Posted by Christopher Johnson | Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 | Uncategorized | 25 Comments

People won’t vote for you if you hate them:

The predominant narrative coming out of the 2016 presidential post-election analysis is: The flyover states have spoken.

A flyover state is the huge region between the coasts. As opposed to the eastern seaboard, northern post-industrial states and Pacific Ocean states. They’re overwhelmingly Republican, stanchly conservative, regressive right wing, evangelical Christian and working class, well, the loudest, most ill-informed of them are. The term wasn’t commonly used in a political manner until recently with the emergence of the Tea Party and the election of Obama.

A visit to Wichita, Kan., isn’t on the bucket list of many Americans. Whereas most travelers fly over Fayetteville, Ark., and Springfield, Mo. They’re not destination spots. The flyover state gripe has nothing to do with the tourist industry of Oklahoma or Nebraska or Iowa. This is about their perceived feelings of abandonment and disrespect from their government. Never mind they’ve elected local, state and national representatives that should reflect their values and interests.

Now they’ve elected Donald Trump, the ultimate coastal elite. Trump pandered to their bigotry, and anger at Washington, D.C.

The more entrenched the flyover voting bloc becomes in their voting habits, the further they fall behind economically, by voting against their own interests, the more they blame Washington, D.C. and coastal “liberal elites” for their issues.

This is a voter demographic fond of describing themselves as hard-working middle-class Americans. Which they are. They’re overwhelmingly middle-aged to senior, white, semi-rural, increasingly suburban and indignant. They seem to be perpetually enraged every election cycle, and after, according to the results.

They either want their country back or they’re tired of being ignored. They regularly blurt the latter as justification for electing right-wing theocrat/closed minds, austerity minded, cultural fascists to office. These are people that use more government subsidy than any segment of the country, but they hate “handouts” to anyone else. They are the largest consumers of SNAP benefits, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The alleged silent majority is deafening and easily provoked. They reside in their own echo-chamber bubble of indignation about everything from “New York values” (urban, ethnic rights, LGBT, social justice), to the war on Christmas and Black Lives Matter. They mocked and derided all people’s protests from Occupy to #NoDAPL. Their old standbys are opposing a woman’s right to choose, reinstituting school prayer and eradicating “big government.” They hate progress. Their idea of American values is straight from circa 1870.

Bitter much, douchebag?

Now you know why the concept of secession is not a dead letter by any stretch of the imagination.  I joke about it around here a lot but I’m genuinely coming to believe that it might actually happen in this country again.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Tuesday, December 13th, 2016 | Uncategorized | 32 Comments

Apparently, the next time American leftists see Rocky IV, they’ll root for Rocky Balboa for a change:

Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) on Monday said that Russia’s hacking of the United States presidential election “is not open to debate.”

“This is not a fact that is in dispute by any of our 17 intelligence agencies, and I’ve been in the room, as have my colleagues,” Himes told CNN’s “New Day.”

“There is one person who believes that this is still in dispute, who believes this is some kind of bizarre Democratic plot, and that’s, of course, the president-elect, Donald Trump.

“But the idea that Russia hacked our election is not open to debate anymore,” Himes added.

Right.  I guess that Russian mind-control satellite orbiting above this country got millions of Americans to touch the touchscreen for Trumpy.  Or maybe it was Moscow’s “Free Vodka For Trump Voters!!” promotion.

Dumbass.  Anyway, these people aren’t on board, Jimmy.

The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA’s analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

The position of the ODNI, which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as “ridiculous” in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks.

Neither is the FBI.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA’s analysis – a deductive assessment of the available intelligence – for the same reason, the three officials said.

But President Triple Bogey has your back, Jimmy.

President Obama’s top spokesman went on the attack Monday against President-elect Donald Trump and his allies over allegations the Russian government interfered in the election to boost his candidacy.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said there’s no denying Trump benefitted from Russian hacking of political organizations during the campaign season.

“You didn’t need a security clearance to figure out who benefited from malicious Russian cyber activity,” Earnest said during the daily press briefing.

Remember when it was those conservative dorks who thought the Soviet Union was a threat to this country and it was the left who thought we should get along.  Remember Hillary’s “Reset” button?  Ah, those were the days.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Monday, December 12th, 2016 | Uncategorized | 26 Comments

SPECIAL UPDATE: Speaking of meltdowns, Keith Olbermann is foaming at the mouth.  This is the funniest stuff that you’ll read this week.  Or maybe ever.

You might be interested to know that Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman is officially batcrap insane:

The problem is that Krugsie’s insanity seems to be contagious.

Dear Lord forgive me but I am LOVING this.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Sunday, December 11th, 2016 | Uncategorized | 17 Comments

Think the Democratic Party has problems nowWait two years:

The sprawling, 10-person Democratic leadership team that Chuck Schumer assembled on Wednesday will allow him to hear from everyone from Bernie Sanders to Joe Manchin.

And Democrats are going to need all the wisdom they can summon — from all quarters of the party — to survive what’s coming at them in 2018.

Still nursing their wounds after last week’s thrashing, Democrats already are grappling with how to defend 10 senators up for reelection in 2018 in states that Donald Trump carried, some resoundingly. Republicans are targeting a quintet of senators from conservative states where Trump walloped Hillary Clinton: Montana, Missouri, Indiana, North Dakota and West Virginia. The GOP could amass a filibuster-proof majority by running the table in those states and other battlegrounds.

To prevent that, Schumer will need to mine his fellow leaders to accommodate vulnerable Democrats with profoundly different ideologies and political circumstances — from Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin, who also was tapped for a leadership spot, to West Virginia’s Manchin, who has gone out of his way to align himself with Trump voters this week. That means appealing to the white working class in some states — and stoking minority and liberal turnout in others.

The foreboding map, coupled with competing political imperatives for different vulnerable members, has party leaders looking to drive wedges between Trump and Republican leaders in the early going. But ultimately, if Democrats hope to avoid ceding even more power to Republicans in two years, they’ll have to seize back the issues — and voters — that Trump snatched away.

“I’m proud of the fact that we’re a party of diversity and inclusivity, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be talking to everyone. And I feel like we’ve neglected to do that,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, a moderate also up for reelection in 2018.

Not that they’ll ever take advice from something called the Midwest Conservative Journal since they heartily despise those first two words but there is a way for the Democrats to minimize whatever damage is coming from the next mid-term elections and maybe even make some small gains.

Tell every single Democratic incumbent in the Congress that nobody’s position is safe.

I obviously know Missouri better than I know other states so take Claire McCaskill as an example.  Since I seriously doubt that the Missouri GOP will run a candidate against her as bad as Todd Akin was, the early betting line here is that her political career will end in two years.

Missouri Republicans just sent Roy Blunt back to the Senate, got a governor elected who had never run for any political office before, now control every statewide office and still have supermajorities in both houses of the General Assembly.  Missouri Democrats, who once ran this state, literally won’t be able to stop anything.

But there is a way to improve Democratic chances of keeping Missouri’s US Senate seat.

Make Claire earn re-nomination.

In the recent election, Missouri Democrats had two impressive candidates for the Senate and governorship in Secretary of State Jason Kander (for the Senate) and Attorney General Chris Koster (for governor).  Both lost and Kander runs to the left of Koster but either one of them would be extremely tough for McCaskill to beat.

And since neither one is Claire McCaskill, either one of them would be formidable obstacles for the Missouri GOP to overcome.  Both are young and attractive so the national GOP and its allied PAC’s would have to pump an aircraft-carrier-load of money into the Missouri race in order to be sure of taking the Senate seat from the Democrats.

Aside from the sneering contempt she showed for half of the American public (“basket of deplorables” will live forever), one of the reasons why Hillary Clinton lost the election was the Democratic notion that she was entitled to be the Democratic Party candidate.  Lose that mindset and quite a few Democratic problems vanish overnight.

Will any of this happen?  I wouldn’t put any money on it.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Friday, December 9th, 2016 | Uncategorized | 21 Comments

Seems that during the recent campaign, Hillary Clinton spent twice as much as


Hillary Clinton and her supporters spent a record $1.2 billion for her losing presidential campaign — twice as much as the winner, Donald Trump, according to the latest records.

The president-elect, who confounded critics during the campaign by saying there was no need to raise or spend $1 billion or more, ended up making do with $600 million.

Clinton’s expensive machine tore through $131.8 million in just the final weeks, finishing with about $839,000 on hand as of Nov. 28.

Team Trump spent $94.5 million in the home stretch — from Oct. 20 to Nov. 28 — and had $7.6 million left.

The figures include all spending by the campaigns, PACs and party committees.

But still lost the election to


Which means that


will the next president of the United States.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Thursday, December 8th, 2016 | Uncategorized | 13 Comments

Godspeed, John Glenn.  I don’t guess that you’ll be coming back down any time soon.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Thursday, December 8th, 2016 | Uncategorized | 16 Comments

Ben Shapiro explains why the continuing leftist meltdown over the prospect of


has been so gosh-darn much fun to read:

In the vast tsunami of leftist grief that has washed over the land in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s shocking presidential victory, no flotsam has been as prevalent as Hollywood gliterrati weeping and screaming and gnashing their teeth while donning only the most stylish and expensive sackcloth. Most recently, near-sextuagenarian Madonna lamented, “I was devastated, surprised, in shock. I haven’t really had a good night’s sleep since he has been elected. We’re f***ed.”

Some of the shock of Trump’s victory is surely due to the bubble that exists in Hollywood and New York, the Pauline Kael–esque sense that nobody could have voted for Trump. But some of it also derives from celebrities’ self-assured belief that they have an outsized impact in the world of politics. Clearly that view infused the Clinton campaign: Hillary trotted out Lena Dunham of Girls fame, she of the false rape accusations and gleeful admissions of sexually abusing her sister, on the campaign trail all year long; Clinton advocates such as Elizabeth Banks took time off from producing bad a cappella sequels to film ads; singers and actors all joined to make a difference by producing a glossy version of Rachel Platten’s maddening “Fight Song.”

And not only didn’t those things matter, they actually helped drive voters away from Clinton. They exacerbated the image of Clinton as an out-of-touch elitist who spent her free time hanging out with Katy Perry, even as Donald Trump, at a stadium in rural Ohio, took yet another boisterous swipe at elitism.

But it wasn’t just because these celebrities were rich and out of touch that Americans were put off by them. It’s because those celebrities were the people most likely to judge red-state Americans as rubes — nasties intent on targeting Muslims and gays and blacks and women. The unearned moral superiority of America’s celebrity class rests in their open condemnation of flyover Americans as brutish louts, and their self-parodying belief that they are civil-rights heroes. Hollywood (wrongly) believes that it singlehandedly ended segregation; Hollywood (rightly) believes that it had a heavy hand in promoting same-sex marriage. Hollywood sees itself as the moral vanguard.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Tuesday, December 6th, 2016 | Uncategorized | 53 Comments

I don’t know why the mainstream media insists on running stuff like this except for an inexplicable desire on their part to amuse the hell out of me.  But once again, paraphrasing Oscar Wilde, I submit that you would have to have a heart of stone to read this Stephanie Land piece in The Washington Post without laughing.  Seems that Steff’s Post-Trumpaumatic Stress Disorder has caused her to give up on finding Twoo Wuv:

But two weeks later, the election happened. Once it was clear that Donald Trump would be president instead of Hillary Clinton, I felt sick to my stomach. I wanted to gather my children in bed with me and cling to them like we would if thunder and lightning were raging outside, with winds high enough that they power might go out. The world felt that precarious to me.

My oldest came out of her room the next morning to show me the money the Tooth Fairy had left her. She’d unexpectedly had to have a tooth pulled, and so bravely went through it that I said, “Just think: You’ll always remember the day you got a tooth pulled with the day we elected our first female president.”

When I told her Trump had won, she protested: “But Mom. You said Hillary was going to win.”

“A lot of people thought the same thing,” I said. I hugged her, a little scared to send her to school, out into the big sky country of the red state where we live.

I’ve lost the desire to attempt the courtship phase. The future is uncertain. I am not the optimistic person I was on the morning of Nov. 8, wearing a T-shirt with “Nasty Woman” written inside a red heart. It makes me want to cry thinking of that. Of seeing my oldest in the shirt I bought her in Washington, D.C., that says “Future President.”

There is no room for dating in this place of grief. Dating means hope. I’ve lost that hope in seeing the words “President-elect Trump.”


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Monday, December 5th, 2016 | Uncategorized | 22 Comments

49erBattling their Post-Trumpaumatic Stress Disorder, Californians continue to ponder the idea of seceding from the Union:

Not since 2010 has California felt itself politically so out of step with the times. That year the state resisted the nationwide wave of anti-incumbent, anti-regulation and anti-big government voting to elect Jerry Brown as governor, ease the passage of big-money state budgets and turn away a challenge to its pioneering greenhouse gas regulations.

This election day, California voters tightened gun control, extended taxes on the rich, hiked cigarette taxes, legalized marijuana, boosted multilingual education — and of course provided Hillary Clinton with all of her winning margin of 2 million popular votes, and then some, in her losing campaign for president.

No wonder the election has inspired talk of California’s seceding from the United States. The nascent campaign, organized under the banner of the Yes California Independence Campaign and heralded by the Twitter hashtag #Calexit, has been energized by remarks by Brown, and others, that a Trump election would necessitate “building a wall around California” to preserve its forward-looking policies against a reactionary federal regime. And why not, the argument goes. After all, with a gross domestic product of $2.5 trillion, the state’s economy ranks sixth in the world, sandwiched between Britain and France.

Secession talk is more valuable as a pointer to all the ways that California and federal policies are likely to come into conflict during the next few years than as a formula for practical politics. 

“It’s impossible to look at the Trump campaign and not see a direct threat to the civil liberties and dignity of California citizens,” says Tom Steyer, the progressive billionaire who in recent years has focused his energy on combating climate change via his organization NextGen Climate.

The author, Michael Hiltzik, who lives there, thinks the whole idea is a non-starter but depending on how the next two to four years go, I’m not sure that California won’t, at some point, seriously consider it and Michael Barone provides a two-word reason why.  Electoral College.

The seemingly endless dilly-dallying of California’s (presumably union-represented) public employees has obscured two interesting things about this year’s presidential election.

The first is that the Electoral College loser Hillary Clinton won a plurality of the popular vote by a considerably wider percentage margin than her counterparts in the elections of 2000 and 1888, Al Gore and Grover Cleveland — though apparently less than the percentage margin for Samuel Tilden in 1876.

If California continues to occupy one extreme of the national political spectrum, there may well be more such splits. At least unless and until the Democratic Party figures it needs more to make a case with more appeal beyond California if it wants to win 270 electoral votes.

All of which prompts renewed arguments about the Electoral College. The case for abolishing it is simple: Every American’s vote should count the same. But it won’t happen. Two-thirds of each house of Congress and 38 of the 50 state legislatures will never go along.

The case against abolition is one suggested by the Framers’ fears that voters in one large but highly atypical state could impose their will on a contrary-minded nation. That largest state in 1787 was Virginia, home of four of the first five presidents. New York and California, by remaining closely in line with national opinion up through 1996, made the issue moot.

California’s 21st century veer to the left makes it a live issue again. In a popular vote system, the voters of this geographically distant and culturally distinct state, whose contempt for heartland Christians resembles imperial London’s disdain for the “lesser breeds” it governed, could impose something like colonial rule over the rest of the nation. Sounds exactly like what the Framers strove to prevent.

And there you have it.  California can either rule itself according to what it perceives to be its values, and, for all practical purposes, impose its values on the rest of the country, or get constantly stymied by people whose values it despises.  At some point, the contradiction will no longer be bearable.

Would this necessitate another American civil war?  It doesn’t need to.  I doubt that too many people in my part of the country would object too strongly if Cali wanted to strike out on its own.  Issues like military facilities, nuclear weapons and whatnot could be cleared up fairly quickly.

Granted, California would probably face a civil war of its own since eastern California probably wouldn’t want anything to do with any of this so refugee camps would probably have to be set up along the border with the new country.  Then there’s the whole water and power issue.

And God help ’em when the next big earthquake hits.

But if California wants this, then vaya con Dios as I’ve said before.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Sunday, December 4th, 2016 | Uncategorized | 24 Comments

I’ve tried to hold down the schadenfreude about the election of


as the next president of the United States of America last November 8th but I’m not going to try that hard any more.  Because quite a number of Hillary supporters on the left who are devastated about the fact that


will be the next president of the United States of America are also pretty considerable sons of bitches.

Case in point (LANGUAGE WARNING).


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Friday, December 2nd, 2016 | Uncategorized | 6 Comments

This whole sad episode has obviously been a huge story around these parts.  I guess that a couple decades or so down the road, young Malachi here will have to explain to his kids why he still cherishes these two gifts.  And when it comes time for Malachi to see his daddy again, both of them will join him in his coffin.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Friday, December 2nd, 2016 | Uncategorized | 38 Comments

Apparently, this is an actual thing:

She had an idea, right there over our eggs – the alternative gap-year experience. She and a friend would run sessions teaching room painting, chicken roasting, savings accounts, engine maintenance. I rolled my eyes (I’d prefer “engaged thoughtfully”), but lo, it’s happened. In Portland [Maine], a teacher and psychotherapist have opened The Adulting School.

Adulting. It was nominated as the word of the year by the American Dialect Society, a word coined by a generation that has been shielded from the worst of growing up by living in their parents’ homes, and shut out of the best of it by a society that forces them to stay there. Reminiscent of Alan Partridge’s seminal boast that he’s been “pubic for 31 years”, “adulting”, the verb, is most commonly used to gloat over achievements such as making a dentist appointment, or going to Tesco and buying more than just Frosties.

The Adulting School’s first official session took place last week. During their early presentation, on time management, a number of 26-year-old attendees trickled in late. Reports from the summit make it sound not unlike an office party for dogs – participants waggily sniffing each other, being told when and where to sit. They’d been sent by their parents. There were cupcakes in the afternoon.

But it’s almost too easy to dismiss them, these young people with their shy arrogance and need for congratulations. Almost too easy to go up very close and look in their spectacled eyes and say: “There are no medals for being a person, child,” or to peruse their hashtags as you wait for your soup to simmer and quickly write off a whole generation.  Because while their parents had fairly linear paths to adulthood – secure jobs, affordable homes in which to raise children, a pension even, a shed – the millennials who dabble in adulting have no similar scripts to follow, and find themselves stranded on the hard shoulder of life, wondering how to act their age.

This is from the “school’s” web site.

You’re smart and capable – your education just didn’t provide you with all the skills you need.

We know you’re sick of feeling like you’re pretending to be a grown-up and that someone’s going to realize you don’t know the sh%#t you’re supposed to know.

You’re putting together the pieces of the puzzle for successful adulting and we’ve got the pieces you’re missing!

You don’t have a ton of time to commit or money to spend on figuring it all out and that’s okay–we have succinct, useable, accessible information in our workshops, summits, webinars and blogs. We’ve gathered quality, down-to-earth experts as part of our community to answer your questions and get you moving forward with the adulting fundamentals you need.

Have fun, guys, because I got nothin’.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, November 30th, 2016 | Uncategorized | 25 Comments

It must be nice to be


A guy that rich has probably got residences all over the place (not that I’m jealous or anything although I am but you didn’t hear that from me).  The guy’s luck is so good that on November 8th, he picked up a new home without spending a dime.  Ever since that day, he’s taken up rent-free residence inside the heads of the American left. “Evangelical Christian” Tony Campolo and some other guy:

As the election retreats like a hurricane heading back out to sea, first responders are assessing the damage left in its wake. One casualty is the reputation of evangelicalism.

Why is that, T?

Evangelicalism was closely associated with the campaign of Donald J. Trump, and more than 80 percent of white evangelicals voted for the president-elect. This, despite large numbers of African-American, Latino, Asian, young and female evangelicals who were fiercely opposed to the racism, sexism and xenophobia of Mr. Trump’s campaign and the hypocrisy of a candidate who built a casino empire while flouting morality.

coughBILLCLINTONcough  You were one of the guy’s “spiritual advisers.”  Did the idea that boinking interns in the Oval Office and then lying about it ever come up at all?

As a result, much of the good that went by the name “evangelicalism” has been clouded over; now a new movement is needed to replace it.

Whatever you say, T, you old fraud.  In other news, Kellogg’s has decided to do this.

Kellogg Co. announced on Tuesday its decision to pull ads from conservative media giant Breitbart.com because its 45,000,000 monthly conservative readers are not “aligned with our values as a company.” In response, Breitbart News, one of the world’s top news publishers, has launched a #DumpKelloggs petition and called for a boycott of the ubiquitous food manufacturer.

The decision by Kellogg’s, which makes Pringles, Eggo waffles, as well as Special K and Frosted Flakes cereals, among others, will make virtually no revenue impact on Breitbart.com. It does, however, represent an escalation in the war by leftist companies like Target and Allstate against conservative customers whose values propelled Donald Trump into the White House.

“We regularly work with our media-buying partners to ensure our ads do not appear on sites that aren’t aligned with our values as a company,” said Kellogg’s flak Kris Charles. “We recently reviewed the list of sites where our ads can be placed and decided to discontinue advertising on Breitbart.com. We are working to remove ads from that site.” 

Kellogg’s offered no examples of how Breitbart’s 45 million monthly readers fail to align with the breakfast maker’s values. Indeed, the move appears to be one more example of an out-of-touch corporation embracing false left-wing narratives used to cynically smear the hard working Americans that populate this nation’s heartland.

Thanks for the heads-up on what not to buy at the grocery store.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Tuesday, November 29th, 2016 | Uncategorized | 19 Comments

You can’t really call the Rev. Gay Clark Jennings, head of the Episcopal Organization’s House of Deputies, a #NeverTrump-er.  It would be much more accurate to describe her as a out and freaking proud member of the #IllDriveNailsIntoMyOwnEyesAndShaveWithABeltSanderBeforeIllGiveTheTimeOfDayToThatPieceOfCrap community:

For months, as the Republican nominee for president


spewed hatred and contempt for women, people of color,

Was that the time Trump spoke at a black church and spent quite a bit of time during the campaign talking about what a raw deal African-Americans have gotten over the years and how that was going to change if he had anything to say about it?

and immigrants, the white church stood by and watched. The Twitter hashtag #whitechurchquiet bears witness to our silence.

But on Election Day, white Christians — not just an overwhelming number of evangelicals, but also majorities of Protestants and Catholics — spoke by electing Donald Trump president of our country.

And we’re off.

Christians always have disagreements about policy proposals or party platforms during election seasons. But this year, I wonder how white Christians who read the same Scriptures and hold many of the same beliefs that I do could support a man who in word and deed has flaunted the core teachings of our faith.

Well.  Quite a few people attend Episcopalian outlets on Sunday even though TEO has basically gutted the Bible.  And quite a few Episcopalians have stopped attending Episcopalian outlets completely because they know that TEO has nothing even remotely resembling “the core teachings of our faith” any more.

So it’s not surprising that white Christians “who read the same Scriptures and hold many of the same beliefs that” Jennings does “could support a man who in word and deed has flaunted the core teachings of our faith.”  A man like that got two presidential terms in the 90’s without any Episcopalian complaint that I was aware of.

Of course that was only adultery and most Episcopalians no longer know what that is.

And apparently Ms. Jennings believes that it would have been the more “Christian” thing to do to vote for that man’s power-hungry enabler who is still married to him, last I checked.  Sorry, Ms. Jennings, but you don’t get to play that card any more.

People who say they follow a poor, itinerant savior who came to bring good news to the poor and freedom to captives have elected a president who speaks contemptuously of women and people of color, and whose election has sparked celebration by the Ku Klux Klan and outbreaks of violence and harassment against Muslims, Jews, Latinos, women, immigrants and LGBT people.

Again with the Klan.  An idea with few adherents any more and even fewer people who give a damn what those brain-dead zombies think.  But you lefties need the Klan, don’t you, since a “core teaching” of whatever your religion is is that most of the United States of America always has been and always will be “racist.”

Did Trump order or celebrate those alleged “outbreaks of violence?”  Then he’s not responsible for them.  If you’re not too busy dynamiting every Christian tenet I was taught to believe, you might want to take a glance at Ezekiel 18 yourself some time.

But you probably won’t since people like you hate this country with a virulent hatred and you KNEW that all us racist white guys were just chomping at the bit waiting for the chance to get back at all those Muslims, Latinos, women and ligbits.

Which is not a terribly Christian thing to think about fellow Christians but your “church” stopped being discernibly Christian many, many decades back.

Christians who voted for Trump may claim policy or economic reasons for having done so. But by electing a man whose words and actions support and incite hatred and violence, the church has failed the country, and we have a lot of soul searching to do.

We Trump supporters don’t.  Because all we were doing was selecting this country’s First Civil Servant, not its Presiding Bishop, and we chose the least objectionable option.  Folks like you, on the other hand, have got a lot of serious rethinking ahead.

Because if this country is as evil as you seem to believe that it is, that means that the Episcopal Organization HAS HAD NO INFLUENCE ON IT WHATSOEVERNobody listens to you, nobody cares what you say.  You can’t change the world because you’ve completely sold out to it.

President-elect Trump’s rhetoric and his behavior indicate that he does not regard significant numbers of other Americans as his equal, or even as fully human.

Oh sweet mother of…put down the ganja, Gay.

But our own limitations do not free us from our promise to resist evil. When the agendas of the president-elect and the new Congress scapegoat people of color and Muslims, deprive our fellow citizens of control over their lives, desecrate God’s creation or enrich the wealthy at the expense of the poor, we must oppose them. This is not a partisan political statement; it is a confession of faith.

So pre-blame for things that haven’t even happened yet and may never ever happen at all is now one of the “core teachings of our faith?”  To tell you the truth, I’m pretty disgusted with the “Christian” church myself these days.

Garbage like this is all over the “Christian” leftThese guys might as well change the name of their site to Trump Sucks and be done with it.  Because if it’s “Christian” to try and condemn a man for something that he hasn’t even done yet, then I don’t understand the “Christian” religion, I’ve never understood it and I never will.

UPDATE: Credit where it’s due.  Read the comments to this piece.  Quite a number of people commenting there were as disgusted as I was.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Monday, November 28th, 2016 | Uncategorized | 66 Comments

Krugsie’s losing it:

Support The MCJ                        

Email the editor-in-chief                    
©2016 Christopher Johnson                                
                        Email about Website issues

Recent Comments