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


The Silence of the Lambs (3)

Screen Shot 2019-04-04 at 5.13.25 AMThe Horrible, Heart-Breaking Details

Unless you read the details behind the (likely conservative) statistics on Christian persecution you can’t begin to appreciate the magnitude and depth of this situation.  Although they are on the whole ignored, there are organizations who pay attention, collect information and seek to educate the West about this issue.  One such group is the Gatestone Institute, who published a monthly report on worldwide Christian persecution.  These stories rarely appear in the mainstream media and are rarely discussed, let alone responded to, in the Western Christian Church.  Here is a tiny fraction from two monthly reports.

January 2019

The Slaughter of Christians

Central African Republic: A militant Islamic group raided a Catholic church compound and massacred dozens of Christians, including two priests, in the small town of Alindao, on November 15. According to the report, the group, which consists of “mainly Muslim and Fulani militia, stormed the cathedral and the nearby refugee camp hosting more than 26,000 people displaced following previous attacks in the town and its surrounding villages.” Pictures and testimonials “revealed the scale of the devastation as dozens of bodies littered the ground, mixed with the burned debris of tents … Some of the victims were burned beyond recognition, while others had been shot or dismembered with machetes. Bishop Juan Jose Aguirre Muños provided more details: “The men of Ali Darassa assaulted, looted and set fire to the displaced camp and killed women and children; they burned down the cathedral where they killed the two priests.” Immediately afterwards, the terrorists “allowed groups of young Muslims of the western part to enter the eastern part of Alindao and looted the bishop’s residence and burned the presbytery and the centre of Caritas.” The same Christian town suffered from a similar attack on May 8, 2017; then, between 130 and several hundred “Christian townspeople and villagers” were butchered. Due to these ongoing attacks, on November 16 the Central African Episcopal Conference issued a statement, saying that the Catholic Church “has become the target of armed groups in Central Africa.” In 2018, five Catholic priests were killed by the Muslim militants in various attacks.

February 2017

The Slaughter of Christians in Egypt

As in January, when five different Christians were killed in four separate hate crimes around the country, another murderous wave took non-Muslim minorities by storm, this time in al-Arish, Sinai. The murders may have resulted from a video released in February by the “Islamic State in Egypt.” In the video, masked militants promise more attacks on the “worshipers of the cross” — a reference to the Coptic Christians of Egypt, of whom they also refer to as their “favorite prey” and “infidels who are empowering the West against Muslim nations.” One of the militants, carrying an AK-47 assault rifle, added, “God gave orders to kill every infidel.”

Muslim Abduction, Rape, Murder and Mutilation of Christian Women

Pakistan: Hours after being dropped off at the Convent of Jesus and Mary school in Punjab by her brother, Tania Mariyam, a 12-year-old Christian girl, was found dead in a canal. Despite all the evidence to the contrary — including her clothes being ripped off and signs of drugging — police investigations concluded that she had committed suicide. After three weeks of pressure from Mariyam’s family and human rights groups, who insisted that the girl had been raped and murdered — as so many Christian girls (and boys) in Pakistan have been before her — police finally conceded that she had not killed herself. Even so, “the severe delays,” says the British Pakistani Christian Association, “mean that much of the evidence has been lost.”

“There was a disgusting police cover up,” the murdered girl’s father said, “and I fear that they have colluded with the murderer and know more than they are letting on. They do not care about Christians.”

How can it be that we in the Western Church are so unaware of this terrible persecution or are aware but so unwilling to provide help?  It’s not because the Bible teaches us to ignore the needs of our brothers and sisters in Christ.  Rather quite the opposite.

I do not need to write to you about helping those who belong to Christ.  I know you want to do it. (2 Corinthians 9:1, 2a)

God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. (Hebrews 6:10)

So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith. (Galatians 6:10)

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. (Acts 2:28)

Making Sense of It All (4)


The Architects of a Conservative Political Debacle

How We Got Here (2)

The Conservative Right

The primary source of confusion within the conservative movement has been just what to conserve.  The inability of conservative politicians to answer this question within the bounds of successful politics created deep antipathy between themselves and those whom they presume to represent.  The consequent disgust and distrust has risen over the years to the point that conservative politicians sometimes appear to have disowned their voters, and the voters have disassociated themselves from the politicians.  That this was allowed to happen is one of the greatest feats of political madness in my living memory.

Where to start?  Were this a less contemporary meditation I’d go way back to 1990 when President George H. W. Bush broke his solemn promise of “read my lips: no new taxes!”  Rather I’ll begin with his son, President George W. Bush.  Mr. Bush ran for President in 2000 on the slogan of “compassionate conservatism.”  It was only after his election that we found out that “compassionate” meant:

  • Signing into law the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill that substantially diminished the freedom most necessary for a healthy republic, that being political speech
  • Prosecuted a war in Iraq that a majority of citizens came to believe was an utter failure
  • Continued the increase in governmental spending that was in indifferentiable from that of a progressive leftist
  • Enthusiastic support for a “comprehensive immigration bill” that was supported by the business community and the Republican donor class but that was anathema to a majority of citizens
  • Refused to defend himself, his administration or his philosophy from vile assaults by the political opposition
  • Standing idly by, or even encouraging (i.e., easy loans to bolster home ownership) government policies that caused the 2008 financial crisis.

When Mr. Bush left office in 2009 he had managed to utterly discredit the conservative political philosophy, thus paving the way for a disasterous experiment in progressive leftist rule.

jillgreenbergatlanticcovIn 2008 a demoralized Republican Party managed to nominate for President the man least able to challenge the ideology and policies of the Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama.  That man was Senator John McCain.  Here we had a man who had sought to gain favor with the Mainstream Media as a “maverick” by gleefully and sometimes savagely attacking more conservative members of his own party.  He was a champion of  “bi-partsianship,” which in practice meant caving to the progressive left on core issues such as freedom of speech and illegal immigration.  Finally, he was one of the most “hawkish” national politicians at a time of extreme war-wariness in the nation.  None of this created much enthusiasm in the Republican base or in the general population.

And, just as with George W. Bush before him, his bi-partsianship counted for less than nothing when confronting the Democratic machine.  All of his former “friends” in the Mainstream Media turned on him once the candidates were in place.  He could not draw credible, clear distinctions with the ideology or policies of the most leftist Presidential candidate in American history because he didn’t appear to have a philosophy other than pragmatism.  He wasn’t trusted in judgement, temperament or philosophy by a large portion of the Republican base.

Perhaps no-one could have beaten Senator Obama.  However a political party picking the candidate least likely to, when his deficiencies were clearly apparent, can only be judged as terrible political malpractice.  And so, after the 2008 election Barack Obama was President and the Democrats held large majorities in both the House and Senate.

The Republican Party had utterly failed to earn the respect of its opponents and the trust of those whom it presumed to represent.  The only term that approaches the truth is “utter political debacle.”

Debacle Bonus Material: Trifecta Edition

  1. Win: The Bush family utterly confuses and discredits political Conservatism over three teams in the Presidency.
  2. Place: In 2008 the Republican Party nominates for President the man, John McCain, who is least able to oppose the Progressive Leftism of Barack Obama on principle, and, who is disliked and distrusted by a large segment of the GOP base.
  3. Show:

The Republican Party completes an unheard of “political debacle trifecta” by, in 2012, nominating the man least able to effectively criticize ObamaCare for President – Mitt Romney.

Making Sense of It All (3)

The Shortest WayHow We Got to Here (1)

Setting aside our ideological leanings and personal preferences, can we all agree that “here” is legitimately described as a nation suffering a schizophrenic nervous breakdown?  Need I describe the behavior of our elected political leaders, the media, our clergy, professors, bureaucrats, lawyers, business leaders, celebrities, etc., in detail to support this point?  If I do than you must have just recently awoken from a decade long coma.  If you think that one of the sides is behaving reasonably then you are so far down some ideological rabbit hole that there is no hope of reaching you.

I am not here pretending to be some wondrously moderate soul who stands above the fray tisk-tisking at all those foolish others.  No, I am way down there in the fray, driven by my own set of ideological leanings and personal preferences.  However, if we believe that there is something called the truth which exists beyond leaning and preference, then we must acknowledge the sad, pathetic state into which we have led this nation.

Any nation will be riven by powerful opposing forces.  The issue is wether those forces can be accommodated within the bounds of civilized politics or will burst forth into chaos, violence and disaster.  At this point it could go either way.

Although both the progressive left and conservative right appear to be suffering from schizophrenia, the underlying reasons differ considerably.  Therefore, in the following posts I will discuss these specific cases within this context.


Making Sense of It All (1)


How hard could it possibly be?


The past thirty months have been revealing and clarifying.

image-20161110-26340-16q3pjoOn June 16, 2015 a celebrity businessman descended the escalator in his self-named building to declare himself a candidate for the Presidency.  His name is Donald Trump, and, aside from my shock at the crudity of his language concerning illegal immigrants, I barely took notice.  After all, he was just one more candidate for the Republican nomination, and, so I believed, was just in it for the free publicity.

A little more than thirteen months later, in July 2016, the Republican Party officially nominated Donald Trump as their candidate for the U.S. Presidency.  Four months later, in November 2016 Donald Trump was elected to the Presidency.  And, for the thirteen months since his election we have witnessed a political firestorm that has melted the facades of our society, revealing disturbing and surprising information.

In this series of blogs I will attempt to “make sense of it all.”

The 2016 Presidential Election Ends


I voted this morning, and, as promised, did not vote for any of the Presidential candidates. I finally found a good explanation of my thinking, in an article published this summer from Matthew Franck. He writes:

After a lifetime of studying politics, I have finally, thanks to the electoral annus horribilis of 2016, arrived at an ethic of voting that I can defend against all rival ethics. It is simply this: Vote as if your ballot determines nothing whatsoever—except the shape of your own character. Vote as if the public consequences of your action weigh nothing next to the private consequences. The country will go whither it will go, when all the votes are counted. What should matter the most to you is whither you will go, on and after this November’s election day.

There will be much to say once this election is decided.

Thoughts on the 2016 Presidential Election (3)

635924331778920089-603679492_tzoneConcluding Thoughts

I have been making the case that neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton deserves to be elected President of the United States.  Unfortunately, one of them will surely win the election.  So, the question becomes: Why not vote for the lesser of two evils?  After all, depending on your political leanings, one of them surely looks worse than the other.

However, in this particular case I don’t believe “choosing the lesser of two evils” is the correct decision.  It’s not because voting for either candidate would be approval for a person who, I believe, will lead this nation further down the path to “strong-(wo)man” rule. I refuse to use my vote as a citizen of the United States of America to affirm any candidate who will purposefully lead us further away from the Constitutional Republic upon which this nation founded.


The simple fact is that, as of this election, neither major political party has nominated a person who appears to believe in a constitutional republic.  They, and their supporters appear to rather believe in the candidate’s personal will to power.  I stand in complete opposition to that political model.


A Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government’s power over citizens.

Some may propose voting for one of the “third party candidates” as a viable alternative.  But voting for a man who apparently takes pride in being a foreign policy “know-nothing,” engages in bizarre personal behavior and enthuses about building a legalized pot business doesn’t meet my bar for support.  Nor does a woman who commits criminal vandalism on the campaign trail in support of “ecological socialism.”

I simply refuse to participate in the destruction of our constitutional republic by voting for the candidate who might move us less-far down the road to the same disastrous destination.  I have voted for the “lesser of evils” on many occasions.  There comes a point where the only moral choice is refusal to participate in a destructive, corrupt election.  For me, that point has arrived.

May our gracious God have mercy on the United States of America.