ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, July 31, 2016

Mailvox: Churchianity and Cruz

JM is mystified by the continued enthusiasm of Churchian cuckservatives for Ted Cruz:
I used to respect the authors of this blog and some of those they quote with approval, but I've lost respect for them in the last few months, and have dropped them from my blogroll.  I find it both interesting and annoying to see how they rationalize Ted Cruz's refusal to keep his word into an act of Christian principle.  To be charitable, they may be unaware of all the dirty tricks pulled by the Cruz campaign, but they'd probably find some way to justify them, anyway.

I suspect that Cruz, Jeb, and Kasich never had any intention of supporting Trump regardless of the pleedge they made, and they're just making up excuses to rationalize their dishonesty.

Most of the women mentioned in this post who are so upset at Trump and Christians who favour Trump are extremely judgmental Calvinists, who seem to be making this a test of Christian orthodoxy.

If these people are so enthusiastic about Cruz's alleged adherence to the Constitution, why don't they notice that he isn't even constitutionally eligible to hold the office he was running for?
It's just a form of Christian identity politics, that's all. After all, once you've determined that Ted Cruz is the Holy and Anointed One, it's a little hard to back down and admit that not only are you wrong, but you've been listening to false prophets you should never again give any credence.

Like any other cult that's faced with dealing with false prophecies, the response of the hard core is to double down even as everyone else falls away.

The only reason they're so upset with Trump is because he has shown their prophets to be false, their principles to be fake, and their pretensions to be ridiculous. I suspect that most of these die-hards are either women or gammas, as neither can ever forgive someone who humiliates them by publicly proving them to be wrong.

I wasn't even a little bit surprised to see the poster boy for Churchian cuckservatives, Matt Walsh, being prominently featured in the approved quotes club. That is the sort of people JM is dealing with here.

Labels: , , ,

90 Comments:

Anonymous Red July 31, 2016 4:50 AM  

Cruz almost certainly cut a deal with Hillary for his performance at the convention. He was seen riding in air force one a few days before.

Blogger Harry Cassandra July 31, 2016 5:08 AM  

I am a graduate of the Apologetics MA at Biola University. I have been defriended on FB by a number of Biola and/or academic 'apologists' for the Fatih as a result of engaging them on their stubborn, continued support for Cruz. I have been so chagrined by their selective use of evidence, especially by the so-called evidentialist Dr. Tim McGrew, that I am now re-examining arguments for the Resurrection that I had hitherto considered sound. It has been instructive personally to see how poorly they handle counter evidence to a position I already agree with them on.

Anonymous Sensei July 31, 2016 5:11 AM  

The only reason they're so upset with Trump is because he has shown their prophets to be false, their principles to be fake, and their pretensions to be ridiculous.

As someone with roots in Cruz' base, I think you underestimate how differently people inside certain American church subcultures view reality. To them, Trump has not shaken their principles at all, merely come along and rudely interrupted what could have finally been the fulfillment of that beautiful prophecy that is apparently found in the alternate version of the Bible they read- "if my people, who are called Americans, will elect a candidate who perfectly espouses conservative principles yet plays nobly and not according to the rules by which the world works, then I will hear from heaven, and drive back the Left, and restore the Christian, propositional nation of America according to Judeo-Christian principles. (A miraculous occurrence to be passively witnessed and rejoiced over, the only human effort allowed is to signal one's faith in the process via finely-tuned conservative virtue signalling)"

To them, Trump is just a worldly distraction who has somehow barged his way in and befuddled evangelicals who don't hold strongly enough to conservative ideology to resist the temptation of populism. Their anger isn't because they see they've been proven wrong, it's because they think their best chance has been blown by compatriates lured away by heretics.

Even having grown up in those circles, I have been taken off guard this election at the depths to which a large percentage of conservatives faithfully regurgitate conservative doctrine while at the same time swallowing nearly wholesale a leftist worldview.

It's no wonder they can't conserve anything; with progressive ideals yet conservative ideas, they're doubly divorced from reality at this point.

Anonymous SciVo July 31, 2016 5:33 AM  

I would like to give a shoutout to Reince Priebus, head of the RNC. Between his name and his position, I assumed that he was just another establishment tool; but he has shown at least enough common sense and organizational loyalty to welcome the expansion that Trump brought, and to accept the members' choice with aplomb.

When people speculated that the goalposts might be moved at the last moment -- since the first order of business of the national convention is to set the rules of the convention -- he said no way, we're going to count the delegates under the rules that were there when the candidates were competing for them.

That's just one example of how he shepherded the process in a fair way. There were others that I noticed, so I assume there were others that I didn't notice. Of course it really shouldn't be noteworthy, since it was in the best interest of his organization, which now has more members and enthusiasm.

The way I view simple loyalty, it has the distinction of being both a base instinct and a moral virtue. Priebus shouldn't get any special credit for something so natural, let alone for following self-interest and the organizational imperative.

But in this unusual year, simply keeping a level head is worthy of praise. So many people have been self-immolating over Trump's candidacy that just remaining unignited looks like an accomplishment.

So here's to Priebus! I still assume he's an establishment tool, but at least he's competent and rational, two qualities in surprisingly short supply these days. Credit where it's due.

Blogger Doom July 31, 2016 5:36 AM  

I thought Calvinists believed in predetermination? That's that right there, isn't it? Trump isn't president, yet, so there is still time I suppose. The options, though, I think would be worse whatever might happen regardless of what they believe. If they murder him, his replacement will be serious. And it won't be his v.p. unless they do so in office. If she slithers in, her handlers will be ruthless.

I'd love to laugh and mock, but Catholics seem to be following Jews, and the denominations are following Catholics. It's not a good place they go. That is as a Catholic. And it's top to bottom. I'll keep my faith, they can keep their social groupings, virtue signaling, and false beliefs.

Even so, I'm... Trump is just the best of the worst, not the best. Though anyone who was honest, worthy, right, would not get in a place where he could get near the levers of power. It's just a matter of who is going to do the least damage to the right side of things. He is it. That he scares so many is a good sign, but... how that will turn out is altogether another story. May have to vote just because.

Blogger weka July 31, 2016 5:38 AM  

I am a Calvinist, and I judge these men are virtue signalling. About politicians, whom generally have less virtue than prostitutes.

Blogger Doom July 31, 2016 5:38 AM  

Priebus? I assume he sold and flipped like a fish on a grill. No worries. Trump does that like a pro. I'm amazed at the fish he has flipped. Gotta wonder how long he has been saving goods for a real run.

Blogger Lazarus July 31, 2016 5:41 AM  

Relevant article from 133 years ago:

CHRISTIANITY VS. CHURCHIANITY.

2. Christian worship and Church worship are not identical. Vast multitudes cling to some Church establishment as a drowning man would cling to a life-boat. They bow obsequiously to her priestly and official mandates, and imagine that the blind servility which they tender to the Church will be accounted acceptable service offered to Christ. The simplicity of the Gospel is lost in the imposing forms and glittering accompaniments of modern churchism. Splendid church edifices attract the eye. Splendid music charms the ear. Splendid prayers are addressed to the CONGREGATION. Splendid sermons please the fancy, and leave deluded sinners to slumber on. Church rivalry has achieved a glorious success, if success consists in gorgeous temples, tall steeples, loud-sounding bells, thundering organs, ostentatious dressing, theatrical singing, pointless praying, rhetorical preaching, careless hearing, and unscriptural practicing!

Blogger Phillip George July 31, 2016 5:42 AM  

slightly conflicted on this one. Ted Cruz gave Mark Steyn a leg up fighting Big Climate. And big climate are nation wrecking killers; the world's worst intellectual whores. You there Mr Rational? But the topic is the topic. We aren't. We're all poor players strutting and fretting our hour upon the stage. Jesus or bust. The separation of church and state is also killing you. Another pernicious myth.

Anonymous SciVo July 31, 2016 6:06 AM  

Phillip George wrote:The separation of church and state is also killing you. Another pernicious myth.

It's amazing how the SCOTUS can read the Constitution so broadly as to find so many words that are not actually written there, yet simultaneously read it so narrowly as to not be able to see the words that are. Why, it's almost as if they don't care!

If our judiciary were half composed of queer atheist commies, determined to impose a tyranny of alien values on a hapless populace, what would they do differently?

Blogger Lazarus July 31, 2016 6:09 AM  

Phillip George wrote:slightly conflicted on this one. Ted Cruz gave Mark Steyn a leg up fighting Big Climate.

Time and tide wait for no man.

In Dec. 2015. On Feb 4 2016 Steyn wrote That Smell Isn't the Ethanol, where he stated:
But, if you'd never heard Rubio speak before Monday, he came over as a crisp effective candidate making the most of his time on national TV. By contrast, Cruz's unfocused ramble of a victory speech left you wondering how the hell this guy won the state.

It can't all be down to ethically dubious mailers and sabotage emails, can it?

Time magazine cautions that "criticizing Ted Cruz seldom works". But, whatever the truth behind these two incidents, they are (as Cruz's former fellow British subjects would say) not cricket. To go back to where I came in, I would like to be governed by honorable men. The Cruz campaign's behavior in Iowa does not meet that test.

Anonymous Steve July 31, 2016 6:25 AM  

Apparently God told Ted Cruz's wife he should run for president of the United States. Not sure why He didn't tell Ted directly, but maybe it was to save on the roaming charges for Ted's Canadian cellphone number.

Now, perhaps He did endorse Cruz (and by extension, Carly?), and the Almighty has a dry sense of humour, but I generally hold to the idea that the only thing worse than a politician who wants you to think he has a divine mandate is a candidate who really believes it.

And Ted has all the qualities of a cult leader - except the charisma.

I've used vending machines with more engaging personalities than the painfully... pausing... Canubian messiah/very naughty boy.

So, to me, the appeal of Ted Cruz is a riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a guy who looks like Count Von Count's been hitting the pizza rolls.

Vox says: I suspect that most of these die-hards are either women or gammas

And if there's one thing I do know it's that physiognomy never lies, so the blog mentioned above is run by a woman and PussySlayer69 here.

These aren't comically SJW-ugly people or anything, but could well be featured in a coffee-table book titled "The Faces of Autism".

And there is something wonderfully autastic in the Ted Cruz phenomenon. He got BTFO by voters, his biggest donors, and even his own state delegates, but the train is still fine and gonna be Raptured up any minute.

Any ... minute ... now.

You'll see. You'll all see.

Blogger Leo Little Book in Shenzhen July 31, 2016 6:36 AM  

These hypocrites who claim that the lesser of two evils is still evil change their tunes the minute they walk into a hospital, and will sue the doctor who doesn't make the benefit-maximizing call.

"I denied the patient chemotherapy because the lesser of two evils is still evil."

= Prison. So they judge; so let it done to them.

Anonymous Faceless July 31, 2016 7:24 AM  

I have always found Rick Santorum personally off putting. He checks many of the right boxes, but something always made my skin crawl when he was on the TV.

However, Mr. Santorum shows what it means to make a public vow and to stand behind it:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2016/07/20/fiery-rick-santorum-no-excuse-not-vote-trump/87336288/

Huckabee has done the same. So, the Baptist preacher and the 100% pro-life Catholic Mr. Conservative understand what it means to keep their word.

Blogger Scott C July 31, 2016 7:27 AM  

Cruz's supporters are probably Christians who have reservations about supporting a twice-divorced adulterer who asked one of the contestants on his reality show "The Apprentice" if he ever had sex.

Anonymous Faceless July 31, 2016 7:31 AM  

There should have been at least a yellow flag for the letter writer when the authoress is "Terrier Gal", and she sets herself up as the authoritative voice on Christian orthodoxy.

However, the red flag - I've spent three minutes over there and I cannot find a single way to comment. If the author of the blog has no invitation to make comments, then there is no point in expecting the idea presented to stand up to scrutiny. It's why the press keeps dropping comment sections - they know they print lies.

Anonymous Faceless July 31, 2016 7:35 AM  

@15

These are the same people who got the vapors because Mr. (Illinois) Ryan took his then-wife to an avant garde club, then, when she divorced him and tried to take it all, they promptly believed her exclusively, and then they punished Alan Keyes and gave us Barack Obama.

I've never seen or heard these same people have a problem with Newt Gingrich.

These people lionize Ronald Reagan, a divorced man himself, who mainstreamed and normalized no fault divorce.

It sure sounds like selective outrage because they are caught in the spin cycle of Charlie Sykes's bitter divorce and unending anger against Donald Trump for daring to call his ex wife a good judge.

Blogger Phillip George July 31, 2016 7:36 AM  

'fortune favours the brave:=
https://www.rt.com/usa/354048-skydiver-completes-jump-without-parachute/

this guy got away with it. just. He didn't centre the net by any means. He fell about 20' inside the perimeter. ie. He got away with. Twenty feet out of line and we'd be calling him the fool.

Using the line "god told me/ my wife/ etc" has a certain risk associated with it.
If you don't nail it, the crash is unavoidable.

One, just made it, "this time", The other didn't.
\So don't say "God told you" unless, that's exactly what happened.

Blogger Stilicho July 31, 2016 7:38 AM  

I suspect you'll find that the Churchians who still support Cruz are tripartite cucks: they wish to welcome invaders with open borders, open wallets, and open labia. They tell themselves (and everyone else ad nauseum) that it's "the Christian thing to do". All evidence to the contrary be damned. "Christian" pussyfism run amok.

Blogger Phillip George July 31, 2016 7:40 AM  

Scott, precisely how many men have you suspected of not having masturbated at some stage in their life?
Seeing the Everest of Morality has no flags on it.

OpenID vfmshadow0342 July 31, 2016 7:48 AM  

@3:

You pretty much nailed how most of Cruz / #NeverTrump thinks.

They really do live in a alternate pseudo-Christian reality as far as Scripture is concerned.

It's one of the reasons I haven't been to a formal Christian church in 3 years.

OpenID jimnz July 31, 2016 7:49 AM  

Stellar theologian Wayne Grudem has been a tireless champion of biblical male-only church leadership. Nice to see he supports Trump, too: http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/07/28/why-voting-for-donald-trump-is-a-morally-good-choice-n2199564

Blogger Scott C July 31, 2016 7:50 AM  

Christians don't expect moral perfection of anyone, but they do expect other believers to seek forgiveness.

Anonymous Credo in Unum Deum July 31, 2016 7:54 AM  

I used to actually like Cruz. I thought at the beginning of the Republican Primary, "Hey, he's the best out of a bad batch of people..." Then Trump opened his mouth, and I started to actually listen to what Trump was saying. Now I'm firmly on Trump's side.

If the stars had lined up correctly, Ted Cruz could've been one of America's greatest statesmen in history. Unfortunately, they didn't, because Cruz is a terrible politician.

Cruz had a golden opportunity at the convention during his speech to position himself as a President Donald Trump's greatest ally in the Senate.

If Ted Cruz could think ahead, he (and his supporters eventually) would have realized "All of Donald Trump's proposals will cost money. Money that I, in the Senate, will have some measure of control over. I should try and take a page out of Donald Trump's playbook, and position myself to Make a Deal with Donald Trump!"

Cruz could've even have taken the high ground, and mentioned something about "burying the hatchet..." or "turning over a new leaf..." positioning himself as The Good Guy.

He didn't do ANY of that, because he's a BAD politician.

Donald Trump's attacks on Cruz's dad, that's the equivalent of a "Yo Momma..." and "Yo Daddy..." jokes to Trump and his supporters. If Cruz can't handle that from Donald Trump, how is he going to handle Putin? or Boko Haram making fun of him on Twitter? Or ISIS making fun of Cruz? Or North Korea? All any of them would have to do is say "Your wife is ugly." And they know they've won.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein July 31, 2016 7:57 AM  

Using the line "god told me/ my wife/ etc" has a certain risk associated with it.
If you don't nail it, the crash is unavoidable.


One would think...but one would be wrong. True believers will claim that "we' weren't worthy or whatever.

They are never wrong.

Interesting that God gave Heidi Cruz some bogus political info but gave Melania Trump supermodel looks, eh?

Blogger Fred July 31, 2016 8:12 AM  

JM clearly doesnt understand what a pledge means. It means keeping your word in the face of adversity. Cruz and the other reprobate Repub politicians pledged to support the nominee in the very first debate, before things got nasty. We can see from this no supporting the nominee outcome, that Bush, Kasich and Cruz are simply liars, as Trump stated many times. As far as Cruz goes, he is too thin skinned to handle Presidential politics. He will be forgotten.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein July 31, 2016 8:15 AM  

Credo in Unum Deum wrote:

Cruz had a golden opportunity ntion during his speech to position himself as a President Donald Trump's greatest ally in the Senate.

If Ted Cruz could think ahead, he (and his supporters eventually) would have realized "All of Donald Trump's proposals will cost money. Money that I, in the Senate, will ha. I

Cruz could've even have taken the high ground, and mentioned something about "burying the hatchet..." or "turning over a new leaf..." positioning himself as The Good Guy.

He didn't do ANY of that, because he's a BAD politician.



Proposed Cruz Speech:

God talked to Heidi again last night. He explained that there has been a breach in the Wall, yes Wall, Between Heaven and Hell. It has remained unrepaired, since Satan has a team of lawyers advocating that God has to pay for the repairs. Unfortunately, God has no access to lawyers...but is rather stubborn ...so the wall has remained unrepaired for some time.

Apparently some of Hell's worse denizens, including rapists, murderers, drug dealers and cyber-criminals, have crossed the border into Heaven. Some of these undocumented cherubim and seraphim apparently hacked into His Blackberry and sent Heidi the message about me being the Chosen one as some sort of a joke...

Blogger Alexamenos July 31, 2016 8:27 AM  

There's little hope for Glenn Beck conservatives. One would think they'd find the idea that the Constitution is sacred scripture just a wee bit blasphemous but not at all. I suppose the angel Moroni made more than one trip...

Blogger John rockwell July 31, 2016 8:37 AM  

Matt Walsh is a "former liberal " pajamaboy lookalike.

Blogger James Dixon July 31, 2016 8:40 AM  

> If these people are so enthusiastic about Cruz's alleged adherence to the Constitution, why don't they notice that he isn't even constitutionally eligible to hold the office he was running for?

This is why neither my wife nor I could vote for Cruz.

More importantly, this was an indication that his stated principles weren't actually what was motivating him. If they weren't what was? Blind ambition. perhaps? Who knows for sure.

Moreover, this campaign also illustrated that Cruz simply isn't that good at leading other people or choosing good people to do the jobs that need done, both of which are essential to the presidency. And both are areas where Trump seems to excel.

Blogger Skylark Thibedeau July 31, 2016 8:49 AM  

I love how Mr. Khan is waving the Constitution at Trump as if he'd actually read it and wasn't just reciting the carefully worded script Hillary's screenwriting friends in Hollywood wrote for him. If there is a wall of Separation between Church and State I'd think the Wall between Mosque and State would be required to be significantly higher.

Anonymous Avalanche July 31, 2016 8:55 AM  

@15 "who asked one of the contestants on his reality show "The Apprentice" if he ever had sex."

Which means, of course, they have been avidly WATCHING that TV show?!

Anonymous J. J. July 31, 2016 8:55 AM  

And more! Trump's "pastor" (more like spiritual guru) was Norman Vincent Peale, and he laughably said he never felt the need to ask God for forgiveness. Yes, Christians have much reason to be skeptical of The Donald.

However, many American Christians also have a muddled theology that doesn't allow them to understand basic ideas like "we are choosing a president not a pastor". If the roof is leaking, you hire the guy who will replace the shingles, not the one who will spackle the living room ceiling. Even if he's an ass, your house survives.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan July 31, 2016 9:10 AM  

So essentially Churchian virtue signaling is subordinate to Progtard virtue signaling.

The blessed joys of living in a matriarchy of petty bitches having their endless hierarchy battles while our patrimony dries up.

Blogger LP9 Solidified in Gold! Rin Integra July 31, 2016 9:20 AM  

Cucks, cult of nice, churchiniaty, gammas all run in their clique.

I was hoping Cruz would keep it together at the RNC but knew better, since the his gamma'in' gammas have come forth and gamma upped too. So grievously embarrassing.

Anonymous johnc July 31, 2016 9:25 AM  

I saw someone refer to Cruz as a "moral exhibitionist" and I think the term was apt. He would have been slaughtered by Hillary.

Blogger tz July 31, 2016 9:51 AM  

Timely study on 1 kings 13

I pointed out Judges 11 for rash promises.

Cruz didn't promise Trump, he promised the party - what did the party do? And before God as he hears everything.

They are something like those who believe the sign in the study above which said they knew Jesus would return on 5/11/11. When he didn't?

The Churchians have a problem. You are not to respect prophets if their prophecies fail. God is omnipotent so if he really anointed someone, they would win - see David vs Saul.

Worse, you don't sit at the main table and not toast the couple. If you can't endorse the nominee, don't go to the nominating convention.

Santorum? He endorsed Arlen Spectre over Pat Toomey (2006). Spectre went democrat and gave us Obamacare. Toomey is a globalist, but still GOP.
Santorum's explanation for Spectre was pure Gamma, but he is a party gamma, not a cuck gamma.

Blogger tz July 31, 2016 10:00 AM  

Another tell is some could redeem themselves a bit by supporting Nehlen over Ryan. Beck on his 10/22/15 show starting 24 minutes in says if Ryan is made Speaker, the GOP is dead, and Beck worked with the freedon caucus to oust Bohenor.

Instead of helping primary Ryan, Beck is trying a futile attempt to get the presidential election thrown into the house, and Cruz has disappeared.

Well, given the results, maybe they should stay away, but they could endorse Nehlen from a safe distance.

That would at least show they weren't totally gone.

Blogger Robert Divinity July 31, 2016 10:09 AM  

So here's to Priebus! I still assume he's an establishment tool, but at least he's competent and rational, two qualities in surprisingly short supply these days. Credit where it's due.

Agreed. Priebus has been remarkable and no one expected it.

Apparently God told Ted Cruz's wife he should run for president of the United States. Not sure why He didn't tell Ted directly, but maybe it was to save on the roaming charges for Ted's Canadian cellphone number.

God wanted to speak to someone with more direct Goldman Sachs connections.

I suspect you'll find that the Churchians who still support Cruz are tripartite cucks: they wish to welcome invaders with open borders, open wallets, and open labia.

The males have open KY tubes.

If the stars had lined up correctly, Ted Cruz could've been one of America's greatest statesmen in history.

Cruz, like most messianics, was doomed to failure.

@27

Good stuff. God's joke was a cruel one, but Heidi may have been too pilled-up to realize it.

Glenn Beck conservatives

I will steal that phrase. Anyone who would take Glenn Beck seriously about anything is disqualified from public discourse.

Mr. Khan

The communists have lost it. Trump picks up more votes than he loses every time footage is shown of a Muslim at the DNC waving a copy of the constitution while his partially covered wife stands at his side, head bowed.

If the roof is leaking, you hire the guy who will replace the shingles, not the one who will spackle the living room ceiling. Even if he's an ass, your house survives

Most evangelicals seem to have come to this conclusion. It helped doom the pseudo-Christian messiah wannabe.

I was hoping Cruz would keep it together at the RNC but knew better, since the his gamma'in' gammas have come forth and gamma upped too. So grievously embarrassing.

Cruz's self-immolation was predictable--and helpful. He's one of the most repellent political figures in generations.

I saw someone refer to Cruz as a "moral exhibitionist" and I think the term was apt. He would have been slaughtered by Hillary.

Excellent description. Cruz and likely any other GOP candidate outside of Trump would be hopelessly behind at this point. Trump is on track to win.

Blogger JACIII July 31, 2016 10:09 AM  

Just watched fox news sunday. The viseral hatred of George will for trump is breathtaking. At its root is trump proving him wrong at every step for over a year. The secret king can't abide.

These scum will work tirelessly to defeat trump and if they succeed will blame the death and destruction of another clinton presidency on those supporting the RNC nominee who "forced" him into opposition.

Blogger JACIII July 31, 2016 10:09 AM  

Just watched fox news sunday. The viseral hatred of George will for trump is breathtaking. At its root is trump proving him wrong at every step for over a year. The secret king can't abide.

These scum will work tirelessly to defeat trump and if they succeed will blame the death and destruction of another clinton presidency on those supporting the RNC nominee who "forced" him into opposition.

Anonymous paradox July 31, 2016 10:15 AM  

The official Cruzlim spokesman

Blogger Cail Corishev July 31, 2016 10:16 AM  

They're so holier-than-thou, which is always off-putting in politics.

I support Trump, but I don't assume Cruz supporters are bad people. I think they are wrong about some things, but not bad people. Heck, I don't think Hillary supporters are necessarily bad people. Some are, such as the ones who want more babies to die, but many are simply ignorant, foolish, and steeped in false beliefs.

Since the beginning of the election, though, the main message from the NeverTrumps has been that only a bad person would support Trump. That's why they focus so much on his divorces -- if you support Trump, you must support divorce and adultery and breaking up families blah blah blah. Trump is a Bad Person and if you support him, even after a Good Person has pointed out his evils, you must be a Bad Person too.

They don't all say it that plainly, but that's been the clear message from the beginning. Most of them ended up behind Cruz, but I don't know if they were with him from the start because of his claims to divine approval, or if they would have gotten behind whoever looked like the best chance to stop Trump. Maybe both.

That holier-than-thou attitude, by the way, has increased the shitlord-style attitude of Trumpkins in response. The virtue-shaming drove out or silenced those who were most susceptible to it, leaving behind the kind of people who would embrace the role. Call us bad people? Fine, we can have fun with that.

Blogger Cail Corishev July 31, 2016 10:22 AM  

By the way, Mike Pence recently said that they're going to put Roe v. Wade on the "ash-heap of history where it belongs." Not cutting funding, not parental notifications, not limits on late-term anything -- overturn the whole damn miserable evil thing.

But it won't matter, because two divorces.

Anonymous crushlimbraw July 31, 2016 10:24 AM  

There seems to be a similar pattern with ideologues - whether Leftist, Conservative, Christian, Atheist or Whatever - they're all believers, not doers; they start with a premise which they've never proven to themselves in practice - get frustrated by their failures and then blame everyone else for THEIR failures - becoming delusional in the process and finally INSANE!

Blogger tz July 31, 2016 10:27 AM  

@43 - yes. You try to talk to the St. Cruz supporters, and they wouldn't hear about Heidi and Goldman Sachs, or other points, and just screech about Trump being evil. Fine. Like a toy monkey with a button to make it screech, we just kept pressing it.

Blogger tz July 31, 2016 10:29 AM  

@44 Trump is a good mentor. No "what about rape and incest?" Even the paleo Pence is taking no prisoners.

Blogger Nick S July 31, 2016 10:31 AM  

Why would anyone still be talking about Ted Cruz? That ship has sailed. He's completely irrelevant. It's a pointless waste of time and energy.

Blogger James July 31, 2016 10:39 AM  

I'm an extremely judgmental Calvinist and I dropped Cruz and went for Trump over a year ago, by early summer 2015. Because, borders and trade. The issues, in other words, the way I thought political choices were supposed to be made. I guess I just don't understand Calvinism.

Anonymous BGKB July 31, 2016 10:46 AM  

Perhaps it was at the alter of GoldManSacks that Cruz's wife heard the voice.

If our judiciary were half composed of queer atheist commies...what would they do differently?

If you are talking about the Supreme Court its only 1/3 & Gingrich is on the way out.

completes-jump-without-parachute He didn't centre the net by any means. He fell about 20' inside the perimeter

The net was 100' by 100' He was only around 30' from the center. His wife must have taken out a big insurance policy for him. He jumped from 25,000 feet.

Pence recently said that they're going to put Roe v. Wade on the "ash-heap of history where it belongs." Not

The woman behind it said she lied. If ever a woman that had an abortion should be punished it should be one that admits to lying before the supreme court. They left is willing to make perfect cases that wouldn't exist in reality like how project innocence got IL to drop the death penalty by tricking a crack fiend into confessing to a murder he didn't commit right before the real killer was executed.

Blogger James Dixon July 31, 2016 10:49 AM  

> Heck, I don't think Hillary supporters are necessarily bad people.

Not necessarily, but that's the way to bet.

Anonymous BGKB July 31, 2016 10:50 AM  

Sorry Ginsberg is on the way out

Blogger praetorian July 31, 2016 10:58 AM  

I try to avoid christian D&C. Some of my best friends are Calvinist. But this bait is just too much...

Unreasonable, puritanical Calvinists?

Anonymous antipater_1 July 31, 2016 11:01 AM  

This is funny. Its a short video clip taken from Cruz's RNC speech but with Ted's voice done by someone else.
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/driveby/requiem_for_ted_cruz.php

Blogger Markku July 31, 2016 11:13 AM  

They tend towards Calvinists because as an unpopular minority, we have learned being cantankerous as a defense mechanism. Eventually it starts getting employed towards other theological issues too, unfortunately. This has nothing to do with the doctrine, it has to do with personality.

Blogger Josh July 31, 2016 11:19 AM  

By the way, Mike Pence recently said that they're going to put Roe v. Wade on the "ash-heap of history where it belongs." Not cutting funding, not parental notifications, not limits on late-term anything -- overturn the whole damn miserable evil thing.

But it won't matter, because two divorces.


If Trump wins and does that, I will happily admit I was wrong about him.

Anonymous andon July 31, 2016 11:32 AM  

39. Blogger Robert Divinity July 31, 2016 10:09 AM

Mr. Khan

The communists have lost it. Trump picks up more votes than he loses every time footage is shown of a Muslim at the DNC waving a copy of the constitution while his partially covered wife stands at his side, head bowed.


even better is when they both have angry, hateful looks on their faces. holding the constitution and pointing his finger at me? f him

Blogger Timmy3 July 31, 2016 11:57 AM  

Amazing that we have to ask the question especially after the Bernie fiasco at the DNC. Cruz lost, but he did what he believed. That's more than what Bernie did and he didn't convince his supporters to support Hillary with his endorsement. Actually what Cruz did convinced many to support Trump. Good or bad, it was a whatever moment in his speech at the Republican Convention. I still support Cruz.

Anonymous Gen. Kong July 31, 2016 12:48 PM  

Steve wrote:Apparently God told Ted Cruz's wife he should run for president of the United States. Not sure why He didn't tell Ted directly, but maybe it was to save on the roaming charges for Ted's Canadian cellphone number.

Now, perhaps He did endorse Cruz (and by extension, Carly?), and the Almighty has a dry sense of humour, but I generally hold to the idea that the only thing worse than a politician who wants you to think he has a divine mandate is a candidate who really believes it.

And Ted has all the qualities of a cult leader - except the charisma.

I've used vending machines with more engaging personalities than the painfully... pausing... Canubian messiah/very naughty boy.So, to me, the appeal of Ted Cruz is a riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a guy who looks like Count Von Count's been hitting the pizza rolls….

And there is something wonderfully autastic in the Ted Cruz phenomenon. He got BTFO by voters, his biggest donors, and even his own state delegates, but the train is still fine and gonna be Raptured up any minute.

Any ... minute ... now.

You'll see. You'll all see.


Very insightful. So now we know who the Cruzlims chief god really is: The Llord Bankfein, Master of the Universe. This be the Llord who toldeth his maidservant Heidi that Ted would be El Presidente of Kwa-bananaland. Then the Apostle Copeland anointed Ted in the name of the Llord … and it was good. Ted was on track to ghost-dance the dry-bones of the constitution back to life with the Goldman-Sackbut, like Ezekiel in the valley. No wonder the Churchians are upset…. too bad they don't understand there is no room fro Christ in Judeo-Christianity, or in the cult of the Golden Dindu.

Blogger Greg Switzer July 31, 2016 1:06 PM  

Cruz denies it but he obviously supports the TPP. He was co-sponsor of the Corker amendment. He was in favor of raising the H visa quotas. He was for an amnesty plan before he was against it. He only renounced his U.S. Citizenship approximately two years ago when he thought he might run for president. He accused Trump of starting the BLM and La Raza violence at the Trump rallies. His Super Pack started a conflict by trying portray Mrs. Trump as a slut. Now he breaks his promise by using lawyer lingo to say his pledge is no longer valid.

Cruz is no conservative. He is owned lot, stock and barrel by Wall Street.

Blogger bob k. mando July 31, 2016 1:43 PM  

24. Credo in Unum Deum July 31, 2016 7:54 AM
He didn't do ANY of that, because he's a BAD politician.



good, bad, he's still unprincipled.

how would a PRINCIPLED man have handled the RNC demand that Trump take a loyalty oath?

Blogger Jim July 31, 2016 2:02 PM  

The quote seems confused here: "Most of the women mentioned in this post who are so upset at Trump and Christians who favour Trump are extremely judgmental Calvinists ..."

Should that second "Trump" be "Cruz?"

In any case, this judgemental Calvinist is no fan of Cruz.

Anonymous Johnny July 31, 2016 2:21 PM  

From the few tweets and articles I've seen, Matt Walsh seemed a stand up guy. Why is he considered the poster boy of Cuckservatives? From what I've read, he stood up boldly and defended things without thought of political correctness. An article on homeschooling from 2013 was linked by Vox:
https://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/10/homeschool-nazis.html

Has something changed with Matt Walsh's writing since then?

Blogger Were-Puppy July 31, 2016 2:36 PM  

Like any other cult that's faced with dealing with false prophecies, the response of the hard core is to double down even as everyone else falls away.
---

This is the idea behind a set of rhetorical nick names I made up for Teddy and his bunch.

Teddy Cruzifer
jab at the dominion stuff, and tie him to it

The False Profit Blubberin' Beckhammed
False Profit - you know guy is making a ton of money, play on the word prophet with his silly compasses and stuff.
Beckhammed - They are as rabid and cultish - Cruzlims
Blubberin ' - it's a thing with him where they put vaseline in his eyes

Cruzlims - those who will never see reason, but are rabid and follow into hell Beck and Cruz, for reasons not quite understood by anybody but themselves.

Teddy Cruzifer and Beckhammed lead the Cruzlims off a cliff.

Blogger Were-Puppy July 31, 2016 2:41 PM  

@4 SciVo

So here's to Priebus! I still assume he's an establishment tool, but at least he's competent and rational, two qualities in surprisingly short supply these days. Credit where it's due.
---

And another unsung hero of the primaries, Doctor Ben Carson, who gave us the epic nickname for RP - Rinse Pubis - on national TV

Blogger Were-Puppy July 31, 2016 2:55 PM  

@26 Fred

JM clearly doesnt understand what a pledge means. It means keeping your word in the face of adversity. Cruz and the other reprobate Repub politicians pledged to support the nominee in the very first debate, before things got nasty.
---

Actually, the entire pledge thing was meant as a gotcha against Trump. They were so afraid he was going to go 3rd party back in those days. That the trap layers have fallen into their own trap is quite entertaining.

Blogger Were-Puppy July 31, 2016 3:07 PM  

@43 Cail Corishev
That holier-than-thou attitude, by the way, has increased the shitlord-style attitude of Trumpkins in response.
---

So true. That is kind of what began driving me toward the Trump camp in the beginning.

From your description, the root of this is in being judgmental on their part. Yeah, it's a good idea to keep an eye on people, but wagging the self righteous finger is not the way to go about it. Teddy could do no wrong in their eyes, even though he was pulling dirty tricks left and right. Talk about poor judgment.

Blogger Were-Puppy July 31, 2016 3:10 PM  

@43 Cail

Forgot to mention, but the Cruzers were a very good frenemy to practice rhetoric against. They really fight, and don't give up, so you had to bring your best hammer against them.

The Rodan trolls are so easy to deal with now, it's funny. It would take 10 or more of them to equal a single dedicated Cruzlim troll.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 31, 2016 3:12 PM  

bob k. mando wrote:how would a PRINCIPLED man have handled the RNC demand that Trump take a loyalty oath?

If you recall the early part of the primary, the GOP was deathly afraid that Trump would, if denied the nomination, run 3rd party or other wise undercut the party's nominee. I never thought he would run 3rd party. Hell, my own state and dozens of others have ballot laws that prevent exactly that scenario. The realistic threat was that Trump would endorse the Dem nominee, or actively undermine the GOP nominee.

They started DEMANDING Trump sign a loyalty oath, that he would support and endorse the eventual nominee. They tried to make it a campaign issue, except nobody but party insiders gave a scintilla of a damn about it.

Once he knew he had a realistic shot at the nomination, Trump agreed to sign, but only if the two biggest threats to his own campaign were addressed.
1) unfair rules changes that would i.e. unbind the delegates, etc.
2) die hard #NeverTrump bullshit working against him in the general.

The party agreed to these conditions in order to cut off the threat that angry disappointed Trump supporters represented in the General. Reince Priebus was the guy that brokered the agreement. ALL of the candidates agreed to the same conditions.
Reince abided by them. Jeb! abided by them. Rubio abided by them. Even the perennially flaky Kasich lived by his word.
One candidate and one candidate ONLY immediately started violating the agreement. One campaign and one campaign ONLY tried to change the rules to disqualify Trump. One candidate and one candidate ONLY has pointedly refused to abide by his pledge.

Think about this; Every other GOP politician has kept his word. The GOP establishment has behaved in a comparatively upright and trustworthy manner.

Ted Cruz did not.

Only Cruz signed his pledge with no intention of fulfilling his obligations under it.

You want to talk about decency and honor? Cruz couldn't manage event he level of integrity that Marco Rubio, Jeb! Bush and John Kasich displayed.

Ted Cruz is a lying sack of shit.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents July 31, 2016 3:13 PM  

Question: How many of the Evangelicals currently having a crisis of conscience over voting for Trump voted in 2012 for Romney? I would guess "all of them".

There's an interesting issue for those who claim the whole Bible as their manual to consider.

Blogger Andy Texan July 31, 2016 3:17 PM  

In '08 the morons in the demonrat party choose BO over Hitlery and she waited 8 years. To think that the pouting Cruz could not wait (even being so much younger) is a surprise. He (Cruz) must be self absorbed to the point of psychosis.

Blogger Were-Puppy July 31, 2016 3:23 PM  

@69 Snidely Whiplash

You want to talk about decency and honor? Cruz couldn't manage event he level of integrity that Marco Rubio, Jeb! Bush and John Kasich displayed.
---

Not arguing with your main point, but far as I know Senor Jeb and Son of a Mailman are not supporting Trump either. Along with Linda Graham. Probably not Snarly either. None of them bothered to show up for the convention.

Anonymous LastRedoubt July 31, 2016 3:37 PM  


@VD

I suspect that most of these die-hards are either women or gammas

Can confirm that in at least a couple cases.

One guy I've know for over twenty years has been posting #nevertrump and pro-cruz.

It's less who he supports or doesn't, but HOW he does it. The snarkiest, bitchiest "gotcha" writing, from himself or referenced from cucks, with no context, or room for counterfactuals of any sort.

Like someone else said, like following a cult leader, but without the charisma.


@ScottC

Cruz's supporters are probably Christians who have reservations about supporting a twice-divorced adulterer who asked one of the contestants on his reality show "The Apprentice" if he ever had sex.

Ah, virtue-signaling holier-than-thou "christians".

But no reservations following a man who's broken his given word to his associates, or his wife.


@Robert Divinity

Cruz's self-immolation was predictable--and helpful. He's one of the most repellent political figures in generations.

Matt Forney and several others who have met Cruz have referred to him as sociopathic. They may simply be mistaking something else for sociopathy, but there is certainly an issue there of an inability to read people and consistent excuses for self-centered wrongdoing.

@Johnny

From the few tweets and articles I've seen, Matt Walsh seemed a stand up guy. Why is he considered the poster boy of Cuckservatives?

Several reasons. a) Jumping on the "men are bad" feminist bandwagon. b) Not just being anti-Trump but being a passive-aggressive idiot about it, and running away from debate offers with Trump supporters after declaring he'd debate anyone (to show there was no such thing as a coherent, intelligent Trump supporter, with good reason for support)

Anonymous Camilla Cameo July 31, 2016 3:46 PM  

@63
I used to like Matt Walsh too; several of his anti-abortion posts were really good. But NeverTrumping in the whiniest way is about all he does now. If you hate Trump more than you want to prevent what Hillary will do to the unborn, there is no way you can call yourself pro-life.

Anonymous Viidad July 31, 2016 3:47 PM  

I am an extremely judgemental Calvinist who supports Trump.

Blogger Cataline Sergius July 31, 2016 4:13 PM  

I got chumped by Cruz. Although not is a big way.

I honestly thought he was being smart, when I saw him holding out his endorsement. I thought he was going to wait until the convention and then make a big splashy endorsement then. His endorsement would be quite valuable since great house Bush was sticking out's lower lip and bitching from the sidelines.

There were two possible outcomes after that; (A) If Trump wins he becomes The Kingmaker. The guy who who gave Trump the aura of legitimacy, that comes with quite a lot of ring kissing. Or (B) if Trump loses, he becomes the Crown Prince.

Instead he opted for (C) back stab Trump at his own damn convention.

For once I should have been listening to the Washington insiders, the man is a piece of shit.

Anonymous J. J. July 31, 2016 4:37 PM  

Same here. Not sure why anyone would try to pin Anti-Trumpism on Calvinists. Anecdotes are not data. My anecdotes are the exact opposite. My evangelical church doesn't have an official statement on Calvinism vs. Arminianism but some individuals are opinionated. The Anti-Trumpers are Arminians. I actually think certain positions Calvinists often hold (ex. Theology of vocation, Two Kingdoms Theology) would make them less a-feared of voting for a heathen such as The Donald.

Blogger guest July 31, 2016 5:17 PM  

Meh.

Actually the Baptist church leaders, which teaches Calvinism, *Jerry Falwell, Mike Huckabee, Franklin Graham, all support the Donald.

I detest Calvinism, part and parcel, from the acronym point "T", all the way to the point "P". and I'm thinking Cruz 2020. Trump hasn't defended my pearly white hide, in regards to religious rights at all. In fact, he expresses antipathy towards my religious values.

I'm just thinking about my pearly white hide, that's all.

Blogger bob k. mando July 31, 2016 5:18 PM  

72. Were-Puppy July 31, 2016 3:23 PM
None of them bothered to show up for the convention.



yes, that is EXACTLY where they display MORE integrity than Cruz.

you want to break your oath, fine.

you want to refuse to endorse your party's candidate ( because endorsing your own party's candidate is equivalent to cowering like a whipped puppy? wtf? ), fine.

THEN
you don't ask for an opportunity to address the VERY party apparatchiks who are legally defined as Trump supporters and who are BOUND by party rules to vote for Trump.

IF you have the slightest modicum of integrity
THEN you don't rub everybody else's face in the fact that you aren't going to support the guy THEY are nominating for the campaign.




69. Snidely Whiplash July 31, 2016 3:12 PM
Ted Cruz did not.

Only Cruz signed his pledge with no intention of fulfilling his obligations under it.



a decent summation of the history involved.

but i didn't ask for a summary.

i asked for a critique.

HOW would a principled Republican candidate have handled the GOPe attempt to hamstring one of your primary opponents?

you can also critique the Donald's actual response if you like.

Blogger bob k. mando July 31, 2016 5:35 PM  

a blogger account by the name of 'guest'?

okay, i'm amused.

Blogger Were-Puppy July 31, 2016 6:03 PM  

@79 bob k. mando

I agree with that. I was only writing in terms of the oath breaking itself.

Speaking of never Trumpers, did anyone else see that Small Mittens is softening up ?

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/30/mitt-romney-its-very-possible-donald-trump-wins/

Blogger Phillip George July 31, 2016 8:21 PM  

Scott, precisely how many men have you suspected of not having masturbated at some stage in their life?
Seeing the Everest of Morality has no flags on it.

Blogger Tom Kratman July 31, 2016 8:56 PM  

"It's amazing how the SCOTUS can read the Constitution so broadly as to find so many words that are not actually written there, yet simultaneously read it so narrowly as to not be able to see the words that are."

While I tend to agree with the sentiment, there _are_ some things in there that are not spelled out but not trivial or meangingless, either. For example, "The executive power shall be vested..." What's the executive power? It's not merely to be a flunky for the legislature, to execute the laws they pass. Neither is it merely those things mentioned in Section 2, Article II. "Executive power" had some meanings then and now beyond those few things. One might argue that, "well, after the tyranny of King George.." except that it wasn't _his_ tyranny we were rebelling against; it was Parliament's, for which he was a useful symbol for our propaganda.

The short version (highly simplified, of course) is that "the executive power" is pretty much everything King George had, even if he didn't use it, and whatever is necessary to present a single face to the foreign foe.

Lately, of course (oh, no, not really; since inception), we've been uncomfortable with the powers the president has, or assumes, and uses. And that's okay as long as the system balances the power, overall, if not necessarily in every trivial case.

Blogger bob k. mando July 31, 2016 9:16 PM  

83. Tom Kratman July 31, 2016 8:56 PM
While I tend to agree with the sentiment, there _are_ some things in there that are not spelled out but not trivial or meangingless, either.


which is not a point anyone was disagreeing with. we're talking about things like "separation of church and state" which does NOT exist in the Constitution.

further, and more relevantly to the point you're making;
IF there are to be questions as to the extent of 'Executive Power' which the Law does not actually address
THEN those questions should properly be resolved via appeals to the people of the Nation.

judges arrogating unto themselves the 'right' to establish via ruling thereby disenfranchise the voters
...
which is the whole reason this nation was founded.

Blogger Leo Little Book in Shenzhen July 31, 2016 10:04 PM  

Donald Defensor or Tyrant Trump? Yes please.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 01, 2016 3:29 AM  

bob k. mando wrote:HOW would a principled Republican candidate have handled the GOPe attempt to hamstring one of your primary opponents?

C.F. Marco Rubio. I never liked him as a candidate. I will probably never vote for him. But he demonstrated integrity throughout the primary process. Carson as well. Other principled conservative candidates who weren't in the position to sign the pledge but nonetheless endorsed Trump were Santorum, Huckabee, Perry and Walker.

And yes, even Kasich, Bush, and iCarly acted with more integrity than Cruz. Cruz was trying to subvert the rules of the convention, pushed hard for it in fact, in direct opposition to his own voluntarily given vow. The also-rans stopped trying to make themselves the story, stopped trying to undermine Trump. They just walked away.
Cruz made the pledge never intending to abide by it. He started subverting it almost immediately, using a PAC to provide arms-length cover (a subterfuge that only seems to have fooled #NeverTrump cucks, BTW). Then, when Trump tweeted out an uncomplimentary picture of Heidi, and threatened to make her banking connections an issue in the campaign, Cruz used that as an excuse to simply ignore his pledge.

Either the man's word is worth something or it is not. Cruz demonstrated at the convention that he views his own vow as worthless, his own word as a cheap political tactic, his own integrity as a purely m
momentary item of convenience.

He demonstrated that he is indeed Lyin' Ted Cruz, whose word is his mask, and whose unaccountable reputation for integrity is merely marketing.

Blogger robwbright August 01, 2016 9:59 AM  

I have been arguing with a certain Christian friend of mine (and Cruz supporter) who has repeatedly justified Cruz not keeping his word. On at least three occasions, I have requested that this friend provide me with scripture references in support of Cruz not honoring his pledge. Crickets thus far.

Interestingly, this person tried to convince me that Cruz's refusal to keep his pledge fit under an exception to keeping pledges by pointing out that I - personally - chose not to keep a vow some time ago when my fiance' cheated on me.

Does anyone see a problem with the logic and hermeneutics in THAT argument?

OpenID frankluke August 01, 2016 2:16 PM  

@87

If they aren't giving you scriptures to check, then you can't look at their hermeneutic.

The *best* response I've seen by several friends supporting Cruz even past the flameout is that Cruz first and foremost made a pledge to defend his wife. That pledge takes precedence over a pledge to the party especially since Trump attacked both Heidi and Cruz's father. (These two do intend to vote Trump in the general as they agree with me that Hillary must be stopped.)

I responded that then Cruz shouldn't have gone.

They replied then Trump shouldn't have invited him. I should have said, "Blaming the victim, now?"

As to your pledge, I'm betting you didn't go to the wedding, acting as if you were going to say the vows, and then make some passive-aggressive speech about marrying according to your conscience.

Anonymous Mr. Rational August 01, 2016 8:33 PM  

Since I was called out, I'm firing back.

Phillip George wrote:Ted Cruz gave Mark Steyn a leg up fighting Big Climate. And big climate are nation wrecking killers; the world's worst intellectual whores. You there Mr Rational?
You're not listening.  I'll explain it to you again, but history shows that you are too stupid to understand moderately-complex concepts put to you in plain language.  I'm hoping the rest of the readership here trends smarter than you, so this effort is worthwhile.

First thing:  there's no such thing as Big Climate.  There are the usual watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside) front groups which somehow get financing from (((well-heeled interests))) anyway.  Their positions are dictated by their donors, who cut off funds if they stray off the reservation.  These groups include Greenpeace, NRDC and Friends of the Earth.  Sierra Club had an ideological split a while ago and doesn't seem to fit categories neatly, and its history is REALLY interesting... more on that later.

The watermelons in practice push for scarce energy, not clean energy.  Scarce energy is costly energy, and guess who benefits from costly energy?  The people who sell it, that's who.  This is why Friends of the Earth was started with funding from ARCO CEO Robert O. Anderson.  The Sierra Club's motto at the time was "Atoms Not Dams", and FoE was specifically founded to oppose nuclear energy.  Anderson saw the threat that uranium posed to oil, and did something about it in typical rent-seeker fashion.

You can see who's calling the tune for these "climate" organizations by their positions on Vermont Yankee, Indian Point and Diablo Canyon.  Fuel consumption and CO2 emissions went up when VY and San Onofre closed, but these organizations count those closures as successes.  This is a direct contradiction of what they claim to be about.  When that kind of thing happens, you need to ask "cui bono?"  Right now the finger points to the natural gas industry, which is owned in the USA mostly by oil interests.  Every time a nuclear plant closes, natural gas sales go up.  Gas interests know this; this is why Chesapeake Energy gave $26 million to the Sierra Club back in 2012.

How much money is in play?  Replacing Vermont Yankee's output takes about 5 billion BTU of gas per hour.  At even today's depressed $3 per million BTU, this is $15,000 per hour, $120000 per day, over $40 million in sales per year.  When pipeline congestion pushes prices higher, those numbers go WAY up.  Closing a nuclear plant with 20 years to go on its license is easily worth a billion dollars in gas sales.

Begin to get the picture?  So-called "Big Climate" (which is actually Big Green) is owned by oil interests, just like Black Lives Matter is owned by billionaire (((George Soros))).

(continued next comment)

Anonymous Mr. Rational August 01, 2016 8:36 PM  

Some people have recently dug into the history of the anti-nuclear movement, and it turns out that it has big-money interests and scientific misconduct intimately involved at the outset.  The National Academy of Science did not independently pursue its 1956 study on radiation; the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) genetics committee was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and chaired by Warren Weaver, himself not a geneticist but a part of the Rockefeller Foundation.  The published results were cherry-picked by Weaver (omitting member estimates—and they were only estimates—which suggested there was little or no problem or that there was too much uncertainty to conclude anything) and then reported on the front page of the New York Times.  This is how we got the "no safe dose" rule for radiation.  Previous to that there were well-understood limits below which radiation was assumed safe, and actual health results proved that it was.  All of that previous knowledge was written out of accepted wisdom by fiat (much as (((Franz Boas))) orchestrated the writing of race realism out of anthropology, and then the rest of the academy).

Why would the Rockefeller Foundation be interested in torpedoing nuclear power?  In 1955, oil produced a some 6.7% of United States electric generation... and that share was a growing part of an expanding pie.  In 1970 it was 12% of a pie nearly 3 times as large.  That was a lot of money to lose to cheap uranium.  The Rockefellers knew then which side their bread was buttered on, just as they know it today.

Now we have the climate issue.  "Big Green", represented by FoE, Greenpeace, the NRDC and Sierra Club are still anti-nuclear even as they pay lip service to climate issues and promote the replacement of nuclear power by natural gas (which they call "a bridge to renewables").  For real environmentalism we have the Breakthrough Institute, Environmental Progress and grassroots groups like Californians for Green Nuclear Power.  The real environmentalists are pro-nuclear and anti-gas... just like the climate scientists.

So who are you going to believe?  The oil companies (which are playing both sides of the game, as I've shown you), or the actual climate science community and its advocates?

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts