There’s a mind virus at work that causes challengers to Donald Trump in the GOP to say the stupidest things. Nikki Haley was speaking in Berlin, New Hampshire and got the softball of all softball history questions, one any tenth-grader can easily answer.

In case you don’t know this, the cause of the Civil War was slavery. That’s not me saying this; it comes from a document called “The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States” and it’s right there at the top. Here’s Georgia’s:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

Can’t get much plainer than that.

But Nikki Haley couldn’t answer the question without going back to the Lost Cause myth, that the war had something to do with states’ rights or government intrusion. That kind of stuff might play well in certain parts of South Carolina, but not in northern New Hampshire. Haley was very much guilty of not reading the room. She also knows better, because as governor of South Carolina, Haley had the symbol of the Confederacy, the stars and bars rebel battle flag, removed from the state capitol.

Why would she make such an obvious and stupid gaffe?

I know why. She’s scared of offending voters who tell pollsters they are intending to vote for Donald Trump, the Donald Trump who invoked the “poison blood” argument against immigration. The Donald Trump who said he hadn’t read “Mein Kampf” but somehow arrived at many of the same conclusions as its author regarding blood and soil politics. These voters are the ones Haley is courting, and she is loath to drive them away.

So instead, Haley gave in to the mind virus and said something objectively stupid, that may end her bid for the White House in short order. The mind virus tells its host that it’s possible to court Trump voters who are invested in whatever their amour says, and at the same time not offend every other voter who is looking for a candidate–any candidate–to support. But that’s not really possible. The filter that allows a candidate not to mention slavery as a cause (the cause) of the Civil War does not allow contrition or apology for the gaffe.

Apologizing shows a sign of weakness and will not do for those who want strength in a candidate. But failing to correctly enunciate the cause of the Civil War as slavery shows a greater weakness: fear of Trump and his voters. We now see where Nikki Haley’s weakness lies. She has given in to the mind virus.

For this, there is no current cure. Poor Nikki.

Follow Steve on Twitter @stevengberman.

The First TV contributor network is a place for vibrant thought and ideas. Opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of The First or The First TV. We want to foster dialogue, create conversation, and debate ideas. See something you like or don’t like? Reach out to the author or to us at [email protected].

New York City continued to descend into chaos this week when a deranged lunatic in Grand Central Station stabbed two teenage girls while screaming ‘I want all the White People dead!’

From the NY POST:

A troubled vagrant randomly stabbed two teenage girls enjoying a Christmas morning meal with their parents at a Grand Central Terminal restaurant — after ranting that he wanted “all white people dead,” authorities said.

The girls, 14- and 16-year-olds visiting from South America, were attacked at Tartinery in the Grand Central Dining Concourse around 11:25 a.m. Monday and suffered non-life-threatening stab wounds, police and sources said. 

“I want all the white people dead,” the suspect, Steven Hutcherson, 36, allegedly yelled, according to police sources. “I want to sit next to the crackers.”

He then allegedly lunged at the unsuspecting teens, plunging a knife into the 16-year-old’s back, nicking her lungs, and stabbing the younger girl in the thigh, police and a law enforcement source said.

A shocking poll published by the Daily Mail finds 20% of young voters have a positive view of al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden. The Saudi-born jihadi masterminded the 9/11 terror attack that killed 3,000 Americans in 2001.

From the Daily Mail:

One in five young Americans has a positive view of 9/11 mastermind and Al Qaeda founder Osama Bin Laden, according to disturbing results of a DailyMail.com poll.

The alarming survey also found three in 10 Gen Z voters believe the views of the anti-Semitic terrorist leader who slaughtered thousands of innocent people were a ‘force for good’.

Family members of 9/11 victims said the findings are ‘horrifying’ and proof of a startling trend suggesting some in the younger generation are growing sympathetic to terrorists.

Another DailyMail.com poll in October found one in 10 voters under the age of 30 had a positive view of Hamas, despite the group’s murderous attack on Israel that killed more than 1,300 men, women and children.

Bin Laden orchestrated the 2001 hijackings that killed 2,977 people and injured thousands at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. He was also behind multiple plots that have slain countless others around the world.

I have been following the Colorado Trump ballot removal, and I agree with David Thornton’s rundown of the facts and his deeper dive today. George Conway wrote in The Atlantic (paywall) on Wednesday that it’s not the ruling itself, but the weakness of the dissents that make the case stronger. Erick Erickson disagreed, as do other lawyers I’ve read on social media.

The fact that there are divisions among a high court in Colorado, made up completely of Democrats who were appointed by Democrats, who tend to rule in supermajorities in many cases, because they simply agree and think alike, belies the groupthink present in those who believe “the walls are closing in” for Trump’s ballot access. In fact, the rush to get this ruling out, so SCOTUS can rule on it without crossing the Purcell principle line, before Super Tuesday, has created a major, and greatly desired, distraction for Trump’s legal team, and a possible own-goal for those who wish to see Trump barred from more ballots—past polling suggests this could actually help Trump’s election prospects.

Notably, Colorado Chief Justice Brian Boatright dissented, first on the grounds that the scope of Colorado’s election code doesn’t allow the courts to “decide whether a candidate engaged in insurrection.” Second, that the “Electors brought their challenge without a determination from a proceeding (e.g., a prosecution for an insurrection-related offense) with more rigorous procedures to ensure adequate due process.” I agree with many legal minds, that the Fourteenth Amendment, particularly Section 3, doesn’t require a determination from a proceeding, given that Civil War participants were generally not charged and tried, yet the law applied to them. But this is in regard to a state court ruling on state law, not activating Constitutional protections.

Two things are likely. One, that the U.S. Supreme Court will grant this case a hearing, and rule—in some way—on it. Two, that whatever ruling comes out of SCOTUS will be divisive, politically.

The fact that Colorado’s high court justices could not agree among themselves on the grounds or the outcome of the ballot challenge, and that all three dissenters published individual dissents, because they couldn’t agree on the grounds for dissent, exposes the weakness of the ruling itself. It’s not necessarily weak in its legal arguments (I am no lawyer to judge that), nor is it weak in its factual basis—the facts of Trump’s actions and what happened on January 6th nearly four years ago are undisputed. The weakness comes from the fact that we are all in uncharted territory, and no maps exist for this kind of action. At least none since 1865. The Colorado justices could not agree, and the ones who did, a bare majority, rushed their ruling out so SCOTUS could review and rule on it in a timeline.

SCOTUS will have little time to review and rule on this case. The most likely scenario could very well be for the Justices to agree with Justice Boatright and reverse the ruling. That would restore Trump to the Colorado ballot, and quash and other state cases which might be in the pipeline. It would also be a huge boon to Trump in actual competitive states.

There’s little downside to Trump and his campaign from this Colorado case. If Trump’s not on the primary ballot, he might still win the primary as a write-in. Without Colorado, Trump is still positioned to be the GOP nominee, unless something changes at the polls in states where he is definitely on the ballot. Come November, the voters who like Trump, or even some undecideds who might be swayed by the “political persecution” tropes, are more likely to show up at the polls to cast their votes.

Trump benefits from being prosecuted. Many who don’t like Trump believe that the best way to defeat him is at the ballot box. Distractions from the actual political race, with the courtroom dramas, indictments, trials, and now ballot access, help Trump keep the focus off other candidates, and cement his place as the frontrunner, or the presumptive nominee. I mean, if nobody thought Trump was going to be the nominee, none of this ballot access stuff would matter, would it?

If Trump is restored to the Colorado ballot, it would be a victory for his campaign. The worst case would be if SCOTUS rules that Trump is immune from prosecution for acts committed as President, and also rules that efforts to remove him from ballots are stillborn, that goes a long way toward removing the legal jeopardy Trump faces. One more ruling could kill special counsel Jack Smith’s case: if 18 USC § (c)(2), the law so widely cited by the January 6th Select Committee (and all over Liz Cheney’s book), passed in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, is found to not apply to the Capitol riot, then Trump cannot be charged with it. That law makes it a felony to “corruptly…otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” 

If the largely ceremonial joint session of Congress to count electoral votes isn’t part of that definition of “proceeding,” then a number of the January 6th convictions might be overturned (this won’t affect those charged with harming police officers or destroying property). It’s really ironic that the Trump case hinges on proving a Constitutional duty of Congress to count votes doesn’t carry the weight to actually change election results, which is exactly the opposite of what the Eastman memo, and Trump’s elaborate plans to submit fake electors, aimed to do. Trump wanted the January 6th joint session to be very instrumental in determining the winner of the election, and now his legal theory claims it’s not really an official proceeding, and that he didn’t disrupt it (the crowd did).

Trump winning all the SCOTUS rulings will make his campaign stronger than ever. It will be the biggest own-goal in the history of American jurisprudence, and we can all thank Colorado for that. On the other hand, there’s little downside for Trump if SCOTUS rules against him. He uses that to raise money to pay for more legal fees. Being a professional defendant can be quite enriching.

Even if Colorado is correct in the legal, factual, and moral sense to remove Trump from the ballot, the way it was done is risky. I am thinking they should not have taken the risk. I am not the only one who thinks that: three Colorado Supreme Court justices agree.

Follow Steve on Twitter @stevengberman.

The First TV contributor network is a place for vibrant thought and ideas. Opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of The First or The First TV. We want to foster dialogue, create conversation, and debate ideas. See something you like or don’t like? Reach out to the author or to us at [email protected]. 

New polls show Joe Biden underwater on every major issue. It will not be a very merry Christmas inside the White House.

The America’s Civil Liberties Union is defending their decision to defend the National Rifle Association. Plus, Is Media Matters in trouble? We hope so. Bill Breaks it down

Mike Davis of The Article 3 Project joins Sean for a deep dive on all the shady business dealing with Hunter and Joe Biden, explaining how our current Commander In Chief is compromised.

If you read the national news sources today, you’d undoubtedly come away believing that the Catholic Church just made a giant turn toward progressivism, allowing priests to bless same-sex unions. Nothing of the sort has occurred. Rather, what you’re seeing is the ignorance and internal bias confirmation of the people reporting it.

Here’s what happened. A group of Catholic cardinals submitted a list of questions, called “dubia” (translated “doubts”) to Pope Francis. This is not an unusual thing. Hundreds, if not thousands, of requests like this are published (this link is in Spanish) every year among Catholic officials, clergy and seminarians. Most are not answered personally by the Holy See.

For his own reasons, Pope Francis saw fit to answer the “dubia” from five cardinals that was submitted back in July. The answers were in Spanish, but translated by the Vatican News Service. It’s not hard to read, and in my reading, I don’t see what the fuss is about. The question was:

According to the Divine Revelation, attested in Sacred Scripture, which the Church teaches, “listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit” (Dei Verbum, 10),  “In the beginning,” God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them, and blessed them to be fruitful (cf. Genesis 1:27-28) and hence, the Apostle Paul teaches that denying sexual difference is the consequence of denying the Creator (Romans 1:24-32). We ask: can the Church deviate from this “principle,” considering it, in contrast to what was taught in Veritatis splendor, 103, as a mere ideal, and accept as a “possible good” objectively sinful situations, such as unions with persons of the same sex, without departing from the revealed doctrine?

The Pope’s answer was in seven parts. The parts have to be taken together to be understood. The first two parts establish the Biblical definition, and exclusivity, of “marriage” as a holy union, and the only one recognized by God and Scripture.

a) The Church has a very clear understanding of marriage: an exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to procreation. Only this union can be called “marriage.” Other forms of union realize it only in “a partial and analogous way” (Amoris Laetitia 292), so they cannot be strictly called “marriage.”

b) It is not just a matter of names, but the reality we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that requires an exclusive name, not applicable to other realities. It is undoubtedly much more than a mere “ideal.”

The third part is a single sentence that reaffirms the Catholic Church’s commitment to not create any “rite or sacrament” that contradicts or suggests marriage is anything but what Scripture defines it to be.

The fourth and fifth parts recognize that “pastoral charity” is more than simply applying rules relating to what should be a “blessing.” The Pope paraphrases some of the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the fruit of the Spirit (found in Galatians 5:22-23), which are: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Ephesians 4:11 lists what is commonly referred to as the five-fold ministry gifts: apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, and teacher. Pope Francis draws from both of these in his response.

d) However, in our relationships with people, we must not lose the pastoral charity, which should permeate all our decisions and attitudes. The defence of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity; it also includes kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, and encouragement. Therefore, we cannot be judges who only deny, reject, and exclude.

e) Therefore, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not convey a mistaken concept of marriage. For when a blessing is requested, it is expressing a plea to God for help, a supplication to live better, a trust in a Father who can help us live better.

It is the kindness of God that leads to repentance (as in Romans 2:4), not the judgment of God. Fear does not lead to love, and God is love. “Fear of the Lord” is not what people ignorant of the Gospel or Scripture come up with in their minds—it’s reverence, awe, and supplication before a holy God. A pastor or other clergy who only relies on fear of Hell and condemnation—who deny, reject and exclude—won’t win converts, only refugees who will leave at the first sign of acceptance by the world.

Now we get to part six, where I think many media people got confused:

f) On the other hand, although there are situations that are not morally acceptable from an objective point of view, the same pastoral charity requires us not to simply treat as “sinners” other people whose guilt or responsibility may be mitigated by various factors affecting subjective accountability (Cf. St. John Paul II, Reconciliatio et paenitentia, 17).

What did Pope Francis mean by “not to simply treat as ‘sinners’ other people whose guilt or responsibility may be mitigated by various factors…”? I am not an expert, or even particularly knowledgeable about Vatican law or Catholic doctrine. But I do know that, for instance, people with mental health problems, who, say, commit suicide, are not necessarily culpable for their actions in the eyes of a merciful God. I don’t know the last thoughts of anyone who takes their own life, or what led to that moment of ultimate destiny. But God does.

Similarly, some people with same-sex attraction did not simply wake up one morning and say “I choose not to be attracted to the opposite sex, but am aroused by people of my own.” There is a history to these things, either by exerience, something seen, something witnessed, or other sources. Yes, people can choose to sin (they do every single day), and people can choose not to sin. Same-sex relationships are considered by Scripture to be sinful. The Pope never changed that, not even a little bit. But he did say that some people who seek a blessing in the form of charity or supplication are not automatically by some rule disqualified from the mercy of God expressed through charity of His representatives on earth (Christians).

In other words, it’s up to the discernment of the person being asked for some kind of blessing, or in their relationships with those who are sinners. This is true whether the issue is same-sex relationships, alcoholics, drug addicts, embezzlers, or politicians for that matter. Pope Francis, in the final part of his answer, makes what I consider a very practical argument, consistent with the New Testament.

g) Decisions that may be part of pastoral prudence in certain circumstances should not necessarily become a norm. That is, it is not appropriate for a Diocese, a Bishops’ Conference, or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and officially enable procedures or rituals for all kinds of matters, because not everything that “is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstances can be elevated to the level of a rule” as this “would lead to an intolerable casuistry” (Amoris laetitia, 304). Canon law should not and cannot cover everything, nor should Episcopal Conferences with their varied documents and protocols claim to do so, as the life of the Church flows through many channels other than normative ones.

You can’t make a rule for everything, especially dealing with a church that covers every continent, a billion people, and hundreds of languages and customs around the world. God is not a god of chaos, and trying to cover what is, what isn’t, and what should be a blessing or charity in every circumstance would be chaos.

That does not mean that “pastoral prudence” for one situation is the norm. It doesn’t mean that, for instance, if a pastor decides to attend his niece’s same-sex wedding and give them a gift, that means the pastor is endorsing same-sex marriage. It doesn’t mean that a Catholic parish priest who allows a same-sex ceremony to take place in his church building is doing the right thing, either. It doesn’t mean that charity toward all is wrong. Christians are called to be salt and light to the world. Without the salt, the light is worthless. Without the light, the salt cannot bring truth.

The Pope was not advocating anything more than a pastor should follow Scripture, his conviction and the leading of the Holy Spirit. That’s what all Christians are called to do. “The life of the Church” flows through Jesus. And Jesus ate with all kinds of sinners. To take discernment from clergy is to admit God is not personal. The Pope did not make that kind of pronouncement.

But if you don’t know Scripture, or any mature Christians; if your view of religion comes from movies, television, and reading Dan Brown novels, you might read a whole different meaning into what Pope Francis said.

Remember, one out of four journalists can’t be bothered to do actual research on the topic they’re reporting about. The other three, according to Poynter, would never darken the door of a church (or any other religious service). Many are in fact hostile to Christianity.

In the end, Pope Francis clarified what is well-established Christian doctrine. Marriage is defined as one man and one woman, biologically created by God for procreation. Marriage is holy. Things that are not marriage in human relationships that involve intimate acts, are not holy. It is up to the pastor to decide what the motivation and the mental state of the sinning people mean in the context of charity, love and kindness. These are not controversial statements.

But to a media hungry to report something that they personally want to be true: that Pope Francis encouraged or authorized same-sex blessings, which he did not, this story is meaningful. It says a whole lot about who is doing the reporting, but makes not even a bubble on the surface of the ocean of Biblical exegesis.

Maybe the media needs a good dose of humility and truth.

Follow Steve on Twitter @stevengberman.

The First TV contributor network is a place for vibrant thought and ideas. Opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of The First or The First TV. We want to foster dialogue, create conversation, and debate ideas. See something you like or don’t like? Reach out to the author or to us at [email protected].