OK - Never Trump, Never say Never

Not so long ago I indicated I was a "never-Trumper".   I thought then (and still think) the tactics of his campaign were unconscionable and destructive.  It went beyond political "hardball" and veered into ridicule and character assassination.   And I was not convinced his policy points, vague as they were, would be the best for the country compared to the other candidates.  I had no reason to trust that his presidency would lean conservative.

Today, I still wince at every tweet and wish he would stop the outbursts.   That does not mean I think he should be soft on those who have unfairly attacked him - only more articulate, specific and less personal. 

But when it comes right down to it, in spite of a congress stocked with Republicans who once again have betrayed their own campaign promises on immigration, tax reform and health care, Trump has quietly done a number of things that any conservative should be cheering.

President Trump

I have to admit I am a bit shocked.

As one who would have wished for someone other than Trump to oppose the lawless and radical Alinskyite Hillary Clinton, I did not believe Trump had a chance.  What does it mean?

For starters it means that Hillary really was a worse candidate than Trump.   Her baldfaced lies about just about everything, her clear corruption in using the Clinton foundation as part of a massive pay-for-play scheme, her utter incompetence on foreign policy and her reckless disregard for both the law and national security with her email server fiasco clearly had an effect.

It also means that a good chunk of the American public are sick and tired of being told that only politically correct left wing ideals can qualify as "justice" or "compassion".   I have no doubt that the race baiting of the left upsets a lot more people than the charges of racism hurled at everyone to the right of Al Sharpton.

But it means as well that both parties have lost touch with a majority of Americans.  The reason Trump was the candidate was in part because significant numbers of voters on the right simply did not want another Bush, another establishment Republican or anybody at all who was part of the system.

While that can be a good thing, it can also be a dangerous one.   Fixing the corruption, cronyism, and inertia that is Washington is necessary - but no doubt some want to burn it down altogether.

We'll see what happens.   My hope is that with Republicans controlling both houses and the presidency, at least the Supreme Court will not become a tool of the left and that some of the illegal executive actions the current president has taken can be rolled back.  I hope that the guiding principles will be the restoration of the Constitution to its rightful place and not the principles of retaliation or mere populism.

I will say with Trump there is hope for that.  With Hillary I truly believe the Republic the founders had envisioned would have been lost.   For that I am grateful, if cautious.

Count Me as Never Trump

There are many reasons to dislike Donald Trump as a candidate.  And as much as I would like to focus on his policies, whatever they really are, I have to take a moment to rehearse some of the more egregious personal attacks that in my mind reveal the utter lack of character necessary for the leader of this nation.

There is a reason I find this exercise necessary.   Politics has gotten ugly in the age of Alinsky.   His “Rules for Radicals” suggests as a legitimate strategy the practice of isolating individuals as figureheads and then demonizing them with lies and ridicule.  It forces them to waste time responding to charges that ultimately have no defense and distracts the rank and file from real issues.  It has been a tactic of the left for years and one I find utterly opposed to the practice of democracy. 

So to see Donald Trump and his minions using such ugly, immoral and unprincipled tactics and using them successfully means that the right side of the political spectrum has sunk to the same gutter as the thugs of the left.  What good is “winning” the Republican nomination if one utterly shreds any principles that once were a normative part of a civilized society built on self-government?  (More)

Is Trump a Fascist? Probably Not, but...

I have little doubt analogies linking politicians to villains of the past are generally unfair and unwise, not only for impugning the individual in the present, but also for minimizing and misrepresenting the evil of the past.   Lately, with the rise of Donald Trump to the front of the GOP Presidential race, comparisons to Hitler are popping up and more commonly the word “fascist” is used of both Trump and his supporters.

Full disclosure, I have no love for Trump as a potential President.   His campaign has been vulgar, insulting and crass.   He labels his opponents with insults and slurs to avoid discussion of issues and policies.   He demeans the process itself.   But more to the point, I have little confidence that whatever his current campaign positions are, he will follow through and not change his poistion if he is elected.   If I had to choose between Trump and either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, I would find it difficult to vote at all.

But is Trump a fascist as some of his opponents claim?  (More)

What Color is Your Heresy?

In postmodern approaches to theology, context determines everything.  Since interpretations of reality are social constructs, and the subjective context from which one does theology determines the meaning of just about everything, postmodern theologies can be exceedingly relativistic, destructively creative, and aggressively subversive.

This Jesus Creed post from November 5, 2015 is titled "White Heresy, Black Heresy" was written by Austin Fischer, author of "Young Restless and no Longer Reformed" who blogs at Purple Theology.  The question Fischer frames is one of orthodoxy vs. orthopraxy as relates to race and justice, but the “context” of American race struggles takes the whole premise in a dangerous direction.   In short, it implicitly celebrates “contextualization” with a vengeance while hiding a great deal from unsuspecting readers about the source material.  More

Things I Don't Believe

Creeds, declarations, manifestos have been written about many, many things and are usually a positive affirmation of what someone believes.   I think about beliefs when politicians are asked gotcha questions about hot button topics and no question gets more ridicule than suggesting one rejects Darwinism.  

I think it would be wise, when asked about origins, if politicians turned the question around and stated things in a negative way.  

So, if you will, the anti-creed - a statement of things I DO NOT believe.

The SUPREME Court - The Bigger Picture - Welcome to Totalitarianism

It has been an eventful week. First the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare. The same justice Roberts who earlier defied the argument of the measures supporters that the mandate did not amount to a tax and essentially rewrote the statute to make it a tax in order to uphold it (yes, it was that bad), was at it again.

This time, in spite of almost irrefutable evidence and plain logic based on the words of the law indicating that the Obamacare subsidies were to be provided by individual states, not the Federal Government, Justice Roberts found a way to stretch the meaning of "State" to include a nebulous "intent" that went beyond the wording, thus making the law valid. This massive usurpation of legislative authority relied on feeling over law and a basic denial that words have meaning at all, as Justice Scalia pointed out in a scathing dissent.

Then the Supremes ruled on same-sex marriage. Again the linguistic gymnastics required to manufacture a desired outcome was something the Court found a way to justify. Justice Scalia excoriated the line " "The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity."

What exactly does it mean, as a legal matter, to "define and express (one's) identity?" What are the limits on this right now that gender in society is defined entirely by one's "feelings"?

Rules for Radicals - The Progressive Playbook - Part 1

Subversion. From the World English Dictionary:

1. the act or an instance of subverting or overthrowing a legally constituted government, institution, etc
2. the state of being subverted; destruction or ruin
3. something that brings about an overthrow

A couple of years ago I became acutely aware of a character from the history of the political left named Saul Alinsky. He was a mentor to Hillary Clinton years ago. She wrote her thesis on him. Barack Obama has been praised by Alinsky's son as an exemplary practitioner of his father's methods and strategies. Alinsky's seminal tract "Rules for Radicals" is a stock training manual for leaders and activists in many labor unions. His name is becoming more well known, but not, I fear, well known enough. Alinsky was, if nothing else, subversive. I think it is necessary to unpack a bit of his ideology. Why? Because the political climate in our country has become utterly poisonous and increasingly dangerous. I believe the single most significant reason for the degeneration of our political system is Alinsky.

Language Games

One of the tenets of the postmodern drift is that "language is a mask to power".   I've been chewing on a brief post at Powerline for a few days that tersely dismisses that postmodern credo as a failed canard.

Basically, the claim of the secular progressive academia has often been that truth is determined by cultural consensus.  Different cultures make different truth claims.  Since ultimate truths are beyond the reach of reason, if they exist at all, we are left with the uncomfortable suggestion that whoever has power gets to control the language, and as a result gets to impose its version of truth on everyone else.  So the "rich" usually have the most power, thus they are usually the oppressors who control the language, creating words and destroying un-words according to their whim.

What they don't tell folks until they have been indoctrinated, is that their remedy to this injustice is for someone else to control the language.  (More)

Dennis Prager on Tolerance

The always worth reading Dennis Prager wrote a few days ago about the abuse of power in the name of tolerance. 

The key case that sparked his column is described in these words by Prager:

"Last week, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that an event photographer's refusal on religious grounds to shoot the commitment ceremony of a same-sex couple amounted to illegal discrimination.

"The photographer had never objected to photographing gays. She did not, however, wish to be part of a ceremony to which she religiously objected. In America today, thanks to myriad laws and progressive justices, people can go to prison for refusing to participate in an event to which they object."   (More)

What Difference Does It Make?

Interesting stuff coming out of Washington since Steve Hayes at the Weekly Standard produced three different versions of "talking points" eventually used by Susan Rice to blame the attack on the Consulate in Benghazi Libya that killed Ambassador Chris Stephens and three others on an anti-Muslim video.

Even  ABC news has reported that the talking points underwent 12 revisions.  Jay Carney had claimed only single edit.  We now know that is untrue and that the decision to make the changes came from the State Department.

Scour the internet and even Mother Jones and the Huffington post are now paying attention to the story.

One might ask "What difference does it make?" to a blogger who mainly is concerned with theological issues.  (More)

Kingdom - Not of This World

A lot of focus is placed in progressive circles on the "here and now" implications of the "kingdom of God".  A number of themes emerge, most of which made me vaguely uneasy.

One theme seems to be positing the Kingdom of God as a counter to the "Constantinian" view of the church, in essence to say that Christians (read conservatives) shouldn't be on a quest for political power.  (This misses the point of conservatism altogether which is largely a quest for the limitation of power.)

Another theme suggests that the Kingdom of God means the church is its own political force in exemplifying a nonviolent society committed to social justice and radical equality.

But what exactly is the Kingdom?   (More)

Reverse discrimination

There appears to be growing evidence that the advancement of gay rights, particularly gay marriage, does cause discrimination against people of faith.  So "no bullying" leads to bullying.

In one case a Portland couple is under investigation for declining to fashion a wedding cake for a lesbian couple

There are similar cases in the UK, one involving a marriage counselor who felt giving marriage advice to gay couples violated her faith.

While the secular society claims there can be no absolutes, it is clear full acceptance of gay inclusion is a secular absolute that is increasingly enforced with public accusations of irrational bigotry and now the threat of legal ramifications. So the force of law, the courts and eventually the police will almost certainly be used to make sure everyone complies with the new sexual ethic.

Ben Shapiro on Bullies

Not sure I relish all of Ben's recommendations or the notion we have to embrace tactics that lean toward "incivility", but there comes a point where self-defense requires a bit of force. Long video, but worth watching. Bright mind, brave soul.

Post Racial America

Two interesting takes on race relations in America.

For Jamie Foxx it is all about race. While starring in a movie that uses the "N" word over 100 times, reportedly, Foxx (who is a truly talented actor) mentions the indignity of finding that a photo shoot is stocked with snacks of Ritz crackers and cheese.  (For the record, I'm a northern raised, white male and I ate my share of Ritz crackers and cheese growing up - not even aware there was some sort of issue with that one.  And yes, I love fried chicken and watermelon.)

For Robert Griffin III it is not about race.   After being called a "cornball brother" by a black ESPN commentator and accused of being "not really down with the cause, he's not one of us", Griffin says he refuses to be defined by his race.  His sins against the black community?  Apparently inter-racial dating and rumors of having Republican leanings.

Which of these examples best exemplifies a post-racial America?

Community Organizing for the Digital Age

Interesting article by Tony Lee at Breitbart analyzing How Obama Won.  The opening paragraph reads

"President Barack Obama sees America as a salad bowl, where multiculturalists are free to pick and choose identities and cultures instead of sharing a unifying one -- the classical melting pot concept. And Obama's successful 2012 campaign -- as sophisticated as it was when it came to micro-targeting voters -- reflected his broader view.

"Instead of running a campaign based on his record or a unifying and forward-looking vision for the next four years, Obama essentially ran multiple, micro-targeted campaigns aimed at specific racial groups, scaring them into believing Republicans would take away their rights and promising them legislation on pet issues in a second term. He used the same template with women voters. He essentially united his coalition by disuniting America, one racial and gender group at a time."  (More)

Election Thoughts

"History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration leading to ultimate national disaster."
Douglas MacArthur 

I only occasionally venture into politics here and only as I think it relates to Christianity.  After watching the election returns last night, these are my reactions: 

People Died - Obama Lied

There are many reasons I don't want to see Barack Obama reelected.  I think there can be little doubt now about the President's dishonesty regarding the most inept coverup in the history of coverups.  The Bengazi coverup takes the cake.

Simple timeline as we now know it. 

Not only did the administration spend two weeks dishonestly blaming the affair on a cheap video, Joe Biden claimed ignorance in his debate with Paul Ryan and blamed the intelligence community for not giving sufficient info to the administration. 

Chris Matthews Latest Absurdity

Chris Matthews has claimed in essence that the pro-life position is something akin to Shariah law.  From NewsMax:

“...to have that notion that that [fertilized egg] would be a person under this personhood thing that Ryan’s pushing, and under the 14th Amendment rights, the platform that Romney’s running on. This is extremism. I say (to the) center right tonight, it's almost like Shariah."

Matthews went on to say Romney and Ryan would govern from a religious viewpoint. 

“We're going to run our country this way, to the point of making a woman's decision to have an abortion, her reproductive rights, as criminal, perhaps murderous.”

Aside from the usual hostility from the media to pro-life views, a few questions seem to be in order.

Shooting the Messenger - The Left's Only Enemy

Very interesting article in the Jerusalem Post by Caroline Glick titled "The Left's Only Enemy".  She begins with reference to Mahmoud Abbas, whom the left in Israel and the United States holds up as a moderate.  Writes Glick,

"The fact that Abbas was an inveterate Jew-hater who spent four decades in the senior leadership of a terrorist organization and whose doctoral dissertation was a long denial of the Holocaust, was brushed aside."

It is difficult for the left to define an enemy, particularly the Christian left.  What philosophical commitments lead particular individuals and groups to pretend evil does not exist is an open question I suppose.  Glick continues,  

"Abbas’s Israeli supporters are the core of far-leftists who brought us the phony peace process with the PLO. Two thousand dead Israelis later, and with no peace in sight, their camp is much smaller today than it was in 1993. But it is still dedicated. And it is overpopulated by members of the media".  (more)