A Liberal Thought On Trump

I believe the cartoon captures both the religious and cultural state of the west today. The moderns gleefully want to kill the culture, tradition, Christianity, Capitalism, the family, philosophic and often even scientific truth -- yet in their glee, they fail to realize it leaves them nowhere to stand!

The following is written by a liberal friend on FB. I know him to be intelligent and totally believing of the dominant left narrative taught in US public education, the media and entertainment. He is not an atheist, but has moved to become a modern secularized Christian, denying the Bible on at least sexually related issues like abortion, homosexuality and gender. As with all people of the left,  I certainly do not blame him in a human sense for "following the crowd". Holding the beliefs that I do is often costly in certainly friendships, some family relationships and possibly job and career.

While he as at times "unfriended" me on FB, I believe he attempts to be civil. I certainly have no trouble remaining his friend, FB and otherwise, because I hold this mortal coil to be but the most fleeting of experiences for our true eternal selves. To even consider judging or "unfriending" someone over the merely political would violate my own values, but given life in BOistan today, I fully understand why members of "The Party" (TP-D) feel they have no choice but to do so.

 I'll summarize and give my views on the quoted FB post below.  He titles it: "Leave it Blank?":

Though I am clearly a Democrat, I live in this country, I work with lots of good people, and so I know lots of good people who are Republicans. Honest, moral people with integrity. They think there's a better way to go about governing than what Democrats do. I respect that. 

And in a normal election cycle, I would expect them to support their "team president" because that person, the GOP Presidential Nominee, would represent their conservative values -- and would probably also be an upstanding representative of the kind of personal behavior they prize. Mitt Romney was not a "perfect" Republican for some conservatives and some Evangelicals, but he was/is Conservative, spent a long time as a public servant, and presents himself as an honorable, respectful man. John McCain was even better (the closest I've ever come to supporting a GOP candidate.) When their "team leader" is a person like these two, I can't blame Republican friends for supporting the leader.
What we have this time, though, is a candidate who quite simply does not represent the demeanor of a President, who doesn't have enough respect for the job, or the people with whom and for whom he'll have to work, to truly represent the kind of Republicans I know. 

So, can those people really vote FOR Donald Trump, just because he's on their "team?"
Now, I don't expect most of them would vote FOR Hillary. I can dream, but I do recognize that Secretary Clinton is more liberal than they are. And there are really good reasons a traditional GOP Conservative would not vote for Gary Johnson, and Jill Stein -- well, if Clinton is too far left, Jill is not right for a Conservative either. 

So, what I am wondering is this: Will these true honorable Conservatives just leave the Presidential candidate selection blank? I mean, in the future, whether Trump loses or wins, would these people want to have voted for him? 

Or does some sort of "team loyalty" require them to do what Ted Cruz did --- go against the very morality which matters so much to them and vote Trump? 

Now, I am sure I also know some Republicans who honestly support Trump. I don't get those people, but they are there. But they were not in the majority in the the early days of the GOP primaries, and many of that majority fought against Trump precisely because of the attributes he has continued to display. 

I expected the "politicians" to fall in line -- I had some hope that Cruz would stick to his principles, but even he recognized the future political disadvantage of not being a team player. 

But the average GOP voter does NOT have future politics to consider. They have to decide whether a vote for Trump is something which will weigh on their conscience in the future. 

Now, perhaps Trump would not be another Hitler, as so many of us liberals (and non-US people) worry about. Perhaps the checks and balances in place would keep him from truly taking the US in dangerous directions. Perhaps, once his records are made available, we won't find anything impeachable, and when his financial assets are placed in a blind trust, he'll be unable to try to work the system for his personal benefit, and he'll stop trying. Perhaps the "only" thing he'd do is continually embarrass us until 2020.
But even if a President Trump is only embarrassing, will a typical Republican really want to admit, 20 years from now, "Yes, I voted FOR Trump" or will they just leave that part of the ballot blank? 

That's what I am wondering today.

This post boils down for me to:

1.  Democrats have been saying the Republican nominee is "Hitler" at least since Nixon, with Reagan and W being prime past examples, and this whole straw man has it's own name (Godwin's law). The entire argument is based on the fallacy that "right" is control  and "left" is chaos/freedom, when of course the opposite is true. Whole books are written on this standard piece of TP propaganda, which I cover in summary here.  The charge has been repeated so often that one wonders why anyone would bother to do it yet again.
   
    In my mind, killing over 60 million babies in their mothers wombs is easily comparable with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or Biblical sacrifice to Moloch ... but that is a world view that radically differs from the approved world view of TP.
   
2. There is the "metaphysical certainty" that Trump is somehow "evil, bad, embarrassing, etc" ... which TP assured us was true of at least Nixon, Reagan and W. In this case, "somehow", one would be "embarrassed" years later to have voted for Trump ... and least at this point, supposedly worse than they would have been for Nixon, Reagan or W. Therefore, they would "leave the space blank", implicitly helping Hillary. 

I voted for Carter, and I'm not "embarrassed". I was young, I had just been fully indoctrinated by 16 years of schooling, my family voted Democrat, so I voted for him. The loss of Iran as an ally certainly caused and continues to cause world problems. The miscalculation on Afghanistan also had far reaching repercussions. Could these had been avoided with a better leader? I firmly believe so,  but as with pretty much anything outside of proven mathematical equations, reasonable people can  and will vary in their opinions. My only claim to wisdom is the fear of God -- I prayerfully consider decisions and study hard -- I don't take credit for Reagan, nor blame for Carter. I doubt that will ever change. 

I have no confidence in Trump as a leader -- as I have commented on the writings of Decius, I see this as the first of likely many Russian Roulette elections. Hillary is roulette with a semi-auto, Trump is a revolver -- at least for people that have nostalgia for the old Constitutional Republic that was America. Best to have an outside chance of a pause in our decent to totalitarianism. A Trump victory would be a chance for the left to revisit how they felt after Reagan, Newt as Speaker, or Ws election. People with a rightward tilt got to feel that way for the past 8 years -- only I suspect we don't feel it as deeply as they do, since politics is WAY below God for us.

BOistan is a territory based on no principles, save possibly the hope that "with more government everything is better".  2008 was the HUGE election, 2012 was the "kill shot" for America. America is dead already, many people are just not aware of it -- and some, (as I suspect the author of the post above) celebrate the "change". 

If Trump wins, as Scott Adams, the writer of "Dilbert" expects him to, it will be a LONG way from any indication that "good things will happen". It will merely be proof that there are still a lot of people out there that oppose the ending of America that BO was able to accomplish. Any road back to a Constitutional Republic is going to be LONG and arduous. The most positive aspect of a Trump win in my mind is the potential for some level of national "dialogue", more likely to be a shouting match, since the majority of the Trump supports merely sense that things are broken really badly, but have no idea at all why America once worked, how it was destroyed, or how to rebuild it.

The left will of course continue to arrogantly dismiss all who disagree, as is covered here. 

As the copied post tells you, loyal members of TP see no reason to even attempt to "reason" or consider any alternative views. Indeed, in BOistan,  POWER is all that counts, and increasingly it is coercive power as in "we will put you in jail if you claim Global Warming isn't gospel" (Exxon, NY).

The smarter TP members (like the post author) vaguely realize that once law has been abandoned, such mechanisms could theoretically be used by the opposition. I think they are wrong ... they forget the power of the administrative state, which only operates for left leadership. 

For people who hold traditional Christian views, own guns,  etc we are left with no rational choice but to vote for the candidate who will be most opposed, which is clearly Trump. 

Most of all, I wish for a renewal, which I believe must be a revival, of acceptance of Christ and Biblical principles as the transcendent values that the vast majority of Americans would be again in agreement on, and thus see government as FAR beneath those principles.

Government would be returned to being a SERVANT of both God and the people.  In America past, and I hope in an America or at least "remnant" of it, future, Christian friendship would FAR outweigh anything political, not only because one is eternal and the other but a tiny temporal moment, but also because God's Wisdom would be what drives the lives of a clear majority of Americans. 

Both Trump and Hillary are so far from decent leaders that such a vision most certainly requires a miraculous intervention from on high. Both are likely to make such a vision less possible, but I see Hillary as certainly continuing on the path to Bible following Christians being directly persecuted -- a threshold we are perilously close to.

Heavenly Father, please forgive this broken country, revive us, restore us. Amen. 

Winning Battles, Losing Wars (Dilbert)

I Score the First Debate | Scott Adams' Blog:

If Trump is bright and has a strategy, I'm pretty sure Adams is right and it is over. If he is a plant or an idiot, or if "The Party" (TP-D) decides to go full voter fraud this time ...

Winning the first debate is a bit like doing well in the NFL pre-season, but I hadn't thought of Adam's angle -- Trump just needed to not seem like some scary orange madman.

What is less scary than a loser?

'via Blog this'

Don't Attack Former NFL Linebackers

Former Vikings linebacker fights off pizza delivery bandits:

Four guys set up to rob a pizza delivery person, but the guy delivering the pizza turned out to be an ex-NFL linebacker. Four to one wasn't good enough odds to get the job done and they ended up fleeing and eventually getting caught.

I played a little football with a guy that made it to start in the big 10 but could not quite make the pros. Based on that, I'm surprised Napoleon didn't kill a couple of them -- he must have been in a non-violent mood. Skulls, ribs, etc snap like dry wood when there are no pads, helmets, etc to protect you from NFL level power -- and often, they still do even with the helmets and the pads.

'via Blog this'

Hillary Has Sex With Collie

Is she ‘likable enough’? - The Washington Post:

So here, lodged in the middle of a gigantic fluffy cloud puff piece where the WaPo is desperately trying to win poor crooked Hillary some friends -- even if they must put a pork chop around her neck, we have THIS:

"Clinton’s eyes filled with tears and she said, “It really says I had sex with a collie?” "

I'm guessing she was hurt that they wouldn't at least accuse her of carnal knowledge of a great dane. Perhaps that explains this ... "barkin for love in all the wrong places ..."

If your stomach isn't tuned by this pathetic column, you ought to go into the rendering business. I did make it to THIS though ...

He’s out there spreading the good gospel news, while she carries her scars and develops a kind of fatalism, that it doesn’t matter what she does, they’re still going to attack her.”

I hate to clue them in, but "the good gospel news" isn't all that old Slick Willie is out there spreading. Some of what he is so generous with leaves stains ... on dresses and frilly things,  blue, black, red and otherwise!

Hey, cover her with honey and throw her in a fire anthill, I'm sure they will find her likable enough.

'via Blog this'

Fortune 100 CEOs Endorse Trump!

No CEOs at Fortune 100 Companies Are Backing Donald Trump:

Who are the most evil people in BOistan? Well, other than Christians and Republicans I mean.



Fortune 100 CEOs!



They are greedy. They are a prime examples of the scourge of BOistan's 2nd greatest problem (right after Climate Change), INCOME INEQUALITY! They are poster children for the hated 1%.



The are grossly overpaid. They abuse their workers endlessly, they send jobs overseas, they price their products to maximize the profits for their companies. Why just recently were we not whipped into a frenzy over Epipen?



These people are pure evil, but yet, they refuse to support the current prime nexus of evil in the universe -- Trump.



Unsurprisingly, over 1/3 of them supported Ritchie Rich Romney, the racist high school bully who thought that Russia was a rival rather than a staunch ally. He of "The 1980's called, they want their foreign policy back". Wow, that BO is a brilliant guy!



What is SHOCKING is that 11 of these vermin support Hillary!

The Journal reports that the 11 CEOs that back Clinton have donated more than $30,000 to her campaign.

One is aghast that the healthiest presidential candidate in US history would stoop to accept donations from these cretins. Whatever could she be thinking? Why, we know that "The Party" (TP-D) is "looking out for the little guy".  Hildebeast is "no friend of Wall Street" (she just turns $600K tricks for them, she doesn't LIKE them).



Let's cut the crap.



Trump has certainly exposed the collusion and corruption between the two political parties, the Washington bureaucracy, world money directed by "Davos Man" and yes, Fortune 100 CEOs. Establishment Republicans, Democrats, Wall Street, CEOs and the Davos directed world finance industry HATE TRUMP! He is a threat to their cozy gravy train, and they do not like their gravy threatened.



The fact that 11 of these TP created paper pariahs support Hildebeast and none support Trump is in itself a YUGE endorsement of Trump!







'via Blog this'

Healthy Americans On Rat Poison

Articles: Dr. Lisa Bardack’s Faustian Bargain:



A rather long summary of what we know or can easily speculate about Hildebeast's health issues. The following paragraph is a good summary. Bardack is her doctor.

"While Bardack could hardly have been expected to write otherwise, the truth is that anyone who is on lifelong Coumadin is not in excellent physical condition. As is well known, warfarin was developed as a rat poison, and increases significantly the risk of intercranial intracranial bleeding. A recent ten-year study of 32,000 veterans found that nearly one-third developed intercranial intracranial bleeds while on warfarin. The vets were over 75, but the high figure was still very disturbing, though probably not surprising to most physicians."

Naturally, for "The Party" (TP-D), the health of the candidate is NOT an issue in this election, so "never mind".

'via Blog this'

Decius, Sanctimony

Sanctimony as a Conservative Principle:

I found this column  to be by far the weakest of the three. Still worthy, but not critical reading. The one rather large exception to that is this paragraph:

"The deeper danger is that one-party rule will spell the final triumph of the administrative state—“final,” that is, for as long as that system could last. While it does last, there will still be elections, but they will determine only which Democrat or (every 24-36 years perhaps) RINO gets which office and rides in which limo. The fundamental direction and behavior of the government will not change. Except to become larger, bossier, more intrusive, expensive, and expansive, and less competent. Neither Douthat nor anyone else even attempted to refute this argument. Maybe they just lacked the space?"

Since FDR, who have our "conservative" president's been? Eisenhower? Hardly. Yes, he was anti-communist, but many Democrats were in those days as well. His largest achievement is the Interstate Highway system -- a massive government program. He presided over the creation of the "missile gap" and JFK ran to the right of him on space, defense and lowering taxes against Nixon. Left of a Kennedy is never a great place for a "conservative" to find themselves!

Nixon? Again, anti-communist, but less so in his presidential years. He opened China, presided over the creation of the EPA, the clean air act,  took us off the gold standard, instituted wage and price controls and founded OSHA. Doesn't have that "conservative" sound does it?

Reagan? Well, MAYBE there is the "every 24-36 year RINO". Again, staunch anti-communist at a time when most Democrats were all in on the "better red than dead" bandwagon, but seriously, is anti-communist ALL that counts as "conservative"?  Reagan was much like JFK -- lower taxes and more defense, but not really. He signed on to the FICA tax increase which was HUGE. He did preside over economic growth for the first time since the early 1960's. Yes, I think Reagan was a great president, but pretty much proves how far left we have gone -- even Reagan could only slow the rate of growth in the Federal government and administrative state.

HW Bush? Seriously? Read my lips -- he RAISED taxes. If the idea of "conservative" is to RAISE taxes, but by less than a liberal, then why bother?

W? Mr "kinder and gentler", huge new prescription drug benefit? Yes, again, he staunchly opposed our enemies, but is that REALLY the only "conservative" value out there?

My argument is that the "Administrative State", or more precisely, "Administrative Law" undermined America and made it a ripe target for BO to put it out of it's misery. I see no chance of Trump making any serious headway against Administrative Law, and while I'm glad to see Decius realize the "danger", the fact is that this scourge of freedom is still mostly unrecognized, and once it is recognized, it is such a powerful monster that it is hard to imagine it being killed -- or even seriously wounded.

This is a topic I need to study in far greater detail -- the book referenced from this post is now on order.
'via Blog this'

WaPo, Bigfoot Edges Hildebeast Trust

Hillary Clinton, who tells dreadful lies - The Washington Post: 

It's a worthy column, remember, this is from the Washington Post! 14% of Americans believe in Bigfoot, only 11% think Hillary is honest and trustworthy.

"Today, the American people agree. A recent NBC News poll found that just 11 percent of Americans say Clinton is honest and trustworthy. To put that in perspective, 14 percent of American voters believe in Bigfoot. In other words, more Americans believe that a large, hairy, hominoid creature inhabits the forest of North America than believe that Hillary Clinton tells the truth."

Oh, and she wonders "why she isn't 50 points ahead".

'via Blog this'

Dilbert Calls It For Trump

How to Know an Election is Over | Scott Adams' Blog:

I'm always a pessimist -- I can believe in all sorts of weird things still happening before the election, and I would not be that surprised if "The Party" (TP-D) decided to just pull out the stops and go full fraud to win this one. After BO won in 2012, the smart money was that we would never have a non-TP president again unless they were left of TP. 

But no actual human can look at Hillary and actually want her to be president. More people believe in Bigfoot than believe she is honest.  (14% Bigfoot, 11% "honest Hillary", now THERE is an oxymoron!) 

If you are not convinced go off, shut your eyes and listen to her harp about "why aren't I 50 points ahead"?! That tape ought to go out as the definition of "harpy"! 

I expect Trump to continue to gain ground and win by more than BO did in either of his elections -- I don't "predict that", I just think that is what we see happening right now for very obvious reasons. 

In the 3D world of persuasion, however, the election is already over. There is still some mystery about how large the margin will be, but Trump is already the President of the United States unless something big happens in the next few weeks. How do I know that?

Listen to this clip in which Clinton asks why she isn’t leading by 50 points. Ignore the content of what she says, because no one cares about content. Just feel it. 

And see the future.

'via Blog this'

Election All About BO

Obama Sees ‘Personal Insult’ if Blacks Don’t Rally for Hillary Clinton - The New York Times:

His stenchfullness is completely certain that everything is about him ... so, unsurprisingly, if Hildebeast doesn't win, it will be a "personal insult" to "the one", BO.

With Democratic leaders increasingly worried about a lack of passion for Hillary Clinton among young black voters, President Obama is rolling out a new and more personal campaign message: “It’s about me.” 

The president told African-Americans this weekend he would consider it a “personal insult” if they did not vote for Mrs. Clinton, implicitly putting his name on the line as his former secretary of state struggles to replicate the coalition that delivered him victories in 2008 and 2012.

One more reason to actually be excited about Trump! The chance to "personally insult" the lying america hating scum that put the final slug betwixt the lookers of the erstwhile "greatest nation on earth".

Now that IS just plain "exceptional"!

'via Blog this'

WaPo: US Wrong In Syria

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/a-ferocious-assault-on-aleppo-suggests-the-us-may-be-wrong-on-syria/2016/09/23/909e33b0-80d9-11e6-9578-558cc125c7ba_story.html

The WaPo says the United States is wrong in Syria -- but not BO or Kerry! No, they are NEVER wrong -- nor can they POSSIBLY be responsible for disaster!

“Little by little, life will make everyone understand that it’s only together that you can fight terrorism,” Lavrov said. 

His comments, alongside the events of the past week, suggest that Russia and Syria still believe the war can be won outright, without recourse to negotiations that the United States has said offer the only way out of the Syrian tragedy.

"life will make you understand" -- indeed, reality is a stern teacher, but not if the stooges that create the policies fail to realize that they are responsible for the policies they put in place! 

Folks like the WaPo just can't face up to the fact that BO has bee WRONG -- here, there, EVERYWHERE! Most grievously wrong!

It is as plain to see as anything ever will be -- but they refuse to see it.

Decius, Eternal Principles

Restatement on Flight 93:

I must admit that I am really enjoying "Decius", we think MUCH alike, he writes better, and he is even wordier than I (ok, well maybe not by much). Most of my focus will be on our differences and some of the larger themes. My recommendation is to take the time to read him.

"One must also wonder what is so “immoderate” about Trump’s program. As noted, it’s to the left of the last several decades of Republican-conservative orthodoxy. “Moderate” in the modern political (as opposed to the Aristotelean) sense tends to be synonymous with “centrist.” By that definition, Trump is a moderate. That’s why National Review and the rest of the conservatives came out of the gate so strongly against him. I admit that, not all that long ago, I probably would have too. But I have come to see conservatism in a different light. To oversimplify (again), the only “eternal principle” is the good. What, specifically, is good in a political context varies with the times and with circumstance, as does how best to achieve the good in a given context. The good is not tax rates or free trade. Those aren’t even principles. In the American political context, the good is the well-being of the physical America and its people, well-being defined (in terms that reflect both Aristotle and the American Founding) as their “safety and happiness.” That’s what conservatism should be working to conserve."

In my view, the principles that a conservative seeks to "conserve" are eternal -- reverence for God, truth, wisdom, cultural heritage, family, community, and the ability to pass these from generation to generation. Animals "breed", man seeks to pass on transcendent meaning to successive generations. "The good" doesn't change, and "happiness" is at most a byproduct, and really never a goal for a Christian. Christ promises "peace" and "joy", but neither are really the sort of "peace and joy" that secular people imagine. They are more the sort of a joy a parent gets when their disabled child makes some progress, or the peace of exhaustion after a day of of chasing a toddler.

I'm not sure when "safety" ever became a supposed value. First or all, it is always an illusion, and secondly, the believe that you have it is like the rich man in the Bible that had stored up all sorts of earthy wealth and then finds his soul is required of him that very night.

It seems that Decius believes that a a secular good can suffice and somehow the old America can be rebuilt on that foundation. He definitely disagrees with the founders on that -- John Adams in particular. Yet, he links to an argument by John Marini which would seem to point out the perils of the secular bureaucratic rule of elite intellectuals. 

Understood in this way, what is central to politics and elections is the elevation of the status of personal and group identity to something approaching a new kind of civil religion. Individual social behavior, once dependent on traditional morality and understood in terms of traditional virtues and vices, has become almost indefensible when judged in light of the authority established by positivism and historicism. Public figures have come to be judged not as morally culpable individuals, but by the moral standing established by their group identity. Character is almost unrecognizable and no longer serves as the means by which the people can determine the qualifications for public office of those they do not know personally. As a result, it is difficult to establish the kind of public trust that made it possible to connect public and private behavior, or civil society and government. When coupled with the politicization of civil society and its institutions, the distinction between the public and the private or the personal and the political has almost disappeared. Anything and everything can become politicized, but things can only be understood and made intelligible—or made politically meaningful—when viewed through the lens of social science and post-modern cultural theory. In short, the public and private character of American politics has been placed in the hands of the academic intellectuals.

Our lives have been subsumed by the great political machine, and the experts are in charge, what is more, our past has been found to be a horror. 

Post-modern intellectuals have pronounced their historical judgment on America’s past, finding it to be morally indefensible. Every great human achievement of the past—whether in philosophy, religion, literature, or the humanities—came to be understood as a kind of exploitation of the powerless.

So we live in a culture and nation judged evil by it's own elites -- who run it, but like to pretend that they don't. 

Members of the vital center understand the world through their attachment to their professions: academia, science, economics, business, media, entertainment, and even religion. They often lack political consciousness of themselves as a class. Many of them do not even think of themselves as political. Their interest and loyalty is to what it is they profess to study and what they think they know, and what establishes their intellectual and political authority is their production of what is seen as useful knowledge in the administrative state. Indeed, it could be said that without the policy sciences, the administrative state would be almost impossible to operate. It is the technical requirements of the modern administrative state that have made it possible to politicize the elites in a manner that disguises their political role. When nearly every social, economic, scientific, religious, and political problem is decided in a bureaucratic or legal way—and always from a central authority, usually Washington, but sometimes New York or one or two other places

"The Party" (TP-D) really doesn't consider itself to be political, certainly not a party, and absolutely not a "class". It is is "correct" and it's hierarchy is based on "merit" -- 30% technical merit and 70% the merit to parrot the party line with conviction and even "leadership". 

It is not surprising, therefore, that few are willing or able to praise Trump in an unqualified manner. Insofar, as Trump has refused, to “walk on paths beaten by others,” as Machiavelli would say, “he has all those who benefit from the old orders as enemies, and he has lukewarm defenders in all those who might benefit from the new orders.” But it is not “fear of adversaries” alone that makes it difficult to bring about change, Machiavelli writes, but “the incredulity of men, who do not truly believe in new things unless they come to have a firm experience of them.” In our post-Machiavellian age, which is open to every kind of novelty, we are faced with a new kind of incredulity—one that prevents men from believing in the old things of which they no longer have any experience. It has become far easier for modern man to accept change as something normal, almost natural. What has become difficult to understand, let alone preserve, are things that are unchanging or eternal. History, understood in terms of the idea of progress in politics, economics, science, and technology, has made change, or the new, seem almost inevitable. As a result, the desire for the newest has become almost irresistible.

Since the moderns are steeped in the propaganda that the new is always better, and the latest drip from the still is better than 20 year old aged Scotch, Trump's slogan to "Make America Great Again" seems perfectly selected to anger the modern sensibility -- they have judged America and found it evil, and the concept of "greatness" in the past is antithetical to modern liberal dogma. 

The most controversial aspect of Trump’s campaign, his slogan to “Make America Great Again,” goes to the heart of the problem. Trump’s view presupposes that the old America was good and established the conditions for its greatness. Is this true? Or is America something to be ashamed of, as the protestors against Trump have insisted, having accepted the teaching of post-modern cultural intellectuals?

The standard left view is that America was the definition of immorality -- taking land from native peoples, slavery, unequal rights for women, income inequality, destruction of the environment, etc. It was NEVER great, and indeed BOistan is far greater.

Lincoln was aware that the only proper defense of the tried and the true—of tradition—was a defense of the unchanging principles of political right understood in terms of an unchanging human nature. This presupposed a distinction between theoretical and practical reason, which made it possible to distinguish unchanging principles from policies that must change according to circumstances. This understanding assumed the benevolence of nature and nature’s God, as well as the capacity of human reason to comprehend and impose those rational limits on human freedom that are necessary to ensure human happiness. It is only if the old can also be defended as the good that conservatism, or the tried and the true, can remain a living thing. The historicist understanding of freedom purports to reveal that nature itself is tyrannical, and has attempted the self-destruction of philosophic reason by liberating the creative individual from the chains imposed by nature and reason.

There is that idea again, to "ensure human happiness". Even the founders only suggested the right to PURSUE happiness -- a quarry that slips from your grasp the more it is pursued. Human happiness is a SIDE EFFECT of family, community, worship of God, right living and a good deal of luck. For a Christian, the "pursuit" is better service to Christ -- only by putting Christ does "faith, hope and love, but the greatest of these is love" come into focus. Happiness doesn't even make the list.

It is possible that the Trump phenomenon cannot be understood merely by trying to make sense of Trump himself. Rather it is the seriousness of the need for Trump that must be understood in order to make sense of his candidacy. Those most likely to be receptive of Trump are those who believe America is in the midst of a great crisis in terms of its economy, its chaotic civil society, its political corruption, and the inability to defend any kind of tradition—or way of life derived from that tradition—because of the transformation of its culture by the intellectual elites. This sweeping cultural transformation occurred almost completely outside the political process of mobilizing public opinion and political majorities. The American people themselves did not participate or consent to the wholesale undermining of their way of life, which government and the bureaucracy helped to facilitate by undermining those institutions of civil society that were dependent upon a public defense of the old morality.

 America was founded on ideas, not territory, ethnicity nor religion. It is true that it developed a specific territory, it's main ethnicity was european, and it's religion Christian, but the idea of a government LIMITED by a written Constitution which created a separation of powers to hold government in check was an innovation in government.

BOistan has none of these -- save to some extent "territory", but even there, the borders are largely open. We are not ethnically European, we are certainly no longer a Christian nation, and BO has countervailed the Constitution through using the IRS as a weapon, creating a product that "must be bought" (BOcare), decrees on immigration and gun control, and spending money on BOcare never appropriated by congress (to name a few).

This isn't a crisis in "America", it is the creation of a new junta in this region of N America that I call BOistan.

Decius has apparently failed to perceive the level of destruction wrought by BO, or finds it far more reversible than I. He also apparently thinks that "the good" can be recovered without any transcendence, but rather through the pursuit of "happiness" with no reference to a religious or philosophic framework that provides a meaning to "happiness".

But he recognizes peril and perceives that something need be done -- we certainly have many areas of agreement.

I've very much enjoyed reading and commenting on these articles.
'via Blog this'

The Flight 93 Election, Decius

The Flight 93 Election:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/an-attack-on-founding-principles-at-the-claremont-institute/499094/

This one is worth taking the time for some extended reading.

It opens with an analogy that I've used and one I haven't -- I still like the revolver vs the semi-auto a little better, but it is worth some thought:

2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway. You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees. 

Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances.

The difference between the columnist "Decius" and I is that he still feels that we are HEADED over a cliff -- I  believe somewhere in the past 8 years we already went over it. I don't see this as America, I see it as BOistan.

If conservatives are right about the importance of virtue, morality, religious faith, stability, character and so on in the individual; if they are right about sexual morality or what came to be termed “family values”; if they are right about the importance of education to inculcate good character and to teach the fundamentals that have defined knowledge in the West for millennia; if they are right about societal norms and public order; if they are right about the centrality of initiative, enterprise, industry, and thrift to a sound economy and a healthy society; if they are right about the soul-sapping effects of paternalistic Big Government and its cannibalization of civil society and religious institutions; if they are right about the necessity of a strong defense and prudent statesmanship in the international sphere—if they are right about the importance of all this to national health and even survival, then they must believe—mustn’t they?—that we are headed off a cliff.

The term "conservatism" needs a precise definition. It IS NOT just hanging on to or pining away for "what used to be" as the article seems to veer close to at times, it the idea that "Ideas Have Consequences" and for humanity, what really counts are ideas, principles, values, meaning, culture, truth and wisdom. I've spent a lot of text on it over the years -- here are 10 principles that are at least a decent summary.

Whatever the reason for the contradiction, there can be no doubt that there is a contradiction. To simultaneously hold conservative cultural, economic, and political beliefs—to insist that our liberal-left present reality and future direction is incompatible with human nature and must undermine society—and yet also believe that things can go on more or less the way they are going, ideally but not necessarily with some conservative tinkering here and there, is logically impossible. 

Let’s be very blunt here: if you genuinely think things can go on with no fundamental change needed, then you have implicitly admitted that conservatism is wrong. Wrong philosophically, wrong on human nature, wrong on the nature of politics, and wrong in its policy prescriptions. Because, first, few of those prescriptions are in force today. Second, of the ones that are, the left is busy undoing them, often with conservative assistance. And, third, the whole trend of the West is ever-leftward, ever further away from what we all understand as conservatism.

Decius is painfully close to the realization that I have had -- "We aren't in America anymore Toto", and in fact, neither whatever it is, nor Europe, is working very well. We part ways on the notion that the function of culture and government is to be "compatible with human nature". In my view, and I believe in the view of Burke, the Founding Fathers, and "conservatism", human nature is flawed and the result of a culture that is merely "compatible" with that nature will be significantly and probably fatally flawed as well.

As I've quoted to excess, in the words of John Adams, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other". The religion he had in mind, Christianity, does not say "I'm OK, you're OK, if it feels good do it".

How have the last two decades worked out for you, personally? If you’re a member or fellow-traveler of the Davos class, chances are: pretty well. If you’re among the subspecies conservative intellectual or politician, you’ve accepted—perhaps not consciously, but unmistakably—your status on the roster of the Washington Generals of American politics. Your job is to show up and lose, but you are a necessary part of the show and you do get paid. To the extent that you are ever on the winning side of anything, it’s as sophists who help the Davoisie oligarchy rationalize open borders, lower wages, outsourcing, de-industrialization, trade giveaways, and endless, pointless, winless war.

I need to devote more time to the "Davos class". The quick synapsis is that these are "the top 2,500 people" on the planet (by their estimation) and they know what would really be best for the rest of us. I cover a little more of "Davos Man" here.  Since Reagan, semi-real conservatism has returned to the position of the Washington Generals (the team that always loses to the Harlem Globetrotters).

This is insane. This is the mark of a party, a society, a country, a people, a civilization that wants to die. Trump, alone among candidates for high office in this or in the last seven (at least) cycles, has stood up to say: I want to live. I want my party to live. I want my country to live. I want my people to live. I want to end the insanity.

Go visit Ireland, Germany, England, or likely pretty much any other country on the globe. They are DAMNED PROUD to be Irish, English, German, etc -- and willing to tell you about it! If Trump manages to win, I believe that is why. There are a whole lot of people living in BOistan that actually LOVED America, and at least want to imagine that they can recover it! Some of them even believe it could be "Great again"! Which brings us to the other article linked above -- a rather long Atlantic piece lamenting that idea that anyone with enough education to write, would be writing something in support of Trump!

The essay is an attempt to change the minds of conservatives who refuse to support the GOP nominee. It doubles as a barely disguised rejection of conservatism itself, stoking panic in hopes that conservatives embrace what is essentially right-leaning authoritarianism. And it begins with an overwrought metaphor about the passengers on one of the planes hijacked during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The Atlantic definition of "conservatism" dovetails rather nicely with the Washington Generals metaphor from Decius -- the Atlantic wants "conservatives" that "win" by agreeing with the Atlantic, but primarily just lose -- quietly, and with the proper bows and scrapes to the Davos ruling class.

Even so, the apocalyptic rhetoric of Hewitt and Prager is forgivable in comparison to the more dangerous ideas put forth by Decius and elevated by the Claremont Institute. Decius is rejecting the adequacy of a Constitutional framework that survived a British invasion, slavery, the Civil War, the Great War, the rise of fascism and Communism, Jim Crow––and that will obviously survive four years of Hillary Clinton.

Decius and the Atlantic author seem to agree that "America" survived the IRS being used against political opponents with nobody prosecuted, immigration policy being issued by proclamation from the oval office, being forced to buy health insurance was a "tax" and the executive spending billions that were not appropriated by congress was now just fine.

In my view, that IS NOT "America" because it is not a nation of laws rather than men. It didn't survive 8 years of BO, so what Decius seems to fear, and the Atlantic author seems to think is impossible, has already come to pass for me.

The Flight 93 column is well worth reading in it's entirety. The Atlantic one, not so much. In my world, America is already ended -- better choose a fascist that will have a lot of opposition, and that is CLEARLY Trump!

'via Blog this'

Drugged, Drunk, or Sick?

Hillary's Bombing Response: Was She Drugged, Drunk or Just Sleepy? | Sunshine State News | Florida Political News:

So even though she calls it a "bombing", when asked about Trump calling it a "bombing", she indicates we should "wait until we know more". How many times do we have to say "support the first responders"?

In these days of the internet, hiding things just isn't as easy as it used to be!



'via Blog this'

Jason Falconer, Michael Brown, Heroes (St Cloud)

Jason Falconer, Minnesota Hero, Shows Importance of Firearm Training, Protection | National Review:

Jason Falconer is the Concealed Carry permit holder that ended a pretty obvious Jihadi stabbing rampage in St Cloud MN. I say pretty obvious because the attacker made a reference to "Allah" during the attack and asked someone if they were "Muslim". Governor Dayton and Public Radio have not been able to come up with any possible motive for the rampage, or "tragic incident" ...

"I implore citizens of St. Cloud, and really, citizens throughout Minnesota to rise above this tragic incident and remember our common humanity, and our shared citizenship, and our shared desire to live together peacefully and constructively for the benefit of ourselves, our families and communities," Dayton said.

Here we are, all sharing this wonderful "shared desire", and somebody goes off and starts stabbing people and talking about "Allah" and "Muslim" for no reason at all -- but clearly the attack is completely unrelated to "Allah" and "Muslims".



We all know the name of Michael Brown -- the young black choir boy who was executed in cold blood while holding his hands up and saying "don't shoot"! The horror of this racist execution shocked the nation and started the "Black Lives Matter" organization. Brown's mother has written a book about his execution and the fact that white people created a bunch of lies about the incident -- she was on stage at the Democratic Convention this past summer. 



In the real world, Michael Brown was a huge kid living the thug life who knocked over a convenience store for a few cigars on, then fractured in bone in the officers face trying to get his gun away from him and ended up fatally shot -- it was investigated all the way up in the BO administration and the black Attorney General and the black President went with the "made up white folks story".



Jason Falconer will be pretty much unknown and St Cloud will be forgotten because it doesn't fit any narrative that is useful to "The Party" (TP-D) and it's wholly owned media. The linked article is well worth a read. We have imported and grown more than  enough Muslims already for us to have an increasing number of bombings, shootings, stabbings, etc where "Allah" is mentioned -- even thought TP is careful to tell us that "Islam has nothing to do with it".



It turns out that the mall at which the incident happened is SUPPOSED to be a "gun free zone", and technically, Falconer was breaking the law by carrying. I'm guessing that fact will get VERY little coverage, but why not?



Well, because the TP narrative is;

More guns make people less safe. You are safer in a  place with a sign that says "no guns" than you are in a place without such a sign. People that think a gun could possibly make them safer are being mislead by the NRA and the gun industry.   

Islam is a religion of peace and there is nothing we need to do to better control immigration of Muslims nor to watch any of the existing Muslim population for signs of radicalization. Anyone who suggests otherwise is racist, islamophobic, and not a real American.

We all know the narrative, and that narrative will go on -- just like Black Lives Matter and the "Michael Brown was a victim" narrative. Those are TP narratives -- they keep blacks in the TP vote column at something like a 95% rate. BOistan is run by TP, their narratives win.



"Heroism" is not something that TP is comfortable with. It smacks of individualism and individual training, action and responsibility. TP is about BIG government, big bureaucracy, "you didn't build that", collectivism, "Stronger Together". "Heroism" to TP is about things like your sexual preference or your gender -- "being open and honest", "standing up for your rights", "speaking out against Trump" ... that sort of thing.



Guys like Falconer are not something to be encouraged at all, and in fact, are downright scary! Oh, TP may say a couple nice things for a bit because they feel they HAVE to, but their narrative is still "gun free zones" and eventually a gun free country.



Michael Brown is a TP "hero". Jason Falconer is a name to be forgotten ASAP.



'via Blog this'