Political Violence, When It Matters and Doesn't

New York Times Hits a New Low | Power Line:

Yesterday was our 32nd anniversary, and it was one of those days that it is clear that we don't live in America anymore.

There has been plenty of poltical violence in my lifetime; JFK, RFK, MLK, there was an attempt on Gerald Ford, Reagan was wounded, Gabby Giffords was grieviously wounded, and now Steve Sclaise.

The left wing worked very hard to make JFK a victim of southern racism -- SOMEHOW it HAD to be there was a conspiracy of southern racists / John Birch Society / CIA / ??? that did it rather than an ex-Marine defector to the USSR that they didn't want who had visited the KGB in Mexico city a month before. Hey, the USSR were the GOOD guys from a left wing view after all!

Sure there were all sorts of racial shootings in the south -- all by Democrats. Kind of like Muslims, BLM, the folks in black ski masks, the Black Panthers, Nation of Islam, etc. Democrats making common cause with totalitarian groups that have very violent tendencies is not new at all. From a media perspective, the right is so evil that violent revolution is always an option that bubbles close to the surface -- it pretty much HAS to given the existential threat of there being people that don't agree with Democrats!

The Times re-states the fable that Gabby Giffords shooter, Loughner was somehow "right wing", or Sarah Palin's rehotoric somehow "influenced him" ... as Power Line points out, simply another fake news scurriloous lie. Where has the Times been while "commedians" have been holding lifelike severed heads of the president, and facism, Hitler, etc have become the daily diet of not just left wing polticians and assorted loonies, but the whole MSM as well? Conservatives are being attacked on campuses and in the streets by thugs in black ski masks. Earth to BOistan, hello?

When I got up yesterday and looked at news, Google still had the critical condition of Scalaise at the top and discussion of the shooting. CNN had moved over to Comey's friend Mueller now "widening" the "investigation" to to included "obstruction of justice" using all lawyers who made contributions to the Clinton Fund -- "Cash, for Clintons".

What a surprise. MPR had an hour with Paula Poundstone on "being happy" ... not much reason to talk about an evil R being gunned down. When Gabby was hit, it was wall to wall news, which was appropriate, but it was also the constant assertion (unknown at that point) that it was all due to "Sarah Palin and the Tea Party". That was incorrect, however there is nothing like making Democratic propaganda before the light of truth shines on anything!

A sitting majority whip in critical condition after being shot by a Bernie Sanders political activist didn't make it into day two at the top of the Clinton News Network mast -- we return you to regularly scheduled efforts to overturn the election!

I wrote about this in 2012 as "The Right of the Left"  ... they find resorting to violence to be "understandable" given how nasty the R's are (yet try to pretend they don't),  while they go to ANY length to try to make it seem like the "right" is violent.

It isn't enough to lie about Tuscon. The Tines has to take this opportunity to lie about the results of armed citizens protecting themselves saying "studies say they usually hit bystanders". Really? Name one CASE, let alone "study". Our lovely left wing media is on a hair trigger to identifiy ANY failing of concealed permit holders or other armed citizens. Other then in Nowhere Nevada or something, we would all KNOW of the case(s). Take a look at this.

If you are going to do fake news, one would think you would at least TRY to do a reasonable job of the fakery ... find some bogus poorly written "study" that is impossible to follow and link it. Hell, you might as well link to the left wing fever swamp of the Daily Kos or something as a "source" that Loughner was an avid Tea Partier in perfect mental health. Why, just the day before he shot Gabby he worked the Time's crossword puzzle! Please prove he DIDN'T!

Here is a good NR column covering the same ground and more. The left has been looking for the right wing equivalent of James Hodgskinson for DECADES! Eventually they will likely find one so they can quit faking it. Can we all just yawn now?


'via Blog this'

Not Being A Democrat Evidence of Criminal Intent

Preliminary thoughts on the “Comey memo” [UPDATED] | Power Line:

Last July, and again just early in May,  Comey told us that Hillary could not be prosecuted because he could not "prove criminal intent", the Democrats and the MSM cheered loudly.

“We could not prove that the people sending the information, either in that case or in the other case with the secretary, were acting with any kind of the mens rea — with any kind of criminal intent,” Mr. Comey said.

We all inherently know this to be true -- most of us have friends, or even personally had the experience of being pulled over for speeding or even DUI, telling the officer "I didn't intend to break the law" and the officer immediately expressing his apology for intruding on our lives and being sent on our way. Purity of intent is the all purpose get out of jail free card. I'm guessing that if you have a "Ready for Hillary" bumper sticker, officers likely never even pull you over.

In the past couple of days while the "Comey memo" and the "secret disclosure to the Russians" have filled the news, I've been struck by how "intent" has shifted. Let's assume that the felons leaking the information were "true D's" and 100% accurate with only the pure intent to destroy Trump, a case of obvious virtue.

But given that, how can we be so certain of Trump's intent in his no doubt honorably reported by felons "crimes"? It seems obvious --  he is an R. 

I believe we all understand that in BOistan, "intent" counts more than "rule of law", and not being a D is prima facia evidence of criminal intent, while being a D sets a high bar indeed as malice of intent must be proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt". For D's, setting up servers, deleting tens of thousdands of emails is not really "evidence" without being able to see into the very soul of the Democrat in question, so no crime can be prosecuted. Comey looked into Hillary's soul, saw "she was a good person", so he was able to put the investigation behind him.

Clearly Flynn is NOT a "good person", so any suggestion that he might be and thus would not have committed whatever crime the felon leakers assert he committed (again, we assume their motive is completely pure and honorable, so the fact of their felony in leaking is not really criminal) ... thus the mere suggestion that someone working in an R capacity is somehow a "good guy", is in itself "interference" -- it goes against the metaphysical truth of D=good, R=evil!

After all, BO endorsed Hillary for POTUS over a month prior to Comey ending the investigation after his boss, Loretta Lynchmob  met with Slick Willie on the plane in AZ. 

We seem to move ever closer to the point where not pledging allegiance to "The Party" (TP-D) and the POWER it represents is itself a crime! 

'via Blog this'

Milbankian Causal Insanity

Now we know: Bill Clinton cost his wife the presidency - The Washington Post:

This rather insane column is a solid insight into how the leftist mind works.

1. Hillary Clinton sets up an illegal private server in her basement that is thinly defeneded from hacking.

2. She uses the server during her time at the State Department to hide her illegal foundation activities in the "Clinton Fund" ... funds, for Clintons, as well as storing / transmitting multiple documents classified "Top Secret' ... an eat off a tin tray felony.

3. She repeatedly lies about was on the server "personal yoga schedules", NOTHING classified in any way, etc, etc.

4. So she gets investigated ... and any other American would go to prison. HOWEVER

The specific reason he cited: Bill Clinton’s decision to board Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s plane in late June, when their planes were both on a tarmac in Phoenix. “The capper was — and I’m not picking on Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who I like very much — but her meeting with President Clinton on that airplane was the capper for me,” Comey said. Comey decided to “step away” and announce, without consulting the Justice Department, that Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be charged.

Ergo ... "Hillary losing was Bill Clinton's fault"!!!!

Let's rewind -- first of all, I'm no fan of Slick Willie.

Second, even in the "proximate causes" area, are we expected to believe that the Attorney General of the US has no ability to decline a private meeting with the well-known husband of a target of an investigation by her own agency? Clearly Comey thought there was DEFINITE meaning in her decision ... My boss is willing to break protocol and publicly meet with the husband of an investigation target, ergo, we are NOT going to prosecute this particular target ...

But seriously folks. WHO is it that set up the server in the first place and willfully broke a ton of laws in the process? HILLARY CLINTON!!!!

In the lefty universe, there is no truth, so there can be no causality. It's "the Russians fault", "Comey's fault", etc, etc. Even someone running for the highest office in the US from the left does not bear responsibiliuty for their own behavior nor the operation of their campaign. In the lefty world, they are NEVER responsible!

My personal guess is that "Deploreables" cost her enough votes to lose ... along with fainting in public, lying repeatedly, rigging the primaries and getting caught, etc, etc. She has to be the most unlikeable person to ever run for the presidency and that is saying a lot!

The AMAZING thing is that even with all that, she still only lost by an electoral landslide -- which in my book is more indicitive of the level of vote fraud in the country than anything else. A lefty can be a complete charlatan, run as such, and because the "dead, imaginary and undocumneted democrat" vote still goes 100% for them, they still win the popular vote!

'via Blog this'

Trump, 2016 Election, Media

Donald Trump can't stop talking (and talking) about the 2016 election - CNNPolitics.com:

You have to love the media -- story after story about how "Trump can't stop talking/thinking about 2016" ... and they are certain that it is going to HURT him bigtime (you know how the MSM is always concerned about what is best for Trump!).

Here is the NY Times with BO in Missouri in July of 2010, a full year and 1/2 after his narrow loss in Missouri while taking the presidency in 2008. Strangely, the Times seems to be very OK with BO thinking about 2008 in 2010, and even making extensive trips to Missouri based on the 2008 results.

I suppose one conclusion could be that the media loves Trump and hated BO, so they are trying to help Trump now by pointing out the error of his ways, while back in 2010, they hated BO, so they faked like it was a good idea to waste time on Missouri based on 2008 results.

Or it might be the reverse -- which I believe.

Further evidence for either my view or the thought that the liberal press is of AT LEAST two minds is this artiicle headlined "Democrats Say They Know Exactly Why Hillary Lost". Hint, it's not Russians, it is low black turnout and BO voters that crossed over to Trump, possibly by way of Sanders.` I could SWEAR I've read more than a few retrospecitves of the 2016 election from the left. If they can't give up thinking about it is it REALLY any surprise that Trunp hasn't?

How many presidents quit thinking and talking  about their great victories before they die? I'd say NONE. Obviously, the MSM will continue remembering BO's victories as they remember Slick Willie's victories very fondly for a very long time. Reagan's victories, W's victories, and now Trump's victory are naturally hated.

What is new about any of this? Nothing ...

'via Blog this'

Word Deniers, Meaning Deniers

Climate Changes Activists: Science Deniers | National Review:

Jonah gets into my topic a little bit in the linked column. We all understand that the term "denier" is intended to bring up the image of a HOLOCAUST "denier" and thus mentally put those whose opinions on climate change differ from those who see it as an immediate existential threat in the most horrid light imaginable.

The word "denier" ties people labeled with it to those who would deny the closest thing to metaphysical evil recognized in the post-modern, post-truth materialist west. It is the medieval equivalent of labelling someone "demonic or satanic" ... it is "beyond the pale", and any remotely decent modern person should be willing to do ANYTHING to avoid that label from the POV of the priesthood of the left.

But does it work?

It has an effect. As Orwell covered so well in "Animal Farm" and "1984", language control by the powerful has a HUGE effect on the human psyche. The level of indoctrination of the youth is certainly the reason we see riots at Berkley over the very IDEA that they would be "exposed" to the horrors of speech from people identified as being as close to metaphysical spiritual evil as our insane modern world can imagine.

So they riot. Their actions are similar to burning Joan of Arc or witches in the past. They see the horror of what has been conjured to be "the ultimate evil" as simply beyond their capacity to resist -- it must be STAMPED OUT!  Like Odysseus having his ears plugged with wax and being tied to the mast so he would be saved from the siren's song, they do their modern version so they can resist the horror of Ann Coulter. What if some heard her siren wail? It is too horrible to even contemplate.

The insanity of this world however is that on one hand, post-modernism would tell us that words are only meaningful in terms of power. There is no "truth" ... not philosophical, not scientific and certainly not transcendent / theological. The only "truth" **IS** POWER, thus the riots.

Is the descent into violent physical power being the only coin of the realm being carried out by intellectuals that understand all of this, or is it merely an accident of leaving the world of transcendent meaning behind?

Since I refuse to look at my opponents on the left as idiots, I'm forced to pretty much assume malevolence on their part -- unless they can read, understand, and refute "Ideas Have Consequences".


'via Blog this'

Sin, BO, Money

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2017/04/barack_obama_is_taking_400_000_for_a_wall_street_speech_and_that_s_fine.html

I got to hear Mayo's top guy, Dr John Noseworthy, talk at a luncheon this past week -- looks like a CEO from Hollywood casting. Tall, thin, full head of just perfectly grey flecked hair, angular leading man good looks, and oh so smooth as a speaker!

He led off with a little story of silent Cal Coolidge. Cal goes to church, reporter asks him coming out what the sermon was about. Cal says "sin", reporter inquires further on what the minister had to say on that topic. Cal responds "he was against it".

Noseworthy's topic was a  "Strong Diverse Connected Community" ... he was for it. Very effective speaking device. I hope John is a great CEO ... I have a house I want to sell here in the next year or two!

The link is to a Slate article strongly defending BO taking $400K for a speaking fee -- well deserved, W only gets $100K (tsk, tsk). BO's first book post presidency deal is $65 million, that is also a good thing according to Slate. No surprise here ... if it were not for double standards, we know that humans sans religion would have no standards at all. Most everyone loves their own team.

Here is BO on the income topic ... His supporters would no doubt point out that he was indicating limits on what OTHERS should be satisfied with in earnings. As "The One", he is naturally exempt from limits .... being on "the right side of history" has it's privileges.

I got in a little chat with a guy on FB today about some cartoonist in IA supposedly being fired because he complained about CEO pay. I went out and took a look, and the CEO of John Deere makes $16 million a year ... Joe Mauer of Twins fame, $23 million a year, Clayton Kershaw (Dodgers pitcher) is the high in MLB, average salary is $4.5 million.  Noseworthy makes $3.8 million ... less than the average MLB player. Turns out it was last years news ... too old to even  be fake.

I can understand plain old envy -- people just not liking what others make, how good looking they are, their talents, their blessings, their oxen, manservants, maidservants, etc. Covetousness is an old problem ... the answer is to repent, focus on your own blessings and move on.

Who is being "hurt" by CEO or MLB salaries? For the MLB, it is fans buying tickets and possibly consumers buying products that are advertised when games are televised. For CEOs, it is the SHAREHOLDERS, not the employees -- they are not going to receive more salary because the business KNOWS pretty much what they contribute to the bottom line. Here is an article on this if you don't already understand it. 

Even if we assume that CEOs are all overpaid, the pay is not money taken unfairly from other workers. Rather, the undeserved pay is being taken from shareholders. When corporate boards overpay a CEO, it is shareholders who lose because profits that could have become either shareholder dividends or capital gains are instead going into the pocket of the CEO.

Do the fans and the shareholders feel hurt? Not as long as their highly paid star is performing.

Most of the CEOs are actually "progressives" as well ... so we have the odd case where "progressives" hate their own because in general they are unaware they are on their side -- like Oprah, BO, or "The Clinton Fund' (funds ... for Clintons). As the Slate article thinly disguises, what is important is for young "progressives" to understand that as long as they follow "progressive" dogma, both wealth and women are on the list of perks!

Christ died for the whole sorry bunch of us. He even dined with tax collectors -- the lowest of the low  in those times. Making the money, casting the stones, puffing up our chests in pride because what **WE** make is EARNED ... oh, and JUDGEMENT! We love to judge others!

Filthy rags -- that is what we are best at.

'via Blog this'

Democrats Winning Streak

Jon Ossoff, a Democrat, Narrowly Misses Outright Win in Georgia House Race - The New York Times:

The Democrats are on a winning streak that started last November when Hillary captured the all important popular vote. The hits keep on coming as a week ago, Democrats won by losting by 6 points in a district that Trump had won by 24.

Now the big event, the one that Democrats really poured the money into. A Democrat ALMOST won a seat in Georgia! They now go into a runoff where their chances are not so good.

Listening to MPR has been like listening to "The Hopefull Gospell Choir" -- as each of these special elections came up, the ecitement built, because if the D's could only prevail it would mean; "A referendum on Trump"!, D's likely to pick up seats in 2018, Trump as a one-termer, people are "waking up" ... well, it would mean A BUNCH of good things!

For some reason though, when they lose, the story just goes away ... other than them quietly saying that they still "won". Because if a WIN would have meant all the things they told us about with so much excitement, then what does what actually happened mean?

Since they call each loss a "win", the media isn't saying -- reality is just not one of those things often don't have anything to say about.

Perhaps Osshoff leading all night and then fading at the end will endear him to Atlanta Falcons fans.

'via Blog this'

Baseless Claims And Spying

Did Obama Spy on Trump? | RealClearPolitics:

It is a documented FACT that all of the conversations of Trump and his associates were recorded -- because ALL conversations over US phone / data lines are recorded!

In case you want another source, here is the "Electronic Freedom Foundation"

"Secret government documents, published by the media in 2013, confirm the NSA obtains full copies of everything that is carried along major domestic fiber optic cable networks."

Since ALL of our communications are digital these days, that is ALL. Here is the key paragraph from the linked article.

Thus, in 2016, when Trump says the surveillance of him took place, Obama needed only to ask the NSA for a transcript of Trump's telephone conversations to be prepared from the digital versions that the NSA already possessed. Because the NSA has the digital version of every telephone call made to, from and within the U.S. since 2005, if President Obama last year wanted transcripts of Trump's calls made at any time, the NSA would have been duty-bound to provide them, just as it would be required to provide transcripts of Obama's calls today if President Trump wanted them.

I disagree that the NSA would currently provide the information to Trump ... at least not without leaking that they provided it and that Trump is misusing the security apparatus of BOistan. I believe the Administrative/Deep State (ADS) is the last (and arguably the most important) Democrat held part of the US government. The ADS may or may not be the "enemy of the people", but it is certainly the enemy of Trump! (and Republicans)

So Trump needs "evidence" to make the claim that BO spied on him. The FBI is investigating Trump for possibly having "connections to Russia". EVERYONE ought to have this video locked in their brain!

So did the FBI investigate Obama? In 2013 he WELCOMED the Russian proposal to get more involved in Syria. I assume the FBI has LOTS of tapes from conversations between BO and his surrogates on the topic of Russia, "Red Lines" and Syria! Why were none of those "leaked"?

Hillary, Podesta and the DNC set up insecure servers and they were hacked. The PROBLEMS came from:

1. Hillary clearly stated there was nothing secret on her server (because it was illegal for there to be anything classified on the server) -- there were at least 10's, if not hundreds of documents found to be classified on the server AFTER Hillary had made multiple illegal attempts to "wipe" it. For anyone else, this was JAIL TIME for a FELONY!
   
2. The problem with what was leaked was THE CONTENT for the DNC and Podesta. It proved they rigged the primary for Hillary, cheated on the debates, that the "Clinton Fund" was a quid pro quo "diving for dollars" for the Clintons, and a bunch of other seedy stuff. 

Did "the Russians" even do the hacking? If the MSM had covered the latest Wikileaks dump of CIA capability, pretty much nobody would be thinking that any more.

One of the most interesting disclosures concerns how the CIA can cover its tracks by leaving electronic trails suggesting the hacking is being done in different places — notably, in Russia. In fact, according to WikiLeaks, there’s an entire department dedicated to this. Its job is to “misdirect attribution” by leaving false fingerprints. If you’ve been at all skeptical about the recent levels of Russia-related hysteria, promoted heavily by U.S. intelligence agencies, alarm bells are probably going off in your head.

So BO directly tells the Russian ambassador in '12 that he is going to "have more flexibility after the election". Gee ... Did he know he was going to win? Maybe the Russians were helping him. Why not? Is this the sort of accusatory stream that only runs one way? What "evidence" did anyone have about Trump INFLUENCING the supposed "hacking" prior to the eavesdropping on the phone conversations -- which BTW didn't provide any evidence of "collusion" either.

And what would "collusion" be? "I'll have more flexibility to work with you after the election"?

WHOMEVER did the hacking and leaking of Hillary, her staff and the DNC, it was the result of:

1. Either their illegal servers, or their insanely poorly protected servers.
   
2. The ISSUE was about what was ON the servers and in the emails -- that they had classified documents on private servers, shook down campaign contributors and rigged their own primary for starters.  

In the case of Trump however, he and his incoming administration were using phone lines that OUGHT to not have been tapped -- or even if you are OK with the government recording all the calls and emails that flow, should not have been EXPOSED -- the leaks were from THIS country, and in the BO administration / Administrative Sate. Were there to be any sort of even handed treatment here, the PROBLEM (according to the media and the D's) would be the SOURCE OF THE LEAKS, not the CONTENT. BO DEFINITELY relaxed classified restrictions, basically encouraging "leaks", and the source is the NY Times.

As Inauguration Day approached, Obama White House officials grew convinced that the intelligence was damning and that they needed to ensure that as many people as possible inside government could see it, even if people without security clearances could not. Some officials began asking specific questions at intelligence briefings, knowing the answers would be archived and could be easily unearthed by investigators — including the Senate Intelligence Committee, which in early January announced an inquiry into Russian efforts to influence the election.

The "blaming the Russians" for "manipulation" is blaming their (supposed) intelligence gathering -- we are supposed to pay no attention to the content of what was leaked in those cases. 

In the Trump case, there has been NO CONTENT beyond "they talked", and that "looks bad" -- to Democrats, the left, and cranks like McCain. 

So where was that standard when the video above was happening? 

'via Blog this'

The Dark Rigidity of Tribes

An Insider's View: The Dark Rigidity of Fundamentalist Rural America | Alternet:

Way too loing for the point it makes -- the red state fundamentalist tribe isn't going to change it's views, even though from a coastal elite's views, everything it believes is wrong.

Naturally the coastal elites views are all "scientific,  correct, etc" -- so there is no need to "understand anyone" -- coastal elites right, red states wrong, poor, racist etc. "Deplorable" summarizes it pretty well.

I'm wondering if food and fuel transfers from red states to blue states suddenly stopped, and all the red oriented "stupid" (from the column authors POV) truckers stopped moving stuff around, how long Mr "correct" would need to be without food and power before being smart was deemed less important than being fed?

I found this to be a pretty good summary of the whole deal ...

When a 2,700-year-old book that was written by uneducated, pre-scientific people, subject to translation innumerable times, and edited with political and economic pressures from popes and kings, is given higher intellectual authority than facts arrived at from a rigorous, self-critical, constantly re-evaluating system that can and does correct mistakes, no amount of understanding, respect or evidence is going to change their minds and assuage their fears.

Yes indeed. That "2700 year old book" along with some Greek philosophy that is a mere 2,350 or so old, plus a few other pieces of wisdom that are centures old built the civilization that was once smart enough to know that without transcendent values, humans return to fundamentalist tribal factions that are so rigid that there is no ground for discussion -- the author of the column seems to grasp the sound of his left tribe "clapping" quite well.

If there are no transcendent values, then obviously might is right. No doubt Mr elite is confident in his team / tribe. They are "right" after all!

'via Blog this'

Race vs Civilization, Steve King

Rep. Steve King says his ‘somebody else’s babies’ tweet isn’t ‘about race.’ Except with King, it’s almost always about race. - The Washington Post:

The linked article is a dedicated attempt to mark Steve King as a "racist", and therefore silence his voice, or at least make it "bad". The chief offending comment for this attempt is "our civilization can't be restored with “somebody else's babies”" ... but they dig some other comments out as well.

First of all, what is "our civilization"? I'd argue it is WESTERN civilization ... Greek, Roman, Christian, Enlightenment, Reformation, etc. Assuming THAT is what he means, what is "somebody else's babies"?

To me that would mean babies from people that don't share that civilization -- they aren't Christian, don't know about Greece, Rome, etc -- or at least don't subscribe to what at least once were the tenets of Western civilization -- free speech, private property, rule of law, ordered universe understandable by man (science), etc

Creatures can carry on their SPECIES and differences in the species -- like race, merely by propagation of genetic material. That however is not supposed to be a "civilization", or even a "culture". Humans want to pass on their culture / civilization to their children -- or at least the ones not in dying cultures and civilizations wanted to.

One of the other "racist" things he said was “The idea that every culture is equal is not objectively true,”. Obviously, it is racist to claim that there are value differences between cultures. The Nazi culture would be equal to the San Francisco hipster culture, which is equal to the culture in deeply red Emmetsburg IA where I spent the weekend, and also equal to a culture of cannibals in Borneo. To not agree with that is simply "racist" -- or maybe "culturalist"?

Here is what Thomas Sowell has to say on the topic (in a great column BTW). "There is no economic determinism. People choose what to spend their money on, and what to spend their time on. Cultures differ." Sowell is an intellectual giant who happens to be black ... so it isn't as important for the WaPo to lable him "racist" for having the same view as King.

We know that, much like climate change, this racist label is not up for "debate", because ... well, because we have been TOLD !

King's influence on the Republican Party and American culture writ large is something to be debated. But whether King's comments are about race is not up for debate.

In the world view of the WaPo, race and civilization or culture are totally equivalent, and thus, obviously totally EQUAL ... as in Nazi, Hipster and Cannibal culture being equal.

Our betters are so intelligent it is hard to imagine why a bunch of hick Emmetsburg IA folks would disagree with them and vote for King and Trump! The gall! And AFTER they have been TOLD!


'via Blog this'

Why Are CEOs Progressive? (They Are)

Corporate Leaders: Progressive Activists, Not Conservative Villains | National Review:

Basically, two reasons:

For one thing, conservatives are cheap dates. You do not have to convince the readers of National Review or Republicans in Valparaiso that American business is in general a force for good in the world. But if you are, e.g., Exxon, you might feel the need to convince certain people, young and idealistic and maybe a little stupid in spite of their expensive educations, that you are not so bad after all, and that you are spending mucho shmundo “turning algae into biofuel,” in the words of one Exxon advertisement, and combating malaria and doing other nice things. All of that is true, and Exxon makes sure people know it. The professional activists may sneer and scoff, but they are not the audience.

We all know this. Since conservatives by and large believe in a power that transcends poltics (religion), and do not in fact hold the oppositiion to be evil (the Christian ones are supposed to love even the STRONG opposition that declares themselves "enemies". Thus:

The same asymmetry characterizes the so-called social issues. The Left will see to it that Brendan Eich is driven out of his position at Mozilla for donating to an organization opposed to gay marriage, but the Right will not see to it that Tim Cook is driven out of his position for supporting gay marriage. 

The left actually gets a pound of flesh from those who dare oppose them -- the right tends to assume that "God will settle up such accounts in his own good time".

The other big reason is because "like still likes like".

And that is significant, because a great deal of corporate activism is CEO-driven rather than shareholder-driven or directly rooted in the business interests of the firm. Like Wall Street bankers, who may not like their tax bills or Dodd-Frank but who tend in the main to be socially liberal Democrats, the CEOs of major U.S. corporations are, among other things, members of a discrete class. The graduates of ten colleges accounted for nearly half of the Fortune 500 CEOs in 2012; one in seven of them went to one school: Harvard. A handful of metros in California, Texas, and New York account for a third of Fortune 1000 headquarters — and there are 17 Fortune 1000 companies in one zip code in Houston. Unsurprisingly, people with similar backgrounds, similar experiences, and similar occupations tend to see the world in a similar way.

So again, we live in a "down the rabbit hole looking glass world" where one of the chief boogeymen of the left (corporations) is actaully run by folks that are lefties and lavishly support the left. As maybe a few more folks are realizing these days, in BOistan, it is pretty much ALL fake!







'via Blog this'

Tolerance, Apathy, Aristotle

The following quote has shown up in a number of internet memes ... mostly conservative, so it has been roundly claimed to NOT be from Aristotle in lefty quarters.

According to this site https://probaway.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/philosophers-squared-aristotle/, it is.

"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society."

So assuming that the quote is NOT from Aristotle, does that make it false? My take on reading it would be that if somebody has a strong belief in their culture / country / society, they would feel that it is "good, exceptional, just, important, positive, etc", and therefore not be apathetic, and would thus not be likely to simply "tolerate" views that were not aligned with that society / culture that they believe in. They would seek to challenge those views and arrive at what they see as the truth. 

In other words, the statement seems tautalogically true to me. If one stated that "Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying man", again, it seems tatualogically true -- if someone is dying, they are likely to tolerate a lot, and be apathetic about a lot. 

Conversely, "Tolerance and apathy are the first virtues of a strong successful man" seems clearly false at least in ancient times. Are not strong and successful men confident in their values and energetic rather than apathetic?

As men go, so goes society. 

In the cases where I've seen lefties get all bent out of shape about this quote it is obvious that they are NEITHER "tolerant" nor "apathetic" ... they are down right bent out of shape that "tolerance" would have ANYTHING bad said about it, and are thus completely INtolerant of anyone questioning tolerance. And they are excited about it. 

Which makes sense -- they came very close, or possibly succeeded in killing America and creating a new society of BOistan ... tribal, immoral (in the old sense of morals), non-competitive, declining economically, oriented toward leveled distribution of wealth vs the creation of wealth, etc. 

AND, they are very EXCITED for the prospects of that society, so they are NOT "apathetic". 

This seems so clear to me that it defies discussion. In general, they seem to want to go to great lengths to claim that Aristotle DID NOT make the statement that I believe to be tautalogically true. Do lefties respect Aristotle? It seems very doubtful many know anything about him. The idea of the left is that nearly anyone on the street today is more intelligent / wise / smart / etc than Aristotle, since we have "progressed" and will continue to as long as we continue to "be progressive". 

Naturally, if you are progressive, you can't have a "society / culture" because those things require values that are fixed over time and "progressivism" (regressivism) says that the latest thing thought up is BOUND to be superior because of all our added "knowledge / wisdom / smarts / etc". In the left view, BOistan is but a stepping stone to a less stable, less "moral" (old sense), less success oriented, more levelled future which is in turn is but a stepping stone to the next stage in valueless "progressiveism". 

AND THAT IS PROGRESS! 

Steele Nails Liberal Corruption

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2017/03/06/the_exhaustion_of_american_liberalism_404255.html

This is one of those "read it all and just understand" columns, so just go do it. (the link is a double bump off Real Clear because of WSJ paywall vagaries).

I've weakly attempted cover this issue, but the genius of Shelby Steele as well as the moral authority of a black man on the topic makes a much stronger case than I am able to.  I pray he is right -- the rise of Trump means the end of this sorry chapter in our history. Creating a morally bankrupt nation where young black men kill each other by the thousands every year while our children are taiught to hate their own nation has produced nothing but destruction and despair.

Let’s stipulate that, given our history, this liberalism is understandable. But American liberalism never acknowledged that it was about white esteem rather than minority accomplishment. Four thousand shootings in Chicago last year, and the mayor announces that his will be a sanctuary city. This is moral esteem over reality; the self-congratulation of idealism. Liberalism is exhausted because it has become a corruption.

Just in case you don't follow my advice and go read it (it is not long), there is this important point.

It is also the heart and soul of contemporary liberalism. This liberalism is the politics given to us by white guilt, and it shares white guilt’s central corruption. It is not real liberalism, in the classic sense. It is a mock liberalism. Freedom is not its raison d’être; moral authority is.

I grew up with this. It is religious fundamentalism ... the kind that gets you "shunned". The kind that doesn't let you visit some people because they are "worldly".  It is the "safe spaces" and the
"I can't talk to them anymore, they voted for Trump" of today.  It is the politics that makes me cry.

Russians or BO?

Trump's Wiretap Claims: What We Know and What We Don't | The Weekly Standard:

We live in largely separate echo chambers of media narratives, but Trump is breaking down those walls and causing general discomfort to most people in their comfy chambers hearing the narratives they expect with all the appropriate spin they also expect. Last weekend, Trump tweeted the obvious -- in order to gather all this supposed "information", the BO administration must have been investigating the Trump campaign -- Watergate where the FBI, NSA, CIA play the role of the "Plumbers".

The picture IS of an actual NY Times front page, but if you go off to Snopes, they will "explain" that the article has nothing to do with wiretapping of Trump ... so much for skimming NY Times headlines for "information" ... a headline in the NY Times stating Trump was wiretapped should NOT be construed to be "evidence" that he was wiretapped. So much for using the NY Times as a "source".

The right wing media got all wrapped around the axle about the Times "changing the headline" in the digital issue -- but in fact they just used a different headline when they put it up to digital originially -- a version of "a man accused of killing three men and a dog produces the dog alive" ... only in this case, he maybe comes up with a dead dog and the three men show up in court to testify that he murdered them. We have arrived at surrealism.

The Administrative State was clearly (and probably still is) investigating Trump -- otherwise we would not have all the "leaks". Either BO told them to, allowed them to, or was incompetent and simply had no clue about a major misuse of government power. He should be jailed -- ideally, he should be executed (slowly), but justice is so rare.


The following from this excellent article.

In short, the media and Democrats have been playing with fire for months. The use of law-enforcement and national-security assets to investigate one’s political opponents during a heated election campaign has always been a potentially explosive story. Let’s not kid ourselves: If the roles were reversed, and a Republican administration had investigated officials tied to the campaign of the Democrats’ nominee, we would be drowning in a sea of Watergate 2.0 coverage.

And all of a sudden, the Russian Narrative appears to have gone "poof". I suspect that the NY Times, WaPo, NPR, Nancy Pelosi, etc just realized when they saw the Trump tweets, that they don't officially have a single branch of government under "The Party" (TP-D) control. The Republicans CAN run an investigation of "Why was the BO administration or the Administrative State that they are supposed to be responsible for, investigating the opposition campaign?".

They looked around and decided, that BO and Hildebeast could just as well be targets as Trump and his administration -- and in fact, Trump is in the WH and Republicans are in both houses of Congress. Sure, TP still DOES own the Administrative State (AS) and the big media, but their "ownership" of the AS is supposed to be a "secret" -- it can be fully open when they own the White House, because in THEORY the president is supposed to be in charge of the AS, and **IS** when the president is TP. When the president is not TP, the AS needs to fake like it is under his executive authority!

I'd argue that the biggest challenge that Trump faces if he really does want to "Make America Great Again" is to put the ultimate control of the AS back under CONGRESS -- supposedly that is where their "law powers" are delegated from, since it is CONGRESS that can make law as well as control funding.

Trump ought to be able to hire and fire AS personnel at will, raise or lower their salaries, cut their benefits, etc. If they want to do things to cause him embarrassment or ignore his directives, he ought to be able to fire them just as Reagan fired PATCO. He is the CEO ... the alphabet government is supposed to be under his executive authority, with powers only delegated to them from congress.

I've been shocked this week to see how quickly the whole MSM has shut up about Russia!  If this continues, I think we can be certain that BO in fact either ordered Trump tapped, or looked the other way as it happened, and the tweets hit a bit too close to the bone -- TP really doesn't want to see BO in prison.

Let's get the SCOTUS firmly switched, the AS defanged, and THEN maybe see if BO can't be put behind bars where he has belonged since he destroyed the health system and lied to the American people about how we could "keep our healthcare". I wonder if he would still wag his finger the same way behind bars?

Imagine a sample BO interview from prison.

"I am the greatest president to ever be in prison. Just today, I was telling some guards about how I know more about prison than any prisoner in history, I know more about being a guard than they do, I am simply smarter, smoother and better in all respects than even the warden. I should be warden ... I'm certain he agrees, I just need to explain it to him better. I've been explaining how to make this a better prison -- I know I have a lot to do, but I work hard and I simply think more and more deeply than anyone I've ever met. I know I will be remembered as I have said that I will be. I'm glad you gave me this chance to explain how great I am doing here and how I will continue to be the kind of success that only I can possibly be!"

'via Blog this'

Documenting Democrats

Real ID bill hung up again over immigrant drivers' licenses | Minnesota Public Radio News: 

Governor Goofy wants to add MN to the 12 states that document Undocumented Democrats for at least driving. Naturally, requiring ANY id for voting is still not to be required, so this is just to make it easier for them to get welfare, healthcare, housing, education, cable tv, cell phones, mail packages, etc.

He wanted the same thing last year, but he may well have forgotten that.

"It's very distressing that they would try to make a political case out of this," Dayton said. "If they'd acted last year as I suggested in the legislative session this would all be resolved and we'd be underway. So, this is entirely their creation and any delays that are occurring now are entirely their responsibility."

I'm sure many and various things are both distressing and not distressing to Gov Goofy -- pretty much dependent on the dosage / content of his meds, the phase of the moon, and any voices or visions flowing through his head.  Politics in government! The horror!

It will be interesting to see if they can manage to get anything worked out that allows the Undocumented Democrats to improve their standing even more, while still allow actual Minnesotans to get on airplanes and such.

My thought is that the Undocumented Democrats (maybe ALL Democrats?) just get a Real ID that has a chip for charging things to it at the government expense. That could save them filling out a whole bunch of forms.

Based on my MPR listening, the Ds seem to be betting that they can hold this off demanding ID for their undocumented Democrat voters, and the Republicans will be blamed. Could be, it's a crazy state. Does Read ID and "ID for illegals" HAVE to be linked? It does in D minds, because they don't want to have to pass a bill providing IDs for illegals, so they are putting their money on forcing Republicans to sign off on the linkage out of fear that "they will be blamed".
'via Blog this'

The Fourth Way, Hugh Hewitt

https://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Way-Conservative-Playbook-Majority/dp/1501172441

I got sucked in on this one, not a bad book, but VERY wonky. It's objective is to present a clear path as to what Hewitt thinks will allow Trump to avoid losing ground in the midterms and to establish a lasting "Republican" majority. Strangely, it also talks about how likely it is that Trump will be impeached.

He bases that rather odd little chapter largely on a David Brooks column from Nov 11 that brought up impeachment (Brooks is the NY Times "conservative" columnist!), and the fact that "Republicans have done it before". The way Hugh wrote it I suspect that he is essentially threatening Trump to "keep his nose clean, or else". Yes, yes, we Republicans have principles, however in my opinion it is way PAST time to realize those principles are being used against us and become as Matt 10:16 "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." We need to focus a LOT more on the serpent part!

So Hugh's "plan":

• Do a "stimulus" that is 1/10th the BO stimulus, so $85 billion, and have it be "seed money" to get a bunch of low income clinics, basketball courts, swimming pools, etc built around the country in partnership with appointed "boards", majoring in low income areas. (this seems "fine")
  
• Do a bunch of navy ship building in the great lakes states that Trump flipped (fine)
  
• Do teeny tiny tweaky tax reform staying completely away from any sort of "flat tax". It needs to be read, but he makes a good case for not getting rid of home mortgage / chairitable deductions. In my opinion he makes a lot less of a case for continuing to allow state income taxes to be deducted. He asserts that it would "lose WI, IA, MI, PA etc, for what? Winning FL and TX TWICE?".
  
  My thought would be that a lot of the Trump voters, and the most likely potential Trump voters to add don't pay much in state taxes anyway. In any case, I hope someone has a better plan than Hugh.
  
• Appoint good judges (duh) He thanks Harry Reid for making it very likely that Trump can be successful at this. Yes, thanks Harry!
  
• He has a lot of tweaky defense ideas. I HOPE that Trump has some people that have a lot more innovative ones -- like massive containers full of 100's of thousands of tiny drones each with a little "c4" that can hit people, equipment, gang up and hit buildings, etc, etc with the computerized command and control capabilites to use them on subs, planes, and even from satellites. 

And that is about it. Very ho hum. Not recommended.

Fascism, You Keep Using That Word

| National Review:

Fascism is one of those terms that fits in with "Hitler" on the hit list of left wing name calling that is constantly used by people that don't understand what it means -- they may as well just say "bad", or "evil" to anyone that knows history at all.

While we are at it, let's make sure everyone is on the same meme page. The reference is from "The Princess Bride", the link gives a little background.

I've covered this umpteen times, using "Fascism" and "Hitler" to refer to the political RIGHT is like walking up to me and calling me "Miss" ... for those that don't know me, 6'4", 300ish, bald and bearded. I covered left vs right in detail here all the way back to the French Revolution.

The linked Sowell article has the following:

Unlike the Communists, the Fascists did not seek government ownership of the means of production. They just wanted the government to call the shots as to how businesses would be run. They were for “industrial policy,” long before liberals coined that phrase in the United States. Indeed, the whole Fascist economic agenda bears a remarkable resemblance to what liberals would later advocate.

The article also references the excellent work "Liberal Fascism" which I have reviewed.

The bottom line here is that in a post-truth tribal nation, the best myths win, so there is NO WAY the leftist tribe will be giving up the left-right inversion, Fascism, Hitler, etc mythology. They are not about to own "National Socialism", let alone Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, North Korea, etc ...

I'm not sure if Trump will be able to establish any really good mythology that works, but he certainly keeps throwing stuff at the wall. The best myths have very tiny pieces of truth and give those that believe in them a "slam dunk" -- "truth" at a general level is antithetical to myth making, since the truth is very rarely anything even close to a "slam dunk" on anything more complex than 2+2=4.

"97% of Scientists" is a great example.

If you want to explore, where you are on a slightly more sensible scale than MERELY left and right, this is an interesting site -- CERTAINLY far from any sort of "perfection", however I think an INDICATOR worth considering.  Here is my result.

'via Blog this'

Coming Out Is Hard To Do

Coming Out—This Time for Trump - WSJ:

Worthy of a read. I have no understanding of gayness, but assume it is looking at a man like I look at a woman in "desire mode". There tends to not be lot of deep thought related to that ... looking at a tall cold glass of beer on a hot day comes to mind as a similar sort of non-intellectual endeavor. If the species needed very much intellect for feeding, fighting, fleeing and, er "procreating", we would likely either be a lot smarter or "not" (as in not existing).

Liking beer, scotch, tobacco, chocolate -- or not, never seemed to be hugely intellectual to me either. There is the "addiction factor" of course -- I used to really enjoy smoking a pipe, but I gave that up and it wasn't too hard. I still enjoy the occasional cigar, but it doesn't average out to "weekly", so not much addiction factor. Eating too much for emotional reasons? BIG addiction factor -- really hard to give up eating though -- and it tends to not end well.  Sometimes we have to totally fight STRONG urges to even survive, let alone be "moral". Just ask a "recovered" addict.

I can imagine that the "secrecy factor" can be significant  -- the long term religious person doubting their faith, marital infidelity, being a victim of abuse, and likely an abuser, lots of addictions, etc. It would be interesting to note the percentage of the population that has "no secrets" vs "significant secrets" vs "secrets that are thought to be at an acceptable level"(whatever that means!). It's difficult to even put categories on such things. Having had some personal experience plus experience in talking to others, I'd guess that the totals for "having done or been the victim of something that has or occasionally causes moderate or greater guilt" is well over 50% of the population, possibly close to 90%? Who knows? They are called "secrets" after all! "Redemption" is an idea that doesn't apply if there is no sin -- and it doesn't apply politically. As Hillary reminded us, Trump voters are not merely "deplorable", but "irredeemable".

As the guy in the column says:

Worse than Mr. Trump’s inconsistencies, however, are those of his detractors. They cite his lack of inclusiveness yet discount that tens of millions of Americans voted for him, and he won 30 states. I am as afraid about acknowledging that I voted for Mr. Trump today as I was about being gay yesterday. There seems to be as little understanding of my political views as there was about my sexual orientation.

I suppose there is really no irony there at all, but it feels that way to me. If we take the old "10% gay" number that is thought to be VERY high (1-2% being closer to reality), 30 million out of our 300 million population would be gay. Therefore, that a significant percentage of 60 million Trump voters now feel reticent to "come out" would be considered to be "progress" by the Hillary voters. People feeling uncomfortable because they have desires that go against nature and human mores for thousands of years is "unacceptable" we must love the sin AND love the sinner. (actually, it often seems that the Christian ideal of loving the sinner is not really understood at all by non-Christians -- it is the sin that must really be loved)

However if 2x+ even the inflated the old number of gays have thoughts counter to recently expounded "progressive" positions, then they OUGHT to feel uncomfortable and be "closeted"!!! From the "progressive" POV, all that is required is to increase sanctions against them until they TRUELY "get their minds right" -- the idea that people would CONSIDER a position different from "progressive" orthodoxy is bad enough -- that they would find the gall go "come out" and admit it is totally beyond the "progressive pale"! It is as if the very worst of any sanctions formerly used against gays have suddenly become nearly mandatory from the left if used against Trump voters!

Certainly Trump supporters know that they are a "minority" in any way that counts, the much vaunted Hillary "3 million" more popular vote being the most meaningless part. As I lament to boredom, at this point, Trump support is DEFINITELY counter-cultural. You can lose your job, friends, social standing, etc -- and as "progressives" would say, that is only the beginning -- as evidenced this last weekend, they may want to attack you physically or even attack your kids. Proper thought must be maintained! My guess is that their big worry is that it might actually become acceptable to think differently from them! (the horror!!, I assume this is what they mean by "normalizing")

Is being a "minority" really bad? Women are in fact a MAJORITY, yet a million of them marched yesterday because they don't feel enough like a majority after the inauguration. The Davos crowd is in somewhat of a funk because Brexit and the US election didn't come out as they wanted. Eight of them have as much wealth as the bottom half of the planet, and if we counted the whole 3K attendees, it would likely be 2/3's or even 3/4s, yet they don't quite feel "powerful enough" since not everything is going their way.

My Packers are getting killed while I write this -- yet when Rodgers claimed they could "run the table", I thought he was crazy. They did WAY better than I would have expected getting to this point --- but since they didn't win it all, I feel the pangs of disappointment.

My current section of study in DBT -- Dialectical Behavior Therapy (a class I'm teaching) is "Distress Tolerance". Life is painful, sometimes very painful (like your spouse or child dying), sometimes ridiculously smallish painful (like your team losing). Even when you are part of an elite that has over half the wealth on the planet and fly around in beautiful private jets, life comes with "distress". The higher our expectations, the greater our distress. For the elite, the election of Trump is like someone dying ... even when discussed on a private jet flying to Davos.

As we have known since Genesis, our nature is to believe that each of us has a right to "be like God" -- or at least like what we assume God is like. When others are not what we want -- they vote for Trump, they cheer for another team, they don't worship as we do, they practice something (typically sexual) that makes our skin crawl, they don't "look like us" (they are way too fat, way too beautiful. the wrong color, smelly, etc), we feel various levels of "discomfort, disgust, hatred, anger, etc".

DBT would tell us that "our feelings are valid" -- they ARE the feelings we have. Claiming that we "shouldn't" have them is counterproductive. Nobody as ever used reason to create love or remove disgust. Most all of us have tried to overcome feelings with logic and reason, and we can often do a darned good job of "faking it" -- or at least we think we can. Usually, everyone pretty much "knows" at some level so we are really ALL just thinking we are faking everyone else out while everyone else actually knows about the faking. We live in an age where "The Emporers New Clothes" is no longer cautionary, but rather "kill the little kid being honest! He is a deploreable!"

In DBT, the idea is to "breath deeply", allow time to pass, "allow the solution to find us". This somewhat mumbo jumbo is called "wise mind" ... we all know what they are reaching for.  (2:50 is the admonition from Obi Wan if you are in a hurry).

Christ went over all this 2K years ago and offered to change us so that our "still small voice" was aligned with good rather than evil. So aligned in fact, that it was just barely possible to see the potential to ACTUALLY love our enemies!

Search your heart -- what do you "know to be true" about the "million woman march" or the protests at the inauguration? Do you feel the love and understanding for the vast majority of those 60 million Trump voters by the marchers/protesters, and a strong encouragement for them to "come out" so they could practice "radical acceptance" of their views of religious freedom, the need to maintain a culture that can somehow be identified as "American", the value of hard work, thrift, as much self determination and responsibility as possible? How about the radical concept of  local and even individual control of who uses a bathroom or even associational freedom as to if you need to bake a cake for a wedding that is against your religious sentiments vs selling a dress to Melania Trump that is against your political sensibilities?

What is "progress"? Having 60 million in the closet vs 30 million? Who decides that is "progress"? Davos Man? The New York Times? Harvard? George Soros? How many people you can get to march or break windows and burn cars? It looks like the left no longer even wants to honor elections? How are things decided when elections are no longer honored?

Will there ever be diversity of thought and love for even our enemies on a broad spectrum, or is "war" either via politics or direct means the lot in life of the failed state of BOistan forever? Reason will never get us out of our pit -- yet Christ created a way.

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

'via Blog this'

A Party Typo, "The least of these"

Democrats' Religion Problem - The Atlantic: 

Some of the mouthpieces of "The Party" (TP-D) are still doing some navel gazing, and this column is an example. For any actual practicing Christian that pays attention, it has been obvious for a very long while that it is impossible to be politically associated with a party that considers the killing of 60+ million babies in their mothers wombs a sacrament which competes in secular holiness with only homosexuality. Quaint ideas of God creating heaven and earth are constantly derided as "backward" in TP, and any concept that religion might have an impact in a believers life outside of the walls of an appropriately leftist church for an hour on Sunday AM on rare occasions is beyond the imagination of TP.

Thus, it unsurprisingly happens that even what a leftist liberal "christian" might assume would be a very important scrap of scripture plucked from an otherwise abandoned Bible is totally unfamiliar.

"Some of his colleagues also didn’t understand his work, he writes. He once drafted a faith-outreach fact sheet describing Obama’s views on poverty, titling it “Economic Fairness and the Least of These,” a reference to a famous teaching from Jesus in the Bible. Another staffer repeatedly deleted “the least of these,” commenting, “Is this a typo? It doesn’t make any sense to me. Who/what are ‘these’?”"

Well,  an example of "these" would be the 81% of evangelicals that voted for Trump because they really don't want to be forced to bake cakes for gay "weddings" or let men shower with their daughters in public locker rooms! Especially not while TP celebrates dress designers, entertainers, etc bragging about not working with the Trumps. Freedom of Association for all or for none!

The following paragraph fully summarizes for me what happened to nearly all  actual practicing Christians in the 2016 elections. We realized that this was no longer "America", which WAS a Christian nation, and voted accordingly.

Many of those 81 percent are accommodating cultural changes in America that are deeply problematic. Liberals have been trying to convince Americans, and evangelicals in particular, that America is not a Christian nation. The 2016 election was evangelicals saying, “Yeah, you’re right! We can’t expect to have someone who is Christian like us. We can’t expect to have someone with a perfect family life. What we can expect is someone who can look out for us, just like every other group in this country is looking for a candidate who will look out for them.”

The whole article is worthy of a read. It makes what I regularly say in this blog clear ... TP is no longer interested in actual Bible believing Christians, only in "social christians". Since TP lives in it's urban bubbles, it doesn't realize how many actual practicing Christians there are, so it remains shocked it can lose an election. The article goes into some detail on the fact that it is impossible to be a pro-life TPer these days because TP no longer even affirms life. (and this is the ATLANTIC!)

One of the somewhat surprising but very true things about human nature is that we can know a truth at a very deep level, yet not apply it in some area because we are totally blind to it right in front of us. I'll use gayness as an example. NPR quite regularly talks about the importance of "gay outreach" -- making sure that people meet and know gays and have gays talk to them about how important gay "marriage" is to them because it "puts a face on the issue".

They regularly say this, yet the vast majority of them don't know a practicing Bible believing Christian ... and don't want to. Being gay is only of this world ... like being an alcoholic, workaholic, adulterer, etc.  If one is willing to humble themselves and seek repentance, our earthy demons can be battled and we are ultimately assured of victory, at least in eternity.  Belief in the saving power of Christ and Gods Truth is eternal -- so perhaps THAT is why they shy away from Christians. They seek "heaven on earth", and their "heaven" damned sure isn't the one that any Christian would desire.

I see us as at a new transition point. *IF* Satan has become real enough to the secular christian left that they can "walk in the garden" as Satan did with Eve, and converse with practicing Christians about how important it is to doubt God on issues like homosexuality and gender (did he REALLY say ... ?"), then there is a major prospect for the descent of this tribal territory (BOistan)  to continue and even accelerate no matter who is in political power. The "ace in the hole" of Christ in the modern world may well be that the dark forces are even more distracted by the physical "pleasures of the flesh" and world than the Christians. We can pray it is so -- secular "chrisitians" avoiding actual Bible Christians cuts off one avenue for Satan. Unfortunately it also reduces the chance for the prodigal secularists to return to Truth (Christ).

Secular "christians" being willing to sit down with Christians and do their best to convert them is more dangerous than having them disassociate, shun and unfriend them. Secular (social) "christians" are often very intelligent and well able to discuss and influence. As CS Lewis covered so well in the "Screwtape Letters", Satan and his demons are very willing to help those who serve him to believe that they are serving God and are oh so pious in their service of "the good of our father below".

What the article does not mention is Ephesians 6:12

12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

Typing away on a laptop ready to post to a blog that lives in "the cloud" of the vast internet makes it seem surreal that this physical (and virtual) modern world is only a "lens", and not reality. Reality is eternal and spiritual.

We are spirits having a physical experience -- we need to remember that every day in fear and trembling. I love the main message of this old song ... it's particular theology is vague to non-existent (likely just as well), but it is basically true, assuming the "material" part is even what we think it is.

'via Blog this'

The Liberal 8-Year Moral Coma Ends

Articles: Liberals Awake from 8-Year Moral Coma:

Pretty much all well covered ground relative to this blog, but it is good for me to see that I'm not completely the lone voice from time to time.

Suddenly, after eight years in which their secret mantra seems to have been “Make America Hate Again,” they protest that the notion of stopping their immoral destruction of our country is itself immoral and hateful. Many of us have noticed that the damage they forecast, the shredding of our national fabric, has been well underway for eight years, and that their unhinged reaction to being stopped from finishing the job is far more morally disgusting than anything Donald Trump could do to make us the United States again.

"Morality" used to have something to do with transcendent values that were thousands of years old, however left wing "morality" is whatever situationally provides more power to "The Party" (TP-D). Thus, deviant sex practices, strange/imaginary "genders", dependence, celebration of tiny minorities combined with lack of ever tolerance for large majorities and attacks on the few remaining institutions with any remaining respect (police) were put in the place of actual morality.

The column is worth a read ... he has a different voice saying much of what I have said many times, but naturally in a somewhat different way. He closes with the following, I much agree we have A LOT to be done, and the "lectures" will be the least of the problems. The entire BOistan media, bureaucracy, educational and legal systems are already working to destroy Trump before he even takes office. It's going to be a nasty war.

There is much work to be done, but we needn’t pause to consider lectures on morality from amoral people. Those who are still Americans will rebuild what was wrecked by those who have become something else. While we do so, we would be wise to remember that those who are transitioning from Americans to “something else” are determined to finish the job. If given another chance, they will happily force us to live in their corrupt, coercive Orwellian zoo. They won’t rest until they control everything, and we are compelled to do whatever they want, for whatever reason they say. That is, they won’t rest until we are no longer free people living in the United States, but rather are just a means of funding the overthrow of a country designed to prevent the corruption and tyranny they showed us for eight long, morality-free years.

'via Blog this'