Trump Shores Up the Female Vote

So, why did Trump speak at the pro-life march? First, he should be given kudos for doing it, even if his motivation was ... ahem... purely political. He is the first president to have done so, and that is a milestone. But let's look at the numbers which undoubtedly helped him decide this was a good move to make.

First, consider the importance of the female vote:

(As of Dec 2019) Trump – who took 41% of the women's vote to Clinton's 54% in 2016 – would lose female voters by bigger margins to Biden (who would get 51% of female voters, to Trump's 36%), Warren (who has 53% female support to Trump's 38%) and Sanders (who would capture 54% of women voters, compared to 36% who would vote for Trump in a general election matchup). Buttigieg would win women voters by a 47-36% margin against Trump, while Bloomberg would draw 48% of the female vote to Trump's 35%, according to the survey.

Those changes might seem relatively small, experts note, but they pose a big warning sign for a president who lost the popular vote in 2016 and won the electoral college by small margins in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. "It doesn't take a lot in this election," Walsh says....

In 2018, when Democrats flipped control of the House of Representatives and picked up many state legislative seats, female voter turnout was 3.2% higher than that of men.... The numbers means that Trump has not really made inroads with female voters in his three years in office, analysts say, troubling for an incumbent.  

In matchups with every one of those five Democrats in the Fox poll, Trump's gender gap stays the same or widens, the polls shows, reflecting the increasing gender polarization between the two parties. 

Women vote Democratic more than men – 2018, for example, was the first time in exit polling history that Democrats took control of the House of Representatives without winning a majority of male voters.

We know Trump has an increasingly difficult time attracting women, and that this difficulty could easily bring him to defeat in 2020. He didn't win by majority vote in 2016. He can't afford to lose any voters in 2020. His gap with women is increasing.

According to Catalist, a progressive data company, college-educated white women swung Democratic by 10 points from 2016 to 2018, and non-college-educated white women swung Democratic by seven points. A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that both groups of white women favored a generic Democrat over Trump by margins of 33 and six points, respectively. The pool of women willing to embrace the Republican brand is shrinking.

Second, remember that women - especially Republican women - are more pro-life than men, even Republican men.

Politically, abortion has been a stronger voting issue for Republicans than for Democrats. Abortion ranks as the second-most-important issue for Republicans in deciding their vote for president, behind immigration. But for Democrats, it is fifth — behind health care, America's role in the world, climate change and personal financial well-being... 

54% of men identified as "pro-choice," compared with 60% of women. For women of the different parties, 77% of Democratic women identified as "pro-choice," while 68% of Republican women identified as "pro-life." (A lower percentage of Republican men, 59%, considered themselves "pro-life."). 62% of Republican women said they oppose laws that allow abortion at any time during pregnancy in cases of rape or incest. They are the only group to voice majority opposition to that.... 

Republican women are also the only group to say overwhelmingly that life begins at conception. About three-quarters said so, compared with less than half of Republican men and a third of Democratic women.

It's a reminder that Republican women, in many ways, are the backbone of the movement opposing abortion rights.  

As a pro-life candidate, there is no way he will win most Democrat women. 74% of Democrat women support murdering children, only 25% identify as pro-life. If he has to run as a pro-life candidate - which, as a Republican, he does - then his only hope is to double down on the voter most likely to turn out in the general election: the Republican woman. Without that voter, he will not regain the White House. As NPR notes, "If nothing else, it represents the power of the Republican female vote."

Maybe Trump really is pro-life. Given that he famously signed off on giving Planned Parenthood a half billion dollars in federal tax funding each year, that's hard to credit. But he certainly wants to be re-elected, so he is going to act pro-life, regardless of what he personally believes.

Why are Latin Mass Priests So Theologically Unsound?

So, a friend of mine sent me this homily given by a Latin Mass priest this past Christmas. It is, in a word, unsound. This is the kind of theological mess Catholic traditionalists constantly accuse Novus Ordo priests of delivering. 

Let's take a look (my comments are in red):

Christmas Day, Mass at Dawn 

Dear friends in Christ, on this Christmas morning we celebrate the birth of Our Lord, or rather births!  3 "births", if you like. They are reflected in the three different Masses for Christmas - Midnight, Mass at Dawn, means during the day, each with its own propers, each with its own emphasis.  First, as God, Christ, the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity (the logos or Word of God) is "born", begotten, generated, and yet always existed.  He was externally begotten of the Father, without a mother!  At Christmas we celebrate this "birth" of the 2nd Person of the Trinity from all eternity!

[The Son of God becomes "Jesus Christ" on March 25 (Feast of the Annunciation), not December 25. The name "Jesus Christ" is a title. Just as I have always been and will always be Steve, but I took on the title "husband" and, later, the title "father", so the Son of God took on the title "Jesus Christ" at a specific point in time - the Incarnation in Mary's womb. That title, "Jesus Christ", THAT has a beginning. The Son of God Himself has no beginning and no end, but the title definitely has a beginning, and it begins on March 25, not December 25. The priest apparently doesn't understand the ENORMOUS difference between being begotten/generated and being born. It is incredibly wrong to use the two terms "begotten" and "born" as if they were interchangeable.

"He was externally begotten of the Father... " Yeah, that may be a simple typo, because the phrase "externally begotten" is never used in reference to the Son. Perhaps that should be "eternally begotten"??]

2nd, we celebrate Christ's birth into our world, the world of space and time - the birth of the baby Jesus - God incarnate! God became man, "for us men and for our salvation".  As St. Irenaeus of Lyons says, "How could we be saved unless it were God who effected our salvation?  In His immeasurable love for us, He became what we are, in order to make us what He is.  How can man go to God, if God has not come to man? 

And so, we rightly celebrate Our Lord's birth into this world at Christmas.  As a man, He was born in time, of a mother, but without a Father! 

[Nope. Absolutely wrong. Frighteningly wrong. Protestant-style wrong. We can say that Jesus was born of a virgin, but we CANNOT say He was born without a father. The latter statement is wildly erroneous. It is de fide that St. Joseph was a true father in every sense except the biological.

As St. Thomas Aquinas points out "According to Augustine (De Consensu Evangelistarum ii), Joseph is called the father of Christ just as ‘he is called the husband of Mary, without fleshly mingling, by the mere bond of marriage: being thereby united to him much more closely than if he were adopted from another family. Consequently that Christ was not begotten of Joseph by fleshly union is no reason that Joseph should not be called his father, because he would be the father even of an adopted son not born of his wife’” (ST III:28:1 ad 1)."

Pope John Paul II: "Scripture recognizes that Jesus is not born of Joseph’s seed, since in his concern about the origin of Mary’s pregnancy, Joseph is told that it is of the Holy Spirit. Nonetheless, he is not deprived of his fatherly authority from the moment that he is told to name the child. Finally, even the Virgin Mary, well aware that she has not conceived Christ as a result of conjugal relations with Joseph, still calls him Christ’s father.’"

“The Son of Mary is also Joseph’s Son by virtue of the marriage bond that unites them: ‘By reason of their faithful marriage both of them deserve to be called Christ’s parents, not only his mother, but also his father, who was a parent in the same way that he was the mother’s spouse: in mind, not in the flesh.’ In this marriage none of the requisites of marriage were lacking: ‘In Christ’s parents all the goods of marriage were realized—offspring, fidelity, the sacrament: the offspring being the Lord Jesus himself; fidelity, since there was no adultery: the sacrament, since there was no divorce.’

“It is to Joseph, then, that the messenger turns, entrusting to him the responsibilities of an earthly father with regard to Mary’s Son” (Guardian of the Redeemer 3; cf. Augustine, Sermo 51, 10, 16: PL 38, 342; De nuptiis et concupiscentia I, 11, 12–13: PL 44, 421)."

In that sentence, this priest essentially denied the existence of the Holy Family.]

And thirdly, we celebrate the spiritual "birth" of all of us who believe in Him, receive Baptism and become members of His mystical body the Church. 

[Well, not at Christmas we don't, at least, not liturgically. We celebrate our baptismal birth in Christ at Easter Vigil, not on Christmas. It is at Easter Vigil that all the faithful receive a plenary indulgence when they repeat their baptismal vows. There is no similar plenary indulgence at Christmas, or any other day of the year, save the anniversary of one's own baptism. Lex orandi, lex credendi. 

Now, you could argue that the Baptism of Christ ends the Christmas season, is part of the Christmas season, and therefore the Christmas season celebrates baptism. Ok, that's a fair argument. But it is in the Baptism of Christ that we celebrate our baptism, not the birth of Christ, i.e., Christmas Day. 

Indeed, it would be a better argument to say that our baptism is celebrated on January 1, the Feast of the Circumcision, since that is the first drop of Christ's blood to be spilled for our salvation, and January 1 is - not coincidentally - also the Feast of Mary, Mother of God. 

Notice the Feast of Mary, Mother of God is NOT celebrated on December 25 (Christmas) or March 25 (Annunciation), but on January 1, Feast of the Circumcision. Mary becomes Mother of God on March 25th, but she becomes Mother of the Church on the first day Christ sheds His blood and thus forms the Church. January 1, THAT is the day when the mystical body of the Church is conceived, as it were. It is at the Crucifixion that Christ gives birth to the sacraments via the water and blood that flow from His side, and it is at Pentecost that the Body of Christ, the Church, is made visible.] 

There are only two Persons who can call Christ- "My only begotten son".  The Eternal Father, and the Blessed Virgin Mary! 

It's just amazing, and not easy to get your head around, but think about it, Mary is both the Mother and the daughter of her son because her Son is God!  At Christmas, Mary (a mere creature) gave birth to her Creator! 

The Divine child in the manger on Christmas morning is also God. He is the Father of His own mother! 

[Yeah, that's not entirely correct either. The priest is confusing God the Father with God the Son. The two  Persons are not the same. While all three Persons participate in every divine action (so in that narrow sense, the priest is not wrong), in each divine action one of the Persons predominates. The Father is Creator, the Son is Redeemer and the Spirit is Sanctifier. Now, sure, the whole of creation is created for, through and by Jesus Christ, but that doesn't make the Son the Creator. Sure, we refer to the Holy Spirit as "Creator Blest", but that is in reference to the new creation the Spirit makes of us in the sacraments and the breath of life He gives us at conception.

"CCC 14 It develops these in the three chapters on our baptismal faith in the one God: the almighty Father, the Creator; his Son Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior; and the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier, in the Holy Church..." 
There are many more passages like this one. You would search the CCC in vain trying to find the phrase "God the Son, Creator" ] 

In today's epistle, St. Paul's letter to Titus, we read, "Not by the works of justice which we have done, but according to His mercy, He saved us, by the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost; whom He hath poured forth upon us abundantly, through Jesus Christ Our Savior."  Our Lord became man so that one day we might partake of the Heavenly banquet - we receive a tremendous gift from God.  What gift?  The best Christmas present ever!  This gift is His Son, Jesus, who restored the order of grace, allowing us to partake once again of the Divine Nature.  Again, as St. Irenaeus says, "He became what we are in order to make us what He is."  Or, as St. Augustine says, "God became man so that man might become "god"- small "g"!  To share in His Divine Nature, in other words.  What an incomparable gift - the gift of grace! 

I've mentioned 3 "births", I could add a 4th - a daily Bethlehem in our midst, if you like.  And that is the tremendous mystery of the Mass, when daily Jesus Christ comes down or becomes present on the altar.  The miracle of transubstantiation.   

I remember a few years ago at Christmas, it was the Midnight Mass, not here, when a creep, very probably a Satanist, tried to steal a consecrated host - he took it out of his mouth and was seen by a vigilant parishioner - you notice the Satanists never try to steal communion from Anglican or Lutheran services?  The Satanist know that in the Protestant communion, they only receive bread!  It's not Jesus Christ they receive.  But it is in the Catholic Mass. 

2,000 years ago, the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity became man.  He took on a human nature and became the God/man Jesus Christ. And He is still on earth - in the Holy Eucharist.  Every Catholic Church is a mini - Bethlehem, because Christ is truly present there, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.  He is "born" upon our altars! 

[That really doesn't make sense. Transubstantiation is not like birth, not at all. Birth is a physical movement from one location to another. Transubstatiation is not a physical movement at all, it is a change in Aristotelian substance. So, you can say in transubstantiation the Son of God is conceived on our altars... that would make a certain level of sense, because conception transforms simple physical entities into an immortal body-soul unity that will be separated for only a short time at death, but re-established at the Last Judgement and Resurrection. That change, made by God at conception, is a change in Aristotelian substance, transforming simple physical things into human persons. Thus, conception IS a change in substance, and in that sense, it is somewhat like transubstantiation. 

But birth does not involve a change in substance, it is just movement from one physical location (in the womb) to another (outside the womb). By comparing "change in substance" to a simple "physical movement," the priest's comparison actually undermines the very meaning of the word "transubstantiation."] 

At the 1st Christmas 2,000 years ago, the Son of God came in the flesh.  The Holy Eucharist is the 'miracle' which continues that presence.  We still have Christ near us - we have Emmanuel - God with us! 

Christ became a man to save us, He becomes our spirit food to strengthen us, and both are done out of love for us! 

What should our response be?
Gratitude! 

Let us be grateful to God for sending His Son, eternally begotten; born into our world, to save us. 

Let us thank Him for the sacrament of Baptism whereby we can be brought from the state of enmity to state of friendship with God - for allowing us to become sons and daughters, in fact heirs of His Kingdom. 

And finally, let us be grateful for the gift of Christ Himself in the Most Holy Eucharist. 

O Sacrum convivium, in quo Christus sumitur - O holy banquet, in which Christ is received, the memory of His Passion is renewed, the soul is filled with grace, and there is given to us a pledge of future "glory". 

In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti
Christmas Day Homily by Traditional Latin Mass Priest

Conclusion:
The priest who gave this homily is not well-formed in his theology. He could have given a much better homily if he had actually taught correct theology instead of this.... stew. This mixes all kinds of theological errors together and pours them into the laity's ears. This good priest needs to have his homilies thoroughly vetted. He shouldn't be saying stuff like this from the ambo during Mass, especially not at a Christmas Mass, where this may be the first Mass/homily some of the members of the assembly have heard in months and/or years.

Celibacy on the Amazon

Apparently, Pope Emeritus Benedict and Cardinal Sarah have co-authored a book advocating for priestly celibacy. Whether it is intended to or not, the timing of the book's publication appears to weigh in on deliberations of the Amazon Synod, which recommended a relaxation of the discipline of priestly celibacy for certain South American pastoral situations.

Many in the self-appointed Catholic "traditionalist" world have applauded this work as an important contribution. This reaction shows a stunning lack of knowledge on the part of Catholic "traditionalists" concerning Catholic Faith. Neither of these men are the Pope, thus their opinions, whether they contradict or affirm the Pope Francis' eventual decision, are completely irrelevant. Insofar as they confirm Pope's opinion, they violate the dignity of the papacy, who is first among bishops. It is the Pope's role to teach, the bishops' role to collegially (not publicly) advise the Pope and disseminate the teachings.

The Pope speaks first. These men have not the right to usurp the papal function, even if they are right. And, of course, if they are wrong, then, by the gravity of the stations they hold, they give scandal and promote disunity in the Church.

The Amazon Synod has no teaching authority, nor does any other synod, nor does any group of bishops not in formal council. The Amazon Synod was a group of South American bishops and their representatives, called together by the Pope, whose job it was to advise the Pope on their pastoral and catechetical difficulties in the region. The Pope himself spent his entire life in that same region, working with those same problems. It was a group of local experts advising a local expert on what they felt was the best way to handle a set of situations they face.

Cardinal Sarah has no experience in the Amazon region. Pope Emeritus Benedict may have had skilled and knowledgeable advisors to consult with while he was Pope, but he no longer has access to that level of information, nor has he had for years. So, we are meant to compare the opinions of two men whose knowledge is, respectively, little and none, to the opinions of men who are well-versed in the subject area. This is a clear violation of the principle of subsidiarity (CCC 1883), the idea that those closest to a situation should make the necessary decisions concerning that situation. 

You may claim Cardinal Sarah and Pope Emeritus are simply trying to awaken the sensus fidelium (sense of the faithful, CCC 91-93)  which is also a valid expression of the Magisterium. In fact, the sensus fidelium is a perfectly valid, if often forgotten, infallible expression of the Ordinary Magisterium. But the sensus fidelium is not astro-turf. It bubbles up organically from the faithful themselves, it does not need ordained men to stir the pot.

Insofar as this may be a public attempt to sway the Pope's decision, it is completely outrageous and a serious breach of discipline. The Pope speaks first. Instead of allowing the Pope to speak first, these two have arrogated to themselves the right to try to influence the faithful, possibly in contradiction to the Pope. Unless they have certain knowledge of how the Pope will rule, they have no business speaking now. And if they had such certain knowledge, then why did they frame their book as an appeal to the Pope? That line of deduction cannot hold. This book should not have been published at this time, or even at all. These conversations should be had in private with the Pope as advisors, not in public.

You may claim that St. Paul publicly remonstrated St. Peter on the matter of eating with Gentiles. True, he did. But St. Peter had not given a formal teaching on how that particular discipline was to be lived. He simply gave a lived example, with no indication that he was going to give a public decision on the matter.

Sarah and Benedict are publicly "teaching" when they KNOW the Pope is soon going to give a public decision. It is no different than the Judaizers publicly teaching that all must be circumcised, even though they knew Pope Peter was going to rule on the matter, but had not yet done so.

Two quote a few commentators:

Why is a discipline suitable in Belarus, the Melkite Churches and Ukraine (and sanctioned by the Council in trullo a theological and pastoral threat in Africa and South America?

And again:

Sarah asserts that "ordaining married men would be a pastoral catastrophe, lead to ecclesiological (sic) confusion, and obscure our understanding of the priesthood." But he also claims "the Evangelical Protestants are sometimes more faithful to Christ than we are.” If  marriage has not been a "catastrophe" for the ability of Evangelical Protestants to be faithful, or to evangelize in undeveloped countries, what's the basis for Sarah's argument?

The ordination of married men in the Anglican Ordinariate was already permitted by Pope St. John Paul II before Benedict took office. Insofar as this book interferes in Pope Francis' decision, or contradicts it, this book at best questions papal authority and, at worst, may well serve to bolster a schismatic movement in the Church which Catholic "traditionalists" have already begun. It is a completely irresponsible move. These men are using the gravity of their respective offices to make more difficult a decision that is proper to papal authority.

Idolatry of a discipline is stupid. In Christian charity, we can only assume this is a sign of approaching dementia on Benedict's part.

UPDATE:
You know, there is one other possibility. It's possible that Pope Emeritus Benedict and Cardinal Sarah ran the publication of this book past Pope Francis, and received his permission to go ahead with publication. Pope Francis is famous for encouraging a broad, full conversation on topics. He may well be interested in seeing of Benedict and Sarah can astro-turf the Church. As indicated above, the very fact that this book is in print at this time rather strongly indicates that Pope Francis is seriously considering dispensing with clerical celibacy in certain Amazonian regions.  It seems unlikely that the faithful, apart from the rather fringe "traditionalists" are going to get upset about such a dispensation.

Don't get me wrong. The discipline of priestly celibacy has borne enormous fruits through the millennia, and it is a wonderful discipline. It would be a shame to see it go. But, ultimately, disciplines change. The Church abides.

UPDATE 2:
Well, it looks like Fr. Fessio, former pupil of Pope Benedict and CEO of Ignatius Press, conspired with Cardinal Sarah to mis-represent Pope Benedict as co-author of the book. Hilarious.

If I had to guess, I would bet Fr. Fessio is having trouble meeting payroll, so he decided to "publish" another Benedict book, as he has exclusive rights to Benedict's work, and those royalties are reliable income streams. Cardinal Sarah went along with it because it increases his stature as well. Win-win, or so they thought. There is no way Fessio didn't know the authorship status of that book before he published.

What does CE *REALLY* Mean?

  

Over the last couple of decades, historians have tried to rename the old AD/BC numbering system for historical dates to an alternative CE/BCE. According to this new scheme, the year 1 AD should be renamed 1 CE and the years prior to 1 CE, say, for instance, 200 BC, should now be called 200 BCE. Why the change?

Well, according to these dimwits, since Anno Domini (Year of Our Lord) and BC (Before Christ) reference a specifically religious event, that is not an acceptable numbering system. Using CE (Common Era) and BCE (Before the Common Era) is meant to be value neutral, culturally neutral:

The term "Common Era" can be found in English as early as 1708, and became more widely used in the mid-19th century by Jewish religious scholars. In the later 20th century, the use of CE and BCE was popularized in academic and scientific publications as a culturally neutral term. 

Let's see how accurate this idea of "commonality" is, shall we?

Since "1 AD = 1 CE" and "1 BC = 1 BCE", we have to ask: to whom is this numbering system common? Well, let's see.

Below is a table of several different ways in which the year "2019 Common Era" are rendered.

Gregorian calendar	2019 MMXIX
Ab urbe condita	2772
Armenian calendar	1468 ԹՎ ՌՆԿԸ
Assyrian calendar	6769
Bahá'í calendar	175–176
Balinese saka calendar	1940–1941
Bengali calendar	1426
Berber calendar	2969
British Regnal year	67 Eliz. 2 – 68 Eliz. 2
Buddhist calendar	2563
Burmese calendar	1381
Byzantine calendar	7527–7528
Chinese calendar	戊戌年 (Earth Dog) 4715 or 4655     — to — 己亥年 (Earth Pig) 4716 or 4656
Coptic calendar	1735–1736
Discordian calendar	3185
Ethiopian calendar	2011–2012
Hebrew calendar	5779–5780
Hindu calendars
- Vikram Samvat	2075–2076
- Shaka Samvat	1940–1941
- Kali Yuga	5119–5120
Holocene calendar	12019
Igbo calendar	1019–1020
Iranian calendar	1397–1398
Islamic calendar	1440–1441
Japanese calendar	Heisei 31 / Reiwa 1 (令和元年)
Javanese calendar	1952–1953
Juche calendar	108
Julian calendar	Gregorian minus 13 days
Korean calendar	4352
Minguo calendar	ROC 108 民國108年
Nanakshahi calendar	551
Thai solar calendar	2562
Tibetan calendar	阳土狗年 (male Earth-Dog) 2145 or 1764 or 992     — to — 阴土猪年 (female Earth-Pig) 2146 or 1765 or 993
Unix time	1546300800 – 1577836799

Here's the question: if the number system is "common" and "culturally neutral", why does it seem to be used only by Western historians? Furthermore, why does it simply seem to ape the Gregorian AD/BC counting system? Couldn't we just as accurately say that "CE/BCE" stands for "The Christian Era" and "Before the Christian Era"?

Obviously, the CE/BCE system isn't culturally neutral or value neutral. It's sole purpose is to wipe out all reference to the Christian worldview that created Western civilization. From a truly historical perspective, the CE/BCE system deserves only mocking disdain.

Are Gentiles Human?

Marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew. 

"Whether a marriage ceremony was conducted or not, it is not considered a legal marriage, and any child born of the union is regarded as having been born parthenogenetically, that is, he is always classified according to his mother's origins. If the mother is Jewish he is regarded as a Jew; if she is not, then he too is not Jewish. "  The Essential Talmud, Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, p. 136

Jewish Telegraph Agency Sephardi leader Yosef: Non-Jews exist to serve Jews
By Marcy Oster October 18, 2010 10:40 pm

“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel,” he said during a public discussion of what kind of work non-Jews are allowed to perform on Shabbat... 

The American Jewish Committee condemned the rabbi’s remarks in a statement issued Monday. 

"Rabbi Yosef’s remarks — suggesting outrageously that Jewish scripture asserts non-Jews exist to serve Jews — are abhorrent and an offense to human dignity and human equality,” said AJC Executive Director David Harris. "Judaism first taught the world that all individuals are created in the divine image, which helped form the basis of our moral code. A rabbi should be the first, not the last, to reflect that bedrock teaching of our tradition." 

Israel and Anti-Gentile Traditions

"[Israel] Shahak, a Holocaust survivor who died in 2001, was for many years a professor of chemistry at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He also led the Israeli Civil Rights League from the mid-1970s until 1990. In Israel, he was a controversial figure, but he was revered by the international left as a tireless advocate for human rights. 

Are Jewish Lives Worth More?

In Jewish History, Jewish Religion Shahak brings numerous texts and legal rulings to demonstrate Jewish antipathy to non-Jews. He mentions a passage from the Talmud that says that Jesus will be punished in hell by being immersed in boiling excrement. He relates that Jewish tradition teaches pious Jews to burn copies of the New Testament and curse the mothers of the dead when passing non-Jewish cemeteries. Shahak highlights the famous passage from Leviticus commanding Jews to "love thy neighbor as thyself" and mentions that, according to rabbinic interpretation, "thy neighbor" refers only to Jews.

Shahak further suggests that the Jewish tradition values Jewish life more than Gentile life. He cites Maimonides’ assertion that whereas one who murders a Jew is subject to the death penalty, one who murders a non-Jew is not (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Murder 2:11). According to another leading commentator, indirectly causing the death of a non-Jew is no sin at all (Rabbi Yoel Sirkis, Bayit Hadash, commentary on Bet Yosef, Yoreh Deah 158).

Shahak reiterates the well-known Jewish teaching that the duty to save a life supersedes all other obligations and notes that the rabbis interpreted this to apply to Jews only. According to the Talmud, "Gentiles are neither to be lifted [out of a well] nor hauled down [into it]" (Tractate Avodah Zarah, 26b). Maimonides writes: "As for Gentiles with whom we are not at war…their death must not be caused, but it is forbidden to save them if they are at the point of death; if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he should not be rescued, for it is written: ‘neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy fellow’–but [a Gentile] is not thy fellow" (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Murder 4:11).
Indeed, Maimonides is the focus of much of Shahak’s analysis. Shahak believes that the 12th-century philosopher and talmudist was a Gentile-hater and racist. He quotes Maimonides’ statement that, "their [the Turks and the blacks] nature is like the nature of mute animals, and according to my opinion they are not on the level of human beings" (Guide For the Perplexed, Book III, Chapter 51). 

Practical Ramifications

Shahak recognizes that many of these traditions are not followed in practice, but he believes that, in general, they have been covered up, instead of confronted. In support of this claim, he refers to another a violent passage from Maimonides that is not translated in the bilingual addition of the Guide published in Jerusalem in 1962. He sees this as a deliberate deception on the part of the editors to soften classical Jewish militancy. His own English translation of the passage, which discusses the command to kill Jewish infidels reads: "It is a duty to exterminate them with one’s own hands. Such as Jesus of Nazareth and his pupils, and Tzadoq and Baitos [the founders of the Sadducees] and their pupils, may the name of the wicked rot."

According to Shahak, Jewish "traditions of contempt" infiltrated Zionism and have affected Israeli policy towards its Arab citizens and the Palestinians. He cites three main areas where he believes this has occurred: residency rights, employment rights, and equality before the law....

...Shahak was an ardent secularist and anti-Zionist, but he wrote his book as a challenge to Jews to engage the chauvinist, dehumanizing elements of Jewish tradition and to help create a self-critical and sensitive modern Judaism. It’s true that he combed the rabbinic tradition in search of hateful passages, often–though by no means always–misinterpreting them and taking them out of context, but this may be beside the point.

Jewish texts exist that can be–and are–understood to be vehemently xenophobic. These texts must be openly and honestly grappled with, explained, and if necessary, repudiated."

The Rabbinical Assembly for the Conservative Movement.

"The Torah teaches the equality of all human beings created in the image of God and is positive toward non-Israelites. Rabbinic literature similarly contains numerous positive statements about Gentiles. Nevertheless it cannot be denied that there are passages in rabbinic literature, kabbalah and medieval philosophical works that depict Gentiles in negative terms, as inferior to Jews and sometimes even as less than human. Many of these negative statements and depictions can be explained as normal reactions to the exceedingly cruel treatment of Jews by non-Jews, be it the Roman Empire, the Church or others. Some, however, go far beyond that, positing an exclusivist theology. 

Dealing with discriminatory laws and negative texts when teaching our tradition to youth and adults can be problematic, to say nothing of how we deal with them when interacting with Gentiles. This has become particularly acute in the Diaspora today where Jews are in constant contact with Gentiles and enjoy equal rights and equal status.  At a time when other religious groups, such as the Catholic Church, are re-examining their attitudes towards Jews and making changes in their dogmas to eliminate negative doctrines, we can hardly do less.

Unfortunately in Israel an extremely serious situation has arisen in recent times because of the publication of radical books such as Baruch HaGever and Torat HaMelekh, books lauded by a small number of well-known extremist rabbis in which non-Jews are depicted as being of a lesser species than Jews and in which slaying Arabs, including young children, is deemed permissible and even commanded. The so-called Halakhic positions of these rabbis have influenced fanatical groups of extremists and have led to acts of destruction, injury and death. In addition, as such studies as the recent Pew survey have shown, a large proportion of the Israel public holds negative opinions in regards to the Arab population, opinions that are voiced by some governmental figures as well.

For the first time in thousands of years, a Jewish State governs the lives of non-Jews. Jews constitute the majority and must deal with the status of the non-Jewish minority. Even though Jewish Law is not the civil law of Israel, it is influential and has been used by State appointed rabbis to make determinations about the rights of non-Jews that are discriminatory such as forbidding renting of rooms to Arab students. Even the Chief Sephardi Rabbi has made public statements questioning the right of Gentiles to live in the Land of Israel. Such negative teachings have led to halakhic decisions condoning violence....

... If we are not to descend to the level of simple apologetics, it will be necessary to deal honestly with the sources, to admit that different attitudes existed over the course of the development of Judaism and to candidly criticize and reject certain parts of the tradition while embracing others as representing the Judaism we wish to promulgate and which we believe represent the true core of Jewish belief beginning with the Torah itself."

Jews, Gentiles, and the Modern Egalitarian Ethos

"All people, we are told, have a soul formed from the husks (qelippah), but the Jewish soul is from qelippat nogah, which contains good.  The gentile soul, on the other hand, is from the other three qelippot, “which contain no good at all” (she-ein bahem tov kelal).  In addition, Jews have a divine soul (nefesh elokit), “a part of God above,” which is entirely absent in gentiles."  (cf. Tanya 1:1, end.  See Adin Steinsaltz, Be’ur Tanya, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1989), pp. 62-64.)

Pebbles of Wisdom taken from Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz

"The definition of a Jew is beyond biology
It may be pertinent to point out a few important basic Jewish concepts that have become obscured as a result of the long controversy with Christianity and the defensive measures that had to be taken. 

In ancient times, the scholar of the Torah was not just an ordinary person with a gift for intellectual matters. He was considered a sort of repository of holiness. 

The implication of such an idea was that the Torah scholar, the talmid chakbam, is like a temple or an altar to which one offers gifts. To support and sustain him is a religious duty. 

The idea that the Patriarchs are the Chariot implies that they unite, almost physically, with the essence of the Divine so that holiness passes through them biologically, strange as this may seem. This means that the Divine spark is transferred to their descendants, irrespective of other facts. 

A Jew, therefore, was one who had this holiness in him; and if he decided to convert out of Judaism, it was a sign that he wasn't really a Jew in essence, even though he may have been born of Jewish parents. 

Similarly, a Gentile who became a proselyte was really a Jew in essence, even though he may not have been born of Jewish parents. 

The definition of who is a Jew is thus clearly beyond biology; it is simply one who has the holy spark. And, according to the Baal Ha-Tanya, the confirmation of this definition resides in the fact that in the last resort, when faced with some ultimate decision such as martyrdom, the Jew will offer himself to God.  

NOTE: In a section called "A 'Holy Nation' Includes Everybody" from We Jews, Rabbi Steinsaltz writes, "The existence of a 'holy nation' means that this role of world priesthood is not the role of a particular people within the nation, but of the entire Jewish people, with all its members great and small" (p. 147). "

Haaretz: Mad 'Max'? The Paradox of the Murdered Brooklyn Hasid
Debra Nussbaum Cohen    Jan 07, 2014 11:12 AM

What you do to the goyim is not the same as what you do to Jews,” said Samuel Heilman, an expert on Hasidic communities like Satmar. Heilman, author of “Defenders of the Faith: Inside Ultra-Orthodox Jewry” and a distinguished professor of sociology at Queens College, is currently at work on a book about succession battles in Hasidic courts.
That attitude stems from days when Jews were actively persecuted, he said. “Part of the collective mind-set in the crucible of history when this part of Jewry was formed, the outside world was filled with anti-Semitism and persecutors. The whole understanding of that was that you need to keep a distance from them, that they are a different level of human being,” Heilman told Haaretz.
According to Samuel Katz, who was brought up as a Satmar but later became secular, boys in the community are taught that non-Jews aren’t quite human. Speaking from Berlin, where he is doing biomedical research on a Fulbright fellowship, Katz explained that growing up in such a community, “you don’t see commonality with people who aren’t Jewish. There is a completely different taxonomy of people. There are Jews and then there are non-Jews, who don’t have souls.”
When the messiah comes, “every boy is taught that the bad goyim will be killed and the good gentiles will have the privilege of serving us, of being our slaves," he told Haaretz. "The way Stark dealt with tenants is part of that world view… It’s not taking advantage of them, [rather] that is the world order you’re taught to expect.” 

Chabad Theology – The nature of the Soul
Posted on June 28, 2009 

The following is from the book "Kabbalah and Meditations for the Nations" by Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh .

To use the language of Chassidut, the Divine spark (or soul) of a Jew is considered an inner light (or pnimi), meaning that it is directly experienced and makes for part of his or her psychological makeup. The righteous gentile’s non Jew’s spark of Divinity is described as a “closely surrounding light” (or makif karov), meaning that it is psychologically experienced only indirectly. The Divine spark of non-Jews who are not considered righteous gentiles is akin to a “distantly surrounding light” (or makif rachok), meaning that it plays no conscious role in that person’s experience as a human being.

Even in this third case, due to the refinement of character that results from life’s trials and tribulations, and due to the Divinely ordained meetings between non-Jews and Jews which introduce the beauty of the Torah to the non-Jew, the “distant” spark may grow “closer” and the “close” spark may even desire to convert to Judaism. It is because of this latent potential innate in every non-Jew that we speak of all non-Jews as possessing a Divine spark. Indeed all of God’s creations are continuously brought into being by means of a Divine spark, but, only a human being, even if born a non-Jew, is able to convert in his present lifetime and become a Jew.

Mary: Co-Redemptrix

Major Premise: All grace comes from God. (dogma)
Minor Premise: God enters the world through Mary's womb. (dogma, Theotokos)
Conclusion: All grace enters the world through Mary's womb (dogma, Theotokos)

Major Premise: The work of God is the redemption of the world.
Minor Premise: We are God's co-workers (1 Cor 3:9)
Conclusion: Our work is the redemption of the world.

Major Premise: Mary pre-eminently cooperated with God's grace (see first conclusion)
Minor premise: All human beings are co-redeemers with God (1 Cor 3:9)
Conclusion: Mary is pre-eminently worthy of the title "Co-Redemptrix."

Yeah, it's pretty hard to break the logic.

Donald Trump: Democrat

Trump ran as a pro-life Republican even though:

1. "In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat,” Trump told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in a 2004 interview. “It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans"
2. Trump called Bill Clinton prior to running in order to get Bill's approval to run for President.
3. None of Trump's children could vote for him in the 2016 Republican primary because none of them were registered Republicans.
4. Trump donated to the Clinton Foundation when Hillary became Sec of State.
5. Donald Trump also donated to Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand.
6. Ivanka Trump donated to Kamala Harris' re-election campaign.
7. Donald Trump bankrolled Jesse Jackson's presidential campaigns.
8. Trump constantly praised Hillary right up until the day he ran against her.
9. Trump also praised Bill Clinton as "a great president".
10. Trump's Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin. donated heavily to Hillary Clinton's PAC, and to the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama, John Kerry and Al Gore. He worked for Goldman-Sachs and was directly employed by George Soros at Soros Fund Management.
11. Trump was head of the WWE, which organization specializes in setting up and selling fake fights between friends.
12. Ivanka and Chelsea have been Best Friends Forever since their teens.
13. Trump invited the Clintons to his wedding.
14. Trump ran on prosecuting Hillary but, upon winning, he immediately walked back the idea that he would ever prosecute the mother of his favorite daughter's BFF. 
15. Trump created one of the biggest tax increases in US history when he started the tariff wars. 
16. Trump signed off on giving Planned Parenthood a half BILLION dollars of US tax money.
17. Trump has ZERO problem with LGBTQ nonsense, as he has already demonstrated to Bruce Jenner. He re-iterated his confusion about basic biology in the Megan Kelly interview
18. Trump appointed two former law clerks of notoriously pro-abortion SCOTUS judge Anthony Kennedy to the SCOTUS: both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were pro-abort enough for Kennedy to hire them to help him write his opinions. Kavanaugh called Anthony Kennedy "a champion of liberty" shortly after Kennedy became the swing vote in keeping abortion legal in the Casey decision.
19. Trump has racked up even bigger government debts than Obama did. He even defended doubling the deficit by pointing out that he'll be out of office by the time it all comes crashing down.
20. Trump has long accepted money and support from George Soros, including a multi-million dollar loan to build Trump Towers and attendance at a Soros Christmas party for Oliver Stone. 
21. "Forget Soros. Leave him alone. He's got enough problems" Trump said at a 2011 Tea Party rally
22. Trump's son-in-law and White House advisor, Jared Kushner, did not disclose his ties to George Soros, Peter Thiel and Goldman-Sachs. Jared owes more than $1 BILLION to various groups, including Deutsche Bank.
23. Donald Trump was also named as a co-defendant with George Soros in a New York lawsuit, demonstrating that Chicago was not the only city Trump and Soros played in together. 
24. Jared Kushner and Donald Trump's companies have been legally selling visas to Chinese nationals for $500,000 per visa, making a profit of $50 million so far. 
25. Trump continued Obama's policy of incarcerating entire families and separating parents and children at the border, thereby impeding Catholic immigrants from fleeing violence.
26. Bill Clinton and Donald Trump have similar tastes in conversation topics:  Clinton: After the "Access Hollywood" tape, Trump critics claimed that men "don't speak like that in the locker room." REALLY?!? "'Mike Wallace asked [Vernon Jordan], 'What do you and Bill Clinton talk about on the golf course?' and Jordan answered, 'Pussy.'" --"Clinton in Exile," 2009.  Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.

Conservatives constantly "defend" Trump by pointing out that his policies are identical to Obama's or Clinton's. Yeah.... about that defense. All it does is demonstrate that Trump is, in many respects, simply carrying out Obama's and Clinton's third term.

That's your defense?
Seriously???

Student Debt

Student debt is the only debt that cannot be gotten rid of through bankruptcy. This essentially makes those with student loans indentured servants to corporations.

People in debt won't start their own businesses, businesses that compete with current corporate ventures, because they can't afford to risk financial failure. Indentured servitude reduces on competition.

It also cuts down on internal corporate criticism. Someone who can't afford to lose a job won't do anything to rock the boat. Student debt makes employees docile.

People who are effectively indentured by debt and live in fear will not be making radical choices about how to live or how to change the world. That's a feature, not a bug.

On the Usefulness of Regulations

The Two Foundational Rules of System Design: 

1. Systems always produce precisely the results they were designed to produce.
2. What you intended your designed system to produce has no necessary correspondence to what you actually designed your system to produce.

The Rule of People in Systems:

1. People do not do what the regulations say they are doing.

Explanation:
As a former computer programmer, I am more aware of how rules actually work than non-programmers are.

A computer program is just a set of rules. As a programmer, I write these rules with a starry-eyed vision of what they will accomplish. Then I run the program and find out that the rule set is completely inadequate to the vision. I re-write endlessly, and after days/months/years of constant manipulation, I might gain some percentage of the original vision, but never the whole.

Now, that computer program is a rule set applied to an inanimate object: rules for electrified rocks. Rocks sit quietly while you impose rules. Rocks sit quietly while you tinker with, reformulate, and endlessly re-apply rules. Rocks apply rules precisely as you have formulated them, with no additions or subtractions.

Sentient beings do none of those things. People do not sit quietly while you impose rules. People do not sit quietly while you reformulate and re-apply rules. People do not apply rules precisely as you have formulated them, with no additions or subtractions.

This is why bureaucracies cannot succeed, even in principle. A bureaucracy is a group of people who do not realize they are pretending to be computer programmers. The faux-programmers formulate and apply rule sets to creatures who they do not realize are not rocks. The designed system does not produce the intended result. Ever. So, tinkering begins. Rules endlessly proliferate for the same reason computer programs suffer "code bloat." As the bureaucrats come to the depressing realization that their rule sets are not producing the desired results, the natural conclusion is that "just one more rule" will fix the situation. As any programmer will tell you, that approach never works.

I used to believe rules were more useful than I now understand them to be.

Priests of EWTN

A recent conversation about EWTN brought up the following interesting question: how many celebrity priests has EWTN gone through?

This is the list I was able to come up with.
It is not clear that this list is complete.
If you can think of anyone else, please let me know.


2002: Father John Bertolucci's bishop removes him from ministry and IDs him as one of 20 child molester priests in the diocese. EWTN silently expunged him from the network.

2003: Father Ken Roberts, accused of forced gay sex with a minor. He is suspended from the priesthood.

2005: Msgr. Eugene V. Clark is discovered to have a long-term sexual relationship with a married woman. The husband eventually has to get a restraining order against his wife to keep her away from the children.

2007: Father Francis Mary Stone, host of EWTN's Life on the Rock, fathered a child with an EWTN staffer. He leaves the priesthood.

2009: the aptly named Father Alberto Cutié, also fathers a child with a married woman.  He subsequently marries the woman he was seen groping on a beach, and became an Episcopalian priest.

2010: Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, admitted having sex with at least one woman, and that woman says he had sex with at least two more.

2011: Fr. John Corapi is accused of mismanaging money. An investigative panel appointed by his order alleged continuing sexual improprieties, drug abuse, and a lavish lifestyle contrary to his vow of poverty. He leaves the priesthood

2012: Franciscan friar Father Benedict Groeschel says children seduce priests and abusers on their first offense should not go to jail 'because their intention was not committing a crime.' He is banned from EWTN's Sunday Night Prime TV show.

2013: Fr. Thomas Williams, former Legionary of Christ, fathers a child with another EWTN staffer, Elizabeth Lev, who already had two other illegitimate children. She goes on to write a book with George Weigel.

2014: Fr. Frank Pavone is credibly accused of severe financial mismanagement by two different bishops under whom he served

2016: Fr. Francis Mary Stone (David Stone), 55, hosted a talk show for youth from 2001-2007 on EWTN. While working at EWTN he fathered a child with an EWTN employee, Christina Presnell. The child was born in 2008.

Then, of course, there is the close relationship between EWTN and the Legionaries of Christ. EWTN would end up buying the National Catholic Register, an LC newspaper. The Legionaries founder, Fr. Marciel Maciel, turned out to be a sexual predator.

In the space of twelve (12) years, EWTN went through a minimum of ten (10) celebrity priests.

Statues in the Tiber

Ed Peters, the rather nonsensical canon lawyer who likes to get clicks to his blog, has certainly gone above and beyond himself. He usually just charges lay Catholics with heresy, but has now implicitly laid the charge at the Pope's feet, as if he has the right to judge the Pope. If he were familiar with canon law, he would realize that he does not.

Ed opined "{T]he faithful have the right to trust that what they see in Catholic sacred places is actually there in service to the sacred and is not simply a gesture toward some form of political correctness or the latest cause du jour" ... my heavens, that IS laughable.

For instance, would old Ed object to the placement of, say, the American flag in the sacristy, because such a placement is pretty obviously just a "gesture toward some form of political correctness"?

If someone took that flag out of the sacristy and threw it in the river, or burned it, in order to protest the presence of the profane thing in the sacristy, would Eddy see no serious problem? Would he laud the refusal to set up idols like the American flag?

And to those who object, there is no question the American flag HAS become an idol to many American Catholics. The flag is at least as much an idol to Americans as those statues are to various other people. Think about it.

How many American Catholics voted for Hillary or Bernie or Obama, all politicians who are pure anathema from a Catholic standpoint? How many American Catholics voted for Trump despite Trump's attacks on the Vicar of Christ, despite Trump's clear dissonance with Catholic Faith in immigration matters? How many continue to defend the idol that is Donald Trump even after he gave a half BILLION dollars in federal funds to Planned Parenthood?

How many Catholics ignore Catholic teaching as it applies to America because "America First!"? Yet the same people who applaud the throwing of statues into the Tiber would be outraged if the American flag were removed from the sacristy and thrown in the river.

Look, I have zero problem with people throwing the statues in the Tiber. If they want to, fine. Similarly, if bishops want to put the statues in the sacristy, I can't stop them. The sacristy is under the control of the local bishop and the Pope. The statues have no meaning to me, nor will they ever, so sacristy or burned and drowned is all the same to me. Like the American flag, the statues don't mean what other people want them to mean. Placing something in the sacristy doesn't make it holy any more than consecrating a man of priest makes him henceforth sinless. There are all kinds of people and things in the sacristy which just aren't worthy of God, most especially, when I enter the sacristy, me.

The placements of the statues are simply performance art: neither putting them in the sacristy nor throwing them in the river has anything to do with being Catholic nor with Catholic liturgy.

I can reject private revelation, like Lourdes and Fatima and be a perfectly good Catholic.

I can ignore the statues I consider ugly or unnecessary and be a perfectly good Catholic.

I can shake my head in disgust when priest or laity place a national symbol in the sacristy which represents a country that murders unborn children, embraces eugenics, and endorses homosexual marriage. I will still be a perfectly good Catholic.

The statue controversy is just click-bait for Catholics who are determined to be angry about pointless, unimportant things. It serves the necessary weekly outrage that keeps most Catholic blogs alive, but beyond lining someone's pockets, it matters not at all.

REMEMBER: “Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope. I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: “They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!” But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him.” — St. Catherine of Siena, SCS, p. 201-202, p. 222, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 5: “The Book of Obedience”, Chapter 1: “There is No Salvation Without Personal Submission to the Pope”).

The "Faithless Elector" Problem

Let me begin by saying the electoral college is a brilliant idea, unmatched anywhere else in the world for balancing political interests, and it should definitely NOT be abolished. However, a common complaint against the electoral college is the problem of the "faithless elector".  Let me explain.

When we vote for president, we aren't actually voting for the president. We are ACTUALLY voting for an elector who will then take his or her place in a very temporary institution called the "electoral college." The electoral college comes together only once every four years, after the presidential election is over. The term of office is counted in days. It is the electors who cast their votes for president, it is the electors who elect the president, not the general public.

Once in the electoral college, the elector should, if everything goes according to plan, vote for the same presidential candidate that the state s/he came from voted for. That's the idea, but the Constitution doesn't actually REQUIRE any particular elector to vote in a way that agrees with the majority vote of his or her state. Some states have state laws which put this requirement on their electors, but the constitutionality of those laws is unclear - they have never been challenged. Certainly not all states even have such laws in place. So, theoretically, the elector can actually vote for whoever they darn well please. This has created no end of entertainment over the last 200 years.

Now, the complain made against the electoral college is precisely about those "faithless electors" who vote their own conscience instead of the "will of the people" of the state that put them into the electoral college. But here's the nub: what - exactly - is the will of the people?

When we elect a senator or representative, those ladies and gentlemen (and I use both terms very loosely) often don't vote the way we want. In fact, the only thing we can count on is that they ALWAYS vote the way THEY want.

This is how they do it: if their opinion on an issue is shared by the majority of the people who elected them, then they proclaim that they are championing the majority and vote with the majority. However, if the senator or rep's opinion is only held by the minority of the people who voted for them, then the senator or rep votes the minority and claims s/he is fighting for the rights of the oppressed!

That's why we have to be very careful who we vote for. Each person in Congress, SCOTUS or the presidency is going to do whatever they damned well please. Despite our luscious illusions to the contrary, neither the majority nor the minority have any control over that. Everyone in government does whatever is in their own interests. If it happens to be in the interests of the majority, well, isn't that grand? But if it isn't, then the majority be damned. If you can't please everyone (and you can't), then you have to please yourself.

So, when it comes to representation, a "faithless elector" is pretty much par for the electoral course..It's standard issue politics. I don't see why anyone would be upset about someone doing, as an elector, what everyone already does as a senator, representative, SCOTUS judge or president. We can't very well expect higher standards for the largely faceless members of the electoral college than we have for all the other, far more permanent, offices. 

Immigration and Original Intent

I love it when "conservatives" argue for Original Intent (tm) on gun control, but then promote Progressive arguments on immigration because they don't know any ACTUAL American history.

The Founders revolted from England in part because the King refused to maintain open borders. Read the Declaration of Independence:

"He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither" 

The Founders (and present-day law) distinguished between immigration (entering the country) and naturalization (the ability to vote and hold office). Thus, the Constitution has VERY strict rules on naturalization, but none at all on immigration. In fact, there are NO federal laws restricting immigration until the 1875 Page Act, which embodied Darwinian eugenics to keep out the yellow Asian hordes. 

The only mention of immigration in the Constitution refers to the importation of slaves, the only mention of deportation (not immigration, btw - immigration is never mentioned) in federal law is the Alien and Sedition Acts.

In reaction to the A&S  laws, Thomas Jefferson (author of the Declaration) and James Madison (author of the Constitution) started the first federal nullification movement, wherein the Virginia and Kentucky legislatures passed resolutions declaring those specific federal laws invalid within their states. That is, Jefferson and Madison specifically and explicitly created those respective states as "sanctuary" states.

So, Trump's entire riff on this is actually a violation of the Founders' vision and constitutional law as embodied by the Founders for the first century of this country's history. The Page Act was passed in response to Darwin's work, and Trump has long been a proud eugenicist (as has virtually every President between Teddy Roosevelt and Trump, inclusive, with the sole exceptions of Reagan and GW Bush).

As the Cato Institute points out, the history is quite, QUITE clear.
You are backing a Progressive Darwinian eugenics argument.
Yours is the argument of a damned liberal, not an argument in line with the Founders' vision.

If you want to argue that times change, and the Constitution must change with it, that's Woodrow Wilson's argument. That's a Progressive argument.

Either you are for Original Intent (tm) or you aren't.
Choose.

How to Get Out of Being On A Jury

The elites like to control people, and the doctrine of jury nullification breaks their control, so they don't like it.

If you ever want to get out of jury duty, this is the easiest way to accomplish it. When the attorney asks, "Would X sway your ability to make a fair judgment in this case?", answer this way: 

"My opinion is my own. Gentlemen, once I am on a jury, my opinion IS the law. I stand in judgement not just of the defendant, but of the defendant's attorney, the prosecuting attorney, the judge, and even the very law itself. If I find anything in the conduct of the trial or the letter of the law that I do not like, that defendant will walk free, and - quite frankly - none of you have any recourse. I, and the eleven who stand with me on this jury, ARE the law. As a juror, I am the master of the law. You and the rest of the court are our servants, whose opinions about the law and the conduct of the trial we may choose to note, if we deem any of you worthy of our notice." 

You will be struck from the roster before you the last syllable finishes echoing from the courtroom walls. Every word of the paragraph above is true, you see, and they really don't want you to be saying that kind of stuff out loud.

Vegans and Socialism

Vegans and socialism go together like peanut butter and jelly, and have for at least a century:

"The truth is that, to many people calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which 'we', the clever ones, are going to impose upon 'them', the Lower Orders. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to regard the book-trained Socialist as a bloodless creature entirely incapable of emotion. Though seldom giving much evidence of affection for the exploited, he is perfectly capable of displaying hatred—a sort of queer, theoretical, in vacuo hatred—against the exploiters....

And please notice that I am arguing for Socialism, not against it. But for the moment I am advocatus diaboli. I am making out a case for the sort of person who is in sympathy with the fundamental aims of Socialism, who has the brains to see that Socialism would 'work', but who in practice always takes to flight when Socialism is mentioned.

Question a person of this type, and you will often get the semi-frivolous answer: 'I don't object to Socialism, but I do object to Socialists.' Logically it is a poor argument, but it carries weight with many people. As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents....

...In addition to this there is the horrible — the really disquieting — prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words "Socialism" and "Communism" draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, "Nature Cure" quack, pacifist, and feminist in England....

...It would help enormously, for instance, if the smell of crankishness which still clings to the Socialist movement could be dispelled. If only the sandals and the pistachio-coloured shirts could be put in a pile and burnt, and every vegetarian, teetotaller, and creeping Jesus sent home to Welwyn Garden City to do his yoga exercises quietly! But that, I am afraid, is not going to happen." 

George Orwell, "The Road to Wigan Pier" (1937)

Vaccines

I have no particular brief against vaccines. They work, they reduce and eliminate nasty diseases. They are an important tool in the medical arsenal. But, like any tool, vaccines have problems. They aren't completely safe. After all, if vaccines are completely safe, then:

1. Why does the federal government maintain a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program which pays out money to, presumably, non-existent victims? Certainly, fiscal conservatives should be trying to shutdown this federal boondoggle, right? So, why don't vaccine supporters rail against this database and these "victim"payouts as the boondoggles they are?
2. Why does federal law uniquely insulate vaccine manufacturers from all product-related lawsuits, and force taxpayers to provide manufacturers with both complete immunity and with federally-funded, comprehensive insurance against all damage claims?

If vaccines are completely safe, there would be no need for federal law preventing lawsuits, no need for immunity, no need for a database of "victims", no need for payouts. Instead, we have federal laws insulating vaccine manufacturers from having to pay damages, we have a federeal database of victims, and we have a history of payouts to victims listed in the federally managed database.

I can't think of another industry that has this sweet of a deal.
If vaccines are completely safe, why waste federal dollars like this?

Now, whether or not vaccines are dangerous, it is certainly the case that the diseases being vaccinated against are dangerous. For instance, it is perfectly true that measles, although not particularly deadly, can cause injury and death. It is also certainly true that vaccines have wiped out smallpox, are on the verge of wiping out polio, and have greatly ameliorated many childhood diseases like measles, diptheria, pertussis, etc. Many of the childhood diseases are QUITE deadly (e.g., diptheria), and their reduction via vaccine is a boon to mankind.

However, there are also certainly discordant notes. For instance, why are vaccines in the US federally mandated? Japan, for instance, has no mandatory vaccine policy at all. In Japan, failure to vaccinate results in the payment of a small fine, that's it, yet Japanese vaccine compliance is very high. Japan, for instance, has a 97% measles vaccination rate and measles is no longer endemic to Japan. Japan accomplished this without government mandates and without government-funded immunity for vaccine companies. But, the Japanese refusal to implement government mandates results in Westerners writing odd paragraphs like the following: 

"Although many health-related indicators, such as life expectancy and the infant mortality rate show that the health situation in Japan is among the best in the world, there is a large gap between Japan and other developed countries in the use of vaccines to prevent serious infections. For example, the 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) was only recently approved in Japan (October 2009), more than 8 years after its approval in the UK. Many common vaccines, including those for measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR), the inactivated poliovirus vaccine, and combination vaccines, are not yet available in Japan....

[T]he epidemiology of meningococcal meningitis, ...has an incidence of around 1000 cases per year in England and Wales [4], but only around 10–20 cases per year in Japan [5]... Meningococcal vaccines are not available in Japan."

Why does the first sentence begin with "Although"? The entire science article begins with the assumption that Japanese vaccine policies are woefully backward and absurd, because Japan does not have any government mandates regarding vaccines. Yet, if government-mandated vaccines are crucial to stopping the spread of disease, the situation that same article so blithely described above should be literally impossible. Japan has no government mandates, so it should be suffering from an enormous caseload of measles. But it doesn't. Japan is measles-free. This is documented fact. So, why is the US government involved in protecting vaccine manufacturers when the Japanese have shown us that this is not necessary?

We can ask the same question in another way: exactly how dangerous are these diseases when compared to the vaccines we use to fight them? Well, let's take measles as an example. The United States has a population of 330,000,000. There have only been 1282 measles cases in 2019 (and this is a HIGH year). So, the chances of getting measles is currently about 1 in 260,000.

Currently, the chance of even catching measles is lower than the odds of being struck by lightning (1 in 180,746). Once you have contracted the disease, the risk of an adverse measles consequence, like pneumonia, is about 1 in 20. The worst adverse reaction is the least common: only 0.2% of the people who contract measles actually die from measles (and the risk of dying can be cut by 50% if vitamin A supplements are provided). So, which is more dangerous? The measles vaccine or the measles?

To find out, multiply the possibility of catching measles (1 in 260,000) with the possibility of serious adverse reaction (1 in 20) and you have roughly 1 in 5 million chance of suffering an adverse reaction from measles. Compare this to the CDC's estimate of the likelihood of an adverse reaction to the vaccine. According to the CDC, the chance of an adverse vaccine reaction is one in a million. So, here is the paradox: vaccines have worked so well for the general population that a statistician can reasonably argue s/he is five times safer to refuse to vaccinate and risk catching measles than s/he is to get the measles vaccine.

Are anti-vax fears that vaccines will harm or kill their children rational? In many cases, those fears are not rational: many anti-vaxxers fear vaccines on completely irrational, essentially superstitious, grounds. But not always.

We must admit that some of their fears are grounded in facts which the official narrative either seriously underplays or completely dismiss. The facts, indeed, the CDC's own website, demonstrate vaccines are not completely safe. The facts do not support the idea that government-mandated vaccines, and government-funded protection of vaccine companies, are warranted. US vaccine policy does raise valid questions: if vaccines are completely safe, why DO we have government mandates and government immunity for vaccine manufacturing companies? If the individual is duty-bound to bear possibly adverse consequences of the vaccine, from whence comes this duty? When does society have the right to compel an individual to risk personal harm in order to assure a common good?

The anti-vaxxers frequently offer irrational arguments, but the pro-vax arguments aren't fully rational either, at least not from a mathematical perspective. 

Both sides need to acknowledge that the other side has valid points. It is amazing how many people on both sides of the aisle are unwilling to acknowledge that the situation is not necessarily as clear-cut as either side paints it.