Closing Thoughts on 2019

Screen Shot 2019-12-18 at 7.37.37 AM

Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled; do not be afraid.

John 14:27

This will be my final post this year (except for Christmas / New Year greetings).

2019 has been an exhausting, dispiriting year.  And, were I to succumb to the demands of the Progressive Left I would say that I am exhausted and dispirited.  They certainly through an avalanche of hatred and shameless deceit attempted to convince me that there is no hope aside from passive submission to their will to power.

Joy Pullmann in a Federalist article titled “Impeachment is Just Another Word for Delusional Democrats Holding the Nation Hostage” well summed up the situation:

Democrats have made it clear they will sandbag the people we’ve elected to govern if we refuse to vote for Democrats. Heads they win, tails we lose. Either we vote for them, or be stuck in an endless parade of overcredentialed and underaccomplished finger-waggers until we’re browbeaten into staying home from elections after concluding that it doesn’t matter who we vote for, the left always wins.

Impeachment grand master Rep. Adam Schiff said it openly on Tuesday: Unless Democrats impeach President Trump, Democrats will consider the 2020 election illegitimate, just like they do 2016.

I won’t revisit all of my arguments regarding why this has happened and what it likely means (but feel free to read my commentary in this year’s posts if curious).

I’m well aware that the Republican Party is only now beginning to, unevenly and vaguely, come to grips with the nature of our nation’s crisis.  We thus should have no expectation that, if they win big in the 2020 election, there will be the intellectual capability and moral courage to drive the necessary reforms.

But the clear deficiencies of the only party in opposition to the Democrats must not blind us to the central point.  That is, the Democrat Party and the Progressive elite / Deep State whom they represent must be utterly defeated for there to be any chance of a national recovery.

The following quote from a Douglas Murray article in the Spectator USA about the vile nature of the Labor Party’s embrace of anti-semitism in the United Kingdom and what needs to be done about it also speaks to our situation in the United States.  If you substitute “Democrat” for “Labor,” “Republican” for “Conservative,” “Democrat Presidential Nominee” for “Jeremy Corbyn,” “United States” for “Britain” and your choice of Democrat national politicians for the various Labor leadership names, the following excerpt becomes an almost perfect statement on what must happen in our 2020 elections.

As I say, I could easily go on. Anyone could. And for those who are still inclined to vote for the Labour party on Thursday perhaps nothing can now be said. They include people who hate the Conservative party and think that they must always vote Labour for tribal reasons. And they include people who think that whatever the unpleasantness that may linger around Corbyn and McDonnell and co it can be put down as a second order of business after the priority of getting the Conservative party out of office.

Well, I would like to make another suggestion. Jeremy Corbyn will lose this election and every effort should be put into ensuring that he loses it big: that what happens on Thursday is not just a defeat, but a defeat of such crushing totality for the Labour party that it takes it years to recover. It should be such a defeat that it is not possible for a Keir Starmer or Emily Thornberry to simply pick up the reins and go back to business as usual. Other left-wing parties may emerge and flourish. But the Labour party must never be forgiven for what it has offered to the public at this election. What Corbyn has brought into the mainstream has toxified Britain and the party that allowed it to happen should be held to account.

Nor should his wider rabble of supporters simply be allowed to slip away. Instead, they should each themselves be held accountable for what they have done — as the Mosley-ites were in the Thirties. All those Labour MPs who decided to support Corbyn because he was the leader that they had. All the weird media creations who have popped up on the television day-after-day (with no identifiable credentials other than brute loyalty or loyalty to a brute). And all those columnists and ‘journalists’ of the left who pretend that they have spent their lives ‘tackling’ racism only to spend recent years campaigning for the most racist force in British politics to gain power and making Britain a pariah among the nations.

For my part I’m working on my fifth eBook, to be published in early 2020 titled The Progressive Riot (see current cover at the top of this post).  I will not be dispirited nor silent in the face of this advancing proto-totalitarian force that currently finds its home in the Democrat Party.

Either we stop it at the ballot box in 2020 and as many times thereafter as necessary or we fight it as citizens reduced to serfs, with little likelihood of success.

What’s at Stake in the 2020 Election? (4)


One source of the Progressive totalitarian impulse

Final Thoughts

A primary driver of practical Progressive political action is the maintenance of that presumption of moral and intellectual superiority built on the theoretical / ideological foundation.  That is, Progressives have a burning compulsion to impose their presumed superiority on the world.  And, the only means of accomplishing this end is the acquisition of power: both political and social.

Progressives seek and then wield that power with a brutality that intimidates the opposition.  This in turn creates an environment in which their expansion of power appears to be inexorable.  However there are many millions of citizens who, though cowed, burn with anger at those who demand their submission by brute political and social force.  These people may appear to be defeated or even in support of the Progressive project.  But they are actually looking for a vehicle through which they can express their internal sense of rejection.

Our contemporary situation is the practical flowering of this conflict.  There is no way to predict which side will prevail.  However the result will likely determine if this nation remains a Constitutional Republic or is transformed into a nation of Masters and Serfs.

What’s at Stake in the 2020 Election? (3)


This is the stark, binary choice that has been presented to us by the Progressive Left in the 2020 election.

The Binary Choice

The choice being presented to the citizens of the United States is simple and stark:

  1. Vote in the Democrat Presidential Candidate and he/she/whatever will view their victory as a mandate to implement the Republic destroying ideas that they campaigned on.
  2. Vote in Donald Trump for a second term and, while the civility of our political discourse will continue to suffer, we will still likely have a Republic in 2024.

Back in 2016 I was deeply concerned that Donald Trump was simply a mirror image of the Progressive political corruption that exploded under Barack Obama’s presidency.  He has rather, in spite of withering, unrelenting resistance by the Democrats (and many Republicans as well), pursued the very Conservative economic and social policies that the “conservative” political establishment (now the “Never-Trumpers”) claimed they supported.  He is also seeking to extract the United States from the seemingly unending, un-winnable wars that have sapped our nation’s morale and strength.  He has kept his campaign promises to a degree that shames most recent politicians, Democrat and Republican alike.  Perhaps that’s another reason that they hate him so.

Make no mistake, if the Democrats win in 2020 under their proto-totalitarian platform, there will likely be little holding back this time.  Expect:

  • a Progressive packed Supreme Court, with 11, 13, however many justices are required to ensure uniform Progressive decisions (or they may simply remove and replace President Trump’s appointees);
  • the Justice Department (including the FBI) and Intelligence Services to become politicized to a far greater degree than they were under President Obama and thus a far greater threat to our civil liberties;
  • by unConstitutional means, for the Electoral College, the First and Second Amendments and the Senate to come under withering attack;
  • our nation’s boarders to be erased, resulting in massive migration from any country by anyone who for whatever reason wants to get in, and, once in, supported by the U.S. taxpayers;
  • an economy devastated by the aggressive deployment of Socialist policies and environmental regulations;
  • the media, social and mainstream, to become even more aggressive and cruel in their assault on any and all people who disagree, or even don’t agree with sufficient fervor;
  • the vicious, murderous physical attacks on and intimidation of non-Progressives by the Progressive proto-Fascist shock troops (i.e., Antifa) and random mobs/individuals will dramatically increase.

One other point.  For all his crudity and bombast, Donald Trump must be one of the most honest men to have attained the Presidency.  The entire apparatus of the Federal Government, Democrat Party and Mainstream Media have been out to find something (anything!) by which to destroy him since at least 2015.  All they have been able to come up with are bogus Dossiers and Whistleblower complaints.  They continue hyper-Ahab-like pursuing their Great White Wale.

The Progressive elite have revealed themselves to be utterly corrupt, incompetent, infantile, narcissistic, self-serving and deceitful.  No self respecting free person should want to be ruled by this cohort of self-lobotomized collectivist ideologues.  And now, for better or worse, it has fallen on Donald Trump to stand between us and their desired proto-totalitarian goals.

As things stand now I will vote for Donald Trump in the 2020 Presidential Election.

What’s at Stake in the 2020 Election? (2)


A reader of this blog will know that I have not been enthusiastic or even supportive of Mr. Trump.  You will also know that in the 2016 Presidential Election I didn’t vote for Mr. Trump (or any other presidential candidate).  However, I have been willing to be convinced that Mr. Trump could earn my support.

In this he has both made progress and fallen short.  His appointments to the Supreme Court, choice of Mr. Barr as the Attorney General, roll-back of overweening government regulations, confrontation of Communist China, support of Israel, insistence on the rule of law at our boarders and in general, and aggressive defiance of the Progressive Left’s assault on our nation’s institutions and founding principles have all been helpful in gaining my support.  However, Mr. Trump’s use of incendiary language can sometimes push our discourse further down the road to perdition and his policies are often changeable from hour to hour when they are not impossible to understand in the first place.

However the decisive contribution to clarifying what is at stake has been made by the elite Progressive Left.  They have staked their claim to eternal power on their having achieved temporary power.  Yes, they have come to dominate virtually all of our national institutions from our classrooms to our boardrooms, from our news sources to our permanent governmental power centers.  And yet, having achieved this power they have demonstrated a level of craven self-dealing, dishonesty, incompetence and contempt that has utterly devastated their credibility as leaders of a self-respecting republic.


Masters and serfs in Medieval feudalism, and the future the Progressive appears to promise to us.

What they offer to those whom they seek to lead is in effect serfdom.  What they claim as their divine right is lordship.  The citizens of this Republic do not, in the elite Progressive Left’s opinion, have the right to elect someone to the Presidency who opposes their interests and policies.  Our so-called democracy is a sham in which the populace either votes to confirm the Progressive Left’s anointed candidate or has their wrong choice vetoed and removed by the power elite.

Now that this nation’s citizens have made such a stupid error (in the Progressives’ “enlightened” opinion) by electing Mr. Trump to the Presidency the elite Progressive Left has lost all confidence in them.  Therefore the foundations of our Republic must be demolished so as to prevent such idiocy from reoccurring.  The First and Second Amendments to the Constitution must go.  The Electoral College and Senate must go.  The fact that there is virtually zero chance that these demolitions can be accomplished by Constitutional means is irrelevant.  The elite Progressive Left will somehow impose them by exercise of their raw power.  They have promised as much to their rabid collectivist base.  They will either deliver or face their unhinged wrath.

This shocking position by our Progressive elite class has created a binary decision election that will be discussed in the next post.

Progressives Declare Mob Rule (1)


“And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.” Representative Maxine Waters, June 2018.

When Congresswoman Maxine Waters spoke to a crowd of Trump Administration “resisters” in June 2018 her words amounted to a declaration of mob rule.  She called for Progressive activists to identify administration officials out in the public square and then to form mobs that would drive them out.  Although Rep. Waters didn’t explicitly call for violence there could be no reasonable assumption that an angry, hate filled mob would never reach that end.

This call to assault has been heeded on numerous occasions.  The Washington Post in a July 2018 article identified Trump administration officials Kellyanne Conway, Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, Vice President Pence, Sean Spicer, Scott Pruitt, Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Kirstjen Nielsen as victims of verbal assault and personal threats.  A waitress at a high-end Chicago bar spit in the face of Eric Trump.


Kathy Griffin, ISIS like, holds up the mock decapitated head of President Trump.

The list of politicians and celebrities who have deployed violent language or imagery against President Trump is long, including ex-Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Corey Booker, Robert De Niro, Kathy Griffin, Johnny Depp, Snoop Dogg, George Lopez, Moby, Rosie O’Donnell, Mickey Rourke, and Larry Wilmore.  In New York City a Shakespeare in the Park production of “Julius Caesar” depicted a Trump look-alike being brutally murdered to the applause of many in the audience. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told senior Democrats that she’d like to see President Donald Trump in prison.

But these public assaults are not limited to members of the Trump administration.  Senator Ted Cruz and his wife were driven out of a restaurant by a mob.  Senate Majority Leader Mich McConnell has had angry protestors outside of his home on numerous occasions (including one where a mob member said that McConnell “should have broken his little raggedy, wrinkled-(expletive) neck” and another holding a voodoo doll yelled “Just stab the m—– f—– in the heart.”).  A journalist suggested that Sen. Susan Collins deserved the death threats she has received.


Antifa rioters beat up a person who got in their way.

Nor are private citizens immune from this riot mentality.  Outspoken conservatives Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens were driven out of a Philadelphia restaurant by an aggressive mob.  Tucker Carlson of the Fox News Channel has had aggressive demonstrations outside his home while he was out, terrifying his wife and children.  Antifa mobs have rampaged through the streets of multiple cities destroying property and beating up anyone who gets in their way.

The scope and depth of this Progressive mob mentality far exceeds even these appalling examples, as will be discussed in the next post.

A Two-Tiered Moral Standard (4)


Two radicals elected to the presidency, two completely different reactions by their opponents

The Radical Difference Between Our Two Most Recent Presidents

On Tuesday, November 4, 2008 the citizens of the United States elected of Barack Obama, the Democrat candidate, to the office of President.  Many of the almost sixty-million who voted for John McCain, the Republican candidate, consider Mr. Obama to be the most radical Progressive politician ever elected to the presidency.

For example, it was indisputable that Mr. and Mrs. Obama had been for decades members of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ whose senior pastor was the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.  Pastor Wright was a public supporter of Louis Farrakhan who is a virulent anti-Semite and hater of the United States.  After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks the Rev. Wright gave a fiery sermon in which he gleefully yelled that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost!”  In another sermon the Rev. Wright said “God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people.” Mr. Obama considered Pastor Wright to be his spiritual advisor and the good pastor officiated at Mr. and Mrs. Obama’s wedding.  Before Senator Obama disassociated himself from the Rev. Wright he said “I can no more disown him [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community.”


Bill Ayers stomps on the United States’ flag in 2001.

Many also knew that Barack Obama’s first run for the Illinois state Senate was launched at the house of Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn.  The 1995 event was a fundraiser and kickoff for the campaign.  These two individuals are utterly unrepentant about their previous lives as leaders of a domestic Marxist terrorist organization in the late 1960s and early 1970s, that being the Weather Underground.  When provided the opportunity to apologize for the murder and mayhem of his terrorist group in 2001 he responded by saying “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

In 2007 Senator Obama was designated to be the “most liberal Senator” by the National Journal.  In 2008 Louis Farrakhan endorsed Senator Obama, leading Senator Hillary Clinton to criticize the


This photo was hidden from the public until 2018.

implied ideological commonality. During the 2008 campaign Senator Obama chose to denigrate tens of millions of American citizens when he made his “bitter clinger” comments.  Five days before election day candidate Obama said in a public speech that his purpose was to “fundamentally transform” the United States.

My purpose is not to relitigate the 2008 presidential election.  Rather I’m pointing out that those who opposed an Obama presidency had very good reason to fear the consequences of his victory.  And yet there was no coordination among the George W. Bush Justice Department, Intelligence Agencies and State Department to investigate the Obama campaign as possibly infested by traitors.  There was no fraudulent “dossier,” funded and created by the McCain campaign using foreign (primarily Russian) sources to undermine Senator Obama’s candidacy or to destroy his presidency after his win.  And after Mr. Obama won the election there was no outpouring of demands for “resistance” by outgoing Bush high ranking officials.

There were no Republican calls to impeach Mr. Obama from the moment he he was declared the election winner.  There were no attempts to convince Electors to vote for Mr. McCain even though a majority in their state had voted for Mr. Obama.  There were no claims that Mr. Obama’s victory was illegitimate due to foreign (primarily Russian) interference and even vote count changing in the election.  Celebrities didn’t speak about blowing up the White House, ask how long it’s been since an actor assassinated a president or pose with a mock decapitated Obama head.  Elected Republican officials didn’t call for Obama administration officials to be hounded out of the public square.

No, the people in opposition to Mr. Obama accepted that the nation had legitimately elected the most radically Progressive man in its history to the Presidency.  They weren’t happy about this development, but had no intention of being a disloyal (to the nation’s will and its Constitution) opposition.

And yet, when in 2016 the nation chose to elect Mr. Trump to the presidency all hell broke loose.  All the things that hadn’t happened to Mr. Obama did happen (and then some) to Mr. Trump.  

As a result the nation hasn’t been this divided since the 1960s Vietnam War era.  A credible case can be made that our contemporary division is worse since in the 1960s it was a foreign policy issue over which we were divided as opposed to now when the very legitimacy of our democratic institutions are under attack.

What this nation has been experiencing since election day 2016 is nothing less than a wild Progressive riot in our streets, our government agencies, our mass media, our educational institutions, our states, and our federal legislatures and courts.    The riot’s purpose is to overturn the 2016 election results, thus disenfranchising the over sixty-million citizens who elected Mr. Trump to the presidency.

This situation represents a radical break in our nation’s culture and institutions.  This blog seeks to explain how we arrived here and where we could be going.  By so doing perhaps the illusions that allowed such a situation to develop can be dispelled, thus enabling a more effective opposition.

Our Bloody-Minded Betters (3)


Shameless Deception

There’s another dimension to the current Progressive bloody-mindedness, that being the


The source of unaccountability.

absolutely shameless lies of the highest Democrat leadership.  I’ve previously touched on the lack of any mainstream media (MSM) accountability that has enabled this pathetic situation.  However, even though this is the case, human beings with even a shred of morality or decency would hesitate to take full advantage.  This is clearly not the case for the two top House of Representative members who are driving the Trump impeachment effort, those being Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Chair Adam Schiff.

Chairman Adam Schiff

Just for starters, this is the man who for over two years appeared on every MSM news show that would have him claiming that there is “ample evidence” that the Trump campaign colluded with Russians.

Schiff said there is evidence — heard by the committee behind closed doors —that he can’t talk about publicly because it remains classified.

And yet, when the Mueller Report cleared the President, his campaign (and any American citizen for that matter) of “collusion” with the Russians Mr. Schiff didn’t admit that he had been lying all along.  Rather he simply moved on the the Ukraine “collusion” claim.

However, with the benefit of recent revelations is appears most likely that Mr. Schiff and his staff “colluded” with a partisan Democrat CIA bureaucrat to manufacture a “whistleblower” complaint against the President based entirely on hearsay evidence.  They assumed that the President would refuse, due to Executive Privilege, to release the transcript of his call with the new Ukrainian President, thus allowing the “whistleblower’s” unfounded claims to characterize the President’s behavior.

When the President blew this plan out of the water by releasing both the transcript and the “whistleblower” complaint to the public, Chairman Schiff was placed in an impossible position.  That is, by release of both documents the public could compare the claims of the complaint against the actual conversation.  And thus the entire “whistleblower” complaint was shown to be untrue.

Screen Shot 2019-10-04 at 7.20.44 PM

But all in order to defend and uphold our Constitution, of course!

So, what is a partisan Democrat to do?  Well, in Adan Schiff’s case lie through his teeth.  Chairman Schiff sat down in the House Intelligence Committee’s leadership chair and made up out of thin air a rendition of the President’s conversation.  The made up “transcript” quoted by Chairman Schiff “confirmed” all of the “whistleblower’s” claims.

When Mr. Schiff was called on his lies to the public from the Intelligence Committee’s Chairman chair he admitted the lie (there was no other way out) but claimed that his comments had been “parody.”  I challenge anyone to view the video and claim that this is so.  I also challenge anyone to show another example of the Chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee being used as a platform to disseminate parody to the American public.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Now, you might think that the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, would be a bit more circumspect than a mere Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.  Boy would you be wrong.  In fact, Speaker Pelosi, after Rep. Schiff had admitted his “parody” lie, claimed on national television that it wasn’t a lie at all!

Screen Shot 2019-10-05 at 6.26.54 AMHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi falsely claimed in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s fabrication of the transcript between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky was actually real.  …

“I know you support Chairman Schiff, but was it right for him to have that dramatic interpretation of the president’s transcript of the phone call at the hearing last week?” Stephanopoulos asked.

“I want the American people to know what that phone call was about. I want them to hear, it. So yeah it’s fair,” Pelosi said Thursday on “Good Morning America.”

“It’s sad, but it’s using the president’s own words,” she added.

“But those weren’t the president’s words, it was an interpretation of the president’s words. They’re saying he made this up,” he replied.

“He did not make it up,” Pelosi insisted.

Speaker Pelosi has also attempted to wrap her impeachment obsession in the lie that she and her party are “defending the Constitution.”

Screen Shot 2019-10-04 at 7.23.41 PMThere is no mistaking that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying to wrap the Democrat-led impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump in the Constitution, but in reality she is undermining it.

In announcing her decision last week to go forward with the inquiry, she referenced the Constitution multiple times.

During a joint news conference with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff on Wednesday, Pelosi took it to the next level, saying “Constitution” dozens of times.

One of the more ironic and troubling instances came near the end of the 30-minute session when the speaker said, “We have to be worthy of the Constitution as we go forward. We have to be fair to the president, and that’s why this is an inquiry and not an outright impeachment, and we have to give the president his chance to exonerate himself.”

Did you catch that? “Exonerate himself.”

In other words, in her mind and Schiff’s too, as I will show in a moment, Trump is guilty of an impeachable offense until he proves himself innocent.

It doesn’t take a law degree to know that this statement is unconstitutional.

Not only did Speaker Pelosi directly contradict the constitution in her above statement, but she is leading a party that is on the record (at the Presidential candidate level) of opposing it and demanding it be subverted or destroyed in service of their political goals.

Screen Shot 2019-10-04 at 7.12.44 PM

Hey, Ms. Clinton, you can update this to the 21st-century by changing from “paper shredder” to “BleachBit“!

Screen Shot 2019-10-04 at 7.16.19 PM

Rep. Tlaib: Arrest WH Officials Who Don’t Comply With Subpoenas

Thus Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff claim to be “defending” a Constitution that their party is openly seeking to undermine and destroy.

This is another shameless, pathetic and bloody-minded lie by our supposed “betters”.

South Bend Indiana Abortion Horror


The “pro-choice” community will ignore any horror rather than reassess their death-ideology.  But it’s getting to the point of pathetic absurdity.

Thousands of preserved fetal remains found on property of deceased Will County doctor

SOUTH BEND, Ind.– Thousands of fetal remains were found at the home of a former South Bend abortion doctor, WSBT reports.

The remains were discovered while family members were searching through the home of Dr. Ulrich Klopfer, who passed away on Sept. 3. His home is in Will County, Illinois.

By the way, did you notice the city in which this vile abortionist worked, why yes, Mayor Pete’s South Bend Indiana!  And this abortionist and Mayor Pete were not strangers.

… Klopfer’s clinic was located in South Bend, Indiana. And while he was there, good ol’ Godly Mayor Pete (or Alcalde Pete, if you were watching the Spanish portion of the Democrat debate) intervened to help him out.

This is the kind of man Buttigieg is. He defended Klopfer when his license was under attack. He provided the administrative firepower necessary to overturn a zoning decision that would have put a pro-life pregnancy center next door to Klopfer. And he thinks a child still attached to the umbilical cord can be legally killed because it isn’t yet breathing.

The above article calls Mayor Buttigieg “Godly Mayor Pete” because he is currently the most prominent “Christian” advocate for abortion in the United States.

Screen Shot 2019-09-17 at 5.36.05 AM

Godly Mayor Pete shares his deep thoughts on the Bible and abortion.

As with so many Progressive Christian theological innovations, Godly Mayor Pete doesn’t know or care what the Bible actually has to say about human life, but rather has Gnostic knowledge about what the Bible should say.  Here’s Godly Mayor Pete’s exegesis of the Bible.

[Pro-life people] hold everybody in line with this one piece of doctrine about abortion, which is obviously a tough issue for a lot of people to think through morally. Then again, there’s a lot of parts of the Bible that talk about how life begins with breath.

To anyone who considers this post to be an extreme reaction, I point out that so unavoidable has this horror become that it has even penetrated the New York Times’ progressive force field (excerpt from “The Abortion Mysticism of Pete Buttigieg,”
by Ross Douthat).

The version of pro-choice politics that has been generally successful in this country allows Americans to support abortion rights within limits, while still regarding figures like Dr. Klopfer as murderous or monstrous.

But the more maximalist and mystical your claims about when personhood begins (or doesn’t), the more strained that distinction gets. The unapologetic grisliness of a Klopfer, or a Kermit Gosnell before him, haunts a Buttigiegian abortion politics more than it does a “safe, legal, rare” triangulation, because it establishes the most visceral of contrasts — between the mysticism required to believe that the right to life begins at birth and the cold and obvious reality that what our laws call a nonperson can still become a corpse.

In a previous post I asked of the pro-choice community “Have You No Shame, No Conscience?”  Unless I start to hear something soon my conclusion will have to be “No, no you don’t.

Screen Shot 2019-09-17 at 5.44.59 AM

Sir, you don’t understand.  To Godly Mayor Pete, Jesus Christ isn’t the eternal Second Person of the Trinitarian Christian God, but rather an avatar who confirms his every Progressive belief.

The Progressive Compulsion for Cruelty (5)


Democrat presidential candidates sliding along the arc of neo-Marxist morality

Fury and Hatred Unbound


Have you noticed how angry are many of the current crop of Democratic presidential candidates?  Senator Elizabeth Warren often appears to literally quiver with fury as she speaks about the nation’s many evils.  Senator Bernie Sanders gesticulates wildly while yelling about the need for Socialist policies.  Beto O’Rourke seethes with hatred as he blames President Trump and his supporters for the El Paso mass shooting.  And Senator Kamala Harris speaks (and laughs) with cold-blooded viciousness about Constitutional limitations on her power.

There has always been strong emotion associated with political candidates.  They want to show that they care, and exaggerated emotional posturing is just par for the course.  However, something is troublingly different this time around.  In the past, candidates understood that, if they win, their success partially depends on earning consent from those who didn’t vote for them.  For these and other Democratic candidates it appears that they consider citizens who don’t support their policies to be enemies.  And, as enemies, they should expect to be purposefully, intentionally punished if these politicians obtain sufficient power.

In a past post I’ve commented on the root cause of this change, that being:

The ultimate root cause of this self-righteous madness is the abandonment of the Christian religion (which is based on transcendent revelation) in favor of a secular religion based on Progressive human ideology.

But that phrase, Progressive human ideology, although it’s a start, isn’t sufficient to convey my point.  In particular, to just what specific ideology am I referring?  After all, Progressivism has been a powerful political force in the United States for more than a century.  And, isn’t all ideology human made, regardless of its particular details?  Yes.

Becoming Specific

I am indeed pointing to a specific ideology whose ascendency in Progressive circles has made its adherents and leaders far less tolerant, far more aggressive and hateful and therefore far more dangerous.  That ideology is neo-Marxism and is defined in the Urban Dictionary as follows.

Neo-marxism is an offshoot of marxism, in which it is believed that all societal ills come from the divide between the rich (who are claimed to be undeserving of their wealth) and the poor (who are claimed to be oppressed). Marxists believe that all personal failings are of a direct result of someone else oppressing you, and that another person cannot be successful without oppressing another.

Neo-marxism differs from marxism by abandoning the dichotomy of rich vs poor and instead adopt identity politics. Instead of the dichotomy being between wealthy and poor, it is between successful and unsuccessful demographics. Neo-marxists divide all demographics (white, black, asian, male, female, gay, straight, etc) and place them in a hierarchy of oppression as determined by how successful that demographic is. White and Asian men are at the bottom of this hierarchy, whereas blacks and females are near the top (although the exact order is not widely accepted).

If you seek even more specificity, the New York Times’ 1619 Project is a concrete example of neo-Marxism in action.  Here’s how Andrew Sullivan explains this issue within context of the 1619 Project (emphasis added).

If you don’t believe in a liberal view of the world, if you hold the doctrines of critical race theory, and believe that “all of the systems in the country” whatever they may be, are defined by a belief in the sub-humanity of black Americans, why isn’t every issue covered that way? Baquet had no answer to this contradiction, except to say that the 1619 Project was a good start: “One reason we all signed off on the 1619 Project and made it so ambitious and expansive was to teach our readers to think a little bit more like that.” In other words, the objective was to get liberal readers to think a little bit more like neo-Marxists.

Don’t get me wrong. I think that view deserves to be heard. The idea that the core truth of human society is that it is composed of invisible systems of oppression based on race (sex, gender, etc.), and that liberal democracy is merely a mask to conceal this core truth, and that a liberal society must therefore be dismantled in order to secure racial/social justice is a legitimate worldview. (That view that “systems” determine human history and that the individual is a mere cog in those systems is what makes it neo-Marxist and anti-liberal.) But I sure don’t think it deserves to be incarnated as the only way to understand our collective history, let alone be presented as the authoritative truth, in a newspaper people rely on for some gesture toward objectivity.


Neo-Marxism is clearly derived from and organically connected to Marxism.  And Marxism has been shown by history to be one of the most vicious, intolerant, idiotic and murderous human ideologies of all time.  The one word that sums this all up is totalitarian.  I’m not saying that these Democratic presidential candidates are Marxist totalitarians.  However, if contemporary Progressives can quote Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (who was likely quoting Theodore Parker) that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice,” then I will say that “the arc of Marxist morality bends towards totalitarianism.”

I see this “bending” as the Democrats demand fundamental changes to our republic (e.g., removing the Electoral College and the Senate, revoking the First and Second Amendments from the Bill of Rights, etc.) without acknowledging the Constitutional means of so doing.  For example:

Kamala Harris thinks the Constitution is a joke.

At least, that’s what you’d think from some of her answers at Thursday night’s Democratic presidential debate. At the ABC event in Houston, moderators pressed the California Democrat on her promises to ban assault weapons via executive action, not legislation, and whether that would be really constitutional. Fellow candidate Joe Biden jumped in to challenge Harris on the constitutionality of her plans.

She laughed.

Yes, literally: Harris’s first response was to laugh away the question, and said “Hey Joe, yes we can,” making a joke using a play on words with an old slogan from the Obama campaign.

And it isn’t limited to Kamala Harris.

One of the more shocking aspects of last week’s Democratic debate was the cavalier manner in which the Constitution was treated. Beto O’Rourke said he intends to confiscate guns that were legally purchased by law-abiding Americans, and put out a t-shirt to that effect immediately after the debate. Kamala Harris said the same thing, and when Joe Biden pointed out that the government lacks power to do what she proposed, she laughed at him.

Screen Shot 2019-09-15 at 6.31.40 AM

A long way along the arc of Marxist morality

If these Democrats achieve sufficient political power no-one should be surprised if they seek to impose “fundamental change” by extra-Constitutional means.  At that point I suspect that many citizens, members of law enforcement or military and elected officials will begin to concretely assess their responsibility (or explicit oath) to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

iBooks Publish Announcement: A Denomination’s Debacle

I have published my fourth eBook on iBooks.  If you have an iOS device then you can use this link to access.  If you do not use an iOS device, a PDF version can be found on my blog using this link.

Screen Shot 2019-08-14 at 5.59.24 AM

A Denomination’s Debacle

This book is an indictment of the leadership elite who have driven the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), or PCUSA, into an utter debacle.

The most visible aspect of this debacle is the unprecedented loss of membership and churches that occurred between 2011 and 2017. Over that time span the PCUSA experienced a net loss of 601,000 members and 1146 churches, which is almost 30% of its membership and almost 12% of its churches. But these numbers don’t capture the human cost in broken trust, lost faith and shattered relationships that has occurred behind the scenes.

What remains is a denomination dominated by a post-Christian elite who use their power to advance a social gospel that is virtually indistinguishable from the secular Progressive political project. To some readers this charge against the PCUSA leadership will seem to be not just extraordinary, but also unbelievable. This book contains the extraordinary evidence that justifies the charge.

Preface Excerpt

The reader may well ask why I feel compelled to tell this story. I do so for three reasons.

First, the elite denominational leadership has obtained this end under the cloak of purposeful deception. This deception is not found in their policy and theological positions. No, they have aggressively advanced their cause with general honesty. The deception is that they claim to have been doing so as a legitimate expression of orthodox Reformed Christianity. By so doing they have preyed with premeditation and malice upon the trust of the denomination’s parishioners. We will never recover from this spell unless the truth is exposed.

Second, there are still many faithful members and churches in the PCUSA. However, unless they fully understand the forces arrayed against them they will likely eventually succumb. Only if they understand that their presence in the denomination is as a light shining in the darkness can they be protected from the apostasy and heresy that surrounds them. That understanding is what sustained the Apostles and early Christians as they proclaimed the Gospel as isolated individuals and churches in the pagan Roman Empire. The challenge we face is far less extreme. Yet, if we prioritize the comfort and peace of our lives over our responsibilities as followers of Christ even the small courage required will elude us.

Finally, the forces that have corrupted the PCUSA act upon our general culture and thus are not unique to this denomination. Therefore, we can expect that other churches and denominations are struggling under the same theological onslaught as has laid the PCUSA low. Thus this book attempts to explain these forces and how a corrupt leadership can by deception and seduction smuggle false theology into an otherwise orthodox Christian fellowship.

Table of Contents


Page 1 of 3



Page 2 of 3



Page 3 of 3