Does President Biden think the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence racist?

QUESTION, NEWSMAX: Thanks, Jen. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield, talking to a group on Wednesday said that white--essentially said that white supremacy is woven into our founding documents and principals. This statement is getting widely criticized as essentially parroting Chinese Communist Party talking points. So is the president going to remove her from her position as the representative before that body to promote United States values?

JEN PSAKI, WHITE HOUSE: Is the president going to remove an African American woman with decades of experience in the foreign service who is widely respected from her position as ambassador from the UN? He is not. He will--he is proud to have her in that position. She is not only qualified. He believes she is exactly the right person in that role at this moment in time.

I have not seen her comments. I will say that there's no question that there has been a history of institutional racism in this country. And that doesn't require the UN ambassador to confirm that.

QUESTION: So that's essentially the same lecture, though, that the Chinese delegation gave Secretary Blinken in Alaska last month. So does the President think our founding documents are racist?

PSAKI: I would say that I will--I will leave my comments to speak for themselves. And certainly, I think most people recognize the history of systemic racism in our country. And she was speaking to that.

Do Psaki's comments speak for themselves? I think so.


This latest poll by Rasmussen about election integrity is pretty interesting. (Do we care about polls anymore? They seem pretty bad, but what alternative is there?)

Majorities of all racial groups - 59% of whites, 56% of Blacks and 63% of other minority voters - say it is more important to make sure there is no cheating in elections than to make it easier to vote.

Likewise, majorities of all racial groups - 64% of whites, 59% of Blacks and 58% of other minority voters - reject the claim that voter ID laws discriminate against some voters.

No matter how you slice up the population, majorities support election integrity. That's good for America. No matter what policies you support, all Americans should support free and fair elections that get the results right. Otherwise we're not even a republic anymore -- we're governed by the people who count the votes.

Oh wait, there is one slice of the electorate that doesn't prioritize election integrity. Guess who?

President Biden's strongest supporters are least likely to say preventing cheating in elections is a higher priority. Among voters who strongly approve of Biden's job performance as president, just 17% say it's more important to make sure there is no cheating in elections than to make it easier to vote. By contrast, among voters who strongly disapprove of Biden's performance, 79% say it's more important to prevent cheating.

Presumably Biden's strongest supporters don't believe there was significant election fraud in the 2020 election, so maybe they don't support additional effort put towards election integrity because they don't think it's needed.

But election integrity is really a no-lose issue. You literally can't make an election too secure, as long as we define "secure" to mean that every eligible voter can vote exactly once, and no one else can vote at all. With all the boondoggles America spends money on, it's hard to imagine a more useful place to overspend.


Is President Biden planning to increase taxes retroactively?

As lawmakers consider the magnitude of tax increases, taxpayers may wonder whether those increases will be retroactive not only to the date of the bill's introduction, but to the beginning of 2021. This is an important and interesting question: Can tax legislative increases be retroactive?

Under conventional wisdom, the answer is no. Taxpayers should be able to rely on the existing rules; otherwise, the government's pursuit of short-term revenue could create a sense of unfairness and animosity toward the system.

In reality, however, the answer is yes. Tax increases can be retroactive, and not just to the current year.

Why not retroactively raise taxes all the way back to 2017 when Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act?

And why even stop there? California wants to tax your future too, even after you leave the state.

Knowing about the huge outbound migration from California, Cavuto asked what would happen to wealthy people who move out of state. Bonta said tax "avoidance" would not be allowed as California would tax them for the next ten years, despite what state they live in. Bonta said that because they accrued the wealth in California, the state can continue to legally tax it.

Like bank robbers, taxers have to "go where when the money is". If the present is all tapped out, tax the past and future.


This isn't rocket science: if you're the censor, you're the bad guy. If you're burning books, you're the bad guy. If you ban music and dancing, you're the bad guy. If you ban the former president, you're the bad guy.

Facebook removed an interview with former President Donald Trump conducted by his daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, from her Facebook page Tuesday night, citing content policy. ...

"In line with the block we placed on Donald Trump's Facebook and Instagram accounts, further content posted in the voice of Donald Trump will be removed and result in additional limitations on the accounts," the email read following a notice that the video had been removed.

The solution to bad speech is good speech, not banning. Banning never works.

Maybe part of the problem is that Trump's opponents aren't very appealing. Instead of improving themselves (which would benefit all Americans), they want to silence the opposition.

biden dislikes.jpg

But seriously, when you're this unpopular, what do you do?

Easy answer, guys: you cover it up.

Hit up your boys over at Google like brah, do me a solid here, I look like a bozo.

Well, certainly YouTube cannot make it so Joe Biden isn't a bozo.

But here's something they can do:

youtube dislikes.jpg

Is YouTube hiding dislikes to help Joe Biden? Maybe the timing is a total coincidence. You be the judge.


The global pandemic lock-down is starting to look like one of the worst public health decisions in history. A year ago everyone was scared and no one knew what would happen -- but time has now revealed which leaders made good choices and which didn't. It's not random.

Even some Florida Democrats are wondering whether Gov. Ron DeSantis' widely panned COVID response might turn out to be right, Axios Tampa Bay's Ben Montgomery and Selene San Felice write.

More than 32,000 Floridians have died, a number the state's leaders rarely acknowledge. But the death rate is no worse than the national average -- and better than some states with tighter restrictions.

The L.A. Times compared Florida and California:

"California imposed myriad restrictions that battered the economy ... Florida adopted a more laissez-faire approach decried by public health experts -- allowing indoor restaurant dining, leaving masks optional."

On Sunday's front page, the N.Y. Times explored the positives -- from the sizzling real-estate market to Florida's low unemployment rate -- of an early reopening: "Much of the state has a boomtown feel."

Florida's unemployment rate is 5.1%, compared to 9.3% in California, 8.7% in New York and 6.9% in Texas, The Times notes.

The bottom line: "Despite their differing approaches," AP reports, "California and Florida have experienced almost identical outcomes in COVID-19 case rates."


Glenn Greenwald explains how media outlets "independently confirm" each others' falsehoods. It is shocking that an entire industry could so utterly humiliate itself so quickly. What American institutions are actually excellent these days?

All of this prompted the obvious question: how could MSNBC and CBS News have both purported to "independently confirm" a CNN bombshell that was completely false? The reason this matters is because the term "independently confirm" significantly bolsters the credibility of the initial report because it makes it appear that other credible-to-some news organizations have conducted their own investigation and found more evidence that proves it is true. That is the purpose of the exercise: to bolster the credibility of the story in the minds of the public.

But what actually happens is as deceitful as it is obvious. When a news outlet such as NBC News claims to have "independently corroborated" a report from another corporate outlet, they often do not mean that they searched for and acquired corroborating evidence for it. What they mean is much more tawdry: they called, or were called by, the same anonymous sources that fed CNN the false story in the first place, and were fed the same false story. And just as CNN did -- repeated what they were told (almost certainly by Democratic Congressional members and/or their staff) without independently investigating it, because they knew any anti-Trump story would please their partisan audience -- NBC News pretended they had obtained "independent confirmation" when all they had done was speak to the same sources that fed CNN.

This episode is so worth recalling not only because it is one of the most stunning and pathetic media humiliations of the Trump era -- though it is that -- but also because the shoddy tactic that drove it is still in full use by the same media outlets. We just saw proof of that again with a major Washington Post "correction" -- which should be called a retraction -- of one of the most-discussed news stories of the last six months: the Post's claims about what Trump said when he called a Georgia election official while he was still contesting the 2020 election results.


I've written about class recently, and Astral Codex Ten has pulled together a bunch of class-related suggestions for the Republicans that are very intriguing.

Trump didn't win on a platform of capitalism and liberty and whatever. He won on a platform of being anti-establishment. But which establishment? Not rich people. Trump is rich, lots of his Cabinet picks were rich, practically the first thing he did was cut taxes on the rich. Some people thought that contradicted his anti-establishment message, but those people were wrong. Powerful people? Getting warmer, but Mike Pence is a powerful person and Trump wasn't against Mike Pence. Smart people? Now you're burning hot.

Trump stood against the upper class. He might define them as: people who live in nice apartments in Manhattan or SF or DC and laugh under their breath if anybody comes from Akron or Tampa. Who eat Thai food and Ethiopian food and anything fusion, think they would gain 200 lbs if they ever stepped in a McDonalds, and won't even speak the name Chick-Fil-A. Who usually go to Ivy League colleges, though Amherst or Berkeley is acceptable if absolutely necessary. Who conspicuously love Broadway (especially Hamilton), LGBT, education, "expertise", mass transit, and foreign anything. They conspicuously hate NASCAR, wrestling, football, "fast food", SUVs, FOX, guns, the South, evangelicals, and reality TV. Who would never get married before age 25 and have cutesy pins about how cats are better than children. Who get jobs in journalism, academia, government, consulting, or anything else with no time-card where you never have to use your hands. Who all have exactly the same political and aesthetic opinions on everything, and think the noblest and most important task imaginable is to gatekeep information in ways that force everyone else to share those opinions too.

The parties are realigning. It's political musical chairs, and some people who are used to sitting in thrones may get stuck with footstools. How can you tell who is most likely to be left without a good seat? Check who is angriest. Then assume that no matter what they say they're mad about, they're actually upset and frightened at the prospect of losing status and power.


Yes, you can still get COVID-19 and get very sick or die, but cases are down 77% over the past six weeks and it looks like the pandemic is basically over. The disease will never disappear completely, but we should be able to return to normal soon.

Amid the dire Covid warnings, one crucial fact has been largely ignored: Cases are down 77% over the past six weeks. If a medication slashed cases by 77%, we'd call it a miracle pill. Why is the number of cases plummeting much faster than experts predicted?

In large part because natural immunity from prior infection is far more common than can be measured by testing. Testing has been capturing only from 10% to 25% of infections, depending on when during the pandemic someone got the virus. Applying a time-weighted case capture average of 1 in 6.5 to the cumulative 28 million confirmed cases would mean about 55% of Americans have natural immunity.

Now add people getting vaccinated. As of this week, 15% of Americans have received the vaccine, and the figure is rising fast. Former Food and Drug Commissioner Scott Gottlieb estimates 250 million doses will have been delivered to some 150 million people by the end of March.

There is reason to think the country is racing toward an extremely low level of infection. As more people have been infected, most of whom have mild or no symptoms, there are fewer Americans left to be infected. At the current trajectory, I expect Covid will be mostly gone by April, allowing Americans to resume normal life.


If this was published on some far-right website I'd never read it or comment on it. But Lefty Time Magazine reveals the "shadow campaign that saved the 2020 election". The article spins the conspirators as heroes, but if you look past the leftward slant it seems like Time is confirming most of the Populist Right's craziest accusations. The bipartisan globalist establishment crushed the populist political uprising.

Personally, I don't believe all the claims in this article -- I think some political operatives are trying to burnish their resumes by claiming credit for this boondoggle election. But still, this is an insane revelation from a Lefty publication.

The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election-an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted. For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America's institutions as they came under simultaneous attack from a remorseless pandemic and an autocratically inclined President. Though much of this activity took place on the left, it was separate from the Biden campaign and crossed ideological lines, with crucial contributions by nonpartisan and conservative actors. The scenario the shadow campaigners were desperate to stop was not a Trump victory. It was an election so calamitous that no result could be discerned at all, a failure of the central act of democratic self-governance that has been a hallmark of America since its founding.

Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears. They executed national public-awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, preventing Trump's conspiracy theories and false claims of victory from getting more traction. After Election Day, they monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result. "The untold story of the election is the thousands of people of both parties who accomplished the triumph of American democracy at its very foundation," says Norm Eisen, a prominent lawyer and former Obama Administration official who recruited Republicans and Democrats to the board of the Voter Protection Program.

The bolding above is mine. Obviously this shadowy cabal of establishmentarians was completely neutral and didn't care if Trump or Biden won. Totally.

So why is this "secret history" being revealed now that Biden has been inaugurated? For our benefit! Or maybe because the participants want some credit.

That's why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream-a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it.

The election wasn't "rigged" -- it was "fortified"!

Eamon Javers is right that the r/WallStreetBets and GME battle is the latest round of the class war. Just like Trump, GME is an effect not a cause of the ongoing disruption of America's class system.

Josh Holmes spent much of Wednesday in Washington watching the populist uprising over GameStop in the stock market with fascination - and a growing sense of familiarity.

He has seen this movie before.

Holmes, president of the issue management firm Cavalry, is best known as the former chief of staff to former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Holmes has spent his career among the Republican establishment, which has spent the past five years getting steamrolled by the populist force of Trumpism - a grassroots movement that stormed the ramparts of the GOP, ousted the establishment and remade the party in its image.

Almost no one in the party saw it coming. When it did, few of the establishment players understood just how vast the force was that suddenly lined up against them.

On Wednesday morning, as GameStop shares continued to surge, Holmes took to Twitter and typed out a simple message: "Wall Street, welcome to our world."

Trump didn't cause the political realignment he benefited from -- he was just willing to ride it faster and harder than anyone else. Trump was an effect. Similarly, the self-described "retards" and "smooth brains" at r/WallStreetBets didn't cause the resentment between hedge funds and retail investors. The GME squeeze is yet another manifestation of the class war.

The old coalitions were (broadly) centralization/populist Left and Democrat vs. liberty/elitist Right and Republican. If the realignment continues, the new coalitions will be liberty/populist Right and Republican vs. centralization/elitist Left and Democrat. Basically, the populists and elites are swapping sides. Of course each individual is more than a simple category, which is why so many people feel "politically homeless" right now.

The parties are also in flux because they aren't sure what combination of positions will yield a winning coalition. The Left seems to be exerting itself to enforce uniformity on its members, while the Right seems to be opening itself up to socially-liberal libertarians and populists. Who knows how this will shake out.

Screenshot_20210123-085858_Brave.jpg

From Drew Holden.


Nathanael Blake writes that America's problems are due in part to the millions of ghosts in the cradle that haunt us.

The corruption of abortion goes far beyond unpalatable political choices, however; making abortion-on-demand part of the culture changes the culture. Its evil effects are systemic, as well as individual, and they do not end with the violent killing of the unborn.

Our nation is haunted by what abortion does to the living. Trying to solve our problems by killing developing human beings makes us worse, individually and socially. If elective abortion seems necessary, it is because our sexual appetites exceed our willingness to care for the children who are the natural result of sex. Elective abortion is a violent form of birth control, which is used either instead of, or as a backup to, the proliferating array of modern contraceptives.

Abortion thus damages the fundamental relationships of our humanity, shattering the primeval union of mother, father, and child. Instead of the family solidarity that is foundational to human society, the begetting and bearing of new human life become a battleground of competing interests.

Pray for the unborn. Pray for America. Pray for mercy and not justice; justice would destroy us all.

The biggest companies in the world worked together to destroy President Trump and upstart free-speech platform Parler. You can love Trump, hate Trump, or be extremely conflicted about Trump, but you can't deny the fact that the richest, most powerful corporations in the world have claimed the right and power to decide who can speak and who can't. What's playing out is completely bizarre.

As Silicon Valley censorship radically escalated over the past several months -- banning pre-election reporting by The New York Post about the Biden family, denouncing and deleting multiple posts from the U.S. President and then terminating his access altogether, mass-removal of right-wing accounts -- so many people migrated to Parler that it was catapulted to the number one spot on the list of most-downloaded apps on the Apple Play Store, the sole and exclusive means which iPhone users have to download apps. "Overall, the app was the 10th most downloaded social media app in 2020 with 8.1 million new installs," reported TechCrunch.

It looked as if Parler had proven critics of Silicon Valley monopolistic power wrong. Their success showed that it was possible after all to create a new social media platform to compete with Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. And they did so by doing exactly what Silicon Valley defenders long insisted should be done: if you don't like the rules imposed by tech giants, go create your own platform with different rules.

But today, if you want to download, sign up for, or use Parler, you will be unable to do so. That is because three Silicon Valley monopolies -- Amazon, Google and Apple -- abruptly united to remove Parler from the internet, exactly at the moment when it became the most-downloaded app in the country.

If one were looking for evidence to demonstrate that these tech behemoths are, in fact, monopolies that engage in anti-competitive behavior in violation of antitrust laws, and will obliterate any attempt to compete with them in the marketplace, it would be difficult to imagine anything more compelling than how they just used their unconstrained power to utterly destroy a rising competitor.

Big Brother claims that Trump and Parler are inciting violence, but the truth is that the Capitol Hill riot was planned on Facebook and Twitter. (I condemn all political violence in America.)

The pretext for singling out Parler is that some people have posted threats there, which is a violation of Parler policy. There is no claim that the riot at the Capitol on January 6 was coordinated through Parler -- not even Apple, in its letter terminating services, made that claim. USA Today, citing other sources, gave examples of calls for violence prior to the Capitol Hill riot -- on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and a single video on Parler:
Violent rhetoric including threats against elected officials and police officers flooded all social media platforms including Facebook, Twitter and Google's YouTube, not just online forums popular with extremists.....

On Facebook, pages and private and public groups urged civil war if Democrats were not arrested for election interference, alleged police officers were assisting "Antifa" and claimed "Antifa" members were impersonating "patriots" at the Capitol. A video encouraged protesters to bring pepper spray, tear gas, batons, tasers and knives.

A Facebook page called Red-State Secession shared addresses of "enemies" including members of Congress. One post urged people to prepare "to use force to defend civilization." Facebook removed the page Wednesday.

Even the president of anti-conservative Media Matters points to Facebook as the main organizing site:

Facebook had much bigger role in creating conditions that led to as well as organizing for January 6 event. We tracked people using FB to organize attendees to bring guns to the Jan 6 event. FB did nothing.

So why aren't Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Reddit being deplatformed? Why are they picking on Parler? [...]

So the claim that Parler represents some unique risk to safety is a lie. It's a lie driven by politics, exploiting the justifiable national outrage at the Capitol Hill riot to purge political rivals through unprecedended collusion among the internet oligopolies, furthered by isolation tactics to cut Parler off from legal and other services.

To top it off, Twitter just had the balls to write this.

twitter uganda.jpg

The response to Twitter has been widespread mockery, as it should be. Will the people behind this behavior come to realize that they've cast themselves as the villains?

leia grip.jpg

As Princess Leia told Grand Moff Tarkin right before the destruction of Alderaan: "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." Tarkin didn't care about public sentiment because he believed he could force submission through fear. He destroyed Parler Alderaan as a warning to any other uppity planets that might object to Imperial domination.

darth obiwan.jpg

While we're making Star Wars references, remember that Obi-Wan Kenobi told Darth Vader: "You can't win, Darth. If you strike me down I will become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."

Well... Gab has already brought Trump back from the dead.

Gab CEO completely backed up President Trump's Twitter account before it was deleted and recreated him on Gab! What's even more impressive is he did this while traffic was up 700% and under attack from leftists. Gab is currently having servers upgraded to handle the large influx in traffic but we're told it should stabilize soon.

Will he be more powerful than we can possibly imagine? (I hope not.)

The Left doesn't realize that it's reifying -- acting out -- making real -- bringing into existence -- an instance of the Hero's Journey, and they've cast Trump as the Hero (e.g., Simba) and themselves as the Tyrannical King (e.g., Scar). Note: I'm not saying Trump's a Hero -- the Left is putting him into that role. I'm not saying the Left is the Tyrannical King -- they're taking that role on themselves. I can only speculate why the Left is doing this, but it looks like a foolish plan.

Forbes announces that they will automatically distrust any company that hires vocal Trump supporters. But this totally isn't "cancel culture", of which they disapprove.

Let it be known to the business world: Hire any of Trump's fellow fabulists above, and Forbes will assume that everything your company or firm talks about is a lie. We're going to scrutinize, double-check, investigate with the same skepticism we'd approach a Trump tweet. Want to ensure the world's biggest business media brand approaches you as a potential funnel of disinformation? Then hire away.

This isn't cancel culture, which is a societal blight.

Good thing the media is so widely trusted so we ignorant plebes know who to obey.

Joe Biden will become president on January 20th, but the cloud of uncertainty around the 2020 election will never be dispelled because the people who could do so didn't even try.

I'm not an election or legal expert, but here are some things I've come to believe over the past two months. These are normative beliefs about how things should be, not claims about how things are under the current system.

First: Election officials bear the burden of proof for election integrity. They're the ones in possession of all the material evidence, and they're the ones with the legal obligation to execute fair elections. It's not reasonable to expect a candidate or a member of the public to "just trust us" when it comes to election integrity, and it's not reasonable to expect a candidate or member of the public to bear the burden to prove that an election was executed badly. Election officials must be required to prove they did their jobs well, and not be given the assumption of fairness or competency. Election officials should have to "show their work" transparently after every election.

Second: State election systems seem to be mostly garbage. The rules are bad, and the execution of those rules is worse. Stopping the count on election night in five cities simultaneously looked super-suspicious. I don't know exactly what rules should be in place, but I know that other countries require voters to show identification and greatly restrict mail-in or absentee voting. Some countries count ballots in place rather than transporting them to a central counting facility. Our states need to fix their election systems so that the public and election losers have full confidence in the results. I'm not sure how to fix the incompetent idiots who run our elections, especially if the courts won't grant anyone standing to challenge them -- perhaps standing could be created by law?

Third: Election audits and recounts need to be performed by people other than those accused of fraud. Obviously. No person or organization involved in the contested count should have any role in an audit or recount.

Fourth: There hasn't been a real investigation if there hasn't been discovery and hostile witnesses cross-examined under oath. Either our political system or our legal system needs to provide a way to credibly challenge election results in a timely manner. It doesn't count to simply dismiss cases on procedural grounds without forcing the production of evidence and testimony. It doesn't count for state legislators to issue statements but for the legislatures themselves to be out of session and unable to perform their Constitutional duties. All the court cases and hearings that happened in 2020 may have been handled in a legal and proper manner according to the existing rules, but those rules need to change in order to give people confidence in our elections.

Fifth: Political violence should be condemned by all Americans. Republicans condemned the violent riots that played out across the country all summer, and Republicans should also condemn rioting by Trump supporters in the Capitol. Democrats should have condemned the violent riots over the summer but mostly didn't, hiding behind euphemisms like "mostly peaceful". I'm glad we're all in agreement now that rioting is unacceptable. Peaceful protest is acceptable and American, but violence is wrong (and ineffective).

Sixth: This wasn't America's first badly run election -- I bet this kind of shoddy work has been going on for decades. It's embarrassing to America and needs to be fixed immediately.

It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway: riots and political violence are unacceptable in America. All Christians should pray for peace and safety. All Americans should condemn the use of violence for political purposes. I condemn all such violence.

Peaceful protest is fair and legitimate and American. Riots and violence are bad.

Paul wrote the book of Philippians while awaiting execution in a Roman prison. Instead of lamenting the very real corruption and evil of the government that was persecuting him, he encouraged his readers to be fearless and confident because Christ's glory and power and purpose far exceed earthly political concerns, as serious as they are. From Philippians 1:

27 Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, 28 and not frightened in anything by your opponents. This is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but of your salvation, and that from God. 29 For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, 30 engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now hear that I still have.

Christians do not need to accept corruption quietly, but we need to be fearless and keep our eyes on things above.

Among many other benefits, Ross Douthat writes that raising a family helps you become more holy.

For the average sinner, though, for me and maybe for you, life with children establishes at least some of the preconditions for growing in holiness, even if there's always the risk of being redirected into tribal narcissism. If I didn't have kids there's a 5 percent chance that I'd be doing something more radical in pursuit of sainthood; there's a 95 percent chance that I'd just be a more persistent sinner, a more selfish person, because no squalling infant or tearful nine-year-old is there to force me to live for her and not myself.

I've definitely found this to be true. I'm a much better person than I used to be, significantly because of my family. (Not that I'm all that great, mind you.)

The Word of God falling from the lips of the apostle or minister enters into the heart of the hearer. The Holy Ghost impregnates the Word so that it brings forth the fruit of faith. In this manner every Christian pastor is a spiritual father who forms Christ in the hearts of his hearers.


An eternity ago, right after the election, Brian Riedl and Sean Trende made an important observation: the election polls were so far off that all public polling must be garbage.

Politicians rely on public polling for many of their decisions (right or wrong), and polls influence judges and bureaucrats also. If polls can't remotely predict the highest-profile election ever, why should we have any confidence that anything they say is accurate? This goes way beyond politics.

Supporters

Email blogmasterofnoneATgmailDOTcom for text link and key word rates.

Monthly Archives