Lest You Forget...

The current President has demonstrated he is not equal to the enormous responsibilities of his office; he cannot rise to meet challenges large or small. Thanks to his disdainful attitude and his failures, our allies no longer trust or respect us, and our enemies no longer fear us.

That's a pretty harsh indictment of Biden.

What?

That was the letter signed by more than 200 retired generals against Trump last year?

Oh.

Well, at least there are no mean tweets anymore. 

Surely this isn't evidence that God is upset with people who preach, but do not practice. Who tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and give rules like "don't misgender" and "check your privilege." God's not going to be upset with people who do their good deeds on Twitter for all to see while in secret they grope their interns. These people who cross sea and land to gain a single convert, and once they have that convert they turn them twice as woke as they themselves.

Don't harsh my buzz, and other things Boomers say. God is love. He understands you did your best.

I mean, you didn't, but you would have if it hadn't been for Netflix.  And that's the important part.

The lesson of Trump

William Lane Craig:

The case of Donald Trump is an object lesson how a man’s flawed character can lead to his own undoing. Given his considerable accomplishments—such as the appointment of three Supreme Court justices, brokering a Mideast peace agreement, engineering a revival of the US economy, revitalizing the US military, confronting China’s economic and military threat, stemming the tide of illegal immigration, and much more—he could have been a great US president. But he has been his own worst enemy. Like a figure in a Greek tragedy, his nemesis is his own deeply flawed character, which has contributed to his downfall. This should be a lesson to every Christian, but especially to those in leadership positions, to be mindful of our character development, to try to recognize, as best we can, our own sinful proclivities, and to allow the Holy Spirit to do His work in conforming us to the image of Christ, lest we bring disrepute upon His name.

Chad McIntosh:

Craig is right about Trump’s accomplishments, but wrong about the lesson of Trump’s presidency. There have been previous occupants of the Oval Office with worse character. The lesson is that Democrats and their enablers in media, entertainment, education, and even ostensibly non-partisan institutions like the FBI are unquestionably the biggest threat to America as an economically prosperous country of liberty with law and order that puts its own citizens first. There is no backward or unjust law they will not support or moral perversion or mental illness they don’t want to normalize, and they will use any means necessary to get what they want. That is the lesson. Trump was a bigger obstacle to them than previous milquetoast Republicans, so they went harder than ever against him.

But make no mistake: the next Republican candidate for president, no matter how upright or milquetoast, will also be literally Hitler. And so will the one after. And after. It’s not about character at all. It’s about how serious of an obstacle one is to the evils of progressivism.

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:

"Ask China"

1. It's obvious the reporter was asking Trump a loaded question. Baiting Trump. Of course, the mainstream media doesn't focus on her loaded question. Just Trump's response.

2. I bet Trump would have said "ask China" regardless of the reporter's race/ethnicity.

3. Liberals are saying this isn't an isolated incident. They're saying Trump has a "pattern". However, even if (arguendo) that were true, that doesn't mean it's true in this case.

Also, if we want to talk about "patterns", then what about the "pattern" of liberals always getting so easily triggered and playing the victim?

4. Many people are saying Trump is thin-skinned. That he shouldn't have walked out on the press conference. Sure, Trump is thin-skinned. However, it's also true much of the media is out to get Trump. Gotcha journalism and the like. It's hardly a mystery why Trump would walk out. And I wouldn't blame him for walking out on these kind of people.

Likewise, what about the reporter and mainstream media being thin-skinned too? They're so touchy by assuming the president saying "ask China" to an Asian-American reporter must be due to racism.

5. Not to mention the reporter's virtue signaling by asking the question she asked. However, if she and other reporters are just going to go around self-righteously or sanctimoniously congratulating one another for asking these sorts of lame questions, then what's the point of the press conference? The press conference is a waste of time for Trump. Why shouldn't he walk out? He has more important things to do as the president.

Trump and light therapy

Trump:

Supposing we hit the body with a tremendous - whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful - light. And I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it?

And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that too? Sounds interesting.

And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs? So it would be interesting to check that, so that you're going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So we'll see. But the whole concept of the light, the way it kills in one minute, that's pretty powerful.

It seems to me many people are unfairly criticizing Trump on this:

1. Granted, Trump can speak ignorantly, but that's nothing new. In fact, previous politicians including Obama have made many ignorant statements, but do liberals including the mainstream media ever parse and criticize their own side as much as they criticize Trump and conservatives? Many liberals are acting like Trump is telling people to throw themselves onto a burning pyre in order to kill the coronavirus.

2. It's not as if Trump is suggesting it's definitive treatment. He's not acting like Elon Musk did several days ago. Rather Trump is asking medical experts to investigate.

3. For that matter, light has long been used as treatment for some conditions. For example, UV light treatment (e.g. PUVA therapy) is not uncommonly used in certain cases of psoriasis, eczema, vitiligo, lichen planus, cutaneous lymphoma, etc. Ask any dermatologist.

4. Granted, these aren't infectious diseases. Again, Trump doesn't have a medical background (and in fact he's deferring to medical experts on this), so one wouldn't expect Trump to be able to make the distinction. Maybe the criticism should be that Trump shouldn't make apparently impromptu remarks like this. If so, his critics might as well try to rein in what Trump says on Twitter too. /s

5. At the same time, there's some precedence in the use of phototherapy in other coronaviruses. Take the use of phototherapy in the first SARS-1 coronavirus back in 2003 (e.g. here). (Our pandemic is SARS-2.) Also, phototherapy was used in MERS (e.g. here). And even a prestigious science journal like Nature has published on the use of phototherapy against other pathogens. Granted, these aren't all great studies or anything, but it's not like there's zero precedence for phototherapy. Perhaps this is the kind of thing Trump had in the back of his mind.

6. This isn't to suggest phototherapy is a good idea with regard to the coronavirus. Indeed, phototherapy has distinct disadvantages. Not least of which is increased risk of certain cancers (e.g. BCCs, SCCs, melanoma), especially in certain skin types (e.g. Fitzpatrick scale). And I certainly don't think phototherapy should be pursued if it means less focus or attention is placed on other therapies like drug based antivirals and vaccines.

7. I should be clear: I'm not defending Trump's proposal so much as I'm criticizing his critics.

DOJ sides with free exercise of religion

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-justice-department-sides-with-christians-fined-for-attending-drive-in-holy-week-service

Self-medicating for coronavirus

"Man dies after ingesting chloroquine in an attempt to prevent coronavirus"

Since liberals are losing their minds over this:

1. No, this is not Trump's fault. Trump did not tell the man to drink "parasite treatment for fish". This is simple stupidity. Don't be stupid. And don't blame Trump if you're stupid. If anything, Trump should honor you with a Darwin award.

2. Neither chloroquine nor hydroxychloroquine are cure or prevention for coronavirus at this stage.

3. Besides, even if it "worked", it would need to be taken under the supervision of a physician. You can't just go and do it yourself. Well, you could, but if you do, see #1.

Red China virus

A kerfuffle has arisen over what to call the virus. I've been calling it the Coronavirus because it's a neutral designation, and one of the first quasi-official designations. If you want to be understood, you generally go with common, recognizable designations. That label has been popularized, and I have no overriding reason not to use it.

More pedantic is COVID-19. Trump has taken to calling it the Chinese virus to shine attention on the regime.  

I'd avoid that designation because it's too generic. However, there's nothing new about naming a disease in association with a particular region of origin, viz. German measles, Spanish influenza, Ebola, West Nile virus, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever. Cf. https://thefederalist.com/2020/03/13/17-diseases-named-after-places-or-people/

Some people call it the Wuhan virus, which is more accurate but obscure, unless you're a geography buff. 

If I wanted to use an alternate designation, I'd dub it the Red China virus (or Chinese gov't virus) due to the extensive complicity of the Communist regime in contributing this disaster. However, "Red China" has Cold War connotations that will be lost on anyone younger than a Baby Boomer.  

Coronavirus is a stupid virus. The bet is that we’re not stupid people.

It started (we think) in filthy conditions, in a marketplace in Wuhan, China, where non-domesticated animals are caged live in squalid conditions and sold for food. It seems to have initially spread in those conditions.

So the virus itself is not the only factor affecting the spread of the virus. We’ve seen similar instances.

The Bubonic Plague bacteria was spread by fleas, which infected rats. Getting rid of the Plague included getting rid of rats and fleas.

Similarly, Polio was spread through contact with feces or when an infected person sneezed or coughed. Yes, we developed a vaccine for it, but around that same time, modern plumbing and sewage treatment helped with basic sanitation, and Polio has fallen off the grid as a serious concern.

In the same way, Coronavirus is spread by “non-viral” conditions. People with the virus cough and spread it. But Coronavirus is not a super-bug. It is a stupid bug. It has certain properties (which we know) can be significantly reduced and even eliminated in any environment by washing (hands, faces, things in your home) with simple soapy water, or simply by staying away from it and letting it die.

Sometimes this isn’t always possible. But doing so is a goal. And we now are in the midst of a major effort to remind people again to stay away from people who may have a spreadable form of the disease, and to wash their hands, wash surfaces that have been exposed to the virus.

Yes, “draconian” measures enabled places like China and South Korea to significantly interrupt the spread of the virus. But simpler measures such as these will likely be effective as well.

President Trump is betting that the Coronavirus is a stupid virus, and that 15 days-worth of attention to “social separation” and better hygiene will greatly facilitate the “flattening of the curve”.

That’s not the only response, however. The response we’re seeing is both massive and multi-faceted.

Trump as CEO is clearly in “git ‘er done” mode. For example, he has also called in Navy hospital ships to New York City and Los Angeles to ease burdens on medical facilities there. There are other (multi-faceted) military responses as well.

There is also an effort to enlist private enterprise as a counter measure to existing government (bureaucratic) ineptitude. The much-publicized failure in “testing” is a result of the fact that no one in the government has had the foresight to just go off and create and stockpile millions of this specific variety of test. Or N95 masks. Or respirators.

Trump as CEO probably had the issue of testing brought up, and he at first listened to his designated advisors on that, the CDC. “Yes, Mr. President, we can take care of that”, they would have said. The problem was, they weren’t prepared to do it. That process took some (valuable) time.

So Trump’s response has been to bring in a massive and muti-faceted corporate / public “partnership”, which included people who CAN do that. Large and small organizations alike have been enlisted to try to produce massive numbers of tests. Organizations that can enable quick and “drive-thru” testing at a retail level (Walmart, Target, CVS, etc.). And quick analysis and results through commercial testing labs like Roche and LabCorp. Along with a central source for compiling testing results.

Masks and respirators are now being mass-produced by major corporations like 3M and distributed by ThermoFisher, which is a large scientific catalog/distribution company. They have the ability to move to a “war-time” footing, in a way that is similar to the US’s production of bombers and bombs, tanks, ships, and other weaponry during World War II.

He’s also given the states license (by removing FDA regulations, which maybe involved congress) to turn States into “50 laboratories” of experimentation to create their own responses to their own individual needs. Each state can find its own version of Walmart and 3M and Thermofisher to facilitate their own testing and other responses to the spread of the virus.

Trump has mobilized huge numbers of different people and organizations to do lots of different things. At a federal level, he has removed obstacles such as FDA regulations, to enable the testing and public trials of existing drugs to treat the disease.

At a public level, we are asked to observe “social separation”, not to hoard, but to observe sound hygiene principles everywhere.

Out of this, some will be more successful than others. But we will learn what works and what doesn’t. Trump has been saying, he wants this process to be repeatable and scalable going forward. So if anything like this happens again, we as a country will have a ready pattern for mobilization.

We know the terms: “scalable”; “repeatable”.

And none of this is even beginning to speak to the financial responses.

Trump is in every way showing his trust in “the American people”. He is betting his presidency on the fact that Americans will catch on to the right ways to respond to a stupid virus. He is betting that Americans, by and large, won’t be stupid people. As more and more people recover (even those who are asymptomatic), more and more people will have immunity to the spread of the virus.

Hawk below has already cited a medical expert suggesting that we might find the fatality rate is “much lower than we have been fearing”.

And President Trump is predicting that, if that’s the case, things will get back to normal sooner rather than later.

No love in the time of cholera

I find it amusing that liberals/progressives are apoplectic over how our government is allegedly botching the response to the coronavirus. I find that amusing because these are the very same people who think we should have government-run healthcare. Medicare for all! :)

(Of course, that's not to say Trump's administration couldn't do better, or that he hasn't made mistakes. I'm simply referring to the liberal/progressive reaction.)

Gene Ho

Here's an interesting testimony from a photographer named Gene Ho. Ho became a photographer for Trump before anyone took Trump seriously and he stayed with Trump for two years as his campaign photographer (2015-2017).

Yet Ho was politically liberal. He had a lucrative photography business that employed 25 photographers. He had photographed Hollywood celebrities and professional athletes. He constantly traveled and had fun. However, after he came to know Trump, whom Ho had expected to dislike, Ho found himself admiring Trump. Ho eventually endorsed Trump for president.

When Trump won, all his photographers left him because they disliked Trump, Ho suddenly found himself with an extremely "brutal" IRS audit, and he went broke. His family had been on the rocks even before this and Ho was even considering divorcing his wife and leaving her and their kids. Now he was struggling to provide for his own family.

Ho was tempted with an offer of a $1 million advance from a book publisher on the condition that he publish a photography book about Trump but the book had to be critical of Trump. This would likely mean Ho would also make millions more dollars after the book was published. Yet Ho knew if he did that, then he'd have to lie about Trump, or even make up stories about Trump, but in truth Ho had nothing critical to say about Trump.

At this dark moment, Ho turned to God and became a Christian.

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. 

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/ 

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. 

Petty Pelosi?

I'm not sure if this is worth posting about, but for what it's worth:

State of the Union

Let's run through the State of the Union (SOTU) addresses in reverse chronological order. We'll be looking for two simple things: (1) if the president and the speaker of the House shook hands and (2) if there was a traditional introduction for the president by the speaker (i.e. "Members of Congress, I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the President of the United States").

I've hyperlinked each of the SOTUs so people can see for themselves what happened at each one. The SOTUs are also time-stamped to start at the point where people can see the handshaking as well as hear the introduction.

• At the 2020 SOTU, Trump didn't shake hands with Pelosi. Next Pelosi gave an abbreviated introduction for Trump. And at the end of the speech, Pelosi tore up her copy of the SOTU.

• At the 2019 SOTU, Trump and Pelosi did shake hands, but she didn't introduce him at all.

• At the 2018 SOTU, Paul Ryan was the speaker of the House. He did shake hands with Trump. However, Ryan introduced Trump to Congress before they shook hands.

• Trump didn't deliver a SOTU address in 2017. No president has done so at the beginning of their presidency. They wait until one year has passed to deliver their first SOTU. Instead, like his predecessors, Trump delivered an address to "a joint session of Congress" in 2017. Ryan was the speaker of the House. He shook hands with Trump, then he introduced Trump.

• At the 2016 SOTU, Obama was president, while Ryan was the speaker of the House. Obama didn't shake hands with Ryan. Ryan gave the traditional introduction.

• At the 2015 SOTU, John Boehner was the speaker of the House. Obama shook hands with him. Boehner gave the traditional introduction.

• At the 2014 SOTU, Boehner and Obama shook hands. Boehner gave the traditional introduction.

  I'll stop here.

In summary

• 2020. Trump & Pelosi. No handshaking. Yes introduction, but abbreviated. Pelosi tore up SOTU.
• 2019. Trump & Pelosi. Yes handshaking. No introduction.
• 2018. Trump & Ryan. Yes handshaking. Yes introduction, but introduction before handshaking.
• 2017. Trump & Ryan. Yes handshaking. Yes introduction.
• 2016. Obama & Ryan. No handshaking. Yes introduction.
• 2015. Obama & Boehner. Yes handshaking. Yes introduction.
• 2014. Obama & Boehner. Yes handshaking. Yes introduction.

Some questions

• If Pelosi felt slighted by Trump not shaking her hand in 2020, then wasn't her abbreviated introduction sufficient recompense? Why also tear up the SOTU?
• Why didn't Pelosi introduce Trump in 2019? Was it an oversight on Pelosi's part or an intentional slight? She had plenty of time during the applause to introduce Trump. If an introduction is important enough, then it should be important enough to interrupt the applause.
• Given what happened in 2018, it's possible Trump could have intended to shake Pelosi's hand after her introduction in 2020, but Trump felt slighted by Pelosi's abbreviated introduction, in which case it would've been Pelosi who first slighted Trump.
• Why didn't the media criticize Obama for not shaking hands with Ryan in 2016? Did Obama feel slighted by Ryan not shaking hands with him? If not, then presumably handshaking isn't as all-important as the media today is making it out to be.

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?

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.