Who Does the Shaping?

“This is what this election is about — who will have the power to shape our children for the next four to eight years of their lives.”

~Michelle Obama @ the DNC

Men had better be without education than be educated by their rulers
Thomas Hodgskin

1.) I’ll make the obvious but necessary observation that this is an example of the State thinking that it is the State’s role to shape our children. Parents are merely instruments of the State.

2.) Look folks, this culture has been cooked for decades. Anybody who has managed to get out of the statist Matrix and on to the good ship Nebuchadnezzar (Matrix reference) and so out of the State conditioned culture are already the exception. It simply is the case already that the State is shaping most Children. One way we know that is that the shaping process means adults remain intellectually children. Only a handful of people would have ever caught Michelle’s words as irregular.


A Few Words On Hillary, E-Mail Servers, & The God State

Today, the FBI Director, James Comey, made it clear that his department would not indict, because they could not indict, Hillary Clinton for her Email server crimes whereby she compromised State security. After Attorney General Lorretta Lynch last week made known that she would follow the FBI’s advice this means that once again, a Clinton walks away from something that if a non-Clinton had perpetrated they’d  be held culpable. Witness Gen. David Petraeus’ conviction for essentially the same crimes for which Hillary will not be indicted.

I am not interested in spending any time in the entrails of Comey’s decision. Suffice it to understand that he doubtless knows that Clinton enemies have a habit of disappearing when about to slap the Clinton mafiosi family.  What I am interested in doing is bringing out a theological point in connection to this event that I doubt you’ll read anywhere else.

This event where Hillary skates above the law once again proves that one way to locate the God in any given social order is to locate the person or institution which can not be held responsible. One characteristic of being god or a god figure is the fact that there is no one to whom you can be held responsible to for anything that you do.

This is true of the God of the Bible, the only true God. God is not answerable to anyone. This is where Arminians make their error by constantly trying to make God answerable to themselves. God is not answerable to anyone save Himself and He is under no compulsion to actually provide answers for His actions. One of the perks of being God is that you are not answerable to the non-gods. This was demonstrated in the account in the book of Job. When you read the book of Job you see that Job has all kinds of questions about God’s actions. You also see that Job never gets an answer to any of those questions demanding that God be accountable to Job. What Job gets from God, in terms of answers, is basically, I’m God and I owe you no answers.

This is how it should be between the Creator and the creature. God is not responsible to the creature and owes no answer to the creature about anything He does.

And this is exactly how the Federal Leviathan is acting in this Hillary affair. The State is God and Hillary, as the likely soon incarnation of the State, is not answerable to anyone. She could commit cold-blooded murder on FOX News as broadcast across the world and she would not be held responsible, because the God or god concept of any social order by definition can not be held responsible. So, when we see Hillary not being indicted for what she is clearly guilty of it is merely another case proving whereby the State takes itself as being the God of the social order and so not responsible to any law to which mere mortals are responsible.

This demonstrates that we live in a social order where Rex Lex applies to the State and its key minions. Rex Lex means that the King is above the law, or that the King is not responsible to the Law. The same is true for a God, of course. Hillary, as a minion of the God State, and likely soon to be the incarnation of the State as President,  is above the law.

This, in turn, clearly demonstrates that we do not live in a nation ruled by law but rather we live in a nation ruled by men. Which, of course, means that law is applicable only depending upon how well you are or are not connected to people who can make the ramifications of the law go away for those who know them.

The next implication of this is, that since we do not live by the rule of law but by the rule of men, we are no longer responsible to the law. Now, we may still obey what is called the law because we can be hurt by the rule of men who decide to apply the law haphazardly but if the law is not uniformly applied to all men then no men are responsible to a law that has lost all its legitimacy because it is not really law as seen in the fact that it is indiscriminately applied.

Let us be clear here. This kind of action whereby the God-State escapes being held responsible by the law, communicates again that the Government we live under no longer is legitimate. We are living under a illegal Government. As such we owe this illegitimate State no obedience. We still might render obedience up for several reasons, but we do not owe a illegitimate State obedience.

Another couple of points before summing up. Those who are servants of the one true God go out of their way to expose the false gods walking upon the earth. There was a time when Christian clergy would not be silent in the face to an action by the God State where, as in this case, it would seek up to take up the prerogatives of God walking on the earth. For example, when Herod had his brother’s wife that was an act that implied his thinking of being above the law and John the Baptist as God’s man let him have. How many clergy across America will inveigh against the State as false god this Sunday?

Finally, this once again points to the fact that Theocracy is an inescapable category.  All States reflect and descend from some God or god concept. Sometimes, as in this case, the State is its own God concept.

So, today,

1) We learn once again that the State see’s itself as God walking on the earth. As God it cannot be held responsible for its actions. Gods, by definition, are not responsible to anyone.

2.) We learn that the modern State, like Kings of old, are above the law.

3.) We learn that the current State is a illegitimate as well as immoral god. As such the citizenry owes it no obedience.

Christians who cannot see this are involved in State-olatry regardless whatever intentions they may have.

Sen. Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz is No Conservative

Recently, Mr. Joel Crospey, encouraged me to provide evidence for the lack of bonafide conservatism in Sen. Rafael Edward Cruz and why a vote for Sen. Rafael Cruz would be inconsistent with either conservatism or Biblical Christianity. Mr Crospey also asked me to sustain the fact that Sen. R. Cruz’s eligibility to be President is at the very least questionable.

This is my good faith attempt at doing just that. Keep in mind that I am not voting for any of the current Republican candidates for President. I have no dog in this fight. My only desire is to just expose these candidates for who they are. In previous posts on Iron Ink I have provided the same kind of  evidence for the lack in Donald Trump as I am now going to demonstrate in Sen. Rafael Cruz. I do not believe that Biblical Christians should be voting for either Trump or Cruz.

First we will seek to demonstrate, how it is uncertain that Sen. Rafael Cruz is qualified as a natural born citizen. To demonstrate this we have to realize that there are several different opinions on how the Constitution should be interpreted. We will examine Sen. Cruz’s eligibility to be President of these united States based on his own view of how the Constitution should be interpreted. Sen. Cruz holds to the view called “Originalism.” This theory of interpretation understands the Constitution as having a stable meaning according to the original meaning of the words and the understandings of those words as used by those who penned and ratified the Constitution. The Originalist then takes the text seriously as well as the intent of those who penned and ratified the Constitution as a document.

When we come to the issue of who qualifies and doesn’t qualify as a “natural born citizen,” the course of the Originalist is to look at the meaning of “natural born citizen” as that was used when the Constitution was penned and ratified. When we do just that we discover that when the Constitution was penned and ratified there were two methods by which it was determined whether or not someone was a natural born citizen. The first of these two was that a newborn belonged to the Sovereign or nation who ruled the territory upon which said child was birthed.  This was part of English common law, which the fledgling unites States adopted as their own. The second method shifted from looking to soil as being determinative of natural born status to looking to blood as being determinative of natural born status.  According to this methodology in determining natural born status one was natural born in keeping with the loyalty of the patriarch who sired the newborn, regardless of what or whose soil the child was birthed upon. By this “law of blood,” children born to those serving as diplomats in foreign lands would still be considered natural born of the country from which their diplomat Father haled.

By an Originalist understanding of the US Constitution, Sen. Ted Cruz is not natural born to these united States and so is not qualified to be the US President.  Sen. Cruz was neither born in these united States, nor was Cruz’s Father’s loyalty, being Cuban born and living in Canada, a loyalty vouchsafed to these united States.  Sen. Cruz, by his own Originalist understanding of the Constitution, thus is not a natural born citizen, and so is not qualified to be President of these united States.

Now, I am well aware that other arguments have been made to support Cruz’s natural born eligibility but my only task here is to support the idea that Cruz’s natural born eligibility is a open legal question not yet legally determined by the SCOTUS. For anyone to insist that it is undoubted that Sen. Cruz is qualified as natural born to be President is a insistence born of wishing and not the facts.

If any questions remains this lecture from a Constitutional Scholar reinforces my points.

Having dealt with the questionable status of Sen. Cruz’s eligibility to be President I now turn to a more explicit treatment of why a vote for Sen. Cruz would be inconsistent with Biblical Christianity. This is a cumulative argument and I will move from the more serious reasons to reasons that might be deemed less serious.

1.) The greatest reason that a well informed Biblical Christianity would forswear voting for Sen. Cruz for President is his effusive praise for the Marxist murderer Nelson Mandela upon Mandela’s death.

“Nelson Mandela will live in history as an inspiration for defenders of liberty around the globe. He stood firm for decades on the principle that until all South Africans enjoyed equal liberties he would not leave prison himself, declaring in his autobiography, ‘Freedom is indivisible; the chains on any one of my people were the chains on all of them, the chains on all of my people were the chains on me.’ Because of his epic fight against injustice, an entire nation is now free.

We mourn his loss and offer our condolences to his family and the people of South Africa.”

By Sen. Cruz’s words here we see Proverbs 10:11 incarnated.

“The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life, but the mouth of the wicked conceals violence.”

This praise of Mandela by Sen. Cruz is instructive as to the Senator’s worldview. If Cruz counts the tyrant Mandela as a “inspiration for defenders of liberty” what must liberty mean to Cruz? The whole language of “equal liberties,” is seen as a lie when one considers the abuse of the Boers in South Africa. Could not Cruz see this by the time of Mandela’s death? The idea that South Africa is “free” would be news to the Boer population.

Does Cruz know of Mandela’s involvement, via his terrorist organization, of the bombing for which Mandela is responsible? This includes the bombing of public places, wherein a killing of piles of more judicially innocent civilian bystanders (women and children inclusive) than the killing of Mandela’s enemies.  Does Cruz know that Mandela stayed in prison, despite the offer of release that only stipulated that Mandela quit killing people? Mandela died with the blood of tens of thousands of people, both black and white, on his hands. Whether Sen. Cruz actually does believe what he said about Mandela, or whether it is the case that Sen. Cruz demonstrated a gross display of ignorance and lack of discernment, this praise of Mandela by Cruz means that Biblical Christians should not be voting for Sen. Cruz.

2.)  Sen. Cruz refused to support the bill Dr. Ron Paul tried for years to get passed to audit the Federal Reserve. The problem with fiat money as printed by the FED, may only have competition with the issue of illegal immigration as the number one threat to US nationhood, and yet Sen. Cruz refused to support a bill that would have moved forward setting boundaries for the Federal Reserve. Now, when you combine this lack of support with Heidi Cruz’s (Raphael’s wife) connection to Goldman Sachs, which works hand in glove with the FED, one wonders about Cruz’s lack of willingness to support Congressman Paul’s vote.

Biblical Christians support responsibility in fiscal matters. Cruz’s lack of support for Congressman Paul’s legislation, when combined with all these other concerns, should cause Biblical Christians to understand that a vote for Cruz is not consistent Christianity.

3.) Sen. Cruz has indicated support for a Constitutional Convention. This support underscores, again, a lack of discernment on the part of Sen. Cruz. A Constitutional Convention would be sure to open a Pandora’s box for revising the Constitution in a Marxist – Progressive direction. Support for a Constitutional Convention would be to take us from the frying pan to the fire.

Biblical Christians understand that any action that is going to open a door for the advance of Marxism is contrary to Biblical Christianity and so would not vote for those who are in support for such an open door.

4.) Heidi Cruz, has worked for the Council of Foreign Relations which is a globalist organization. Are we to believe that Sen. Cruz is not compromised by his wife’s association with one of the premier organization’s dedication to a New World Order that envisions the end of Nation State sovereignty?

Biblical Christianity is opposed to all attempts to build a Babel New World order.

5.) Sen. Cruz seems to have a inordinate passion for Israel’s interests. Will that passion for Israel’s interests be prioritized over his work to advance the interests of the nation state that he is not a natural born citizen of?

Of course any conservative worth his salt wants a chief executive that is not beholden to foreign interest.

6.) Sen. Cruz’s record on immigration is cloudy.  Was he trying to add a poison bill to the “gang of 8” immigration legislation? Was he trying to massively expand the Hb1-B visa program to ridiculous levels? Is he serious about the one issue that is the number one threat to the continuance of America as a definable nation state? My estimation is that Sen. Cruz is a typical grifter politician who is not to be trusted in the least in terms of being able to believe what he says about anything.

Immigration is the issue in 2016. Sen. Cruz’s cloudy doublespeak is a positioning that no conservative can support.

7.)   Cruz’s complete inexperience as a young Senator weighs in here. The country just elected, in 2008, a young inexperienced Senator like Cruz. I shouldn’t think we’d not want to make this mistake again.

8.) Sen. Cruz support for Legislation  S.306. If Cruz were truly conservative, he would know that in the history of homeschooling, once a state has called homeschools “private schools” just so that homeschoolers could have access to sports, band, tax rebates, etc…. That’s when they expanded it to be a requirement, and after that came mandatory standardized annual testing, and after that came cover schools who must meet with you to check your progress several times throughout the year. Aka, what homeschoolers in California have to do every single year.

9.) If Cruz were truly a conservative, he would know that the government has no business in education. A truly conservative presidential candidate would abolish the dept of education, so that instead of being “allowed” to call ourselves a private school (and thus be kept in a database) so that we are “allowed” to keep some of our own money tax free, we would simply eliminate the tax entirely because we’d do away with the $77 billion dollar education budget!  Cruz’s support for the abolishing of the Department of Education is inconsistent with his support for S.306.

In conclusion, it is clearly seen that Sen. Cruz’s is not a natural born citizen, per his own Constitutional theory and that Sen. Rafael Cruz is not a bonafide conservative, nor is he championing Christian positions.

________________________
Hat Tip to Mrs. Mickey Henry on points 9 & 10 above

 

 

Trying to Explain the Trump Phenomenon Among Christians

“You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.” 

Donald J. Trump
Interview with Esquire, 1991

In this piece I’m seeking to explain the popularity of Trump among otherwise conservative Christians. One would think quotes, like the one above, would be enough to be off-putting to biblical Christians in terms of voting for Trump, not to mention the chameleon like character of Trump that finds Trump saying just about every thing imaginable under the sun regardless of how contradictory it all is to what he is saying now. However, Trump’s record, flowery quotes, and ethic of a Tomcat are irrelevant now to many Christians who insist that God may use Trump like God did Cyrus of the Old Testament to accomplish His purposes to change the trajectory of America in a more God pleasing direction.

That there is little evidence to believe that is quite out of the question for those Christians who have arrived at the point of admitting that they don’t care what policies Trump may or may not pursue as long as he keeps making the right people angry.

So what is it that explains Trump’s popularity among those whom one would think would have scruples regarding voting for a man who is currently married to a former porn magazine centerfold, and who was married twice before this current marriage? What is it that explains Trump’s popularity among those whom one would think would have scruples regarding voting for a man legendary for building casinos where risque entertainment for men  (Strip clubs) is provided? What is it that explains Trump’s popularity among those whom one would think would have scruples regarding voting for a man legendary for boasting about his sexual conquests? What is it that explains Trump’s popularity among those whom one would think would have scruples regarding voting for a man legendary for saying “I don’t think I’ve ever asked God for forgiveness”? What is it that explains Trump’s popularity among those whom one would think would have scruples regarding voting for a man legendary for saying he has no problem with sodomites in the Military and who is on record as resigning himself to the fact  that sodomite marriage is the law of the land?

What I offer below is an attempt to explain why it is that otherwise good Christian people continue to support Trump despite the fact that Trump is the antithesis of everything they say they believe. Just so everyone understands …. this is intended as an explanation of why otherwise good people support Trump. It is not an endorsement of Trump or of thinking in this manner. Personally, I think such “thinking” that ends up supporting Trump is, at best, anti-rational.

1.) Trump has become symbol.

Trump, for many many people, has Transcended being merely human, and has now become the incarnation of a symbol of resistance and defiance. Trump hit a never with his anti immigration talking points and his anti political correctness stance. Symbols don’t have to be rational or consistent. They don’t have to explain or justify themselves in light of past utterances. Symbols are intuitive to people. When people want to identify with their symbols it is stupid for someone to expect an explanation. Symbols are trans-rational (which is different from irrational). Now that Trump has articulated an anti immigration stance it no longer matters that he chastised Republican during the Romney 2012 campaign for being too “mean spirited” concerning immigrants. Now that Trump has articulated an anti immigration stance it no longer matters that Trump has as recent as July of 2015 supported a form of amnesty. Trump is a symbol and one simply does not try to ratiocinate with those who are symbol minded.

So, much as Obama and Palin became symbols in 08, so Trump has become a symbol in 16. It isn’t rational and it’s idiotic of people, like me, to expect it to be rational. People are looking at Trump the same way that patriotic Americans look at Old Glory. It is an emblem of something that moves them deeply in their psyche and emotions. Trump has become intuitive for people and as intuitive the facts no longer matter.

2.) Trump as become hope for the hopeless.

Other Trump supporters who are Christians do not fall into the “Trump as symbol” category, but are those who are seeking to grasp any slim ray of hope they can find. They know that Trump has been all over the map in his rhetoric and in his positions. They know of Trump’s unseemly and sometimes even slimy character but out of desperation they are putting all their chips on Trump to keep his word.

For these folks I often use the old Charles Schulz comic strip “Charlie Brown,” as analogy. In Schulz’ series Schulz would return periodically to a theme where Lucy promises to hold the football for Charlie Brown to kick. The problem was that every time that Charlie Brown approached the ball to kick it, Lucy would pull it away at the last second, resulting in Charlie Brown falling on his backside. Over and over again, through Schulz’s series, Lucy would promise that “I’ll really hold the ball for you this time Charlie Brown, and, after some initial skepticism on Charlie Brown’s part, Charlie Brown would try again, only to have Lucy, despite her varied promises, pull the ball away yet again. It didn’t matter how many times Lucy had played Charlie Brown, Charlie Brown was all about the hope of one day kicking that ball out of the cosmos.

Those who insist that Trump is a real hope are like Charlie Brown. Despite all the evidence of past disappointments with lying politicians … despite all the evidence, as seen in his plethora of contradictory positions, that Trump is not the man who is really going to deliver … despite all the pulled footballs of the past the “Trump as hope for the hopeless” supporters still cannot bring themselves to reality. They seem to not have the capacity to realize that, any reason for hope regarding Trump’s current position on anything must have as a presupposition that he is a man of character who will actually do what he says.

The problem is here though that beyond Trump’s constantly changing positions, this presupposition is most obviously false to anyone who looks at even the most recent history of the man. This praise of Trump by people who should know better that he’s an opportunistic charlatan is perhaps what should be expected from people who need the illusion of hope.

3.) Trump as the anti-Obama

David Axelrod, in a recent New York Times piece, put forth the idea that Trump is attractive to people because he is the antithesis of the departing man who has been serving with the title of “President.” Whereas Obama is creepily detached and lacks passion, Trump is just the opposite full of vim and vinegar. Whereas Obama is seeking to destroy America by his immigration policies, and his policies with Iran and his policies to push America into a Internationalist order, Trump desires to “Make America Great Again,” desires to build a wall on the Mexican border, and desires to let the International order go pound sand in order to concentrate on America’s needs.  Trump is the anti-Obama.

Like #1 above this is more of a psychological point than a rational point. (Yes, I consider Psychology “irrational.”) The idea here is that just as people get tired of the feel of an old car and can’t wait to get a new one that is different than the one they are “finally getting rid of,” so voters, on a psychological level, get weary with old Presidents and desire, when switching, to upgrade to another model that has a feel that is very different from what they are getting rid of.

4.) Trump as pragmatism

Many Christians will insist on voting Trump, despite knowing his checkered past and despite agreeing that he has been all over the map regarding his positions because they affirm that “at least he’s saying the right things and so you take the coin toss, if for no other reason than to advance the position itself.”  This is pure pragmatism where the end (the hope of a restored America) justifies the means (voting for a man who himself has said, in the past, that he is a Democrat). That Trump’s past character is what it is and that Trump has repeatedly articulated a progressive worldview is irrelevant as long as there is a hope (see #2) that, against all odds, Trump will advance anti-Internationalist agenda. In my estimation this is voting for wickedness that good might come, merely because the one with the known wicked track record has, only recently, begun warbling a different tune. In my estimation this is like voting for Hugh Hefner to restore family values, merely because in the last 5 years or so he has begun to talk about the importance of family. In the Christian faith, pragmatism of this variety is eschewed and the Christian does what is right and leaves the consequences with God. Can it really be right to vote for a man who has taken positions so contrary to Biblical Christianity just on the pragmatic basis that it could end up well after all?

5.) Trump and R2K

There are those in the Christian community who will suggest that as the 2016 general election lies in the common realm therefore we are not bound to apply a Christian moral template to these matters.  For these folks we are to live with the fact that there is no such thing as Christian voting or Christian politics and so we may vote for just about anyone.

Others will arrive at this position by noting that “we are voting for a President, and not a Pastor,” as if we are relieved of having Christian standards for a President. These people forget that the only other position, besides the position of Elders, which are referred to as God’s servants in the New Testament, are magistrates. In Romans 13 the magistrate is  “not a terror to good works, but to the evil.” Now, if the Magistrate as God’s servant (“The Magistrate is the minister of God” — Romans 13:4)  is not to be a terror to good works then should we not be voting for men who have demonstrated themselves to be workers of good works?

R2K, whether of the Lutheran or Reformed variety, is a sure recipe for doing the devil’s work when it comes to election cycles.

6.) Trump as the bulwark against illegal immigration

Actually, this is the one that almost pushes me into the Trump camp. I agree with many experts who contend that if we lose on immigration we lose on everything. One this issue I  have become a “one issue voter.” I am convinced that the International Money interest has determined, in pursuit of a New World Order and in the pursuit of eliminating biblical Christianity that America’s historic Christian and ethnic character must be destroyed. I am convinced that mass immigration is being done to the end of leveling America’s ability to resist the control of the International Money interest. I am convinced that the program of mass third world immigration into the West is pursued to the end of creating a have vs. have not Marxist social order. If I really believed that Trump was going to be a bulwark against this, I might consider voting for him. Alas, I am convinced that Trump is not to be trusted.

I can only adjudicate a man’s intent to keep promises based on his past ability to keep promises. Trump’s failed promises in his previous two marriages suggest to me that I have no reason to believe he will keep his promises to us now. If a man cannot keep his vows as taken publicly before God and man how can I trust him to keep his vows to a nation?

Next on this point, Trump has said, as recently as July of 2015 that his plan to clean up America’s illegal aliens problem is to send them all back so that they can come back legally. Now, Trump wouldn’t let them all return. He has made it clear that the criminal class will not be allowed back. Still, any plan that allows huge numbers to return to America remains an amnesty plan. Such a plan does not answer the intention of the International Money interest plans to assimilate the globe into a New World Order.

I wish Trump were a bulwark to oppose immigration. I do not believe his record or words demonstrate that he is.

7.) Trump as Punishment to the GOP

Of the all the previous one’s I’ve mentioned this one comes the closest to making sense. The GOP, has not, for decades now, represented its conservative base. The likes of Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, George H. W. and George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, FOX News, National Review, Red State, Talk Radio, Hillsdale College, the Claremont Institute, Cato Institute, David Frum, Glen Beck, Jonah Goldberg, Charles Krauthammer etc. (what is commonly referred to as “Conservative Inc.) have been the recipients of conservative largess all the while hijacking the Conservative movement and being traitors to Conservatism original intent of regionalism, limited and diffuse Government, and respect for common law and the age old traditions of Biblical Christianity. These Trotskyite neo-cons have slipped the blade to the older conservatism and have successfully reshaped conservatism into their image. They are a loathsome brood of spiders and snakes and if anyone group ever deserved the rise of Donald Trump these people do.  This is why, if Trump is elected, there will remain a part of me that rejoices that these people have been anguished.

These people, who are really Fabian progressives, have never been conservative in any meaningful sense. They are Conservative the way that Marilyn Monroe is conservative when compared with Miley Cyrus. They are the Montagnards to the Girondists of the French Revolution. Their only goal has been to retain power. They have never intended to break up the Jacobin worldview predominating in Washington.

Of course, Trump just doesn’t solve this. I suspect that Trump will end up being just another form of dictator that will serve just another expression of the left.

The hatred of genuinely Christian conservative people for Conservative Inc. is understandable and to be applauded but voting for Trump, while burning down Conservative Inc. will not rebuild the fortunes of America.
The only thing that can do that is Reformation and a return to Christ in our families, our Churches, and our Civil realm.

 

The Attraction Of Trump

Donald Trump is a symbol and that symbol is of America’s Middle Finger extended. Donald Trump is Middle America’s embodied and walking Middle Finger as gloriously extended to the cultural Elites, the Cultural Marxists, and the political-media establishment. As a walking embodiment of “the Bird” there is nothing that Trump can do, except to cease with his “eff you” attitude to the political-media establishment, that will cause his support to wither away. Trump support is not so much pro Trump as much as it is, “the political class and the media overlords, can go eff themselves.” The only way that Trump can lose support from Middle America is to quit serving as their vehicle for flipping off the Literati elites and their chaterati pundit mouthpieces.

Whenever Trump mentions something like “Hillary was schlonged,” or that “Jeb lacks energy,” or that  “Fiorina is ugly,” or that “Meagan Kelly was bleeding from her ‘where-ever,'” or that “Rand Paul is short,” or that “it is a waste of time to be interviewed by Anderson Cooper,” or “Jonah Goldberg is as dumb as a rock,” or that “Lindsey Graham is a stiff who couldn’t get a job in the private sector,” etc, Trump is merely being the mouthpiece for middle, angry, and radical Americans who absolutely loathe the political-media establishment and would love to be able to themselves tell that political media establishment that they can go *&^# themselves. Trump is a conduit for a deep reservoir of anger in the American middle. And mind you, I offer this analysis as someone who does not support Trump.

Furthermore, every time the political-media complex hurls insults at Trump or tries to trip Trump up or tries to reason with Trump from their Worldview it only serves to increase the intense support for Trump once Trump shuts down that resistance.

The American middle sees themselves as an underdog and Trump is their chosen representative. As such there is a twofold connected-ness with Trump. First there is the connection inasmuch as Trump is sending their message and second there is the connection inasmuch as Americans always love and root for the underdog.

The only way Trump will be eliminated is if it can be clearly demonstrated that he is a charlatan to middle America’s interests or if he has an unfortunate “accident.”