Home » Posts tagged 'Trump'
Tag Archives: Trump
The United States and the War in Ukraine (Part Two)
As an issue, the war between Ukraine and Russia is a very complex, complicated situation. I hear both left and right criticizing the Trump administration on its handling of the war. When you listen carefully, you hear something about support for Ukraine. What in fact is support for Ukraine?
Support for Ukraine?
People often use “support” in a very loose manner. I find that the word “support” lacks significant commitment. Support means a small percentage of a nations gross domestic product (GDP) toward financial aid. Approximately 0.67% of the combined GDP of major European nations has been given in support of Ukraine. If Russia began dominating Ukraine in the war, indicating that Russia would defeat and gain control of Ukraine, would any European nation send ground troops to join Ukraine for the purpose of stopping this?
Instead of future ground troops, European nations could support Ukraine with a present commitment of ground troops, literally joining Ukraine in its war. Not one nation committed to sending ground troops to join Ukraine against Russia. No nation has committed to sending their own soldiers to fight on the ground against Russia.
The issue of the war between Ukraine and Russia reminds me of the commitment to the rise of oceans due to climate change. Those who express future certain dire circumstances in coastal areas refuse to sell their own coastal properties. This signals the truth of their own adherence to their own ideas about the climate change. They do not commit to act upon their own theories even if they expect more financial aid devoted to this cause. Financial aid encourages war in Ukraine and a cataclysmic large number of death and destruction for Ukraine.
Ethnic Russians
The ethnic Russian population in Ukraine constitutes approximately 17.3% of the total population, based on the 2001 census, which recorded about 8.3 million individuals identifying as ethnic Russians. This figure includes both those born in Russia and those born in Ukraine who identify as ethnically Russian. Ethnic Russians are predominantly located in specific regions of Ukraine, particularly in the eastern and southern parts of the country.
The Autonomous Republic of Crimea has a significant Russian majority, with approximately 71.7% of its population identifying as ethnic Russian. Ethnic Russians make up about 48.2% of the population of Donetsk Oblast, 58.7% of Luhansk Oblast, and 52.9% of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast. 13.1% of Kyiv itself are ethnic Russians. 60 plus percentage of the previously mentioned regions are ethnic Russian, making up a Russian bloc of Ukraine.
Russian Language Laws
Ukraine has implemented a series of legislative measures and policies that have significantly curtailed the use of the Russian language, particularly in areas with substantial ethnic Russian populations. These actions are part of a broader effort to promote the Ukrainian language and reinforce national identity. The Constitution of Ukraine, adopted in 1996, establishes Ukrainian as the sole state language while guaranteeing the free development and protection of minority languages, including Russian.
A 2019 language law in Ukraine explicitly excluded Russian from exemptions granted to other minority languages that are also official languages within the European Union (EU). As such, while some minority languages received protections under specific conditions (e.g., Hungarian or Romanian), Russian did not enjoy similar privileges. A large majority of ethnic Russians opposed the law.
Justification for War
I write about the domination of ethnic Russians in a bloc of Ukrainian regions and this 2019 language law to highlight the complexity of the situation in Ukraine. A multiplicity of significant international issues behind the Ukraine and Russia war also exist. The war is not as simple democratic and not democratic. The actual meaning of democracy according to various factions also further complicates the motivations for the war.
Western democracy fails in its moral standing to judge and then criticize others. Do those advocating for Ukraine in war against Russia have suitable moral basis for justification of the war, when weighing all the factors? I don’t hear very good arguments. The biggest argument I hear, and almost exclusively, is that anyone who does not want Ukraine war against Russia supports Vladimir Putin and everything bad about him.
Biblical Prophecy?
I have not heard much on the subject of Russia in biblical prophecy in recent days, especially since the fall of the Soviet Union. In the 1970s a lot of men preached prophetic passages such as Ezekiel 38 and 39 to defend an attack on Israel by Russia as part of the Great Tribulation period. In their system of interpretation at the time, Russia would battle Red China in the final Battle of Armageddon. Related to current events, that doesn’t look as viable now.
Even though I am a premillennialist by conviction, men might and do differ on some of the fine details. Biblical prophecy, I believe, can and should affect American foreign policy. What scripture says is true. However, men make right decisions to conduct the best activities by relying on the plain meaning of scripture. That becomes increasingly more difficult in a world and its leaders not guided by what God says. Everything is better everywhere with a right application of scripture.
No matter what happens in the world previous to the return of Christ, that won’t change what God foretells after it. For premillennialists, whatever occurs right now is not necessarily a prelude for what will occur after the rapture of the saints before the Tribulation period on earth. The United States does not appear at anything at all prophetic in the Bible. The best approach is a broader one that still does take Israel into strong consideration in U.S. foreign policy.
Israel, Wales, and Complexity of the Issue
Israel supports ending the war between Ukraine and Russia, primarily through mediation and humanitarian aid rather than military involvement or outright condemnation of Russia. At no time did Israel send weapons to Ukraine. Through the Ukraine and Russia war, Israel maintained relations with Russia. Over 100,000 Israeli citizens live in Russia and 80,000 in Moscow. 1.5 million Israelis or 17.5% of the Israeli population speak Russian. Over 400,000 pilgrims from Russia visited Israel in 2015-2016.
To understand the complexity of regional foreign wars, one might consider that England forced Wales into the United Kingdom. This occurred in 1283 but by law in the Wales Acts by Henry VIII in 1535 and 1542. England forced Wales into its kingdom by means of military conquest. Wales had and still has its own language. The United Kingdom by law allows Wales to have its own language.
I support diplomatic efforts by the United States to end the Ukraine-Russia War. The other side does not offer any viable or reasonable solutions. Left and right who oppose the diplomatic efforts, including the media, should support the efforts toward peace by not sabotaging the actions of diplomacy with Ukraine and Russia. They should stop hindering this peace process.
The United States and the War in Ukraine (Part One)
A Similar Series I Wrote in 2023
Like the rest of the world, I hope for the gospel to spread to and in both Russia and the Ukraine. Jesus will some day reign over the whole earth and bring true peace. In the meantime, nations must operate together in a sin-cursed world and James 4:1-2 regularly comes true:
From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.
War is the reality of this age, yet something nations should attempt to avoid, not at all costs though. What about the war between Russia and Ukraine? Some call it a proxy war between Russia and the United States. Europe, right on the doorstep of Ukraine, does not pay for the war despite its close proximity. Neither does it send any of its own men to die with the Ukrainians in their fight against Russia.
It’s easy to sympathize with evangelical believers in Ukraine. Men spread the gospel, make disciples, train leaders, and churches start in that country. Many, I’m sure, are sadly dying in this war. Whatever good thoughts and genuine prayers for the believers of Ukraine, this is not the basis for making a decision on what’s right for the United States to do in this situation. Thousands of Christians inhabited the Roman Empire when it fell.
Before I launch into my opinion on the conflict, I will sketch out some history for us to consider.
History
Pre World War 2
Historians agree that Russia started by at least the 10th century. Kyiv, now Ukraine, was a vital part of the earliest iteration of Russia between 882 and 1240, when the Mongols invaded. Ivan the Terrible later became the first Tsar of Russia in 1547. Peter the Great declared the Russian Empire in 1721 at which time Kyiv became a part. Kyiv remained in Russia until the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917 during World War I (see map of Europe in 1910). Ukraine briefly became independent, embracing Communism.
Ukraine was a founding republic of the Soviet Union as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1922. Its borders were adjusted several times during the Soviet period based on administrative decisions made in Moscow. Following World War 2, various international treaties changed Ukraine’s borders further (with little to no world protest) as it gained territories such as Western Ukraine from Poland and parts from Romania and Czechoslovakia due to shifting post-war boundaries.
Post World War 2
U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had earlier granted the Soviet Union diplomatic recognition in 1933. Later at the Yalta Conference in February 1945 toward the end of World War 2, he, Churchill, and Stalin discussed post-war arrangements for Europe. They drew lines of occupation controlled by each Allied power. This agreement inherently acknowledged that much of Eastern Europe would fall under Soviet influence, and then it did.
Roosevelt wanted to maintain a cooperative relationship with Stalin to ensure Soviet participation in the war against Japan and then post-war peace efforts. This is a reason he opted for the Soviets to capture Berlin first, thinking that would strengthen the U.S. position in negotiations over post-war Europe. FDR, a Democrat, the socialist leaning, liberal political party of the United States jettisoned regions like Ukraine to Stalin.
Post Cold War and NATO Expansion
Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, NATO expanded several times to include former Eastern Bloc countries and Baltic states, which Russia perceived and still perceives as a breach of trust based on early assurances from the United States that this would not occur. At a handshake level, American diplomats, such as James Baker, assured Russia against NATO expansion past Eastern Germany. Russia believes the West violated an implicit agreement that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe to which Putin often refers as justification for his actions.
Many compare the threat of NATO expansion to the Russia border and Ukraine to the Soviets placing nuclear missiles in Cuba. The United States would not allow it.
Motivation
A common refrain in discussions of Russia and Ukraine is an expression of democracy. The United States must support democracy across the world. One could call this a doctrine of foreign policy. The present administration at least questions this doctrine and its consistency in Europe. Europe claims democracy, but it looks like “selective democracy,” which isn’t democracy at all. J.D. Vance in a speech in Munich brought out the selectiveness of European freedom, especially targeting religious freedom and freedom of speech. I haven’t heard really any answer on this from Europe.
Thousands are dying in Ukraine and will keep dying. Ukraine will not win the war. I’m not saying Russia did well in this war, but they committed to it, have more people, and enough money to keep making weapons. Could Ukraine win? No. Not just Europe, but the U. S. military would need to join in the fight. Europe does not show a true commitment to Ukraine. It pretends commitment with no endgame. At most Ukraine could inflict more damage on Russia, a very risky proposition, because Russia has nuclear weapons and a growing incentive to use them.
European Support
After the Zelensky live-televised oval office meeting with the President and others, Zelensky travelled to Europe to receive immediate support from European leaders. What does this mean? Europe has no serious proposal. It barely supported Ukraine. It dedicates an infinitesimal percentage of its budget to its own defense. Europe didn’t send troops to fight with Ukraine. Nations like the United Kingdom don’t protect their own borders, let alone Ukraine. They have emaciated, weak militaries that alone might serve as a speed bump for Russia.
From my perspective, by supporting Zelensky in public, albeit pretend support, Europe disrespected the present government of the United States, which represents the American people according to a democratic vote. Europe wants American support without giving America respect. European leaders like Starmer and Macron, and then the Canadian Trudeau, undermine a possible peace between Russia and Ukraine to stop this war. They do this without any realistic alternative.
I don’t know of one poll that asks whether the citizens of these European countries want to send troops to join Ukraine to die in its fight against Russia. Why isn’t that question being asked? It’s obvious. Everyone knows that not one nation wants a part of that. The support for Ukraine is a pretend support, essentially a lie. European support for Ukraine means less than nothing. The left and neo-cons in the United States and its media join them in this mass deception.
More to Come
Eschatology Is Affecting the Foreign Policy of the United States
Premillennialism and Foreign Policy
A large percentage, I would say 35% of the population, of Americans is premillennial. Almost 100 percent of those were Trump voters in the 2024 election. Premillennialism takes literally the Old and New Testament promises to Israel. Amillennialism and postmillennialism are growing in the United States, but it is still a small, albeit loud, percentage of professing Christians.
Premillennialism takes what is called an Old Testament priority. The characters of the Old Testament, as God revealed His Word to them, understood what they heard. For instance, the promises concerning the Messiah were literal and fulfilled that way in the first coming of Jesus Christ. A very low percentage of Jews believed that, but Christians did and do.
Abrahamic Covenant
I point to the Abrahamic Covenant of Genesis, which repeats itself multiple times in the book, starting with Genesis 12:1-3, but with an allusion in Genesis 3:15 and the seed of the woman. God promised a seed, a land, and a blessing. It was a unilateral, unconditional, and irrevocable covenant with an ethnic people. You can add to that the Mosaic, Davidic, and New Covenants by God that apply to Israel.
In the present war in the Middle East, a large part of the support of the Israel comes from premillennialists. You can add to that especially the orthodox Jews and then the Messianic Jews. If you went to an orthodox synagogue in Florida, almost 100 percent would have supported Donald Trump. The two ideas coincide. The Messiah is Jesus Christ, even if the orthodox Jews deny that. However, they both look for a Messiah, who will set up a kingdom.
A Division
How are the eschatological positions applying to foreign policy right now? A division exists in the Republican foreign policy. The neo-conservatives are a very small minority now in the Republican Party. Many went Independent or Democrat.
When I talk about the small minority, I’m saying The Lincoln Project, The Bulwark, the Bush/Rove/Cheney/Condoleezza Rice Faction, and the Romney/Murkowski/Collins/Nikki Haley/Mitch McConnell/(now) Mike Pence contingent. Some still hang with the Republicans because they support more Trump ideas than the new Democrat Party. Much of this side on foreign policy wants to keep sending billions or a trillion more to Ukraine and try to defeat Russia and Putin in a proxy war.
The same conflagration of new-conservative types support Israel in the Middle East, but they want a new world order with a muscular U. S. intervention overseas. They still support the idea of nation building, perhaps going to back to an old NATO philosophy after World War II. These are typically the classic free-traders and dollar diplomacy to force the spread of capitalism and democracy across the world.
MAGA and Historical Republicanism
The MAGA, American First foreign policy, as I see it, is split, but an avenue of cohesion exists. The biggest group would take the following position and this fits Premillennial eschatology. I would be in that thinking. First, they reject the war in the Ukraine. They want a diplomatic end to that war with the hope of better relations with Russia. This includes ending NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, threatening Russian sovereignty. This is not support of Putin.
The historical Republican foreign policy prioritizes America. It secures the borders of the nation and strengthens the national economy. Included in this is greater fairness in trade in combination with freeness and a return of strong American industrialization and business. China makes less of the stuff America needs for a secure future. This means less foreign intervention more in the spirit of George Washington in his Farewell Address.
Israel
A second aspect of the MAGA foreign policy relates to Israel. The split exists here, because there is an anti-Israel faction in MAGA. It’s also antisemitic. You can find this also in the Christian nationalism movement. It is not so totally innocent. The amillennialists and postmillennialists abide here, a few premillennialists too, but with what I’ve read as a very odd sort of premillennialism. The latter says that future support of Israel and trust in the promises of God do not necessitate, and could even preclude, present support of apostate Israel.
The premillennialist branch, the bigger one, of MAGA foreign policy can work with the smaller faction, which I believe includes now a name such as Tucker Carlson. They might agree that the United States should allow Israel freedom to win in the Middle East. The United States will continue as a supportive ally without its own military involvement, no more boots on the ground.
Premillennialists like myself would support a one state solution in Israel and an expansion of Israel territory. This mirrors a belief that the Palestinians are in practice something like the Canaanites of the Old Testament. They have no interest in cohabitation or peace with Israel in the land. Israel can’t continue to live like this. A one state solution is the most popular one in Israel today. I think Israel should be allowed to form one state with the integration of like-minded Palestinians.
Conclusion
Peace in the foreign policy of the American First Movement revolves around an anti-interventionist approach. The United States does not force its own foreign policy on Israel. It supports an Israel First Movement in Israel. At the same time, it neither sends financial aid to either Israel, Palestine, or any other Middle Eastern country. These countries can trade freely and fairly with no advantage to either side.
What I’m writing fits a premillennialist approach and, I believe, it represents the present foreign policy in the United States. It occurs in the most major way because of a belief in the promises of God to Israel. It is also optimistic. With the United States advocating for a literal approach to scripture even in its foreign policy toward Israel, it gives a greater opportunity for blessing on the country.
You’ve heard the mission credo, the church whose light shines the furthest shines the brightest at home. I agree with the same credo for the United States. Let’s stop intervening everywhere and get our own house in order. We are not ready to spread a corrupt Americanism. Only intervene against a direct threat to the security of the United States. If an African country wants to outlaw homosexuality, the United States should not punish that country, but respect its sovereignty. This will have a greater long term affect on the rest of the world, just being that original idea of a bright light shining on a hill.
One of the Greatest Political Events in the History of the United States
The 2024 election of Donald Trump is one of the greatest political events in the History of the United States. Whatever you may think of Trump, how bad you dislike him, this is a unique moment. It’s hard to say that anyone has been opposed by more people and to a greater extent than him. I could tell you of the very powerful people, institutions, investigations, trials, and events that went against him. You know it already. He still won. This win, I would say, tops 2016 too, which is hard to do.
Historical Precedent
Many people would say that Trump would either win or go to prison. Let that settle in once again. The other side was going to put him in prison. He’s already had at least two assassination attempts on his life, one of the bullets hitting him in the head.
Other presidents set themselves apart. Four were assassinated: Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy. I hope the Secret Service does a good job at guarding Trump, keeping a sharp look-out, because the threat is still there. What will set him apart is his resilience against the degree of onslaught.
When I declare the historical precedent of Trump’s election, president now number 45 and 47, this comes out of teaching history and government for over thirty years. I know American history. As a figure, Trump has risen to a level of greatness in United States history, compared to the events of American history. The country itself might not make it another one hundred years and it shrinks into oblivion next the kingdom of Jesus Christ and the eternal state. Still, you are witnessing something significant.
Resilience
People stuck with Trump in a major way because he wouldn’t and didn’t quit. I can’t envision anyone else standing against all this. Not only would no one else have continued, like he did, but much more than that. He won really against all odds.
What can people say? What can his enemies say? This is quite a win and quite a loss. Whatever comments someone may have even to this post — well, you lost. I’ve heard it all myself in the way of attack, nothing like what Trump has withstood.
Trump wasn’t alone. People stood with him despite the slings and arrows. It wasn’t easy for any of them to face the hatred they did. I’m happy for them, but now the hardest part, really.
Hope for the Future
I hope this victory will not be met by anything close to what happened in 2016. It shouldn’t. The American people have spoken, despite the absolute mockery and ridicule at unprecedented levels.
Things should change in the country. This ought to allow more freedom at least. Everyone reading here should think he can take this as an opportunity. When I say that, I mean for God.
Many reading here won’t like this, but it’s true. We should praise God that Trump won. God deserves the credit and the glory. I’m not endorsing Trump’s morality or testimony. Instead, it is something providential and can be very useful too.
It’s a good time to make a move on embracing everything about scripture. It is the truth. Men are men and women are women. It matches much of what God wants. Go at it with gusto and without apology. Do the will of God. Talk about Him. You’ve been given a great opportunity. Don’t let it pass you by.
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.
The Fundamental Root of Division in the United States
United States History
In 1607, English settlers landed on the East Coast of America and formed the Jamestown colony. That began a colonial period until 1776 and a Declaration of Independence of the original thirteen colonies from England. They became states of the United States of America. After those states ratified the Constitution in 1788, they seated the first Congress in 1789. By December 15, 1791, three-fourths of the states had ratified the Bill of Rights.
Before states ever united under one Constitution and Bill of Rights, division began according to ideological positions termed, federalist and anti-federalist. The Federalists were a political party and supported a strong centralized government. On the other hand, another party, the Anti-Federalists argued against expanding national power and advocated individual liberties, states rights, and localized authority.
Before the ratification of the Constitution, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay debated federalism versus anti-federalism in the Federalist Papers, first published in New York newspapers between October 1787 and May 1788. Division along the lines of these two general positions continued in the early history of the United States. With the addition of other issues, like slavery, this division grew and then fomented into a Civil War.
Since the Civil War
The completion of the Civil War in 1865 did not end division in the United States. That continued. Some of the disunity founded by the early disparity between Federalists and Anti-Federalists persisted. Those seeds still germinate and rise in various iterations of the original ground of division.
The United States is no kingdom of Jesus Christ under the unifying power and discipline of the words of Christ. Its form of government cannot sustain oneness like that between God the Father and the Son expressed in John 17. The superstructure of this nation doesn’t portend toward biblical unity. Discord is baked in. The United States doesn’t possess the tools or instrumentation necessary to ward off significant division, even though United is its first name.
Paul taught Timothy to pray for rulers and those in authority so that the church can live peaceably (1 Timothy 2:1-3). Peaceably stands for a manifestation of unity. The government agrees not to imprison and kill believers for merely practicing scripture. It doesn’t mean the government supports the church or its positions, just allows it to operate freely.
Greater Division
Out of the soup of Federalism and Anti-Federalism comes the present and even greater division in the United States. It stems to a certain degree from the original division, but it grew in magnitude. The founders of the United States did not, maybe would or could not, put in the necessary preventatives against massive division in the country. They compromised at the beginning to hold everything together, which meant not providing the crucial deterrents for division that first turned into a Civil War and now we’re where we are.
A popular Democrat and media talking point is that Donald Trump is the number one cause of division in the United States. Their point argues that Trump operates in conflict with established political norms, which creates chaos and a very uncomfortable environment. People will describe this situation dividing families, making for an uncomfortable time at Thanksgiving and Christmas.
The Cause of the Division
Trump didn’t cause the division seen in the environment heading into election on November 5, 2024. Very often today people will call this clash a culture war. It already existed before Trump, but his rise reveals its existence. Trump embodies the division in the country, doesn’t cause it. It represents two completely diametrically opposed views of the world. Not everyone voting for Trump falls neatly into one of the two sides of this dispute. Some just like his policies better. The heatedness and underlying threat of war emanates from the fundamental root of the division.
The separation between the two major factions goes back a long ways, even preceding the time of the founding of the United States. It relates to epistemology, how that we know what we know. The printing and publication of scripture in people’s language took nations out of the dark ages. Arising from this was modern science and a return to the cultural mandate of Genesis 1:26-28, especially seen in Isaac Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. True science started on a good trajectory, but splintered finally for various reasons (important ones to understand) into modernism first in Europe and then on to the United States.
Modernism arose in the United States after the Civil War parallel with the industrial revolution. Instead of God and scripture as a starting point, modernism shifted to human reason, rationalism, or “evidence.” Premoderns began with a bias toward God, what Stephen Meyer calls the “God hypothesis.” They believed in a transcendent, which is objective, basis for truth, goodness, and beauty. Modernism came into major institutions, influenced their leaders, and changed the culture.
Further Explanation
The insufficiency and inadequacy or failure of modernism finally led to a total rejection of objective truth, goodness, and beauty. This transformed the culture. Pragmatism in churches led to compromise, capitulation, and then cooperation with the cultural changes in the United States. The right side of the two major factions does not necessarily embrace the reality or necessity of objective truth, but it understands the suicide of not living or acting like it exists.
Many if not most would ask, “Why Trump?” That requires a long answer that many won’t accept even if it is the right answer. The country is divided and taking Trump out of the equation will not change that. It comes from deep philosophical and even theological differences and an unwillingness at least for now with either side to accept the other. Some still won’t vote for Trump even though they also don’t accept the other side.
Over a year ago, I called this a “slow moving car crash.” The cars have about arrived now. We’re days away.
Gaslighting
What Gaslighting Is
Today a word we are hearing very often, one that I never heard as I grew up, is “gaslighting.” As I looked to see if I had ever used the word in any of the written material of this blog site, I found none. People use the term all the time and in a popular manner, but it has a psychological meaning. Psychology Today defined it:
Gaslighting is an insidious form of manipulation and psychological control. Victims of gaslighting are deliberately and systematically fed false information that leads them to question what they know to be true, often about themselves. They may end up doubting their memory, their perception, and even their sanity.
I see and hear gaslighting all the time from the political left. It includes a blatant form of lying, that requires people to believe something demonstrably untrue.
Merriam-Webster named “gaslighting” its word of the year for 2023 because it said it was a pervasive term that shaped interactions and was relevant to our current social climate. The dictionary defines gaslighting as “the act or practice of grossly misleading someone, especially for one’s own advantage.” In the previous year of 2022, lookups for the word “gaslighting” occurred 1740% more than the previous year according to Merriam-Webster online.
If I were to sum up the concept of gaslighting in the clearest way possible, it is that gaslighting requires obedience to a lie. It’s not just lying, but requiring obedience to that lie. It says something different happened than what many, witnesses, even every witness, plainly see. Nevertheless, you must stand and nod your head “yes” to the gaslighter or face some form of retribution.
Examples and History of Gaslighting
The entire left gaslit the country on the condition of President Biden. Now it again gaslights the whole United States by giving a particular false impression about Vice President Harris. The left did this in 2016 with the Russian collusion hoax, saying that then President Trump was a Russian agent. For decades the so-called scientific community gaslit everyone with the theory of evolution, that then turned into the science of evolution, even though it isn’t scientific. Egalitarianism, that men and women are equal in authority and that they can fulfill each other’s roles, is also gaslighting.
Apparently the word “gaslight” arose from a 1938 British play, called “Gaslight.” Someone wrote the plot:
Set among London’s elite during the Victorian era, it portrays a seemingly genteel husband using lies and manipulation to isolate his heiress wife and persuade her that she is mentally unwell so that he can steal from her.
In scripture, the Pharisees gaslit the entire nation Israel with their teaching, leaving the people of Israel wallowing in spiritual darkness. The level of deceit in the world today, I would assess, is at an all time high with maybe the exception of the days of Noah. Everywhere you look, those in positions of authority spread bold-faced lies about the most important subjects.
A Challenge
It’s easy today for professing Christians to concern themselves deeply with government and elections, but the biggest ongoing gaslighting occurs concerning the Bible. False religion and false teachers gaslight billions with falsehoods and lies.
Even though Satan wants to destroy the Bible, a part of that larger strategy is destroying the truth itself. The gaslighting everywhere results in deceit on a mass scale. Men become apathetic toward the truth in this world scale flurry of lies. People give up, cutting through the lies seeming not to be worth the effort. They see the sheer difficulty of penetrating the fog of deceit as a legitimate excuse to hedge against future judgment. No one could be accountable to believe with so many lies everywhere. And yet that too is a lie, even a bigger one.
Gaslighting right now happens at epic proportions. It’s as if the gaslighters are attempting to top one another with the sheer audacity. It is a high level of disrespect to the targets or audience of the gaslighting, that they think that it will work at this scale. They have good reason to think they’ll fool people, because it’s working.
Democrats Most Astonishing Hate of Democracy
The Symbol of the Reichstag in Germany
A pivotal moment in Hitler’s rise in Germany came from the Nazi burning of the Reichstag. They started the fire, put it out, and then blamed it on the Communists. Democrats in the United States steal this act in a campaign to destroy democracy. The Nazis convinced a large portion of the German population that the Communists burned down their Parliament building. Even their courts wouldn’t disagree.
The Democrats, which have the related word “democracy” imbedded in their name, similarly point the finger at Trump as an authoritarian or totalitarian. His policies looked and still look exponentially more democratic than the finger pointers. He would like the government out of most of the business of Americans. Evidence abounds for this, but let me first take a small step back.
Democracy
The United States isn’t a democracy. James Madison in Numbers 10 and 14 of the Federalist Papers makes this point quite well. But let’s set that aside for now.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that a Constitutional Republic is a form of democracy. A website called “Principles of Democracy” writes:
Freedom of speech and expression, especially about political and other public issues, is the lifeblood of any democracy. Democratic governments do not control the content of most written and verbal speech. Thus democracies are usually filled with many voices expressing different or even contrary ideas and opinions.
Citizens and their elected representatives recognize that democracy depends upon the widest possible access to uncensored ideas, data, and opinions. For a free people to govern themselves, they must be free to express themselves — openly, publicly, and repeatedly; in speech and in writing.
Freedom of Speech and Democracy
Wikipedia for “Freedom of Speech” reads:
Freedom of speech is understood to be fundamental in a democracy.
Democrats censor their opposition more than anyone and with unending examples. They are similar to the presence of Islam in any country. While Moslems are in a small minority, they cry for human rights, but the moment they take charge with less than a majority, they eliminate unfavorable voices.
Oligarchy followed democracy in Greece. Democrats control a vast majority of the public square in America. I include in that schools, media, and even government. They gladly censor opposing viewpoints. The Democrat controlled institutions don’t allow the truth of the Bible. Unless Christians privately fund their own museum, you won’t see a creation account in public. Democrats label many biblical truths, “hate speech.”
Censorship
Democrats use both hard and soft censorship. By hard censorship, I mean official and legal disallowance of a place and opportunity to speak. It may be the loss of a job, because the Democrats don’t hear a statement of support for same sex activity. That turns the non-speaker, who would like to say something against the activity but doesn’t, into enemy status.
By soft censorship, I mean an avalanche of public repudiation and ridicule until speakers do not receive opportunities to speak. It’s also moderating who speaks. The establishment offers a phony, a fraud, as the representative of the alternative point of view, who goes along with the official or permitted position. Very little to nothing comes in a way of supporting the alternative position.
A historic label for soft censorship is the “kangaroo court.” The J6 Committee is a good example of this, but they abound in every state in either blue states, districts, or regions. They also exist in red areas with blue strongholds. The committee cherry picks their own rubber stamps to represent opposition. Opposition is actually major support with a fake label of opposition. I would hope everyone knows this, but I’m afraid it fools just enough of the disengaged.
Other Examples
The J6 Committee parallels with the internet. You read about the “algorhythms.” The oligarchs of the tech industry force opposition or non-supportive speech into an uninhabited hinterland. They are whole national forests of trees that fall and no one hears, so they don’t make a noise. Only approved speech moves into a hearing zone. Yes, people published something, but no one is reading, because no one is seeing.
The Hunter Biden laptop is a good example too. I say these are just examples of what is now normal. Any supportive tweet or internet entry of the laptop goes unseen, censored as disinformation. The censorship itself is the disinformation, much like the Russian collusion operation. I think this is the least of it though. It’s a censorship industry.
The industry removes the bad news about the favored issue or person. Right now, it has the ability to project a pro-Hamas experience, despite a relatively powerful coalition for Israel. Pro-Palestinian protestors crowd the White House and knock down a protective fence with little coverage from the media. The industry does not parallel or hearken to anything insurrectionist.
Massive Scale Elimination of Democratic Values
As I write on this subject, the most massive scale about which I speak is in education, where for years, the Bible, God, righteousness, and creation and the like are kept out of the massive state school complex even in red states. No one can take a male headship position in anything close to a public square. Can you imagine a professor at a major university who takes open biblical views? It doesn’t happen except in private. You must pay to hear the truth told.
I would agree that the Bill of Rights and especially the first amendment is the essence of democratic values. When do you read anything from the left defending free speech anymore? Democrats don’t write about their love for the first amendment. The closest is a totalitarian support of smut for small children in public schools and genderless bathrooms. These are not about the protection of speech or opportunity to have a voice.
Pent-Up Voices
The J6 crowd came to a rally and then walked to the capital out of a long pent-up frustration of censorship. Yes, better means of expression exist. The high percentage of silencing from the left came to a logger head. That group that day did wrong things. This is not what-aboutism. I see that day as the equivalent of throwing snow balls at the Old State House in Boston in 1770. The censorship industry, I’m afraid, because of its reaction, has not seen the worst.
We could hope that people care enough to do something about the actual attack on democracy from the Democrat Party. So far, I see it as a peaceful embrace of those who would allow free speech. It seems most represented by an ability to oppose masks and vaccinations. Still, do positions exist for scientists with an opposing view? Are there safe places of employment in hospitals and in medical schools with an alternate view? I’m saying this is just representative, because the worst relates to far more important issues of truth.
Democrats have a burning Reichstag type hatred of democracy. The Nazis opposed burning the Reichstag. But they burned it. The Democrats don’t mind burning everything down to get their way. They don’t care if you vote or not. They don’t even want you able to say what they don’t want to hear.
My Take on the Complicated World Scene That Includes Ukraine, Russia, and Israel (part two)
Israel-Palestinian Conflict
From a biblical viewpoint, the Israel-Palestinian conflict started when Abraham sinned with Hagar, who bore Ishmael. Ishmael fathers the Arab people and Isaac the Jewish. Complicating this further, 93% of Arabs are Muslim of some kind. Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook in “Kill a Jew – Go to Heaven: The Perception of the Jew in Palestinian Society,” published in Jewish Political Studies Review 17:3-4 (Fall 2005), write:
The Palestinian religious, academic, and political elites teach an ideology of virulent hatred of Jews. The killing of Jews is presented both as a religious obligation and as necessary self-defense for all humankind.
This assessment of the Jews among Arabs or Muslims goes back centuries before the Zionist movement ever began.
No Jews live in Gaza. Two sides dispute Jewish settlement in the West Bank. There are 144 Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Neither a majority of Palestinians or Jews back a two state solution with the addition of the creation of a separate Palestinian state. Half of Jews desire complete expelling of Palestinians from Israel — that doesn’t include Gaza or the West Bank. 75% of Palestinians want the annihilation of Israel. A large majority of all Palestinians support Hamas.
Having traveled to Israel and in the Jewish and Palestinian territories, it’s very tense there. It cannot work like it is. The Jews need a place of their own. A two state solution will never succeed for obvious reasons. Very good arguments say that Israel should have all the land and the Palestinians find someplace else to live with Arab people. Jews should have their own, safe country.
Israel and the Land
Americans would never tolerate what the Jews do in Israel. A certain psychology for the Jews not only allows them to concede to their conditions, but also causes many Jews to advocate for the Palestinians. Many Jews lay a lot of blame on their own people for their problems. I do feel for Israel because of the deep hatred from so many across the world for the Jews.
God still has a plan for Israel. Even if Israel does not own the whole Holy Land, they continue possessing a right to it, based upon scripture. God gave Israel the land, which is why it is called, “the Promised Land.” This supports Israel’s statehood, its formal establishment, and perpetuation. Palestine never had statehood. It didn’t announce it’s own statehood until 1988. The Palestinian territories are not recognized by the US, France, or the UK as a state. At least four Palestinian organizations are designated as terrorist on the United States list, including Hamas.
My assessment of Israel is not some carte blanch acceptance of the policies of Israel. I still pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States with its rampant ungodliness. Support for Israel acknowledges God and the truth of scripture.
Two Wars
Because of world politics, the war in Israel associates with the one in Ukraine. Some of the same characters appear in different roles in both conflicts. I attribute both wars to the Biden administration in the United States. Neither would have occurred with Trump as president of the United States. Many would agree with that, less that would say it in public, but I also want to explain why I think it’s true.
More to Come
Recent Comments