those U.S. officials most responsible for the enhanced interrogation techniques.

Original post:
ICC Afghanistan Torture Investigation Likely to Turn on Criminal Intent - Just Security

Tony Perkins: The Election’s in the Mail? – Patriot Post

Scammers are everywhere during the coronavirus, experts are warning. But theyre not just after your bank account or personal information. Theyre after your vote.

For the Democratic Party, theres plenty of upside to a crisis like this one. The lockdown may not thrill most Americans, but for DNC headquarters, its an unexpected gift. After years of trying to relax the election process, the coronavirus is giving them the perfect scenario to push for the kind of nationwide system thats ripe for abuse: mail-in ballots.

In a recent interview, former attorney general Eric Holder didnt even try to hide his partys motives. Coronavirus,"he told Time magazine, "gives us an opportunity to revamp our electoral system so that itpermanentlybecomes more inclusive Of course, inclusivity is code for doing away with safeguards like voter ID laws and other checks and balances that keep our elections honest. This is the time, he argued, to demand a sea change in voting systems. But a sea change is what every democracy-loving American should be worried about.

The cast of characters behind the push should tell voters everything they need to know about its intentions. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are all throwing their weight behind a system that would make the 2020 election completely mail-dependent. In states like Texas, the Democratic Party is already filing lawsuits against state election officials to force the idea. The chairman of the GOP there, James Dickey, has vowed to fight the movement, insisting that Republicans will continue to vigorously oppose any intent by the Democrats to expose voters to increased error and fraud.

President Trump is equally disturbed by the Democrats insistence that we turn the electoral system upside down. Republicans should fight very hard when it comes to statewide mail-in voting. Democrats are clamoring for it,"Mr. Trump tweeted on April 8. "Tremendous potential for voter fraud, and for whatever reason, doesnt work out well for Republicans. Obviously, he said, Absentee Ballots are a great way to vote for the many senior citizens, military, and others who cant get to the polls on Election Day, he tweeted. These ballots are very different from 100% Mail-In Voting, which is "RIPE for FRAUD and shouldnt be allowed!

As some experts have pointed out, plenty of things can go wrong when voters have to depend on the postal service. For one, Mail voting doesnt work well for everyone. Some Americans live in places with unreliable mail service, may not have a fixed address to receive mail, or change addresses frequently, which can lead to issues regarding getting materials on time. Then, theres the matter of ballot harvesting, which gives people the right to collect and deliver other voters ballots. The dangers in that,as Californians found out in 2018, are too numerous to count. Once these intermediaries get their hands on someone elses ballot, they could decide not deliver it or manipulate it in some way before they do. Either way, its a huge risk.

FRC Actions Brent Keilen has been following the debate, especially on the state level, where several primaries have been affected. Its literally changing by the day right now, he warned. And while the presidential primaries are mostly over, the focus now is on the federal races in the states. We have about 40 states still to go, because so many of these laws have been pushed down the road. And now, were seeing states like [Virginia] where Governor [Ralph] Northam (D) is starting to change not just their primary election laws to get past COVID-19 situation here and get this into the summer theyre actually starting to change the fall general election laws as well.

Weve had Democrats at the national level pushing some ideas, such as you mentioned, getting rid of voter ID laws, going to potentially all mail-in ballots as opposed to having [in-person voting] and number of other things. And while a lot of political experts agree that voter participation would go up with a mail-in ballot system, the question is: Who knows if theyre actually being cast by the actual person who got the ballot? Thats why the safeguards at the polling station are so important.

And its not as if showing an ID is a hardship. We all have to show our ID get on an airplane, cash a check, and a whole host of other things. So why shouldnt you have to show an ID to prove that youre voting as the person you say you are? The only reason, everyone knows, is to open up the system to abuse. Obviously, we want to make sure everybody is safe in these elections, Brent agreed, and we dont want it to be hard to vote but we do want it to be hard to cheat. And we know cheating is a real thing. This is not something thats made up. We have a lot of actual [data]. Back in 2012, Pew research found that as many as one in eight voter registration were outdated or wrong And remember, a lot of these races are being decided by very close margins. So it doesnt take that much fraud to swing some of these states.

What can you do? Well, for starters, you can pay close attention to whats happening in your state. There are websites likeHonestElections.organdTrueTheVote.orgwho are devoted to the integrity of the process. Were a long way off from the November election, but the groundwork for changing the process is being laid now. Make sure youre informed.

Originally published here.

The street was a sea of debris. To any passerby, it wouldve looked like a bomb had exploded. In the shadow of jagged buildings, where entire walls had come tumbling down, the ground was a pile of rubble, bricks, and shattered glass. The riots are over for now. But in Delhi, where the mosques are stillcharred and smeared with blood, no one is under any illusions. Even in lockdown, there is persecution around every corner.

For any country, the coronavirus is a major challenge. But for places like India, the crisis is a just another excuse to trample people. Poor families, who were already shunned and marginalized by society, are facing a virtual death sentence not because of the outbreak, but because the government is using the situation to block them from food and supplies. Since India ordered people inside two weeks ago, families in some villages have been completely cut off from groceries, medicine, and other essentials. "Weve been locked up here, like prisoners,"a pregnant mom nearly cried. "We live near a milk factory, and there is not a drop of milk for my children to drink. We are called dirty, and they say we spread the disease. But the disease is the least of her worries. Starvation isnt.

For Christians, the abuse has taken a different form. Open Doors David Curry has heard from sources on the ground that the government is ramping up what he calls cultural persecution. Christians, he warns, are being put on the front lines with the most contagious, because theyre considered expendable. In a country with justone doctor for every 1,457 Indians, the gaps in care are huge. And while Christians are usually the first to volunteer to serve, but in this crisis, the government didnt give them a choice. They were sent, FRCs Arielle Del Turco pointed out, because of their faith, and because they hold such a marginalized status in that society.

Whats worse, David warns, is that theyre being exposed without proper care. Like a lot of organizations, his is desperately trying to get masks and other equipment into the hands of the medical workers, but still, he says, we need to draw attention to the religious undertones of this tragedy. And in contrast to countries like the United States, where people on the front lines are treated like heroes, Indias doctors, nurses, and helpers are being driven out of their apartments or attacked on the streets. After working long, harrowing shifts in the virus wards, some health workers are coming home to no home at all. They asked us to vacate without any notice,"one young physiciansaid. [They] said we were dirty. Most doctors are now on the streets and have nowhere to go.

Unfortunately, Arielle explained on "Washington Watch, all of this just reflects larger societal issues in India where a lot of people are still considered unclean. And thats just the legacy of a detrimental caste system thats been really harmful for human rights. And we see Christians [fall] victim [to] this, because they are often among the lowest caste members. Its stunning when you consider that India is the worlds largest democracy. And although the state isnt necessarily responsible for all of the increased hostility and violence directed at religious minorities, its certainly not doing anything to stop it.

Instead of stepping in to protect their citizens, theyre turning a blind eye to the ticking time bomb of the Hindu nationalist movement which insists that to be Indian is to be Hindu. Obviously, Arielle said, that leaves other religious minorities, including Christians and Muslims, in a marginalized place. And [its] inspiring not just persecution from the government but persecution from mob violence. The reports of pastorsbeing run over in the streetsor beaten with chains are almost commonplace. At the very least, the virus has hopefully isolated them from some of the threats, but whatever relief there is will be temporary.

Their hope, like so many others, is in nations like America, whose leadershave the leverageto pressure Indias government to take the persecution more seriously. [India] does want to maintain a friendship with the United States, Arielle agreed, so hopefully their leadership is going to be a little [more receptive to] what America has to say in terms of their human rights standards. [W]e should be encouraging our allies to share our core values. [And] one of our core values in this country is religious freedom. The coronavirus doesnt change that. If anything, it only makes our pleas more urgent.

Originally published here.

There are some benefits to being stuck at home, YouVersion is reporting. For one, people have more time to read. And what theyre reading, surveys say, is important. Turns out, the best-selling book in history the Bible is also the most popular one right now. Since Palm Sunday, the app found, Bible reading was a whopping 54 percent higher than last years holy week. All of this,"a spokesman said, "on the heels of a record-breaking month.

March 2020, they announced, was the number one month in Bible app history setting new highs for users, verse shares, Bible searches, audio plays, and video plays. All in all, the good news of coronavirusisthe Good News!

Now that more people are getting reacquainted with the Bible or introduced for the very first time a lot of experts wonder what the impact will be. In a new survey by Pew Research, Americans still seem very divided on what the role of Scripture should be especially in American policy. Asked whether the Bible should influence U.S. laws, half (49 percent) of the country said yes, including 23 percent who thought it should have a great deal. But then, there are also people who strongly object to the idea, like atheists, agnostics, or religious nones.

Of course, the reality is, the Bibles morality already informs U.S. law whether Americans like it or not. Civil government cant exist in a vacuum. Since the founding of this nation, our framers relied on Gods law to create our own. Theres clearly a deep-rooted history of the Christian religion in America society. It is, as FRCs David Closson pointed out on Wednesdays Washington Watch, part of our DNA.

That aside, when you break the Pew numbers down, there are some very interesting correlations. Obviously, the split down the middle on the Bibles role points straight to the worldview divide we see in the country. Its what we see in every election, every public policy debate. Its the undercurrent of every conflict we have in our culture today.

But there are also some interesting alliances. Eighty-nine percent of white evangelicals said the Bible should have a great deal or some influence on U.S. lives. Thats nine out of 10. And when you look at black Protestants, its 76 percent. In fact, theyre the next highest category of people who believe the Bible should have influence on our culture and our laws. In all honesty, I think the media and liberal politicians try to keep white and black Christians apart. Theyre constantly seeding the ground with controversy and driving wedges between them because they have a very similar worldview based on Scripture. And they understand what could happen on social policy if those two groups joined forces.

The other aspect to consider is age. The older Americans are, the more impact they want Gods word to have. On the other side of the ledger, the majority of 18 to 29-year-olds believe it shouldnt have much at all. That, in my view, is the clearest indication of a public education system thats been completely hijacked by the Left. Liberal academia has rewritten American history, pushed religion out of schools, and stigmatized self-identifying Christians. And for moms and dads, it ought to be a wake-up call that theyre not going to get any help from the culture raising their kids in the faith.

Its up to Christian parents to be the disciple makers in their home, David agreed, because if theyre not going to do it, the younger generation is simply not going to learn about the biblical foundations of this country [or], even broader, the biblical foundation of their faith and even the gospel. This poll suggests that a lot of families arent taking that role seriously and parents need to. Ultimately, were going to be held accountable to God for what our children learn. And its up to us to make sure that theyre being taught what the Bible says and how it applies to their lives and the culture.

If you need a way to jumpstart that process, join FRC'stwo-year Bible reading plan. Its never too late to jump right in. And, if you want to maximize that reading, we can point you in the right direction! Check out the FRC Blog for Ways to Read the Bible, PartsOne,Two, andThree.

Originally published here.

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.

More here:
Tony Perkins: The Election's in the Mail? - Patriot Post