Political comment of the year

This was written in the comments section of a Ben Shapiro article. Shapiro, in the article, is suggesting how the Republican establishment can end run voters and get rid of Donald Trump.

-----
Ben, ya gotta abandon the anti-Trump attitude, it's clouding your judgment to the bigger picture. Yes, he's uncouth and runs his mouth, but he's the ONLY one talking to the base, saying the same things we've been saying in private for MANY MANY years. The others can't even be bothered to mouth the platitudes. "We can't build a wall! We can't deport millions! We can't separate families! We can't repeal Obamacare! We can't can't can't!" Then what the hell are you running for if you won't do the Peoples' bidding? We went to the moon and back in less than a decade, we can build a damn wall like the Chinese did millenia ago with manual labor or that Israel or Saudi Arabia are doing. All this ahistorical analysis of things that we can't do ignores the things that we WILL do, and far more violently, when the economic system tips over.

So - elect the uncouth guy who will build a wall and deport the hostile invaders to save our nation, our posterity, our culture, and our Constitution; or elect the "nice" polished politician that literally married an illegal alien and speaks Spanish at home. Or the bought and paid for hispanic from Miami who tells us dumb whites one thing in English and the same day tell his base the opposite in Spanish about amnesty. Or perhaps the neurosurgeon who seems pretty dim, utterly uneducated on politics, completely inexperienced in politics and executive responsibilities, and in horribly over his head. Or perhaps the slick genius Constitutional lawyer who oddly can't block any significant legislation, ever, in the Senate (why no holds, Ted?) who also has a seemingly big eligibility issue as he's not a "natural born citizen." Choices, choices. Since I'm not a limp wristed leftist and mere words don't hurt my feelings I'm going to go with the one who has a record of accomplishment and is actually a patriot.

First, head-to-head YouGov poll from Wednesday shows Trump destroys his opponents - Carson 60-40, Rubio 57-43, Cruz 57-43. That destroys the consolidation myth.

Second, this is static analysis - if so and so dropped an such and such became the front runner... - it wouldn't go 100% to the new frontrunner and Trump would start to attack them. Rubio is a seriously flawed and incredibly corrupt candidate - he's surged like the others have, and he's also flaming out like the others. Fewer of us realize how corrupt and what a liar Ted Cruz is (he voted for TPA then campaigns against bad trade deals. Uh huh.) I'll never vote for him - he's a proven weasel. Cruz has less downside but on the upside he's accomplished precisely zip as a Senator. All talk. And his superpac is run by David Barton of Glenn Beck fame. But I'm sure the establishment types would back him. Cason's book tour is finally winding down. That'll leave Jeb!

Third, most of the others won't drop out because they're part of the splitter strategy. The early primaries are not simple popularity contests and delegates are doled out proportionally and such. They'll drop out AFTER they get their delegates then push them at Jeb! at the convention. There's a reason these losers bouncing around under the MOE are still in it - the mega-donors are paying their way to win the rigged contest. The spending of trillions of dollars is on the line, a few million thrown at Christie or Kasich is peanuts to ensure a win. Until it becomes so painfully obvious that the candidate can't scrape above 1% or get any delegates, then they drop. (Graham, Pataki, Gilmore.)

Fourth, this is a bigger war. Trump has huge crossover appeal with the independents and blue dogs. He's not a GOP establishment insider and he's beating Hillary and Bernie head to head. He may actually get blue dog union support. Anyone notice the lack of "electability" stories lately? Why isn't the media pushing Jeb! to drop out? Has anyone actually identified a second Jeb! supporter besides his planted intern? Why not? I say his 8% poll number is complete BS.

Fifth. Trump is the choice of the base. We had wave elections in 2010 and 2014 to repeal Obamacare, but now it's fully funded. Hmm.. Then Cochran/McDaniels racist primary meddling by Mitch McConnell. And Cuccinelli. And Dave Brat. And the border. Etc. Many of us WILL NOT vote for any establishment guy foisted upon us. Period. That ship has sailed. Either we the people get to decide our nominee or the party elites do. If they win this battle then the party is done. The low turnout for McCain and Romney didn't just happen due to weather.

What is the purpose of the party - to profit the plutarchs or the people? Judging by their words and deeds the establishment the plutarchs are clearly only self-interested.

THAT is what this election is about. We finally have a legitimate outsider to rally around that can go toe to toe with the elites and beat them at their own game. This is bigger than Trump. We don't particularly trust him but he has our support 100%. The others are known quantities and they have, each and every one, stabbed us in the back while saying they're conservatives. If we had an honorable conservative in the race it might be different. And what happened to all the honest conservatives? IF they manage to get past the local and state politics and get to Congress they're co-opted and/or destroyed. We want a level playing field and someone who represents us and American values, not corporate K-street values. So what if he's wrong on a few issues or mean to some professional politicians - he's right on the bigger issues and he's fighting our biggest enemy - the GOP establishment.

So the elites can play fair and ride this wave to their diminishment or stand in front of it and get destroyed and most of their bought politicians replaced over the next few elections. We are furious and are NOT going away.
-----

http://www.dailywire.com/news/1424/can-donald-trump-be-stopped-yes-theres-only-one-ben-shapiro

Sinless people

[An email.]

On sin I've been thinking lately that this is the problem with Muslims and the current crop of young college students making demands. Both groups consider themselves sinless. By default of not having a Christian worldview. 

The doctrine of sin has been lost. Biblical anthropology. 

People become moralizing monsters when they think they are sinless. The finger wagging Muslim lecturing everybody, justifying the worst horrors. Young university students screaming people should be silenced and fired for disagreeing with them, the holy, sinless young people.

I see a Black Lives Matter person ranting, and I think: another sinless black person. - C.

If you read the entire excerpt you'll see A. W. Pink's assessment of churches and a Christian's connection with them

6. Hatred of the World

We profit from the Word when we evoke the hatred of the world. What pains are taken in the world to save appearances and keep up a seemly and good state! Its conventionalities and civilities, its courtesies and charities, are so many contrivances to give an air of respectability to it. So too its churches and cathedrals, its priests and prelates are needed to gloss over the corruption which seethes beneath the surface. And to make good weight “Christianity” is added, and the holy name of Christ is taken upon the lips of thousands of those who have never taken His “yoke” upon them (Mat 11:29). Of them God says, “This people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth and honoreth Me with their lips; but their heart is far from Me” (Mat 15:8). And what is to be the attitude of all real Christians toward such? The answer of Scripture is plain: “from such turn away” (2Ti 3:5). “Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord” (2Co 6:17). And what will follow when this Divine command is obeyed? Why, then we shall prove the truth of those words of Christ’s: “If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you” (Joh 15:19). Which “world” is specifically in view here? Let the previous verse answer: “If the world hate you, ye know it hated Me before it hated you.” What “world” hated Christ and hounded Him to death? The religious world, those who pretended to be most zealous for God’s glory. So it is now. Let the Christian turn his back upon a Christ-dishonouring Christendom, and his fiercest foes and most relentless and unscrupulous enemies will be those who claim to be Christians themselves! But “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you…for My sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad” (Mat 5:11,12). Ah, my brother, it is a healthy sign, a sure mark that you are profiting from the Word, when the religious world hates you. But if, on the other hand, you still have a “good standing” in the “churches” or “assemblies” [which are compromised with the world], there is grave reason to fear that you love the praise of men more than that of God! (The bracketed insertion did not appear in the original.)

(From Chp. 7 of Profiting from the Word, by A. W. Pink)

Which books of A. W. Pink were written when he was still a Dispensationalist?

That's the question I was searching for the answer of on the internet. The closest hit I came across was this:

"The late A.W. Pink, champion of Reformed Theology, was a Dispensationalist early in his writing career. Pink wrote four books on the subject of premillennialism from a Dispensational premillennial perspective: Redeemer’s Return, The Golden Age: A Treatise on the One Thousand Year Reign of Christ on Earth, The Antichrist, and The Prophetic Parables of Matthew 13."

That's from here: http://faithalone.org/magazine/y2011/11D2.html

So there is the answer. Fewer than I thought. The last two books mentioned were where I saw his dispensationalism, so that list rings true to me anecdotally.  

What separates real Christians

Real Christians read the Bible complete and are regenerated by the word and the Spirit. That goes without saying. What separates real Christians is the quality of their armor. Biblical doctrine is armor of God. What separates real Christians is their bookshelf and what they're able to see and accept and understand of on-the-mark biblical doctrine. The more they are active on the spiritual battlefield the more they will want real armor of God. Real, hard truth biblical doctrine assaults and insults our fallen nature. The soldier in battle doesn't care. He wants, he needs real armor. Note what your fallen nature doesn't want. Note your fallen nature's resentments, outrages, demands and desires. Go against them. Better yet be active on the spiritual battlefield unafraid to be conspicuous to the world and the Devil and hence be in the situation of a soldier who naturally wants real armor, telling all the demands and resentments of his outraged fallen nature to take a hike. At that point you will have five solas, five points of Calvinism, covenant, federal theology which is the real armor of God.

What to learn from news of a death

"Whatever it was [the cause of a person's death] it should, if anything, give people the realization that our days are numbered and only activities that truly develop us in an *essential* way are really worth giving the bulk of our time to; like, stop being shallow and desultory in your reading, Christians; get the word of God *engrafted* into your heart - fused into memory, will, and understanding - via a stated goal of complete readings, and get on-the-mark biblical doctrine into understanding to where it becomes the actual armor of God. Be systematic about it, and be complete about it as well. There is such a thing as terminal understanding of ultimate things."

The 5 principles of finding truth

This is an excerpt from Nancy Pearcey's book Finding Truth . It's from around page 255 or so (I have the ebook edition). It's an overview of the five principles of the book:

"A unique feature of a Romans 1 strategy is it can be applied universally to analyze and respond to any theory. Let’s remind ourselves of its key elements.

Principle #1 is to identify the idol. Every nonbiblical worldview starts with an idol, a God substitute. Romans 1 says that if humans do not worship the Creator, they will make a deity out of something in the created order. Like the blind men and the elephant, they fasten on some part of the created order and declare it to be the ultimate reality.

Principle #2 is to identify the reductionism. When one part of creation is deified, the other parts will be denigrated. Why? Because a part is always too small to explain the whole. Something will always stick out of the box. That “something”will be suppressed—devalued, dismissed, or denied. Otherwise it would count as evidence to falsify the worldview. Reductionism is always dehumanizing. It exchanges a high view of humanity made in the image of God for the image of something in the created order. And because the idol is something lower than the biblical God, its concept of humanity will also be lower. It will deny key attributes that make us distinctively human. And when reductionistic worldviews gain political power, the consequences are oppressive, coercive, and inhumane.

Principle #3 is to test the worldview against the facts of experience [test it's external consistency, -ct], the truths of general revelation. No matter how hard people try to suppress the evidence for God, the created order itself keeps challenging them. Both physical nature and human nature give evidence of the Creator. Therefore every idol-based worldview will fail to fit the evidence. It will contradict the knowable facts of general revelation. The more self-aware people are, the more clearly they will realize that they cannot live consistently on the basis of their own reductionistic worldviews. The truths of general revelation—the things they “can’t help believing”and living—create a gap between what they profess and what they practice. As a result, they live with a mental dualism, maintaining two sets of inconsistent beliefs.

Principle #4 is to show that every reductionistic worldview is self-defeating [test it's internal consistency, -ct]. It commits suicide. That’s because it reduces reason to something less than reason. Yet the only way a worldview can build its own case is by using reason. Thus it undercuts itself. It is self-refuting. Everyone who proposes a reductionist worldview must make a tacit exception for his own thinking—at least, at the moment he is stating his claims. But that, too, creates a logical inconsistency. It is an admission that there is one thing that the worldview does not cover—namely, the person who is proposing it. Either way, then, a reductionistic worldview fails.

Principle #5 is to make the case for a Christian worldview. By focusing on the points where competing worldviews fail, we can be assured that we are answering questions that are actually relevant. By identifying the points where non-Christians are free-loading, we can be confident that we are addressing areas where they sense a need for something more."