Politics – Page 10

On Not Voting For Anyone in the Republican Field

It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.Josef Stalin

Dear Pastor,

The lying of past presidential candidates in past elections does not relieve us of our responsibility to do our best to see to it that our country remains in or regains the best environment in which the progress of the Gospel and its implications for all life can flourish. Right now, we are slipping badly. We MUST do what we can. And granted, every candidate has feet of clay; but we as Christians have a duty to assess each candidate; make a judgment about their character, their perspectives, their strategies, and their electability, and then work for their election. I know Bret that you oppose the R2K position but doesn’t a defeatist attitude communicated by your refusal to vote for any major party candidate put you in the same camp?

Dear Dusty,Allow me to answer, as respectfully as I can to someone I deeply respect,

1.) It is not defeatist to not look for victory where only defeat is guaranteed. The two party system has been broken for a very very long time. We see this in spades in DC today. We are presented with only three choices. We can either vote soft Stalinist Democrat. We can vote for Trotskyite neo-cons, or we can vote for what smells like Fascism. I do not have a dog in this fight. My dog died a long time ago.

2.) Therefore it is in my interest to do all that I can to see that each party weakens the other. IF it is the case that voting matters (a very dubious belief) then it is in my interest to create gridlock and chaos with my vote.

3.) Since the Republican party is so corrupt and is merely a Trotskyite expression of leftism then a case could be made that it is in the Christian’s interest to vote in such a way that the Federal Government is always divided with the House and Senate being Republican and the President being Democrat. The reason this is so is that when there is a neo-con Trotskyite Republican President the little remaining conservative strength in the party tends to go to sleep thinking that “there guy is watching the store.” HOWEVER, when there is a Democratic President the Republican party rank and file activists remain watchful and is more inclined to be in an activist mode of resistance.

Of course, even that is premised on the idea that the International Money interests aren’t really doing all the string pulling. Personally, I’m not convinced that they are not.

4.) Actually, I think voting for the best possible Republican candidate for President is where the defeatist attitude lies. In my lifetime Reagan is the model but even with Reagan what we got, when viewing from a macro sense is a guy who,

a.) Gave us two SCOTUS judges who supported abortion

b.) Grew the size of Government significantly

c.) Pursued the agenda that eventually resulted in the NWO GATT and NAFTA

d.) Left us the Bush family legacy that we still suffer with

e.) Gave us the last amnesty bill that has brought us to where we are now

f.) Gave the keys of power to the neo-cons

And this is our hero Republican President?

Can you see why I’ve come to the conclusion that voting Republican is defeatist?

5.) In my estimation victory is won by waking people up to all the above and hoping they begin to realize that they are being played. Victory is had in just one way when it comes to politics and that is by inflicting pain. Pain for a politician means that they do not get your vote. Republicans and neo-cons (but I repeat myself) have to be made to realize that they just cannot assume on getting the Evangelical vote. The only way to make them realize that is by quitting to vote for them. Politicians only understand pain.

6.) Victory, if victory is to be had, has to start at the local level. Mordor on the Potomac is lost until politics changes at the grass roots level. Once the grass roots begins to awaken then we can turn our attention to Mordor on the Potomac again.

I realize I’m in the minority among conservative Christians on this issue. I have thought this through though and I’ve spent a good deal of time studying the matter for whatever it is worth. Please understand that though it might seem that I am a purist I can assure you that I am NOT a purist. I would gladly vote for someone with feet of clay. The problem though is I’m not looking at people with feet of clay when I look at the current Republican field. I’m looking at people who are clay up to their eyeballs.

I must be honest enough to realize that all the action when it comes to National politics is from the left. There is no longer a right, nor is there any longer any semblance of the right strong enough to crack the current leftist Montagnard vs. Girondins French Revolution paradigm. O sure … there are a few cranks here or there remaining of the old right but the right as a movement is as dead as Marley’s door-nail.

However, hope remains as long as the old cranks remain as true as Lewis’ Old Narnians. This is so because God is able to make a way for them in some how and some way. This is where my hope for victory lies.

The Case Against Trump

The Lord Christ instructs us to “make righteous judgments” (John 7:24). Scripture reminds us, “Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life”

In light of those Scriptures I am compelled to assess all things as belonging to God’s people.

Should I apply making a righteous judgment regarding Donald Trump and his candidacy for President this is what I know,

1.) He has twice broken sacred wedding vows. If a man can break these sacred wedding vows as before God and man what reason do I have to believe that man on anything? If he lied to lied to God and to his wives why should I ever believe he is telling me the truth? Ronald Reagan’s divorce was an issue in 1980. Reagan was the only man ever elected President with a divorce in his background. Have Christians fallen so far in their estimations of a candidates character that Trump’s two divorces are no longer a legitimate consideration in voting for him?

2.) Until very recently Trump was pro-abortion. Does a 65 year old man really suddenly change his view on something like this? It is possible but I don’t think it likely. Trump has his stories that he tells regarding his shift but I, as a discerning voter, am not obliged to believe him.

3.) Up until recently Trump was funding Hilary Clinton and far leftist Sen Chuck Schumer. He has been chummy with the Clintons. He says that is just the price of doing business in New Y0rk. That strikes me as indicative of a lack of backbone and principle that a man would compromise his own principles just so his business could prosper. This is an important consideration.

4.) As late as September Trump was praising the Socialist health care of Canada saying that it “works for them.” That is not true. It does not work. Now since then he has walked back his support for socialized medicine but what am I to believe … his first instinct or the later appended statement?

5.) The two things that Trump has done I can salute is that he has given good speeches denouncing Political correctness and Immigration. But talk is easy and given the above I don’t think any Christian has a solid basis to believe or support Donald Trump.

6.) He is obviously trying to manipulate the Christian vote by his saying that he “loves the Bible,” and dropping that he is a Presbyterian. However, when asked for specifics he dodges the question thus revealing that he couldn’t cite a favorite scripture if his life depended on it. What does this say about his integrity, to cite how he loves the Bible but to refuse to offer one specific verse when asked?

7.) Much of Trumps millions has been made on Casinos. In my own lifetime non conservative Christians would have ever supported a candidate as conservative if they were pushing gambling.

8.) Trump has articulated his support for sodomite marriage saying that “the Supreme Court has ruled” and it is “the law of the land.” Trump could have said that he disagreed with the Obergefell vs. Hodges decision. Trump could have said that he agreed with the Minority opinions but instead he is willing to support this outrage against the whole concept of marriage and the law.

9.) When the revolutionary Marxist Nelson Mandela died, Trump tweeted out, “Nelson Mandela and myself had a wonderful relationship—he was a special man and will be missed.” Is any right thinking Christian who, understands the battle against Communism, going to vote for a chap who sentimentalizes a villain like Mandela?

10.) Mr. Trump called Eric Snowden, who faces Espionage Act charges for his role in leaking information about the NSA’s phone-snooping program, a “total traitor” and said he “would deal with him harshly.” Here we have Trump calling a whistle-blower on mega Statist activities of spying against the citizenry, a “total traitor,” who he “would deal with harshly.” Snowden should be given a medal for fighting Statist tyranny but not according to Trump. Doesn’t that tell us that Trump is a Statist?

Now, if I have reason to reassess Trump I will do so, but to date all of this is all I need to know to know that Donald Trump is out of bounds when it comes to the vote I have … a vote that belongs to the Lord Christ and not me.

And I haven’t even mentioned his pompous arrogant mannerism nor the superficial answers he gives to nearly every policy question put to him.

Trump has no core. He is whatever people want him to be. He is doing the same thing Obama did in 08 only with a twist. Whereas Obama was a blank canvas that people could project their image upon, Trump is a canvas that has every painting on it one can imagine and so you can just choose the Trump you want him to be that fits with your projections. Trump will take care of any number of things simply because he is Trump. He has a “fabulous plan” that we will love. He has a “great idea” that will take care of all of that. However, when asked concrete detailed specifics there is very little that Trump offers.

Trump is a populist and populists by definition are long on charisma and short on policy. Populists get people excited and mesmerize voters into thinking that they are a messianic type deliverer. Please do not misunderstand. I love that Trump is making chaos of the Republican field. I love that Trump is tweaking the nose of the Republican establishment. I love what Trump is saying on issues like Immigration and Political Correctness. However, I can love all that and still be opposed to Christians casting their vote for Donald Trump.

Marinov’s Malapropism

Considering the mass shooting by a Muslim gun owner: The liberals say that we can’t blame all Muslims, but we surely can blame all gun-owners – & ban guns. The conservatives say that we can’t blame all gun-owners but we surely can blame all Muslims – & ban all refugees.
Each side says the other side is schizophrenic & hypocritical. And each side wants to give more power to the Federal government to deal collectively with a group for the crimes of one person.

While I mourn the loss of life, I can’t but notice God’s irony to both camps.

~Bojidar Marinov

1.) All because liberals say things doesn’t mean that liberals are making sense. To not note that is more than unfortunate.

2.) How does it follow that gun owners are to blame when terrorists use guns to murder people?

3.) The shootings happened in a “gun free zone,” where guns were banned. How did that ban work?

4.) Actually the liberal says we can’t blame any Muslims since to blame any Muslim would be “racist.”

5.) I see a great deal of torpid in this camp but I see no irony in the least.

6.) Where are the Conservatives that say we can blame all Muslims? What the Conservative actually says is that we have a Muslim problem that warrants us to conclude that Islam is not a faith system that can co-exist within Western civilization. How many shootings have to occur before Mr. Marinov gives up on his open borders fantasy?

7.) Of course we can’t blame all gun owners. How can a gun owner in Longtown, SC be blamed for a Muslim nutcase killing 14 people who were occupying a gun free zone?

8.) The fact that Liberals insist that conservatives are shizophrenic & hypocritical doesn’t mean they are schizophrenic & hypocritical.

9.) Conservatives do not desire to give more power to the Federal Government. Mr. Marinov seems to forget that one of the responsibilities of the Federal Government is “to provide for the common defense.” Protecting the citizenry for enemies, foreign and domestic is part of the oath that many Federal officials take. Mr. Marinov is just in error on this matter and his error is in service of his errant desire for open borders.

10.) The only irony in any of this is Mr. Marinov’s ability to find irony where it does not exist.

The “Push Me,” “Pull You,” of The Donald

Dear Pastor,

Something I am realizing more as I think about the Trump phenomenon is that there is a difference between White Nationalist politics and Christians. I may put together some quotes even from XXX XXXXXX that are interesting. In a lot of his analysis, he was not concerned in the least with the sort of biblical worldview we would want to start our analysis with. As a result, he was willing be aligned with strong executive power, and use the state, in ways that would make us uncomfortable. I don’t necessarily think Trump is this candidate, but what do we do with the candidate who is not really a Christian but brings good sense to issues of nationality? I think we were both on the same page, at least initially, that Wilson’s comments about Coulter and Trump were inaccurate, but you seem to have drifted more toward what Wilson was saying there. Sorry… very quick thoughts as I had a minute. I ought to stop thinking about this BS and go take care of my family.

Best to you and yours,

Opher Byrd

Dear Mr. Byrd,

Thank you for writing.

I am not drifting towards Wilson, in regards to his comments about Coulter and Trump, though I can understand why someone might easily think so. My problem is that I like what I think is Trump’s immigration policy. (Though after listening to the Brimelow interview I’m wondering if there are cracks already in the Trump edifice on immigration.) As I was saying I like Trumps immigration policy as stand alone but I don’t like it as it sits in, what I take to be, his Fascist Corporatist Mercantilist worldview. As such it may sound like I’m drifting but I’m not. I think Wilson is in deep error to suggest that a Trump like immigration policy is to be eschewed because there is no current massive repentance. It is, at least possible, that such a immigration policy could be both a harbinger of future repentance or serve as a space of time as hiatus for eventual heaven sent repentance. If I could have Trump’s putative immigration plan as combined with promises to go after Corporate Welfare, and International aid, with a promise to decentralize power from the Feds to the states, (a historic Constitutional platform) I’d be in hog heaven. However, that is not what we are getting with Trump. Instead we are getting a favorable Trump immigration policy inside the plausibility structure of a Fascist Corporatist Mercantilist worldview?

I’m not sure that works, and so, I’m torn between supporting one slice of the man’s policies while being adamantly against the context in which I see that slice lying.

Make sense?

Thank your for the conversation Mr. Byrd. You know of my abiding respect for your instincts and the knowledge base upon which those instincts are pinioned.

Hillary’s Confession

“Look, I don’t believe you change hearts, I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate. You’re not going to change every heart. You’re not.”

Hillary Rodham-Clinton

1.) This is as clear of a confessional statement in regards to social engineering as you will ever find. Hillary is admitting here that change does not come via persuasion but rather by brute Governmental force. The Government is the Potter and the citizenry is the clay and those who handles the pulleys and levers of the Government change people by changing their environment via legislative, executive and judicial diktat. People then change not because they are persuaded but because they are forced.

2.) This heavy emphasis has a theological origin. Theologically people are seen, in this theology, not as free moral agents but rather as those who are behaviorally conditioned and who are responding to a top down stimuli. In this worldview Hillary and the Government is the mad scientist and the citizenry is the Pavlovian dog made to salivate upon being conditioned by Governmental decree.

3.) This attitude also conveys the attitude of legal positivism. Law is not discovered. Law does not belong to some objective transcendent order that exists to be discovered and bowed to. Law, instead, is created by humans as a tool to shape other humans. Law is subjective to the ever shifting need of the zeitgeist.

4.) This is the mindset of most of our politicians and it is the mindset of tyranny. Seize the reins of power. Rule in a top down fashion. View the citizenry as clay to be molded at the magistrates command. Change the way systems operate so that those in those systems are forced to comply. Resistance is futile. The citizenry will be assimilated.