The Myth of Not Voting for Evil

We learn today that in 2005 Trump made some lewd remarks about women,for which he has apologized. Not that one should forget the long train of abuses, malfeasance, lying, and outright felonies for all of which Hillary has never seeming payed the price.  Hillary also has a terrible temper, and is mean to subordinates, treating them with utter disdain and gross disrespect.  Trump, as I understand it from people who know him, is generally kind to subordinates, and is not at all the bombastic, angry individual one sees on the stump.  All of which brings up the people who won't vote for either one.  These people believe that voting for either would be voting for the lesser of two evils. Since they do not want to vote for evil, they then decide to vote for neither.

Here is the problem with this analysis.  There may be some better choices out there, but in a fallen world, there are no good choices, and there never have been.  We romanticize the Founding Fathers because their work was, I believe, Divinely Inspired.  But we make a mistake when we attribute to these men angelic motives, or when we attribute less than awe and respect for their work because we discover that they had feet of clay.  That Jefferson's work on the Declaration of Independence was Divinely Inspired Genius is without doubt.  The Jefferson himself was a flawed human being is also without doubt.

Today, we face an election in which one of the candidates will take the nation further from its Constitutional roots, and one where one of the candidates is an unknown, but there is a chance to begin returning to our Constitutional roots.  One candidate is a disciple of Saul Alinskey, who dedicated his book to Lucifer, the other is a successful businessman.  Both are flawed candidates.

As a Christian, and after prayer and careful analysis, I think I will vote for the flawed businessman.  

Why Environmentalism is both a Religion and a Con Game

Chet Richards over at the American Thinker answers the question: Why Emvironism becaame both a religion and a con game First, Mr. Richards explains the difference between a Conservationist and an Environmentalist:

I am a Conservationist. I am not an Environmentalist. What? Aren’t the two the same thing? No, they are not. In fact the two movements are diametrically opposed.

John Muir was a Conservationist, not an Environmentalist. He saw the wilderness as a “primary source for understanding God: The Book of Nature.” Muir did not worship Nature, as modern environmentalists do. Muir worshiped God, the Judeo-Christian God. So, here is the difference: Conservation derives from the Hebrew Bible. Mankind is to be Stewards of the Land. We are charged to husband God’s creation.

Environmentalists, for the most part, believe that the Earth’s biosphere is God. And, that human beings are destructive parasites, eating away at the life of their deity. In effect, most environmentalists are atheists searching for something larger than themselves to worship. But environmentalists see themselves as not being the riff-raff parasites that the rest of mankind are. Environmentalists believe they are the elect, the knowing, the superior beings, the priests, the Gnostics.

Because I worked in the Navy Environmental Program, some people think I too am an environmentalist. But I, like Chet Richards, I am a conservationist, a steward of God's creation. I worship the Creator, not the Creation. I recognize my place in creation as a fellow creature, who none the less has been given responsibility for the creation.  Environmentalists like to say that we conservationists want dirty air and polluted water.  That was never true, of course.  After all, we live here too, as well as our children and grand children.

 After discussing Rachel Carson and Paul Ehrilich, two unfortunate examples who gained fame and a modicum of fortune by scaring the public with unscientific theories, he then gets into the heart of the problem with James Lovelock and his theory of "gaia."

And then came James Lovelock with his “Gaia Hypothesis.” This is the notion that the biosphere is an environment-regulating ensemble of living organisms. In the large, the biosphere, together with its non-organic matrix, could be considered an organism, itself.  The idea is interesting. Indeed, it has proven to be scientifically fruitful.

But other people latched onto the biosphere and made Gaia a god. And, with it, made environmentalism a religion. A religion, which Lovelock himself rejects as misinformed – if not dangerous. Lovelock went through his hysteric period in the early years of the ecology mania, but he has since moderated his outlook now that his predictions of imminent environmental doom have proved unfounded.

In answer to the question "Why do people do it," Richards writes that it is a combination of ignorance, insecurity, and hubris. I think though, that the reason people put on these cons, and others follow them, is that people don't want to face up to the fact that the correct answer is the ancient one: living a spirit filled life following the Creator of everything that is, and that is not.  But man and his ego always get in the way of the message unless people proceed carefully and prayerfully.

Muhammad's ego got in the way 1400 years ago, and we are still facing jihad today.  The Gnostics thought they had discovered "secret knowledge," but there was no secret knowledge.  God had put it out there already.  Today, man thinks he is "evolving" and doesn't need to follow the old laws.  But as they will sooner of later discover to their own horror, the God of creation did not set these rules to punish, but rather, so we could live long and happily in His Creation.

This Will Not End Well

I have referred from time to time to Rudyard Kipling's poem The Gods of the Copybook Headings. Copybook headings were moral sayings designed to both uplift the reader and provide a sentence or two for the young and budding penman to copy in an effort to improve his penmanship. Nothing like copybooks exist today, but they really should. In any case, the point of the poem is that mankind can, and has violated the morality of the copybook headings to its own catastrophic peril. Whether violating these moral precepts offends God such that he sends disasters down upon us, or, as I look at it, violating these natural laws brings about the natural consequences, the effect on mankind is the same.

This will not end well.

Today, Kurt Schlichter over at Townhall.com has a piece that is must read.  The article, entitled Liberal Attempts to Silent (sic) Dissenters Will Not End Well. It seems the headline writer for Townhall may not be a native speaker. However, the rest of the article is a graphic warning. Schlichter does not mince words, or use euphemism to try to bury the effect.

And maybe our guy will sit down and hold his tongue. And then maybe he’ll remember how he went to a Tea Party to politely register his dissent and how he was dumped on for daring to try and be heard. Then maybe he’ll vote for Donald Trump because maybe if he’s a little louder and a little ruder then perhaps someone will listen to him about not turning his little girl’s bathroom into a social experiment, about the illegal aliens like the one who ran into his truck and didn’t have insurance, and about the rumor going around that his job down at the plant may be moving to Juarez next year.

But then, those concerns apparently aren’t worthy of attention. The news covers, day in and day out, some overeating foreigner and drug lord baby mama who Donald Trump was mean to a couple decades ago, but no reporter ever asks our guy about his problems. And they don’t merely ignore him. They come after him, jamming things down his throat like gender neutral bathrooms and murderous Muslim refugees and Wall Street scams that mean he gets about .001% interest on that money he saved just like the experts told him to. And he’s expected to just take it.

This will not end well.

I have been warning people as well, for the last eight, almost nine years as well. I am an old man, and my time here is passing. If it weren't for those I leave behind, I would not care. But I do care because they are being led to violate the laws of nature set down by the God who created everything that is. They are being led there by a corrupted process that makes everyone, even those who don't vote, responsible for outcome.

This will not end well.

PS:  Hello to readers in France and Germany

Massive voter fraud taking place. Democrats avert their eyes.

I rejoiced when North Carolina finally elected a Republican House and Senate in 2010. Not that I believe Republicans are immune to the Democrat disease of corruption, but because the Democrats had controlled the Legislature of North Carolina since 1898. using a by "any means necessary" approach,   The Dems had variously employed violence, poll taxes, intimidation and when necessary, murder to secure their hold on the State.  And once achieved, they weren't giving power up without a fight.  The Easley administration became known as the "Sleasly" administration for playing fast and loose, and Bev Purdue continued in Easley's footsteps.

The Republicans, while far from perfect, have brought a great deal of common sense back to government. One common sense idea brought back to government is the idea that voters should have to prove who they are. Under NC law, you could prove your identity in several ways. Of course, a State driver's license is one way. Most people have a State driver's license. Indeed, it is not easy to get around in North Carolina otherwise. But some people don't have State driver's license. Not to worry, if you can get to a Division of Motor Vehicles Driver's License Bureau Identification Card. If you really can not get to a DMV office, how are you going to get to the polls?  The requirements for obtaining an ID card are:

No-Fee Voter ID Cards

Voter ID cards are special identification cards that are free of charge for any North Carolina voter who is not able to show proof of identity with a photo. For this reason and to enable him or her to vote in NC, the state will issue a No-Fee Voter ID card under certain conditions. Voters who do have a photo ID cannot receive this card. To apply for a No-Fee Voter ID card, you will need:

One document proving U.S. citizenship (or legal status for non-US citizens).

One document proving residency.

Two documents proving your identity.

One document showing your Social Security Number: 

One signed declaration to state that you do not already have a photo ID.

Note: You must be a registered voter in order to obtain this card. If you are not, your local DMV office can help you fill out a voter application with which you qualify for the Voter ID card.

It may seem as though the State is asking a lot, but in reality, most people have these documents already. The hardest one to obtain if you don't have it is a birth certificate if you don't already have it. But if you have a passport, that is enough to prove your citizenship. Or your naturalization papers. So, I was, to say the least, disappointed when North Carolina Voter ID law was struck down. I suspected at the time that the reason was because the Democrats wanted to perpetuate voter fraud. How widespread voter fraud is, however, is hinted at in an article at Townhall.com today entitled Will Illegal Foreign Voters Steal the Election by Michelle Malkin.

Former Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler identified nearly 5,000 noncitizens in Colorado who voted in the 2010 general election. Gessler's office uncovered upwards of 12,000 noncitizens registered to vote. Liberal groups who oppose stronger election system protections attacked him for trying to verify citizenship status -- because God forbid public officials sworn to uphold the rule of law actually do anything to enhance the integrity of our election system!

...snip...

Another rare defender of American sovereignty, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, fought in court for his state's right to require citizenship documents from people who register to vote at motor vehicle offices. Last month, a federal appeals court struck down the Kansas law despite the U.S. Constitution's conferral of responsibility for determining who may vote to states.

In a scene straight out of "Alice in Wonderland," Kobach faced a contempt hearing for battling against those who hold contempt for truly free and fair elections. He was forced to sign an agreement with the ACLU allowing more than 18,000 motor-voter registrants to cast ballots this November while litigation continues.

These numbers are not insignificant.  People have won elections as a result of far fewer votes.  Al Franken won with only a 312 vote margin, yet delivered ObamaCare victory in the Senate.  Now, let's face facts:  a person needs to show a photo ID to cash a check, whether he has a bank account or not.  If he has to get medical services, and who doesn't now and then need emergency medical care, he must show a photo ID.  To get into the Democrat National Convention, one needed photo ID.  So, what is so wrong, and discriminatory about requiring photo ID to exercise a civil right?  Frankly, I think we should discriminate between people eligible to vote and those not eligible by virtue if not being citizens (yet.)

Update:  I just noticed that this week I have had more visitors from Poland than the United States.  Welcome to my new friends from Poland.

Glenn Beck on Gun Control.

Glenn Beck had a good 4 part Serial on the history of Gun Control.  Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here. Part 3 can be found here. Part 4 is here.  There is certainly more that could be said, but the essentials are included in these 4 parts of the serial.  Good listen.