Tag Archives: Influence

Tucker Carlson plays (alleged) audio recording of Biden China deal

Rob Walker is RW and James Gilliar is JG
H is Hunter Biden, RW is Rob Walker, JG is James Gilliar

Tucker Carlson played more (alleged) audio of parties to the Biden-China deal on Wednesday night. The new audio documents how scared the parties were that their scheme would be discovered. Later on in the post, I’ll show how Hunter himself wanted to avoid suspicion by not registering as a foreign agent. And we’ll also see what law enforcement thinks of the Biden scandals.

First Daily Wire:

Fox News host Tucker Carlson released new purported audio recordings from alleged Biden family business partners fretting about the possibility that the Hunter Biden laptop-email controversy would get into the media and that, if someone verified it, it would blow up “big time.”

“You’re are about to hear Rob Walker and James Gilliar, those are two of the Biden family’s business partners, on a call with Tony Bobulinski,” Carlson said. “They’re discussing how very worried they are that this story, the one we’re talking about now, would emerge into the press, that it would become public. And they wanted to figure out how to handle the fallout from that. This audio is very new.”

Carlson played the following alleged audio files:

Rob Walker: I just think that if somebody comes out now and verifies the story, it blows up big time. That’s all.

James Gilliar: We’ve got this situation now where it’s escalating again because somebody, allegedly one of us three, has qualified the story, and already it’s back on the front pages.

“Also on that call, Tony Bobulinski pleaded with his partners to just tell the truth,” Carlson continued. “Just go ahead and tell the truth. Same thing he said during our interview last night. Instead of lying, Rob Walker and James Gilliar can come out and admit what happened—Hunter Biden was selling access to his father. Everyone knows that; why deny it?”

So, where are we at in verifying all of these documents right now? The U.S. Senate is currently investigating, and the FBI has possession of the Hunter Biden laptop.

The Daily Caller reports:

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has been successful in verifying all materials reviewed so far from Hunter Biden’s ex-business partner Tony Bobulinski, the Daily Caller has learned.

Committee Chairman Sen. Ron Johnson will not call Bobulinski to testify before the November 3 elections, as the committee is working to review all the information provided to the committee by Bobulinski. The information has to be verified, as it is subject to the same false information to Congress laws that verbal or written testimony does. However, a Johnson spokesperson told the Caller that all the material provided by Bobulinski that has been reviewed so far has turned out to be legitimate. The committee has “also” not come across any “signs” or evidence to suggest the content is false, the spokesperson added.

Bobulinski, who said Tuesday he believes “Joe Biden and the Biden family are compromised” in an interview with Fox News host Tucker Carlson, has turned over evidence to the FBI alleging he met twice in the past with the former vice president in regards to business with his son Hunter. The Biden family has not yet disputed this information.

I blogged about the first interview of Tony Bobulinski (TB, in the e-mail snapshot above this post) yesterday. If you didn’t see the full show he did with Tucker, the video is linked in my post from yesterday.

The next step in the verification process is for Bobuliniski to come before the Senate Homeland Security Committee to answer questions. Then we will really get to the bottom of things. I’m hoping this happens before election day. I know the mainstream media and Big Technology aren’t going to publicize the evidence, but I intend to.

Anyway, another Senate committee is investigating Hunter Biden for failure to declare his activities with foreigners.

Real Clear Investigations explains:

The Foreign Agents Registration Act requires anyone who is lobbying the government or doing public relations work in the U.S. on behalf of a foreigner to register his or her precise activities — as well as compensation — in a public filing with Justice, which ensures Americans are given notice of any actions by foreigners to influence public opinion, policies or elected officials.

[…]The Senate Finance Committee, which is chaired by Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, is actively investigating Hunter Biden’s possible non-compliance with the FARA statute, according to a spokesman.

“Chairman Grassley is continuing to review developments surrounding Hunter Biden’s foreign-influence arrangements to determine whether any potential violation occurred,” Grassley spokesman Taylor Foy said, adding that staff investigators are combing through the trove of emails found on Hunter’s laptop.

Asked if they are preparing to refer the matter to Justice for criminal investigation, Foy said, “We haven’t reached that point at the moment, but we are actively looking at the material with FARA in mind.”

I find it interesting that the Obama administration used FARA to attack Republicans, but it was never used against any Democrats:

“Starting in 2016, the previous administration used FARA and the criminal justice system as tools to attack and eliminate the opposition,” said FBI veteran Michael Biasello. “If Biden gets in, the same elements will be back in charge and make sure those tools won’t be turned on themselves.”

One more reason to vote for Trump-Pence on Tuesday.

 

Joe Biden claims that he and his son Hunter aren’t corrupt – is he lying?

Is Joe Biden "The Manchurian Candidate" for president?
Is Joe Biden “The Manchurian Candidate” for president?

There was a neat story that broke late on Thursday night by Kimberly Strassel, writing for the Wall Street Journal. It’s covers additional information about the Hunter Biden – China scandal. The latest story is that an investor involved in the deal between the Biden family and EFC China Energy, a Shanghai-based conglomerate, has decided to come forward and speak out.

The article says:

[A] former business partner of Hunter Biden’s has come forward to provide the ugly details of the “family brand.” Tony Bobulinski, a Navy veteran and institutional investor, has provided the Journal emails and text messages associated with his time as CEO of Sinohawk Holdings, a venture between the Bidens and CEFC China Energy, a Shanghai-based conglomerate. That correspondence corroborates and expands on emails recently published by the New York Post, which says they come from a Hunter laptop.

In a statement, Mr. Bobulinski said he went public because he wants to clear his name, which was contained in those published emails, and because accusations that the information is fake or “Russian disinformation” are “offensive.” He attests that all the correspondence he provided is genuine, including documents that suggest Hunter was cashing in on the Biden name and that Joe Biden was involved.

There are indicators that Joe Biden was not only invovled, but stood to gain financially from the deail:

Hunter, in his own angry texts, makes clear that his contribution is his name. He rails at Mr. Bobulinski that the CEFC heads are “coming to be MY partner to be partners with the Bidens.” He reminds him “that in this instance only one player holds the trump card and that’s me. May not be fair but it’s the reality because I’m the only one putting an entire family legacy on the line.” Mr. Gilliar privately tells Mr. Bobulinski to show flexibility, since “I know why [CEFC Chairman Ye Jianming] wants the deal and what makes it enormous, It’s the family name.”

CEFC was closely entwined with the Chinese government and military until it went bankrupt, following U.S. charges of money laundering. There is no question CEFC was buying Hunter for influence.

Joe Biden claims he has never discussed his son’s business. Yet a May 2017 “expectations” document shows Hunter receiving 20% of the equity in the venture and holding another 10% for “the big guy”—who Mr. Bobulinski attests is Joe Biden.

In one text, Hunter says that “my Chairman gave an emphatic NO” to a version of the deal. Mr. Walker, Hunter’s partner, explains in a text to Mr. Bobulinski that when Hunter “said his chairman he was talking about his dad.”

Mr. Bobulinski’s texts show he even met with Joe Biden. Mr. Gilliar reminds him in May 2017: “Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u are face to face, I know u know that but they are paranoid.” Mr. Biden had left office by then, though CEFC was always a suspicious company with ties to a rival government. It would have a been risky for any public figure to deal with it, much less a potential presidential candidate.

WSJ using paywalls their articles after a few hours, so you can read the full text of the article here.

In the Thursday night debate, Joe Biden said that the e-mails and the laptop were “Russian disinformation”. Unfortunately for him, he couldn’t point to the names of anyone. On the other hand, there are specific people who contradict what he said, specifically, the Director of National Intelligence.

The Daily Wire reported:

John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence, told Fox Business on Monday morning that Hunter Biden’s laptop was not part of a Russian disinformation campaign despite the media’s attempts to claim otherwise.

Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo pressed Ratcliffe about claims from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who made repeated false claims during the Russia investigation, that the news surrounding the laptop was Russian disinformation.

“Is this Russian disinformation, director?” Bartiromo asked.

Ratcliffe responded, “So, Maria it’s funny that some of the people that complained the most about intelligence being politicized are the ones politicizing intelligence and unfortunately in this case, it is Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who as you pointed out on Friday said that the intelligence community believes that Hunter Biden’s laptop and e-mails on it are part of some Russian disinformation campaign.”

“Let me be clear, the intelligence community doesn’t believe that because there is no intelligence that supports that and we shared no intelligence with chairman Schiff or any other member of Congress that Hunter Biden’s laptop is part of some Russian disinformation campaign,” he continued. “It’s simply not true.”

So it’s pretty clear that Biden lied about the laptop and the emails that implicate Hunter Biden in a scheme to purchase access and possibly influence with foreign dollars. Hunter was cashing in on his father’s position, and the evidence suggests that Joe Biden was at least aware of what was going on, and might even have been getting a cut of this foreign money.

By the way, the image is from one of my favorite anti-communist movies: “The Manchurian Candidate”, 1962. Do NOT see the re-make. If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend it.

Can parents lead their children to be effective and influential Christians?

A family praying and reading the Bible
A family praying and reading the Bible

I’m not going to surprise any of my regular readers by stating that I believe that fathers should lead their children to pursue advanced degrees and to reach high positions of influence. I think it is the man’s job to survey the world, to decide where the battles are being fought, to encourage his children to be the best in every academic discipline, to push them to take on difficult practical tasks, to assess their strengths and weaknesses as they progress (not their likes and dislikes), and to push them towards success in areas where the battles are being fought and where they have talent.

So, for example, if I had a child, here are some areas I would steer him/her toward:

  • cosmology, to study the Big Bang and fine-tuning arguments
  • software engineering, to make tons of money and not have to conform to teacher’s expectations
  • philosophy, because that’s what William Lane Craig, Jay Richards and Stephen C. Meyer did
  • New Testament, because that’s what Gary Habermas, N.T. Wright, and Ben Witherington did
  • economics, as long as they went to Hillsdale/Grove City, then George Mason, because they could go on to politics
  • law, as long as they went to Hillsdale/Grove City, then George Mason, because they could go on to politics
  • biochemistry, because intelligent design is all bound up with the origin of life chemistry – but this is risky
  • paleontology, because the Cambrian explosion is an excellent apologetic argument – but this is very risky
  • dentist, because you can make a ton of money, and it’s not regulated
  • veterinarian, because you can make a ton of money, and it’s not regulated
  • mathematics professor, because you can influence children, but not be turfed out for your religion/politics
  • medical physics, you can make a ton of money and no risk of being discriminated against
  • bioinformatics, combine software engineering and biochemistry – but this is somewhat risky
  • social scientist working on social issues like marriage and parenting and social policy, but this is pretty risky

I want to lead my future children towards academic excellence and effective professions where they can exert an influence. I would do this by using things like rules, standards, accountability, and moral boundaries. I would teach my children to learn to sacrifice their happiness to love God more effectively. I would encourage them to take risks, work hard, be enterprising, and to earn and save money.

I’ve been practicing all of this over the years on my male and female friends. I encourage them to go back to school, get advanced degrees, bring in good speakers to church and universities, show debates, read good apologetics and economics books, earn and save money, etc. The consensus view , among men and women who I’ve challenged, is that all this hard work is not much fun, but that they loved the feeling of being confident in their faith, and that they loved having a worldview that was comprehensive – integrating science, politics, history, economics, philosophy, foreign policy, etc. And they felt that it made them feel closer to God because they liked having the experience of defending him.

Although the leading seems to work really well on friends, but as soon as you try it on girl friends, some of them get really mad. And they don’t think that it’s a good parenting style either. Some Christian women say that children should do whatever they feel like doing, that every vocation is as effective as any other, and that children will rebel against high expectations and hard work, and become atheists. And worst of all, some women think that children need to be protected from the expectations, boundaries and standards of their own fathers. For a Christian man thinking about having a family, the thought that his children will not amount to anything is his worst nightmare. Women need to not only be comfortable with men leading the family through goal-directed parenting, but they need to encourage the men to be leaders.

So some women think that male parenting is bad for children, and doesn’t work to produce effect Christian kids.

But is it true?

Well consider two children of famous Christian apologists.

First, Lee Strobel’s son:

Kyle Strobel is a speaker, writer, and a practitioner of spiritual formation and community transformation. His main focus is on discipleship, spiritual formation, and creating a community of disciples who do the same. He has done masters work in Philosophy of Religion as well as New Testament. After doing further masters work in Spiritual Formation, Kyle has started his Ph.D in theology at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland in order to help integrate the often divorced spheres of theology and spirituality.

Kyle has focused his ministry on developing and equipping people to live a Jesus way of life, which is also the subtitle to his book Metamorpha: Jesus as a way of life(Baker, April 2007). Kyle and his wife Kelli live in Aberdeen, Scotland.

Second, Josh McDowell’s son:

Head of the Bible Department at Capistrano Valley Christian Schools, where he teaches the courses on Philosophy, Theology, and Apologetics. He graduated summa cum laude from Talbot Theological Seminary with a double Master’s degree in Theology and Philosophy. He is pursuing a Ph.D. in Apologetics and Worldview Studies from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Sean received the “Educator of the Year” for San Juan Capistrano, California in 2008. His apologetics training was awarded Exemplary Status by the Association of Christian Schools International. Sean is listed among the top 100 apologists.

I’ve talked to Greg Koukl, and he is amazingly intense and thoughtful about how he is raising his kids. I asked him this personally. He has a plan. He’s put a lot of thought into it. I’m sure his wife supports him leading the children. Apologists are good at persuading other people, and that is exactly what you do with your friends… and with your children. If you are tough on your friends, and that works, then you can be sure that being tough on the kids will work too.

I was talking to my friend Lindsay the other day, and asking her if she thought that any of her four homeschooled children would grow up to make a difference. Her response was very different than the women who distrust men as leaders. She said “all of them will grow up to be influential Christian conservatives. I’ll see to that.” That answer is music to a Christian man’s ears. There’s nothing a man wants to hear more than that he is leaving someone in charge who respects his desire that his children will make a difference for Christ and his Kingdom. What is the point of working so hard if your wife cannot be trusted to make something happen. Even if Lindsay somehow fails, at least she intends to achieve something.

If I have children in the future, I will have to pull money away from the ministries and scholars and conferences that I like to sponsor. My friends will not be receiving gifts and books and lectures and debates. I will have a lot less time for writing and relationships with atheists and co-worker debates. I’ll have to work for many years more at a boring job to pay for stuff that’s just normal every day stuff. If I have to do all that, then I would like to see that my wife is prepared to raise children, is supportive and understanding of what men do in a family, and focused on serving God effectively. And I would like to see her value the fact that a man has demonstrated his ability to lead by building up his friends over the long-term into effective and influential Christians – by giving them time and money and setting high expectations and monitoring their progress.

Women should not be afraid of men who have a track record of leading other people to be effective and influential. In fact, they should value it.

Nancy Fitzgerald: making a difference for God with students entering college

C.S. Lewis has some words to live by for you
C.S. Lewis has some words to live by for you

About a week ago, I wrote a blog post about a column in Salvo magazine written by Terrell Clemmons, which she entitled “Captive No More: The Thoroughly Rational Conversion of Michael Minot“.

What was exciting about that post was how Minot – a lawyer – was able to put his intellect to work as a Christian after his investigation of the evidence was complete.

I found another article by Terrell in Salvo magazine about another person who did an investigation of Christianity. After becoming a Christian, she also put her intellectual ability to work for her new Boss, and she produced an amazing return.

Terrell tells the story of Nancy, who lost her faith as a child when her two-year-old brother died.  Despite letting go of God, she was a very capable student, had a good marriage and led a comfortable life:

Life went on, but for Nancy, the carefree innocence of youth had died, and the emptiness of Stephen’s crib did not compare to the barrenness in her soul. Days turned into years, and she went on to earn three degrees from Indiana University, no thanks to God, whom she managed fairly well to avoid thinking about.

Until the later years of college, that is. Is there really a God or not? she wondered. And what is my purpose in life? She began asking people from all kinds of backgrounds what they believed. Do you go to church? Why? Do you believe in God? Why? This was not a casual survey. It was a serious attempt to get at the truth about reality. It was the “Christians” she found most interesting. And most disappointing. They would acknowledge that they did believe in God, but when pressed to explain why, not a single one could give a reason that made sense to her. Not. A single. One.

“I was raised that way” or “I find comfort in it” simply would not cut it for her, and so she concluded that the whole Christian thing was either a grand hoax or a contrived crutch for weak people. Well, she was not one to be taken in, and she was certainly no weakling. Therefore, life might as well be about her own success and comfort. She decided she would be a nice atheist/humanist. In the unlikely event that there actually was a real God, he probably graded on a curve, anyway. She’d never killed anyone, and she had volunteered to serve at a church brunch once. Surely she would still get “in.”

She married Ed, a med student training to become a heart surgeon, and by age 32, had all the accoutrements of success and comfort: a nice home in the suburbs, four beautiful children, and a housekeeper and nanny to cover daily chores, leaving her free to play golf and enjoy life to her heart’s content.

She wasn’t able to get any answers to her questions from her friends. They seemed to be Christians for the emotional good it did them, or maybe for the community. They had never bothered to do any investigations of the normal questions that non-Christians ask. So, her atheism persisted.

Until one fine day:

When her youngest child reached six months old, she jumped onto an amateur golf tour and took a skinny little Bible with her to the first tournament in Florida. She started reading in the Book of Genesis and right away saw a God who was angry, who didn’t really like people, and who killed a lot of them, primarily by drowning.

“I’m done,” she said when a couple of friends dropped in and asked her what she was reading. “I can’t believe in this God. Drowning. Drowning. Really?

As it turned out, the friends were Christians, and better-prepared than the average Christian to give her some direction. Oh no, Genesis is not the place to start, they said. She should read the Book of John.

Oh thank goodness. Yes, John is always the first book to read when you are investigating the Bible. It gives you the theistic framework and a report of a miracle that you can investigate using the ordinary tools of history.

What happened next?

God, she prayed, if this is really true, if Jesus Christ really did what this book says he did, then I will believe and trust that he is God and my own personal Savior. She informed him that under no circumstances would she go to Africa as a missionary, and made a few other stipulations. And she still didn’t actually believe it all yet anyway, but a fire had been lit. Golf could wait. She left the tournament and returned home to her family, anxious to begin researching this God and the Bible.

She started by simply writing out questions she needed answers to—questions about God and about this Christian faith, and she discovered that there was a wealth of evidence to support the reliability of the Bible texts. But what really moved her was the Scriptures’ running total of fulfilled prophecies—general prophecies, yes, but the quantity of specific prophecies fulfilled in Jesus Christ was astounding! There was something supernatural about this, no question.

The whole family ended up becoming Christians, including her four children. That’s already pretty good, but she wasn’t done re-prioritizing her life to account for this new information. Because she could see challenges ahead for her children when they got to college.

More:

About ten years later, as her oldest son was preparing to go to college, she asked him, “So what are you going to do if you get a roommate in college like me?”

“What do you mean, Mom?”

“I used to be an atheist,” she said.

To which he responded, “What is that?”

Nancy was floored. Her own son had no clue about her history, and he was clearly unprepared for the university environment.

She set about organizing all her research material into handouts, rounded up a few of her son’s friends, and held a class with six students. They loved it! She didn’t preach to them, but rather interacted with them, and presented solid material using movie clips and other provocative visuals. From that start, her classes grew year by year, until some 150 kids were showing up weekly, with more being turned away for lack of room.

Nancy’s classes may well have stayed confined to her community had it not been for the intervention of Charles Colson, who got wind of this popular class and hopped a plane for a visit. “Nancy, you’ve got to publish this,” he said. “We’ve got to replicate what you’re doing here across America.” Nancy had reservations about ministries, and she definitely did not want to be a “ministry.” But she agreed with his point that “people have to get smarter about their faith.”

Fortunately, he prevailed, and the result became Anchorsaway Worldview Curriculum. “Because kids need anchor points in place when they go away,” says Nancy.

For the rest, you should click through and read Terrell’s article. You’re not going to believe how much of an impact Nancy was able to have on the people who have the most potential influence – college students and young professionals.

If you like the original article, Terrell Clemmons has many more great ones in Salvo magazine. And she has a web site. I promise you nearly everything she writes is very practical. If you like wisdom, you will enjoy her thinking. I think Christian men in particular will find practical wisdom from her writings. Like Nancy, Terrell is having a big influence as well.

But I can’t end this blog post without something else that Terrell wrote about Nancy that I really liked.

This:

She gets frustrated with churches, many of which are not only not helping young people cultivate a grounded faith, but are resistant to her efforts do so on their behalf. Now a grandmother of ten, she could retire. “But Lord, where else would I rather be?” she asks with a charming smile. “I’d take a half-lap around this property, and then come back here ready to work again.”

Ah, wonderful! I also dislike churches! They are mostly awful, and the fideist pastors will fight you tooth and nail to keep apologetics out, so that their emotion-driven flocks don’t have to worry their pretty little heads about evidence. Who cares about evidence? If we didn’t have people like Nancy fighting those battles, where would we be?

It’s really important that you see people like Nancy who have several degrees and a successful life as valuable. It’s people like her who have the biggest influence. Make sure that when college-student-aged Nancy comes to you with questions, that you have the answers to give her. Because we really need everyone to do their part for the Kingdom. This woman had an influence. And more importantly, she had an influence on her own children, protecting them from the peer pressure they would face from non-Christians at college.

What did Goldman Sachs get in exchange for paying Hillary Clinton $200,000 an hour?

Hillary Clinton look bored about the deaths of 4 Americans who asked for her help
Hillary Clinton look bored about the deaths of 4 Americans who asked for her help

This article is from the Washington Free Beacon.

It says:

Hillary Clinton could not help but laugh Friday when a reporter asked her to release the transcripts from her high-priced Goldman Sachs speeches at a rope line in New Hampshire.

“Will you release the transcript of your paid speeches at Goldman Sachs?” a reporter from the Intercept asked Clinton at a campaign event, referring to the $675,000 she has earned in speaking fees from the bank.

Clinton looked directly at the reporter, and after a pause, laughed in his face. She then carried on greeting supporters.

“There’s a lot of controversy over those speeches,” the reporter said. “Secretary?”

Clinton continued to speak over the reporter, drowning him out.

“Hi! So glad to see you!” Clinton said.

“Is that a no?” the reporter persisted.

Clinton ignored his question and repeated a greeting to another supporter.

“I am so happy to see you,” Clinton said.

“Secretary Clinton, will you release the transcript of your Goldman Sachs speeches?” the reporter said again. Clinton ignored him.

Clinton has come under scrutiny for giving high-priced speeches, averaging $225,000 per gig, at big banks such as Goldman Sachs, all the while preaching about income inequality on the campaign trail. She and her husband have made more than $125 million in speaking fees since 2001.

Here is the video where she laughs at the questioner, and then ignores him, even after repeated attempts to get her to be accountable:

You might remember that Clinton often talks about how she is “dead broke”. Is she really “dead broke”?

$300,000 an hour for a speech
$300,000 an hour for a speech

Hillary Clinton’s speech fees

The Weekly Standard reports:

Disclosure forms filed with the Federal Election Commission by Hillary Clinton provide fascinating details of the remarkable money-making machine that is the once-and-possibly-future first couple. Between January 2014 and the filing of the forms on May 15, 2015 (up to and including a speech by Bill Clinton to the American Institute of Architects the day before the filing), the Clintons made about $30 million, approximately $25 million from speeches alone.

Both of the Clintons have given speeches regularly in the 16-month period covered in the filing with rarely more than a few weeks off in between engagements. Often events are crowded together during a period of several days, sometimes with more than one speech on the same day. On a single day last October, Bill and Hillary delivered a total of four speeches, taking home over $1 million. Those four speeches fell in the middle of a three-day blitz that brought in a total of $1,511,000. (Mrs. Clinton edged out her husband $786,000 to $725,000.)

[…]Although the audiences for the Clintons vary widely, the actual content and duration of the speeches is not always revealed. However, a YouTube video of Bill Clinton’s recent speech to the American Institute of Architects, apparently recorded by an attendee, shows that the $250,000 fee paid to Mr. Clinton purchased the group a 23 minute speech, an hourly rate of about $652,000.

On a per-hour basis, she makes more than all of the CEOs of the largest companies. Well, maybe not more than Donald Trump, though. New York values. Actually, Donald Trump donated at least $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, so maybe he can tell us what people get for giving the Clinton’s exorbitant sums of money.

Donald Trump and his friends, the Clintons
Donald Trump and his friends, the Clintons

Meanwhile, Ted Cruz had to liquidate assets and take out loans against his investments in order to run for Senate. Which of these people is more like you and I?