Category: Politics

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.

Trump Regnant Follies

“Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman. I am biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York. She lives in New York. I really like her and her husband both a lot. I think she really works hard. And I think, again, she’s given an agenda, it is not all of her, but I think she really works hard and I think she does a good job. I like her.”

Donald Trump
To FOX News Info-babe — Greta Van Sustern

1.) I do believe that Donald Trump is controlled opposition. I believe all 17 candidates are controlled opposition. But with Trump it is a little different. I do believe the purpose of his candidacy is to so damage the Republican brand in the minds of zombie Republican voters (who somehow manage to think that the Republican party stands for anything but for profiting the Money Interest and themselves) and so guarantee a Democrat victory (presumably Hillary).  Failing that it is easy to imagine Trump pulling a Ross Perot and running on a third party ticket, thus again insuring a Democrat victory by splitting the Republican party vote.

2.) It is apparent that Roger Ailes and FOX News know this. It explains why FOX was and is committed to destroying the Trump Candidacy. Clearly, from the first question requiring a show of hands to Meagan Kelly’s questioning of Trump, to top FOX News political analyst, Charles Krauthammer, declaring the Trump candidacy dead, to the FOX push polling of Frank Luntz, there was a concerted and obvious effort by FOX to unravel Trump’s legitimacy.

3.) Now, near as I can see, FOX would only do such a thing for two reasons. Either Trump really is a conservative or Trump is a known tool for Democrat ends. FOX news network is a neo-conservative network and so were a genuine conservative (should such a person exist at this level) actually polling the numbers that Trump is polling FOX would have an interest in bringing such a person down. However, clearly Trump is no Conservative. To suggest Trump is a Conservative would be to insist that Miley Cyrus is chaste. Trump is the incarnation of Corporatism Oligarchy. As such, I must conclude that FOX is seeking to destroy Trump because he is a stalking horse for the Democrat left which the Republican neo-con left find unacceptable.

4.) The fact that it is widely known by the inside players that Trump is not a Republican was seen again this past weekend as Presbyterian Seminarian, Eric Erikson, dis-invited Trump from his (Erikson’s) “Red State” candidate Bonanza. One simply does not lock out the front running Republican candidate from Party forums and retain credibility unless one knows that the front running Republican candidate is a poseur. Now some will counter my observation here by pointing out Erikson’s stated reason for dis-inviting Trump, Erikson offered, “It is unfortunate to have to disinvite him [Trump]. But I just don’t want someone on stage who gets a hostile question from a lady and his first inclination is to imply it was hormonal. It just was wrong. I have invited Megyn Kelly to attend in Donald Trump’s place tomorrow night.”   We need to keep in mind though that what a Politician says (and a Politician is what Erikson is in this context) is the reason for doing something and what the real reason is for doing something seldom match.  The fact that Erikson invites Megan Kelly in Trump’s place only underscores my point about Erikson the Politician. (And let’s not ask how any conservative Presbyterian, Seminarian or otherwise, could ever support neo-con Republicans.)

As an aside here, my take on Trump’s comments on Megyn Kelly’s orifice bleeds is a little different. In my view, if you, as a woman, are going to fight with the boys you shouldn’t complain about getting hit. Women who decide to enter the bloody arena that is politics shouldn’t complain when they receive as good as they give. The time honored principle where men must never hit the girl does not apply when the girl is whaling on the guy with brass knuckles. As metaphor this is exactly what Kelly was doing.

5.) If you are a Republican Trump does offer one advantage over the rest of the field. Whereas with the rest of the Republican field one can never be absolutely sure of who the Marionette Master is that is pulling the strings of any particular Republican one might vote for, however, with Trump you can vote directly for the Marionette string puller himself. No nasty middle man marionette politician. Instead. in voting for Trump, you can directly vote for the string puller himself. You might call Trump’s campaign a “populist Fascist” or “populist Corporatist” campaign.

6.) Look for the establishment neo-con (FOX) media to push Carly Fiorina. I suspect with the recent feminist explosion over Trump’s comments about women generally, and Megyn Kelly particularly that Fiorina will quickly become the anti-Trump card played by the neo-con media outlets. A Fiorina candidacy might provide great cat-fight theater if she were to up against Hillary.

7.) It is good to keep in mind when analyzing all this not to take it any more seriously then one might take World Wide Wrestling Federation seriously. This is all canned and the broad contours of the outcome is known before the players even take the stage.

O’Malley’s Apologizes For Saying Some Lives Matter

Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley apologized on Saturday for saying “All lives matter” while discussing police violence against African-Americans with liberal demonstrators.

Several dozen demonstrators interrupted the former Maryland governor while he was speaking here at the Netroots Nation conference, a gathering of liberal activists, demanding that he address criminal justice and police brutality. When they shouted, “Black lives matter!” a rallying cry of protests that broke out after several black Americans were killed at the hands of police in recent months, O’Malley responded: “Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter.”

 The demonstrators who were mostly black, responded by booing him and shouting him down.
_________1.) Can you imagine booing someone for saying that “all lives matter”?

2.) Can you imagine apologizing for saying “all lives matter”?

3.) If white people booed and shouted someone down a black candidate for saying that “Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter can” you imagine the hue and cry?

4.) Clearly there is a double standard here and when one has to apologize for saying “white lives matter … all lives matter” how can it not be the case that what is being communicated is that white lives do not matter?

5.)Keep in mind that the high profile cases of late that has found the death of black people at the hands of police the only one where a white officer alone was involved was in the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson Mo. In the Freddie Grey case in Baltimore there were Black cops involved. In the Eric Garner case in New York there were Black cops involved. In the Trayvon Martin case, Mr. Martin was shot by a non white person.

Now, even where there is white assault on black people we needs keep in mind that this is a problem, if it is a problem, that does not move just one direction. Just over a decade ago John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, two black men, went on a sniper rampage killing 10 white people. During the trial Malvo testified that his accomplice Muhammad, driven by hatred of America because of its “slavery, hypocrisy and foreign policy” and his belief that “the white man is the devil”, planned to kill six whites a day for 30 days. Malvo further testified that Muhammad wanted him to shoot pregnant white women.

Beyond Martin O’Malley being a sniveling and pandering coward, why should he be required to apologize for adding to the truth that “black lives matter,” the corresponding truths that “white lives matter, all lives matter?”

When we see Politicians of the highest profile apologizing for saying that “white lives matter,” and “all lives matter,” as well as saying the truth that “black lives matter,” then in my estimation what is being proclaimed that indeed many lives don’t matter. The corollary of that would be that if many lives don’t matter then its open season on those lives.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/07/20/martin_omalley_apologizes_for_saying_all_lives_matter.html