My thoughts on the 2020 election

Here are my thoughts on the election so far:

1. The media has declared Biden the winner. However, that's not how our system works. The way it works is we vote. All the votes are in. Votes are counted. If there are discrepancies which warrant further investigation (e.g. voter fraud, irregularities that need to be reconciled), then independent investigations will be made. That's how we ensure the integrity of our elections. That's how we ensure future elections remain free and fair. This election isn't any different. We need to wait for the outcome, not accept what the media says - and arguably the media is saying Biden is the winner for malicious reasons (e.g. to foster the notion that Trump stole the election if he does win). In fact, isn't this what essentially happened in 2000 with Gore v. Bush?

2. However, even if Trump doesn't win the presidency, this election is an overall win for the GOP and conservatives in general:

White European Males

Someone in the comments of my previous article, “Roman Catholicism is the source of damage in our culture today”, suggested that I was “sounding like the Westboro kooks who think they're the only 20 people who are pure enough to be saved”.

I assure you that I am not intending to sound this way. I’m not going to be like Martin Luther, throwing ink wells at the devil in his room, and nor am I going to go into screeds about “know nothings”.

Instead I am taking seriously some of the things that the Roman Catholic Church officially says, the way they have positioned themselves “in the world”. I’m looking at their history, and political philosophy and I am trying to understand how this country, a mere 30 years after the fall of communism in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, can have so many agitators working to implement socialism today.

It’s “white European males” who find themselves at the bottom of all the “intersectionality” charts these days – It is “white European males” who are said by those on “the left” to be responsible for most of the evils in the world. I look at Roman Catholicism, which undoubtedly, for hundreds of years, was the primary intellectual environment for “white European males”, and I’m saying to myself, “I wonder if there’s a connection”.

With all of this in mind, I am an enthusiastic Trump voter who believes that the left/right divide has aligned itself on the person of Donald Trump, precisely because Trump is not an ideological person. He calls himself a “counter-puncher”, and it is purely an act of Providence, I am sure, that the United States finds itself today with a “political left” that is almost wholly united in its zeal against Trump.

So the “conservativism” that we see in Trump is almost purely a response by him to “counter-punch” against “the political left”, which at a political level includes virtually all Democrats, some “NeverTrump” Republicans, and some high-minded Christians who will never vote for someone who is less pure in his personal life than, say, John Piper. And which, at a cultural level, includes the news media, most colleges and universities, lots and lots of younger people who are just caught up in “the spirit of the age” (which is largely embodied by “wokism”).

In 2016, I had many conversations with fellow Triablogue writers, to the effect that Trump wasn’t conservative, that he would show his liberal side. And he has done so with his recent pronouncement that he is the most “gay-friendly” president in history – a thing that makes me cringe, but I try to understand it in context.

With that said, I still think voting for Trump is the best way to address the most immediate problems that we face today, particularly in the US. While it’s a big world, and there are many “enemies” (including Islam, Communist China, biological warfare, nefarious former KGB agents, and even mere apathy) I think “wokism” (which I am using as a catch-all phrase to include its intellectual parent, Marxism, and its like-minded relatives that we know as “Critical theory”, “Cultural Marxism”, Critical Race Theory”, “intersectionality”, “anti-Racism” “cancel culture”, and things like that), is the greatest threat to our country today.

And again I say this from the perspective of a Christian, “in the world but not of the world”, looking at what I can do, in the Romans 13 sense, “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities”, in a land in which “we the people” are tasked with something like “self-government” through institutions that have been set up to function in a realm where concepts of “Republic” and “democracy” are in the forefront.

I’m not going to claim I have all the answers here. I have a lot of questions. I’ve haven’t written much lately, but I’ve been reading a lot, and I want to share what I’m learning.

We live in a culture where “white European males” are the ones who have come out at the bottom of the intersectionality charts. They and their paternalism are seen to be the greatest evils that the world is facing today.

There’s a saying, I don’t know if it’s true, that “a definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again, and expecting different results”. If that’s the case, it doesn’t seem to me that we want to move back in the direction of Roman Catholicism, and in fact, while we want to look for Christian solutions, we certainly don’t want, moving forward, to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Not black enough

Joe Biden succumbs to the #NotBlackEnough trope.

By this logic, it would be fair to proclaim to white men who vote Democrat “you ain’t white!” 🤦🏽‍♂️

This is lazy, nasty, vindictive, race-baiting, far-left collectivism, and it must cease.

Do not tell PoC how to think ✋🏽 https://t.co/H77koDe2Q9

— أبو عمّار (@MaajidNawaz) May 22, 2020

Crashing the economy

I wonder if Democrat officials are prepared to crash the economy under the pretext of flattening the curve as their last best chance to defeat Trump in November, figuring that Trump will be blamed, voters will oust him and he will take the rest of the GOP down with him. Thus far Trump's approval ratings are actually up, but the situation is volatile. 

Comrade Bernie

Many people, including many conservatives, believe Bernie is authentic. A man of conviction. That he's always been sincere in his convictions about socialism. Sure, one may vehemently disagree with comrade Bernie, but at least he's the real thing. Or so it's often claimed.

1. I'll certainly grant comrade Bernie is more forthright and honest than Obama or Hillary. However, that's a pretty low bar! The latter two are snakes in the grass; it's always a challenge to sink lower than a snake.

2. At the same time, there's no virtue in being courageous and true to oneself if one is also a fool. One can be courageous and true to oneself, but rush headlong into disaster. Consider all the Muslim suicide bombers who believe they'll obtain 72 virgins if they die killing infidels in the name of Allah. They're true believers in Islam, and it takes some courage to kill oneself with a suicide vest, but that doesn't mean they weren't idiotic or stupid. As the saying goes: fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

3. If someone wants to be a fool, then I guess "whatever" for them. The real tragedy is when their foolishness harms or kills others. That, again, can be seen in Muslim suicide bombers who murder others. However it can just as well be seen in comrade Bernie. If his socialist vision was ever fully implemented, there's good reason to believe it would severely harm our nation if not worse.

4. All that said, I'm skeptical about Bernie truly having the courage of his convictions these days. If comrade Bernie is truly a man of his convictions, then why doesn't he live like it anymore?

Let me take a step back. I think there are at least two ways to test a person's convictions. Either make it cost him significantly to stick to his beliefs or bait and entice him away from his beliefs. See if he will withstand sufferings or see if he'll be drawn out by temptations.

For example, as Christians know, that can be seen in our faith either when we suffer for being Christian (e.g. friends and family turn against us, we lose our livelihoods) or when we're tempted away from Christianity (e.g. wealth, sex). Satan is both dragon and serpent, persecutor and seductress, murderer and liar, dark angel and angel masquerading in light.

Along similar lines, I think comrade Bernie may have been true to his socialism in his marginalized years. True to his socialism when he had little. When he was a no-name senator on the sidelines. When he was no-one and had nothing. So I'd agree it does say something that comrade Bernie could cling onto his socialism in these lean years. His socialist faith was not a fairweather faith.

However, where hardship and adversity didn't work, it seems to me charms and beguilements did. That is, it seems to me comrade Bernie used to be a man of his convictions, back when he was relegated to obscurity and irrelevance in American politics, but now that he's become the popular leader of an ever-growing movement that has helped line his pockets, he's caved to the bourgeoisie life. For example, Victor Davis Hanson recently noted:

Oddly, Sanders’s rivals on the debate stage never really hit the presumptive leader where he is most vulnerable: his reprehensible past empathy for the genocidal Soviet Union, and his praise of communist dictatorships such as those in Nicaragua and Cuba. Then there remains the embarrassing paradox of a die-hard socialist redistributionist eager to cash in on his political career—to the extent of setting up his wife as an in-house, well-paid consultant (with her past failed career as wheeler-dealer small college president who bankrupted her institution and for a while won the attention of the FBI), while becoming a millionaire with three homes. Mention that, as Bloomberg did in the recent debate, and Bernie becomes livid, in a fashion that appears dangerous for a septuagenarian who recently survived a heart attack.

In short, I think comrade Bernie's life mirrors what happens to socialists and communists once they've achieved power. They willingly suffer through long marches and bloody revolutions, but once they're in charge they begin to bask in their newfound position and power.

Look at the lives of Stalin, Mao, Castro. Consider today's communist leaders like Xi Jinping (China) and Kim Jong-un (North Korea). All of their lives have been marked by far more affluence and even opulence than what their compatriots endure day by day.

Of course, that's not to say socialist and communist leaders will ever stop claiming to be bona fide socialists and communists. Quite the contrary. They'll instead willingly break the backs of their supposed working-class comrades for their own ends or pleasures. They're like the pigs in George Orwell's Animal Farm who used and abused the horse Boxer then sold him off to a glue factory once his strength was spent. They'll engage in doublespeak to justify themselves: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Same person, different location

Someone recently posted this image of their baby:

(Source)

Pete Buttigieg said:

Now right now, they [pro-life Christians] hold everyone in line with this one kind of piece of doctrine about abortion, right? Which is obviously a tough issue for a lot of people to think through morally. Then again, you know, there are a lot of parts of the Bible that talk about how life begins with breath. And so even that is something we can interpret differently.

Buttigieg suggests we determine life when the baby draws its first breath.

A 2020 presidential candidate is suggesting babies can be killed up UNTIL a baby draws its first breath.

pic.twitter.com/1VSYHyjRsv

— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) September 6, 2019

Mayor Pete assumes a baby doesn't "breathe" until the baby has been born and starts crying. I've pointed out how that's a false assumption.

The world's smallest violin

@RandalRauser
I am so angered by Trump supporters who simply cannot be bothered to look at the credible accounts of his 25 accusers. Do they have any clue about the trauma of experiencing sexual assault or sexual harassment? @DrMichaelLBrown you cannot keep ignoring this.

There's no doubt that Rauser has an anger-management problem. He's like a pampered only-child who's used to getting his way from doting parents. So it's aggravating when he finds out that he has so little influence. He conducts ineffectual tirades against his favorite targets, but nothing changes. He's not a player. It's humiliating for someone that judgmental and egoistical to discover how impotent he is. The world doesn't share his overweening sense of self-importance. He's not the cosmic moral arbiter. 

Speaking for myself, one reason I haven't investigated the allegations is that I've heard Trump admit, in a roundabout way, that he's guilty of sexual harassment. But here's the thing:

Even if ail the allegations are true, Trump isn't dangerous to women in general. Basically, he's boorish. 

Far and away the greatest danger to women is coming from secular progressives. That includes all the baby girls who die from abortion and after-birth abortion. Euthanizing elderly women. Hormone blockers and mutilation for adolescent girls who experience temporary gender dysphoria. "Trangender girls/women" decimating women's sports. "Transgender women" invading shelters for battered women, or lockerrooms, or prisons. As well as a nihilistic worldview which fosters depression, substance  abuse, and suicide.  

It's not Trump but the Democrat party, abetted by Silicon Valley, that poses the overwhelming threat to the life and well-being of women and girls. 

But because Rauser is a social and theological progressive, he doesn't perceive a threat from the left. He's largely on board with the social progressive agenda. So he suffers from a myopic outlook, as if the real threat is emanating from the Trump administration. That's why he's so blindly and fanatically one-sided. That's why his indignation is so glaringly selective. 

Mayor Pete's LGBTQ agenda if elected president

Robert Gagnon:

In case you thought that President Buttigieg wasn't going to compel embrace of the entire "LGBTQ" agenda on the nation "just because" he has a "husband," this 17-page list (!) of executive, legislative, and judicial goals will divest you of your naivete. It will be "All Gay" and "All Trans" 24/7 with his administration. Of course, top of the list is the passing of the Get-the-Transphobic-and-Homophobic-Bigots "Equality Act." And oh so much more.

Prepare to lose your free speech and free exercise of religion in every venue of human existence, including in your home with your own children. The White House and Executive Branch will become the main propaganda outlet and enforcer arm for the SPLC and HRC -- as if the MSM, academia, and the entertainment industry is not already enough. Even apart from draconian policy commitments, every SOTU address (and nearly all other speeches), indeed, every public appearance of the President with his "husband" will become an occasion for attacking your views as virulent bigotry that must be stamped out as the moral equivalent of extreme racism.

I suppose that we should thank Buttigieg for disclosing in detail all the terrible things that a Dem President could do to us, our spouses, and most of all our children, grandchildren, and all future generations. But remember, boys and girls, zes and zirs and everything in between, the reelection of Trump poses the greatest danger to the country and to the church (kindly remove tongue from cheek).

I'm in the process of going through the list but here are some starters:

(1) "End 'conversion therapy' nationwide." No one will be able to provide counseling for "trans"-identified or "gay"-identified persons that affirms the client's wish not to live a trans- or homosexually active life.

Remember that draconian California bill that was at the last moment withdrawn, that would put at risk even pastors who counseled people out of a "gay" or "trans" life, if an exchange of funds was involved, including the sale of literature? Well, Buttigieg wants such a law to be passed nationally. "Pete will work to pass the Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act, which will require the Federal Trade Commission to . . . prohibit, 'conversion therapy' as consumer fraud, and end the dangerous practice across the country."

Be aware that in the California bill, "conversion therapy" included any attempt to change the behavior (not just impulses and feelings) associated with the "gay" or "transgender" life. Publishers will not be able to sell books critical of "LGBTQ+" thinking and behavior because, by the definition of such a bill, any attempt to "change" this mantra will be treated as an act of "consumer fraud." The same applies to any conference that charges a fee for attending, church-related or otherwise.

(2) Regarding "LGBTQ" students:

(a) "Empower the Office of Civil Rights at the federal Department of Education to . . . investigate complaints of discrimination by LGBTQ+ students and families. . . . Reverse the backsliding under the Trump administration, and make sure LGBTQ+ civil rights cases, and in particular, increase efforts to protect transgender students." Translation: Have the federal government breathing down the necks of every school in the country to promote celebration of the "trans" and "gay" life. Any criticism or even questioning will lead to the full weight of the federal government dropping on the alleged offender.

(b) "Support the Student Nondiscrimination Act and the Safe Schools Improvement Act, and correctly interpret Title IX to include protection of transgender students." No teacher in the country will be able to stop a male from entering female bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and sports program. All he has to do is say, "I currently identify as a woman."

(c) Provide federal funding for (i) all states to impose "training programs" on all teachers, who will be held responsible for stopping any "lack of acceptance" of "LGBTQ+" students; (ii) for school mental and physical "health centers" and staffing to promote full acceptance of the trans and gay life (since any criticism would damage their mental health); (iii) developing "LGBTQ+ inclusive" curricula "such as including LGBTQ+ people in history curricula."

(d) "Require every school across the country to teach [pro-LGBTQ+] Mental Health First Aid courses."

More to come as time permits.

In addition, consider what has happened in other nations with regard to the LGBTQ agenda. For example, see the following article: "Switzerland votes to make ‘homophobia’ a crime punishable by up to THREE years in prison". Could something like this ever happen in the US? Ultimately it's up to voters to decide. Ultimately it's up to voters to vote for people they want to represent them.

And keep in mind all of the above (as well as consider articles like "Understanding why religious conservatives would vote for Trump") whenever liberals criticize conservative Christians for voting for Trump even though Trump has a blunderbuss for a personality and even though he's an immoral person in many ways. There's far more at stake than just Trump as a person: the bigger picture is it's about stopping the liberal-progressive juggernaut that's attempting to steamroll our political and religious liberties.

How monogamous is Mayor Pete?

https://twitter.com/RyanTAnd/status/1227964532284411904

Brown isn't a bigoted homophobe

Some (lightly edited) comments I left on Randal Rauser's post "Is Michael Brown a Bigoted Homophobe? You Decide.":

Rauser is so myopic. He misses the forest for the trees. He can't see beyond the personal character contests or grudge matches to see there are far bigger stakes involved. Heterosexual sexual sins violate the moral standard, but homosexuality seeks to destroy the moral standard itself and raise up an entirely new standard. Homosexuality is fundamentally worse in that respect. It's never solely been about Trump and Mayor Pete as persons but their policies as well.

[The Atheist Missionary:] Homosexuality is pervasive throughout the animal kingdom and I submit that science will soon allow us to predict a child's sexual orientation with a remarkable degree of accuracy while a child is in the womb.

1. This runs into the is-ought problem on atheism and neo-Darwinism.

2. However my reply wasn't predicated on atheism, or even a debate between atheism and Christianity, but it was predicated on conservative Christianity inasmuch as Rauser is attempting to call the conservative Christian Michael Brown a hypocrite given Brown's beliefs. I'm responding as a like-minded conservative Christian as Brown. Rauser needs to put himself into the conservative Christian's shoes if he wants to understand our beliefs and values rather than constantly imputing his own beliefs and values onto Brown and acting like Brown violated his own beliefs and values when at worst Brown violated Rauser's beliefs and values.

Understanding why religious conservatives would vote for Trump

"Understanding Why Religious Conservatives Would Vote for Trump" by Andrew T. Walker.

Walker is a Southern Baptist professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

I don't necessarily agree with everything, but it's a more nuanced reply than someone like Randal Rauser is willing to give conservative Christians like Michael Brown credit for.

Straining Trumpian gnats while swallowing Democrat camels

https://randalrauser.com/2020/02/is-michael-brown-a-bigoted-homophobe-you-decide/

But surely, Brown cannot be surprised about this: after all, nothing riles evangelicals like gays and gay marriage. As Jeff Lowder said on Twitter, “If only [evangelicals] thought gay sex caused global warming, then they might care about global warming.”

Rauser's MO is to impute his own viewpoint to evangelicals like Brown, then accuse Brown of hypocrisy for failing to act in consistency with his imputation. Many evangelicals don't believe global warming. Or they don't believe in anthropogenic global warming. Or they may believe it, but think the threat is wildly exaggerated. Or believe nothing can be don't about it because developing countries like India and China are the main polluters, and they won't agree to cut back on carbon emissions. So the comparison is fallacious. 

I am not criticizing Brown’s critique of Pete Buttigieg simpliciter but rather his censure of Buttigieg while supporting Trump. The issue is moral consistency.

i) But he never demonstrates that Brown is morally inconsistent. All he ever does is to impute moral inconsistency to Brown and like-minded evangelicals. 

ii) It's not necessarily or even presumptively morally inconsistent to support Trump's reelection and oppose Buttigieg. That's because not all moral norms are equally normative. For instance, Christian can believe that lying is generally wrong, but also believe it's permissible or even obligatory to lie to save innocent lives. You can grant that some of Trump's behavior is immoral, but the policies of Buttigieg, if elected, will be far worse, so you support the reelection of Trump. There's nothing morally inconsistent about that.

This is the time where Brown should really consider some of Jesus’ other words on religious hypocrisy, as when he called hypocritical religious leaders whitewashed tombs, blind guides, vipers, and even children of the devil. 

Again, he keeps making pejorative assertions without proving the point. Also, a person can be morally inconsistent without being hypocritical. To be hypocritical a person must be willfully morally inconsistent. 

But let’s be clear on what a lie is: to lie, one must believe that-p and communicate to others that not-p with the intention that they come to believe that not-p. Thus, for me to be lying here, I must first believe that it is false that Brown falls over himself to excuse Trump’s gross immorality. But I don’t believe that is false. I believe it is true. So by definition, I am not lying. It’s a false charge.

Rauser's intent is to deceive his readers about Brown. 

Thus, we see that Brown has falsely accused me, a fellow disciple, of lying. 

Once more, he imputes his own viewpoint to Brown, as if it's a given that Brown regards  him as a fellow disciple. 

Even more troubling, what about Trump’s ongoing attempt to subvert the rule of law? 

i) Notice how he chronically imputes his own viewpoint to Brown (and like-minded evangelicals), then accuses him of hypocrisy, as if Brown agrees with his viewpoint but makes excuses for Trump in spite of that. Yet Rauser hasn't documented that Brown shares his interpretation of Trump's actions regarding the rule of law. 

Hypocrisy hinges on the viewpoint of the accused, not the accuser. Rauser keeps blurring that key distinction.

ii) Moreover, even if you did think Trump sometimes bends or breaks the rule or law, Brown also believes the Democrat nominee, if elected, will be far more lawless.

iii) For that matter, there's nothing sacrosanct about the rule of law. Consider the Nuremberg laws or Jim Crow. I'm sure one of your concerns is that if Democrats control the executive and legislative branches (not to mention the judiciary), they will promulgate evil laws and regulations, or "reinterpret" the law to coerce evil. 

If ever there were a case of straining gnats and swallowing camels, this is it.

Actually, Trump is the gnat compared to secular progressive camels in the Democrat party. 

if that double-standard is not evidence of bigotry and homophobia, then what is?

But he caricatured Brown's opposition. As Brown details in his response to Rauser, his primary objection is to the punitive agenda of politicians like Buttigieg. It's about public policy, backed by the force of gov't. (Not to mention the alliance between Democrat politicians and Big Tech.)

https://stream.org/i-will-say-what-the-political-leaders-cannot-say-about-pete-buttigieg/ 

Mayor Pete is no moderate

The media says he's a political moderate, but he's not:

"The Myth Of Pete Buttigieg, 'Moderate'"

Is Michael Brown a hypocritical bigot?

https://randalrauser.com/2020/02/if-hypocrisy-were-an-olympic-sport-evangelicals-would-get-the-gold/

Like most folks, I am sick unto death of pointing out the morally vapid hypocrisy of American evangelicals when it comes to Donald Trump.

i) What makes Rauser imagine he speaks for most folks? Does he have polling data to back that up?

ii) Why is a Canadian theologian so obsessed with an American president? Why is he constantly attacking Trump but only very rarely has anything to say about Justin Trudeau?

Brown is aware that he will be called a homophobic bigot. But it is worth highlighting why the charge seems so plausible in this case. Evangelicals like Brown fall over themselves to excuse Trump’s grotesque immorality. 

I've seen and read several things by Brown in which he's critical of Trump's personal morality. On the face of it, Rauser's allegation is willfully uninformed and slanderous. 

By contrast, Buttigieg’s sin, being married to a man, makes him unfit for public office. It is on that topic that these leaders suddenly believe morality matters and that they must draw a line in the sand.

i) What's required to show that Brown's position is hypocritical? It's certainly not enough to show that Trump's past sexual behavior violates Brown's moral standards, because a sophisticated ethical system will have a priority structure in which some standards rank higher than others, or where it's a combination of violated standards that makes the difference. So Rauser hasn't shown, or even attempted to show, that Brown's position is hypocritical. 

ii) It's revealing that Rauser keeps comparing homosexual "marriage" to heterosexual marriage, as if they're morally analogous. But sodomites can't cheat on each other. Only straight married couples can cheat on each other. Homosexual activity is sinful whether that's with a so-called homosexual "husband," or callboy, or rentboy, or boyfriend (or lesbian counterparts). Homosexual activity is sinful whether that's with one partner for life or multiple partners.

iii) Moreover, homosexual "marriage" defiles the divine institution of marriage in a way that heterosexual adultery does not. Adultery is a sin against particular marriages, but it doesn't redefine the God-given nature of marriage. While adultery is a grave sin and potentially damnable, it's not sacrilegious–unlike homosexual "marriage". 

iv) Does Brown only draw a line in the sand with respect to homosexual candidates in a queer marriage? Does Brown not also draw ideological lines in the sand with respect to straight Democrat candidates? Is Brown okay with Elizabeth Warren? 

Yeah, that sure does look like homophobic bigotry. Behavior and reasoning like this provide very plausible evidence that Christians like Brown have an irrational fear of and/or antipathy toward gay people.

That's just demagoguery. This isn't about fear of/antipathy towards homosexuals, but about empowering homosexuals to make public policy decisions that punish virtue while promoting vice. 

Trump v. Romney

I've seen Romney attacked as a traitor for voting to convict Trump on one count. I think there are two sides to this argument, although I come down more heavily on one side than the other. To begin with the lighter side of the argument:

1. For several reasons, I don't think Romney's vote make him a traitor. For one thing, I don't take him that seriously. When he was running for the nomination, the first time around, and when he was running in the general election, the second time around, it was unfortunately necessary to take him seriously. But now it's only Utah voters who need to take him seriously. 

2. A US Senator doesn't work for the President. It's a separate, independent branch of gov't. He works for his constituents. He has no duty to be loyal to a President of the same party. Rather, he has a duty to act in the best interests of his constituents, and the country he represents in that capacity. 

3. I do think Trump was guilty of abuse of power, but in this situation I don't think it warrants removal from office (see below). 

4. Romney's vote was a throwaway vote, not a swing vote. It made no difference to the outcome. 

Now for the heavier side of the argument:

5. I actually think there is a loyalty issue, but it operates at a different level. Trump is protecting our civil liberties from Democrats who are striving to abrogate the Bill of Rights. Someone who's protecting your Constitutional rights is entitled to a measure of loyalty in return, although that's not a blank check. Insofar as Trump is defending my rights, I defend Trump. 

6. Romney has never been a man of principle. So I don't assume this was a vote of conscience. He's not a conviction politician.

It's possible that he's sincere in this case. He took a stand that's unpopular with his constituents back home.

But from what I can tell, Romney has a personal vendetta against Trump. So I doubt the purity of his motives. It doesn't look like a disinterested vote, but payback.

7. The Biden situation presents an intriguing dilemma. On the one hand, it's a classic abuse of authority for a president to use his official clout to try to take a political rival out of action.

On the other hand, the combined fact that Biden is corrupt as well as a contender for the presidency is a reason to investigate him. Imagine if he did become the next president. 

So the real issue is not in the first instance that he's a threat to Trump's political prospects, but that he's a potential threat to the civil liberties of Americans. Paradoxically, the very fact that he's a corrupt political rival makes him a legitimate target for investigation, even if the personal motivation is disreputable. Politicians like Biden are dangerous.

8. In a war for national survival, you don't fire your best general, even if he does some questionable things. Even if you might fire him in peacetime, the stakes are too high in wartime. Look at what we're up against. Look at the agenda of the Democrats. 

Trump's action against Biden must be counterbalanced by all his good actions as well as the uniformly disastrous actions and intentions of the Democrats. And even in his action against Biden, there are extenuating circumstances that mitigate the abuse of power (#7). His action was morally complicated. 

The question isn't whether Romney betrayed Trump but whether he betrayed Americans. Does his action betray the larger cause?

In sum, while I don't think Romney is a traitor, he is a clueless fool. 

Did Trump snub Nancy?

So Nancy Pelosi tears up Trump's speech on national TV. A display of petty impotent rage at the train wreck of impeachment process. But did Trump snub her by refusing to shake her hand? I don't know from his angle what he saw. But perhaps he declined to shake her hand because he remembered what happened to Pres. Palmer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0a9qmc9ju4U

"American paganism"

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/american-paganism

How many articles have we seen like this? 

The fake pic of the "separated" crying child. The linking of nationalism with racism, as if the USA is Iceland.'

Also, the flattening of human obligations, as if we have equal obligations to everyone. But a basic principle of "nationalism" is that you draw from the collective system what you contribute to the collective system. Many so-called "refugees" are simply looters who take without giving. They take what other people have put into the system.

America can't provide for all the needy desperate people of the world. That would turn America into the same hellhole some of them are fleeing from. People-groups must assume responsibility for their own national destiny.

Does the author of the article (David Albertson) leave his door unlocked to let whoever wants to come into his home and raid the kitchen while he's away at work?

Does he leave his keys in the car with the door unlocked for anyone who might like to use it or take it? Does he believe in private property?

Rauser's tantrum

@RandalRauser

Steve Hays doesn't know for a fact that Mayor Pete is not promiscuous.

And I don't know for a fact that Steve Hays isn't a child molester.

See the problem with raising questions about the character of people in this manner? It's absolute *poison*.

Angry Calvinist Steve Hays offers the following response to my question: "Does Rauser know for a fact that Mayor Pete is not promiscuous?" 

Hey Steve, do you know otherwise? If not, then shut up. There's nothing worse than "Christians" slandering others.

i) It's amusing to see Rauser's duplicity on public display. Rauser is the one who stipulated that Mayor Pete is in a monogamous marriage to a man. He's the one, not me, who made this a character issue. He's the one who insinuated an invidious contrast between Buttigieg's character and Trump's. 

ii) BTW, many homosexuals have open "marriages". That's widely reported. That' admitted by homosexuals. They go into "marriage" with that caveat. Which doesn't mean Mayor Pete is necessarily promiscuous, but there's no presumption that he is, given gay male sexuality in general. 

Rauser made an assertion about Mayor Pete's monogamy. It's perfectly legitimate to ask what evidence he has to back up that assertion. Otherwise, he should just "shut up". After all, that's a key assumption of his comparison. 

iii) The allegation of "slander" is unwittingly revealing on Rauser's part. From the standpoint of biblical ethics, homosexual promiscuity isn't morally worse than (hypothetical)  homosexual monogamy–or fidelity to one catamite. To revert to my illustration, if a pederast only abuses one minor on a regular basis, that doesn't make it good–compared to abusing multiple minors.  

This is one of Rauser's blindspots. He acts like heterosexual and homosexual activity are morally analogous or even equivalent, so that if monogamy is a virtue in heterosexual relationships, then it's a virtue in homosexual relationships. 

iv) Then we're treated to Rauser's robotic "angry Calvinist" trope. What makes Rauser think I have to be angry to comment on his stuff? Does Rauser only critique a position or person when he's enraged? 

Comparing marriages

@RandalRauser
Which marriage is more ethically questionable, in your view: 1. Pete Buttigieg's monogamous marriage to a man or 2. Donald Trump's marriage to his third wife during which he has had multiple sexual liaisons with other women and sexually assaulted other women?

i) Does Rauser know for a fact that Mayor Pete is not promiscuous? 

ii) Monogamy is no virtue within an intrinsically immoral relationship. Suppose a pederast only has one underage catamite. Does that make his pederasty ethical?

iii) More to the point, the real issue isn't who has the more ethical or less ethical marriage arrangement, but the policies of the candidates. The fact that Mayor Pete, considered in isolation, is homosexual, is not what qualifies him–or even his "marriage," considered in isolation, to another man. 

What disqualifies him is that these are not isolated biographical facts. It's not as if his homosexuality and corresponding lifestyle are neatly compartmentalized from his political views. To the contrary, he has a political ideology that directly corresponds to his perverted lifestyle. If elected, his policies would mirror his depraved life and worldview. 

iv) For whatever reason, by contrast, Trump has largely governed as conservative. 

The death of fair play

Traditionally, American elections operate like sports. There's a uniform set of rules. The same rules for both sides going in. You win by the rules or lose by the rules. And a loss is a loss. 

If you lose, you have a chance in the next game/election to recoup your loss by winning, but in-between the last game and the next game, what's on the scoreboard stays put. If your team loses, you swallow the loss and try harder next time. 

But nowadays, many secular progressives don't believe in fair play. They don't concede defeat–even temporarily. 

It doesn't matter what happens on the field. It doesn't matter if the opposing team won fair and square. Nowadays, when the left loses an election, they try to nullify the results. They try to change the score after the fact. A loss is never a loss. They refuse to accept the legitimacy of a system where both sides must operate by the same rules. Where you accept the results. 

And this mentality isn't confined to progressive Americans. The EU had the same mentality. When countries voted against a treaty, the EU would nullify the vote. Likewise, elites did everything they could to vacate Brexit.

As I've said before, I think this reflects the outworking of atheism. If this life is all there is, you can't afford to lose, because you don't get that many chances to win the next time around. So you can't afford to play by the rules. If you lose the election, you win after the fact by getting it overturned.