Category: Politics

The Tom Barrett & Mike Pence Apple Orchard Rally

My wife and I were visiting the local cider mill yesterday when it was quickly obvious that preparations were underway for a political rally for the Republican Congressional candidate in Michigan’s new 7th US Congressional House district. After a few inquiries I learned that the Republican Barrett would be joined by former traitorous Vice President Mike Pence.

The rally was clearly intended to be a small venue of only a handful of supporters. It looked to be more photo-op than rally. After rushing Jane home, I returned to a crowd of maybe 200 people.

A few impressions. I was impressed with how lax the security was for this event. Given the crazy affairs that election cycles have become combined with the recent Paul Pelosi incident I estimated that security for these kinds of events would be over the top. Not so for Barrett and Pence. No security check-points. No ubiquitous security people roaming around. Frankly, if someone had showed up with ill intent they would have had few barriers.

It is interesting to me that the politicians, the journalists, and the advance people all have the same oily used car salesman look and feel about them. With a few exceptions they all dress the same way, are manicured the same way and have that same “we are superior to the little people” lean about them. You can spot them blindfolded. They were in the back nattering around their camera set up with their little “I am a journalist” name-tags around their necks.  To think this was just the local media and advance people. I shutter to think what it must be like to be around National media, political aides, and politicians with any regularity. Of course, the reader will realize how bias I am against what I count to be perhaps the greatest group of liars and malefactors that walk the glob. I suppose it is possible that only those incarcerated or maybe clergy who may outstrip the journalist/politician/political aides class of people in terms of the oily used-car salesman feel.

The rally was supposed to start at 2:30pm but of course important people always run late. I suppose we should be thankful that Pence deigned to only make us wait in the rain for an hour.

While waiting they pumped out the music — most of it Boomer rock-n-roll. (You know … Warren Zevon, Led Zepplen, Steve Miller Band, The Spinners, etc.) I was enjoying the music until I realize that this music had probably been poll-tested as to how it gins up the people to get them excited for the candidates. The thought of being manipulated like that made me determined not to enjoy the music I would otherwise have enjoyed.

The photo op included setting up a kind of flatbed trailer that the candidates could stand on to speak to the sparse crowd of groupies. On the trailer they positioned mostly children but also some Moms, elderly, and veterans as well. (The vets were wearing their little ballcaps that work to self-identify the wearer as a vet.) Of course all of this was for the cameras. One funny incident was that the lead advance lady for the politicians was cajoling another advance guy to stay up on the trailer when the candidate came. He would then become part of the photo op background. What was funny is that advance guy that the  lead advance lady was trying to position on that trailer was black. I thought to myself … “yeah, lady, we all know why you want the black guy in the otherwise sea of white faces for your photo op.” Every white Republican likes to have a token he can point to. In the end the black chap did not end up being on the trailer when the candidates showed up but it wasn’t for lack of effort on the part of the main advance lady.

After a bit of rain it cleared off. Pence showed up and the show got rolling.
They trotted out some former speaker of the Michigan house to warm the crowd up. He was unimpressive. Clearly, just a cheerleader. Following that they made a point to introduce the host of the event who being a Roman Catholic opened in prayer to a God I do not know. Following the prayer, being good Republicans, they turned around and with hands over hearts, and full of midwestern sincerity they belted out the pledge of allegiance. Murican bears always feel better about themselves after saying the pledge of allegiance. Now, as the pledge of allegiance is against my religious scruples I don’t do the hand over heart swearing fealty to this pagan country thing. After all I don’t believe that this country was ever intended to be indivisible, and I  most assuredly don’t believe that this country has liberty and justice for all (indeed it is hard not to crack up laughing at that line) and this country is most certainly not under the God I serve unless they mean that the country is under God’s judgment. My refusal to go all “pledge of allegiance” earned me a few stares from the people around me. It’s ok … I’m stare-proof.

Following these preliminaries, Tom Barrett was introduced. Tom strikes me as an affable guy. I’ve met him only briefly a couple times in the past. I’m sure that Tom is well-intentioned, and I’m sure that he thinks he is doing his bit for God and country. I do wonder if Tom realizes how the party system works in Washington in terms of party discipline in the House and how it is that the vote is whipped so that individuals with convictions don’t often get to stick with their convictions.  Anyway, Tom told us some interesting tidbits;

1.) Lansing Michigan is the 9th most criminally violent city in America

2.) This congressional race that he is in vs. his Democratic opponent has become the most expensive congressional race in America.

This suggests to me that Barrett’s opponent is being groomed for bigger and better things in Washington. Why else would DEMS pour the kind of money they are pouring into this relatively obscure congressional district unless they had a plan for their girl here?

3.) The Republican Liz Cheney actually came to town to campaign for Barrett’s opponent.

In doing so Liz Cheney is becoming a caricature of herself. She is become the female version of Harold Stassen. The Republican Liz’s campaigning for the DEM candidate suggests that Liz considers Tom Barrett to be a “election denier” (insert sound of loud cackling laughter) since Liz has made it clear that she was going to campaign against Republican “election deniers” (insert sound of loud cackling laughter).

The one thing that gave me hope regarding Barrett is that he communicated that he is opposed to sending US troops to fight in every conflict that pops up on the screen. On this issue, Barrett echoes the sentiments of Trump when Trump was in office. Many if not most Republicans are full of war fury wanting to aide and assist the Military-Industrial complex by sending American soldiers to die in far away countries so they can enrich themselves through the kickbacks received from the Arms industry. Maybe Barrett understands the maxim of Maj. General Smedley Butler; “War is a Racket.”

Barrett, like Pence after him, was wrong on the Ukraine vs. Russia issue. Both politicians wanted to blame Putin instead of fixing the blame on NATO and Washington who have poked the Russian bear repeatedly with their policy. This is reason enough not to vote for Barrett or anybody who supports Ukraine. Putin is no saint but when one looks at matters from a realpolitik viewpoint it is clear that what is going on in this theater of war is that the New World Order is seeking to expand their hegemony over that part of the world. Both Barrett and Pence seem to support that.

Pence followed Barrett and provided the standard Republican stump speech for this election cycle. DEMS love crime. DEMS love inflation. DEMS love insecure borders. DEMS bad. Republicans good. Pence doesn’t bother to mention that when Republicans have had majorities they have been only marginally better. Trump/Pence spent like a drunken sailors thus stoking inflation (though granted Biden has made them look like pikers). Trump/Pence did nothing about the George Floyd riots (crime). I will grant that Trump/Pence tightened up borders but only in the context of Trump saying how he wanted more legal immigration. Pence also didn’t mention the complete flustercuck that Trump/Pence’s pushing of the unsafe and not effective Deep State Virus vaccine. But of course political campaigns are all about accentuating your opponents failures while forgetting yours.

It greatly saddens me that the best the American people can have for their magistrates are the tweedledum and tweedlestupid that are the Democrats and the Republicans. However, clearly that is what the Murican Bears want. There is not a snowballs chance in hell that Muricans would ever vote for a genuine conservative and so what we get is the choice to vote for the left side of the left or to vote for the right side of the left.

Some choice.

 

Correcting Presidential Historian Michael Beschloss

We could be six days away from losing our rule of law and losing the situation where we have elections we can all rely on. There’s at least a significant chance that this country could be consumed by violence all over the next week, after this election.”

Michael Beschloss
Presidential Historian
Progressive-Liberal

1.) We haven’t had the rule of law here in a very very long time. If we had had the rule of law in 1998 Bill Clinton would have been convicted of what he was impeached for and removed from office. Remember, everyone agreed he committed perjury.  If we had the rule of law there would have been legal consequences for Bush II lying about Weapons of Mass Destruction… Hillary Clinton would have suffered legal consequences for lying about Benghazi … Barack Obama would’ve suffered legal consequences for slandering the Cambridge police department… Jim Comey, Peter Strozk, Lisa Page, John Brennan would have suffered legal consequences for their treason in screaming “Russia, Russia, Russia.” If we had the rule of law Trump, Fauci, Birx, and countless others would be in jail for rushing poison masking as vaccine to be injected into the muscles of people.
Get your head out of your southern most aperture Beschloss and quit warning about the possible rule of law. I was a child when we lost the rule of law in this country.

2.) Elections we can all rely on?

You mean like the 1960 Kennedy vs. Nixon Presidential election?
You mean like Lyndon Johnson’s “election” to be the Democratic Candidate in the 1948 US Senate contest?

3.) Beschloss is right on one thing. The Democrats have so pissed in our election pool nobody from either side is going to trust the result of this election and this especially if the DEMS pull the “we’re going to have to stop counting because we are tired” routine. If elections are not decided until days later nobody is going to be satisfied. The DEMS created this atmosphere. Let them live with the consequences.

If this whole thing burns down around us (an outcome I would not be dissatisfied with) then let it rest at the feet of the party that was willing to cheat in order to put a guy who barely campaigned and yet received more votes than Barack Obama into office.

The Left’s Invoking of Morality & Examining the Left’s Distinguishing of Patriotism & Nationalism

In the last 24 hours I have seen people on the Left make arguments built upon an appeal to “moral values.” I always enjoy the Left invoking the “moral values” argument because they never tell us where they are getting their moral values from. They invoke moral values and at the same time do everything they can to undermine traditional Christian Western moral values. Were I a cynical person I’d believe that they are cynically invoking a morality that they don’t themselves believe but know that hoi polloi believe and on the basis they expect the hoi polloi to get their minds right.

What is interesting in the two examples I am using for this article is that “moral values” are being invoked to support immorality. Our first examples comes from the French President (Macron) who married someone old enough to be his mother. Bridgette Macron had children her future husband’s own age. Be leery of the moral values of any world leader who marries someone old enough to be his mum.

Anyway, here is the French President’s quote;

“Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism…nationalism is the betrayal of patriotism. By saying we put ourselves first and the others don’t matter, we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what makes it great, and what is essential: its moral values.”

Wouldn’t it be helpful here to know where Macron is getting the idea of moral values from? Was is the standard for Macron wherein he derives his moral values? Macron is a strong supporter of Abortion. Macron is a strong supporter of euthanasia. Where do these moral values come from upon which Macron makes such broad sweeping statements? If a nation holds dearest its moral values … if a nation is given life by its moral values … if a nation is made great by its moral values where is Macron finding these moral values. What is the source of Macron’s moral values that allows him to declaim that nationalism is evil?

Of course in asking about this question of where does Macron’s moral values come from – moralism that allows for killing babies and old people but does not allow for nationalism – we do not consider the absolute idiocy of opposing Patriotism to Nationalism.

First we consider the meaning of “Patriotism.”

From French patriote (15c.) and directly from Late Latin patriota “fellow-countryman” (6c.), from Greek patriotes “fellow countryman,” from patrios “of one’s fathers,” patris “fatherland,” from pater (genitive patros) “father” (see father (n.)); with -otes, suffix expressing state or condition.

Now we consider the meaning of “Nation” from which Nationalism comes from;

c. 1300, nacioun, “a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language,” from Old French nacion “birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland” (12c.) and directly from Latin nationem (nominative natio) “birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe,” literally “that which has been born,” from natus, past participle of nasci “be born” (Old Latin gnasci), from PIE root *gene- “give birth, beget,” with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

Clearly Macron has his head up his southern most aperture if he thinks he can make the word “Patriotism” oppose the word “Nationalism” in their essence of meaning. In other words, Macron is gaslighting people here.

It might be handy to keep this knowledge in your back pocket because it is not only French Presidents who try to pull of this linguistic charlatanism but American “Evangelicals” as well are constantly trying to play Patriotism off against Nationalism. There is even a book out by one Adam Wyatt titled, “Biblical Patriotism: An Evangelical Alternative To Nationalism,” as if Nationalism can’t be Biblical also.

This attempt to play Patriotism (Angels sing) off against Nationalism (Devil’s poke with pitchfork) is just the kind of thing that Doug Wilson or one of his CREC lapdogs (insert Crosspolitic podcast guys here) would try to sell. When one takes off the veneer what one sees is the ongoing attempt to introduce the idea that we love our own kin and family best when we allow the foreigner, stranger, and alien (Macron’s “others”) to eliminate us (White Western Christians) as a people. In Macron’s world and in the world of Evangelical leaders today Patriotism is the word used to describe what it means for White Western Christians to embrace the suicide cult that is now the new definition of Christianity and Nationalism is the word used about the evil vile people who resist the New World Order with its required ethno-masochism, xenophilia, and oikophobia.

To be a good Patriot today means one gets on the trains taking you to the death camps without murmuring. To be a good Nationalist today means taking your children’s and grandchildren’s inheritance and giving it to Pablo, Mohamed, and Sanjay.

Our second example wherein we find one of the NWO elites invoking the importance of moral comes from Jen Psaki.

“This is not normal, moral, human behavior.”
Jen “Circle Back” Psaki
Former White House Press Secretary
Complaining about Conservatives refusal to believe the Paul Pelosi story

 

Now, what standard do you suppose Jen uses to determine “normal, moral human behavior?”

 

I love it when the left appeals to normal, moral human behavior.

Keep in mind this is a woman who believes in abortion up to birth, sodomy, transgenderism and who knows what else. This is a woman who worked for perhaps the most in your face immoral administration that has ever existed and she wants to lecture Americans on “normal, moral, human behavior.”

The hubris is skull breaking outrageous.

Ben Shapiro Has Advice For How “Christian Nationalism” Should Roll

“This is why when people on the right use the phrase Christian nationalism, people on the left hear, ‘ah, we’re talking about religious fascism.’ Well, no, when people say Christian nationalism typically what they mean is not that the official church of the United States should be the Catholic Church, or that the church of the United States should dictate terms of service in the United States. What it means instead, when people say Christian nationalism is that undergirding the values of the United States are a set of Judeo-Christian values, and when you jettison those values you destroy the United States.”

Ben Shapiro
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/09/30/ben_shapiro_when_people_say_christian_nationalism_they_are_talking_about_judeo-christian_values.html

1.) I agree that Christian Nationalists are not and should not be looking for an official Church of these united States. In my estimation Christian Nationalists should be looking that the nation should swear allegiance to Jesus Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords and then be ruled consistent with His Law-Word. We should be done with the dishonoring pluralism that allows false gods to populate God’s land (“The earth is the Lord‘s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.”– Psalm 24:1) with the result of the war of all against all. There is no social order harmony where there are gods owned by the social order who grossly contradict one another in their salvation, character and ethic.

2.) Remember, all Nations are headed by some God or God-concept.  Our nation bows the knee to the god of pluralism and that god is ultimately controlled by the FEDS since it is the FEDS who have the final word as to how far any of the gods and/or all of the gods can walk in the public square. The Mormon God says “polygamy” but the FEDS say “no polygamy.” The Christian GOD says “no sodomy” but the FEDS say “sodomy.” The native American God says “smoke peyote as a religious rite” but the FEDS say “no smoking peyote as a religious rite.” The Muslim God says “Sharia Law” the FEDS say “no Sharia law.” You see, in our Pluralism the FEDS are serving as the God over the gods. We are as a religious people, with a religious State, as you can find anywhere else. It just so happens that our God is Pluralism and the God who is pluralism is controlled by the FEDS. So, naturally if the State is going to be religious (and all States are) Christians should desire a Christian Nationalism where the State bows to the authority of Jesus Christ as expressed in the Scripture. If the State is always hopelessly religious (and it always is) than why should Christians be satisfied with anything but Christian Nationalism (they shouldn’t)?

3.) The idea of “Judeo-Christian” values has been a mistake from when it began. We are a Christian people with Christian values. Not a Jewish people. Keep in mind that the Judeo-Christian values that Mr. Shapiro speaks of slams together on one hand the ultimate value of worshiping Jesus from the Christian side while on the other hand the ultimate estimation of the Judeo part of the equation is to affirm that Jesus is burning in hell in excrement for all of eternity. How does one arrive at “Judeo-Christian” values given that reality. No, the values we need are not “Judeo-Christian” but just plain Christian values.

So, by all means a return to Christian Nationalism. A return to the time where nearly all of our State Constitutions had language of loyalty to the Christian God as stated in the documents themselves as requirements for service in the State governments.

4.) I would contend that it is precisely because we have embraced “Judeo-Christian” values we have destroyed these united States.

Ben Shapiro writes again,

Again, I think it’s bad branding because I think it’s exclusive in a way it doesn’t need to be. Specifically because, even if you’re not religious, you can agree with the basic idea, even from a natural law (understanding). I mean, this is Catholic Church doctrine. You don’t have to be Catholic to believe that natural law actually undergirds the idea of family, undergirds the idea of God as an important part of public life. You don’t have to be some sort of crazed conservative nut to believe a country ought to control its own borders and that culture matters. All of these things matter.

Bret responds,

Of course Ben thinks Christian Nationalism is exclusive. It is exclusive and would read out of the movement those who want to continue to embrace the pluralism that comes with the embrace of “liberal democracy.” Liberal Democracy, which Ben supports and which has brought us to the place we are now at cannot be embraced in order to cure what ails us. It is what ails us.

And natural law? In this postmodern climate which classical liberalism has achieved there is no putting the toothpaste of natural law back in the tube to serve as a guide to our social order. Natural law is dead and the only thing that could bring it back to be a governing reality is brute force.

I also disagree with Ben about his “crazed conservative nut” part. I do think in our current climate that many people believe only a crazed conservative nut would think that “a country ought to control its own borders and that culture matters.” For pete’s sake we have scads of people now all around us who believe only a crazed conservative nut would think that there are only two genders and that race is not a merely social construct. If they can think that how much easier is it for them to think that only crazed conservative nuts believe that a country ought to control its own borders and that culture matters.”

No, Ben. Neither Natural Law nor shared Judeo-Christian values are going to save us now.

Examining Michigan’s Proposal 3 On Abortion — Part I

This election cycle Michigan voters will be voting on whether to be a state that allows the torture and murder of the judicially innocent or whether Michigan will end the scourge that is abortion.

The scales in this state are already tipped in the favor of the baby murderers as the proposed bill was seemingly turned over to Mephistopheles to write the language of what is being proposed. Plus, we here in Michigan have already had Michigan Supreme Court Justice Bernstein stating publicly that;

“Ultimately, it is the Michigan Supreme Court that will make the absolute final determination, it will be the Michigan Supreme Court that will have the final word, in a woman’s right to choose in the state of Michigan…”

Please understand dear reader what is being said here. Michigan voters could resoundingly turn down proposal 3 and it will make no difference because “ultimately it is the Michigan Supreme Court that will make the absolute final determination.” If the baby murderers are defeated at the ballot box they will just run to the courts to force infanticide on the whole state.

Be that as it may, I thought it would be good to give a series looking at how bad proposal 3 really is. We will break this down little by little.

Article 1, Section 28 Right to Reproductive Freedom

(1) Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom,

Bret responds,

I am just curious as to where this fundamental right to reproductive freedom comes from? Who has granted us this right? Where can I look it up to find the details? This is the “Who says so” question. I mean if this whole proposal is premised on the idea of a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom” it ought not to be too much to ask where in the hell this right comes from. I’d prefer to see it in writing if it is not too much trouble. Keep in mind also, that the SCOTUS ruled in Buck vs. Bell decades ago that every individual does not have a fundamental right to reproductive freedom.

Secondly, here allow me to not how amusing it is to be talking about “reproductive freedom” when in fact what is being advocated is the erasure or reproductivity. I mean, this is an abortion proposal after all. So, are we really talking about freedom of reproductivity or are we talking about the freedom to not reproduce — to kill our offspring?

(2) which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care.

Here we find a new, unlimited constitutional right inasmuch as we are using the language “all matters relating to pregnancy.”

All matters relating to pregnancy? Now, I don’t want to get to pedantic but as newborns could be said to be a matter relating to pregnancy does this language allow Mommies to kill their babies after they are born since the birthed child remains a matter relating to pregnancy?

Now, don’t you respond with “that’s obvious.” It’s obvious to me that killing in utero children deserves the death penalty for those who practice such heinousness. As such, nothing is “obvious” to me.

We would note that by creating a right “to all matters relating to pregnancy,” abortion, sterilizations, and a myriad of other matters (like sex) can have zero restrictions. Since sex is still related to pregnancy the language of this proposal could make any number of current sexual crimes open to legality. All a defendant (rapist?) would have to say is that “Hey, all matters related to pregnancy are my rights under the amendment of reproductive freedom”