Consider This! | Conservative political commentary in 10 minutes or less

I've got 2 stories this episode about the economy; one good and one bad. Both are directly related to what Trump and the Republicans are doing.

The Cleveland Indians are getting rid of their logo, Chief Wahoo. But polling of Native Americans suggests they're not all that worried about it.

My thoughts on the abortion issue in 2018, with regard the March For Life.

It's been a few months, but I'm back. And it's good to be back. So, anything happen while I was gone?

I’ve been giving you my conservative commentary in 10 minutes or less for over 5 years and over 200 episodes. But right now, it’s time to take a break. As the saying goes, “Into every life a little rain must fall”, and right now I’m pulling out the waders. This rain has sapped me of the desire to keep up this hobby for the moment. I really enjoy podcasting about politics, so I don’t think I’m down for the count, but it is just a hobby. Right now, there are things that require more of my attention, and so one of the things that has to give is the hobby. I’ll still be posting to the Facebook group, so keep an eye out over there, and Like the page if you haven’t already. We can keep in touch there as well. I want to thank all of you for listening. It’s always a thrill to see my stats and realize that there are hundreds of you who think I’m worth listening to, whether or not you agree with me. So I’ll see you later, but in the meantime remember to always consider this.

May a dress designer refuse to do business with Melania Trump? May a baker refuse to create a cake with a racist message? May that same baker also refuse to create a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage? The answers, in the liberal culture of the day, are inconsistent. Apparently, the government forcing you to violate your conscience is appropriate when the Left deems it so. Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop has been taken to court over that last question, and his case has made it all the way to the Supreme Court. Arguments will be heard on December 5th. In this episode, I give the background of this case, and explain how the framing of this issue by the ACLU and the Left is completely dishonest (and why we should all hope Jack wins). Mentioned links: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission [Alliance Defending Freedom] Why I’m asking the U.S. Supreme Court to protect artistic freedom The Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court Case Is One Piece of a Much Larger Attack on LGBTQ Lives Episode 171: How Free Are You to Run Your Business? Show transcript On December 5th, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Let me explain some of the background. Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece, will sell anyone any ready-made cake in his shop. Anyone. Any cake. Separately, he will sit down with them and design a custom-made cake, a cake that will communicate a special message for some special occasion. When performing that second role, Jack Phillips is an artist. If you don’t believe me, try catching the TV show “Cake Wars” on the Food Network. Bakers are challenged to create cakes on a particular theme or to communicate a particular idea or message. Yes, I’ve actually seen it. But in order to properly judge Jack’s artistic ability, you should, too. Now Jack has his own standards as to what messages he will and won’t be commissioned to create. These standards are informed by his Christian faith. For example, he won’t create a Halloween cake. Some in the Christian community, including Jack, don’t see it as proper to celebrate what is essentially a holiday with Satanic overtones. That’s not a hard and fast rule in Christianity, but for Jack, that’s his belief. There are other kinds of cakes he won’t create either, such as for celebrating a divorce, or any containing alcohol, or any that are racist. He won’t make lewd cakes for a bachelor or bachelorette party. In this respect, he is similar to another entrepreneur with her own standards. Dress designer Sophie Theallet designed items for Michelle Obama, but refuses to make dresses for Melania Trump. Her standard is informed by her politics, and because of that she won’t do anything that even appears to support President Trump. Are we OK so far? Has either of these artists crossed a line? If you think they have, or especially if you think one has but not the other, leave me some feedback explaining why. But let’s move on to the point of contention. Back in 2012, two men went to Masterpiece Cakeshop and talked with Jack Phillips about creating a custom cake for their same-sex wedding. Jack politely declined, but he offered to sell them any other cake in the store. Instead, they left and brought him before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In December 2013, a judge for the commission ruled that Phillips discriminated against the couple and ordered him to change his store policy a...

The church shooting in Texas; was it terrorism, what failed, and where we go from here. That’s the topic this episode. We keep coming to these questions after mass shootings, but this particular one has some stark answers. Mentioned links: Sutherland Springs church shooting: What we know Texas church shooter escaped mental health facility in 2012 Eric Rudolph [Wikipedia] Timothy McVeigh [Wikipedia] Terry Nichols [Wikipedia] Show transcript While I was taking some time off, a gunman went into a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, and killed more than half the small congregation, while wounding most of the rest. Let me describe some of the shooter’s background. While in the Air Force, he was caught trying to smuggle guns onto his base. He was charged in military court in 2012 on suspicion of assaulting his spouse and their child. He got confinement for 12 months, a bad conduct discharge, and was busted down to E-1, or airman basic. Prior to that conviction, he was involuntarily institutionalized at the Peak Behavioral Health Services Center in Santa Teresa, New Mexico for those assaults, but he escaped at one point. So yes, this is a mental health issue. No, it’s not because he’s white, or that he’s not Muslim. This is a mental health issue because of the shooter’s actual mental health. Some folks have been trying to label this guy as a “terrorist” in an attempt to drive home their point that not all terrorists are Muslims, and that white guys can be terrorists as well. Here’s the thing; I don’t think most people would disagree with those assertions. But this incident has no bearing on that. One of my friends on Facebook was asserting that he was a terrorist by quoting the dictionary definition of terrorism, “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.” When I asked him what the shooter’s political purpose was, he had to backtrack and say that since he instilled terror in his victims, then he was a terrorist. OK, well perhaps technically true, but the Global War on Terror was not instituted to combat the instilling of fear; the word there, and the definition of it in common use, is in fact the dictionary definition. Otherwise Homeland Security might be raiding spook houses every Halloween. Given his definition, a mugger could be a terrorist. I never got a good response to that. He had made up his mind that this guy was a terrorist. I have a video in the show notes of a student having a debate with his teacher about this exact same thing; that this guy was a terrorist because the dictionary is wrong, and (one presumes) so is Homeland Security. I can name white terrorists that fit the common definition of “terrorist”. How about Eric Robert Rudolf? He was the Olympic Park bomber from the 1996 games in Atlanta. He continued his reign of terror in the name of the Christian Identity movement; he was a white, Christian extremist terrorist. Then there are Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols; radical anti-government terrorists. They blew up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. They do exist; nobody is denying that. But if you have to dilute the definition of a terrorist in order to make your point, your argument doesn’t fly. If your definition of “terrorism” includes muggers and bank robbers, you must think that the Global War on Terror is about stopping people from getting your wallet and misusing your credit cards. Homeland Security was not created to keep the FDI...

It’s here; episode 200! And what an extravaganza it is. I have an interview with D. J. McGuire. He’s a co-host of The More Perfect Union podcast, one of my favorites. I wanted to speak with D. J. because he has moved from being a conservative Republican to a conservative Democrat. Contradiction in terms, you say? It didn’t used to be. When I moved to Georgia, Sam Nunn was one such animal. In today’s political climate, however, it’s certainly an endangered specie. I talked with him about his conservative bona fides, why he switched, whether his views have changed, and what would cause him to switch back. It’s a fascinating discussion. And I have feedback from 5 listeners, including a voice mail. (See, it really does work!) I’ll be answering their questions as part of this episode. So thanks for joining me for the longest episode ever (over 56 minutes!) of one of the shortest political podcasts out there. I hope it gets you to consider this. Mentioned links: The Conservative Zone Black Lives Matter: 28% of Abortions Done on Black Babies But Blacks Just 12% of Population Birthright citizenship in the United States [Wikipedia] Podcasts mentioned: The More Perfect Union Podcast The Ben Shapiro Show Challenging Opinions GetReligion Observations The Ricochet Podcast Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (including “Let My People Think”) BreakPoint Radio Free Acton Show transcript [Part 1 of McGuire interview] We’ll get back to the interview a little later. Now that we understand DJ’s views, we’ll talk more about his party switch after we get to listener feedback. I got this message from listener Jim Zile I wanted to congratulate you on episode 200 and wanted to get your insights on a world that looks at many things that are gray as black and white and also the opposite, seeing things that are black and white as gray. One example is abortion. That is taking the life of a person. It is black and white, not gray. I believe an example going the other way is the phrase “black lives matter”. In this case the question should not be “Do black lives matter?” It should be “How much do black lives matter?” If a person is pro-choice and does not condemn gang violence then black lives do not matter very much to that person. You could have two people. A white cop who loves, protects and serves everyone in his inner city community and a black man who is in a gang and makes his girlfriend get an abortion. To whom do black lives matter more? There may be examples that illustrate this better but when an issue comes up I ask myself if this is something that society is generally looking and as black and white that is really gray or is the opposite true. Thanks for producing one of my favorite podcasts! Thanks, Jim, I’m glad to be right up there. This is an interesting way to look at…well, a couple of issues these days. First let me note that, as I’ve heard it, the phrase “black lives matter” is the short version of “black lives matter as much as everyone else’s”.

Hollywood was shaken up with allegations of the sexual harassment of Harvey Weinstein. Well, they knew about it, for years, so it doesn’t seem like it was shaken all that much. Stirred, perhaps. Maybe he could have learned something from Mike Pence. The UK medical system had a crisis of care this summer, but it’s a crisis that it usually sees in winter. If they are this bad off already this year, will they be able to survive the winter? And yet, it’s a crisis coming to a country near you (i.e. the USA) if we don’t get out from under our attempt at socialized medicine. Mentioned links: Harvey Weinstein’s Fall Opens the Floodgates in Hollywood How Did NBC Miss Out on a Harvey Weinstein Exposé? NHS ‘sleepwalking into winter crisis’ as waiting times soar to nine-year high Show transcript What was apparently the worst kept secret in Hollywood was finally publicly acknowledged recently. The casting couch was not dead, and Harvey Weinstein was one of the worst offenders. I’ve got a few bullet points to hit on this story. If accusations against Bill O’Reilly and Roger Ailes speak ill of conservatives in general, then you have to be consistent and apply Weinstein’s actions to liberals. And actually, Weinstein’s fall opened the floodgates to accusations of other Hollywood liberals, including people behind and in front of the camera. Shall we use the same broad brush on everyone who has their same voting record? Be careful when playing the politics card. Ronan Farrow, the reporter who had put together the evidence for the Weinstein story, got one roadblock after another and foot-dragging at NBC, for whom he was writing the article. NBC denies there was any attempt to block the story, but when Farrow took it to the magazine The New Yorker, they knew what they had and published it. My question would be that, if it was good enough for The New Yorker, why wasn’t it good enough for NBC? It could be they’re too cautious, but it seems like they either were reluctant to go with, or they were mired in bureaucracy. Whatever it was, NBC doesn’t come out of this looking very good. As I said, Hurricane Harvey was one of the worst kept secrets in Hollywood, but at their award shows, these people, who sheltered powerful abusers from the world’s eye, would lecture us about how virtuous they were because they had liberal values. And let’s not forget the applause they would give to the likes of Roman Polanski. They made movies and music that glorified the sexual “revolution” and then said they were shocked – SHOCKED – to find out that the culture, including their culture, took to it. Christian writer and novelist C. S. Lewis described it this way, when the culture untethers itself from transcendent virtue, “We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.” Y’know, Vice President Mike Pence got lots of ridicule from the Left when it became known that he had a rule not to dine or work late alone with a woman. Harvey Weinstein could’ve used a rule like that, but that would presuppose that he even cared about doing the right thing. Pence tried to avoid evil and he was pilloried. Weinstein embraced evil, and now (finally, after decades) he’s pilloried. To the dominant culture, I set before you Weinstein and Pence. Choose one. Oh, and  if you lauded Hugh Hefner at all, you’re part of the problem. “We need socialized medicine!”, they said.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is supported by 74% of Americans, and 77% of women. Then why did it pass on a party-line vote in the House of Representatives, and why does it face a filibuster in the Senate? Because, if it could save just one life (or, in this case, 10,000), who could be against it? The answer, of course, isn’t moral or ethical; it’s political. Mentioned links: Call or write your Senator 20-week Abortion ban clears House, faces uphill Senate fight Poll Finds Most Women Back Abortion Restrictions Violent Crime in U.S. Rises for Second Consecutive Year List of mayors of Las Vegas [Wikipedia] Republicans Introduce 20-Week Abortion Ban in the Senate H.R.36 – Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018) Show transcript The US House of Representatives recently passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act in a near party-line vote of 237-189. This act would ban abortions after 20 weeks except in the cases of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother. This has passed before, but it was mostly symbolic, since with Obama in the White House, it would never get signed. However, now that Trump is in there, and has stated he would sign it if it made it to his desk, only the Senate is standing in the way. As the bill’s name notes, a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. Premature children born at 20 weeks can laugh, cry and feel pain. You wouldn’t consider dismembering a child like that, but someone being out of sight is indeed out of mind, at least for some people. Some might say that only 2 percent of abortions in this country occur after 20 weeks, so this is not going to make much of a difference. Well, 2 things. One, then passing this shouldn’t be a big deal, should it? And two, do you know how many children that is? The Congressional Budget Office estimates that about 10,000 children will be spared by this legislation. Democrats have often been heard to use the phrase, “if it will save just one life, it’ll be worth it”, when describing their latest bit of governmental paternalism. Yeah, well, if they’re not interested in saving 10,000, how can we believe them about the 1? But do the American people really want this to pass? Well, I’m glad you asked. In a Marist poll back in January, they asked about views on abortion. Turns out that 74% of people nationwide support limiting abortion to – at most – the first trimester. Some, of course, would like to make that time period shorter, but almost three-quarters would be good with a restriction of no abortions after 3 months. “But wait”, you may be saying, “what about asking only women what they think?” Well, they did, and 77% of women agreed, 3 points higher than the national average. And most interesting to me was that over half of those who labeled themselves “pro-choice” also agreed with that limitation! “But wait”, you may be saying, “do these people think it’s that much of a priority for the government?” Turns out that 59% of the general population think it’s an important or even immediate priority. And if you ask just the women, that number is bumped up to 61%. The Women’s March that took place in the early days of the Trump administration was meant to show how women were u...

In the wake of another mass shooting, the country is again looking at itself and deciding what needs to be done. Can a law be passed that would have prevented this? Should we get more seriously restrictive of gun ownership, or, as some high profile people have suggested, repeal and replace the Second Amendment? I’ll look at some of the pat explanations being offered, and I’ll show how none of the really fit this situation. Or maybe there’s a moral component to this that so many people would rather ignore. The gun homicide rate has been falling since 1993, but mass shootings seem to be on the rise. Perhaps it’s not a matter for Congress, because they can’t pass a law against the existence of evil. Where do we turn? Mentioned links: Attack strikes country music, bastion of US traditionalism Automatic Gun Laws Did Las Vegas Shooter Stephen Paddock Use a Fully Automatic Rifle? France Says Truck Attacker Was Tunisia Native With Record of Petty Crime GUN CONTROL? The Las Vegas Death Toll Happens Every MONTH In Chicago Bump-Stock Device Received ATF Green Light During Obama Administration Show transcript On the night of Sunday, October 1st, 59 people were killed and over 500 injured as an evil man shot up an outdoor country music concert in Las Vegas, Nevada. At the time I prepared this episode, no motive was known for the shooting. I use the word “evil” specifically. I liked Ben Shapiro’s take on this. He said that an earthquake or a hurricane causing devastation is a tragedy, but a person who has free will doing that is simply evil. The deaths are tragic in both cases, but the act itself, when perpetrated by a person, is evil. And before we decide how to act based on the event, we absolutely need to understand that. It’s in the heart of every man and woman, and has been since the beginning. Some would suggest that people are born good and they learn evil. Well, if that’s true, I have to ask why it’s so easy to learn, and why there are so many teachers. If it was so innate in us, you’d think that history would look very different than it does. The musician Yanni said this at the end of his live concert at the Acropolis, “[E]verything great that has ever happened to humanity since the beginning, has begun as a single thought in someone’s mind and if anyone of us is capable of such a great thought then all of us have the same capacity, capability, because we are all the same.” He got a big applause for that, but I have to observe that, if we’re all the same, then every evil thing that has ever happened to humanity can be described the same way. If we can all be a Martin Luther King, then we can all be a Joseph Stalin. It seems that these feel-good philosophies have a tough time with mankind as it has been shown to be. History is not forgiving of that sort of thinking. So then, what of this shooter? To hear his brother tell it, he had no religious or political axe to grind, in spite of ISIS trying to claim credit for this. There was no history of mental illness, nor were there run-ins with the police to speak of. As far as we can tell at this moment in time, there’s very little to lump him in with the “usual suspects”. Before you blame the NRA or pro-gun Republicans, or Texans, or mental illness,

The right of Americans to have free speech has been debated recently. Some have been arguing that this right is inviolate and has no boundaries. But even in places where it can be exercised, are there times and places and even methods of speech that are inappropriate? Can expressing yourself wind up being counter-productive to your reason for speaking? Somehow, someway, I take on this subject by bringing up the Westboro Baptist Church, HGTV almost-hosts Jason and David Benham, Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop, and football. Yes, they all have something in common; the First Amendment. Mentioned links: Westboro Baptist Church [Wikipedia] Snyder v. Phelps [Wikipedia] Episode 76: Brendan and the Benhams; The Intolerant “Tolerance Police” Claim Their Next Victim 2 Killed, 29 Wounded In Chicago Weekend Shootings Oh, and I dare you to try not to stand for this: Show transcript Does the Westboro Baptist Church have First Amendment free speech rights? Of course they do. It doesn’t matter that you disagree with what they might have to say, they have the right to say it. Well, some people seem to think that so-called “hate speech” isn’t protected by the First Amendment, but 8 Supreme Court justices have said otherwise, ruling in favor of Fred Phelps and his church in 2011. Westboro has exercised its rights in venues that many would consider inappropriate with their “God hates fags” signs. (Just a side note; he doesn’t, in the sense that he loves all of his creation.) They contend that things like 9/11, terrorism, and war deaths are due to God’s anger over homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Now, I will say that I believe, as Christianity has believed for a couple thousand years, that homosexual acts are a sin, and that same-sex “marriage” isn’t marriage as God intended (or at least shouldn’t have been imposed on the entire nation by the aforementioned Supreme Court). I think the Westboro crowd would agree with that, but the difference is that their methods of saying this, and the places in which they decide to say it, are changing few, if any, minds. There are better places, times, and methods to get their point across. Also, your First Amendment right can get you in trouble, in spite of that freedom. If you say inappropriate things at work, for example, you can be fired. There have been examples where certain tweets on a company or organization’s Twitter account has gotten them fired. Your free speech rights can be restricted by your employer. Just ask Jason and David Benham. I’ve talked about their situation before, back in May of 2014. They had a potential TV series lined up on the HGTV channel where they would fix up dilapidated homes for families in need. However, when David Benham dared to affirm the aforementioned idea that Christians have held for 2 millennia, HGTV cancelled the show before it started. Regardless of what you think of that, it was their right. (Oh, and try exercising your Second Amendment right at many work places! But I digress.) Keep that in mind. The free speech right that you and I have can be expressed in appropriate places, times, and via appropriate methods, or they can be inappropriate. Westboro is the poster child for inappropriateness, and the Benhams know what happens when your employer cans you for speech, even outside of the job. So then, where am I going with this? Last week, a bunch of guys knelt down in protest. No one – let me say that again – no one at all, who was part of the high profile reaction to this,

I have yet another example (well, 2, actually) of Democrats trying to apply a religious test to someone trying to work in government. More and more Democrats are getting comfortable with this. Bernie Sanders has decided to introduce a bill to create Medicaid for all. Because a system that is losing money hand over fist, pays  out less than private insurance, and is losing doctors all the time is just what we need to “fix” the health care system. Or not. And you can still donate to The Salvation Army for hurricane Harvey and Irma relief. Details here. Mentioned links: No Religious Test Clause [Wikipedia] Episode 181: Cuts to Sex-Ed in Schools, and A New Religious Test for Government Work [previous episode of “Consider This!”] Did Durbin and Feinstein Impose a Religious Test for Office? Feinstein w/Barrett; 9-7-2017 [Video of questioning] Dick Durbin Appears to Illegally Grill Trump Judicial Nominee Over Her Religion [Video of questioning] Sanders Wants ‘Medicare For All.’ Here Are 8 Reasons That’s Dumb. Medicare for All is becoming the new litmus test for Democratic presidential hopefuls. Show transcript In the United States Constitution, Article 6 section 3, includes this clause, “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The England that the colonists had come from did have such religious tests, mainly to allow only members of the Church of England to hold public office. The colonists saw that these sorts of tests tended to corrupt both the church and the state, so they prohibited the use of religious tests. It seems, however, that Democrats these days are more than happy to impose anti-religious tests on administrative appointees. I don’t mean that they’re trying to make sure that only atheists get into office, only that they will hold you to a higher level of scrutiny if you take your religion too seriously. If you’re getting a sense of déjà vu, that’s OK. It’s not a glitch in The Matrix. I gave this same bit of background information in episode 181, a little over 2 months ago. At that time, Bernie Sanders decided that a Christian, who had written an article affirming a Christian doctrine that had been around for 2000 years, was unfit to crunch numbers in the Office of Management and Budget. You should really go back and listen to that first. If you can’t find it in your podcast app, there’s a link in the show notes on the website, and you can play it from there. It seems that Sanders has decided that one’s religion might be a disqualification for being a civil servant. While Democrats have not made this qualification official, which would actually be unconstitutional, they have made it a de facto standard. “Now wait,” you may be saying, “Sanders isn’t the whole Democratic Party!” Correct. He is, however, the one who got his foot in this particular door. The latest example comes from Senators Diane Feinstein and Dick Durbin. Law professor Amy Barrett was nominated for a federal judge posit...

Pat Robertson has suggested that some natural disasters are God’s wrath for various sins. Well, with the arrival of hurricanes Harvey and Irma, he’s making those pronouncements again. Or is he? Listen and see if you recognize who it is. James Comey exonerated Hillary Clinton of any prosecution over her private email server.  But was the fix in months before the press conference when he officially announced that? Yup. To donate to hurricanes Harvey and Irma relief, click here to find out how to donate to the Salvation Army disaster services, or call 1-800-SAL-ARMY (1-800-725-2769). Mentioned links: Jennifer Lawrence: ‘Mother Nature’s Rage’ Directed at U.S. Because of Trump Comey Decided He Wasn’t Going to Refer Hillary For Prosecution Long Before FBI Investigation Was Over It Wasn’t Comey’s Decision to Exonerate Hillary – It Was Obama’s Episode 147: The Law Is Dead. Long Live The King. Show transcript The Reverend Pat Robertson is a guy that the media love to go to for a quote or three when they want to paint Christians as crazy. Of course, anyone who has their own show and is on for hundreds of hours a year is bound to say something weird at some point, but indeed some of what he has said is way out there. For example, when hurricane Katrina hit back in 2005, he suggested that perhaps it was God’s anger over abortion; punishment for shedding innocent blood. I believe abortion is a serious moral issue as well, but I think it best we not try to tie things like natural disasters or terrorist attacks to a specific issue, or try to read the mind of God. Anyway, Pat really got reamed for that statement. Now it’s 2017, and we have another active hurricane season. (Just as an aside, have you noticed that the first real active hurricane season since 2005 has renewed calls to blame them on climate change? If this season “proves” the effects of climate change, what did 12 years of no major hurricanes hitting the US “prove”? Anyway…) So now Harvey and Irma hit us with a 1-2 punch. (Actually, with the strength of these, perhaps it’s a 2-4 punch.) And now Robertson has come down out of the attic to lay blame again. [Jennifer Lawrence audio] Now wait a minute, did that sound like Pat Robertson to you? Or maybe it was an interview with Jennifer Lawrence promoting her latest movie, and the interviewer decided to work politics into the discussion. Yeah, the latter. The irony here is that those are words that you can imagine Robertson saying. Now, you can’t really blame Lawrence, because she was only 15 when Robertson talked about Katrina, right? Well yes, actually you can. Is there any doubt that she or any member of the Hollywood Left would reject a similar pronouncement by a Christian? Well no, there isn’t. With all the news about hurricanes lately, there is a story that you might not have heard about. This is about the Hillary Clinton email server investigation while James Comey was head of the FBI. No, I’m not going to re-litigate that issue, but that’s because it was never litigated in the first place. At the end of August, 2017, a letter came out that was written by Comey to the current director, Christopher Wray. In it,

I’ve been noticing a particular debate tactic lately that, once used, allows the user to claim victory based on nothing other than their claim. A friend of mine insists that racism hasn’t gotten any better than it was decades ago. The fact that a black man was President of the United States for 2 terms doesn’t change that. The fact that Jim Crow laws don’t exist anymore doesn’t change that. What he insists is true is that most racism these days is hidden or covert, as opposed to seen, obvious, and overt. If you express doubt as to whether this is true, he will tell you that you are part of the problem since you obviously don’t truly see or understand the problem. So either you believe that there is covert racism, or you harbor covert racism, even if you don’t realize you harbor it. You either recognize the problem, or you are the problem. But here’s the thing; his position is unfalsifiable. You can’t prove him wrong. No matter what you say, you reinforce his belief. This is a logical fallacy, and I explore other examples of this. Mentioned links: Logical Fallacies Politico’s tone-deaf, unhelpful cartoon about conservatives being rescued from Harvey by the government Show transcript I’ve been noticing a particular debate tactic lately that, once used, allows the user to claim victory based on nothing other than their claim. I tried looking it up as a logical fallacy, but couldn’t find one (in my quick search). First of all, what is a logical fallacy? It’s an attempt to prove using flawed reasoning, and they all have names.  If you argue that something is true because a particular smart person believes it’s true, that’s an Appeal to Authority. I’ve mentioned here a number of times the Straw Man Fallacy. That’s where you’re opponent misstates your position, making it weaker than it really is, and argues against the weaker position. I tried to find something that matches what I’ve been seeing but I didn’t. Perhaps one of you can clue me in. In the meantime, I’m calling this the Secret Sin Fallacy. Let me give a couple examples of this A friend of mine insists that racism hasn’t gotten any better than it was decades ago. The fact that a black man was President of the United States for 2 terms doesn’t change that. The fact that Jim Crow laws don’t exist anymore doesn’t change that. What he insists is true is that most racism these days is hidden or covert, as opposed to seen, obvious, and overt. If you express doubt as to whether this is true, he will tell you that you are part of the problem since you obviously don’t truly see or understand the problem. So either you believe that there is covert racism, or you harbor covert racism, even if you don’t realize you harbor it. You either recognize the problem, or you are the problem. But here’s the thing; his position is unfalsifiable. You can’t prove him wrong. No matter what you say, you reinforce his belief. Further, this allows him to claim that the problem (in this case, racism) is as large and as prevalent as he wishes it to be, because it’s all hidden, and in many cases, totally unknown to the racist. How do you argue against that? Here’s another example. The presidency of Donald Trump has brought out a host of closet psychoanalysts. These are people who know what Trump really means when he says things. When he says things the Left would agree with, they assume he doesn’t really mean it. They insist they know what he really means, and there’s no way to prove them wrong. He can be as racist or xenophobic or whatever as they want him to be, because they know what he thinks secretly. (OK, I will admit that Trump does himself no favors with som...