Home » Posts tagged 'election'
Tag Archives: election
The Important Quality of Loyalty
Trump Cabinet Picks
This last week President Trump started announcing his cabinet picks and what appears to be their most significant quality is loyalty. The average Trump voter, I would assess, agrees with the strategy. Choose loyal people. Definitely don’t select disloyal ones.
What about Abraham Lincoln? Didn’t he pick a team of rivals? Loyalty doesn’t mean pushover or doormat. It does mean among other things keeping the questions and challenges inside the room. Someone working for Trump knows his position. He should not join to undermine or cause factions.
Factiousness and Heresy
The Apostle Paul in his epistles deals harshly with factiousness. The word in the King James Version is “heretic,” which transliterates a Greek term, that speaks of a factious or divisive person. For a church, heresy diverts off the path of truth as established by the congregation; its doctrine. The New Testament warns against division again and again. This doesn’t mean challenges can’t be made, but loyalty is necessary.
When someone defects in the Bible, that defector left the group. The group coalesced around a particular belief and practice and a person ejects from the group. 1 John 2:19 describes someone who goes out from the assembly, because he was not of the assembly. He would have continued with the assembly if he was of it. By going out, he showed he never was of it.
The usages of heretic or heresy in the New Testament indicate a divisive person. He breaks with leadership just to break with leadership. The person is a trouble maker. He never joined with the idea that he would try to get along.
Whose Agenda
People are drawn in magnetic fashion to the power of the federal government. Booker T. Washington talked about this from his first visit to Washington, DC from Tuskegee, recorded in his biography, Up From Slavery. The White House is a blazing hot center of the political power of the United States of America. People want to burrow their way into this honey pot like ants at a picnic. They aren’t necessarily and probably there to serve the President and with him. They want to use this as an opportunity for their own agenda. That is not the idea of a team of rivals.
Donald Trump was clear about his agenda. He ran on it. The people saying they want to join him know good-well what he said and what he’s trying to accomplish. He is right to pick only those who will be loyal to him and his agenda.
For instance, Trump will bring up ideas that maybe have little merit. He suggests them and perhaps they are stupid ideas or thoughts. But he wants the freedom to talk about those, what sometimes people call “brainstorming.” Those around him tell him what they think. They say they don’t like it and it won’t work, giving their best arguments. Trump wants that. What he doesn’t want is to read about that episode in the paper or hear it in the national news on television that night or the next day.
Trump employees join especially in this present administration with full knowledge of what and who he is. None should expect to leave and write a tell all book for bookoo bucks. They are serving at his pleasure. If they join and find out that they don’t like it, that doesn’t mean leaving to undermine his agenda.
Disloyalty
In the recent campaign, the media and the Democrats used the statements of former Trump team members. They spoke against Trump themselves. John Kelly gave a personal story in which he claimed that Trump said that Hitler’s generals would have obeyed him. Kelly used that to harm his former boss. Mike Pence did the same on different occasions. In order to justify themselves, these men hit Trump. Maybe their feelings were hurt. They should have stayed loyal. If they were not going to remain loyal, then they shouldn’t have joined Trump in the first place.
When I use Kelly and Pence, as examples, and I don’ think they are equal (Kelly was worse), this is not saying they couldn’t disagree. Pence said he couldn’t employ a particular application of the U. S. Constitution. Fine. Do what you’ve got to do. But leave it there at least. I’m living 20 minutes from Columbus, Indiana, Pence’s hometown. Most are not happy with Pence there. It is the issue of loyalty.
Just as a related topic, what about the loyalty of Donald Trump? Maybe Trump himself isn’t loyal either. It’s not something I’ve seen, based on what I’m writing here. Trump follows his own principles of loyalty. He isn’t loyal to those who are disloyal to and remain disloyal to him. For his business and his goals, I understand it. How can you give a presidential job to a disloyal person? The disloyal people are poison to the administration. I get it.
The Same Thing for Church and Friends
As I did a search on my blog here, I didn’t find one post on loyalty. Someone couldn’t say that it is a pet subject for me. However, I believe in it. It’s a good trait for someone to have.
What I’m talking about with the new Trump administration, I would say the same of a church and those who are your friends. True friends will show loyalty. I can say that I’ve had several who called themselves my friend through my life who were disloyal to a great magnitude. Again, I’m not talking about remaining silent without saying anything. That’s not loyalty. What I do mean is someone who treats someone like a friend. That person will not then trash his “friend” to others, even many others. He won’t join in with others who will do the same.
A real friend, a loyal one, is someone who will be there for you when you’re down. What I’m describing goes along with what I’m saying about Donald Trump. I’ve had a few loyal friends through the years. Not many, but I have some and I’m thankful for them. I’m planting that flag of loyalty in the ground too. Above all of course, I want to be loyal to God and His Word.
Vote Trump 2024
Concession
2016/2020
In 2016 Donald Trump won the presidential election against Hillary Clinton and she did not concede the election. You say, “Oh she did. She made a statement.” Sure. Hillary said something like all the lies characteristic of the Clintons, what turned since into its own vocabulary word: Clintonesque. She lied, what some might call “parsing words.”
Hillary Clinton, even before she lost, cooked up with the rest of the establishment, but led by her, the Russia conspiracy against Trump that impeded his presidency. She preyed on Trump’s inexperience in Washington, DC. John Durham in his special counsel investigation of the Russia hoax came to the conclusion
that there was no basis to immediately launch a full-fledged investigation against Donald Trump; that the FBI failed to follow up on intelligence reports that Hillary Clinton had approved a scheme to manufacture the Russia hoax and that her campaign funded opposition research to supply to the FBI and media with the false narrative; and that FBI leaders willingly subverted FBI policy, quashed investigations into Clinton’s potential violations of the law, and more.
Disqualification and a Fake Issue
That wasn’t the only signification that Hillary Clinton and the establishment did not concede the election. They treated his presidency as ineligible or disqualified and didn’t ever accept the results. The unelected administrative state cooperated with the Democrat Party in dozens of different ways to defy the electoral victory of President Donald Trump. As an example, James Comey, the head of the FBI under President Barack Obama, leaked sensitive information about President Donald Trump to the press that precipitated the appointment of the Robert Mueller special counsel investigation.
Many arguing against Trump point to his unwillingness to concede. I don’t hear anything about the other side not conceding. Both Clinton and Trump may not have conceded either in word or action, but Clinton didn’t inhabit the White House in 2016 nor Trump in 2020. It’s ultimately a fake issue. According to my own assessment, Trump’s challenge of the 2020 election did not compare to the seriousness of what Clinton did in 2016 and following, helped along by President Obama spying on the Trump campaign.
My History
I have voted in all the presidential elections since 1980. Living in Wisconsin during my Freshmen year in College, I voted for Ronald Reagan in 80 and the same in 84. When I moved to California, I started voting there first for George H.W. Bush in 88, same in 92, Bob Dole in 96, George W. Bush in 2000, same in 2004, John McCain in 2008, Mitt Romney in 2012, Trump in 2016, and same in 2020.
This year I’ll vote Trump again in the state of Indiana in 2024. It wasn’t until 1976 that I really started considering presidential elections with the Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter election. Even though I was alive for the 1968 and 1972 elections, I don’t remember them at all. The first political event I remember was Watergate, seeing it in black and White on our old tube television set. This will be my twelfth presidential election.
Every presidential election year from 1992 to 2020 I taught United States government in our high school. Five days a week I came into government class and commented on the election until it occurred the first Tuesday in November. I also taught jr. high history. The United States history curriculum for jr. high also included some government. The class read and answered questions about the United States Constitution.
Endorsement
Those for whom I voted president in the general election won six out of eleven times. This year could become seven. When Trump won in 2016, I wasn’t expecting it. I didn’t think he would win in 2020. Will he win this year? For the first time, I think he will. It’s hard to tell by the polls. Maybe some of you reading know about the quiet Trump voters. This affected the polls in 2016 and 2020. The pollsters and the media got the Democrat vote percentage about right. They underestimated Trump’s percentage both times. Maybe you’ve seen this data.
Nothing gets more negative commentary on this blog than a positive mention of President Donald Trump. Even if I intimate something positive about Trump without mentioning his name, I get a nasty comment. What does this do for or to me? Nothing. Easily, Trump gets far more foul comments than all the other subjects combined. Apparently these comments come from those who don’t like Trump’s meanness and nastiness.
The only hope for anything close to a Christian worldview is Trump. I’m not going to tick off all the reasons. They should be obvious. If they’re not, I don’t think there is much I can write here today that will persuade you the reader, which you haven’t already heard, watched, or read.
Debate Moderators As a Paradigm for a Censorship State
Freedom of Speech
A distinguishing characteristic of American liberty from the rest of the world is the first amendment of its bill of rights and in particular the freedom of speech. The people of modern Western states, apparent allies of the United States, do not have this same right. England doesn’t and France doesn’t. As serious as any single issue in the 2024 presidential campaign season is the attack on the first amendment rights of American citizens.
The right to free speech couples with the right to the free expression of religion and the rights to freedom of assembly and the right to petition the state for the address of grievances. Long ago the state exempted the truth of the Bible from the public square. As an example, Hammurabi’s one appearance of one pillar and his one code count as history but the multiple ancient Hebrew copies of Old Testament do not. This practice is a deliberate abridgement of the free speech right.
Moderation of the Vice Presidential Debate
Last night, I watched the entire Vance-Walz Vice-Presidential debate. Like in the ABC debate, the two CBS moderators only fact-checked or moderated one candidate. Moderation of one and not the other is a form of censorship. I would ascertain that this is why Trump refuses a second Presidential debate.
Based on what he saw from the first debate, Vance challenged a “fact check” from Margaret Brennan on the true legality of Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio. Before the debate, the Associated Press reported that CBS agreed that the moderators would not fact-check the candidates in real-time. Instead, they left it to the candidates to fact-check each other. In the ABC debate, the moderators fact checked Trump four times and Harris zero.
The Fact Check
Vance did not need a fact check. His point was legitimate. Calling the Haitian migrants legal was an opinion, easily in dispute. It is part of a larger effort to use a fact-checking apparatus to treat a statement as misinformation. The entire exchange went like this:
JD VANCE: Margaret. The rules were that you guys were not going to fact check, and since you’re fact checking me, I think it’s important to say what’s actually going on. So there’s an application called the CBP One app where you can go on as an illegal migrant, apply for asylum or apply for parole and be granted legal status at the wave of a Kamala Harris open border wand. That is not a person coming in, applying for a green card and waiting for ten years.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you, Senator.
JD VANCE: That is the facilitation of illegal immigration, Margaret, by our own leadership. And Kamala Harris opened up that pathway.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you, Senator, for describing the legal process. We have so much to get to.
Point of Contention
Wikipedia accounts for the CBP One App to which Vance referred, also giving links to appropriate related information:
CBP One was launched on October 28, 2020 primarily to help commercial trucking companies schedule cargo inspections.
In January 2023, CBP One’s functionality was expanded to include unauthorized migrants seeking protection from violence, poverty, or persecution.
In May 2023, CBP One was designated by Biden administration as the only path to request asylum on the U.S.-Mexico border and book asylum appointments.
The President of the United States does not have Constitutional authority to open the border of the United States or allow anyone to enter the United States regardless of the law. The executive branch of the United States, the president, has authority to enforce the immigration laws. The president does not have power to create laws. The Constitution gives that authority to the Congress. Those laws are subject to the review of the judicial branch as to their Constitutionality.
If the president grants legal status to a migrant, that doesn’t make him legal. He is legal or illegal based on the laws of the United States, passed by Congress and signed by the president. If the president grants asylum to the Haitian migrants, that doesn’t mean they’re legal. This president has allowed tens of thousands of migrants to enter and then stay in the United States illegally. The debate was between Vance and Walz and it was up to Walz what to fact check of Vance, if necessary.
Moderation and Censorship
If the moderators of the debate wanted to save time for all their questions, as in Brennan saying, “We have so much to get to,” then don’t take time for their so-called fact checking. The fact checking is a form of censorship in which the media amplifies the power of and as a part of the administrative state as a force multiplier. It furthers one position as a party apparatus for the consolidation of power. The administrative state censors what does not agree with its position. This is a process by which it eliminates all opposition toward an authoritarian regime.
One party in this presidential race doesn’t see the need to do many interviews. It exerts the most control of societal institutions and structures in a powerful means. A relatively few elite in the United States exert a tremendous hold over the minds and imaginations of the country. Key leaders for the uniparty signal the importance of arriving at a censorship state. At the Sustainable Development Impact Meetings of the World Economic Forum, John Kerry said:
Our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to hammer [disinformation] out of existence. What we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern by hopefully winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change.
Restriction of Information
In addition he warned that “there are some people in our country who prepared to implement change by other means.” In a poll by Pew, now 55% of Americans (39% in 2018) support the federal government restricting false information. Pew also stated from its poll:
In addition, the share of U.S. adults who say that tech companies should take steps to restrict false information online has increased from 56% in 2018 to 65% in 2023.
False information, disinformation, and misinformation are all very easy to define as something that disagrees with conventional wisdom or a societal norm. For a long time, people used the words “politically correct.” That doesn’t mean it is correct, but that it is the acceptable position of an administrative state.
Punishing Unacceptable Speech
Authoritarian regimes prosecute and incarcerate unacceptable speech. They send those espousing a disagreeable position to reeducation camps. What suffers is the actual truth. It’s easy today to see the truth chilled in the public square. People are afraid to lose their jobs and livelihood because of espousing something that was a moral belief and behavior less than fifty years ago.
Satan knows the truth shall set you free (John 8:32-36). When you read the Bible, the government jailed those expressing something contradicting the favored position. When John the Baptist spoke truth to Herod, he lost his head and life. The government banished the Apostle John to the isle of Patmos and executed the other disciples. The direction of censorship and threats to the first amendment portend a return to such a day, where you will suffer and die for the truth. May we first be warned and then attempt to protect and keep these rights while we still can.
*********************************
Related video (speech by Matt Taibbi) to this subject matter and then a link to an article by Jonathan Turley, Constitutional scholar.
Calvinism, Unconditional Election and Baptismal Regeneration
Did you know that there is a connection between the heresy of the baptismal regeneration of infants and unconditional election and reprobation in Calvinism? In the chapter “Calvinism is Augstinianism,” by Kenneth Wilson, in the book Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen & Steve W. Lemke (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), Wilson notes:
The major influence on Augustine’s AD 412 reversion to his prior deterministic Manichaean interpretations of Scripture was the arrival of Pelagius and Caelestius near his North African home in late AD 411. Augustine previously admitted (AD 405) he did not know why infant baptism was practiced (Quant.80). But the conflict with Caelestius and Pelagius forced him to rethink the church’s infant baptismal tradition and precipitated his reversion to his pagan DUPED [Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Eternal Destinies, that is, unconditional election].26 Caelestius had argued that infants did not receive baptism for salvation from sin but only for inheritance of the kingdom. Augustine’s polemical response to Caelestius in AD 412 was logical: (1) Infants are baptized by church tradition; (2) water baptism is for forgiveness of sin and reception of the Holy Spirit; (3) some dying infants are rushed by their Christian parents to the bishop for baptism but die before baptism occurs, while other infants born of prostitutes are found abandoned on the streets by a church virgin who rushes them to the baptismal font where the bishop baptizes them; (4) these infants have no “will” and no control over whether or not they are baptized to receive the Holy Spirit to become Christians. Therefore, God must unilaterally and unconditionally predetermine which infants are saved by baptism and which are eternally damned without baptism (unconditional election).27 God’s election must be unconditional since infants have no personal sin, no merit, no good works, no functioning free will (incognizant due to the inability to understand at their age), and therefore, no choice.
In his next work that same year, Augustine concluded if this is true for infants, then unbaptized adults also have no choice or free will (Sp. et litt.54–56). The Holy Spirit was received in water baptism, transforming the person into a Christian with a free will. Since humans have no free will before baptism, God must unilaterally choose who will be saved and infuse faith into those persons. Augustine taught even when “ministers prepared for giving baptism to the infants, it still is not given, because God does not choose [those infants for salvation]” (persev.31). Infant baptism became the impetus for Augustine’s novel theology when he reinterpreted that church tradition and reached a logical conclusion. By doing this he abandoned over three hundred years of church teaching on free will. According to the famous scholar Jaroslav Pelikan, Augustine departed from traditional Christian theology by incorporating his prior pagan teachings and thereby developed inconsistencies in his new anthropology and theology of grace, especially his “idiosyncratic theory of predestination.”28[1]
So the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation is connected to Augustine’s doctrine of baptismal regeneration of infants and the damnation of all infants who are not regenerated in baptism. Since the infants cannot choose whether or not they will be baptized and receive forgiveness through baptism, their eternal salvation and damnation is by God’s will alone; they have no free will to receive Christ or reject Him, as in the large majority of modern Calvinists who follow Jonathan Edwards in his work against the freedom of the will. The infants that are tormented forever because they never were baptized are unconditionally reprobated, and the infants in paradise because they were baptized are the unconditionally elect. Since this is (allegedly) true for infants, it must be true for everyone else as well—eternal salvation and damnation is by God’s unconditional choice alone—an Augustinian innovation in Christendom which was reproduced by John Calvin and the Reformed tradition. (Of course, John Calvin also believed in baptismal regeneration.)
Let me add that the book Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke is valuable for mature Christians and church leaders, and it contains many valuable and Biblically sound criticisms of Calvinism. However, there are a diversity of viewpoints represented in the book, including not just non-Calvinist Baptists who still believe in eternal security, for example, but full-blown actual Arminians such as Wesleyans who affirm the terrible false teaching that true believers can be eternally lost. Because some chapters in the book are written by actual Arminians, I would not recommend the book for new Christians who might over-react against Calvinism and adopt Arminian heresies. Pastors or other mature Christians who are simply not going to become Arminian can gain a good deal of profit from the book.
–TDR
26 Wilson, 285. See also Chadwick, Early Christian Thought, 110–11.
27 Augustine, Pecc.mer.1.29–30. In contrast, ca. AD 200, Tertullian had rejected infant baptism, stating one should wait until personal faith was possible (De bapt.18).
28 Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975), 278–327, quotation at 325.
[1] Kenneth Wilson, “Calvinism Is Augustinianism,” in Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), 222–223.
Links to Amazon.com are affiliate links.
DeSantis, Trump, or Otherwise
2024 and 2020 Elections
It looks that the Republican side of the 2024 presidential election will include a hard fought battle that spends millions and millions of dollars for candidates trying to defeat one another. Apparently, our side could not work together to agree on a candidate to support without a huge war in the party. Meanwhile, the Democrats will pour huge amounts of money, almost incalculable sums, to further perfect their ballot harvesting strategy. Instead of preparing themselves for this same tactic, Republicans will spend it bashing each other before general election time.
Evidence shows large numbers of varied entities rigged the 2020 U.S. presidential election, including Covid related ones. The Durham Report alone proved that and then there’s Hunter Biden’s laptop. Despite all the forces against President Trump during his presidency, he accomplished much. I wish he became president in 2020, like many of you readers.
Giving Trump His Due
In addition to all the good things that came out of the Trump presidency, he changed the Republican party in a positive way. He influenced many other leaders to take a similar combative toughness as he. He showed them the way. I thank him for that. If another Republican besides him wins in 2024, Trump will have made a significant influence to that victory.
Republicans or conservatives should give Trump his due. They should stop disrespecting him in the manner they are. This will not help Republicans win 2024. It will not persuade any Trump supporter to vote for someone else. Insulting Trump and those who voted for him looks self-serving and virtue signaling.
Everyone knows Trump’s negatives. Most of what makes him negative is also what makes him positive. You might say, “He should stop doing this.” Well, “this” is also what makes him popular. Trump would not measure what he said for maximum political correctness. He also pushed back on the mainstream media almost to the extent that it pushes against political candidates it doesn’t want.
Since we will have to choose our candidate, I might still vote Trump, because voters have a lot of time to watch what will happen. I haven’t made up my mind yet. The one who gets my vote will stand up and battle for an almost identical agenda as Trump. I know Trump will fight, because I’ve seen him do it. Whoever wins for the Republicans will face monumental forces from many different fronts almost like no one in American history.
My Primary Vote
As I look toward the future, right now I predict though that I will vote for Governor DeSantis in the Republican primary. I don’t know that, but it is what I foresee right now.
Trump did his part. I give him credit for it, but in the present I believe his time has passed. He could still win. I would be happy if he did. I prefer Governor DeSantis at the moment. DeSantis could easily pick up the mantle of Trump and do better with it, even if Trump won’t hand it to him.
I get Trump’s anger about disloyalty. DeSantis could help with this too and bring along more Trump supporters by more strongly giving Trump his due. He could disarm the Trump disloyalty attack by honoring Trump. He should have won 2020. Many Republicans who supported Trump understand why someone would run against him. Both could happen, a candidate like DeSantis honors Trump and then explains why the Republicans regretfully need someone else.
Advice for DeSantis
Fight
DeSantis could pledge to fight in the example of Donald Trump. He could tick off all the ways he will emulate Trump and then honor him by winning on his behalf and those who support him. In an analogical way, I can see Trump not as the candidate like David wasn’t the candidate for building the first Temple. Trump was uniquely suited for the job he did in taking down Hillary in 2016. Please don’t say I’m saying Trump is David, the latter who loved God. Trump brought the fight to the party like it needed and will continue to need. David fought the Philistines.
At the time Trump became a candidate, the Republican Party needed a fighter extraordinaire. Of course, the spiritual solution is most important. Some of you critics rarely preach the gospel. Don’t be critical of spiritual lack in the political area if you are distracted in the evangelistic area. Are you really that dedicated to the gospel that you don’t have time to think about religious freedom? Good for you, but I don’t believe it with most of you. When’s the last time you even made a disciple in fulfillment of the Great Commission. You’re just, again, virtue signaling.
Trump’s kickstart of fighting for freedom and the American way is the start. Everyone now has a standard. All must surpass it. DeSantis, I believe, must prove that he will surpass Trump. I’m not convinced yet. What I am saying is that I believe he will. I hope he reads this.
Give Trump His Due
The Florida governor could also pledge to homogenize the MAGA support into a unified team. Some of the Trumpers could make the cabinet. This kind of approach to Trump is what will make it difficult for Trump to oppose DeSantis. Recently Trump said he had a hard time saying a bad word about Gavin Newsom because of how positive Newsom was with him. Trump takes well to positive reinforcement. Start every speech with a litany of pro-Trump signals before turning to what makes you the man for whom to vote.
DeSantis should set his sights on the enemies out there. Fire away at them. In my opinion, he’s tough, but still not tough enough. The way to impress Trump voters won’t be doing the Chris Christie, talking tough about Trump (especially to the press). The way to do that is to talk tough to and at the political elite. Hone that skill. Elevate the fire not against Trump, but against them.
I write this because it is what I think. I was just now ready to say it. Talk amongst yourselves.
Why I Will Not Vote for Donald Trump in 2024 as a Republican
Let me preface this post by saying that I believe whether or not one agrees with what I am saying should not cause division in a church. Donald Trump divides the country, but he should not divide churches. If you are united to Christ by faith you are my brother in Him, and if you are a faithful member of a true church you are in Christ’s body, and I have Christian love for you, whether or not you agree with what I say about politics below.
I have Always Voted Republican as a Conservative
In 2016, I voted for Donald Trump. In 2020, I voted for Donald Trump. In every presidential election since I have been able to vote, and in every other election, I have consistently voted for Republican candidates. Before the 2020 election, I wrote a blog post about why Christians should vote for Donald Trump because of religious liberty, abortion, and free speech.
In 2016 Donald Trump won 46% of the vote to squeak by in the electoral college a few days after Hillary Clinton was hit with criminal charges. Although I found his personality and character abhorrent, I voted for him in 2016 because of the Supreme Court. In 2020, I also voted for him because of the Supreme Court. I also though that, despite the many self-inflicted wounds he gave himself, with good conservative advisors he did a better job governing than I thought he would do. I was very thankful that, with the help of Mitch McConnell and a Republican-controlled Senate, he appointed three justices to the Supreme Court–appointments that led to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. That was very, very, very good.
Many of the media attacks on Trump were baseless. He never colluded with Russia, for example. Many other attacks were based on taking seriously what he said when, very often, even Trump himself does not pay attention to what he says (not a good idea when you are the most powerful elected figure on earth and the commander in chief of the world’s most powerful military).
My political views are extremely conservative. Based on Scripture, they support a very limited government and are very socially conservative. I believe the US Constitution is a very good document for running a government in this fallen world and wish that it were followed much more closely than it is.
Donald Trump Will Not Peacefully Cede Power
So why am I not going to vote for Donald Trump again-certainly not in the Republican primary, and also not in the general election, if he wins the primary? It is not because of his horrible character. It is not because there are good reasons to wonder if what is good for Trump is more important to him than what is good for the United States. It is not because he constantly attacks everyone and alienates larger and larger and larger groups of people and even people as loyal as his own vice president. It is not because he has now been convicted of battery and sexual crimes. These are very big problems-definitely far more than enough to make me vote for someone else in the Republican primary, but in the general election I am willing to overlook them. It is not because of some secret sympathy for the socialistic, big-government policies of the Democrat party. I am very concerned about the judges Democrats put on the Supreme Court and other courts and I see “vote for Trump because of the judges” as the single strongest argument to vote for him, if he prevails in the Republican primary (which I fervently hope he does not). I am very concerned about the way the Democrat party is willing to persecute churches, Christian business owners, and Christians in general who stand for what Scripture teaches on morality.
So what was the final straw for me? I think there is a strong likelihood that Donald Trump will not cede power peacefully if he loses an election. I believe in the American republic, not in a dictatorship by a Republican.
I did not think that Donald Trump would do what he did after losing the 2020 election. Pursuing all legal avenues to try to get the most votes you can? Fine. But his refusal-for hours-to call off the rioters on January 6 was despicable, even when it was obvious that things had turned violent. It is also perfectly obvious that the Vice President never has had the power to unilaterally overturn election results. If the Vice President of the party in power can unilaterally reject election results, we do not have a republic, but a dictatorship. It does not even need to be stated that the idea that the VP can do this is absolutely indefensible constitutionally.
Let’s say that it is far more likely that the reason Donald Trump was unwilling to admit that he lost the election by over 7,000,000 votes is that Trump can never admit he was wrong than that the theories he was spouting off in public, but which even his own lawyers would not defend in court, were true. That would be a huge problem, but maybe if he had just made stuff up to support his ego and left it at that, perhaps I would still vote for him again.
However, it is now years later, and Trump is still making the same Constitutionally fatal claims. He still claims that Mike Pence could have unilaterally overturned the 2020 election results. That means the end of the republic and the start of a tyranny. What did Trump do in his very first campaign rally? He put up a video and a song made by criminals who were justly put in prison for their crimes on January 6. He showed them violently fighting the police. He tried to put them in a good light as they were breaking and smashing and beating police officers and trying to get in to violently place him in power. He did not put up a video of the (imaginary) people who (in an alternate universe) just happened to wander into the Capitol as tourists or something and then were arrested and imprisoned unjustly. No, his video showed the rioters fighting with the police, and was glorifying the rioters as if they were righteous. Note that the video from the January 6 committee here:
And Trump’s campaign video here, where the singers are imprisoned January 6 criminals:
have some of the same footage of rioters fighting police (see 1:14-1:30 in), although Trump puts the violent criminals up for a shorter period of time. Trump embraces people who wanted Mike Pence executed for treason although he does not (at this point, at least, but you never know what he will do next) himself call for the execution of his own former Vice President for treason.
Trump said that he would accept the 2016 results–if he won. He lost in 2020 and did not accept the results. If he loses in 2024, there could be a lot of bloodshed. If he wins in 2024-something that is very, very unlikely-there is no reason to think that he would voluntarily cede power at the end of his term. He could come up with some reason-any reason-to retain power. The Vice President being able to unilaterally overturn results; the election allegedly having fraud that is worse than any third-world country; Dominion voting machines changing millions of votes; you name it. If Donald Trump can claim (even before results are in!) that the long shot conservative Republican Larry Elder lost in California to the sitting Democrat governer, Gavin Newsom, by fraud, then he can claim any election he wants was lost by fraud.
I have little confidence Trump would voluntarily cede power if he lost an election. Furthermore, anyone that was part of his cabinet in a second Trump term would have to be an almost cultic “yes” man. He would have to be a bobble head agreeing with any Trump claims. Trump claimed (in his January 6 speech) that in 2020 he “won in a landslide” but is not now in office because of “the most corrupt election in … history, maybe of the world,” far worse than “third-world countries,” and “everybody knows it.” The 2020 US election was not worse than elections such as the 1927 Liberian election where the winner gained 243,000 votes from the 15,000 registered voters, the 1964 election in Haiti where the president won 99.9% of the vote, there were no opponents, and all the ballots were pre-marked “yes,” or the elections in Equitorial Guinea between 1990-2020 where the president got 98% of the vote at a minimum, with some areas giving him over 103%. Everyone knows that the 2020 election was worse than such corrupt elections, according to Trump. Instead of having advisors like his courageous and moral Vice President, Mike Pence, Trump would have a cabinet of Kool-Aid drinkers who would actually help him to retain power after an election loss and would parrot whatever nutty claims he made.
I am not going to vote for Trump again because I do not have confidence he would cede power. Do you have confidence he would cede power if he lost?
Why It Does Not Matter That I Will Not Vote For Donald Trump
Despite the great danger that Trump would not cede power peacefully if he were reelected, it does not matter very much that I will not vote for him. Why is that?
1.) I am in California, so my vote does not matter in a presidential election. California is almost certain to give its electoral votes to the Democrat candidate, and if a Republican won the electoral votes of California, he would not need them, for he would already have won other closer states in a landslide. Were I in a swing state, I would have to think harder about not voting for Trump.
2.) However, although it would be a harder call, even if I were in a swing state I would not vote for Trump because of the threat he is to the Constitution. Even in this case, though, my vote would not matter. Why? Because Trump is unelectable. He lost a winnable election in 2020 through self-inflicted wounds, and after January 6 he was no longer a viable candidate for president. He is never going to get the 46% of the vote that he got in 2016 again-much less the higher percentage he would need to win against someone less repulsive than Hillary Clinton a few days after she was indited. Joe Biden, the Democrat Party, and the mainstream media will work very hard to make Trump the Republican candidate in 2024 because they know he is not electable. Donald Trump turned what should have been a red wave in 2022 into a red trickle, even though he was not on the ballot. People do not want someone who supports violent riots, injuries to hundreds of Capitol police officers, and the end of the republic for a dictatorship where the Vice President can unilaterally overturn results. Running on a pro-January 6 riot platform is bonkers. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would wonder if the Democrats were secretly paying off Trump to run on something like that. The electorate does not want a candidate who justifies violent attempts at revolution and whom a jury has found guilty of sexual assault. If Republicans nominate someone creepy enough, they can even lose Senate races in Alabama. (Note that Roy Moore was only credibly accused of sexual crimes–Trump has not only been accused, but been found guilty by a jury of them. Roy Moore lost deep, deep, deep Red Alabama. How badly will Trump lose?) Trump has alienated a large portion of the Republican electorate but he unites the Democrats. He alienates moderates and far, far more than half the voting population. A vote for Donald Trump in the Republican primary is a vote for a united Democrat government that controls the House and Senate–probably with large majorities–and the presidency in 2024. It is a vote for a Democrat president who will do everything he can to get Roe v. Wade back. The question is not whether Trump can get the 46% he got in 2016. The question is whether he would be able to get 40%, or 35%, or a number even lower than that. The question is whether the Democrats would win in a huge landslide that can introduce constitutional amendments or just a big landslide that can abolish the filibuster and appoint radical leftist tyrants to the Supreme Court.
So the fact that I would not vote for Donald Trump in the 2024 general election will not matter–if he is at the top of the Republican ticket, the election will not even be close.
However, in the Republican primary my vote definitely WILL matter. I will be voting to keep Trump away from the Republican nomination, so that limited, Constitutional government, religious liberty, and other incredible blessings here in the United States may continue, by God’s grace. While I think Mike Pence would be even better than Ron DeSantis, I will plan to vote for whoever appears to have the best chance at keeping Donald Trump away from winning the nomination, at least if it is still in play when I have a chance to vote in the primary, Lord willing.
As a postscript, let me say again that I believe whether or not one agrees with what I am saying should not cause division in a church. Donald Trump divides the country, but he should not divide churches. If you are united to Christ by faith you are my brother in Him, and if you are a faithful member of a true church you are in Christ’s body, and I have Christian love for you, whether or not you agree with what I say about politics in this post.
–TDR
Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte by Richard Whately & Skepticism
Have you ever read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte by ? (view the book online for free here or here; a version you can cut and paste into a document so you can listen to it is here), or get a physical copy:
David Hume, the famous skeptic, employed a variety of skeptical arguments against the Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ, and against the possibility of miracles and the rationality of believing in them in Section 10, “Of Miracles,” of Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Whately, an Anglican who believed in the Bible, in miracles, and in Christ and His resurrection, turned Hume’s skeptical arguments against themselves. Whately’s “satiric Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Bonaparte (1819), … show[ed] that the same methods used to cast doubt on [Biblical] miracles would also leave the existence of Napoleon open to question.” Whately’s book is a short and humerous demonstration that Hume’s hyper-skepticism would not only “prove” that Christ did not do any miracles or rise from the dead, but that Napoleon, who was still alive at the time, did not exist or engage in the Napoleonic wars. Hume’s argument against miracles is still extremely influential–indeed, as the teaching sessions mentioned in my last Friday’s post indicated, the main argument today against the resurrection of Christ is not a specific alternative theory such as the stolen-body, hallucination, or swoon theory, but the argument that miracles are impossible, so, therefore, Christ did not rise–Hume’s argument lives on, although it does not deserve to do so, as the critiques of Hume’s argument on my website demonstrate. For these reasons, the quick and fun read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte is well worth a read. (As a side note, the spelling “Buonaparte” by the author, instead of Bonaparte, is deliberate–the British “used the foreign sounding ‘Buonaparte’ to undermine his legitimacy as a French ruler. … On St Helena, when the British refused to acknowledge the defeated Emperor’s imperial rights, they insisted everyone call him ‘General Buonaparte.'”
Contemporary Significance
Part of the contemporary significance of Richard Whately’s Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte relates to how we evaluate historical data. We should avoid both the undue skepticism of David Hume and also undue credulity. Whatever God revealed in His Word can, and must, be accepted without question. But outside of Scripture, when evaluating historical arguments, we should employ Biblical principles such as the following:
Have the best arguments both for and against the matter in question been carefully examined?
Is the argument logical?
Are there conflicts of interest in those promoting the argument?
Does the argument produce extraordinary evidence for its extraordinary claims?
Does the argument require me to think more highly of myself than I ought to think?
Is looking into the argument redeeming the time?
Are Biblical patterns of authority followed by those spreading the argument?
(principles are reproduced from my website here, and are also discussed here.)
A failure to properly employ consistent criteria to the evaluation of evidence undermines the case for Scripture. For example, Assyrian records provide as strong a confirmation as one could expect for Hezekiah’s miraculous deliverance from the hand of Assyria by Jehovah’s slaying 185,000 Assyrian soldiers (2 Kings 19). However, Assyrian annals are extremely biased ancient propaganda. Those today who claim that any source showing bias (say, against former President Trump, or against conservative Republicans–of which there are many) should be automatically rejected out of hand would have to deny, if they were consistent, that Assyrian records provide a glorious confirmation of the Biblical miracle. Likewise, Matthew records that the guards at Christ’s tomb claimed that the Lord’s body was stolen as they slept (Matthew 28). Matthew, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, intends the reader to be able to see through this biased and false argument to recognize the fact that non-Christians were making it actually provides confirmation for the resurrection of Christ. (If you do not see how it confirms the resurrection, think about it for a while.)
Many claims made today, whether that the population of the USA would catastrophically decline as tens of millions would die from the COVID vaccine, that Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams had her election win in Georgia stolen by Republicans, that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump had his 2020 election win in Georgia stolen by Democrats, that 9/11 was perpetrated by US intelligence agencies, that Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election, that the miracle cure for cancer has been discovered but is being suppressed by Big Pharma, and many other such claims are rarely advanced by those who follow the Biblical principles listed above for evaluating information. Furthermore, the (dubious) method of argumentation for such claims, if applied to the very strong archaeological evidence for the Bible, would very frequently undermine it, or, indeed, frequently undermine the possibility of any historical investigation at all and destroy the field of historical research.
In conclusion, I would encourage you to read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte, and, as you read it, think about what Scripture teaches about how one evaluates historical information.
–TDR
-The Amazon link above is an affiliate link. Please visit here to learn about how one can donate to charity at no additional cost when purchasing products at Amazon and here to learn how to save on Internet purchases in general.
Recent Comments