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 More in Common” Argument Coming From the Evangelical Left

Back in August it all started with the Pope of Moscow;

“I have more in common with a Nigerian Anglican Woman than with my conservative white pagan neighbor” 

Doug Wilson 
Blog & MehBlog

Yesterday on Twitter Andy Sandlin took it up;

“The white American Christian billionaire male has more in common with the poorest Christian sub-Saharan female than he does any of his unconverted countrymen.”

Andrew Sandlin
Twitter

And R. C. Sproul Jr, the Doyen of “being famous for being famous” agrees;

“Hard to believe anyone could question this. I guess those who do have this in common with the woke- believing demographic identity is greater than identity in Christ. Stay strong brother. “

R. C. Sproul Jr.
Responding to Doc Sandlin
Twitter

Clearly we are seeing a Gnostic theme gaining steam here. As such let’s examine this for a moment.

In our examination we will go with the humorous sarcastic lampooning side first. This from my friend Thomas Achord;

“Christianity trumps any marriage. The Christian husband has more in common with his neighbor’s Christian wife than he does with his own unconverted wife. Christian men and women should transcend their individual marriages and embrace the universal marriage ideal.”

Similarly we could add;

“Christianity trumps any parental arrangement. The Christian child has more in common with the Christian parents next door than he does with his own unconverted parents. Christian children should transcend their individual parentage arrangements and embrace the universal Christian parenting ideal, since, after all, they have more in common.”

Pressing on we could note how these statements by Wilson, Sandlin and Sproul 2.0 lack precision. Certainly we can all agree that as it pertains to eternal verities we have more in common with a Biblical Christian version of Richard Nikolaus Eijiro, Count of Coudenhove-Kalergi than I have with my cousins who are outside of Christ. However, when it comes to every day matters like supporting a Burkean like social order, or longing for the good old days of Strom Thurmond’s “Dixiecrats,” or the preference for a good old country Fish Fry, or going Coon hunting or setting a trotline or attending a lecture on Great Southern Generals I suspect that I have more in common with the unbelieving good old boys of South Carolina who lived in the community I once Pastored then I do with Wilson, Sandlin, Sproul 2.0 and their ilk.

Think about it. If I were to draw a 90 mile radius with my congregation in the center I would have within that radius many Reformed Churches. I can guarantee you that except for abstract statements that comprise Biblical, Historical, and Systematic theology I would have much more in common with at least some of those Christ hating in that radius than I would many of those in “Reformed Churches.” Truth be told, I don’t find too much in common with “Reformed” Christians anymore as Iron Ink constantly testifies to.

Also down this line in order for me to talk about all that I have in common with any other Christian we better be defining what we mean by Christian. For example, the presumption of charity requires that I believe that Wilson, Sandlin, and Sproul 2.0 are all Christian but I clearly have a hard time finding common ground with these people. I mean, we would agree on any number of abstract theological statements but we are seeing that when it comes to the concrete — not so much. Or we could take the R2K “Reformed” church in Lansing Michigan. The presumption of charity requires I count the Pastor and staff there Christian but I guarantee you that I have even less in common with those people than I do Wilson, Sandlin, and Sproul 2.0. In point of fact, I think those people with their R2K are treasonous baseborn. But if I can make it into the gates of heaven by God’s grace alone so can they and so I count them Christians that I don’t have spit in common with. Similarly, we could talk about liberal Christian ministers who I used to gather with for confabs. Not much in common with those people either.

All this to say that to go around talking the way Wilson, Sandlin, and Sproul 2.0 talk demonstrates a lack of precision that is embarrassing for a minister and frankly, like it or not, in this environment it does come across as Gnostic and Cultural Marxist all at the same time.

To argue this way, is not to proclaim, contra Sproul 2.0, that I am claiming some common ground with the WOKE crowd over common ground with Wilson, Sandlin, and Sproul 2.0. The ironic fact of the matter is that it is Wilson, Sandlin and Sproul 2.0 who are sharing the common ground with the WOKE crowd. Both the WOKE crowd and the Christianity of Wilson, Sandlin, and Sproul 2.0 are screaming at people that nature either doesn’t exist or isn’t important. WOKE teaches that there is no such thing as nature. Wilson, Sandlin, Sproul 2.0 and their legion ilk are saying instead that grace destroys nature. They are in essence saying that once Christians are converted then who they were prior to being Christians, as considered according to who they were as God created them, is extinguished.

Maleness or Femaleness — In Christ gone.
Italian or Irish — In Christ gone.
Age — In Christ gone.
White, Yellow, Brown — In Christ Gone.

All of this passing as Christianity is not a great deal different from what we did in High School at a party when we emptied every kind of alcohol we could find into one container in order to chug it down.

As I recall, we called that drink, “A suicide.”

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.

Acknowledgement Page

Expressing gratitude can be a losing proposition because once one begins one is bound to not express enough gratitude to enough people and so one can disappoint those who were instrumental in a project that should not have been overlooked. Forgive me for overlooking you.

The way these acknowledgement pages work, I’ve noticed, is to remind the reader that any insights are the fruit of learning from others more intelligent and wise than one’s self while any errors belong uniquely to the author of the finished product. That is true again in what is now in your hands. I have come up with nothing originally original. Any ability to pick apart R2K is due to the mentoring of Dr. Glenn R. Martin that began in 1977. Dr. Martin taught us to see life as a unity underneath the express authority of Jesus Christ.  I extend thanks thus to this great saint who though now part of the Church at rest, still speaks through me.

I am thankful for the conversation partners Mark Van Der Molen and Mark Chambers. They spent countless hours with me on the phone and in person listening to my rants and adding their important insights. They have both been good friends and fellow warriors in this project and have been pushing me to write this book for some time. Thank you Mark & Mark.

I extend sincere gratitude to Dr. Adi Schlebusch. Dr. Schlebusch connected me with his Pactum Institute and then asked me to write this book. That was a gamble and I am thankful he took it. Thank you Adi also for proof-reading. I likewise am thankful for Ruben Alvarado and Pantocrator press for publishing this modest work.

I shouldn’t forget thanking my R2K enemies. You know who you are. In your contrariness and vitriol expressed against me you only sharpened my arguments and made me more convinced that “Rabbi Bret” was right. Thanks gang. You made this book possible.

I cannot forget to tell the congregation I serve “Thank You.” They have patiently allowed me to pursue this subject. They have listened to numerous sermons and lessons on this subject. Many of them could probably write this book by now since I have banged so hard on the subject over the years. Thank you Saints of Christ members at Charlotte Christ the King Reformed Church.

Then there are my children, Laura-Jane, Anna, and Anthony. Y’all brought the stability into my life that made such a project possible. Y’all were patient while I read late into the night and wrote later into the wee hours of the morning. You put up with me carrying my books to your every event and didn’t mind me (too much) multi-tasking. All of you will never know how thankful to the Lord Christ I am for your presence in my life.

Finally, I owe a debt of gratitude to my wife to whom I dedicate this volume. Jane, you have been both my muse and my sounding board. Thank you for your patience with me being distracted while I continued to sort all this (and much more) out. No minister ever had a better woman to be “the Pastors wife.” Thank you seems insufficient but all the gratitude I have is all yours.

And now this portion of the project is complete. More could be said but enough has been said for now. It is my prayer that this book contributes to the destruction of Radical Two Kingdom Theology.