A call for some pagan discussion

About this*:

Mass Spell to Bind Donald Trump Feb. 24th
RITUAL (v. 2.1):

(Light white candle)
“Hear me, oh spirits
Of Water, Earth, Fire, and Air
Heavenly hosts
Demons of the infernal realms
And spirits of the ancestors
(Light inscribed orange candle stub)
I call upon you
To bind
Donald J. Trump
So that he may fail utterly

That he may do no harm
To any human soul
Nor any tree
Animal
Rock
Stream
or Sea
Bind him so that he shall not break our polity
Usurp our liberty
Or fill our minds with hate, confusion, fear, or despair
And bind, too,
All those who enable his wickedness
And those whose mouths speak his poisonous lies
I beseech thee, spirits, bind all of them
As with chains of iron
Bind their malicious tongues
Strike down their towers of vanity
(Invert Tower tarot card)
I beseech thee in my name
(Say your full name)
In the name of all who walk
Crawl, swim, or fly
Of all the trees, the forests,
Streams, deserts,
Rivers and seas
In the name of Justice
And Liberty
And Love
And Equality
And Peace
Bind them in chains
Bind their tongues
Bind their works
Bind their wickedness.”

Most of what little I know of pagan magic is generic Wicca. But it seems to me that a spell specifically invoked to make a person “fail utterly” is a curse. That’s considerably more than something like prevent him from doing harm.

This person even says “In other words, this is not the equivalent of magically punching a Nazi; rather, it is ripping the bullhorn from his hands, smashing his phone so he can’t tweet, tying him up, and throwing him in a dark basement where he can’t hurt anyone.”

Theft, destruction of property, assault, and kidnapping are harm. And this isn’t directed against Trump alone; it targets anyone who supports Trump. That would roughly 50-55% pf the country according to some recent polls.

Anyone planning to participate? Why? Would any Wiccans weigh in on whether (and why) this is harmful or not? Is this a “binding” or “curse”? Where is the line between them?

In mundane terms, if I have a hateful neighbor who speaks outlandishly about doing lawful acts, some of which might adversely impact me, I cannot pull a gun and force him to shut up. I can’t steal and smash his property, kidnap him, and hold him in my basement, just in case.

But… If said neighbor kicked in my front door, waved a gun, and announced his imminent intent to injure/kill and rob me, I would be justified in exercising self-defense to stop him and even hold him for the police to haul off.

Note the differences in the scenarios: Lawful vs. unlawful acts, speech vs. acts, the freakin’ imminent threat vs. fears that something might not be what I like.

OK, pagans; speak up.


* I don’t see who is behind this. It could be real, or it could be someone trolling pagans. Anyone know?

Twitter Diplomacy

Hmm…

Ana Navarro Destroy’s Trump’s Secretary of State Brouhaha With Single Tweet
“Let’s stop obsessing over who’ll be Secretary of State. We don’t need one. Our Twitterer-in-Chief can set foreign policy in 140 characters”

But I thought it was fine when Obama did it.

Not to mention a certain Secretary of State.

Thanks for the inspiration @ASmith83 & @Sllambe – I’ll take it from here… #tweetsfromhillary

— @hillaryclinton

To pursue, or not to pursue…

…isn’t the question. The question is if someone said this, and who it supposedly was.

From the New York Post:

Trump won’t pursue charges against Clinton
President-elect Donald Trump won’t subject Hillary Clinton to a criminal inquiry — instead, he’ll help her heal, his spokeswoman said Tuesday. “I think when the president-elect who’s also the head of your party … tells you before he’s even inaugurated he doesn’t wish to pursue these charges, it sends a very strong message, tone and content, to the members,” Kellyanne Conway told the hosts of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” who first reported that the president-elect would not pursue his campaign pledge to “lock up” Clinton, his Democratic opponent.

Except the MSNBC link doesn’t say that. The talking heads simply say that an unnamed “source” said that Trump has no interest in pursuing an investigation of Clinton’s email usage or foundation. No names in that link, no mention of “healing.”

WTF?

Does anyone have a better source for this apparent 180 on Trump’s part?

Added: Breitbart has a better video link.

“I think when the President-elect, who’s also the head of your party, tells you before he’s even inaugurated that he doesn’t wish to pursue these charges, it sends a very strong message, tone, and content to the members,” Conway said. “And I think Hillary Clinton still has to face the fact that the majority of Americans don’t find her to be honest and trustworthy. But if Donald Trump can help her heal, then perhaps that is a good thing. Look, I think he’s thinking of many different things as he is preparing to become president of the United States, and things that sound like the campaign aren’t among them.”

So it sounds like Conway’s saying that Trump told her he isn’t interested in pursuing charges, but the whole bit about “healing” is her own thought. Now I’d like to see an actual statement from the Trumpster himself saying yea or nay.

But his transition team saying stuff like this…

It’s almost as if he’s deliberately reversing the one thing that got a lot of doubters to vote for him, juts before the Electoral College votes, to torpedo his real election.

Play Dough, Puppies, and Safety Pins were not provided

Donald Trump’s media summit was a ‘f—ing firing squad’
“Trump didn’t say [NBC reporter] Katy Tur by name, but talked about an NBC female correspondent who got it wrong, then he referred to a horrible network correspondent who cried when Hillary lost who hosted a debate – which was Martha Raddatz who was also in the room.”

Even as a SMOD supporter, I can’t imagine why these idiots went into a meeting with the Oompa Loompa expecting a safe space. Kinda makes me wish I were going to be Prez so I could tell ’em what I think. A read of my novel Net Assets might give you a hint. It wouldn’t be pretty.