Timon: Let me get this straight. You know her. She knows you. But she wants to eat him. And everybody’s okay with this?
The Lion King 1994
Over at Yid with Lid old friend Jeff Dunetz writes about an interesting bit from Donna Brazile’s book:
According to Philip Rucker of the Washington Post who obtained an early copy of the book, after her 9/11 fainting episode, Brazile considered replacing Clinton and Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, with then-Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.).
Brazile writes that she considered a dozen combinations to replace the nominees and settled on Biden and Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.), the duo she felt most certain would win over enough working-class voters to defeat Republican Donald Trump.
Now it’s worth noting (as legal insurrection points out) that there were a lot more Clinton health episodes then this which prompted this discussion but from this quote alone two things jump out at me both pretty obvious, one minor one major.
The minor thing: Why would you consider replacing Tim Kaine over Hillary Clinton’s fainting spell? Kaine was duly nominated and approved as the Democrat Party VP pick. No amount of sickness on Hillary’s part has anything to do with him.
Now granted the replacement of Kaine would likely not have raised much of a fuss, except perhaps in some parts of Virginia but still it seems odd to me and a violation of rules.
The Kaine business is interesting but the real major question is this:
Why would you replace an ill Hillary Clinton with Joe Biden who choose not to run for president instead of with Bernie Sanders who did and came in 2nd in the Democrat Primaries?
Forgetting the so called Democrat principle of letting every vote count does nobody get the irony of passing over someone who got millions of primary votes for someone who got none?
Furthermore could you imagine the uproar this would have caused among the Bernie Bros who already (correctly it turns out) thought that the fix if the DNC chief (moreover a DNC chief who apparently knew and was shocked at the fix) replaced Hillary with someone other than Bernie?
The revolt would have been spectacular and epic and that’s not even taking into account candidate Donald Trump at every campaign stop and event talking about the Democrats screwing Bernie one more time.
I suspect a fair amount of Bernie Bros didn’t vote dem last time around but if Biden had replaced Clinton instead of Bernie I would not have been surprised if enough stayed home or voted green to give Trump Minnesota, New Mexico, Virginia, NH and maybe even Maine. It would have been a spectacular disaster for Dems (although on the bright side it would have given them a more palatable excuse for their defeat and lessened the shock and embarrassment of the media on election night.
Closing Thought: If you are a Bernie Sanders supporter consider this: The head of the DNC during election 2016 has come out and admitted that the fix was in against you in 2016 and professed to be appalled by it, yet even with this knowledge if the chips were down she was ready to throw Bernie Sanders and you under the bus for her chosen ticked rather than right the wrong against you that she claims upset her so much.
Next time the Democrats ask for your vote keep that in mind.
As I have no sexual secrets of rich liberals to sell or the sponsorship of a national pizza company I have to make my buck by going places and doing interviews all the time hoping people like it enough to pay for it.
If you like the idea of new media on the scene at for these time of things and want to support independent journalism please hit DaTipJar below.
Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer
Be careful what you wish for, Republicans. Hillary Clinton’s medical episode today, officially diagnosed as a result of a three-days of pneumonia, has raised serious questions about her future as the Democratic nominee for President. Pundits are speculating. Some conservative publications are saying, “told you so!” Even some of her most ardent defenders in the press have to admit that it’s worth reporting.
The last thing the GOP should want is for Hillary to drop out. She’s the best possible candidate for Donald Trump to to compete with and possibly the only one who is hated enough for him to defeat. If she’s replaced, the repercussions could be devastating up and down the ticket.
There have been a handful of reports discussing the possible ramifications, most of which are either false or ill-conceived so I won’t link to them from here. Instead, let’s look at this logically and read what the rules say about such things. First, the DNC does not have the same type of established rules that the RNC has in the event of their candidate dropping out. Their bylaws grant the Democratic National Committee broad powers between conventions, including the responsibility to “fill vacancies,” though the nature of those vacancies are not discussed. This is uncharted territory for them. While they do not have the power to replace a candidate that has been nominated at the convention, they have all the power they need if she vacates.
Bernie Sanders supporters are pushing. Speculation about Elizabeth Warren is strong. Tim Kaine’s name has been floated as being pushed to the top of the ticket. At least one publication even considered 36-year-old Chelsea Clinton as an option. Clearly, the most likely replacement, the one that the DNC and power brokers in the Democratic Party would want, is Vice President Joe Biden. Uncle Joe has said that he “regrets every day” that he decided not to run. With under two months to go, his regrets may be reversed as a Biden-Kaine ticket is the most plug-and-play option the Democrats have.
It’s pretty obvious that something is being considered. It would put them in a position that they crave: being the victims of circumstance.
Trump has been compared, erroneously so, as another Barry Goldwater waiting to happen. While that particular debacle of an election has not been possible before, these circumstances change things. Many historians are wrong when they claim that Goldwater lost so horribly because he was too radical which is why most comparisons between Goldwater and Trump are incorrect. Goldwater lost in a landslide because we’ve always been a sentimental nation. John F. Kennedy’s death less than a year before election day guaranteed a huge victory for Lyndon B. Johnson. If Hillary drops out and is replaced by Biden, we might not see the same level of a defeat that Goldwater experienced, but the odds will definitely shift in the Democrats’ favor.
Hillary has lost all momentum and Trump is picking up steam. While it’s futile to speculate what will happen in this topsy-turvy election cycle in the final two months, Trump should be considered the favorite at this point as long as he’s facing Hillary. If a switch is made, we could be seeing Trump TV on the horizon.
Last Wednesday in a Rose Garden ceremony Vice President Joe Biden, with President Obama at his side, announced that he will not be a candidate for president in 2016, although he certainly sounded like one.
And Biden heralded art of compromise in his address.
I believe we have to end the divisive partisan politics that is ripping this country apart. And I think we can. It’s mean-spirited. It’s petty. And it’s gone on for much too long. I don’t believe, like some do, that it’s naïve to talk to Republicans. I don’t think we should look at Republicans as our enemies. They are our opposition; they’re not our enemies. And for the sake of the country, we have to work together.
Eloquent words. But as hollow as a carved pumpkin.
The definition of compromise that contemporary Democrats believe in is that they hold fast to their positions while calling on Republicans to change their stands. If they don’t liberals label them obstructionists or worse. Examples? Obama has called his political opponents “hostage takers” and “enemies.” His still-unpopular ObamaCare law was passed by Congress with no Republican votes.
Prior to his election as president Obama was a US senator from Illinois, nominally representing me in Washington. His predecessor was Peter Fitzgerald, a Republican. Like Obama, Fitzgerald moved up from the Illinois state Senate to to the US Capitol and for two years he served with the future president in Springfield.
He was a very partisan and ideological Democrat who represented a district that really was probably 90 percent Democrat, and certainly I saw him as reflective of his district in that he was just one of those state senators from Chicago who viewed the Democratic party as being right 100 percent of the time and the Republican party wrong 100 percent of the time. He’s not one to work across party lines.
Yet in last week’s Rose Garden speech, Biden parroted the myth that his boss believes that “compromise is not a dirty word.”
But in reality Obama has his own definition of what compromise and that is “I win and you lose.”
Hillary was in front of the Benghazi panel. Her avowed enemies sat on the other side, asking the questions. But what difference does it make?
As we saw with the first Democrat debate, there was a lot of yelling, socialism and talk of ‘free stuff’. I’m going to go ahead and say the second debate will be more of the same and will feature Hillary Clinton trying to one-up Bernie Sanders on just how far Left she can really go. Someone ought to bring a limbo bar.
On October 20th, we saw Jim Webb drop out of the Democrat pack. On his way out the door, he sent off a parting shot at Hillary Clinton who during the debate called Republicans ‘the enemy’. Webb said, “The other party’s not the enemy. They’re the opposition.”
The very next day, Vice President Biden ended his annoyingly long period soul-searching on whether or not to run. Biden pretty much repeated what Webb said. Sensing a theme here?
Here’s part of his remarks announcing his non-candidacy:
“I believe we have to end the divisive partisan politics that is ripping this country apart. And I think we can. It’s mean-spirited. It’s petty. And it’s gone on for much too long. I don’t believe like some do that it’s naive to talk to Republicans.
I don’t think that we should look at Republicans as our enemies. They are opposition, they’re not our enemies. For the sake of the country, we have to work together.”
This, from the Vice President of the most divisive administration in our country’s history, with a President who has refused to work with Republicans from day one.
‘We have to work together’ Right. Divisive VP, heal thyself.
Joe, in 2014 you said ‘there is no Republican party’ and ‘Democrats would benefit from having a viable negotiating partner’. This is just one of dozens of examples.
Biden went on to talk about “compromise“, the emphasis added is mine:
“As the President has said many times before, compromise is not a dirty word. But look at it this way, folks – how does this country function without consensus? How can we move forward without being able to arrive at consensus? Four more years of this kind of pitched battle may be more than this country can take. We have to change it.”
I’m old enough to remember Obama’s Sequester.
‘Four more years’
Wait, did Joe just slam Obama (and himself) with the POTUS standing right next to him?
I think he did. We re-elected ‘Hope and Change‘ and received more of the same eternal ‘crisis’ du jour and divisive rhetoric. In August, 71% of Americans were saying they are unhappy with the direction the country is going in.
Biden running would ensure another four years of that wrong direction and that ‘pitched battle’, so he’s tossing the hot potato to Hillary. Po-tay-toe, Po-tah-toe.
‘We have to change it’
So, not getting in the race to stop Hillary from being four more years of Obama style divisiveness is the answer? Don’t forget all the racial healing this administration promised us yet delivered the exact opposite. Where’s that YES WE CAN, Joe?
So, now the Democrats have lost the one candidate who is probably best suited to actually do what Biden is suggesting needs to be done. That figured.
What we’re left with is a Socialist and a Serial Liar in the top spots. There’s also a pompous, Ivory Tower Elitist, and two reasonably ineffectual Governors. One of which had only 10 people considered major donors to his campaign.
YES THEY CAN!
A.P. Dillon resides in the Triangle area of North Carolina and is the founder of LadyLiberty1885.com.
Her current and past writing can also be found at IJ Review, StopCommonCoreNC.org, Heartland.org and Watchdog Wire NC.
Catch her on Twitter: @LadyLiberty1885
Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other.
Yesterday Marco Rubio was all over the various networks and several blogs talking about both his CNBC interview and his Today show interview and they are both worth your time.
But while the interviews in question are generating some buzz it seems nobody has noticed a particular segment piece that while meant to defend himself against the youth & inexperience charge used vs Barack Obama actually makes a devastating case against the candidacy of his VP Joe Biden.
Marco Rubio was asked if the argument against Barack Obama that electing a first term Senator without experience is a bad idea applied equally to him. Here is the exchange emphasis mine.
Harwood: One consequence of rising in the polls is that you start seeing your rivals engage with you more Jeb Bush has raised the issue of your leadership said, suggested you’re a little: “obamaish.” what do you say about that?
Rubio: Well first of all I don’t think anyone running on the Republican side is anything like Barack Obama. And when people say that what they’re accusing him of is: he didn’t have enough experience or he’s was a senator You know he’s been president now for seven years he’s got seven years of presidential experience and I still disagree with the decisions he’s making. I think it’s deeper than the number of years he, I don’t think he would, if he had been in the senate for 50 years I think he still would have met some of the failures he’s meeting because his ideas don’t work, they just don’t work.
Note Rubio’s point. Barack Obama’s problem is his ideas are wrong. Even if he was in congress for 50 years they would be wrong.
And that Brings us to Joe Biden.
Joe Biden was elected to the US Senate in 1972 during the Nixon Landslide and in those nearly 50 years he has been fighting for the same failed liberal policies that the Obama administration is pushing today. Higher taxes , more spending. Bigger government getting involved in local issues from Education to what a local baker can bake or not. And on foreign policy again it’s the same from Defeat in Vietnam to Defeat in Iraq & Syria, From obstructing Reagan opposing the Communists in Russia & South America downplaying their threat to Retreating from Russia & Islamist and enabling the Communists in Cuba today and downplaying the Islamic treat.
Barack Obama has the excuse of being an inexperienced chicago pol, Joe Biden does not. Experience may keep a dear school but not even nearly 50 years has taught Joe Biden a thing about what works.
Marco Rubio has perfected defined Joe Biden, he’s what Barack Obama will be in 40 years still wrong, still doing his best to enable our enemies and attack American culture & taxpayers at home.
A year ago a third presidential campaign by Joe Biden would have been greeted by guffaws from Anchorage to Key West. But the plummeting opinion poll numbers of struggling frontrunner Hillary Clinton have re-opened the trap door for the vice president. Clinton’s primary opponent is socialist Bernie Sanders–but few people think the Vermont senator can win in the general election. The three other Democratic major candidates, Jim Webb, Martin O’Malley, and Lincoln Chafee, are hovering around one percent in the polls.
Biden’s first run for the presidency, in the 1988 race, never made it past the autumn of 1987 after he was a confronted by a series of plagiarism allegations. His second plunge eight years ago effectively ended on the day he announced when he said of Barack Obama, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, … I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
Biden’s campaign never recovered from that blunder and he dropped out the the race shortly after the Iowa Caucuses, but his fortunes dramatically changed when the clean Obama chose Biden as his running mate.
Biden is a gaffe machine–here are some of his greatest hits.
“In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.” June 17, 2006.
Is Biden proud that Delaware was a slave state?
“You don’t know my state. My state was a slave state … my state is the 8th largest black population in the country.” August 27, 2006.
Crazy Uncle Joe said this to Obama–and it was captured on video–after he signed the ObamaCare bill.
“Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be Vice President of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend. She is qualified to be President of the United States of America. She’s easily qualified to be Vice President of the United States of America. Quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me. But she’s first rate.” Sept 10, 2008.
I’ve been re-watching Ken Burns Civil War series which is one of the finest Television shows that has ever been made & one of the best argument for PBS back in the three network days.
They talked about Robert E. Lee being opposed to both Slavery (he called it a Moral & Political evil) and Secession but fighting to defend both of these principles he opposed because of his loyalty to the state of Virginia.
It brought to mind this interview with Catholic Vice President Joe Biden:
“I’m prepared to accept that at the moment of conception there’s human life and being,” Biden said, during an interview with Father Matt Malone, S.J. of “America Media.”
Biden, however, said that he would not “impose” that view on “non-God-fearing people that have a different view.”
At one point, Biden also acknowledged that “abortion is always wrong,” but again, he doesn’t want to “impose doctrine” on other people.
In fact Biden has been willing in the senate to fight for and defend abortion.
One could say truthfully that Joe Biden loyalty to the Democrat party is akin to Robert E. Lee’s loyalty to Virginia, so great that he is willing to fight for things he believes are wrong in order to support them.
But when you consider that Lee and Jefferson Davis who were both opposed to secession were willing to defend it no matter how much blood it cost, how can you not see every pol who claims to be personally opposed to abortion but fight to fund it and preserve to be any different from all those others who fought to preserve slavery no matter what their personal feelings.
Come to think of it, those guys were Democrats too.
Over the next few years you are going to be branded as bigots, hated and derided. You will be portrayed in every form of culture, plays, TV series and movies as people to be shunned and no member of the media will fail to come after you for your offenses against the twin sacraments of Abortion & Gay Marriage…The days of easy Christianity are over Now is the time to decide.
DaTechGuy March 29th 2013
One of the arguments I repeatedly hear from our friends on the left is that Kim Davis is the next George Wallace on Twitter an example:
I really find such tweets a lot of fun because the depth of historical ignorance they show is astounding
For all his: “segregation today, segregation tomorrow segregation forever” bluster and his showboat blocking of a schoolhouse door, George Wallace proved to be a pol whose primary concerning was getting power and obtaining more. Wallace used his showboat stance for political gain, using it, when term limited in office, to elect his wife as governor, using it to repeal his state’s term limit rule allowing him to run against his wife’s former Lt gov (she died of cancer in office) serving several more terms.
Furthermore he used it highlight himself nationally to peruse four presidential campaigns, the first abruptly pre-empted by JFK’s assassination, the 2nd on a third party ticket where he became one of the few 3rd party candidates ever to win states multiple states, the third for the Democrat nomination in 1972, a race he was doing well in until an attempted assassination attempt ended his campaign and left him in a wheelchair for life, and a fourth in 1976 which didn’t gain much traction.
Wallace didn’t go to jail or risk penalties for his beliefs because he didn’t have any other than “George Wallace deserves to be elected” , when segregation was popular he trumped segregation, when it became unpopular suddenly decided he spoke against it. In fact it seems to me that when it came to pols following in Wallace’s footstep the people are not Democrats like Kim Davis but Democrats like Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who, as you might have forgotten, abruptly changed their position when it appeared large gay donors were closing their purses.
And once they did by an astounding coincidence the entire democrat party from Bill Clinton who signed the Defence of Marriage act to every single Democrat pol who said things like this:
suddenly decided that anyone who didn’t beleve in gay marriage was a bigot. As Dave Weigel put it.
The new Democratic advocates for SSM fall into two camps. The first consists of people who always liked the idea of this but worried about losing national elections. In his memoir, Democratic consultant Bob Shrum remembers John Kerry fretting that the Massachusetts Supreme Court had forced Democrats to talk about gay marriage before they were ready to. “Why couldn’t they just wait a year?” he asked Shrum, mournfully. The second camp consists of people who really do oppose the idea of gay people getting married. Republicans argued that this second camp was tiny, and that liberals were hiding behind it. They were right!
There are two words to describe this: Political opportunism. That sounds very George Wallace to me.
Contrast all of this with Kim Davis. Davis didn’t seek publicity, those who choose to force her hand did, as marriage licences were available just a few miles away. Even as the country’s media and elites demonized her and pundit after pundit attacked her she went to court to defend her position citing her religious beliefs seeking a compromise that would allow her to function without her name being one marriage certificates.
When ordered to jail, she didn’t put on a show, she went to jail and when released during the middle of a rally in her support (a rally used by at least one presidential candidate to showboat a bit) rather than talking politics or anything of that nature she praised God while her lawyers, speaking to media stated that she would not be doing anything different to violate her conscience:
Doesn’t sound very Wallace. In fact, instead of political opportunism that’s a classic example of civil disobedience. Violate law, take penalty. That’s how it works.
Furthermore we’ve had several tweets talking about her disobeying the “law” and noting that some of her defenders have been upset other locations violating federal laws (such as sanctuary cities). There is an excellent answer to these statments that I can’t take credit for writingemphasis mine
Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.
Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.
That is an excellent summation of what Kim Davis has done, she has stood up against an unjust “law” rejecting the fear of nonconformity and vividly illustrated the attempt to to create a de facto religious test for office, to wit, if you are christian you may not hold public office in the United States unless you are what we call a “cafeteria catholic” or protestant, willing to ignore or even violate you beliefs for the sake of political office.
Now some have argued that Davis wasn’t in jail to protest a religious test for office she was in jail for contempt of court for violating a judge’s order based on her religion and they would be right.
However they forget that the person who wrote that excellent summation of what Kim Davis did, some fellow by the name of Martin Luther King, did so while in jail, not for protesting segregation, but for parading without a permit and as for legalities King had a few things to say about that too: emphasis mine again
of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws.
You know this is the type of language that Democrat pols and our friends on the left have labeled “christofacist” or a “homophobe” or a “bigoted” comparing it to the words of the mullas in Iran, Saudi Arabia & ISIS.
Who knew they hated Martin Luther King so much?
Closing thought: Given the choice between loyalty to a political party willing to join you when the political wind is with you and likely willing drop you twice as fast if the wind changes and loyalty to a God who love yous and sent his son to die for the redemption of our sins, I, along with Kim Davis, Martin Luther King and Pope Francis suggest the latter.
On twitter there is a big move to start a “boycott Indiana” movement for its decision to be the 20th state to pass a Religious Freedom Law to protect Christians from persecution for refusing to support Gay Marriage.
By an odd coincidence the same media types who have been attacking the Gov of Indiana have been cheering the opening of the (Ted) Kennedy Center
Instead, Vice President Joe Biden will preside over a full-size replica Senate chamber at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate in Boston, with current and former senators at their desks, high school students on the floor and Kennedy family members in the gallery.
The institute opens Monday with a dedication speech by President Obama.and a who’s who of Massachusetts politicians, United States senators and Kennedy kin.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which Senator Hatch and I, and 23 other Senators have introduced, would restore the compelling interest test for evaluating free exercise claims. It would do so by establishing a statutory right that adopts the standards previously, used by the Supreme Court. In essence, the act codifies the requirement for the Government to demonstrate that any law burdening the free exercise of religion is essential to furthering a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.
It was this law championed by Kennedy that is the basis for the laws in the various states that the left is calling “bigotry” and “hate”
Yet I haven’t heard a single one of the people who spent the weekend comparing supporters of this law to KKK members or Jim Crow fans calling for a boycott of the Kennedy event today or urging the President and Vice President to give it a miss.
I’m shocked at the prospect that the outrage of the left might only be based on political advantage.
Albert: Do you remember my briefing, Shona? Shona:Yeah. Well, no. I remember some of it. Albert:Some of it? Bellows:How much? Shona:Till he put his hand on my knee. And then I was just grossing. Albert: It was intended as a comfort. Bellows: For whom?
Doctor Who Last Christmas 2014
Today is Ash Wednesday the beginning of Lent. A time of reflection and repentance when we examine ourselves and our faults to prepare for the coming of Christ at Easter.
In Catholic parishes you will find extra devotions, regular stations of the cross, extra masses and many chances to receive the sacrament of confession for our sins.
Of course as I explained a few days ago if you have the right political views or are in the right political party you not only don’t need confession you can’t even “sin”
The victim this time is Stephanie Carter, wife of incoming defense secretary Ashton Carter, seen here holding forth on ISIS while his better half suffers the ritual indignity of the vice presidential droit de seigneur at swearings-in. Silver lining: Unlike most of the females whom Biden creeped on at last month’s oath-taking for the new Congress, Mrs. Carter is of age.
Biden’s behavior at the Carter ceremony follows his hands-on performance at the swearing-in of new senators in January. The vice president’s performance on that day brought comment from around the world, ranging from “Biden being Biden” to “handsy Joe” to “creepy.”
And asks the obvious question
Do the incidents add up to anything? Assume that all of Biden’s gestures were entirely innocent, just Joe being Joe. Still, in today’s society, sexual harassment complaints have been lodged for less. Biden’s behavior gives critics plenty of ammunition and puts supporters in a difficult position. Why is that kind of stuff OK when the vice president does it and cringe-making when it’s the overly-friendly guy in the office?
Now in fairness to Joe he comes from a time that was much more touchy and depending on his intent it doesn’t even rise to the level of sin.
But consider the kind of nonsense the left is calling sin & the standards by which is it measured when we have been seeing things like this:
I recently assisted a young man who was subjected by administrators at his small liberal arts university in Oregon to a month-long investigation into all his campus relationships, seeking information about his possible sexual misconduct in them (an immense invasion of his and his friends’ privacy), and who was ordered to stay away from a fellow student (cutting him off from his housing, his campus job, and educational opportunity) — all because he reminded her of the man who had raped her months before and thousands of miles away. He was found to be completely innocent of any sexual misconduct and was informed of the basis of the complaint against him only by accident and off-hand. But the stay-away order remained in place, and was so broadly drawn up that he was at constant risk of violating it and coming under discipline for that.
via hotair and you have to ask: “If the standards are holding the Vice president to are lower than the standards we hold college undergraduates to perhaps there is something wrong with these standards?”