Home » Posts tagged 'Trump'
Tag Archives: Trump
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
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.
It Won’t Do You Any Good to Apologize for Trump
Very often conservative support for President Donald Trump starts with an apology. It goes something like the following.
I know he writes mean tweets and makes nasty insults, calls people names like a jr. higher. He is badly flawed, foul, immoral, a lawbreaker, braggadocios, self-centered, divisive, petty, a liar, a con man, a flip flopper, a criminal, authoritarian, and banal. But, I still voted for him because, you know, I look at performance.
People who start with an apology, I believe, think they’re warding off the expected angry reaction. Or, they won’t be associated with the worst character traits of Trump, readying themselves to hear them. I’m writing to say that it won’t do you any good to apologize for Trump. Embrace him. Accept his 2016 victory and his presidency.
None of the other 16 candidates would have defeated Hillary Clinton. Trump did almost everything he said he would do. He stuck his thumb in the eye of the corrupt media. He battled and fought for conservatives against the greatest political opposition in my lifetime and maybe all of American history.
In 1836, Sir Henry Taylor wrote the classic book, The Statesman, the first modern book devoted to that subject. He wrote:
[A] statesman has already, in the commonwealth of his own nature, given to the nobler functions the higher place; and as a minister; therefore, he is one whom his country may be satisfied to trust, and its best men be glad to serve. He, on the other hand, who sees in the party he forms only the pedestal of his own statue, or the plinth of a column to be erected to his honour, may, by inferior means and lower service, accomplish his purposes, such as they are; but he must be content with vulgar admiration, and lay out of account the respect of those who will reserve that tribute from what is merely powerful, and render it only to what is great. “He that seeketh to be eminent amongst able men,” says Lord Bacon, “hath a great task; but that is ever good for the public. But he that plots to be the only figure amongst ciphers is the decay of a whole age.”
Professor at Notre Dame, Michael Zuckert, wrote in 2020, Lincoln and Democratic Statesmanship:
Our ideas of statesmanship are fraught with seeming contradictions: The democratic statesman is true to the peoples (sic) wishes and views—but also capable of standing against popular opinion when necessary. The statesman rises above conflicts and seeks compromise between parties—but also stands firmly for what is right.
And I quote all that material about statesmen and statesmanship to get to my subject of President Donald Trump. I’m not going to say whether I think he is one or not. As you scan through the annals of the history of government, who was a statesman and did it matter? Was Julius Caesar one? What about William the Conqueror? Was King George III? What kind of statesmen presided over the Roman Coliseum?
If you go to scripture, you can look at all the various leaders of nations in order to surmise the statesman. Old Testament Israel looks like a recent Marine Corps slogan, “A Few Good Men.” Very few. A statue of General George Patton sits outside the library at West Point some say because he didn’t spend much time in there. Even Patton wouldn’t survive the present environment of the United States.
Today some propose settling for nothing short of Burkean conservativism in the trajectory of Russell Kirk. They yearn for William F. Buckley at the National Review. Jonah Goldberg just today, as I write this post, attacked Trump again. These conservatives, including many professing Christians, now take on the chief identification of Anti-Trump. In his piece, Goldberg insulted Trump voters, showing again, as he and others have again and again, got Trump wrong. This is seen all over his post in the LA Times, which doesn’t publish true conservatives, where he wrote:
One of the paradoxes of charismatic leadership is that the leader’s illegitimacy — in legal, rational or traditional terms — can have the effect of strengthening their hold on their followers. This dynamic has been at the heart of Trump’s distortion of the right. If the man cannot measure up to the traditional, moral, rational or legal yardsticks that conservatives once ascribed to leadership, then it is the yardstick’s fault for not measuring up to the man.
That’s right. Through his charisma, Trump has a cult-like, worshipful loyalty on his voters, who are called followers. All of these 74 million voters, which was more than any presidential candidate had ever received in any presidential election, could not see the fraud that Trump was like the enlightened Goldbergian human being. Goldberg said concerning the Founder of Turning Point USA, “Charlie Kirk, a pliant priest in Trump’s personality cult.” On the other hand, the public intellectuals (if that is possible), who voted for and defend Trump, call Goldberg the subject of Trump derangement syndrome. Douglas Wilson wrote last week:
Whatever I might think, the brains behind the progressive left have decided to take a header into the maelstrom of “doing whatever they can to advance the narrative and person and prospects of Donald J. Trump.” This is what a derangement syndrome can do to you. It turns the quivering brains of high-powered political operatives into a soupy kind of jelly, with green mold on the surface.
I see the jelly with the green mold coming out of Goldberg’s ears.
To speak of Trump without apology, consider why you voted for him, support him, and would vote for him again as president, even though you’re a Christian. You don’t have to use the Russia hoax, even the Dobbs decision to overturn Roe v. Wade with all the conservative justices Trump appointed. Trump believes that something in the United States is of higher value than other nations worth protecting by securing the borders. Borders conserve something on the inside that is better than what is on the outside. That simple, basic conservative idea separated Trump from his competitors like the wall he aspired to build.
A long time ago the United States left the possibility of a Russell Kirk conservative. We are in much more desperate times. We have to look to principles much more basic than those outlined by Edmund Burke and Benjamin Disraeli. The Brexit vote in England recognized this too. What I’m describing, Jonah Goldberg calls “instrumentalism.” He wrote in another essay:
The least objectionable of them justified their decision in the name of instrumentalism—“Trump’s flawed, but we can use him.”
This isn’t using Trump until we can get somebody better. That’s still an argument for 2024. No, Trump is where we’re at. Maybe we will get somebody better, but that’s also the reasoning behind what led to Joe Biden in 2020.
Trump isn’t an instrument. He espouses necessary, rudimentary principles. His don’t go far enough. They don’t do as much as I would do. But they go further than what we would get from anyone else, such as names like Dole, McCain, and Romney. Even throw in George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Gerald Ford. Trump truly raised the bar over these men.
I want to argue just a little. You say, Trump is authoritarian. He’s a fascist. By far. By far, the greatest threat of fascism is the progressive left, like Ronald Reagan said:
America stands on four main values: Faith in God, Freedom of Speech, Family and Economic Freedom. If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism.
Trump in his presidency practiced the separation of powers. He picked federalist Supreme Court justices, who did more to decentralize the federal government than in decades. Trump supported that. You’re just swallowing a lie when you say he’s a fascist or an authoritarian. He gave freedom to become energy independent, turning loose the American people.
Maybe you say he’s a want-to-be dictator because of January 6, 2020. Nothing like that came close to happening on January 6, nothing even nearly as bad as what did occur in Seattle, Portland, and the Twin Cities of Minnesota in the previous summer. The Russia hoax disenfranchised Trump voters. Illegal ballot harvesting did too. The perpetrators walk free. Does anyone think that we live under a fair justice system today? Where is the abuse of power? Who has attempted to criminalize parents who speak up in school board meetings?
I don’t apologize for President Donald Trump any more than I do for the minutemen on the Lexington Green.
Ballot Harvesting, the Big Lie, and the 2020 Election
Just to be clear to you reading, I don’t think President Joe Biden won the 2020 election. Even if I can’t show you the evidence yet, it’s still what I think. Most who join me in thinking the same thing don’t have access to what they would need to prove it. Others are already proving it. I hope they do.
I did not take the tack of blaming computerized voting systems, the Dominion voting machines. It sounded very fishy and I still think people might prove people rigged that too. However, I pointed to the ballot harvesting made easier with the use of the Pandemic, the strategy of not letting a good crisis go to waste.
President Biden received 81 million votes, but I don’t think he got them legally. Like many others, I say “no way” he got that many votes. He did the least I’ve ever seen to win an election. William McKinley had his “front porch campaign.” Joe Biden had his basement camera campaign. Trump filled arenas and Biden very often couldn’t fill classrooms. How did President Biden get enough votes? Ballot harvesting.
So much corruption went into a Biden win in 2020. The media concealed and censored the Hunter Biden laptop story. The media and big parts of the government helped and promoted the Russian collusion hoax. Tech giants like Zuckerberg helped Biden in likely illegal ways. The Trump impeachment was a fraud. The media shielded the country from Biden family crimes. Without all of those, even with ballot harvesting, maybe Trump wins. On the other hand, with all of those and also without ballot harvesting, probably Trump wins.
I’m not saying President Trump ran the perfect campaign, but those who blame the election loss on Trump, this including recently Attorney General William Barr, I think they’re very wrong. The things that Barr and others like him say lost Trump the election are also what won Trump the election. You can’t separate the two. People come out for Trump because they like what others say lose Trump an election.
In the background of Elon Musk buying Twitter is Trump ousted from Twitter. The bigness of the conversation about Musk and free speech connects to Trump canning by social media. This doesn’t even start with the search algorithms that send people to biased locations, helping promote the choices of the tech titans.
To remind you, ballot harvesting occurs when operatives essentially vote for massive numbers of people who would not vote otherwise. They fill out the ballots for people who would not vote. Many more votes could come from nursing homes and other large institutions. This also explains the opposition to voter identification by those who want ballot harvesting. They call this Democracy. If you do not like the corruption, you oppose democracy or better, you’re a threat to democracy.
Part of hiding the crime and corruption came and comes by calling the investigation of or even accusation of crime and corruption, the Big Lie. Those who say people stole the election are co-conspirators of the Big Lie. If someone says the other side stole the election, they join the Big Lie. The allegation of the Big Lie is a Big Lie. The Big Lie isn’t a lie. The lie is the claim of a Big Lie. It is just another lie among many.
Even if entering the capital on January 6, 2020 was the wrong move, the treatment or coverage of January 6 is part of the cover-up of a stolen election. Many reading here probably know the possibly true story that government operatives joined and helped lead the crowd into the capitol that day. Whatever happened, they helped push it into something they could use to conceal all the real corruption.
You may have heard the terminology, “useful idiot.” It is technical for being used, really manipulated, by the wrong side in propaganda necessary to promote the wrong cause and ideas. If you cooperate with those accusing the Big Lie, you’re useful to them. You help them silence those uncovering the truth.
Like me, you might be thinking there’s no way Joe Biden got 81 million votes in the 2020 election. Maybe he got those votes. It’s just that someone else filled out the ballots than those whose name was on them.
The Globalist and Leftist Institution and Media Use of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine
Many reading know President Trump’s expressing genius to Putin is his way of playing American leftists. He is also fond in calling those in power, “our stupid leaders.” Those on the left turn this into Trump and his supporters advocating for Putin and Russia. When the media calls Trump a Putin supporter, he doesn’t back away from his “genius” language, because he won’t submit to their lie. This works nicely with the Russia narrative invented by the left between 2016 even until today. They conform that narrative, which is a lie, to the Russian invasion. The globalist left supports the Ukraine, which makes the invasion difficult to sort.
The left didn’t support Ukraine. President Obama gave them blankets. Trump gave them javelins, perhaps the most effective weapon against Russian conventional warfare. Ukraine did not gain NATO membership under any president. The country became useful in the Obama years for Vice President Biden to benefit through its corruption. Ukraine did not gain membership because of a malfeasance utilized by Biden and his son, Hunter. Trump dug into the corruption by asking Zelensky for help with the investigation, attempting to tie U.S. aid to elimination of criminal crookedness. The left impeached Trump for that.
Russia took Crimea under Obama and Biden. Russia invades Ukraine under Biden. Putin does nothing against Trump. Trump hurts Putin, because he increased oil production until the United States became energy independent. The lowered prices hurt Putin more than anything. Look at the gas prices now. This helps Putin, and President Biden does not ban Russian oil exports. The United States then looks to Venezuelan oil production instead of increasing U. S. generation.
Putin in a religious manner sees the Ukraine as Russian. Russian history started with Kiev, the Rus emerging there in the 10th century AD. Vladimir I adopted a unique Russian Orthodoxy in 988. When a cynical Putin became mistrustful of a Communism and a secular state, he embraced his version of religious nationalism, somewhat like a leader of a Moslem nation. Like conservative Jews see Palestine as Israel, Putin sees Ukraine as Russian. His version of Russian Orthodoxy plays a role in his aggression, irrationality, and brutality, much like a grand inquisitor burns heretics at the stake.
Trump understood the nationalistic instinct of Putin. Yes, Putin wants to make Russia great again and with a religious fervor. I’m sure he saw men like Putin in business. He could respect his opposition in the business world and on the world scene without supporting them. He states recognition of their toughness, a trait missing in those who allow homeless to defecate in our streets.
If the media and the Democrat Party cared about Zelensky and Ukraine, why did they not urge Obama or Biden to do more before the invasion? They care now, because they see an opportunity to blame on inflation and the related high gas prices. If they care about border security in the Ukraine, why not in our own country?
The underdog Ukrainians stand against Putin. By nature, Americans reject imperialism. The United States fought an imperialistic power for its own freedom. Americans want a free Ukraine. The left commandeers Zelensky like they did during the impeachment.
The left doesn’t represent freedom. Their wokeness didn’t stand for Hong Kong against China. President Biden and his son Hunter took money from China. The left rejects freedom of speech. They’re for allowing perversion, a college male swimmer winning medals against women in the name of transgenderism. They elevate a transgender general wearing a dress in the United States military. The left doesn’t want the freedom of adversarial speech. They shut-down and cancel political opposition to vaccines, vaccine mandates, Covid origination, Covid restrictions, religious freedom, the Russian conspiracy, critical race theory, and voter fraud. They don’t allow creation in the school system.
First amendment freedom originates for political speech. The left shuts down speech. They control the public schools like Putin puts down his protestors. Theirs and Putins are a religious fervor each with their own totalitarian values.
The United States has its own religion that sacrifices babies to abortion, defunds the police, and stops energy production for their apocalyptic eschatology. When they pose to support the Ukraine, they calculate this for opposition to Trump. They see a political opportunity.
I support the Ukraine. Some doctrine consistent with true American values should guide our present and future involvement. I’m against Putin. However, everyone should understand the left’s intentions of using this war for furthering its own agenda. I don’t know if Putin is worse than the leftists who appropriate the Ukraine to further their insidious causes.
Reality and Truth: Celebrity Conservatives Versus True Bible Believers
Perhaps you, like me, as a Christian, pay attention to certain celebrity conservatives, who take many of the same or similar viewpoints as you. You know there are differences. Where is the overlap?
Questioning Christianity Because Of What One Sees Occurring In the World or From People Who Call Themselves Christians
My Christianity isn’t tethered to what other people are doing or have done. Christianity is the truth. If I were one of eight remaining believers on earth, it would still be true. I don’t doubt it when people don’t live it. I feel sorry for them, but they haven’t affected what I think about Christianity itself. My Christianity is tethered to the Bible, God’s Word.
I’m writing about this, because of an article in Newsweek that came out on Tuesday this week, written by Issac Bailey, “I’m Struggling with My Christianity After Trump.” Something with that title in a major publication would be a head scratcher, except that most “Christianity” today and probably for most of history isn’t and hasn’t been actual Christianity. No one should be surprised about counterfeit Christianity. Bailey says he got his doubts about Christianity itself from the reality that professing Christians voted for Trump. I’ve heard other people say this.
According to scripture, anyone who leaves actual Christianity was never saved in the first place. Nowhere says a true Christian can lose his salvation. He can’t leave it, because he’s kept by the power of God (1 Peter 1:5). A believer cooperates with what God does in saving him, but it is God who keeps him saved. Scripture is clear on this. Many passages teach the eternal security of a believer, but two verses are definitive on the point that, if a professing believer defects, he was never saved in the first place: first, 1 John 2:19.
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
Second, 1 John 3:6.
Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
Read both verses. The first one says that when someone does not continue, he never had salvation in the first place, that is, he was “not of us,” said twice in the verse. If he was “of us,” he would “no doubt have continued with us.” No doubt. The second verse says that a person who sins as a lifestyle, as seen in the present tense, “sinneth,” “hath not seen him, neither known him,” that is, a person who takes on a lifestyle of sin never saw or knew Christ in the first place. A true Christian can’t walk away from Christ. As Jesus said in John 10:28-29, no man, including himself, can pluck a true believer out of either Jesus’ or His Father’s hand.
If you read the Bailey article, you can see he doesn’t have biblical Christianity. I’m not saying that to be unnecessarily offensive or condemnatory. People call themselves Christians, who are not, because there are many various forms of popular “Christianity” in the world. That could be a whole separate article, all the different types, that aren’t Christianity. They are fraudulent perversions of the real thing. There is more false Christianity by far than there is true Christianity.
Most Christian denominations don’t even preach a true gospel. You should know that. They are preaching a false gospel. Most professing Christians to whom I talk don’t even know the gospel. I repeat, they don’t know it. Churches are not clear on the gospel. Even the ones who might believe a true gospel are more concerned about having a bigger congregation and so they do more to pander to people than tell them what they need to hear. There has been a cumulative and comprehensive erosion of the gospel in the United States for awhile and for a number of reasons.
In the first paragraph, Bailey says his “faith is in tatters.” Before I provide an assessment of what he says in his article, I have an opinion about what he’s doing. I don’t think he’s going to leave his spurious version of Christianity. He’s threatening to leave it like a child threatens to hold his breath until he dies if his parents don’t give him what he wants. True Christians are concerned that their testimony could result in defections from the faith. Jesus said at the beginning of Matthew 18 that it would be better to put a millstone around your neck and jump into deep water than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.
Bailey is saying that Christians are sending him into apostasy because of their vote for Trump. This is meant to strike fear into Christians, so that they at the least become non-political or disengaged from political action. Bailey will keep supporting actual murderers greater than any holocaust in the history of the world, the same people who booed God at their party convention, but a vote for Trump will send him off the deep end. He’s already off the deep end. His party is the party against divine design of the family, which is the most rudimentary and rebellious form of opposition to God in existence.
The people Bailey addresses specifically are the pro-life supporting Christians, implying that there are non-pro-life Christians. You can be a Christian, a true one, and not be pro-life. There is only pro-life Christianity. Everything else is an impostor. Sure, it might take a new Christian some time to get up to speed on this point, but he will get there, because he is indwelt by God the Holy Spirit, if he is really saved.
Many of the Trump voters, who claim to be Christians, are not. They do have a different Jesus. That includes some, if not all, of the people in the picture posted in Bailey’s article. As a matter of religious or theological comparison though, these pseudo Christians have a lot in common with the type of Christianity Bailey represents. They both have a novel fabrication or improvisation of Christianity, that is very loose with scripture. They put more authority in their own experience than the Bible, relying more on allegorization than exegesis.
For all of Trump’s many flaws, in a political way he represented to a lot of Americans and most true Christians, a last opportunity to save the federal government from a trajectory of progressive, oligarchical totalitarianism and globalism. Of course, that’s just a conspiracy theory, wink wink. There is no new world order planned for the future of the United States with no borders and the eradication of Americanism. Christians would like to keep their freedoms, freedom of religion and of speech. They would like to stop the present course of the elimination the nuclear family, something basic like a father and mother of opposite sex with the authority to raise their own children. The support of vouchers for education is about the freedom to educate their children in Christian values away from the humanistic, pseudo-science of gender fluidity.
It is not accident that today you hear the left use words like “cult” and “worship” as it relates to Trump. I’m sure they’re seen as effective propaganda. No Christian wants to be seen or known for being in a cult or worshiping a man. Bailey among many others uses this terminology. I don’t know anyone who follows Trump, let alone worships him. I understood why Christians would attend the rally on January 6. I know some people who were there and none of them knew anything about breaking into the capitol building to stop the counting of the electoral votes. I’ve explained this in previous posts, but they see both their voice and their vote being taken away. It’s obvious to them that a two tiered justice system already exists, where a true Christian can be prosecuted for not baking a cake for a same sex wedding and yet left wing anarchists can take over a large area of an American city without opposition. The mainstream of the media applauds it, likes it, has no problem with a Trump voter bleeding in the street.
Much of what Bailey wrote just isn’t true and other parts are misrepresentations, slanted in a dishonest way. He might just be deceived, but I believe he knows what he’s doing.
- True Christians don’t pray to Jesus. They pray to God the Father like Jesus taught.
- The group filmed “praying” in the front of the Senate chamber, it’s obvious, don’t represent biblical Christianity.
- True Christianity isn’t white or black, as in “white church” or “black church,” as Bailey represents it.
- All the things that Franklin Graham said about Trump are true. Graham doesn’t represent biblical Christianity, but I understand why a Christian would appreciate the list of accomplishments he mentions.
Look at the Trump years, 2017-2020, compared to the previous ones. This belies what Bailey writes, his assuming, it seems, that no one would fact check him, if it even mattered. Despite Bailey’s twisting of the meaning of pro-life, nevertheless, more civilians were killed in Iraq in 2014 during the Obama presidency than during the entire four years of the Trump presidency.
- Bailey blames Trump for the murders at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh. No president has been more pro-Israel than Trump. Israel says this. There were fourteen mass shootings during the Obama years. It’s sheer political opportunism to blame mass shootings on a president. Was Trump also to blame for the 2017 Las Vegas shooting at a country western concert? Those were mainly Trump deplorables getting gunned down.
- Another argument Bailey makes is that abortion rates go down during Democratic presidencies, because of government programs. It wouldn’t surprise me if there were higher unintended pregnancies when Democrats are president, because of greater support for contraception, most of which is abortifacient. Those aren’t called murders, but they are. Since 1965 over 11 million have been murdered by abortifacients, that don’t show up as abortions. That would be a good explanation for lower abortion rates too.
Pro-life people, of course, want to end all abortion, so the rate would decrease to nothing if they had their way. Instead, with the support of Bailey, almost 70 million have been murdered in the United States, which would be enough to cause a Christian to defect, except that’s impossible for a true Christian. True Christians are happy about slowing down the abortion rate. They don’t, however, support contraception as a way of getting there. A true Christian opposes fornication and all sexual sin that results in an unintended pregnancy. For a biblical Christian, an unintended pregnancy is by definition one outside of marriage. If Bailey is a Christian, he should support the biblical position, which is abstinence. That would also end the AIDS epidemic.
- Insurrection occurred all summer with BLM and Antifa, doing far more damage and causing far more death than the capitol “riot.” Is that justified to Bailey, because he agrees with socialism and actual fascism? When you see the picture of unarmed crazies in costumes, a truly thinking person doesn’t see the comparison. One of the five “killed,” used as a statistic by the left, was an unarmed woman, who threatened no one with violence. Where is the outcry? Three Trump supporters died of natural causes. The one police death has hardly been covered. What happened there? Why isn’t there more coverage of his death? Not his funeral, not the way he’s been used politically, but what actually happened to him?
Bailey says that 60% of white Catholic voters voted for Trump, implying that Catholics are Christian. He lumps them with evangelicals who supported Trump. This is the most tell-tale evidence that he doesn’t understand biblical Christianity. He is pro-abortion. He is against the death penalty for murder. If you are a Christian, you support what God supports. You believe the Bible. Bailey does not.
The crucial aspect for a lasting faith, which is actually a saving faith, is the object of that faith. My faith doesn’t stand in men. The object of faith is Jesus Christ Himself, and He never fails. I believe the Bible. My faith comes by the Word of God. 1 John 5:4-5 say:
4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
My faith has found a resting place,Not in device nor creed;I trust the Ever-living One,His wounds for me shall plead.I need no other argument,I need no other plea;It is enough that Jesus died,And that He died for me.Enough for me that Jesus saves,This ends my fear and doubt;A sinful soul I come to Him,He’ll never cast me out.My heart is leaning on the Word,The written Word of God,Salvation by my Savior’s name,Salvation through His blood.My great Physician heals the sick,The lost He came to save;For me His precious blood He shed,For me His life He gave.
Recent Comments