Protestantism, Natural Law v. Natural Rights, Socialism and Love

From more discussions regarding abortion from the U.S. Politics Catholic Discussion on Facebook (my own posts only). The topic of family income as socialism was being discussed.

The important thing is family income after birth. It is basic decency, not socialism.

The history of the pro-life movement was political from the start. It is Evangelical boot camp, since focusing on it was their idea, even before Roe. They started with racism but could not continue on that tack. While the Catholic bishops were always pro-life, the political oomph for the issue came from the Southern Baptists. It was not until Paul Weyrich had his infamous conference call in 1979 about what to do after Christian Academies who discriminate were denied federal education funds that the GOP really focused on abortion. After Evangelical reactionaries brought this contention to the fore, GOP bishops were glad to carry their water.

What some Catholics imply about legal abortion and the fate of the nation totally ignores the teachings of Christ regarding the Tower of Siloam. Given that the same Catholics deny the Church's teaching on living wages for families makes them like Republican catholics rather than a Catholic republicans. Being a Catholic who knows the truth about abortion does not make one a Protestant.

I need not become one. There are plenty of Protestant churches in America. I am descended from the founders of the Annabaptists in the US (do not blame us for the Southern Baptists, we consider them to be anathema because they do not believe in the Real Pressence and because they were racists and are political whores for the GOP - perhaps you should convert), the Quakers in the US (one of the Martyrs in Boston is my 12th great grandmother), the Disciples of Christ, the Presbyterians who became the Congregationalists (yes, I, like Obama, are Plymouth descendants) and among the many Jews who were told to convert by the Holy Roman Emperor. All my Jewish ancestors had to do that about 8 generations ago - maybe more.

I am a cradle Catholic, as was my otherwise Jewish father and both his parents and grandparents. Last I checked, Christ was a Jew as well. My baptism is as good as St. John Paul's, as we are all equal before the Lord. I have no reason to leave, by the way, since my reasoning is absolutely correct in both law and doctrine,. Those who equate Catholic Social Teaching with Stalinism are the schismatics.

Abortion was not widely prohibited for a long time in the US. It has never been regarded as killing a child. I mention American history because doing so is the part of Scalia's originalism that everyone accepts as valid. There is no law that put legal abortion in place, just a declaration that the interests of pregnant women is greater than the power of state government to say otherwise until the child is viable, except when the mother's life is at stake. Many roll the dice and try to save both lives, but the law cannot force them to. Minority rights, especially for women, are protected by the federal courts against state legislative majorities and their conservative donors.

The fetus has no rights pre viability until Congress makes them legal individuals. No one else has that authority under the Constitution. The question is about power conservative legislators in the states. Anytime we can stop these fools from forcing their biases on women, gays, hippies and minorities it is a good day. The issue has always been about power, not dead babies. That balance currently stops majority tyranny. That is appropriate in a natural RIGHTS republic.

Abortion law is not based on natural law, nor should it be. Indeed, while Catholics believe that the papacy has exclusive authority to define such law for everyone else, it CANNOT be used. Doing so would be both a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, but also against the documents of the Second Vatican Council, particularly Dignitatis Humanae.

Dignitatis is valid because it agrees with the Establishment Clause, and was intended to. This means that the Court must rule based on natural rights and cannot use the Catholic concepts of natural law in its rulings. Judges and justices who feel they must do so are required to recuse themselves. If their bishop says otherwise than all the Catholic justices must do the same.

Catholic members of Congress may be informed by natural law as long as it does not violate their constitutional oath of office to do so. Changing the start of life under the Constitution is allowed. Enacting targeted enforcement that would only be used against abortion clinics and not include all first trimester deaths would violate constitutional due process under the 5th and 14th Amendments (states cannot either).

Literally, the only thing they can do is enact subsidies to support family income and provide lifetime financial security to people with Down's Syndrome. While economic teaching by the Popes is not mandatory for the state it is still to be preferred by Catholics. Resisting it  because Marx happened to agree with it crosses a line. Comrade Stalin agrees with the GOP on it not being mandatory. Who do you stand with?

One more thing, there are other forms of Love in the Spirit. Both Eros, Storge, Pragma and even the innocent love of Ludus are love in Shekinah, the in dwelling of the Spirit. She actually demands pragmatic love. She is not an Ogre. Pragma is not evil in Her sight, including women needing drastic action in crisis pregnancies, because Pragma is of Her making. She does not demand martyrdom, although She does honor it. To infer that Eros is outside of Her is blasphemy against Her. It cannot be forgiven because to deny this in relation to others (including gays and lesbians) denies Her.

The source of all Evil

No, it is not Donald Trump or Satan or even auto-correct. I used to think it was blame. It has something to do with blame, which is the knowledge of good and evil, but it is not evil itself.

I also used to think it was free will, which is the ability to choose the lesser good because the ultimate Good, which is God, is not perfectly visible to us. Good in perfect form is compelling as the true object of our desires. This is a good deductive explanation (finding Truth in first principles, but it is not very useful.

In grad school our leadership class learned about projective identification. This comes very close, but it is more sociology than spirituality and ethics. Of course, one of the big topics is religion as culture.

It is the same principle as the 10th step of recovery. If you spot it, you got it. It is also similar to the magic magnifying mind found in the story "Acceptance is the Answer" in the AA Big Book.

These methods are close to what I am talking about here (indeed, they are a statement of the same thing, but not exactly). Everything I have mentioned already is true, but I hope that this new view on the problem of evil is more useful.

Evil is not just about expectations not being met. Both evil and good are about taking our knowledge of ourselves, especially our flaws, into our relationship to everyone else. Here are some examples that are very relatable.

If we keep secrets, we think everyone else is keeping secrets. The whole secrecy and security clearance thing is like that.

If we are financially comfortable, we can not have empathy for the poor. We are self-reliant, why can't they be?

 If we are paranoid or depressed, we see everyone else that way. The same goes for feeling unworthy or feeling smart. We assume everyone else is one or the other.

People expect others to behave as they do. Smart people think everyone should understand what they say. The pious think everyone should be pious. The chaste think everyone should be chaste. A lot of our moral hang-ups could be solved by understanding that one.

People who feel guilty think everyone else should feel guilty. The same is true for shame and being in love. When the facts say otherwise, hearts are broken. Feeling broken or sad makes people assume everyone else feels that way. This is the basis for power ballads and Country music.

This especially applies to people with addictions. Drunks think everyone drinks like they do. Sex and open addicts think the same way. Food addicts as well as chronic debtors.

This is why people in recovery form groups. Such fellowships do everything from self-realization to identification with the group and reintegration of members back into normal living (amends), all by leaving self reliance behind and relying on the group and on God.

Religion and other forms of spirituality follow the same tack, but in a less focused manner. They deal with general brokenness, although sometimes the group dynamic magnifies rather than corrects the real issues people face.

Sadly, ritual replaces real growth. If you are religious the solution to everything is conversion to group ideals. That is what is happening in Rome. It won't work.

The same is true with education and transformation. The answer is always a new course or distinction. This only goes so far.

The real answer is contained in all of these practices. Forgiveness and compassion, for ourselves and others, is the only way out. Love and acceptance are also good words for the same thing.

In the Christian tradition, salvation through Jesus works this way. Entering our suffering by experiencing the brokenness of the cross is how Jesus showed us that God understands us, rather than being a demand that we imitate some imagined moral perfection.

In the Jesus story, God does not have any behavioral issues and this is not a demand that we all find Jesus or recovery, just that we seek a higher power through others.

Our goal is to love perfectly, starting with ourselves and the others. This requires the reliance on Her divine love and compassion rather than ourselves. In Hebrew, Skekinah is the indwelling of the Spirit of God and is gender female.

Ultimately, we cannot know that indwelling without relationship to others, but as they are, not as a reflection of our own demons. Not only the big demons which require a recovery program, but the ordinary ones as well. We must wish peace to others (as Jesus and every other spiritual leader point out) if we wish peace upon others, it is granted to us. It is the same with all good and evil things. It is up to us to chose.

Is being an idiot a high crime?

Can Citizen Trump be impeached for being a crooked businessman who ran a deceptive PR campaign to make his total inability at business merely an open secret?

Can he be impeached for being so stupid to think that his obvious and public obstruction of justice is just another sloppy attempt at public relations?

Can he be impeached for thinking that he was manipulating Putin about trying to get Trump Tower built and trusting his advice in plain sight, even though the rest of the world knows that he is, in fact, Putin's little bitch? (apologies to bitches for impinging your integrity by association with Trump)

Can Trump be impeached for not condemning extremists in his own base and openly attacking the media for calling them racists?

Can Trump be impeached for being such an idiot that his staff has to block his orders from going forward, especially after his presidential campaign was based on his not being a professional politician who would shake things up, pass a tax cut on the rich and start a trade war?

Can he be impeached and removed if his supporters know that most of these charges are out there but think they are just fake news, aka that his PR campaign works as intended?

Essentially, is being the idiot that he and his expected him to be cause for removal by the Senate who represent his base or is that what democracy really looks like, even though necessary obstruction if his orders is an obvious constitutional crises? Is open kakistocracy a high crime?

Can he be impeached for being the subject of a Green Day video?  https://youtu.be/Ee_uujKuJMI

The Speaker v. the Pro-Life Kakistocracy

This post is about a criticism of NETWORK  singing the praises of Speaker Pelosi. The movement's problem with Pelosi and the Nuns likely has to do with their gender.

We all know from her public statements that the Speaker misunderstands Aristotle on protecting life, which requires protection if there is doubt. She would give that benefit to the woman, which is incorrect. This at least shows that she went to class but misunderstood that point regarding responsibility.

The corollary is also true. If you believe in a dualistic soul that controls development or the third law of thermodynamics (that systems tend toward entropy without energy) then it follows that gastrulation, where intentional energy first occurs, is the start of individual life.

Pelosi likely does understand, however,  why repealing Roe would bring back Plessy, that Pius XI taught that higher incomes from the poor are the best way to fight abortion, that regulating first trimester abortion requires really intensive policing.

The unborn have a right to life against execution unless the mother is in danger. Imposing the continuation of pregnancy on them by state legislative action violates their right to due process.

The trade-off between their right to not be pregnant vs. the right of the unborn to force them to is a matter for Congress, and only Congress, but the settling of the question cannot violate the due process rights of providers. This means no enforcement by simply rounding up abortion providers.

I also have no doubt about gastrulation being the start of life or the inability of American law to criminalize first trimester abortion or that Catholics need not work for that goal. I agree that life is sacred however imposing criminal penalties after bringing back the state's rights reasoning of Plessy or a pregnancy police state are authoritarian.

Dignitatis Humanae teaches that we need not impose Catholic teaching on the nation unless the nation agrees, even if the USCCB has sold its soul to the GOP. Favoring an authoritarian idiot in order to accomplish these ends is cooperation with evil as is resisting taxation to provide a living wage to large families when the employer cannot.

At this point, many reactionaries accuse me of brilliantly twisting the truth. I counter that when Jesus was talking about the foolishness of the wise, he meant the impatient zeal of a child. This does not imply that a MAGA kakistocracy (rule by idiots) is the ideal government. Faith does not trump reality.

This works both ways. All those earnest folks arguing for immediate resignation of every one in Virginia who got stupid in college is the triumph of belief over brains and is cutting off our nose to spite our face. Me too also comes close to that self-righteous anger that is poisoning the well. This always happens when we put loyalty to the tribe over the truth.

Self righteous desires to make women behave and the self reliant view that higher taxes to support families with children is wrong. Law and justice trump the assumed moral authority of the plurality of the USCCB. It does not justify their whoring for the GOP, most especially to an authoritarian fool like Donald J Trump. He has ruined the GOP for everyone but religious and racist reactionaries. The moderate and Wall Street GOP have left the building.

In two weeks all will be revealed as the redactions are removed from the Mueller probe filings and he is arrested. If Pence shares his cell then Pelosi becomes 46.

The "Catholic moment" in the US was roughly 1945-1959. Lenny Bruce was often arrested when he made jokes about the Church. See the book 1959. Before in 1945 the culture was Masonic. After 1959 it became socially libertarian. It may recurr through Catholic leftism, but not as it was before.

I agree that the Democrats are wrong because they do not go far enough. Within the next 5 year's there will be 2 Democratic parties: moderate and social. The Clintonians and MAGA will split the non-radical vote. Maybe then we can pass the required family income provisions into law and actually do something for the unborn, even more than the Speaker would agree to.

Trump's Future and the Mueller Report

At anytime, Vice President Pence can convene the Cabinet and take a vote to remove him from office as disabled. It wouldn't cost him anything because he cannot be fired. It will either be unanimous or crickets because if the vote succeeds, anyone voting no may be fired immediately. His tantrums should have triggered this. Arrest and competency review surely would.

There is no existing law (just fear) to go forward with a bill of information presented to a federal judge (or a sealed indictment), who would order the Secret Service to shift Trump from protectee to prisoner.

All of the neccesary decisions may have already been made by DAG Rosenstein (which Manfredy explain his planned departure and how sanguine the Mueller team has been about Cohen's testimony to Congress.

The announcement that all reactions will be removed as of February 26th, if not sooner, indicate that the investigation is over. Indeed, an arrest warrant may already be ready to serve on the President and his family, which would end his power to pardon.

If Pence is indicted too, he may become a detainee the second he invokes the 25th Amendment. If he resigns, Pelosi becomes acting President. If not he acts until Trump is released, removed, aquitted or resigns.

If Pelosi does not want the job, she could have the House elect her choice for Speaker, resign and be a Speaker with no vote or retire with a Presidential pension or run for her vacated seat. Anyone could be Speaker, even HRC.

The question of the Mueller Report is next. Special Counsel Barr released a public report, but he had more discretion. The process under the regulations is a memo to the Attorney General summarizing who was indicted and the disposition of those cases, who was not and why. The former will already be public information and the latter will not be released until the statutory secrecy period after we are all dead.

The Bill of Particulars to be transmitted to the House Judiciary Committee for impeachment purposes is also secret. If the Report includes information on the actions by the Southern District of New York, that would be included.

If it is not included, SDNY may send it's own Bill of Particulars to Congress, likely at the same time. That the President is an unindicted co-conspirator in two cases means that Congress will get something.

The Bill of Particulars is and will stay secret. The Committee will vote out Articles of Impeachment but would likely keep the Bill of Particulars secret. If the House adopts the Articles the evidence will be presented to the President and likely be reviewed by Senators in camera.

If Trump resigns or is impeached the information stays secret until it is presented to the jury and/or the judge(s) alone, if there is a bench trial. Trials will be in DC and New York. Only information used ppublicly at trial will be released. We may not see what is not used and if Trump and his family take a deal it will remain under seal. How long can you hold your breath?

The media should know better than to have the public expect a Mueller Report. What it should be talking about is whether Trump can be arrested and if mot, why not. Not dealing with this question is abetting his alleged treason.

Abortion, rights and dogma

Shabbat Shalom, or may the peace of the Sabbath be with you. This ironic because, one, I am only Jewish from my father's side (which is the wrong side) and because I am either violating a group practice, or not really a part of the group - because I am Catholic. Some would disagree, largely because of my views on abortion and epistemology, but that is on them, not me, as I will explain. Of course, I sought this occasion of sin because I turned on by turning on my smart phone and looked at comments on Facebook. These comments are the source of this post, which shows that argument can be the way to finding truth. Indeed, it is likely the best way. Of course, political discourse is not necessarily all about logic.

This started with a discussion of whether everyone on the site were liberal. It was quite the back and forth. Note that I am correcting typos. The questioner was asking a question about affiliation with the implication that her truth was being ignored. My response was also from affiliation, or a right to be considered part of the larger Catholic community despite a position she disagrees with. I said that

there are a few who buy into the conservative notions that one must be a Republican voter, believe in self-interest as a way to eliminate poverty and that some kind of law must be passed to limit abortion, but not anything that can be regarded as socialism. They are free to be there and have as much right to call themselves Catholic as they give us, despite the fact that Dignitatis Humanae does not require catholicizing the nation (which means no denying Eucharist to Democratic politicians) and that Casti Connubii obliges employers who can pay a living family sized base wage to do so and to set up arrangements, including taxation, to have the public treasury make sure it happens,

We all agree that abortion is a bad thing and actually helping procure one or encouraging them as a good thing for girls who wind pregnant makes one excommunicate. Simply voting to overturn Roe when it is not possible in federal common law and electing a president of either party could change that is not a grounds to excommunicate either candidates or voters. Bishops who say otherwise are catholic Republicans (not a typo).

 These were entirely arguments from affiliation and authority, not an exercise in reason.  Another exchange concerned whether there is a legislative solution to abortion. My response was that "Economic and social support, however, can be legislated." Later, someone asked if they can be a pro-life centrist. My response was "I hope that means you consider increasing the child tax credit. If so, you fit right in, although the GOP members will call you a socialist for following the economics of Milton Friedman." which is an appeal to authority, not reason, but still a valid point.

Later, someone said that they were pro-life in accordance with the teachings of the Church. My response was the question "What does being pro-life mean to you regarding criminal law, voting and giving more income to families supported by taxation?" She responded that she believes in what the Constitution and laws and that she grants the same rights to others.  Here was my response.

We have a right to not be killed by the federal (5th Amendment) and State (14th Amendment). It is why we don't have forced abortion or execute pregnant women. Anything else is a function of legislated rights, which only Congress can do for pregnancies prior to viability (the ability to be born - which is the constitutional dividing line). Recognizing and protecting first trimester embryos and fetuses is simply not possible unless you can figure out a way to investigate abortions and not miscarriages without selective enforcement - which would violate the due process rights of the fifth and fourteenth amendments,

This is citing authority, rather than arguing from it. Later, someone made the assertion that they were Catholic, not conservative or liberal. My response was that the abortion issue brings out tribalism, which is why it is called a wedge issue. The question later arose about the Sasse Born Alive Bill. my response was that withholding extraordinary measures was acceptable Catholic doctrine. Next we get to good stuff with this:

 Science when combined with dualism, which requires that there must be some kind of active principle for development, what we now call energy to ward of entropy, puts the start of life at gastrulation (when development with the genes from both parents starts). As previously stated, because enforcing their demand for life would require investigation of every subsequent death, it is legally impractical. It would implicitly force medicine to find a cure for miscarriage (or face malpractice claims for letting a legal person die). It would not be good public policy to try to try to prevent miscarriage at all costs - even if it is nature;s infanticide. The only way to do so is genetic manipulation, either before or after conception and gastrulation. That does not land well with right to lifers

That was meant with the response that  this would require ignoring the issue of miscarriage because it is not ending the life of an innocent person. I responded that this does not get you past the question of whether state power must be used to protect that innocence (previously I have argued that the question was not innocence but danger, both physical and economic. I further posted that

The moral argument is for individual action. Enforcing a positive law right is a group decision. Imposing such a decision requires police power and violates the rights if the minority to be left alone by the group, which is the essence of privacy, which is a protected right. If you understand that then you understand Roe.

This discussion is still live. The response was that contraception and public discourse could relieve the need for abortion. My answer, which is the usual one was that

 It was a discussion with me., Roe is based on the 14th Amendment language that legal personhood is based on birth or naturalization (and later simply residency). Roe expanded this to include the ability to be born, or viability. It is not arbitrary and is not only in the third trimester, as assisted viability occurs earlier. We am withhold or end treatment of a second trimester pregnancy, but we cannot actually decapitate the child or do other direct harm. Contraception and public education is not enough. We must also provide economic support to the child until it is an adult, which is why some regard this as a socialist argument, even though it was also made in another context about the best way to give subsidies to the poor, which libertarian economist Bill Friedman (not a socialist) called a negative income tax. I would give this benefit to all families, including the wealthy.

Just now someone gave the old paen about being Catholic first with the law second. I gave my usual response:

 No, our morals come from teaching. Our politics are in the context of law, even though they can be informed by our morals. Remember that law is derived from natural rights deism, Not Catholic natural law teaching, which is papal fiat, not reason.

Now on to an abortion discussion on another page, where I was called both a heretic and a follower of Satan for statements like those above. My responses to that question are what had me do this posting and further break the Sabbath. The discussion covered my post in response to Michael Sean Winters regarding Trump's remarks on abortion:

As to Dr. Northam's comments, he is correct about withholding care from doomed children. It is allowed to omit extraordinary measures. As for what happens before pregnancy is induced, it is merely a legal nicety for what is euthanasia. God is not an Ogre. I am sure She does mind ending avoidable suffering. Birth should be induced so the baby can be baptized and allowed to die naturally (but with heavy sedation). Ending a doomed pregnancy is a mercy and should be endorsed by the Church (especially the hospitals), as not doing so leaves the unborn at the mercy of outside clinics.

Arguing from first principles is not sufficient to deal with this situation. Life is grittier than that. Allowing such an issue to abet election of a tyrant to the Presidency shows how much the movement has been co-opted by the Republican Party. Of course, Trump does not understand the intricacies of abortion law and politics. Indeed, his employment practices likely caused many of his employees to seek abortion. I (thankfully) did not watch the speech and turned it on while he was pivoting from abortion to military spending. This had to be the oddest part of the speech, even odder than his attempt to yet again obstruct justice.

By the way. Trump needs to be arrested. This is now my common theme, that unless you arrest him or at least discuss the proposition, you are personally abetting his crimes. Another poster related that in an earlier time, deformed children were given sugar water then allowed to die naturally. Someone then asked about whether I watch CNN. I responded that CNN still allows people whose views are demonstrably wrong, so I watch MSNBC. I also defended calling God by She, which is consistent with how the Spirit of God is considered female in Judaism as Shekinah, a female name signifying the indwelling of the Spirit (which is one of the ways Jesus experienced His own Godhead). This is where I was called a heretic and Satan. Here are my responses, which is the end of this post. These are the really juicy bits on whether the teaching on abortion is dogma.

History and archeology say otherwise. To reject that is anachronistic and superstitious. Abortion is a natural law question, not dogma. While it is doctrine all that means is work by noted

Theologians. The Magisterium simply means teaching from the throne. Saying either one settles an argument about reason is the fallacy of arguing from authority. Dogma is an agreement by the whole church to accept that which we cannot know by reason. It is the imposition of an idea in the rest of the group. To disagree is to leave the group. It is a matter if loyalty, not absolute truth. We cannot know such truth in this life. We can only believe and agree. Whether we can belong even in the face if disageeement is a test if live and sociology, not truth. 

 As to whether I am a follower of Satan, "Satan means literally the Egyptian deity Set. He is a pagan concept which comes to us from Zoroastrianism." Since I already had reference history and anachronism, I did not go further.

On Execution and Martyrdom

https://www.democracynow.org/2019/2/1/do_we_as_a_society_have?fbclid=IwAR2hOjRCEVe9XKzykO79g5COG3v2pivGNx6vaw9m3Ge0yhO720o0QEk0z3w
homistic theology, or at least ethics, is actually pretty much like Bentham in how it balances the rights of convicts with the rights of the community. In the modern world, where the divine right is with the people due to their capacity to seek the good individually and collectively, the people are responsible for protecting the many from the few who are a danger (indeed, life ethics must be about danger, not innocence or guilt).

Executing a criminal is the state causing their death to protect not only society, but fellow convicts (unless the criminal can be rehabilitated - and if they can be, they must be - just as victims must learn forgiveness for their own sakes).

Life without parole and in solitary confinement also makes the state the instrument of death for the convict, but it is a death by slow torture. Indeed, prisoners who are so confined consider it to be a sentence of death.

The desire for moral consistency is blinding the Church on this issue, yet again. It leads to cowardice because the underlying theology is that God is an Ogre who is jealous of his prerogatives over life and death, rather than leaving us to use reason. This is the case with capital punishment, euthanasia and in permitting the termination of a pregnancy (by induction, not violence).

When the child has no hope of survival to the pregnancy (so no interest in life), the mother's interest in both life and health is logical and obvious unless God is an Ogre. This is not a culture of death, it is one that is not afraid that death is part of life.. We cannot impose the witness of martyrdom on mothers in problem pregnancies. While they can make such a witness, it should not be required of them.

Remember, we started out as a Church of Martyrs. Dying for Christ courageously was kind of our thing. Now we appeal to the US Government to release those who should be embracing the virtue of their witness. We don't celebrate Good Friday because we hope that just once, Jesus gets away.

Regarding Ralph

With respect. VA is no sicker now tham last Wednesday and Northum quitting won't matter either way. A sense of humor and economic justice will.

I have been in politics for 35 years. (having worked for both Jepsen and Barry) . I can spot a set up a mile away. He likely resisted something going on behind the scenes. One scandal in a week is bad luck. Two is conspiracy.

I would say he should resign save for someone running with the story of his remarks on resuscitating newborn with severe genetic defects. Someone is going for him.

This about what to do if Pelosi and Biden don't want to be President if Pence is dirty. Sounds like there is inside information bring used. It only matters if Kaine is about to leave Senate as HRC VP. What did Blogoiavich say on Senate seats?

I wonder if this spate of Northem revelation is not about Terry Mac wanting Kaine seat. We need Trump & Pence to quit & anyone but HRC as POTUS, regardless of what happens to Northum.