Ebionite Christology––The Roots of Adoptionism: Term Paper 2k16

For my term paper in my early Christian literature class I will be surveying the christological beliefs of the Ebionites. Both Eusebius and Epiphanius of Salamis write about the Ebionites in their respective works (Church History and Panarion), both renouncing them as heretics.

Epiphanius goes into great detail about the Ebionites and their view of Christ. According to him, “that Jesus is really a man, as I said, that Christ, who descended in the form of a dove, has entered him–as we have already in other sects […] Christ is from God on high, but Jesus is the offspring of a man’s seed and a woman.” The Ebionites subscribed to the monorchian form of christology known as ‘adoptionism.’ That is, they believed that Jesus was a human being, conceived by two humans, who was for his merit, chosen by God to be his son. For the Ebionites, this occurred at his baptism when “the Christ” took on the form of a dove an came upon Jesus, exalting him to a divine plane.

In my paper I will be defending the thesis that adoptionism was the earliest christology of the first Christians. For that I will be surveying the Ebonite christology as described by Epiphanius and tracing it’s origins to the earliest days of Christianity.

Yes I wrote a paper similar to this last year but two days before it was due the file crashed and I lost all my work. As a result the final paper I turned in was nothing like the original and though I got an A on the paper it was not at all the paper I wanted to turn in. Thus I have reprised the topic this semester, taking a slightly different angle and now having a much more firm grasp on the topic, a lot more sources to use, and a lot more time.

So far I am in the researching stage, though I have written 9 pages already. My method for writing these kind of papers is that while researching I begin writing sections of the paper, fully aware that they final will likely resemble nothing like what I wrote. The point of this is for me to get my thoughts and ideas organised and on paper so I can go through and decide what is relevant and what is not. From there I can take my research and further expand, collapse, and rewrite altogether sections and begin putting it together.

–M

 

Three Points of Interest in Justin Martyr’s Second Apology

The following is an excerpt from a short essay I wrote on Justin’s second apology:

There are several points of interest in Justin’s Second Apology. For starts, the question of who the text actually addressed to comes into play. The text purports to be addressed to the Roman senate and even the Emperor. Yet the likeliness that either took the time to actually read it is very low. At best if the Emperor read any of it, it was a summary written up by a secretary. The fact that Justin is very wordy and goes on and on the way he does indicates he likely would not have expected the Emperor to actually read it. On top of that, the text is laced with instructions for Christians concerning how they should act by his lengthy sections on vices and virtues. Surely in a letter penned to the Emperor, Justin would not have packed so much instructional information for Christians. Likely, Justin composed this as a teaching tool for other Christians in the Roman empire, under the guise of a letter to the Roman Senate.

Another interesting element in this text is the story of Ptolemy who was executed for professing Christianity. Justin provides very little information about the trial of Ptolemy, but presents him as a Christian philosopher who is a “lover of truth” which Candida Moss writes, is very similar to the term associated with philosophers, “lover of wisdom.” Moss notes that Ptolemy’s teachings had as much in common with ancient philosophy as it did with earliest Christianity and thus if he was executed for being a Christian then we can assume there was more to it then what Justin relayed in his writing. Moss

poses that perhaps the Ptolemy that Justin writes about is the same Ptolemy who scholars know was a teacher in Rome in the second century who corresponded with women. Scholars have part of a letter that this Ptolemy wrote to a woman named Flora. The problem, according to Moss, is that Ptolemy was renounced as a heretic as he was a part of a group of Christians called, the Valentinians. This is problematic for Justin especially since as Moss notes, “If Justin is describing the death of the very same Ptolemy, then this would mean that one of the earliest Christian martyrs was a heretic. The fact that he is valorised by Justin would only add to the irony. After all, Justin was the first Christian to claim that there were no heretical martyrs.” (pp. 106)

One other point of interest is Justin’s telling of the transgression of the angels in chapter five. Justin appears to be referencing some sort of popular myth in which angels had intercourse with women and produced demon-children. Justin’s use of myth appears to serve as a tool to ground his arguments in. He is appealing to a popular story that his readers will be familiar with and from there expands his theology. This kind of literary technique is quite useful, as Morley noted in his book, and further demonstrates that he is writing to more Christian audience rather than to the Roman senate, otherwise why bother dredging up this story? The immediate question is, what story is Justin referring to? In the Book of Jubilees, the author expands on a strange passage from Genesis 6 which reads, “the Nephilim were on the earth in those days ––and also afterward––when the sons of God went into the daughters of humans, who bore children to them.” Chapter five of Jubilees describes a very similar account of angels looking down on women on earth and took them for themselves and bore children with them. As a result of this it is said in Jubilees that “lawlessness increased” and that it “corrupted their ways and their orders.” Like in Jubilees, Justin writes that upon the angels taking earthly women and bearing children, wickedness and corruption flourished on earth. It is certainly possible that Justin was aware of this tradition as it was very popular in its day and widely circulated. Whether it was specifically Jubilees or some other similar tradition is not clear but the Jubilees account is typically said to be an explanation for the arrival of sin and evil in the world, creating evil as a more cosmic force rather than simply humans doing bad things. In chapter five, Justin attempts to explain why bad things are happening to Christians and why they are not protected by God. Appealing to this tradition is an effective strategy as it introduces the concept of a cosmic force of evil that is continuously influencing things on earth.

The final point I will make concerning Justin’s second apology is the change in outline for Christian trials. According to Paul Keresztes, in his first apology, Justin outlines Christian trials with the following pattern: 1) mobs in cities throw accusations against Christian neighbours, 2) the charges from the mobs are of religious nature such as atheism, or not being loyal to the Emperor, 3) the Christians are subsequently arrested and sentenced. 4) Lastly, at these trials, the Christians are sentenced to die, simply for their profession of Christianity, without any reference to the actual charges that the mobs issued. However, in his second apology, Justin revises his outline with the following: 1) the prosecution of Christians was not brought by mobs but by individual accusers such as the husband who accuses his wife of being a Christian, 2) the only accusation was Christianity, there were no other claims brought up, 3) the entirety of the trial revolved squarely around the Christianity of the one in question, 4) the accused was instantly condemned following a confession of Christianity. Keresztes sees this as Justin encountering a new form of persecution of Christians. Whereas in his first apology which was based on his experience in the east where Governors would simply yield to the angry mobs, in Rome he experienced a single person making an accusation without any charges of something actually illegal, and the Roman government complying by baselessly sentencing the accused to death. Keresztes summarises his argument, “His cliché demand in the First Apology was painfully applicable to the Asian situation. In the second apology, he does not repeat the most familiar apologetic cliché, since he realises that legally, it was not applicable to the Roman situation.” Justin’s change in approach now focuses not so much on change the mindsets of angry mobs, but the individual and making a plea to the Roman government directly so that Christians may be left alone.

–M

Eusebius: History or Propaganda?

The following is a short paper I wrote for my class in early Christian history and literature. The assignment was to write a review paper of Eusebius’ Church History. In this paper I deal with the genre in which Eusebius is writing. 

In the study of early Christianity, one of the most important sources is Eusebius’s Church History (from here on CH). Eusebius’s lengthy tome chronicling the early history of the Church provides insight into the early formation of the church and offers sources only known to modern readers from him. Eusebius, was a student of Origen and subscribed to the orthodox brand of Christianity which he made quite clear throughout his writings. The two main genres that Eusebius focussed on in his writings were apology and history, sometimes overlapping the two. While CH is in many ways a groundbreaking history of the Church recounted by Eusebius, in many ways it is also an apology in which Eusebius uses history to defend his own positions and attack those with which he disagrees with.

Though CH presents itself as a historical record of the Christian Church, Eusebius in numerous instances goes after those who he would consider as having the ‘wrong’ belief. Eusebius spends a great deal of time attacking gnostic beliefs and other sects of Christianity. In book 3.27 he attacks the Ebonite sect for their heretical views while defending the orthodox view. There Eusebius takes issue with the Ebionites christological views concerning Jesus. He claims that, “they regard Him as plain and ordinary, a man esteemed as righteous through growth of character and nothing more.” This obviously is at odds with the (photo)orthodox view which regards Jesus as not just a human being but simultaneously a divine being. Eusebius dismisses their views as an “outrageous absurdity.” The thing to note here is that while he is indeed writing a historical work, in many instances he is stepping away from the role of the historian and assuming the role of the apologist. Historians would not self describe a competing sect of Christianity as he did. It would be one thing had he written that the orthodox or other sects viewed the Ebionites that way, but he opted instead to inject his own opinion to malign another sect.

Earlier in book 3, Eusebius discusses which writings should be accepted as sacred and which writings should not receive such status. Again, this appears to be a more apologetical argument, but at the very least is not straight history. In no way I am arguing that history should always be a dull encyclopedia entry in which one records straight facts, but certainly offering one’s take in which writings are to be accepted is not the place of one who claims to be writing a history. This again is where Eusebius assume the role of the ardent defender of the soon be orthodox views. Of texts such as the Gospel of Peter and the Acts of Andrew, Eusebius dismisses them outright by saying that “to none of these has any churchman of any generation ever seen fit to refer in his writings.” (except of course for him just then). Such a statement surely cannot be unequivocally declared and likely he simply writes off those who did discuss those texts in their own writings as ‘not counting.’ Once again Eusebius is engaging in attacks on gnostics and those with whom he disagrees.

One thing to note about Eusebius is that in general he is a very plain spoken writer. With statements like “they [spurious books] must be thrown out as impious and beyond the pale” he is doing what Morley says has often “been regarded with suspicion.” The use of this rhetoric is designed to persuade others to reject the views and texts of the gnostic sects in preference of the orthodox views. Of the use of rhetoric to persuade, Morley writes “Rhetoric is contrasted with plain, honest speech; it is exaggerated, artificial, false; it is dangerous because it can persuade people to make decisions on the basis of appearances rather than reality.” (pp. 117) The use of history to argue points of view can be a slippery slope in which the writer dubiously begins attacking other points of view to propel their own views to the top all under the guise of historical writing. This is not to say that Eusebius is not writing history as much of his ten books is historical writing, there just happens to be an underline agenda laced within his writing. In terms of history being written with an agenda, Morley writes that “historical discourse […] serve[s] an ulterior purpose; above all, to reinforce the authority of the particular historical account and of history in general.” (pp.115) This appears to be exactly what Eusebius is doing in his work.

In Book 9 Eusebius turns his attention to the persecutions under Maxim who he describes as “a bitter enemy of religion if ever a man was, and most hostile to the worship of the universe.” He recounts that he “time after time campaigned against” the Christians. This is an instance where he again can blur the line of history and apology but in this instance it actually works. He walks a fine line between the two genres and in this instance he can more easily get away with it. Whereas in sections where he rails against gnostics it’s hard to say he is writing history, here is is recounting of the reign of a certain person and what

he did to certain groups of people of which Eusebius belongs. This can thus be considered a first person historical account and thus gives him more credibility. Eusebius has an interest in the martyrs, quoting extensive sections from Polycarp and making frequent use of Justin Martyr (who also interestingly enough was an apologist). From a theological standpoint, Gilbert Spaude writes that Eusebius’s interests in Polycarp were “depicting the tortures that were inflicted upon the believers by the leaders, the treachery of the Jews, the weakness of the faithless, the glorification of the church and the Christian.” For Eusebius, it was important to defend the emerging orthodox view and the views of his mentor Origen and thus appealing to the martyrs and various periods of persecution are ways to bolster his argument. What Eusebius selectively leaves out is that generally persecutors would not have distinguished between people with porto-orthodox views like himself and those with gnostic Christian beliefs. If gnostics were also persecuted that would seemingly undermine his arguments.

Overall Eusebius does a thorough job of recording the early years of the Church. Much of what he records in his writing contains information that scholars know only through Eusebius. He has access to numerous sources and as such is a trove of evidence for scholars of early Christianity. As far as dates and timelines are concerned, Eusebius is a great resource for Church history. Where he departs from his historical mythology is any place in which he deals with a competing brand of Christianity. In such instances he not only makes note that they are not of the emerging orthodox views, but outright renounces them as heretical and seeks to persuade his readers to do likewise. He rejects their beliefs and their texts and warns his readers against using the texts. He makes sweeping statements that are more useful for their effect than their accuracy. In many ways Eusebius’s Church History is a propaganda piece for orthodox theology. Though most historians write with some kind of agenda, Eusebius is making overt attempts to defend his own brand and thus needs to scorch the earth with his arguments to refute the gnostics. He appeals to the martyrs and persecutions to gain credibility, and appeals to the line of apostolic authority to bolster his own credentials. While CH is certainly an impressive work and a historical account of sorts that provides much valuable information, it is also a fiery screed against non-orthodox Christians and an apologetic writing.

–M

Mark’s Use of Thomas?

The following is a short essay I wrote for a class concerning the gospel of Thomas. Here I asses some literary themes in GThom as well as address some literature on the relation between GThom and Mark’s Gospel.

The Gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic text that was discovered in 1945 as a part of the Nag Hammadi library. The text consists of 114 sayings that are attributed to Jesus. Being a ‘sayings list’ scholars generally consider the Gospel of Thomas to be an early insight into the oral tradition of the gospels. Due to the nature of the text, scholars use this text to further establish the Q-source theory. Since its discovery, scholars have identified several parallels to the synoptic gospels, such as a phrases like ‘blessed are the…’ Similar themes that are expressed in the synoptics can also be found in the Gospel of Thomas and in many instances the text expands on the ideas of the synoptics.

One of the unique elements of the Gospel of Thomas is the ‘free for all’ nature of the text. The author of the text calls on his readers to “search for the meaning of the sayings of Jesus and complete his thoughts after him.” This is an invitation to the reader to arrive at their own conclusion regarding the sayings of Jesus. The proto-Orthodoxy of the time was very fixated on there being a right and a wrong way to interpret the texts (that they approved of). The Gospel of Thomas is a rejection of such a static view of scripture and makes it clear that multiple interpretations are acceptable. With that, it should be noted that the grammatical phrasing of the first saying in the gospel seems to contradict the open invitation to interpret. The first saying reads, “And he said, “Whoever discovered the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death.” The use of the word ‘the’ seems to imply that perhaps, despite the prevailing idea that anyone can interpret the text as they see fit, there is one correct interpretation.

Among the similarities between the Gospel of Thomas and the synoptic gospels, the first blatant parallel occurs in the fourth saying of the text. Jesus says that the “person old in days” will not pause to ask a young child who is seven days old about the place of life. He then goes on to say, “For many of the first will be last and will become a single one.” This is curiously close to Matthew 20.16 which states, “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.” This would be an example of the Gospel of Thomas taking a synoptic theme and expanding on it. In this instance, not only did the author echoed the sentiment of “the first will be last” but also goes on to say that they will become a single unit. There are numerous ways to interpret this passage and there is no one correct way to do so. In their paper arguing for the Gospel of Mark’s use of Thomas, Stevan Davies and Kevin Johnson identify twenty sayings that are common to both Mark and Thomas. Interestingly, Davies and Johnson argue that not only are there similarities between Mark and Thomas but for the likelihood that “sayings in Mark were derived from the Gospel of Thomas itself and not from some other source, for example oral tradition.” This argument is particularly interesting as it essentially goes against the general consensus of the Q-theory. Perhaps the authors see Thomas as the effective Q-source. After all, Thomas was used as evidence to bolster the hypothetical Q-document as the sayings source that was the basis of the synoptic gospels.

One of the sayings which Davies and Johnson zero in on is saying 104 which talks about praying, fasting, sins, and bridegrooms. Interestingly, all of those elements are mentioned in Mark 2.18-20. Davies and Johnson argue that Mark takes this saying from Thomas and redacts it by injecting Markan theology into it. They pose that “when one subtracts what appears to be a Markan redaction, in many cases one is left with the Thomasine material.” Structurally, Mk 2.18-20 and GThom 104 are the same and deal with the exact same issues. The argument is that one can draw a direct arrow from GThom to Mark seeing as the GThom saying appears to be a more primitive version of the Markan passage. . The alternative of course being that both are redactions of an even more primitive source.

If Mark used Thomas to any extent it would certainly be a significant development in the study of the Gospel tradition. It cannot be denied that there are striking similarities between Mark and Thomas, with Thomas appearing to be in many cases a more primitive version of Mark. Davies and Johnson write that “the material in Thomas is proverbial, simple, and its contrasting parallel structure is evidence of a barely elaborated oral tradition.” Following their logic, Mark takes those simple and proverbial sayings and expands upon them. Another area which the two focus on is the parallel between Mk 3.27 and GThom 35. These two are effectively the same with Mark perhaps changing ‘bind his hands’ to just ‘binds’ for the purpose of “more precisely into the context of the ‘binding’ of an unclean spirit.” Again, Mark would be reading more into Thomas than was likely implied, but due to the nature of how Thomas is written, that is perfectly within his liberty. Thomas is not a narrative gospel like the synoptics are, but rather is a list of sayings designed to provoke thought and allow readers to engage in their own spiritual journey.

–M

Food Face-off: Chipotle vs Qdoba

Among college students and burrito lovers, there has long been a debate over which of the non-authentic Mexican grill’s has the best burrito, Chipotle or Qdoba.

Chipotle is arguably more popular in that it is generally easier to find. Yet those who live near a Qdoba will vouch for its awesomeness and in many cases, its superiority to its counterpart. Though I’ve had both, I definitely prefer Chipotle. Again, that could also be due to the fact that I have always lived in a close proximity to a Chipotle. I have only really seen 3 Qdoba’s and since there just aren’t very many, I ended up eating Chipotle a lot more.

Recently, a Qdoba opened up in Lawrence which is where I go to school (currently there are three Chipotles in Lawrence). Interestingly enough, the new Qdoba opened right down the street from Chipotle, giving it direct competition. Today, after hearing both chain’s loyal customers battle back and forth over which is better, I though I would settle it. So I first went to Qdoba and ordered a burrito. Then I went down the street and ordered the same thing at Chipotle to do a side by side comparison.

Admittedly when it comes to burritos, I’m very boring. I’m a very picky eater and as such there are a lot of things most people put on burritos that I just won’t eat. I never put salsa on my burrito since tomatoes, unless in ketchup form, are something I just can’t swallow. Guacamole has also never been a favourite of mine and while I like it with chips, I’ve never been a fan of it on burritos. I’m the same way with corn. As such; my burrito order consists of: white rice, chicken, sour cream, cheese, lettuce. Boring but simple.

So whose burrito is better? In terms of aesthetics, Qdoba’s burrito, when wrapped in foil, was longer than Chipotle’s. However, despite being a bit longer, Chipotle’s was thicker and more packed with toppings. Chipotle’s tortilla was also wrapped much better. The person who wrapped my tortilla did a very sloppy job.

Wrapping and Size:

• Chipotle: 2/2
• Qdoba: 0/2

The tortilla itself was hard to rate. Since I’ve had Chipotle significantly more than I have had Qdoba I am used to the taste and thus it was very familiar to me. That in many ways made me think it was subjectively better. Objectively however I have to give the tortilla to Qdoba. I found it to be nice and warm and very soft. The Chipotle tortilla by contrast tends to be a bit crisper and not as fluffy. 

Tortilla:

• Chipotle: 0/2
• Qdoba: 2/2

Like the tortilla, the rice at Qdoba is vastly more fluffy than at Chipotle. Typically when I make rice at home I aim for nice an fluffy rice and try not to overcook it. Chipotle’s rice is generally good but sometimes can be overcooked. Even the fresh rice however, which is still amazing, tends to be a bit more cooked than what I had at Qdoba. when fresh, I love the Chipotle rice, but the Qdoba rice is just a couple notches ahead.

Rice:

• Chipotle: 1/2
• Qdoba: 2/2

The chicken is easily the most important part of my burrito. If I can see that the chicken pan is full or close to full, I know I’m going to get a good burrito. If it’s close to the bottom, that can really make or break the burrito. I’ve definitely arrived at Chipotle before and gotten the last bit of chicken in the pan. And it tastes like it. That being said, usually it’s still a solid burrito. But when fresh, and juicy, it makes for an amazing burrito that’s worth every penny. Qdoba’s chicken on the other hand, is not juicy. It tends to be more cooked, and very dry. That was my experience today. Perhaps it’s the different method of preparation. I get the sense that Qdoba grills the chicken differently. Either way, Qdoba’s chicken is very dry whereas Chipotle’s (usually) is very juicy.

Chicken

• Chipotle: 2/2
• Qdoba: 0/2

The sour cream, cheese, and lettuce are really where Chipotle runs away with this. Up till not it’s been a very close race. Just the way the sour cream is applied favours Chipotle. At Chipotle they pour the sour cream on with a ladle. At Qdoba, it’s applied with a squirt bottle. As such I had to ask for extra sour cream and even then I couldn’t even taste. The cheese was also a non-factor at Qdoba. I could barely taste it. The cheese at Chipotle stands out very well and paired with the sour cream which is poured on combines for a taste that is to die for. The lettuce is pretty even for both when isolated. But when the cheese and sour cream don’t stand out at all at Qdoba, it does change the way the lettuce tastes as it really stands out, which is not a good thing. You want that cheese and sour cream to have lots of flavour.

Toppings: 

• Chipotle: 4/4
• Qdoba: 1/4

Final Score

• Chipotle: 9
• Qdoba: 5

–M

 

Enough With Political Dynasties

The results of this election has given the establishment media and the establishment wings of both major political parties a huge blow. President-elect Donald Trump has now been a politician for less than two years. Yet in those two years he managed to singlehandedly take down two of the biggest and most powerful political family dynasties in America, the Bushes and the Clintons.

On February 20th of this year, Jeb Bush dropped out of the 2016 presidential race after his crushing and embarrassing fourth place finish in the South Carolina primary––previously thought to be “Bush country.” Jeb’s loss marked what many in the media considered to be the end of the Bush family dynasty. After getting consistently bullied by Trump throughout the campaign, his dismal poll numbers, his pathetic gaffes such as his assertion that Supergirl in the new tv show “looked pretty hot” and finally his waterloo in South Carolina, his $150,000,000 gamble was a complete bust. The Republican primary voters fiercely rejected Jeb and the Bushes as part of the establishment of the political elites. 

This past Tuesday marked the apparent end of another political dynasty, the Clinton family. After being involved in politics for over 30 years going back to the 70’s, Bill and Hillary Clinton will finally be going home. Hillary of course spent her early years as a corporate lawyer, and then became the first lady of Arkansas and eventually the first lady of the United States where she was unprecedentedly instrumental in constructing a health care bill. She went on to become a prominent senator from New York and eventually the Secretary of State under President Obama. Given her qualifications she hoped to check off the last remaining box and become the first female president. Voters in the rustbelt states and Florida, had other plans for her. In a stunning upset loss to Donald Trump, the Clinton dynasty had been shattered (almost like a glass ceiling).

Two of the most prominent political dynasties are over. Or are they?

According to a recent report from the New York Post, inside sources are saying that the Clinton dynasty is “far from over” as Chelsea Clinton, Bill and Hillary’s daughter, is being groomed for a congressional run. According to the Post, “Chelsea could run for the seat in NYC’s 17th Congressional District once [Rep. Nita] Lowey, a respected, 79-year-old career politician with nearly 30 years in office, decides to retire.” The Post reported that back in August, Bill and Hillary purchased a $1.16M home next to theirs in Chappaqua, which is intended for Chelsea. So theoretically, if she decides to run, she would most likely win and become congresswoman Clinton.

While the media declared the Bush dynasty officially dead back in February after Jeb’s last stand in South Carolina, over in Texas another Bush is emerging as a heavy hitter in politics. In the 2014 midterm elections, Jeb’s son, George P. Bush was elected as the Land Commissioner in Texas, which is actually one of the most important and powerful positions in Texas. The Land Commission office controls the oil money, and the education budget which is the largest in the country. The position could easily pave the way to the governor’s mansion for George. George is also of Mexican heritage and speaks Spanish fluently which in Texas could really help his political future. There has been much talk over his political future and as the Independent reported, “speculation is already growing that Jeb Bush’s eldest son may make a bid for the White House” some day. 

So in an interesting twist of events, despite both Jeb and Hillary taking the final blow on behalf of their respective dynasties, it would appear all is not lost for the Bushes and the Clintons. Now, I have to say, though it is a long shot it is entirely possible that Chelsea Clinton wins the congressional race in NY-17 and then after a term or two makes the next logical step and runs for senate. Being in New York she would most likely win. It is also equally possible that George P. Bush, following his tenure as the Land Commissioner, will take his political talents and and run for governor of Texas. Being half hispanic and a Bush he would most likely win. In the event those things happen, you would end up with yet another senator Clinton and yet another governor Bush. And in that event it is not unlikely that both heirs to their family dynasty would not also one day, during the same election cycle, pursue a presidential run, setting up a possible Bush vs Clinton race.

To that I just have to say: No. Absolutely not. Not remotely interested. Can we stop with the political dynasties? Find some other families. We are suppose to be a democracy, not a monarchy. Enough with the royalty status, enough with the Bushes and enough with the Clintons. I am sick and tired of these families. The thought of a Jeb vs Hillary race was bad enough, but to think that maybe in 20 years we still as a country will not be rid of these two families running our country is simply appalling. And it’s not just those two. The Kennedy’s are still popping out politicians as Joe Kennedy the third is currently a sitting senator for Massachusetts. The same day Donald Trump won the presidency, up in New Hampshire, Chris Sununu became the 82nd governor-elect. Sununu’s brother was a senator, and his father was the governor there. Tom Udall is the sitting senator from New Mexico, furthering the Udall family influence in politics. It took Jay Rockefeller retiring to finally put a stop to the Rockefeller dynasty (assuming none of his kids decide to make a political run). We have to find some more families. If Hillary Clinton had won on Tuesday night, It would have meant that the same three families would have controlled the White House for over over 30 years (with the Bushes and Clintons being the White House for 24 of those). We have to end this idea of political royalty in this country. It’s no wonder nothing ever gets done, because the same families have been running the country for years. So if Chelsea Clinton and George P. Bush ever end up facing each other in a presidential contest, count me out. Screw moving to Canada, because if the Bushes and Clintons are still running the country in let’s say 2036 and those are the candidates, I’m moving to another galaxy.

–M