When they lose at debate and elections, they turn to assassinations

When they lose at debate and elections, they turn to assassinations. A reflection on Charlie Kirk’s death by an opponent.

Yesterday, somebody assassinated Conservative Republican Charlie Kirk, leaving his wife and two small daughters without him. That is very sad. But reflection better than revenge. We need to understand the problems of our country, and in honor of Charlie Kirk, I think such reflection is well-placed.

What is really the Problem here?

The problem here is the mental illness of the liberal mindset. The Democrat Party has basically taken on the entire mindset and conduct of the liberal point of view. Let’s just admit one thing at the very beginning. Liberals are not “liberal”. A liberal person is a person who is generous, good-natured, that likes to see other people being blessed and enjoying life. The modern liberal movement (caught and propelled by Democrats, political liberals, the Press of today for the large part) do not want people to enjoy life, but rather, they want political power, control, and with that, wealth for themselves. So when do you see liberals donating “liberally”? Always when it helps to buy them power, control, etc. Note very carefully that they are very liberal with other people’s money, but not with their own personal money.

If the Democrat Party is really upset that the blacks have been mistreated by slavery in the past, then where are they personally from their own personal checking accounts giving money wholesale to black people in the amounts of trillions of dollars? No. They want that to come from the US taxpayer, and always through their hands politically. Democrats vote consistently AGAINST any pay-outs or benefits if a Republican is sponsoring it. They have to take credit for it, and it has to be political power in their bank accounts before they are for it. The point is, they are not for America nor Americans, but for their own selves.

Which Political Party is Better?

The question is like asking which human race is better, blacks, whites, Asians, Latins, Europeans, etc.? The answer is, it depends. While talent is not imbued into any particular race, some individuals shine while others are despicable in what they do. But in general, you judge a doctor as good or bad depending on what he produces in his field. So we have to insist that politicians are to equally be judged based on how their policies benefit society, those citizens that they represent, or cause problems. That is the entire reason why presidents want to see the economy of the nation (when they are in power) showing good signs. The Federal Reserve Bank is a key factor in boosting the economy or hamstringing it.

But there is a political process, established in the founding of America as capitalism and our government, that is where all of this plays out. There are different people with different ideas, and they debate issues. After debating issues as civil people, maybe using strong words, but coming to a resolution as to who “wins” the debate. Winning the debate focuses on a few simple things. High school debate classes are very helpful here.

First, who is logical? Second, who has the facts (truth) to support their logic? Thirdly, who can emotionally move the hearers of the debate to their position?

In our modern situation, Democrats have lost on all those points. They have nowhere to go now. One of the fallacies in debates is attack against the man. Ideas are independent of individuals, but individuals understand these ideas and present them, essentially “owning them” as their own. Donald Trump and Charlie Kirk are examples of this principle. Gavin Newsome, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, etc. are also examples. But if these individuals cannot “win” because their logic is correct, they have the facts sustained by truth, or they cannot move people emotionally take their positions, they “lose.”

When you Lose, then Assassinate your Opponent

In debate, this is character assassination. It is also seen in setting up a straw man argument, i.e. trying to convince people that your opponent takes a position that he really doesn’t take, and then attack that position. By association, they are attacking their opponent, or outrightly accusing their opponent of taking that position.

With Donald Trump, he mentioned on the issue of taking down statues of famous people in our history, that there could be good people on both sides. In this situation in North Carolina, they were using Southern Confederate war personalities (to take down) and Northern war personalities (to replace them). So if you take the position (a very extreme position indeed) that all the Southern people were just wrong, and all the Northern people were right in the Civil War, then you basically call half the country deplorable, like Hillary Clinton did. Rather than insulting so many people when, in reality, nobody alive today lived through the civil war, Trump was being “generous” (or liberal) in referring to people on both sides of the issue.

So while Trump was being noble and liberal, some turned that into a straw man situation, where they used that to attack him. They say that Trump was referring to White Supremacists, which Trump had previously said that he does not take that position nor support that position. So this is classic illegitimate debating tactics. But the modern liberals cannot win debates because their positions are just wrong on all counts. They lose.

If you lose in the court of public opinion, you also lose at the ballot box. That is how this goes. But the liberal does not really want to win in the court of modern opinion, but they want power and wealth for themselves. Strange isn’t it about Trump and his salary? He donates it to public parks. Why? Because he is not wanting wealth for himself. He is already rich. Moreover, he has lost money while in office. We can name Democrat after Democrat that came into public office with a paltry sum of net worth, and within a few years of government, they are multimillionaires. Obama, the Clintons, etc. The Congresswoman from Minnesota came to the US from Africa, basically broke, and in 8 years is now worth more than 88 million dollars, while she only works in government with a yearly salary under $200,000. How does that work? Because she is in government for power and wealth.

So the point is, logical people who use truth to defend their positions, and can emotionally convince people when confronted one-on-one, e.g. Charlie Kirk, these people are extremely disturbing to these power seekers. They have to be “taken out”. Usually, that is via more attacks on their person. Donald Trump has suffered ridiculous political warfare because of this. They even tried to assassinate Trump in Pennsylvania. The FBI was supposed to make the situation safe for him, and they failed, putting essentially secretaries at the FBI in his protection detail, while sending the more veteran agents (true, good bodyguards) to guard Jill Biden in a luncheon with Democrat women. So we wonder why the FBI made those choices?

The reason is that these (liberals) people are worshiping at the god of power and riches. They will do anything that they have to do to achieve their goals and protect what they have illicitly gotten. This explains why Gavin Newsome has opened California as unilaterally disobeying the Constitution and the laws made by Congress (both Republicans and Democrats making those laws) to receive aliens into our country, and essentially give them a de facto citizenship (they can receive federal government public assistance and vote, some even many times in the same election). He does this to stay in power. He breaks his oath of office in defending the Constitution and laws of Congress in order to stay in power and wealth.

It gets dirty

What we are seeing today is a desperation effort of these losing liberals. They are losing because their policies don’t make sense. Why are criminals being protected by the Democrat Party today? From the founding fathers, the policy of our country is that nobody is accused or punished without first being proved guilty in a court of law. Okay. That is a founding principle of our country. But somebody entering our country illegally has no defense for that. If you get up in the middle of the night and come face-to-face with a burglar, a person you do not know, have never seen before, do you need any more evidence? If you have a gun, you get it out and point it at him, and call the police. His presence in your home without you inviting him is even evidence to treat him as an aggressor and call the police. Why are we worrying about illegals who “did not break any laws”? Just being in the country without the proper immigration permission is all that is needed to deport them. They have no right to clog up our courts with silly cases with no valid evidence. They need to be deported.

But the real problem here is simply some people stand up and say no. They use logic, facts, and emotionally move public opinion to their position, and thereby, those of that position win elections, have power over the country. So if the liberal mind cannot defeat them legitimately, they turn to violence. In fact, violence is one of their best tactics (in their minds). They use projection, i.e. they accuse the conservatives of using violence, and then they use it. When the conservatives say that “the liberals are being violent,” then they say, “you are just copying what we have already said.” This is another fallacy in debate.

• Protests, riots that gripped America in 2020
• How Much Damage Did the Summer 2020 Riots Really Cause?

But it is something to note that while they proclaim that their position is “peace and goodwill”, in actuality, their actions and the consequences of their actions are anything but these things. Violence is their last chance option in maintaining their goals.

What should not be surprising, but is

If a sane person, somebody not caught up in the religious worship of wealth and power, but if a sane person reflects on these things, they come to some conclusions. So it is good to review some of these points.

1. What is obviously an advantage for the moment could be a great problem in the future. Perhaps this point summarizes the entire Democrat Party problem. They have need considered the consequences, where their power plays, would take them. Because when they defend illegals, criminals, and homosexuals, eventually, even these people that they are defending will betray them. People seeking power and wealth have no loyalty among themselves. Whatever alliances they make can just as easily be broken at critical points in time. Yes, Obama, those black folk which you thought you had in your pocket voted against a black Democrat woman. How about that!
2. There will always be a price to be paid for good. My heart goes out to those family and friends of Charlie Kirk, but it this spiritual warfare we wage against evil, some will pay the ultimate price. While God does not want us to desire or seek death, we should not be afraid of it either. Each of us will stand one day before our Creator, and He will judge us.
3. The Liberal mind is mentally ill. This is not just a single bad mistake by these people. It is a deep-rooted character flaw that is indistinguishable from mental illness. The mentally ill need professional help, and basically, they need to be isolated from society in general, and above all, they need to be prevented from the “levels of power” that they could use to damage innocent people. Joe Biden’s decisions to withdraw from Afghanstan is a point in case here. Hillary Clinton’s treason with our CIA agents in Bengahzi is another. When people continue to vote for government office those who worship power and ill-gotten wealth, then those who are just messed up mentally, with the motives, with their methods, and everybody suffers.
4. Crazy people don’t think straight. The first words from many Democrat personalities is simply, “Gun control”. I read one even said that Charlie Kirk got what he deserved because he was pro-Second Amendment. If the would-be assassin of Donald Trump was trained by FBI agents in how to shoot, why do you think they would not also get such an individual the hardware he needed to do what he did? In England and Europe, they have strict gun control, and yet people who want to do harm use knives, acids, and vehicles to kill people. Are we to take all of those things away also with the guns? In prisons, they make shives, which is just a fragment of something hard, sharpened to be a knife. So to stop violence of one against another, we need to make sure that nobody has access to anything hard like plastic, metal or stone? Those things are not the problem, but the mental state behind the person who uses it. Why did our government empty the mental institutions and put these mentally ill, deranged people on the streets? Is it any wonder when they do what they do to hurt others?
5. Government should protect their citizens. Also recently, an illegal alien killed a girl in North Carolina. There is a reason why Maduro in Venezuela emptied his prisons onto express travel to send them to the United States. These people do damage to their own countrymen. If they are criminals, why do you think they will go to another country and change their behavior? Bukele in El Salvador is a good example here. Their situation was completely out of hand with criminals, and he took a hard course of getting out of public circulation and encarcelating them in very strict prisons. Say what you want, I doubt anybody in his prison, if they get out, would want to go back there. In fact, their life choices are very much influenced by that thought of whatever they do may land them back there, so they want themselves very carefully. This is a primary objective. No government is successful in its purpose if it falls on this point.
6. Government should benefit their citizens. Benefitting needs to be well undertood. To be a true and good benefit, a thing needs to be good in the long run. Human nature has to be understood, and the evils of human nature must be fought. Everybody would like to live the life of a king or queen without any work or labor on their part, just enjoying luxury. But that is not possible. Everybody needs to support themselves. So plots for power by politicians should be rejected because they work on the evils of human nature, i.e. seems like most everybody will vote for anything that economically benefits themselves. So we see many such plans to “tax the rich” to give to the poor. In our country’s history, laws were made to protect consumers from monopolies, where a rich person destroyed capitalism, eliminated their competitors in inappropiate ways. This was and is the job of good government. Instead of that, government is not the monopoly that destroys private capitalism.
   Mambani Tax the Rich. If you notice, my purpose in this post is to reveal and expose this evil, wicked mindset.
7. Realize that people embrace positions, but the positions are what we need to deal with. The error of the assassin who killed Charlie Kirk is that by taking out outspoken opponents, somehow he thinks he was won something. Nothing could be further than the truth. I would expect that upon Charlie’s death, there will be people who rise up and vocally take his place, and not just one of them. Those who are already in this battle will also be bolder. The mindset that wants to eliminate their opponent any way possible, including killing them, but will not move his position to what is logical, based on true facts, or really presented in such a way that sane people will emotionally get behind him, is just a failed way of thinking. Charlie Kirk’s aruments will continue to hold water, and being a martyr for his cause, the assassin has only doubled the effect of Charlie’s work. He has not stopped him at all. Ignoring Charlie would have been much more fruitful than killed him. But the real issue is just that liberal people don’t think straight. They cannot see the reality around them, so they cope by lying and killing. In the end analysis, they are children of the devil.

When they lose at debate and elections, they turn to assassinations