1. I will not stay home and refuse to vote, nor will I write in some useless bit of nonsense such as “Edmund Burke” or “Mr. Magoo.” (Both are names I’ve heard people mention as their “candidates.”)
2. I will not vote for someone who has demonstrated that he has no respect for the law and for our Constitutional order, and who has demonstrated this attitude by trying to mount a coup to stay in power.
3. I will vote for the person who can keep #2 out of power, even if I have policy differences with that person.
4. I am therefore proudly voting for Kamala Harris, just as I voted for Joe Biden in 2020 and Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Adnan Syed was released from prison in September 2022 after serving 23 years for the murder of his ex-girlfriend Hae Min Lee; the release came about because there were two “alternative suspects” in the prosecution files. The specific statements about their potential guilt had not been turned over to Adnan’s defense, thus constituting a Brady violation. Because of this violation, the Baltimore prosecutor’s office felt that there was enough doubt about the verdict that Adnan should be freed. At first the suspects’ names were withheld from the public, and those who knew their identities were asked not to divulge them or even offer speculation. But now the names are known to the general public, as was, of course, inevitable. One, Alonzo Sellers, is discussed in the material below; the other, Bilal Ahmed, has not been on my radar at all. Bilal is the man who co-signed Adnan’s contract for his infamous cell phone and who met with Adnan on the evening of 1/13/99 to go over the Ramadan prayers that would be led at the mosque on the night of Jan 14, the day after Hae disappeared. Bilal is now in prison for sexual assault and is probably the one who said he was going to “make Hae disappear.” I’m highly dubious, though, that he actually was involved in her murder, as I don’t see how he could have waylaid and killed her between the time she left school on 1/13/99 and the time she was supposed to pick up her little cousin. As is outlined below and has been said in many other theories, someone almost certainly contacted Hae via her pager on that afternoon and lured her to her death. Could/would Bilal have known Hae’s pager number? Seems doubtful to me. Was he following her around on the off chance that he’d have a chance to kill her? Again, doubtful.
I was sent a video from the Family Research Council last month and found it fascinating–and maddening. After much thought, I put together a response in the video below. While the technical quality isn’t all one would wish, I hope that the ideas will be helpful:
As I said in my theory of the case as outlined in my now-revised post, the root cause of Hae Min Lee’s murder was her obsession with Don Clinedinst. To say this is not to blame the victim, but it is to explain her. Had she only flirted with him and hinted that she’d like to go out with him but never gone any further, I firmly believe that she would not have been murdered on Jan. 13, 1999. And Adnan Syed would never have served over 20 years in prison for a crime that he didn’t commit.
Well, folks, it’s over. And, given the situation, it couldn’t have come out better for us NeverTrump conservatives. God has been w-a-a-y more gracious to us than we deserved. (But ain’t that always so?)
Here’s what I thought the choice was:
Trump wins again with a minority of the popular vote and a squeaker in the Electoral College. The country goes up in flames—literally and metaphorically,
or
The Blue Tsunami washes over the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives, making it almost impossible for Biden to resist the push to move toward the progressive left.
Of course I went with option #2, but don’t think that I wasn’t pretty leery about how things would go. One of the very, very few NeverTrumpers who said he’d love to see Trump out but the GOP to keep the Senate was David French. And even he said that he knew it was a total pipe dream.
Well, he was wrong. Or, rather, he was right.
Now I’m not at all pleased that the loathsome Lindsey Graham is keeping his seat. And I was so looking forward to the spectacle of Mitch McConnell’s being the Senate Minority Leader.
But we’ll take it.
Biden will have to work with Republicans to get anything at all done. I think MM and he are going to make some deals. They’re longtime friends, actually. So we won’t have Elizabeth Warren as Secretary of the Treasury or some other left-wing nuttery Cabinet picks.
Stephen Breyer will retire, and Merrick Garland will take his seat, thus restoring some kind of karmic balance to the universe.
And maybe Biden will surprise us all and run for a second term, thus sparing us for another four years from a Kamala Harris presidency. (Oh, Amy! How I wanted you to be VP!)
And I’m prouder than ever to be an American. We’ve weathered a terrible storm. I know there’s more to come, so don’t ever paint me as a sunny optimist. But when it came down to a decision point, enough good-hearted Americans looked at this despicable man who was a disgrace to his office and said, “I don’t think so.”
Donald Trump is OUT. O-U-T. At least part of our national nightmare is OVER.
This is another one of those self-indulgent posts in which I spend my (unpaid) time writing about a subject that other (paid) people handle much better than I can or do. But hey! Sometimes you just hafta express yourself!
I was inspired to write this post because of a video I watched by a man named Brandon Holthaus who is the pastor of a church out in California called Rock Harbor and who makes “prophecy update” videos about once a week. I had been told that he’d “thoroughly debunked” the whole QA hoo-ha, which seemed a little unlikely given the other nonsense he peddles, but I decided to check this particular video out. So I watched the first little bit. Hmmm, I thought, He seems to be on the right track. He said something I’ve said repeatedly, that a belief in conspiracy theory is actually a form of Gnosticism, the idea that there’s some “secret knowledge” out there that only the initiated, the worthy, can know. It’s a very seductive idea, which, if you think about it, goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden when Satan said to Eve, “In the day you eat of it you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” This school of thought is totally opposed to the message of the Gospel, which is “whosoever will may come and drink of the water of life freely.” C. S. Lewis says something somewhere about the Gospel’s being “as plain as bread and as clear as water.” In other words, the idea of secrecy and mysticism is satanic, not godly.
So far, so good. Then this pastor said that it was a mistake to think of Donald Trump as a savior, and that only Jesus could save us. Okay, great. Good to hear that, too. But I decided to go ahead and watch the segment specifically on QAnon. Just in case you’ve missed out on this idea (lucky you, if so—but your luck just ran out), the QA conspiracy—and I’m not making this up, I swear—says that there’s a worldwide cabal of globalists and elitists who, among other things, are pedophiles and child murderers, using the blood and other bodily fluids of the children to renew their youth—so cannibals as well. “Wait!” you may say, clutching your head, “Nobody actually believes this!” Well, folks, we have two QA believers running for Congress in the upcoming election, and one of them, Marjorie Taylor Greene, will probably win her seat since she’s running in Georgia, a heavily-Republican state. Nothin’ like a few cuckoos in Congress, I always say.
If you’re up on your history you’ll immediately see parallels between this theory and one circulated during the Middle Ages about the Jews kidnapping Christian children and drinking their blood. (Side note here: Any time you see the words “elitists” or “globalists” you know you’re dealing with ideas that have anti-Semitic roots. And yet many of the people who most loudly espouse their support of Israel buy into these theories. Holthaus has an Israeli flag displayed along with the American flag in the background of his video. Weird, huh?) And if you’re up on your iconic movies you’ll recognize “our precious bodily fluids” from Dr. Strangelove.
So what does Holthaus say specifically about QAnon? Does he really debunk it? Well, I’ll post the video below so you can judge for yourself, but here are some of his main ideas:
QAnon is the idea that there’s a globalist worldwide cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles who control everything.
There are elements of truth in that. We know that the elites—politicians, the UN—are moving us toward a one-world government.
We know that lots of these people are pedophiles. Like whom? Well, Jeffrey Epstein, for one, he says. Look at the people around him—we know that there’s a lot of that going on. But—my insertion here–just as a matter of public record, the “people around” Jeffrey Epstein have included Donald Trump. (and Bill Clinton.)
A lot of these people are Satan worshipers. We’ve seen a lot of these people get involved in “spirit cooking,”* like John Podesta and Hillary Clinton.
George Soros is of course involved, with these politicians “doing his bidding.” “Yes,” Holthaus says, “that’s true.” (Poor old George! He gets blamed for just about everything!)
So, Holthaus says, all of the foregoing is true, or has truthful elements to it. He actually does believe that Podesta and Hillary Clinton have been involved in this whole thing. (Can anyone say “Pizzagate”?) He actually does believe that George Soros is pulling the strings. (Soros is Jewish, by the way.)
BUT—these QAnon people go too far when they say that Donald Trump is going to save the world from this Satanic worldwide conspiracy. That’s the part that they get wrong.
You see what’s been done here? In the name of debunking a ludicrous conspiracy theory, this man (and many others like him, believe me—Holthaus is a very tiny rivulet in a huge river of this bilge) actually supports great swathes of it. The whole thing is very cleverly done. As a sadly misled Christian, you can tell yourself, “Well, I haven’t been sucked into this nonsense! I don’t believe in Donald Trump as Savior of the world! I’m good! But I also know that Hillary Clinton is a Satan-worshipping blood-drinker!” It’s a way of having it both ways. The right hand giveth, and the left hand taketh away. It’s very insidious.
Man! What’s next—the Dark Ages?
*What’s “spirit cooking,” by the way? It’s a term used by a seriously weird artist named Marina Abramovic who does art installations that include “recipes” with ingredients such “13,000 grams of jealousy.” She’s a strange, strange woman—but that’s about as far as it goes. Podesta’s brother Tony apparently donated to a Kickstarter campaign of hers, and because of that connection John was also invited to a dinner at her house, which he didn’t attend. That’s about it.
Here’s the video. If you’re interested specifically in the QAnon section, that begins at around 18:15:
This is a totally self-indulgent post, and I’m trying to limit my time spent on it to the minutes between now and our church’s noon prayer meeting. Here’s the snarky, juvenile, just plain dumb meme from, I wasn’t surprised at all to see, Laura Ingraham, or, as I like to call her, the Loathsome Laura.
First let me parse out what this great piece of wit and wisdom is trying to say: that the libs are saying that people should not have a choice about wearing masks, but that these same people say that people should have a choice about having an abortion, so they (that is, the libs) are being inconsistent. Pretty deep, huh?
Let’s break this down a little.
First there’s the implication that it’s only the dastardly Democrats who are saying that people should wear masks, thus making a stupid partisan issue out of what should be a sober, scientific public-health concern. So now if you wear a mask you’re somehow on the side of the pro-abortion crowd.
May I point out the obvious? THE PURPOSE OF WEARING A MASK IS TO PROTECT OTHER PEOPLE FROM YOUR GERMS. It is therefore an action that is supposed to save lives. So when you try to equate choosing to wear a mask with choosing to have an abortion, you’re completely undercutting the point you’re trying to make, because the two things have completely opposite ends in mind.
Hey, prove you’re a real lover of liberty, light up a cigarette, and go around blowing smoke in people’s faces! That’ll show ‘em!
I’ve been trying to talk myself out of writing this piece, mostly because there’s so much other good commentary out there on this subject. But over and over I find myself pondering these questions and seeing very few in the Evangelical pro-life movement who are addressing them. Let me emphasize that none of the following ideas is new with me, just that they don’t seem to get much if any airing in my circles. And that’s my purpose here: to give these ideas an airing. I’ll tell you up front that I’m not going to end with a list of quick and easy solutions. I just want to prod my readers, most of whom would identify as pro-life, to think about the ramifications of that term and to be able to engage in rational discourse with those who would disagree with them. We need the very best weapons available in the fight for life.
First, before I get to Mona Charen, let me urge you to read David French’s Sunday newsletter from yesterday if you have not already done so: “Evangelicals Have Abandoned the Character Test. The Competence Test Is Next.” I was going to add some of my own sterling commentary on this truly excellent article but decided that David French doesn’t need any help from me. I would, however (ahem), recommend an article I wrote earlier about Dennis Prager and this whole we-don’t-need-good-character-in-our-leaders blah-de-blah that he’s spouted throughout this whole sorry mess: “More Nonsensical Reasons to Support Trump from Dennis Prager.” I touch on this whole character issue in that post.
I said in my last post that I was going to move on to writing about The Dispatch, the new news outlet that was launched in January under the auspices of Jonah Goldberg and Steve Hayes, and I’m going to do so soon, but I realized that I just couldn’t leave the subject of The Bulwark until I’d put in a plug for one more of their writers, Mona Charen. It’s amazing to me when I realize that before the spring/summer of 2016 I didn’t know she, or any of the other great conservatives I now read obsessively, even existed. What on earth did I do with my time? Read murder mysteries, I guess. Anyway, she was for a number of years a writer at National Review, but she’s now joined TB. Maybe she was as disgusted as I’ve been that NR was publishing utter nonsense from people such as Victor Davis Hanson, Conrad Black, and Dennis Prager. For awhile I kept answering NR‘s fundraising e-mails with the words “stop publishing Conrad Black!” They’ve finally stopped contacting me. (Black is a Trumpist of the first order, whose recent book Donald J. Trump: A President Like No Other is a masterpiece of toadying. Although I guess the title is correct, in a sense). There are still good solid writers at NR, to be sure, but there’s been a bit of a Trumpier tone over the past year or so. I don’t check in with them very often these days.
Copyrighted image, used solely to promote readership of The Bulwark. This specific image is on the Charlie Sykes podcast page.
I keep saying that I want my dear FB friends to search out and support good solid news sources, so here’s the first installment in my endeavors to share information along those lines. These articles will be short but helpful, I hope.
If I had to choose the absolute top conservative news outlet in the country right now I’d have to pick The Bulwark. It has a very interesting origin story and great writers. Let’s start with the origin:
During our time at Capitol Hill Baptist Church from 1999-2009 we were acquainted with a member named Claudia Winkler. I was vaguely aware that she was some sort of editor at some sort of newspaper called The Weekly Standard which was said to be conservative. As my interest in any type of news not contained in the Style section of The Washington Post or on National Public Radio was pretty minimal, I never investigated. Indeed, I didn’t do any reading online of any news sites. We actually got, like, a newspaper delivered every morning. I read the aforementioned style section and Jim read the front pages. That was pretty much it for me.
I’ve been trying to talk myself out of writing this piece, mostly because there’s so much other good commentary out there on this subject. But over and over I find myself pondering these questions and seeing very few in the Evangelical pro-life movement who are addressing them. Let me emphasize that none of the following ideas is new with me, just that they don’t seem to get much if any airing in my circles. And that’s my purpose here: to give these ideas an airing. I’ll tell you up front that I’m not going to end with a list of quick and easy solutions. I just want to prod my readers, most of whom would identify as pro-life, to think about the ramifications of that term and to be able to engage in rational discourse with those who would disagree with them. We need the very best weapons available in the fight for life.
