Is America Heading for Civil War?

I hope the answer is no. I hope David French of National Review is correct in his assessment. OTOH, I do not share his optimism.

If the two sides each had a “live and let live” mentality and didn’t mind the “Red” and “Blue” regions breaking up, this would have a peaceable resolution.

Having said that, I don’t see the Totalitarian Left–which dominates the Deep State–tolerating any breakup. Governor Moonbeam is going to want “Red” America to bail out California. And as businesses bail from Illinois, Washington, Oregon, and New England, those regions are not going to be thrilled at the prospect of funding their socialist scams without the support of the “Red” states.

Nor do I see a Beltway apparatus being amenable to an amicable split. They’ll fight it, and probably with real artillery.

I don’t like the prospect of war. I have blogged against that on these pages: Christians, as far as it depends on them, cannot afford to pick that fight with government.

People who want that war have not thought this through.

(1) The day you so much as aim a firearm–or any other piece of weaponry–at a government agent, your life as you know it is over. That means your family–from your children to your relatives–will not be safe. If you’re lucky, you will be in hiding for the rest of your life.

(2) Go ahead and gush about 1776, and how we kicked King George’s ass. That is not the general outcome of these wars. That our Revolution produced the most free and prosperous nation in world history is no guarantee that any such revolt will provide a similar outcome. More often than not, a civil war generally ends poorly.

What David French has provided is a best-case scenario, and I hope he is correct.

The cynic in me says we are heading for Civil War II. And it will make the first one look benign.

I say that because there are simply too many trigger-happy morons on each side.

Assessing Team Trump

In the first three weeks of his Presidency, President Trump has doused gasoline on the system and lit the match. For both better and worse.

(a) His first press conference included a dismissal of CNN as “fake news”. (It was deserved on their end.)

(b) His Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, stepped in it by making inaccuate claims about the crowd sizes at Trump’s inauguration. Part of his comments were correct, but he made false statements while trying to bolster his point. Kellyanne Conway, sadly, doubled down, handing the mainstream media with quite the sound bite: “alternative facts”.

(c) Trump’s Executive Order restricting immigration from seven countries–the same list that Obama used in a similar EO in 2011–sent his opposition into frenzies. They went court-shopping, and successfully shot his EO down in the Ninth Circus. Trump won’t appeal, because–due to the fact that SCOTUS will come down with a 4-4 split, thus upholding the Ninth Circus–it will be futile.

(d) Trump, keeping a campaign promise, nominated a hard conservative–Neil Gorsuch–to fill the spot vacated by the late Antonin Scalia.

(e) Trump, in an effort to revisit prior refugee deals made by the Obama Administration, had some contentious meetings with allies, particularly Australia.

(f) His first authorized military operation–an intelligence raid on an Al Qaeda outpost in Yemen–resulted in civilian casualties and the death of a Navy SEAL.

(g) His key cabinet appointees were narrowly-approved. Tillerson is in at SecState; Carson is in at HUD; Price is in at HHS; Sessions is in at DoJ; and–in a major upset–DeVos is in at Education.

(h) Kellyanne Conway misstepped by suggesting that people can still buy Ivanka Trump’s product line that was dropped by Nordstom’s. Conway, failing to remember that she now works for the PUBLIC sector, ran afoul of ethics rules. While I think that was an honest mistake, Team Trump did well to slap her on the wrist and tell her to go and sin no more.

(i) Kellyanne Conway got her wires crossed when defending Trump’s Executive Order, referencing the refugees from Iraq who gave us the non-existent “Bowling Green Massacre”. While it is true that two refugees from Iraq were arrested in Bowling Green for attempting to commit terrorist attacks–this is what led to Obama’s 2011 travel ban–there was no “Bowling Green Massacre”.

(She may have conflated that with the Islamist who shot up the military recruiting posts in Chattanooga.)

It was quite the gaffe; I found it entertaining. The quick-witted Conway needs to take this month as a lesson in thinking before speaking. Sometimes she is too quick-witted for her own good.

But what can Trump take away from this?

(1) He now has a better idea where the enemy is. There’s an old saying: bureaucracies live forever. Much of his fight is not about liberal versus conservative; there is no small amount of institutional pressure to keep the existing infrastructure, because many high money people are profiting off that structure.

This is why DeVos faced such hard opposition. Nothing for which DeVos stands will cause a disaster in education–in fact, children and parents will see their choices and quality materially improve–but she is a threat to two of the biggest rackets in the public sector: The American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association. DeVos is a champion for a new economy education model, in the midst of an establishment that is vested in the old, antiquated education model.

(2) No matter what he does, he will get the full-court press from the opposition. His immigration Executive Order showed the face of his opposition. Never mind that his EO was very similar to Obama’s EO in 2011.

What he should do: (a) rescind his EO, and (b) re-issue the exact EO that Obama issued in 2011, verbatim. It won’t be everything he wants, but the left will have no room to complain. And if any terrorists attack as a result of looser refugee policies, he will have the mother of all sticks with which to beat his opposition.

(3) He needs to tighten the quality control. While he is correct about mainstream media, his team has done him no favors with their missteps. Spicer has stepped in it; Conway has had three big gaffes, one of those coming while trying to defend Spicer. Trump needs to demand that they do their homework and ensure that they are better-prepared before speaking in public forums.

Rather than invent new sound bytes–“alternative facts”–Conway can simply speak to the larger issue rather than defend an obvious blunder by someone from Trump’s team. Conway should ensure that she understands the point about which she is going to speak before she actually speaks it: she was right about the two Iraqis captured in Kentucky, but there was no “Bowling Green Massacre”.

(4) He needs to learn the lesson of Joshua and the Gibeonites. In the Scriptures, Joshua and the Israelites were conquering lands decisively: Jericho and Ai. No survivors. Jericho was burned to the ground.

A nearby tribe of folks–Gibeonites–decided they did not want to fight the Israelites, because they actually feared what God would do to them. They dressed like a bunch of poor nomads and approached the Israelites, pledging to make peace with them. The Israelites–who were not supposed to make covenants with the people of the land–did not consult God and instead hastily struck a covenant deal with the Gibeonites.

When the truth came out, the Israelites were furious. They wanted to go in and punish the Gibeonites for what they did to them. But, at the end of the day, they realized that a bad covenant is still a covenant. As a result, they were still bound to the terms of that covenant.

Trump needs to accept this reality with respect to refugee deals made by Obama with other countries, particularly Australia. Don’t blame Australia for Obama making a bad deal. Trump didn’t sign that deal, but he inherited it. He needs to abide by it, even if it was not his deal.

(5) Tread carefully with Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin is a shady figure in the international scene. A former KGB Colonel, he has shown himself to be intelligent, shrewd, and even dirty. If reports are correct, then he likely has blood on his hands, directly ordering the murder of former KGB Colonel Alexander Litvinenko as well as several media figures in Russia. At the same time, he has been a partner with the United States in fighting Islamists, as he has his own Islamist problem in Chechnya and Dagestan.

Trump’s seemingly-cozy relationship with Putin is a potential plus and a potential minus.

On the plus side: if Trump is seeking to “keep our friends close and our enemies closer”, his overtures toward Putin can be very good.

On the downside: if Trump is not careful, he could end up giving up too much in that relationship. In that case, Putin would be their Reagan while Trump played like Gorbachev.

But Trump is no dummy. He wasn’t born yesterday, and his enemies have, at every turn, understimated him.

As his Republican opponents–and Hillary Clinton–found out the hard way: dismissing Trump is something one does at one’s own peril.

Reynolds Nails It

I’ve long had a theory about Donald Trump and his use of Twitter: he uses it as a smokescreen. The left, particularly MSM, complains of his reactions to issues via Twitter, and Hillary Clinton, in her campaign, suggested that his temperament is not up to the office, given that he “can be baited by a Tweet”.

I’ve often observed that yes, there is baiting going on between Trump and his opposition. The real issue, however is, who is baiting whom?

Personally, I think Trump’s use of Twitter–and the fracas over his Press Secretary’s statements about inaugural crowd sizes–is an orchestrated deflection away from the debate over Trump’s cabinet confirmations. By creating such diversions, his most controversial picks–like Betsy DeVos (Education) and Ben Carson (HUD) and Rick Perry (Energy)–will likely get confirmed with minimal fight.

At the same time, Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit has an appropriate take on Trump’s larger relationship with the media.

Russian Ambassador Shot Dead in Turkey

Andrei Karlov, the Russian Ambassador to Turkey, never had a chance. His assassination was caught on video.

The assassin, a Turkish police officer, was supposed to be providing security.

Russians and Turks have historically been unfriendly; their differences are ethnic, cultural, and religious. The Turkish shootdown of a Russian aircraft had already stoked recent tensions; the Erdogan regime’s apparent coziness with Islamists has also been a source of friction with Russia, which has an Islamist problem in their southern region.

Complicating matters, Turkey is a member of NATO. If they go to war with Russia, the United States is on the hook to defend Turkey.

In other words, a Cold War era alliance may leave us on the hook to defend a state whose regime is amenable to Islamism.

When the Soviet Union imploded in 1991, Pat Buchanan called for the dissolution of NATO. The rationale: NATO was a Cold War-era alliance that was designed as a response to the threat of the Soviet-backed Warsaw Pact. With the Soviet Union collapsing–and the Iron Curtain falling–it would have made better sense to reach out to the Russians and welcome them back from the bitter nightmare that was Communism.

Instead, we proceeded to ADD nations to NATO, thus expanding our threat to Russia.

The assassination of Karlov, and the Islamist “refugee” attack in Berlin, will provide incoming President Donald Trump with his first serious foreign policy test.

We must remember that World War I, festered by nationalism and underlying ethnic friction, was triggered by an assassination. That led to what was then dubbed The Great War.

The assassination of Karlov could easily be a trigger for war if cool heads don’t prevail here. And don’t think for a second that this assassination could not have been the work of elements in the West who have a vested interest in war.

After all, it was all too convenient that Karlov, in spite of being in a country where there are significant Islamist elements, a government that is friendly to those elements, existing friction with his own country, would be without his personal security detail.

Of course the assassin was shot dead, as dead men tell no tales.

Russian “Hacking”, The Smokescreen for Hillary’s Defeat

Let’s get a few things straight:

(1) There is no evidence that one ballot box was hacked by Russians.

(2) Any “hacking” by the Russians involved e-mail servers and accounts of people connected to the DNC.

(3) The primary leaker of the damaging information, Julian Assange, insists that the Russians were not the source of his leaks.

(4) Our intelligence community has provided no hard evidence for their conclusion that the leaked information was the result of Russian hacking.

(5) Hillary’s defeat was due to one person: Hillary Clinton herself. She is woefully corrupt and uninspiring. As a Senator, she was a follower and not a leader. As a SecState, she was a disaster. Her legacy is Benghazi, ISIS, and the Muslim Brotherhood. She is a liar and a crook who should be in jail. But the feministas needed her to keep stacking the court system with abortophiles. And in utero infanticide is their sacrament.

——————–

As for the alleged hacking by the Russians, it’s a total smokescreen.

Let’s say I hack into your personal network and find videos, on your computer, showing you having sex with children. Let’s say that, upon discovering such a horrible thing, I stupidly decide not to kill you but rather to report your sorry [posterior] to the FBI and other relevant law enforcement agencies.

Does my hacking of your network take away from your underlying guilt? Not by a long shot.

I would be potentially on the hook for breaking a number of laws by hacking into you network, but you’re still a child rapist and you will be going to jail without passing GO or collecting $200.

If the allegations are correct, then that, in a nutshell, is the relationship between Hillary Clinton and the DNC, and the Russians.

The issue isn’t what the Russians did or didn’t do; the reality is that Hillary and the DNC were caught lying and cheating and seeking to tamper with the election.

Hillary and the DNC were caught stealing the primary election from Bernie Sanders.

Hillary and the DNC were caught speaking their true feelings about Hispanic voters (they called Hispanic voters “taco bowls”).

Donna Brazile was caught feeding the debate questions to Hillary’s camp.

Hillary was caught telling Goldman Sachs executives her strategy of saying one thing in private while lobbying another way in public.

The Russians are certainly a nefarious lot, although their offenses–if allegations are true–are no different from those of our own CIA.

After all, it’s not like we have never run disinformation campaigns designed to influence elections in other countries. (Ukraine? Israel? Nicaragua?) It’s not like we’ve never lobbied other countries regarding issues the outcomes in which we have a vested interest. (Brexit anyone?)

And, ahem…it’s not like Hillary herself didn’t allow the flow of foreign wealth to influence her policies…

Trumpslide 2016: Post-Mortem, and What Now?

Fair disclosure: I held my nose and voted for Trump. While I did not vote for him in the primary elections–I voted for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), as Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) had pretty much suspended his campaign by the time the Kentucky caucus had arrived–I was determined to do what I could to slam the door on the Clinton Crime Family.

While I agree with most of Trump’s stated platform, I’ve long had concerns about whether he was serious about any of it. Having said that, we know that Hillary was serious about her platform. And while Trump has many moral failings in his personal life, he has not shown himself to be corrupt in his public ethics.

——–

Back to the election.

During primary season, Trump was a juggernaut. No one–and I mean no one–could hold a candle to him. Cruz performed remarkably during the debates, with the exception of his “New York values” comment, a colossal blunder which guaranteed his defeat in the Northeastern states.

Trump’s style was perfect: he was a master of the use of rhetoric–small sound bites–to dismiss his opponents and appeal to the masses.

Good dialectic makes policy, good rhetoric wins elections.

When Nixon vanquished McGovern, his team cast the Dems as the party of “acid, amnesty, and abortion.” It resonated with the American people, who rejected McGovern.

When Reagan upended Carter, he did it with one sentence: “There you go again.”

When Bush beat Dukakis, he did it with one simple pledge: “Read my lips, no new taxes.”

When Clinton beat Bush, it was “the economy, stupid.”

When Clinton beat Dole, it was “the Republicans and their risky tax scheme”, and “Dole’s war on Seniors.”

When Obama won in 2008, it was “hope and change”.

While Ted Cruz was a master of the dialectic, Trump ran circles around everyone with masterful rhetoric.

This is why, while Cruz would make an excellent Supreme Court Justice, he will never be President.

This is why Trump, fighting as a political novice in a crowded GOP field that included several Governors–Bush, Gilmore, Pataki, Perry, Jindal, Walker, Huckabee, Christie–and the top Republican stars in the Senate, beat them all, and beat them handily.

“Make America great again”

“Build the wall, and make Mexico pay for it.”

“Drain the swamp.”

“Low-energy Jeb”

“Lyin’ Ted”

“Crooked Hillary”

Great rhetoric, great salesmanship. It propelled him to the Republican nomination. He did himself well by picking Indiana Governor Mike Pence as a running mate. That was perhaps the best VP pick by a Presidential candidate since FDR picked Truman.

But in the election season, Trump had his work cut out for him: the Republican party was not on his side, and his opponent–Hillary Clinton–had never lost an election and had the big media and big money on her side.

And Democrats are masters of rhetoric: if there’s any party that can appeal with a sound bite or a sob story, it’s the Democrats.

In the general election season, Trump stumbled badly coming out of the gate. In his spat with the Gold Star family, Trump showed a reactionary pettiness where a measure of grace would have been Presidential.

But Hillary would neutralize that with her “deplorables” comment, handing Trump supporters a rhetorical stick with which they would beat her to a pulp. In one stupid comment, Hillary galvanized Trump supporters better than Trump could have done.

Making matters worse for the Democrats was Hillary herself: her use of a private e-mail server during her days as Secretary of State demonstrated reckless handling of classified information, including documents that involved “sources and methods”. If any one of us had been so flagrant in our handling of classified information, we’d be lucky to get five years on a felony plea bargain.

But FBI Director James Comey allowed her to skate, showing that in the Animal Farm known as the United States, some animals are indeed more equal than others.

Even then, Trump gained momentum going into the first debate. In the first showdown, he was slightly flat, as Hillary appeared much better-prepared. (We now know why: she knew the debate questions beforehand. Thanks, Assange!)

But Julian Assange and Wikileaks provided a drip-drip of embarassing leaks about Hillary: their continuous dumps of emails showed the contempt that Hillary has for America, the collusion between Hillary and the mainstream media–CNN was feeding her team the debate questions!–and her corrupt dealings as SecState.

The mainstream media largely ignored this, but the facts got out. And this hurt Hillary on the margins.

Then, out of nowhere, Trump suffered the mother of all October surprises: the infamous Billy Bush tapes, in which Trump made very bold, aggressive sexual brags.

What we now know as P***ygate would have sunk any other candidate, and–with polls showing Trump in an uphill battle–this threatened to kill his momentum. At that point, Dems seemed poised to take back the Senate and possibly the House.

Trump seemed doomed.

I initially said it: “Trump is done”.

I was convinced that he had lost the women’s vote.

I know a fair number of otherwise conservative, pro-life women who had decided they would not vote for Trump, hell no, no way, no how.

Then the women started accusing Trump of the very behavior about which he had bragged in the tapes. While Trump was no altar boy, I–and many friends of mine–were skeptical. That seemed all too convenient.

But in late October, as porn actress Jessica Drake accused Trump of being forward with her, I predicted–it was a hunch, but a prediction nonetheless–that Trump would win.

Whereas most candidates would have folded, Trump, ever the fighter, did not.

He performed masterfully in the second and third debates. He did something no one else had been able to do: he went on the attack against Hillary.

He did not play nice, he went for the jugular, he did not apologize.

The media excoriated him for it, but no matter: it was a “WIN” move.

The polls still had Trump sagging, but he was resonating with voters. He had punched Hillary Clinton in the mouth. He had drawn blood.

Then, FBI Director James Comey, keeping his word with Congress, informed them that the FBI had re-opened their investigation into Hillary Clinton’s e-mail scandal.

Making matters worse for Hillary, Wikileaks dumps were showing that Hillary’s team received debate questions beforehand from Donna Brazile. The revelations were so embarrassing that CNN fired Brazile.

Voters in the trenches were paying attention.

On election day, it was obvious that Trump had his work cut out for him. His chances of winning Virginia were slim, and he was going to need to flip a couple states to compensate for that.

Making matters worse, the races in other swing states–Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio–were very tight.

He needed Florida and North Carolina. He needed Ohio.

Surprisingly, there was buzz about his potential in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa, which hadn’t gone Republican in a Presidential race in a long time.

He nailed down Florida and North Carolina. Romney had not carried Florida in 2012. I figured his chances were very good.

Then he carried Ohio. This was a must-win, and he delivered where Romney had failed. Trump had a very good chance.

Then, when Hillary failed to carry the margins she needed in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, it became clear that Hillary was in trouble in Pennsylvania.

I looked at MrsLarijani. “If Trump wins Pennsylvania, it’s over.”

Then Trump began to prevail in Wisconsin and Iowa. . In baseball, we call those “insurance runs”.

(And Trump didn’t just “win” Iowa; he TROUNCED Hillary in Iowa, a state that neither Bush, McCain, nor Romney had taken.)

Trump was even polling well in MINNSESOTA! (He would lose there, but it was very close.)

Hillary had to be on suicide watch!

Then, sure enough, the votes from the “Alabama” section of Pennsylvania, and all parts of Michigan outside Detroit, came in. Trump surged ahead in two reliably Democrat states.

It was over. The MSM hadn’t called it, but the rout was on. There was no way Hillary could lose Pennsylvania AND Michigan and win the election.

Here in Kentucky, Republicans flipped the state House for the first time in 95 years. The House Speaker–Democrat Greg Stumbo–lost badly.

The Trump momentum, and the so-far-solid performance of Governor Matt Bevin, was a big part of that.

(Hillary had promised to put coal miners out of work. In doing so, she gave Kentucky the middle-finger salute. We kindly returned the gesture.)

I went to bed at 11PM. This election was over. Trump had carried it. There was no way Hillary could win if she didn’t take Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Heck, she was in danger of losing New Hampshire!

—-
Now how do we assess this?

(1) To the MSM and the Establishment: piss off!

You lost, and lost badly. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, were clearly in the tank for Hillary.

And no, this isn’t about bias; after all, everyone has bias. News sites like Newmax and WorldNetDaily are biased, just as the MSM is biased.

But what the MSM did is beyond bias; they threw all semblance of jounalistic ethics out the window.

Hillary bragged about how “prepared” she was in her first debate. She was correct: when you’ve been given the debate questions and your opponent has not, then you’re certainly going to be more prepared.

(If you’re in a class and you get the exam questions in advance–and no one else in the class sees them–of course you’re going to get the better grade. But in academia, we fail people–even expel them–for that kind of dishonesty.)

What the MSM did was akin to election fraud. They are no better than Soviet-era Pravda or Tass.

The Republican Establishment–Ryan and McConnell and their cuckservatives in tow–had better be on notice. Trump won without their help. He won without their money. He won without Goldman Sachs bankrolling him. He won without the Koch brothers.

And given that the news organizations were in the tank for Hillary, can anyone credibly trust them to give us trustworthy polls?

That leads me to

(2) Pollsters have a major burden of proof going forward: why should anyone believe them?

This isn’t the first time this has happened, either. Last year, in the Kentucky gubernatorial race, pollsters were showing Attorney General Jack Conway leading insurgent Republican Matt Bevin by at least 5 points. In their debates, Bevin held court nicely, but news organizations–particularly the Louisville Courier-Journal and Lexington Herald-Leader–pumped Conway no matter how badly he stepped in it.

Then, on election day, Bevin won, and big. By nearly 9 POINTS!

This time around, only Rassmusen and the LA Times polls had any semblance of accuracy: each of them had Trump leading or close throughout the election season. Everyone else’s polls were off by miles.

Was that by design? Or were their models just that badly-flawed?

“db”, a statistician who chimes in on Vox Day’s blog, suggested the “undercover voter” dynamic. I think there is some truth to that, as there was definitely a large turnout of people who had never voted before, and they weren’t pulling for the ruling class. Many of them may not have shown up in the polls.

The problem, though, is that while some of this can be a failure to capture those types, given the ideologues at the news organizations, one has to wonder if their polls were more wishful thinking than actual polling.

(3) I am happy to celebrate the end of the Bush and Clinton dynasties.

I am not convinced that Trump is all that and a pound of bacon, but I would buy him a drink for sinking both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton in the same election.

(4) The Trump victory is a victory for the alt-right.

Keep your eye on that movement. Trump didn’t create it; he merely tapped into it and carried their torch to victory.

We can argue all day about what the alt-right should look like, but make no mistake: it is here to stay.

And just what is the alt-right?

They are nationalists first:

(1) Enforce the immigration laws and shut the door on the Melting Pot myth,
(2) craft trade deals that do not kill jobs,
(3) Revisit foreign alliances that are obsolete,
(4) Get out of the business of fighting everyone else’s wars.

On the social front:

(1) They are for fiscal responsibility,
(2) They tend to oppose the Social Justice Warrior agenda,
(3) They oppose the “diversity” paradigm,
(4) They are for Western Civilization.

They have some views that are common to conservatives, but they are not “conservative”, as the alt-right would suggest that there is nothing left to “conserve”.

Trump hitched his wagon to the alt-right.

—-

What kind of President will we get in Trump?

My answer has always been it depends on which Trump reports for duty.

If we get the alt-right Trump, who gives us a semi-conservative nationalist leadership that is inclined toward fiscal responsibility and staying out of other countries’ wars, he could end up being the Second Coming of Reagan, only better.

If Trump keeps his word and gives us solid federal court picks who are constructionists and believe in the Natural Law, he will be very good.

If Trump reaches out to the black community and seeks to reverse the insanity that has fomented the 70+% illegitimacy rate, he will be better for the blacks than any President in American history.

If, however, President Trump embraces the New York liberalism that defined him for many years, he will be a disaster.

—–

In the early days of King Rehoboam, the successor to Solomon, the Israelites petitioned him for tax cuts. To that, Rehoboam appealed to his advisors. His older advisors–who were wise–instructed him to cut taxes. The younger advisors, the SJWs of his day, told him to raise taxes.

Rehoboam would follow the advice of the SJWs and raise taxes. The result was a Civil War that brought about a divided kingdom: the ten northern tribes (Israel) led by Jeroboam, and the two southern tribes (Judah).

In his ascent to power, Jeroboam was given an admonition:

Then Jeroboam the son of Nebat, an Ephraimite of Zeredah, Solomon’s servant, whose mother’s name was Zeruah, a widow, also rebelled against the king. Now this was the reason why he rebelled against the king: Solomon built the Millo, and closed up the breach of the city of his father David. Now the man Jeroboam was a valiant warrior, and when Solomon saw that the young man was industrious, he appointed him over all the forced labor of the house of Joseph. It came about at that time, when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, that the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him on the road. Now Ahijah had clothed himself with a new cloak; and both of them were alone in the field. Then Ahijah took hold of the new cloak which was on him and tore it into twelve pieces. He said to Jeroboam, “Take for yourself ten pieces; for thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘Behold, I will tear the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon and give you ten tribes (but he will have one tribe, for the sake of My servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen from all the tribes of Israel), because they have forsaken Me, and have worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of Moab, and Milcom the god of the sons of Ammon; and they have not walked in My ways, doing what is right in My sight and observing My statutes and My ordinances, as his father David did. Nevertheless I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand, but I will make him ruler all the days of his life, for the sake of My servant David whom I chose, who observed My commandments and My statutes; but I will take the kingdom from his son’s hand and give it to you, even ten tribes. But to his son I will give one tribe, that My servant David may have a lamp always before Me in Jerusalem, the city where I have chosen for Myself to put My name. I will take you, and you shall reign over whatever you desire, and you shall be king over Israel. Then it will be, that if you listen to all that I command you and walk in My ways, and do what is right in My sight by observing My statutes and My commandments, as My servant David did, then I will be with you and build you an enduring house as I built for David, and I will give Israel to you. Thus I will afflict the descendants of David for this, but not always.’”

Jeroboam was given an assurance of God’s blessing, but an admonition to follow Him.

Jeroboam, sadly, ignored that admonition, and proceeded to foment an idolatry that would lead to the destruction of that northern kingdom. From then on, the successive kings would follow “the sins of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat.” It was disastrous.

Trump can succeed here where Jeroboam failed. If he embraces the SJW agenda, he will accelerate the decline. If he at least provides a government that is not hostile to Christian business owners not wishing to cater gay “weddings”, discourages abortion and even permits states to outlaw it, embraces more freedom in the form of lower taxes and free markets, and avoids needless foreign wars, he may very well right the ship.

If he embraces a personality cult and uses the machinery of government toward that end, he will be a disaster.

Trump did not cause the great rift that we have today; he was merely elected as a result of that rift.

If he plays his cards right, he can be the right President at the right time.

Otherwise, he could be our last President.

Porn Actress Accuses Trump of Improper Behavior

The Donald is dying the death of a thousand cuts.

In his public life, he bragged about his sexual conquests–which included married women. Republican voters nominated him in spite of that known baggage. Under the radar, however, many otherwise stalwart conservative women questioned whether they could support him.

Then, the bombshell dropped: footage of him bragging about unsolicited kissing, pursuing married women, and “grabbing [them] by the p***y.”

After that, women have come forward, accusing him of unsolicited kissing and groping. Could those accusers be fictitious? You bet. They certainly do sound opportunistic, given that The Donald has been in the public eye for almost four decades. Trump has threatened to sue his accusers, although it will almost certainly be a case of “too little/too late”. The election is in two weeks, and such lawsuits will take months if not years. The damage is done.

Now, a porn actress–Jessica Drake–has come forward accusing Trump of propositioning her.

If Trump survives this and wins the election, then he has more lives than Rasputin.

The only reason he still has a chance is because his opponent, Hillary Clinton, is easily the most corrupt politician in American history to seek the Oval Office. Had the DoJ treated her like anyone else not named Clinton, she’d be lucky to get 5 years on a plea bargain.

Will the Jessica Drake accusations be the final nail in Trump’s political coffin? I don’t know.

While some would be incredulous that Trump would even put himself in the same company as a porn star, I am neither surprised nor shocked at it. Here we have a man who has been, by his own admission, sexually licentious for much of his adult life. Given that his fortune has provided him access to those popular in that industry, it is not surprising that he would use his influence to hang around in their circles. Drake may have rebuffed him, but I’m hardly naive enough to think that others didn’t accept his proposals.

If one is given to debauchery, then it ought not be surprising that they seek those who are popular in the debauchery industry. Josh Duggar had trysts with a porn star. Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was forced to resign when he was outed as a client of a high-end “escort.” That Trump would attempt to bed a porn actress, given his known baggage, should not be a shocker.

Right now, this election is pitting Jezebel against Nebuchadnezzar.

We know that Jezebel was totally evil.

We know that Nebuchadnezzar was generally evil, but–after his fiery furnace fail, and seven years of eating grass–turned out pretty good.

Should a Christian vote for Trump? I don’t know: that’s totally your decision. Is Trump merely a “lesser evil”, or does he have enough strength in his platform that makes a case FOR his Presidency? That’s for you to decide.

He talks a great nationalist talk; he’s right on immigration; he’s right on many issues of foreign policy; he’s right about the cartels that are screwing the health care industry; he’s right about abortion.

But can he be believed?

Do his past indiscretions nullify his platform?

A friend of mine–one of the sharpest people I know–had this to say:

For those who keep questioning why I continue to support a (racist, sexist, homophobe, islamophobe … name your own distorted propaganda characterization), here is my response:

I don’t care at all for the “character” issues in this election. Ceteris paribus, character would matter in this or any other election, but as is generally true, ceteris is not paribus.

I support Trump because of the following things that matter to me:

1. He proposes to enforce the immigration law. His opponent has made it clear, on the record, that she supports open borders. If you want to see the consequences of open borders, look at Europe.

2. I shudder to think what kind of people Clinton will nominate for the courts.

3. Trump seems more inclined for us to mind our business. Clinton has a proven track record of meddling in the affairs of other nations, with disastrous results. Many have died as a consequence of her awkward attempt at foreign policy.

4. Trump opposes untrammeled free trade. Clinton seems to want to continue this particularly destructive feature of the status quo.

5. Trump’s position on abortion is soft, and I have some doubt that his opposition to abortion is entirely sincere, but Clinton has made it clear, on the record, that she supports unrestricted abortion, using federal funds, right up to the moment of birth.

6. Clinton represents the elitist, wonkish crowd who got us into this mess. Trump, for all that he is a rich man who has participated in the system, is not one of them.

For these and several other reasons, I support the Trump candidacy. There are a number of things he favors that I don’t agree with. The Republican who would have come closest to my views was Ted Cruz – whom I detest on character grounds. I have said that I support Trump because I oppose Clinton, but my opposition is on the grounds of issues. I would have supported Cruz had he been the nominee, because of his positions on these and other issues, even though I despise him.

I am done with discussing Trump’s badly flawed character. If your response to the above is “yes, but Trump is a bad person,” I will ignore you. I would be glad to discuss the issues.

My case: barring a catastrophe–and trust me, you don’t want that–it’s going to be Hillary or Trump.

No third candidate will win. Any discussion of that is moot: Evan McMullin has no chance. Even if he and Gary Johnson took enough votes to throw the election into the House of Representatives–and neither will get so much as a single state–then Hillary will win. A critical mass of Republicans will oppose Trump; the entire Democratic caucus would get behind Hillary, and Hillary wins.

Barring a catastrophe, It will be Hillary or Trump.

You know what you are going to get with Hillary.

  • She will make federal court picks–lifetime appointments–who will enshrine the Marxist-Leninist agenda of the Left.
  • She will continue immigration policies–importing terrorists–that have been disastrous for Europe.
  • She will finish off the health care system, giving us a government-run system that will be abysmal.
  • She will sell us out to Europe, Canada, Central and South America, and China.
  • She will bring us closer to full-on war with Russia.
  • She will unleash the federal regulatory apparatus on conservatives of all stripes. Lois Learner will look like Ron Paul when Hillary is done with the Tea Party.
  • Get ready for federal attacks on gun rights.

The problem is whether Trump means what he says, or whether he is is really of the same mind as Hillary?

He is carrying the torch for a semi-conservative nationalist movement that is the “alt-right”; baggage aside, he is where he is because the alt-right is gaining steam, and that will continue irrespective of the election results.

Fair disclosure: I am not a prophet; I claim no special anointing. The following is my own assessment, and I am not even completely sure of myself, as this election is a total crapshoot.

My prediction: it will be a rout in the downcard. Republicans will lose the House and Senate. Badly.

But Trump will win.

Trump is Done

Locker-room trash talk is one thing, this is another.

Get ready for 4 years of Hillary.

While Trump denies the allegations, keep in mind that he is in no position to defend himself on this. This is because, while he is a married man, he was known to venture outside that realm.

If you brag about “grabbing women by the p***y”, it’s hard to defend against women who come forward and accuse you of, well, grabbing them by the p***y.

I won’t vote for Hillary; as far as I am concerned, she is a Communist who will flush what is left of America down the commode if given the chance.

But after this, Trump is done.

We can argue about the how and why all day, but the reality is what it is.