Reductio ad Racism

A reductionist fallacy occurs when we take an incredibly complex issue and reduce it to one factor while ignoring other possible factors.

Race is almost always cited as being one of, and often the most, significant factors for arrests, sentencing, and incarcerations. However, I believe that this is due to lack of imagination on behalf of researchers. Race is often presented as a causal factor – because someone is black, they are more likely to be targeted by police or policies and end up incarcerated. However, there are other intervening variables.

According to the Cato Institute, native born blacks have the highest incarceration rate of all racial and ethnic groups (4.21%). However, black legal immigrants have an incarceration rate of 0.57%, which is lower than Hispanic and “other” (mostly Middle-Eastern) races. This is a massive difference, and is the largest difference between native and immigrant incarceration rates between any racial and ethnic group. If blacks from Africa have such a relatively low incarceration rate compared to native blacks, can we really attribute the discrepancy in incarceration rates to only race?
We again discuss race as it relates to poverty and crime, but we refuse to admit that poverty may be the more important variable. Blacks make up 34% of the prison population (while only 13% of the total population), while whites (67% of the total population) make up 30% of prisons. Blacks also have a poverty rate of 22% compared to 9% for whites. We MUST consider that the reason why black incarceration rates are so much higher than white incarceration rates, is because there is a much higher rate of blacks in poverty than whites.

When we tease poverty out, rates of violence, arrests, and incarceration are virtually identical. According to the BJS, “Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) have rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000).” If poverty is an equalizer, then race cannot be the primary factor.

There’s also the argument of geography. Crime is generally higher in urban areas. There is a higher concentration of blacks in urban areas. Again, when comparing overall crime rates by race, we should consider that most blacks live in crime areas than whites, but that does not mean that whites living in urban areas are committing a lower rate of crime. In most crime data used to make an argument about race, urban blacks (the majority of blacks) are essentially compared to suburban and rural whites (where they are the majority). Geography is the lost variable that I have rarely, if ever, seen considered. Perhaps research exists, but I have not seen it.

Of course, culture, as always, is ignored. American black culture, African culture, rich culture, WASP culture, Hispanic culture, Japanese culture, Asian culture, redneck culture, etc. are all different. They often have different dreams and aspirations, as well as opportunities. Their beliefs, values, and social norms are determined within the group and are difficult to change. There are plenty of examples of people moving from one sub-culture to another within a more dominant one. Assimilation rates differ, and the desire to assimilate is different among various cultures.

The argument is much more nuanced than the racial disparity proponents want to admit, and we would be hard pressed to find a plethora of data out there that dives into these nuances. It’s easier to employ the reduction fallacy, especially when it constantly remains unchecked. Political correctness and the fear of being labeled a racist stifles any further investigation.

Future research should acknowledge that racial categories are not monolithic. I doubt that will happen, because it goes against the narrative of race being the most determinate status in the history of everything.


The Satanic Era

In the first episode of Mindhunter, the Netflix show about how the FBI serial killer program began, an interesting proposition was presented. The gist is that prior to the 1970s, crime had motive. In the contemporary era, however, motive was no longer a factor. Serial killers may have a modus operandi, and even a purpose, but they essentially kill indiscriminately. Random people become targets. Of course, this is a fictional story, but does that make the point any less relevant?

We may understand a killer has a motive, such as creating fear or terror, but there is no motive for target selection. Consider the most recent case of the Las Vegas shooting. As of this writing, a full month has passed and no one knows what motivated Stephen Paddock to shoot 500 people. Many terror attacks are on large groups of people, but none involve a personal motive.

Gone are the days of organized crime when gangsters wanted to “send a message” by killing a rival or snitch. No longer must a woman die because she was cheating on her husband. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time is as dangerous as infidelity in today’s world. When did this change?

I will once again point my finger at what I have termed “the Satanic Era” of the 1960s. Prior to the 1960s, the majority of mass killings were familicide. Since the 1960s, mass killings have been in public places against innocent bystanders. The deadliest decade prior to 1960 was the 30s, with 9 mass shootings. The 1960s had 6, the 70s had 13, there were 32 in the 1980s, and over 40 in the 1990s. The number since then as only increased.

Again, low numbers of mass shootings which primarily were targeted at family members prior to the 60s. Much higher frequency of shootings with a major increase in bystander fatalities since the 1960s.

How about serial killers, the focus of Mindhunter? According to one site, there were only a dozen or so serial killers in the United States in the decades leading up to the 1960s. There were 19 in the 1960s, 119 in the 70s, 200 in the 80s, and 141 in the 1990s. The number has since dropped to 60 or less in the twenty-first century, but the line drawn through the Satanic Era is still worth noting.

It does appear that this notion of random killing has increased since the 1960s.

17,000 women were forcibly raped in 1960. By the end of the decade, the number of victims had more than doubled. By 1992, the number peaked at over 109,000.

Recreational drug and alcohol use, though prevalent regardless of drug laws, has exploded since the 1960s.

Increases in violence against strangers, depictions of violence and sex in film and television, sexual assault, drug use, alcoholism, the opioid crisis, teen pregnancies, deviant sexual behaviors, homosexuality, transgenderism, mass murder, and serial killings are directly correlated with the decline in major religion and distrust of major media and government institutions.

In every single one of these categories – religious decline (secularization), increases in crime and deviance, the birth of new religious movements and serial killers – you can draw a line before and after the Satanic Era of the 1960s and see that there has been a seismic social shift in the United States.

One cannot help but notice that many of the same issues of the 1960s are manifest today. Civil unrest, shouts of racism, segregation, unending protest, free love, excessive drug use, sensitivity toward anything deemed “offensive”, attacks on free speech and the Constitution, militarized police, political corruption, calls for revolution, Marxism, and the list goes on and on.

I am a child of the 80s, but I would love to hear from those who were alive during the 60s. Does your lived experience mirror my theory? Has the shift been noticeable? Do you think there has actually been a shift? Please, I want to hear from you.

Less “Reform”, More Revival

In the aftermath of last weekend’s Las Vegas massacre, Democrats came out almost immediately and called for new gun control regulations. Republicans came out and defended the Second Amendment, and back and forth we went.

When a maniac in a Dodge Charger drove into a crowd in Charlottesville, we began fighting over what statues were now deemed too racist to stand. The media blamed Trump for bringing racism back to America, and the GOP reflexively started defending the First Amendment.

These types of reactions and counter-reactions make up the political dance we’ve become accustomed to. Allegations and arguments are becoming so tired and shallow that it takes only a new voice, rather than new idea, to seemingly supercharge political partisan hacks.

Rather than rally for gun control, healthcare reform, or ending racism, why are there no calls for revival?

We live in a nation that, as of last year, claims to be 77% Christian, though only about 20% seem to take it seriously enough to go to church once a week. Yet when a sadistic mass murderer spends $50,000 on weapons and ammo so that he could spray bullets into a crowd of innocent concert goers, not one talking head called for people to get saved. Some on CNN and Fox News called for A savior, but no one called for THE Savior.

Did the evangelical political hero, President Donald J. Trump, mention one word about turning to God? Where was Osteen? He tweeted out a general platitude, like most Christians, saying to trust in the Lord. Other politicians sent “thoughts and prayers” to the victims and their families. This is a lovely gesture, and as a resident Las Vegan, I appreciate prayers. Prayers work. However, prayer is not salvation. While everyone has been concerned with the physical health and safety of all in Las Vegas, it seems like few, if any, have been concerned with our souls.

In a “Christian” nation, millions of people should have been out in the streets witnessing for Christ and sending out invitations to church. Instead, we hit Twitter and started arguing about gun rights with complete strangers.

Jimmy Kimmel, a devout practicing Catholic, used his powerful platform to demonize the NRA and legal firearm owners rather than conduct an altar call and preach the gospel. Many others followed this pattern.

There is no more relevant time to witness to the unsaved than after a national tragedy. It’s never “too soon”, but it is often too late to do so.

You never know when an armed gunman will strike where you are.

You never know when a bomb will destroy the building you’re in.

You never know if you’re on a plane with someone who wants to crash it.

You never know when a drunk driver will come from out of nowhere and take your life.

Last Sunday night’s events were a reminder of our fleeting mortality. Life can end when you least expect it. Are you confident in your beliefs on the afterlife? Are you sure you are just going to become worm food? Are you positive that you will be reincarnated until you reach Nirvana?

I am 100% positive that I will be in Heaven with God and Jesus Christ when I die. I will not waver from that belief.

If you are questioning, at all, what happens when you die, talk to me. Yes, I am being an opportunist. I am taking advantage of fear and tragedy. That’s because I want you all to be as sure as I am that your eternity is secure.

Notes on Numbers 23-25

Once Balaam had a direct run in with the Angel of the LORD (Jesus Christ), he turned from his lying ways (Numbers 22) and began to tell Balak exactly what God told him to. These passages given as instruction to an outside nation about Israel ring true today, 3500 years later. These concepts should be learned by 21st century American Christians, but our government is becoming increasingly anti-Israel.

Observe Numbers 23:9 which tells us “the people [Israel] shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations.” Here we are, 3500 years later, and the United Nations constantly rules against Israel. There is only one country on the planet who has historically stood beside Israel, and the United States has spent the last couple of decades trying to give the West Bank to Palestine, stop the building of new homes, and refusing to acknowledge that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

With friends like these…right?

Israel dwells alone, just like this verse says. The nations will not reckon with Israel, just like this verse says.

Numbers 24:9 says of Israel, “Blessed is he that blesseth thee, and cursed is he that curseth thee.” This is a dire warning to the United Nations and United States of America.

Some of the worst disasters to ever hit the United States occurred within a few weeks of our nation going against Israel. Here are just a few examples:

  1. We refused to veto an anti-Israel resolution in the UN in 1979. Two days later, Three Mile Island become one of the worst nuclear power plant meltdowns.
  2. George H.W. Bush tried to convince Israel to give up territory to Palestine in 1991. The next day “The Perfect Storm” (so “perfect” that they made a movie out of it) actually slammed into the Bush home in Maine.
  3. The anti-Semitic Madrid Peace Conference moved to Washington D.C. in 1992. The next day Hurricane Andrew caused record setting damage in Florida.
  4. In 1994, Clinton met with Assad to try to leverage Israel into giving up the Golan Heights. The next day, the second worst disaster in American history, the Northridge earthquake, hit southern California.
  5. For almost two months in 1997, massive tornadoes ravaged Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Storms in the Dakotas cause the worst flooding of the century. Other storms rage through the Midwest. These disasters began the moment Yasser Arafat landed in the United States and stopped the moment he left.
  6. On January 21, 1998, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu arrived in the U.S. and Clinton and Sec. of State Albright refuse to have lunch with him. The same day, the Lewinski story broke.
  7. September 1998, Albright attempts to get Israel to give up 13% of its Yesha territory (Judea and Samaria). The same day Hurricane George hits the Gulf Coast and stays in one place.
  8. The next day, Arafat again leaves the U.S. and Georges dissipates after causing $1 billion in damage.
  9. When those same talks resume in October 1998, storms and tornadoes destroy 25% of Texas and do another $1 billion in damage. The talks lasted from Oct. 15-23, and the storms lasted from Oct. 17-22.
  10. The same day that Arafat was scheduled to declare an official Palestinian state with the backing of Clinton in 1999, the most powerful storm system in U.S. history devastated Kansas and Oklahoma setting the record for fastest wind speed at 316 mph.
  11. On April 30th (my birthday!), 2003, George W. Bush presented “the Road Map to Peace” to P.M. Sharon. The next week saw the largest tornado cluster ever recorded up to that time as 412 storms hit the U.S.
  12. In 2005, George W. Bush attempted to convince Israel to remove its settlements from Gaza and give the entire Gaza Strip to Palestine. As the last settlers were evacuated on August 23rd, Hurricane Katrina formed over the Bahamas and almost one week later would become the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history, flooding the entire city of New Orleans.
  13. Three days after Barack Obama told Israel to return to the smaller pre-1967 borders in 2011, a half-mile wide EF-5 multiple-vortex tornado destroyed Joplin, MO and became the single costliest tornado in U.S. history.
  14. Most recently was the Obama’s refusal to veto another anti-Israel resolution in the U.N. in late December 2016. In early January, the U.S. saw one of the largest ice storms in our nation’s history that affected 16 states (N. Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, Colorado, and Oklahoma) causing power outages and fatalities. In mid-January ANOTHER major winter storm came and hit Oregon, California, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Texas.

I am sure these are all just coincidences, right? It is by pure chance that legendary storms, tornados, nuclear disasters, and record setting damages all happen to occur within a few days or weeks after the United States “curses” Israel.

“Cursed is he who curseth thee.”

Notes on Exodus 16-18

The children of Israel are wandering into the “wilderness of Sin” which is obviously a geographical location, but I cannot escape the word “Sin” here. I get a picture of the Israelites who were just rescued from hell on Earth, yet still struggle in the wilderness of their own sins. They are found wandering, complaining, and once again wish that God had killed them in their captivity rather than allow them to live with the difficulties of being free.

I also love Moses’ response, which should ALWAYS be the response of someone who is doing what God told them to do. In Exodus 16:8, he says “what are we? Your murmurings are not against us, but against the LORD.”

He beings with a humble question. “What are we?” Who do you guys think we are? Then immediately points out that Moses and Aaron are just following God’s Word, therefore, if you have a problem with it, then God is with whom you take issue.

I wish more pastors would take this line of reasoning. I wish more CHRISTIANS would. The problem, in my opinion, is that too many of us are NOT following God’s Word. Our pastors have been leading churches with more of a business model than that of divine inspiration. I know for a fact that some churches are more concerned with financial health and numerical audience growth than of allowing the Holy Spirit to guide their decisions. They have allowed themselves to be deceived that they are doing the “right thing,” but the lack of spiritual growth in their members says otherwise.

Our churches are more concerned with marketing than preaching the Truth. Christian universities are more concerned with pumping out copies of copies (a simulacra) of pastors who preach the same way (3-4 bullet points for about 40 minutes on a topical “sermon series” chosen up to a year in advance) from the same books (written by men, not the Bible) who were taught that the King James Bible is flawed and imperfect, thus, we have no access to the inspired, perfect Word of God unless we can speak and read Hebrew and a dead Greek language (Koine).

I take issue with Christians who pervert God’s Word and subvert His will. If we were all doing what we were supposed to be doing, like Moses and Aaron, then I would have no reason to murmur.

When the Israelites were starving, God provided food for them. Once again, miracle after miracle, and the children of Israel STILL couldn’t help but disobey when Moses told them not to leave their food out. It spoiled. When Moses did tell them to leave their food out, it remined fine. God preserves his bounty, so long as we follow His rules.

There is a “type of Christ” tucked away neatly in Exodus 17:6, “thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall water come out of it.” Jesus Christ is the rock, and he was beaten until blood (and actual water) came out of him.

Yet another “type of Christ” occurs in verse 12. In order for the Israelites to defeat their enemy, Moses had to keep his arms outstretched. This is a picture of Christ stretching his arms out on the cross to defeat sin.

Exodus 18 has some interesting gems in it as well.

The first of which is when Jethro (Moses’ father in-law) hears of the plagues and exodus from Egypt. He says in verse 11, “Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them.”

This is not something to overlook. Jethro clearly believes that the gods are actual beings. As I mentioned in my notes on Exodus 7-12, God challenged each of the Egyptian gods and won. Jethro says “in the thing wherein they dealt proudly” which seems to verify what I thought happened with the plagues.

The passage ends with a very dangerous proposition that happens to many Christians today. Moses was tasked with certain responsibilities. He was a prophet and military leader. However, he took it upon himself to also be a judge, rather than allow God to judge the Israelites or at least appoint judges Himself. Rather than listening to God’s counsel, Moses turned his ear to Jethro. His father in-law meant well, I am sure, but he was also just a man. Jethro advised Moses with sound human advice.

This is what we do way too often. We try to find the answers ourselves, and when we get overwhelmed we turn to our friends and family. They want to help us, but they are most likely not executing God’s wisdom. Taking their advice often leads to the same dead ends that we would have run into by doing it our own way. God wants us to listen to HIM, not our parents or best friends.

The result of Moses appointing judges, rather than allowing God to do so, slid down the slippery slope from removing God as the head of the nation to adding judges which didn’t go over well, and eventually putting kings in charge. A human king, as we see ample evidence of, is no match for the Heavenly King. Humans are full of corruption, while Christ is perfect and merciful.

Notes on Genesis 16-18

Today I read up on the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 16-18, and there are several things of note here.

The first is the merging of the Hametic (Hagar of Egypt) and the Semitic (Abraham) lines. Sarah, Abraham’s wife, had the idea of allowing her husband to “marry” her handmaid. This unholy merger produced Ishmael, who Muhammad proudly proclaimed as the progenitor of the Arabs. Notice the description of Ishmael’s offspring, “he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.”

Does that sound like the historical Muslim? Muslims have been constantly warring with everyone, are brutal to their enemies, and have a global presence. I think it is safe to say that the Bible predicted the Arab Spring 4000 years before it occurred. It predicted the behavior of Islamists 2500 years before Muhammad received his “vision” and penned the Quran.

In Genesis 17:20, God makes this promise for Ishmael, “I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.”

Not everyone is aware, but all Muslims believe in the Mahdi (Sunnis disagree that he is the 12th Imam), though the Shiites (Iran, Iraq, Lebanon) believe that the 12th Imam (twelve princes, right? A counterfeit to the 12 tribes of Israel) is the Mahdi and will ascend out of a deep well (like the bottomless pit in Revelation 9) and bring peace to a warring world (like Antichrist in Revelation 13), ruling for 7 years (the tribulation) before the “Day of Judgment” (Second Advent).

This Islamic revelation of the Mahdi is one of the reasons why Shiite nations are constantly waging war. They believe the chaos will trigger the return of the 12th Imam and bring about world peace. Christians, beware! The Mahdi is the Antichrist, and his appearance is being actively sought out!

My second observation is the first mention (remember the “law of first mention”) of “the angel of the Lord.” While the Jewish faith holds that Jesus Christ was not the Messiah, the angel of the Lord, given the law of first mention, must be Christ in the Old Testament. This is further evidenced in Zechariah 12:8, a prophetic verse that says “the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.” You see? “as God, as the angel of the LORD.” The angel of the Lord is God, the Lord Jesus Christ. The first mention in the New Testament is post-resurrection in Acts 12:23, and is found again in Acts 27:23 where Paul says he serves the “angel of the Lord.” This is, once again, Christ.

The next observation is the real estate deal known as the “Abrahamic covenant” where God promises that the land of Canaan would belong to the seed of Abraham forever. This area has been also known as “the Levant,” which is why ISIS or ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) continually targets the region including Israel for their caliphate (Islamic State).

Canaan was taken by the Israelites around 1400 BC, and, although the Israelites were occasionally removed from their homeland temporarily, regained legal possession of it in 1948 AD. The children of Israel remain nestled in Canaan today. God has held up His end of the covenant for almost 3500 years with no sign of it breaking anytime soon.

As Israel is the most hated and constantly targeted nation on the planet and is literally surrounded by genocidal enemies, is there any rational explanation for their persistent existence? No. It must be divine protection.

The final thing that jumped out at me is the appearance of three angels in Genesis 18. They looked like men (verse 2) and ate food like any normal man (verse 8). Sure, the word “angel” does not appear here, but two of these men are described as angels in chapter 19, and Abraham refers to the third as “the Lord” (capital L, denoting deity) in verse 3 of chapter 18. They once again ate a meal with Lot, and the wicked degenerates of Sodom wanted to rape them.

These passages lend credence to the sons of God in Genesis 6 being angels, not the “sons of Seth” or human kings as some would have you believe. We have evidence of angels in human form that can engage in fleshly, human behaviors. Hebrews 13:2 says “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.”

You never know when an angel (possibly even fallen ones) is in your midst, so be careful how you treat strangers! That homeless man on the corner may be one of God’s angels, so may the woman you flicked off in rush hour traffic. Your best bet is to follow the golden rule found in Matthew 7:12, “whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.”

Treat other as you would treat yourself, and that will ensure that you are treating God’s angels with respect!

My GOP Debate Analysis

In order of winner to loser:

  1. Ted Cruz-Everything he said is exactly what I believe, and his delivery was eloquent, intelligent, and honest. He is a virtually flawless speaker, and I love that he had statistics or examples of every one of his positions.
  2. Marco Rubio-I disliked one part of one answer. When talking about education, I did not like that he spoke of poor federal spending without addressing that there should be NO federal money in our schools. Other than that, I enjoyed his passion, positions, and poise. If Ted was not so flawless, Marco would have been the winner.
  3. Carson and Paul-This is a tie for me. Carson is a very good man, possibly the most personable of the field. However, his answers fell a little flat until the end, but he ended incredibly strong. Paul was feisty and passionate. I thought he got the best of the sparring with Christie, although I did not get the same impression when watching the post-debate edited video. In context, he killed Christie. Out of context, he looked like a yippy puppy. Otherwise, his answers were solid all the way through.
  4. Huckabee-I am a very huge critic of the Huckster, but he is a skilled debater. I appreciate his declaration to try and overturn Roe v. Wade, but we all know that it is just completely unrealistic. He benefited from being able to dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge questions on immigration and education—my two biggest issues with him.
  5. Fiorina-Like Cruz, she had a flawless performance. I put her down here simply because her lack of competition in the early debate made her seem miles ahead of everyone, whereas she is actually in line with a few of the main candidates.
  6. Christie-A skilled performer, Christie said a lot of the right things the right way. Unfortunately, his defense of poor state performance and history of scandals like “Bridgegate” and the possibility that he single-handedly handed Obama the election in 2012 (which Paul expertly addressed in his “hug” comment) moves the big man down the list a bit. He’s only this high because of his style is great. Substance, however, he lacks.
  7. Walker-Was Scott Walker on stage? I would have barely known he was even there, which is good for him. He did not make headlines, but he also did not make waves. I liked his answer on abortion—life of the baby or life of the mother is a false choice. However, if all other options were removed from the table (an unlikely scenario given modern medical techniques, but I suppose it can possibly happen), I would always choose the life of the mother. He handled it well, and let those around him implode. It was a safe debate, but we will see him again.
  8. Kasich-Like Walker, Kasich just seemed to exist. All I came out of it knowing was that he balanced the budget, made Ohio suck less, and his dad was a mailman. I do not think he stands a chance, but he will be a viable candidate as a cabinet member someday.
  9. Trump-I liked half of his answers. Unfortunately, every time I started to agree, he ruined it by being Trump. Yes, we are to politically correct, but that does not mean you should attack every person who challenges you. Trump is incredibly thin skinned. He bullies people. I also HATED his answers that include “using the laws” and “buying politicians” to build his empire. While his bankruptcies were legal, they were not ethical. He cheated to get rich, we know it and he flaunts it. Even through all that, his performance was entertaining enough that he will still dominate the news cycle. His strongest supporters will dig in deeper, but I think he lost some of the ones on the fence. I predicted that the debate format would produce soundbytes, but skilled debaters like Cruz and Paul would overshadow him. Both came true, but he was not the worst of the night.
  10. Bush-As the “front-runner” over all but Trump, Bush faded throughout the night. He tried to stand out at first, but proved to be mortal. His biggest issues are being a Bush, immigration, and education. He doubled down on his support for a pathway to citizenship (amnesty, regardless of denial) and Common Core. Even if you do believe in Common Core only on the state level (which it is not, and he doesn’t regardless of what he said last night), the curriculum itself is awful. It was designed by non-educators, makes no sense, and teaches to the test rather than learning. The entire concept is awful. Jeb did a very poor job in standing out in any positive, believable way.
  11. Perry-He had an average second place performance in the early debate. Unfortunately, I believe he would have looked even worse with the big boys. I like Perry, but he is simply bad in debates.
  12. Pataki-This guy had some decent points, and his delivery was good, but he is just so irrelevant.
  13. Santorum-When asked if his time had passed, Santorum should have answered “yes”. Sorry Rick, but your time has come.
  14. Jindal-A non-factor, really. I like the guy, but no one cares about him. He did nothing to change that last night.
  15. Gilmore-He came to the debate as an unknown, and left the same way. I cannot even remember which state he was a governor—or was it a senator—see? I still know nothing about him.
  16. Graham-He is the worst of the worst. His delivery seemed as though he just woke up, fell down the stairs, and took morphine to ease his pain. He was clearly reading his responses, and I doubt that he actually wrote them. My favorite part was his view on women’s health—which he somehow turned into killing ISIS. I think he would send our troops overseas to fight anyone whose name is Muhammad for any reason whatsoever. Beheading Christians? Go to war. Chanting “death to America”? Go to war. Chewing bubble gum? Go to war. He is insane. His performance was so bad, that S. Carolina should immediately seek to remove him from the Senate and lock him away in a padded room with only a copy of the Koran to read.