by baldilocks

Conservative commentators hither and yon have laid out reason after reason after reason that Donald Trump should not be the Republican candidate for president. They’ve used facts, reason and logic. But I don’t think that much headway is being made and I don’t expect to make much here.

The latest example is the Trump Campaign’s reaction in the wake of its loss in the Colorado Caucus/Convention. Mr. Trump’s subsequent behavior has been typically petulant—especially in view of the campaign’s failure to do the minimum amount of leg-work in the state.

I’m not going to lay out the situation leading up to the loss in Colorado because it’s only tangential to my point. Those who want to know what happened already know or they’ve already decided to ignore it.

And to paraphrase a Trumpism: he whines so much that I—for one—have become bored with whining.

For the record, I don’t “hate” Donald Trump because I have some secret desire to be liked and accepted by the so-called “Republican Establishment.”

Whoever makes this juvenile assertion is using the same thought process—such as it is—that black leftists use when attempting to shame black conservatives: “You’re only conservative because you want white people to like you”–as if principle were a plantation. (By the way, white people liked me when I was a Democrat.)

However, there is one huge–if you’ll pardon the word–reason that the prospect of a President Trump frightens me. And that reason is not political.

I will not vote for someone who calls himself a Christian and, at the same time, says he hasn’t asked God’s forgiveness; who, in fact, says that he doesn’t need forgiveness.

That we all have sinned and require forgiveness and propitiation for our sins through the actions of Jesus the Christ is Christianity itself.

It’s telling that many Christian commentators have ignored Trump’s words on this matter. We may not be voting for a pope or a pastor, but we are voting for a person to lead this country, and, as we Christians know, God puts—and allows–leaders to lead their countries, depending on the choices and character of the citizenry. That means that if we don’t mind if an apostate is our leader, God will let that happen. We should have already learned this in the last eight years.

To me, when Donald Trump made that statement, it was as if God said to us, “here’s what you are really getting. Are you sure you want this?”

I say ‘no.’ It isn’t that I wouldn’t vote for a non-Christian. It’s that I can’t vote for a pretend Christian. I didn’t vote for one during the last two presidential elections either.

God is not mocked and I won’t vote for someone who openly does so. But if enough people ignore Mr. Trump’s mockery, “we” will get what “we” want. Again.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel will be done in 2016. Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>


Speaker Ryan’s Sherman moment is the example of great longterm thinking.

By declining to run at this time Ryan achieves many things:

1. He doesn’t antagonize any of the existing candidates or their supporters meaning that the Trump Cruz and Kasich factions will not be hitting him for it.

2. He keeps the party from putting him in an impossible position as the GOP candidate who won less states that Rubio or Kasich.

3. By declaring that only those who ran should be considered he comes off as respecting the voters.

4. It puts himself in a position where any potential candidate needs to approach him for support.

5.  If the GOP wins this fall, he puts he not only doesn’t start with a bad relationship with the incoming administration but where the new president actually owes him a favor. 

5. He puts himself in a perfect position to run himself both if the GOP loses in this cycle, running in 2020 or if they win after two terms of a Trump/Cruz or whoever presidency waiting till 2024 where he’ll be at the ripe old age of…54.

Smart, very smart

Sir Humphery Appleby: He’s also against oppression and persecution in Africa.

Prime Minister Jim Hacker: So are we.

Sir Humphery Appleby: Yes but he’s against it when practiced by black governments as well as white ones.

Prime Minister Jim Hacker: You mean he’s a racist..

Yes Prime Minister The Bishops Gambit 1986

Yesterday I complemented Mark Steyn for mentioning Molly Norris, the US cartoonist who remains in hiding for offending Islamists.

A second complement is due for his performance at a Canadian debate informing a group of left wing students of the Mass rapes taking place in Europe that our friends in the media and their feminists allies have done their best first to ignore

American feminists, who have incited irrational hysteria over a non-existent “rape epidemic” on U.S. college campuses, will ignore this news. American feminists never said a word about the Rotherham Horror, in which English girls as young as 11 were pimped out by Muslim predators. American feminists don’t want to call attention to certain crimes committed by certain criminals, and it is not just Juanita Broaddrick’s rape accusation against Bill Clinton that feminists demand that we ignore. The feminist movement in the United States is controlled by the Democrat Party, and therefore rape is just a talking-point to them, an “issue” that feminists help Democrats exploit for partisan purposes. Because feminists are dishonest partisans, their agenda requires a lot of deliberate falsification — the phony “1-in-5” statistic, the UVA rape hoax, etc. — and it also requires feminists to ignore a lot of actual rapes which do not fit the Democrat Party-approved propaganda narrative.

and when that wasn’t possible to make taking about the subject verboten

there was no precedent in Germany or the rest of Europe for mass peacetime sexual assaults, much less ones where the police merely look on. “I have never experienced such a thing in any German city,” a victim told the New York Times. But people who did name the attacks for what they were—a manifestation of Muslim misogyny and an alarm bell regarding mass immigration—were vilified as racists. An old-school German feminist, Alice Schwarzer, denounced the New Year’s assaults as a “gang bang” designed to terrorize women; she found herself condemned by other feminists and “antiracists.” Victims refused to give their names to reporters for fear of being pilloried on social media for xenophobia. Specious moral equivalencies poured forth: not only were the attacks a mere subset of everyday Western antifemale violence, but also ordinary citizens connecting those attacks to the out-of-control migrant situation were no different from the attackers themselves. Ralf Jäger, minister of the interior for the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia, announced: “What happens on right-wing platforms and in chat rooms is at least as awful as the acts of those assaulting the women.”.

It’s what made this reply from Steyn so devistating in his debate:

In the end I suspect the root problem between the two cases, Islamic violence against women in the west and the disappearing of Molly Norris is the same.

To acknowledge the rapes in Europe that are the provence of the Islamic immigrants is a problem is to require the need to do something about it, even if it means entering “islamic” areas in the west to enforce law.

The same with Molly Norris, to acknowledge that the threats against her life and safety is a violation of all that America stands for is to admit that those making the threats, Islamists, must be stopped and to further acknowledge that said Islamists have enough sympathiezers in the US to carry out the threats that have ensured Molly Norris doesn’t exist.

Much easier to instead critique white 1st world college students, western cartoonists or states like Georgia and North Carolina where you don’t risk getting your throat cut for attacking them.


I’m back trying to get that very elusive $61 a day for DaTipJar

I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar

Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. We are currently 116.3 subscribers at $10 a month to make our goal every day without further solicitation but the numbers are even more interesting:

If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.

Choose a Subscription level