Condemnation is Important

Sometimes what is not said is louder than what is said.  Consider this example of a parent with two kids.  One kid hauls off and punches the other kid right in the face.  The punch broke the child’s nose and required surgery to fix.  What would you think the child who punched his sibling would learn if all his parent said was “My thoughts and prayers are with your sibling.  I am glad the EMTs got him to the hospital quickly.”  Do you think that the parent would have taught the child that it was wrong to punch?  Did the parent discourage future punching?  The parent’s failure to speak words of correction has a greater impact than the parents words of sympathy.  Sometimes we have to be willing to say an act is wrong, vile, evil, or hateful.  We just do.

I bring this up in regards to the amazing response of many to the recent shooting of Representative Steve Scalise, a Republican staffer, and some others at a baseball practice.  What is amazing about this response is what was missing.  Remember, this was a Democratic shooter hunting Republican lawmakers.  Let’s look at some twitter responses from leading Democrats.

First Hillary Clinton:

2 sides take the field tomorrow, but we're all ultimately on one team. My thoughts are with the members of Congress, staff & heroic police.

Clinton offers no denunciation of the act itself.  Interestingly, her Twitter statement lacks any hashtag, which seems to imply she does not want it easily found or widely read.  For comparison, here is a Tweet from the day before from Clinton in which she remembers the anniversary of the Pulse Nightclub shooting: 

My heart is with the loved ones of the 49 people killed at Pulse, the city of Orlando, & the LGBT community. #WeWillNotLetHateWin

The violent act in this case is a year old.  Clinton does use a hashtag, and calls the shooting “hate.” 
Now onto Joe Biden, former Vice President:

Jill and I are praying for the victims and their families. Grateful for courage of my former colleagues, first responders & Capitol Police.

Again, no denunciation of the act itself.  Prayer and thoughts.  No indication of violence being evil or wrong.  Let’s look at his one year remembering of the Pulse Nigh Club shooting:

We meet unspeakable tragedy and hate with unbound resolve. I stand with the LGBTQ community, today and every day. #OrlandoUnitedDay.

Again this act was “hate.”  And we see that the Vice President understands hashtags, which were absent above. 

Tim Kaine is a senator from Virginia, and the latest VP candidate offered up by the Democratic Party: 

Praying for Steve Scalise and all hurt in the outrageous attack this morning in Alexandria.

Again, no condemnation of anything.  Just prayers for the hurt.  He even uses the word Alexandria, which was the hashtag being used, but fails to make it a hashtag.  If you go to his twitter feed you will see that he does link to an interview he gave with NPR where he says we need better political rhetoric.  So, bonus points to Kaine for at least that much. 

Nancy Pelosi, the highest ranking Democrat Congressman: 

My thoughts and prayers with @SteveScalise, Capitol Police and staff at the shooting in Alexandria, VA this morning.

No hashtag, no condemning.  Now her response to the one year anniversary of the Pulse shooting:

Hatred will never defeat #pride. #OrlandoUnitedDay

That was hate.  It deserves hashtags.  And there is a video message attached where she condemns the attacks even more. 

Chuck Schumer, the highest ranking Democrat in the Senate: 

Saddened by news of the shooting in VA this am. Thoughts & prayers for Rep @SteveScalise & others injured & hope for a speedy recovery.

No hashtag; no condemning the act.  He did have a second tweet later that thanked responders, but again, no condemnation.  On to his Pulse anniversary tweet:

Their names & faces will not be forgotten, nor will our promise to fight hate & intolerance & to honor them w/ action. #Rememberthe49

This one gets a hashtag and is condemned as hate. 

Just in case you are wondering, the Republicans are not much better.  Here is Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House: 

This morning the hearts of the whole House are with @SteveScalise, the brave Capitol police, staff, and all those who were in harm's way.

No hashtag here either, and no condemning it as hate.  He also had a Tweet on the Pulse anniversary:

Join me in taking a moment to remember the 49 innocent lives lost one year ago today in the #Orlando terrorist attack. #OrlandoUnitedDay

Hashtags, but no condemning this one, either. 

Ted Cruz gets closer:

Praying for our friends, colleagues, and all hurt or impacted by today's terrible shooting.

At least he uses the word “terrible.”  The first time we’ve found any sort of denunciation involved. 
Bernie Sanders’s response stands out as different.  The shooter volunteered for Bernie’s campaign, so the political pressure is greater on him, but his response was much better: 

I am sickened by this despicable act. Let me be as clear as I can be. Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society.

His tweet included a link to a speech he made on the floor in which he condemned it even further.  He made a clear statement that shooting political opponents is wrong. 

Sure, many, if not all, of these may have condemned the baseball shooting in their “press releases,” but who ever sees those?  No one.  Who sees Twitter?  Everyone.  It is not hard to recognize evil as evil, at least it shouldn’t be. 

The Bible is clear that we should condemn that which is evil and refrain from doing it.  Killing another person in thought, word, gesture, much less in deed, is forbidden by God.  Yet, governmental leaders appear to have a problem saying such a thing.

This lack of condemnation is loud to my ears.  Add in all the over-the-top rhetoric such as the assertion that the President is like a Nazi/Hitler or the Republicans are going to take away Granny’s healthcare.  Or even the statement that the Republic would be over if Hillary Clinton had been elected.  Such words are taken seriously by many people.  When a citizen takes the call to “resist” to the level of armed violence, then such an action must be condemned, or we can expect it to be repeated. 

Our nation’s leaders had a chance to restore civility, or at the very least to condemn violence in politics, and they failed to do so.  God save us from the consequences. 

Blame Jon Stewart for the 2106 Election

It is hard not to be confused by how the American 2016 presidential election has come down to Clinton and Trump. They are hated by almost everyone and have the highest disapproval numbers ever.  How did this embarrassment happen? 

Obviously the answer is complicated, but let me suggest one reason you might not have considered.  Jon Stewart.  Stewart, the former host of the Daily Show, helped bring America to its knees and has led us to the farcical match up of Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton.  Let me explain.

In 1999, Stewart took over The Daily Show on Comedy Central, a news satire and talk show, turning its focus away from pop culture and toward politics and the national media.  He interviewed political guests such as presidential candidate John Kerry.  As host of this program, Stewart repeatedly criticized Crossfire, a current events debate program airing on CNN.  Eventually in 2004, the hosts of Crossfire invited him to be on their program as a guest.  In that appearance, he stated that Crossfire was hurting America, and he called the hosts “political hacks” and worse.  He rejected the concept of a two part only (liberal-conservative) worldview, and in turn he rejected the political discourse that took place on Crossfire.  Within three months, Crossfire was cancelled by CNN.  A little over a year after Stewart’s appearance, his own Daily Show launched a successful spin-off, The Colbert Report. 

Both The Daily Show and The Colbert Report were comedy shows that garnered their laughs through mockery of politics, politicians, and political beliefs.  Both shows concentrated their jeering on conservatives with very little spent on the liberal/progressive side.  Originally this was explained by Stewart as simply a consequence of the Republicans presenting a bigger target since they were in power; however, when Barak Obama became President, both shows continued to focus their fire on Republicans, conservatives, and conventional values. 

The serious-minded debate show on CNN died, Daily Show ratings went up, especially among young people, and Liberal politicians noticed.  Not only did they all want to appear on the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, but this joking-at-the-conservative's-expense began to be imitated by Progressive Liberals.  By the time of the 2016 presidential campaign, Stewart’s method of dealing with political opponents with mockery is the main way politics is done, and it is not a coincidence.     

Bill Maher is another comedian who reflects this trend.  From 1993 until 2002 he hosted a show called Politically Incorrect.  It was not as contentious as Crossfire, usually incorporating guests from various viewpoints speaking together in a light debate style on various topics.  The show was canceled before Stewart’s appearance on Crossfire, but well after The Daily Show was growing in popularity.  Maher then launched his own mocking show called Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO. This show has a much more liberal tone and jeers conservatives with jokes such as: “Conservatives don’t believe in facts.”  In 2008 he filmed a “documentary” titled Religulous, designed to make fun of religion and deter people from belief. 

In 2008 the people of Minnesota actually elected a comedian to the Senate, further bolstering this movement away from thoughtful, even-handed debate and toward sarcasm and mockery as a primary means of political expression.  The drive to destroy one’s opponents with ridicule rather than argumentation was well-established on the political Left and is evidenced in the fact that most people believe that Sarah Palin, Republican candidate for Vice President, said that she could see Russia from her backdoor, a statement which in reality came from a Saturday Night Live skit. 

Remember when then-candidate Obama was taking on Senator Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination?  What helped sway the tide for Obama?  There are lots of factors, but one that stands out is Obama’s mocking, patronizing dismissal of Hillary as “You’re likable enough,” during a January 2008 debate.  Hillary’s likability became a regular concern for the rest of that election cycle.  It is a routine part of Obama’s arsenal, and he uses it effectively.  Rather than engaging in dialog and rational discussion with his rivals or even arguing like participants on Crossfire, President Obama ridicules his opponents a la Jon Stewart.

“But apparently they’re scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America as part of our tradition of compassion,” he said. “At first, they were too scared of the press being too tough on them during debates. Now they’re worried about three-year-old orphans. That doesn’t sound very tough to me.”

In fact, this was a deliberate strategy of his campaign in 2012.  Ridiculing Mitt Romney became the path to winning.  It was implemented apparently on October 4.  He stopped speaking of lower expectations and began “adding a heavy dose of ridicule”.   Mitt Romney was caught by surprise when, during the second presidential debate on October 16, he was asked about his “binders full of women.”  The phrase was then used by both President Obama and Vice President Biden on the campaign trail to mock Romney. 

Hillary Clinton learned the lesson and now uses ridicule and mockery regularly.  Whether it is her “delete your account” tweet to Donald Trump, the hashtag #Trumpyourself, telling Trump she knows he lives in his own reality, or even her “basket of deplorables” comment, she uses mockery as a campaign tactic.  Secretary Clinton has imbibed deeply at the well of Stewart’s method of ridicule.

There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens (Ecclesiastes 3:1).  This includes a time to laugh, but when we get confused and laugh at the wrong time, we end up with vanity and confusion. 

Jon Stewart’s rejection of political discourse in favor of sarcasm and ridicule as a means to promote political beliefs is an example of such confusion and vanity.  His behavior had the cover of “comedy” to prevent backlash or thoughtful disagreement.  Unfortunately, this approach has changed our culture so that comedy is now a weapon rather than a release and escape.  Jerry Seinfeld, a satirist in his own right, admits that he no longer performs on college campuses because the college kids don’t understand comedy and are too easily offended.  (And of course he was attacked for stating this.)  The reason, I believe, is that this generation of people in college grew up hearing comedy as a tool and a weapon.  Being the butt of a joke is not funny; it’s an attack.  Comedy’s purpose is now tearing others down, not making people laugh.  A similar incident occurred when comedian Jimmy Fallon interviewed candidate Donald Trump on the Tonight Show and good-naturedly joked with him as he does all his guests.  The progressive world, most notably Samantha Bee, the host of another Daily Show spinoff, attacked Fallon for his “softball” interview.  The next week Candidate Hillary Clinton appeared on the Tonight Show, and she mocked Fallon by giving him a bag full of softballs, but she did not complain when Fallon treated her just as he had treated Trump.  It is now expected that comedians use their comedy to accomplish a political goal.  Comedy is a weapon. 

But how does this give us Trump vs. Clinton?  Progressive liberals have mocked and ridiculed the conservative right for over a decade now.  The progressive left appears to be winning the Culture Wars, and candidates from the right who try to participate in debate are mocked out of the public square.  Enter Donald Trump.  Trump was already rather famous for his insulting treatment of people on his TV show The Apprentice.  The primary campaign began, and one by one, the other Republican candidates fell away before Trump’s onslaught of ridicule.  Some tried to fight back with ridicule and the subsequent Republican debate went down in the books infamously featuring an exchange on the size of the candidates’ hands, which served as a euphemism.  Senator Marco Rubio experienced some of his highest approval numbers after that exchange.  Ridicule wins.  The people on the conservative right are now embracing fighting fire with fire.  Ridicule with ridicule.  Senator Ted Cruz, perhaps the best debater in the group, embodied the final vestige of reasoned debate and policy knowledge.  And he, too, fell.  Trump won the primary using the Stewart method and backed by an electorate that’s tired of being mocked and eager for a candidate who can fight fire with fire.

It should not be surprising that eventually the conservative side pushed back and adopted the same mocking methodology.  Nor should it be surprising that they picked a professional mocker to do it.   The war is on, but it is no longer a war of ideas; it is a war of ridicule. 

Jon Stewart helped introduce us to this age where ridicule is reason and comedy is policy.  Now, no matter who wins, we are going to have a clown in the White House. 

Taylor is not Trump

Recently Politico began a stream of thought that the Republicans could be the Whigs because Trump is like Zachary Taylor.  Sadly, it is an article that understands little of history and in fact are just making stuff up.

The Whig Party did dissolve not long after winning the Presidency, but it was not Zachary Taylor’s fault.  In fact, the Politico article skims past the actual reasons.  Taylor was close to the perfect Whig candidate, a candidate who stood for next to nothing.  The problem with the Whig party was that it was always a party that simply opposed Andrew Jackson and his principles.  They were not united by any real set of beliefs.  Thus, the quotes calling the nomination of Taylor a betrayal of Whig principles are laughable because there were no Whig principles.  Even the article notes it was a “strained” coalition of Northern and Southerners who were against Jackson.  The quotes from abolitionists like Greeley are not universal for the Whigs because they had a large group of Southerners.  Taylor was chosen because he could stop the party from splitting by not having a real position on slavery.  This was always the Whig way.  Clay stands as the perfect example.  He owned slaves, but was not really for slavery, but not really an abolitionist either.  Clay is the picture of the Whig Party, and it slowly became an impossible place to be.  That is hardly Taylor’s fault. 

It is also not exactly fair to claim Taylor an outsider.  Yes, he had never held office, but he was a general, and that had always been a path to the Presidency.  Washington, Jackson, and Harrison had all be war heroes.  And every one of them had been opposed by people for not having the right background to be President.  Yet, we can see from the way James K. Polk managed that war that he very much understood the war hero who comes out of the Mexican American war will be a candidate for President.  And in fact, both major generals, Scott and Taylor, stood for nomination.  Being a general during war was at this time in American history, an acceptable path to the Presidency. 

In fact, the election of Taylor and his resulting Presidency (and that of Fillmore who followed after Taylor’s death) was probably the high point of the Whig movement.  It is during this time that the Whig party controls congress as well as the Presidency.  It is during this time that Clay pushes through the Compromise of 1850, with the help of Stephen Douglas.  This adds California to the rolls as a free state.  No minor feat.  It kept America together during that struggle, and that is exactly what the Whig platform had always been.  Together.  This led to them ignoring and compromising over and over.  Their greatest member, Henry Clay, is known as the Great Compromiser.  Their death came when the public no longer wanted compromise, but a more permanent solution.  The Whigs failed to see this and died.

In the end the Whig Party died not because of the lack of success that Taylor had as President.  In fact, he did not even make it out of his first term before dying.  Taylor had little impact on the Whig Party’s ultimate doom.  The election of Taylor does show the seeds of the ultimate doom of the Whig’s but not because of Taylor, but because of the presence and success on the ballot of Martin Van Buren.  Van Buren the former Democrat President ran as a Free Soil candidate and garnered lots of votes.  Not enough to win anything, but enough that he changed the election.  And it was enough that people should have seen that this issue was too important to ignore.  But both parties did just that.  They ignored it.  Thus, by 1852 the party has been badly wounded by a refusal to take sides on the slavery issue as evidenced by the Compromise of 1850.  And it is at that convention, when Southerners prevent Millard Fillmore from running for another term, and get General Winfield Scott as the nominee, that the first meetings of what would become the Republican Party emerge.  Scott is a beautiful example of the Whig Party.  Scott himself was anti-slavery, but ran on the platform that accepted the Fugitive Slave Law.  His personal stance killed him in the South, and the party’s stance killed him in the North.  He was crushed in the election.  And by 1856, the Republicans have fielded a candidate of their own.  And by1858 the Republican Party dominated the North.  Republicans had a clear message and stance.  “Free soil, free silver, and free men”.  This addressed the issue of the day decisively.  Southern Whigs turned to the Know Nothing Party, and even the Democrat Party as they feared the rise of anti-slavery parties, like the Republican and Free Soil parties, in the north.  Although one can argue the 1860 Constitution Union Party was what was left of the Whig Party.  Again, its main platform.  Together.  Unity.  Avoid the issues. 

If there is a lesson for the Republican Party it is that taking a stand is important as is keeping up with what is important to the people.  I do not believe Trump will be the death of the Republican Party.  Without a third party to siphon off voters, there will be no death for the GOP.  If the Libertarians gain a massive increase, then maybe, it is the beginning of the end.  But the Libertarians do not run candidates well for other offices. 

Sadly, this comparing Trump to Taylor is very unfair to Taylor, misses the real message of the Whigs, and is just bad history.  I know people want to think this is the end, but it is probably not.  And that message is the one that really ought to scare us. 

September 14th worse than September 11th?

September 11th was a horrible day.  A day worth remembering.  However, does anyone remember the devastation of September 14th?

President George W. Bush declared September 14, 2001 to be a National Day of Prayer and Remembrance.  And at noon, eastern time, a service began at the Washington National Cathedral that was headlined by the President and mega-evangelist Billy Graham.  However, these were not the only speakers.  Rabbi Joshua Haberman took the stage to read Scripture, and Imam Muzammil Siddiqi offered a prayer.  This service was broadcast on every major channel and seen by much of America and in many schools.  In fact, at Compassion International, where I worked at the time, everyone stopped working to watch.  

During the Clinton administration, people often talked of how the President, by his poor example, was teaching a future generation promiscuity and lies.  Those people were right.  The President does wield great power, and Clinton probably did teach really poor sexual ethics to a generation of kids.  However, those critics were silent when President Bush later taught a generation of kids that there is no difference between Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.  That service on September 14th violated the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd commandments, just to name a few.  And for the most part, the Christian world stayed silent.  And what's worse is the much-revered Christian leader who participated in a worship service where prayers were offered to Allah.  I seem to remember that his remarks included references to Jesus Christ, but long after the words are forgotten, the visual image remains.  Billy Graham and President Bush had no problem worshipping with Muslims and Jews.  And the whole world watched, and the whole world was silent.

Is it any surprise that 12 years later we have a generation of young adults who think tolerance is the most important attribute?  Is it a surprise that we have witnessed such a dramatic rise in acceptance of sinful behaviors ranging from getting stoned to homosexuality?  Is it a surprise that the church is facing new movements such as the Insider Movement or the Hebrew Roots movement?  And a big reason for these changes is the young adults who have dramatically different views about the world from their predecessors.  In fact, more Americans today claim no religious affiliation at all, and the largest number of those is under 30.  Those are the people who were young and impressionable in 2001.  Could it be that they were influenced by September 14th?

I am not saying that one worship service entirely changed the culture, but I do believe that this one had a larger influence than we think.  It was a moment when the world stopped, and people took notice of what was going on.  And the church (for the most part) stood by silently when the truth of "You shall have no other gods before me" was attacked in a very public forum.  And that silence was deafening.  Maybe it was because everyone's focus was on the looming war or the shock of what had happened.  Maybe no one wanted to shatter the apparent unity that encompassed the capitol and the nation.  Maybe we put America above God.  Whatever the reason, we are certainly reaping the harvest now.  

May God forgive us for our sins, including those of omission, for it is only in His mercy that can we find hope.   

What Obama does not know will hurt us

President Obama received some honorary degree today as Presidents often do. This one from the uber-liberal University of Michigan. While giving the address he made sure to take a shot at all those who speak poorly of the government. Now, make no mistake about it, usually when the government tells you to stop being "anti-government" it means that they want you to take your medicine like a good little serf. However, I want to deal with a broader point. This quote is what I want to focus on.

"But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad," said Obama, who received an honorary doctor of laws degree. "When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us."

President Obama could not be more wrong. When people talk of the government being inherently bad it is precisely because the government is us. This is the fundamental problem with liberalism. It fails to recognize that people are inherently bad. And when people gather into a state, nothing changes at all. Christianity calls it Total Depravity. This is why we need government. This is why our Founding Fathers made checks and balances: to restrain the evil within us as much as possible. The more spread out the power the less likely we are to be dominated by an evil tyrant. The fact that the state is evil because it is made up of sinful people is why we cannot “put our trust in princes” as the Bible so constantly warns us. They are sinful and they will either fail us or turn on us. Trust cannot be place in man. And it is because man is inherently sinful. Even the redeemed on this side of paradise struggle with the remnants of sin in us. The only one who was without sin is the eternal Godman, Jesus Christ. Only upon Him can we trust. Only in Him can we find salvation. Only to Him can we 100% submit without worry. Because only King Jesus is without sin, and His rule and His kingdom will be one of righteousness and godliness.

President Obama’s failure to grasp this fundamental point of existence is very dangerous. One who puts his trust in man, in the state, in power, or in himself is doomed to fail, and will probably bring about ruin as he tries to bring about "progress". President Obama is right: the government is us. And that fact is why we know that the government is indeed inherently evil.

Pro-Life or Anti-Abortion Rights?

According to National Public Radio pro-life people like me are now officially to be called Anti-Abortion Rights while pro-choice people like Bart Stupak and Ben Nelson and President Obama will be called Pro-Abortion Rights. This apparently is a move to more neutral language than the inflamatory Pro-Life label that the people use to label themselves.

Remember this is a government funded outfit. Just in case you wonder what the government thinks of you Pro-Lifers and of course what they think of unborn children.

Russia better off Red? A criticism

Newsweek magazine has a throw away page on the back of their most recent issue that just gives stats. The question is posed whether or not Russia was better under communism or not. Clearly the collector of the stats believes Russia was better off under communism. I do not remember all the stats, but they included things like population (higher under Communism), life expectancy (insignificantly higher under Communism), and land in agricultural use as well as forest land (both higher under Communism). It also contained a few more serious stats like number of hospitals, which was almost twice as high under Communism. Reported crimes (lower under Communism) and diseases diagnosed (lower under Communism). I can argue against Russia being better off today based solely on these stats. For instance, I could point out that "reported" crimes are not an actual measure of crimes, and the fact that they are higher may show people trust the police more now than under the Red years. I could argue that fewer hospitals yet higher disease diagnoses probably points to a better health care system. But that misses the point, just like Newsweek always does. The point is this:
Communism is a worldview, a philosophical outlook, not just an economic system.

You cannot have the economic system without the accompanying worldview. This is why America stood against Communism for so long. It was not that we thought some guys in Russia ought to be able to hold their own farms. No. It is that Communism is a dangerous, deadly worldview that seeks to turn the world upside down in all areas, not just economics. Does anyone really think that Eisenhower added the phrase "under God" to the pledge of allegiance because he favored the Free Market? Clearly it is because he knew Communism was against all that is good and holy in the world, including the existence of God. With religion as an "opiate" and God as non-existent, a new basis for order must be found. Evil was not violating God’s law (in communism), but evil becomes materialism. Material goods shape ideas is a basic point of Marx. Thus, the removal of materialism is the way to promote good and eliminate evil. Only the state has the ability to do this and stop this materialism since any individual with material goods (means of production or wealth) is necessarily corrupted by them. Even in the Declaration of Independence our individual rights are linked to our Creator. Communism removes the creator, the individual rights follow the Creator and are removed. And with no measure of good or evil accept materialism and utilitarianism it is no surprise that blood revolution is promoted as an acceptable means to achieve these goals. It is not a surprise then that "to make an omlete you have to break a few eggs" or "one death is a tragedy but 10,000 is a statistic." The economics of collectivism is simply the result of the broader worldview. One that led to the slaughter of countless thousands if not millions.

Newsweek may have found that people on average live less than half a year longer. But does that really mean Russia was better off when a word spoken against the state could lead to one "disappearing" and never returning. Does Newsweek really think the mass murder committed by Stalin and others is better than what they have now? Such an argument is a moral outrage. Our country was founded on Christian belief whether Meacham likes it or not. Our country is founded on "Give me liberty or Give me death." But Newsweek apparently would trade a lifetime of liberty for a few more months to live. And that is just an outright shame.

Tax Day Protest Thoughts

The Tax Day Tea Parties illustrated several major things that ought to scare everyone of us.

The first is a point that cannot be stressed enough. There are some people out there that actually think Keith Olbermann is a journalist. That is astounding and proof that some people will believe anything. Self-Delusion of course is the greatest and Keith himself may actually think his sexual joking about the Tea Parties was real journalism. There is no doubt in my mind that as big a liberal as Edward Murrow was that Murrow would be horrified that Olbermann was on TV and using his catch phrase. I think Murrow would slap Olbermann and tell him a few choice words.

Second, the media as a whole is completely biased. Journalism is dead. It will never come back and it will be hard to maintain a free country and be informed since TV stations are tools of the political parties now. MSNBC was disgraceful in its coverage as was CNN. Fox News went the opposite rout and tried to act as if they were are a part of the Tax Day Tea Parties, which is just as unjournalistic. Not good.

Third, people do not understand taxes. This is what worries me the most. This CNN reporter shows her complete hatred of the protestors, but also her complete ignorance of taxes in this clip that is a must watch. Notice how her response to the man’s complaint about his liberty is to cut him off. In the reporter’s mind taxes and liberty are unrelated. Then she goes even further when the man speaks directly to his taxes been too high, she states that his state is getting a lot of Money from the Federal Government, as if that makes taxes okay. She clearly thinks taxing people in order to give the money to other people is a great idea and does not understand why this guy is not on board. She clearly did not do a lot of listening to the people while she was out there.

The flaw that not only this reporter, but just about all 500 plus representatives in Congress make is that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy” as was noted by Chief Justice John Marshall in McCulloch v Maryland. That was of course an undisputed point because that is exactly what Maryland wanted to do the Bank of the US, destroy it. Maybe now it will be clearer to all why liberty is at state when we discuss taxes. If you tax it, you can destroy it, and you will at one point if the people do not keep vigilance. The Federal Government now taxes your phone calls, your gas, and most importantly your income. They have the power to destroy your income. That is why people go to the streets and fear for their liberty. That is why the original Boston Tea Party also. If Parliament had the power to tax anything and everything then there was no liberty. They were slaves of Parliament, slaves to the will of Parliament.

Every civilization before America understood this. Taxes are not Patriot as liberal Democrats want you to believe. They are a necessary, but they are far from patriotic. More revolts are about taxes than about anything else. You can even look in the Bible to see a tax revolt under Rehoboam. It is not because people are selfish and want their money, it is because taxes destroy. They destroy their liberty, their freedom, and cannot be tolerated at certain levels. Either the people end up revolting, the government listens and lowers taxes, or the nation collapses on itself. This is just fact. Sadly a fact that no one notices today.

Something interesting to ponder

Why on earth is this not being reported? Obama returns Churchill bust.

This sounds like a fairly newsworthy development. Only in the UK is it actually making the news. Another commentary on the sad state of our news industry.

Obama against the Religion

We have now seen how President Obama views faith. We can put aside the idea that he is a new kind of candidate and a Democrat with religious values. All that has been proven to be false now. The President’s stimulus bill contains a provision to forbid the money going to any school that allows "religious worship" or contains a "divinity school". The point of the bill for me is not about discrimination. It is about trying to drive Christianity out of education. It is about giving people and incentive to get rid of ‘religious’ views.

This of course ties back in perfectly with what Candidate Obama said on the campaign trail. We no know exactly what he meant when he said, "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religious-specific, values." What he meant was that religious specific language and teaching would not be tolerated in a Democracy.

Thus, I was right earlier about his new language just being a new attempt to keep religion out of politics. I did fail to see that he wants to keep religion out of everything. Now I know.

Evaluating Presidents

Now that President Bush is out of office and President Obama is in, now would be a good time to take stock of the two.

First, lots of people think that Bush is one of the worst Presidents in history. You do not have even go to Comedy Central to hear that kind of talk. It is everywhere. Why do they think he is the worst? They do not give reasons. Disastrous policies seem to be the overwhelming reason of choice, but then again when Obama keeps wire tapping or reauthorize the Patriot Act they will not complain about those same policies. If Obama gives any bailouts then the liberals will be unable to hold that against him either. It really is a mystery to me why he is so hated. But, then some are going to far in defending him as well. What really is there to defend? Sure we have not been attacked since 9/11 but can that really be tied to something Bush did? How long did it take them to attack American soil in-between the two Trade Center attacks? One would assume that we should wait at least that long before we declare we have done anything good. He did capture Sadam, but didn’t the world actually get more dangerous with Kim Jong Il getting nukes and Iran getting close enough that we probably will not be able to stop them? What exactly are they applauding?

Which leads me to my point, we have no idea how to evaluate Presidents. It is ridiculous that we have this high office that we do not understand in the least. I have a suggestion. Maybe we should start evaluating Presidents based on the vow they take to defend and uphold the Constitution. This of course means that President Bush was a disaster. His gross increasing of the Federal Government stands against him, especially in Education and his inability to fix Social Security not to mention adding Prescription Drugs to Medicare. All of it totally unconstitutional. His two wars were “authorized” but never done according to the Constitution. Again then failures. Do not even get me started on the bailouts. Nothing he did will haunt him like the bailouts. For that alone he deserves to be paned as a President. I would vote for Franklin Pierce a thousand times before I vote for Bush. Yet, despite his enormous sins against the Contitution, he cannot be considered the worst ever. FDR and LBJ ignored the Constitution altogether. Woodrow Wilson tried to make America subservient to the League of Nations. That cannot look good for someone who swore to uphold America and her sovereignty. And then Bush never got caught doing something truly corrupt unlike Grant and Harding. Those guys were pretty corrupt.

Second, we need to hold Obama to the same standard. All indications are that following or acknowledging that the Constitution exists are way above Obama’s pay grade. Obama wants to make FDR look like a penny pincher. Nationalizing health care was a top agenda item during the campaign. The appointment of radical Tom Daschale shows that Obama does favor the single payer system, and that America should brace for the worst health care in the world. Soon we will be booking flights to Haiti for dental work. Obama also has shown that he will redistribute wealth. The Founders would all have heart attacks at hearing a President express such notions. And the worst offense at all is his plan to sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law, which will abolish state laws concerning abortion so that mass murder that would make the Nazis envious will be the norm in America. In addition to moral revulsion at such as suggestion, the Constitution also cries out against such usurpation of power. So, things are not looking good for President 44.

For people who love the American Constitution and the American system, there has not been much to cheer about in the last 8 years. But then again, today is nothing to cheer about either.

I do not watch the view, but apparently Joy Behar made a few off hand comments about how demented home schoolers are and other silly things like that. Her comments can be found about the 7 minute mark and only lasts about 45 seconds. I am not going to bother refuting anything Joy Behar said because it is Joy Behar. If she ever says anything back with argumentation and fact maybe she can be taken seriously. Until then I will avoid her. What was interesting was a blog on the Huffington Post by a liberal homeschooler. This liberal was mad at the comments. What I found interesting was this statement or appeal:

Left-leaning people support the right for men and women to choose marriage, whether they are gay or straight. I support that too. They often support the idea that women's bodies are theirs only and that the government must not make laws dictating their choice to have or not have children. I support that too. So, what's wrong with having the freedom to choose your child's best educational environment?

It struck me that this liberal blogger does not understand why the liberals are against home schooling. Could she not see the underlying issue that made abortion, gay marriage, and anti-home schooling consitent with each other? Could this person not see the fact that “choice” is just one of those buzz words, and not the real issue. Liberals are not for choice. Never have been. They are not promoting an ideology of choice. What is it they promote that unifies these positions (because we can all admit that the "liberal" agenda is public school and not home schooling)?

The answer is these things are all direct attacks on the family. Abortion is an attack on the family. It kills children. Gay marriage is an attack on the family. In order for Gay Marriage to be anything other than an oxymoron, the very definition of Marriage has to be destroyed. Adam and Eve are no longer the example of marriage. Be fruitful and multiply is not even a possibility. One can hardly imagine a more direct attack on families than its re-defining. Is there any value in being a mom or a dad? Not if Gay Marriage is real marriage. Two dads are just as good. Mom brings nothing to table. The same sort of basic level attack on the family is involved in anti-homeschoolers like Joy Behar. Having mom and dad teach their own kids is the worst possible thing because that promotes families. Taking everyone’s children and then having the state dictate what is taught to them is the best thing. Families need not apply. A families values are not to be taught, only the state’s values can be taught. Religion is not allowed in public schools. Spanking is not allowed in public schools. The point of public schools is to indoctrinate children with the beliefs of the state, not the family. Do not forget that public education is one of the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto. Marx by the way also was against marriage. Too much like private property I guess.

The point being the Liberal Left is perfectly consistent in being pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and anti home-school. It is all about attacking the foundations of the family and replacing the family with the state.

Stealing Elections

Al Franken will be the next Senator from Minnesota. However, he lost the election. Let us just fact facts, Republicans like to supress minority votes, and Democrats love recounts because they cheat. So it is with Minnesota.

Read this article about what is going on out here in the forgotten country. Remember as you do that the Star Tribune might actually be the most politically liberal paper in America. It is easily top five. If even they can figure out that 100 ballots in the trunk of a election official's car all for Franken is probably not legitimate, then we ought to all be worried that they are being counted.

The Death of Chivalry

It will soon be official, chivalry will be dead. Chivalry of course is that old medieval idea that knights had a responsibility to behave in a certain manner, to comport themselves according to virtue and honor, most especially as it regarded women.

I mention this because it is a tangible thing that can be seen in today’s culture. Chivalry has been dying for some time, probably because Christianity has been waning in this country for sometime. After all it is hard to carry oneself with virtue and honor when the One who defines what such things are is removed from the equation. Chivalry was always connected with Christianity. Just read some King Arthur and the Knights of the Table Round stories (note on the page the code of the Knights with regards to ladies). Even those legends have a search for the Holy Grail, which is found by Sir. Galahad because of his piety. That is what made him the Greatest Knight ever, according to the books of course. Chivalry is to be linked with Christianity. Remove the Christianity and the code falls to pieces. Even in Canterbury Tales, the greatest book ever,Chaucer gives us a story or more about Chivalry (the Knight’s Tale and the Wife of Bath at least), which also show us this Christian duty toward women.

That Chivalry is ailing is not hard to tell. When was the last time you stood up for a lady every time she entered the room, left a table, or tipped your hat to one on the street. Me neither. But, it was not dead. Chivalry still had a pulse. But, President-elect Obama has plans to pull its life support. He will put women on the front lines and register them for the draft. All in the name of equality. Now I believe that men and women are ontologically equal, but they are not economically the same. In other words, we are all humans and have the same rights that cannot be denied, but we have different jobs and that cannot be denied either. One can pretend that men do not have natural instincts to protect females, one can pretend that males will react the same to a woman being tortured, and one can even pretend that our enemies will treat female prisoners the same as they treat male ones, but we must never forget that all of that is just pretend.

The reason women should not be in combat or even the military is that they are valued so highly, not because they are thought incompetent or unable. I Peter speaks of women as the "weaker vessel". Now I do not believe that this means women are physically weaker, although some do. I believe that this phrase is referring to a vessel that is delicate and honored and to be protected. A Ming Vase might be a good example. It is something that you do not let the kids play with. It is something that you put in a place of honor and safety. So it is with women. They are to be honored highly, protected with all that we have. Putting them on the front lines and drafting them against the will to war is about as opposite from that idea as one can get. Sort of like using that Ming Vase for a spittoon.

So if this happens, and I assume it will, we can bury Chivalry. Let us pray that the Lord will resurrect it, and that it will be the last Christian virtue we let die in the country.

Election Post-mortem

I have to say that I underestimated the polls (at least Rasmussen), and I over estimated the American public’s ability to recognize socialism as an attack on personal wealth, but most importantly an attack on Christianity. That is a post for another day. Rasmussen has a nice feature where you can see state-by-state how their polls did. It seems the Republican out performed by a small amount most of the time, but a few key places like Nevada he under performed and that cost him. Just to justify my distrust of polls Rasmussen did not fare as well in their Senate polls. They out right missed Oregon and Alaska. Having followed the site I can tell you as well that they are being a little deceptive about Minnesota. Their FINAL poll may have looked that way, but they had Franken on top for most of the year. They also had the special election in Mississippi as a seat in jeopardy until their final poll too. I doubt opinion turned that much.

I have to say that I am not half as depressed as most of the Republicans I know or even the conservatives I know. I did not vote for McCain, and he probably still thinks I am an agent of intolerance. The question has been raised earlier about the fate of Conservatism in this country. Some think it dead. I do not. After all Obama promised tax cuts, which he will not deliver, but he still ran as cutting the budget, cutting spending, and cutting taxes. He also ran on less foreign intervention, which is fundamentally conservative. The question is really whether or not the Republican Party stays conservative. I stated earlier during the primaries that it was a battle for the soul of the Republican Party. I defined the Reagan coalition as Paleo-Conservatism, Libertarianism, Theo-Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives. With President Bush the Neo-Cons were in the driver seat, the Theo-Cons sat in the passenger seat and the Paleo-Cons were in the back seat and the Libertarians had been kicked to the curb. McCain represented more of the same with less influence for the Theo-Cons. Other candidates represented other arrangements and the Neo-Cons won the day in the primaries. Well, when McCain feared the Paleo-Cons would get out of the car themselves and leave McCain short on votes he picked Sarah Palin who appealed to Paleo-Cons and Theo-Cons. However, it made many Neo-Cons abandon the car leaving McCain without a driver. There was a late mass exodus of especially those Neo-Cons who wanted to remain in power and with popularity in the press. Frum, Powell, and McClellan come to mind as well as some columnists who are women (reinforcing my belief that the biggest obstacle to a woman in the White House is women). This leads to the struggle now of which group will take over the party.

My bet is the Neo-Cons will take the party by blaming Palin for the loss. But, this will not kill true Conservatism (Paleo) in America. Conservatives always get used and kicked to the curb because their nature is one that thinks political power is bad. Less government = good. The side effect of this is that political parties whose goal is control of government end up getting rid of the conservatives. Do not forget that the Conservatives were on the outs with President Jefferson depsite electing him. They were on the outs with President Jackson despite electing him. They were on the outs with the Whig Congress when President Tyler was in office. They were on the outs with the Democratic Party in 1860 (you could define them either as the state’s rights group or the Constitutional Unionists of Bell). They were on the outs in the Democratic Party during their high years of the great depression despite being the reason the Dems always had a majority, and eventually they left the party. Their exodus gave the Republicans the White House with the Nixon Southern Stragtegy and the Reagan years, and finally the majority by 1994, but they were forsaken in 2000 and they have since been removed and made fun of by the party leaders. The point is that Conservatives never go away. Not only do they never go away they also always seem to play a fundamental part in the governing of America. Whether it be the Revolution of 1800 or the Jacksonian Revolution or the Reagan Revolution it is always led by conservatives.

As for President-elect Obama, I will pray for him. My duties to the government don’t really change just because the top man does. Obama is going to be a liberal, but then is our current President, so there is not that big a change. There is a big debate about how Obama will govern, which highlights the pathetic nature of the media that they ask that fundamentally important question AFTER the election. Will he be the socialist that he truly is or will he play pragmatism so that he can get re-elected? I think he will end up in on the left. You do not win by the margins he won by to sit on your hands. But, I think he will take it slowly at first. I think he will back out of his promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act that would override state laws about abortion. I do think he will try to push the things he thinks will not cause serious division. Expect Cap and Trade to be put into effect and other climate change initiatives. The one thing we can count on because Obama has always done it, are moves to silence dissent and consolidate power. Thus, I think two things he will tackle early are the Card Check Law, which will increase Democratic fund raising power, and the Fairness Doctrine, which will hurt all of America by making us slaves to the worthless media and might actually kill radio. Expect both of those to come through quickly. The Fairness Doctrine makes me angry because it is simply repugnant to the idea of democracy, liberty, and America as a whole. However, I expect it to pass without much trouble.

There is no doubt that there is much work to be done, but I think it can be done. However, I think the work needs to be done primarily in the churches. Things have to be taken seriously and taught again. A whole generation of people has grown up and they do not understand the fundamental importance of some issues. They see abortion and homosexuality as political issues rather than moral issues. A generation has grown up thinking that socialism is a good idea, and thinks it can actually fit into a Christian worldview if they even care about trying. A generation has grown up and does not see the problem with feeling entitled to things and truly believes personal responsibility is a bad thing. For all the talk and debate about how so many people do not believe the plain teaching of creation in Genesis 1 or the teachings about the role of women in places like Ephesians 5 or the doctrine of Predestination, which is so clearly laid out in Romans 9, the verses that may be the most ignored in the whole bible today by “evangelicals” are the ones found in Proverbs about how to live. We as the church need to fix this problem and the rest will work itself out. Although in writing this list it makes me think that maybe we need to take back education as well and start to take it seriously again.

If this happens, then the politics will work itself out.

Last Chance to Vote for a Third Party

Remember to vote today. And this is my last chance to encourage people to vote for a third party candidate. If you really want change, you cannot expect it from one of the two major parties. How many times do they have to fail before this becomes obvious. I have to admit that the rhetoric against voting for a 3rd Party has become increasing hostile. I have argued in the past that voting for a 3rd Party is the best way to change a national party, but some still insist that working within the bankrupt, corrupt political parties is the way to go despite never having any proof. No one is ever bad enough to make them dissert their party because next time the party will not take their views for granted, and they will not count their vote for a sub-par candidate as an endorsement of his flaws.
The latest example of this mindset is American Vision. American Vision is founded by a Theonomist, Gary DeMar. The whole point of American Vision is to promote a Christian Worldview and even to work for an openly Christian government. He has recently denounced votes for 3rd party small government and openly Christian candidates in favor of working within a big government party who avows no real religions belief and does not even attend church regularly. The mind numbing contradiction in such positions makes my head hurt.
So in closing if you like John McCain go vote for John McCain. If you don’t like him, there are other options. If you like Barak Obama vote Barak Obama, but if you don’t like him and want someone a little less socialist and less liberal, the Green Party does have a candidate and Ralph Nader is running is independent.

Most importantly go vote. There is really no good reason not to vote.

Reasons Journalism is Dead

The one thing that we can all take away from this campaign is that the national media is worthless and the American public is doomed because the media outlets are all corrupt and lazy. Let me just give you a few examples.
1. Voter Fraud. People have clamored about the possibility of voter fraud in Ohio. The liberal media denying it and mocking Fox News (which is the conservative media). The conservative media simply whines about Supreme Court decisions that did not go there way and give accusations by implication. However, some college kids went out, did real journalism, and proved it.
2. Barak Obama was a registered socialist. Yes, you hear McCain claim he is a socialist, and you hear Keith Olbermann deny it, but it is true. Obama was actually a registered member of the socialist party in America. World Net Daily has the proof. Too bad no one thought to research Barak Obama when he was running for office.
3. The Polls. The polls are all fake. Look at this daily tracking poll that has Barak Obama up 8%. That seems like a commanding lead. However, take a look at the methodology. Rasmussen Reports interviews 8% more Democrats than Republicans. This is to account for voter turn out, which is based on polling but is a guess. In other words, if the Republicans turn out for this election in record numbers like Rasmussen expects the Democrats to do, then we are tied. Remember that methodology when you look at some state by state races like Nevada. If the Democrat swell does not appear or the Republicans also view this election as historic, then McCain wins that state by 3%. It is more than enough to give every toss-up state to McCain easily, and it is enough to keep Colorado, and flip New Hampshire for McCain.

That is just a sample of the stuff that has made me a little upset. Journalism is officially dead. It makes one long for the days of Yellow Journalism. Even that would be an improvement over what we have today.

2008 Election Prediction

I guess I will try my hand at guessing the election again. I do think that Barak Obama will win, but I do not think it will be by the landslide that most predict. In fact, I think at the end of the day the Republicans will have done much better than most pollsters and TV guys will admit. Obama will win because he will flip Iowa and Virginia and maybe Colorado. That is more than enough. However some people are predicting Obama getting 350 electoral votes, and even Rasmussen thinks Obama will pull in 300. I think that is silly. Don’t forget Obama always polled higher in the primaries than he preformed and the polls are all weighted for a heavy democratic turn out. I think the Republicans will turn out more than the polls say they will. I will admit that I am rooting for a 269 to 269 tie. How often does that happen? Then it will be interesting to see what the House does. Will they stick with their parties or their states? The best thing that could happen for Republicans is for the House to stick with their parties. Democrats have majorities in states that will go for McCain such as North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Arkansas, and North Carolina. Fun for everyone.

Why then will it still be a decent night for the Republicans? Because I am not sure they are going to get blown out of the other races where people think they might. I do not think the Dems will reach 60 in the Senate and the House will be very interesting. That is what I will be watching on election night. To reach 60 the Democrats need to beat Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina and that is going to be tough. She is gaining and they are basically tied. Turn out on the East Coast will be high for the Republicans. The Dems need to beat Gordon Smith in Oregon who is one point ahead, but the West Coast may have a lower turnout for Republicans as the doom and gloom sets in. So let us just give both of those to the Dems for the fun of it. They will not win in Texas or either one in Mississippi nor will they pull of the upset in Kentucky keeping the Dems at 59 at best. To get to 59 they need not only Dole and Smith, but they need to defeat Coleman. Now Coleman is down in the polls by about 4 to Franken, but if you look at the local polls you see that Al Franken only gets 41% of the vote while an independent gets 17%. That number needs to hold for Franken to beat Coleman. If people desert the independent, Coleman has a chance to win as it seems more likely for Republicans to leave the independent than the Democrats who are anti-Franken voters.

The House is going to be fun because this is where Obama hurts the Democrats the most. He is running on a message of change, so incumbant Democrats might fall victim. Add to that the huge sums of money going to Obama, which is at the expense of giving to the DNCC and local House candidates, and that could spell trouble. Even giants like John Murtha are barely outraising no name Republican opponents. Don’t forget to mention that Murtha just called his district “racist” in the paper, and that race could be interesting. But the Dems have high hopes because of the large number of open seats. Republicans retired in large numbers this year. AL-02, AZ-01, CA-04, FL-15, IL-11, MN-03, NJ-03, NJ-07, NM-01, NY-03, NY-25, NY-26, OH-15, OH-16, and VA-11 (OR-05 and AL-05 are also open but were held by Democrats). Add to that list close races in 2006 like Chris Shays in CT-04 and Musgrave in CO-04 as well as Gerlach in PA-06. This makes a lot of Democrats hopeful of a really big landslide. Add in a few coattail victories they think they can have a large majority in the House.

However, 2006 was really a rebuke for many Democrats. They should have picked up more ground in Ohio in 2006 and they won lots of seats that will be hard to defend this year. FL-16 where Mark Foley, the homosexual intern predator was defeated, but the district remain mainly Republican. Add to that the Democrat Mahoney got caught having sex with employees of his own and the Republicans ought to take back this seat. TX-22 was the Delay district and the Republican lost in 2006 because the courts made Delay keep his name on the ballot. Lampson will lose a seat for the Dems here. OH-22 was the Bob Ney district and Congressman Space who benefited from that will probably lose this time as well. Lesser known scandals such as the one where the Republican Sweeney in NY-20 beat his wife and Congressman Sheerwood beat his mistress in PA-10, which cost them the election, should also be reversed. Plus, Republicans can hope to defeat Childers in MS-01. Childers won a special election in May over the same opponent, but Republican excitement is up a great deal since then and the turn out at the polls will be larger. There are plenty of rematches from 2006 as well that Republicans might could pick up since the anti-war sentiment is not as big. Plus the Republicans will put money into AZ-05 and AZ-08 which they did not in 2006 because the Republican candidates were against Bush’s immigration bill. The Dems are not going to sweep through those open seats like they would hope. Not to mention they need to defend some of their southern seats that are trending Republican. Seats like GA-08, GA-12, KS-02, LA-06, and TX-23.
It should make for an entertaining night of election coverage, and hopefully this will lead to a real conservative revolution. Either way, my hope is in nothing less than Jesus Christ’s righteousness.

Debate Recap

It is pretty clear that we are going to have a socialist president no matter who wins in November. I can feel my wallet getting lighter already.

However the real problem with the debate was that it was completely slanted toward Obama. No questions about abortion? Guns? Religion? Justices? Same Sex Marriage? In other words no social issues. Do we really think out of the thousands of questions submitted to Mr. Brokaw not a single one touched these issues. Not even stem cell research? Come on. The reason they were left out is because everyone of those issues hurt Obama. The Democrats refer to them as 'wedge issues' and they feel that they drive evangelicals to the polls and they lose when that happens. So the press is avoiding them. It is hard to imagine.

The real thing I learned is that the League of Women Voters needs to take over the debate formats again. This Commission on Presidential Debates is a joke.

Vice Presidential Stupidity

I have to say that VP debates are always boring and seldom important. Who really cares who wins? Yet, this one was the most disturbing of all because they actually debated the VP’s role, and I was horrified to find out that no one reads the Constitution. No pundit, no candidate, and apparently no Senators.

I could be mistaken because I did not read a transcript, but I did ask the three other people in the room of Biden really said that “Article 1 of the Constitution shows the Vice President to be a member of the Executive.” No commentator challenged that statement (at least that I heard). If you want to debate that the VP is part of the executive, fine, you would be wrong, but you can at least do it. What worried me the most is that Article 1 of the Constitution is about the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch. That is Article 2. I am not a lawyer, but I caught that mistake. Apparently no one in the media cares that Joe Biden does not know Constitution 101. No wonder Washington D.C. is a mess.

What was almost as bad an not knowing the Constitution is the assertion that all the VP can do is cast a vote in case of the tie. This is also not true. The Vice President is the President of the Senate (see Article 1 of the Constitution). Cheney has done some stupid stuff. But, bad advice to the President should still fall on the President’s lap since he made those decisions. That is hardly something inherently wrong about the VP slot. Biden is of course wrong again when he states the only power is the tie breaker vote. That is his only voting power, but the President of the Senate can preside over the Senate at any time. John C. Calhoun presided over the Senate a lot while VP. He clearly viewed the VP slot seriously and he stood at his post in the Senate often. As the President of the Senate he has the power to gavel down (or not gavel down) things in speeches as inappropriate. He used that power liberally to attack and tear down the Jackson administration. Cheney has never done anything like that. Both candidates showed a thoughtless view of the VP slot. It was very disappointing. The Constitution is clear the President is the Chief Executive and the Vice President is the Chief of the Legislative branch (and the Chief Justice being the Chief of the Judicial). A little knowledge and taking of the VP slot seriously would go a long way with me. To bad no one does anymore.