Trump’s critics busily working

In my recent blog post about Trump and the lack of trust on the part of his supporters, I said I had little information about him. That’s because I avoid most mainstream media, and only hear belatedly and second-hand what may appear there. I have honestly never been very curious about Trump’s life; to me, it falls into the same sordid category as the stories about the Kardashians and other ”celebrities” whose lives are either of no interest to me, or repugnant to me.

Recently some stories have appeared that depict Trump in a most unfavorable light, especially from the perspective of a Christian. It’s charged that he supports Planned Parenthood and abortion — even though he’s said he does not approve of abortion, and would de-fund PP for that reason. It’s also reported that in an interview with a certain mens’ magazine, he spoke of his daughter in a very lewd way and made oblique references to incest. Pretty shocking, even in our un-shockable age.

Let’s assume that the stories about Trump are all true. They may be. But if so, I might only say that we live, obviously, in a society which is so steeped in immorality of all kinds that it is highly likely that anyone in public life is just as sleazy and immoral as the stories make Trump appear to be. Who, then, does the principled Christian, or even a principled non-Christian vote for? Do we then abstain from the political process altogether?

Just judging by the stories that have been reported (assuming there are many  other scandalous things that have never seen the light of day) we know that people in the political world are often people of very poor personal morals. Promiscuity, marital infidelity, perversions of various kinds: we think of Democrats like Clinton, or Barney Frank, and yes, there have been many supposedly ‘upstanding, Christian’ Republicans who have been caught in scandals. It’s become a widespread claim that any politician who reaches the higher levels is compromised and probably being subjected to possible blackmail. It’s how, allegedly, the party and the ”Powers That Be” control the politicians, so they don’t get too independent or get delusions of actual power.

There are allegations about Trump from LifeSite News. I have linked to LifeSite at times, but I am less likely to do so since they have consistently pushed this idea of a ”genocidal” effort against the black race. The claim, which has become viral on the politically correct “right”  is that Margaret Sanger, the Planned Parenthood founder, was a ”racist” who proposed to eliminate blacks. [N.B.: that Breitbart piece at the link takes a gratuitous shot at the Confederate Battle Flag of all things; that tells us where they stand, politically. People like me are the enemy, to them]

I wrote blog posts laboriously noting how the phrasing of Sanger’s words was twisted, when a less malevolent meaning was evident. I charged that those who keep passing on the ”genocide against blacks” hysteria or ”Sanger was an evil White racist” meme were potential bearers of false witness. I still say that, because their whole claim rests on a few out-of-context words by Sanger, and on the fact that black women do have more abortions on average than Whites. To say that this is proof of a genocidal agenda (by who else? Whites) is not supportable. It wouldn’t hold up in a court of law. We can’t make serious charges such as ‘genocide against blacks’ without something more than jumping to a foregone conclusion (that is, ”White liberals are the REAL racists’ and here’s proof: Margaret Sanger was a racist”).

Obviously Sanger is not alive now to tell us what she really meant when she said

“We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

As I wrote, on the face of it, she is saying that she does not want blacks or others to get the erroneous impression that there is some wicked plot against them — which even then, they were prone to believe.

Those who oppose abortion generally, especially the politically correct ”right” who have convinced themselves that abortion is a weapon used by racist Whites to eliminate blacks, of course jump at the chance to put the worst possible interpretation on Sanger’s words, thus to discredit Sanger and thereby the Planned Parenthood organization. But does discrediting Sanger help to end abortion? Probably not likely. It has too many defenders to be ended so easily. So why the continuing charges from the ”right” of ‘racism’ and ‘genocide against blacks’? Self-righteousness, especially when it involves a chance to call a White liberal a ”racist”, is very alluring for a lot of people, a certain type of person.

Am I defending Planned Parenthood? Hardly. The trafficking in baby body parts is perfectly credible, despite their brazen denials. They should be shut down because of that. But they won’t be. It isn’t just liberals who support birth control and abortion; many Republicans do as well, and many ”feminist” women who claim to be otherwise conservative support them as well. Roe v. Wade would not be immediately overturned even if our dream candidate, whoever that might be, were elected.

Trump is quoted as saying that he opposes abortion, but that he believes that PP has done good for many women. He doesn’t specify what he means there, but Planned Parenthood does in fact provide services other than abortion.

  • 4.5 million tests and treatment for sexually transmitted infections
  • 3.6 million contraception related services
  • 935,573 cancer screenings including breast exams and Pap tests
  • 1.1 million pregnancy tests and prenatal services

So perhaps Trump was referring to these kinds of services for women when he said what he said.

As far as LifeSite News, as I have said, they are a politically correct, “anti-racist’ media outlet. Maybe they provide a good service in other ways but their constant harping on this ”genocide against blacks” story is incendiary in that it no doubt further inflames blacks in their never-ending grievances against Whites. And yes, Christians should also be wary of charging someone with the desire to commit ”genocide”, and not make such charges based on a willy-nilly intetpretation of a long-dead person’s words. Too many Christians are caught up in a crusade of ”anti-racism” so they rush to judge and condemn others.

Trump’s critics no doubt have an agenda of their own. Still,  it’s hard to deny that some of the stories about Trump show him as an amoral person at best. But then, find me a politician who is a true, old-time, sound Christian and a good moral exemplar and I will vote for him. As of now, I don’t know of any such politician or candidate for national office. In the meantime, what options are left to the Christian, or to the rare principled, moral human being? The only other option I can see is to refrain from voting.

9 thoughts on “Trump’s critics busily working

  1. I am glad you are keeping up with this VA. We can’t fall into the trap of trusting Trump will stay on track. One advantage of these flaws is it will be harder for them to turn Trump into a Reagan like myth. I know they will try.

    In effect, they may be already. If the attacks from the GOP establishment are part of a game to build Trump’s cred as anti-establishment then we are already into the Trump matrix.

    It is up to us to make sure when we exit the matrix or maze as earlier centuries would have called it, we are farther ahead. If we take into account legal immigration, we will probably still be farther behind when Trump is done.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The establishment would be very crafty and Machiavellian to do the kind of thing you allude to but then we know they are. So I suppose nothing can be ruled out absolutely. We just have to have our wits about us and not become gullible as ‘they’ count on us being.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. I have never fully trusted Trump nor viewed him as particularly Christian. I never watched his tv show nor knew much about him beyond the occasional online headline. A number of his social positions (on abortion etc.) have, undoubtedly, changed. The pastor of First Baptist, Jeffress, endorsed Trump and claimed his now pro-life stance is heartfelt – you’d have to decide what credibility to give that.

    Trump is presenting himself as a nationalist populist candidate. Could it all be an act? I suppose. How that might benefit him is unclear to me. In many ways my support is based more on his long list of enemies (all the GOPe, the cuckservatives, the neocons, the globalists, etc.) and some of his supporters (Jeff Sessions, Duncan Hunter). I choose to believe he is not consciously or deliberately defrauding them. He is far more moderate on a number of issues than I, but my sole and overriding concern right now is immigration. Trump, if he is nominated/elected and does some of what he claims to support, is a first step – but a VITAL one – on the road to true ethnonationalism. Personally, I doubt there’s even time for that before the whole thing blows up, but at this point I’ll take what Trump represents.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sheila – I certainly never thought of Trump as being Christian and never heard any mention of it until he began his campaign. I suppose a lot of people say they are Christian just because they grew up in a family that maintained some ties to a particular denomination, or because they had church membership and showed up once in a while. So I know that calling oneself Christian can mean whatever the self-titled Christian thinks it means. The proof is always in ”fruits”.
      However the most we can hope for, it seems, is somebody who is not hostile to traditional Christianity. Sad that we have to settle for that.


  3. Seems like Trump changed his position on H1b Visas in real time during the debate last night. He then issued a statement trying to clarify what he meant reinforcing the ideas that 1) he is indeed clueless and firing from the hip and 2) he might not be so trustworthy.

    Maybe it’s was an honest mistake? I suppose time will tell.

    I’m curious to see your thoughts written out on the Liberal media comparing Trump to Hitler and Fascism. Also, the MSM is now publishing their recordings of Trump rallies where whites are screaming obscenities, calling blacks niggers, spitting on Hispanics and allegedly doing violence to those who disagree. Of course, these are used as visual anecdotes to support the claim that Trump and his supporters are the new Nazis.

    But I’ve always been suspicious of the Civil rights methodology of “peaceful protesting”. To me, it always seemed like black activists in the 60s went to areas where it was quite hostile, where they knew they were not welcome, and protested. It should be obvious that someone will act out in defense after feeling slighted by the protesters, right? Of course, after the blacks were beaten and demeaned by whites – which is what they wanted – they presented themselves in front of the cameras to elicit pity and sympathy, especially from whites who weren’t sure how to exactly feel about the new Civil rights movement. Thus, the first explicit use of psychological weaponry against whites was born now called “white guilt” (diminish the white man’s esteem by showing them, on an endless loop, in education, the news, literature and Tv, that they are engineered to hurt and hate).

    Black Lives Matter does the same. The young, black lady who was recently removed from a Trump rally, but not before being called a nigger and shoved, was smiling on the way out (as if to say she accomplished what she intended). It’s not as if whites are on the prowl to hunt minorities down; no, minorities seek white people out and scream at then until they snap. Then, “See, see! Look at these racists, the bigots, these Nazis. Get them!”

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Nick, I think it’s as you say. Some of the ugly behavior of rally participants may be the work of plants, or agents provocateur. The left is very prone to that kind of thing, and the scene you noted, where the BLM protester had a smile on her face when removed, is because the whole point of that kind of behavior is to get attention (of course) but to be seen to have ‘street cred’ or to be validated by getting roughed up by somebody or called a name. Victimhood. It’s a much-sought after status these days. The victim is King (or Queen).
    And there may be people who are actual Trump supporters who are coarse and crude; Trump is described that way and he probably brings that out in some of those who admire him. But again, we are held to a higher standard; we have to be ladies and gentlemen and always ‘nice’ — I was brought up that way, I admit, and I try to act that way because it’s breeding — but when the other side can be crude and ugly and violent, we are at a serious disadvantage trying to play by Marquis of Queensberry rules.
    About the ‘peaceful protesting’ idea, which of course goes back to St. MLK, he got it from Gandhi, whom he admired as you know. But Gandhi knew that he could incite or provoke violence even while assuming a peaceful pose. He was very disingenuous. He knew very well that his foes (the British) had a tradition of chivalry in which it was wrong to use deadly force against unarmed people, especially civilians. So he knew he was safe to provoke the British because he knew they tended to use restraint in their response. Advantage to him.


  5. A few years ago, some Southern activists in Georgia got together for a public protest of illegal immigration. At the rally was an individual who yelled racial insults at some nearby blacks. The Southern Poverty Lie Center reported these insults in a story to make the protestors look bad. Later research, however, revealed that the writer of the piece was the very same man who did the yelling. He was reporting on himself.

    One thing we must understand is that the leftists generally speaking have little decency–and we must deal with them on that basis.


  6. VA, the PP services you list are exactly what Trump is speaking positively about. You know he feels obliged to demonstrate his concern for women and their health issues since he’s maligned as “anti-women”. Of course any male politician who acts like a man is automatically considered “sexist” and therefore “anti-women”.

    TRUMP 2016

    Liked by 1 person

    • You may be right about Trump’s motivations, though it’s pretty disappointing if he has to pander to feminists. I kind of thought that whatever his faults he was a blunt man who didn’t self-censor.
      Still as far as contraception goes I think lots of men are in favor of that aspect of PP.


Leave a Reply to Sheila Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s