Tag Archive for: Donald Trump

Posts

Jim Acosta and Freedom of the Press

The standard dictionary definition of “freedom” is, “the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint; exemption from external control, interference, regulation; the power to determine action without restraint.”

On the surface, that may appear to be true. But that definition deployed in the absence of wisdom can lead to a perceived licence to do whatever you want without fear of any kind of consequence. Nowhere do you see this more vividly played out than in today’s application of “freedom of the press.”

Freedom of the press means, “the right to publish newspapers, magazines, and other printed matter without governmental restriction and subject only to the laws of libel, obscenity, sedition, etc.” In other words, the government cannot intervene and prevent you from saying something, apart from some verbiage that represents something illegal in the context of treason, libel (unjust assault on someone’s character), vulgarity, etc. What it doesn’t mean is that you can justify endangering, insulting or offending someone by saying that you’re a journalist and then hiding behind the Bill of Rights claiming that you can say whatever you want and not be held resonsible for the backlash.

The liberal press has been assaulting the character, the performance and the verbiage of President Trump ever since he took office. Not only that, but they’ve targeted his family as well as anyone who works for him including Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

She’s the first Press Secretary in American history that requires Secret Service protection because of the threats that have been leveled against her largely due to the way the media characterizes her.

Rose O’Donnell speculated that Barron Trump is Autistic, the Daily Mail reported that Melania Trump was an escort in the 90’s (they wound up paying 2.9 million dollars in a lawsuit that they lost). Trump himself is constantly demonized and minimized and when he fires back, the reporters respond with a superior kind of indignation, as though they’ve been slighted and the reputation of the press is at stake.

Jim Acosta is one such individual. Take a look at this exchange:

JIM ACOSTA, CNN: Mr. President, did you say that you want more people to come in from Norway? Did you say that you wanted more people coming in from Norway?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

ACOSTA: Is that true, Mr. President?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I want them to come in from everywhere — everywhere. Thank you very much, everybody.

ACOSTA: Just the Caucasian or white countries, sir? Or do you want people to come in from other parts of the world?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Out.

The last question is so obviously bogus, yet Acosta throws that it out there…

Why?

No doubt, depending on your political bent, you might justify Acosta’s rationale in a manner that might sound vaguely academic. But in the end, it’s obvious he’s simply looking for a way to malign Trump. This is why the substance and the integrity of the liberal press and the Democrat party is so anemic these days. They don’t have a platform other than to remove Trump and the means by which they would facilitate that is…

Childish?

If it were coming from a Middle School yearbook team, you could say its childish. But its not coming from the perspective of a group of seventh graders. It’s coming from a community of liberals who will use words like “freedom” and “justice” and “compassion” knowing that, by default, those words will solicit an emotional response regardless of the subject matter. And it’s because of the way in which those words will position a person’s passion that it becomes fairly easy to promote ideas and campaigns that are fundamentally flawed and, in some cases, devoid of anything ethical, dignified or respectful.

My father used to say that with every freedom comes a responsiblity.

He was right.

And I would add that when you’re contending with someone who refuses to take responsibility for the things they do beneath the umbrella of the freedom they proclaim, or refuse to wield that freedom in a responsible manner, while it may still be a freedom from a legal point of view, it is now nothing more than a weak attempt to absolve yourself of any sort of blame or consequence your words may precipitate.

And that is what “freedom of the press” has become, at least as far as the way the liberal media would use it as the foundation upon which they would build the narratives, the offenses and the character defamation they would categorize as journalism.

As an aside, here’s a partial list of the violence that has been directed towards Trump supporters as a result of the way the media has characterized anyone who supports Trump as a Nazi, Racist, Sexist or whatever title can be seized upon in order to destroy his administration.

Trump Lied 6,000 Times – According to CNN

President Trump Lied More Than 3,000 times in 466 Days – article featured on CNN Politics

When you say Trump lied 6,000 times, can you cite each ocurrence? Probably not. So where are you getting your information from? Most likely you’re listening to those news sources that give you the narrative that best caters to your preferences, which isn’t a bad thing provided the narrative is accurate.

But it’s not.

A lie, in the mind of Democrat, is simply a statement they don’t agree with. A micro-agression is something a Democrat doesn’t want to hear. Racism, in the mind of a liberal Democrat, is any situation where a minority isn’t being favored. Fascism is what Democrats call a Democracy when they’re not in charge. Compassion, in the absence of wisdom, is nothing more than a subsidy and justice is nothing more than favoritism.

It’s a non-stop play on words designed to invoke an emotional response in order to compensate for a disconcerting lack of logic and substance.

6,000 lies? Take a look at something I put together in response to the NYT article that was unprecedented, at least in my lifetime. A full page cover article detailing the “100 lies” that Trump had told since being in office. I went through every “lie” and uncovered a “bigger picture” that revealed the NYT as either flawed or, in some cases, downright misleading. Click here if you want to look through them. Bottom line: The Times disgraced themselves throughout Trump’s campaign and they continue to pose as enlightened watchdogs of truth and justice when the fact of the matter is, truth is relative and justice is whatever best caters to their socialistic strategy.

And it’s not just print media. Even film footage is circulated that shows Trump doing things that appear thoughtless or even cruel. There’s clips of him being critical of John McCain. Mind you, I’m a nine year veteran of the USMC, so don’t hear this as outrageous, given McCain’s sterling performance as a war hero. McCain ran for President in 2008 and Trump was one of his more significant donors. You would think, as a matter of sheer courtesy, McCain would’ve been more discreet had he any reservations about Trump when he ran, but instead McCain mocked him as well as his supporters. In addition, given his outrageous stand on some of the more volatile issues recently where he distanced himself from his own party as well as a sane perspective, it’s obvious he’s not as concerned with honor or integrity today as he was back during the days of Vietnam.

And then there’s the one you cite about Trump mocking a reporter with disability. Here’s the thing: If it’s a film clip, chances are excellent there’s an additional footage that reduces the Left’s accusations to nonsensical outbursts. CRTV has an excellent piece that documents several examples.

If you’re a “Trump-hater”, chances are you’re not going to change my convictions and I doubt I’m going to change yours in that convictions tend to be convoluted combinations of logic and passion. But…from my perspective, if the liberal media is your source and you make no attempt to backup your thoughts with supplementary sources, then there’s a good chance there’s a bigger picture out there that you’re missing.

Go Trump!

Why I Will Vote For Donald Trump

25 Questions

Democrats Hate God?

The Today Show – June 19, 2018

It never ceases to amaze me that policies put forth by the Trump administration are demonized because he’s Trump. If you go back to his democratic counterparts, you see the same dynamics. The only difference is they’re applauded whereas Trump is reacted to as though he was a villain.

One other observation: I caught a snippet of the Today Show this morning. They had audio sound bytes of children who had been separated from their parents as a result of mom and dad being deported back to their country. On the surface, you’re compelled to feel compassion for the kids and you want to stop whatever it is that’s making them cry.

But wait.

If your mom and dad knowingly broke the law in the way they came over here and then put you at risk every day by attempting to remain below the legislative radar, who do you hold responsible when they’re caught and told to go back to their home country? Do you direct your indignation to the one who is enforcing the law, or do you indict the ones who broke the law to begin with?

Let’s think of it another way: Imagine a person breaks the law and has to go to prison. Do we play sound bytes of his children crying as he’s getting ready to be incarcerated as a way to gloss over the fact that he’s committed a crime that’s punishable by imprisonment? No. But the media has no problem in attempting to cite “compassion” as a way to minimize the problem of illegal immigration. Compassion in the absence of wisdom is nothing more than a subsidy and this nonsense has to stop.

Over 60% of illegals are on some kind of government subsidy. Couple that with the amount of crime being committed by illegals, the drain they inflict on the economy and the security issues that arise as a result of poor border security, you’ve got a real problem. It’s not a problem, however, from the standpoint of opportunistic democrats who deny them citizenship but will simultaneously given the the ability to vote (and what party do you think those illegals will vote for?).

And one other observation that I just came in contact with. The 2002 Homeland Security Act talks about children being separated from their parents and the accommodations that will be made for them. This has been addressed and it was made into law and…

…it was passed by a Democratic congress.

Go, Trump! That’s all I’ve got to say. It’s hard to be just when your counterparts have been lackadaisical in their application of the rule of law, but what’s right is right and let the naysayers on the Today Show and the liberal media continue their rant and all that they do to further their own demise.

Go, Trump!

Reich and Immigration

Robert Reich is an American political commentator, professor, and author. He served in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. He was Secretary of Labor from 1993 to 1997. He was a member of President-elect Barack Obama’s economic transition advisory board. Recently, he put out a video in association with moveon.org that accused President Trump of lying about immigration and he sets out to destroy several of Trump’s statements as myths.

The problem is that Reich overlooks a lot of research and statistics that reinforce Trump’s stance and, given the obvious left-leaning political disposition of Reich, you can’t help but want to pop the hood on what he’s saying to see if he has a point.

You be the judge…

I) Immigrants Take Away American Jobs

This is the first lie that Trump is supposedly circulating. Reich insists that immigrants add to economic demand and therefore create the need for more jobs.

On the surface, that might seem like a credible perspective, but here’s the problem: It’s not the number of jobs, it’s the fact that immigrants are willing to work for a lot less than their American counterparts. As a result, illegal immigrants are working those jobs that would otherwise be staffed by American citizens.

It’s interesting because back in 1995, Reich himself said, “Undoubtedly access to lower-wage foreign workers has a depressing effect [on wages].” If an employer is looking at two equally qualified candidates and one is willing to work for $7.00 an hour and the other isn’t willing to work for less than $10.00, who do you suppose gets the job?

II) We don’t need Any More Immigrants

Reich says America is aging and we therefore need more people to support those will be retiring. The problem with that idea is that 52% of legal immigrant households with children are on government assistance. In all, nearly 60% of immigrants – illegal and legal – are on government assistance compared to 39% of native households. It’s virtually impossible to be supporting other people when you can’t support yourself.¹

III) Immigrants are a Drain on Public Budgets

Here, Reich attempts to combat this reality by saying that undocumented immigrants paid 11.8 billion dollars in state and local taxes in 2012 and that would increase another 2.2 billion assuming comprehensive immigration reform would occur.

Champions of illegal immigration will quote statistics like the fact that in 2014, the IRS collected over 9 billion dollars in income tax from those filing using an ITIN (Individual Tax Identification Number). This coming from roughly 4 million illegals. On the surface, that doesn’t look especially unhealthy. However, when you consider the number of illegal immigrants that live in this country, that figure becomes disconcerting.

The number of illegal immigrants is a figure that comes from census data. In other words, it’s assuming that an illegal immigrant is answering a survey. People who have left their families, paid hefty sums to smugglers, travelled thousands of miles and have broken American law in order to enter this country have little incentive to answer a US government questionnaire.

When you look at bank deposits going from the US to Mexico, when you consider the number of housing permits that are being granted, when you look at school enrollment – when you consider information beyond statistical info based on surveys of people who don’t want to answer surveys, you come up with a much larger number.

Bear Stearns is a global investment bank. In 2005, they had some financial interests that were linked to, what needed to be, an accurate number of illegal immigrants in this country. Unfettered by any kind of political agenda, analysts Robert Justich and Betty Ng estimated the total number of illegal immigrants at being around 20,000,000. Bear in mind, they were advising clients about something important: their money!²

The very next year, Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele – two Pulitzer-prize winning journalists for Time magazine, did their own study and concluded that “the number of illegal aliens flooding into the U.S. this year will total 3 million – enough to fill 22,000 Boeing 737-700 airliners, or 60 flights every day for a year. It will be the largest wave since 2001 and will roughly triple the number of immigrants who will come to he U.S. by legal means.”³

That was 2006. So assuming that number has stayed consistent, that means today we have an additional 36,000,000 illegals in this country. So, let’s not be too excited or too casual when we hear that we’ve collected 9 billion dollars from 4 million illegals. That’s a toxic number when you compare it to the actual number of illegals that are living in this nation.

IV) Legal and Illegal Immigration is Increasing

Reich says that he net rate of illegal immigration into the US is 0%. Again, this is going to be based on census data which is not reliable. As the aforementioned analysts Justich and Ng told the Wall Street Journal, “the assumption that illegal people will fill out a census form is the most ridiculous concept I have ever heard of.”⁴

Conclusion

Reich concludes his video by suggesting that Trump, or anyone who thinks like him when it comes to illegal immigration, are looking to blame immigrants for the economic tensions facing the middle class. He says it’s all part of a game that’s rigged to favor the wealthy and the better approach is to work towards “comprehensive immigration reform” that gives illegals a pathway to citizenship.

Question: What is it that makes illegal immigration so difficult to define as a problem when the facts are so obvious? And bear in mind, we’re just looking at what the Left chose to address in the context of Reich’s video. We’re not looking at the criminal activity that’s happening within the ranks of illegals. It truly is a problem! Who is it that gains by defending illegal immigrants?

This comes from the “Center for Immigration Studies” in an article entitled, “Immigration, Political Realignment, and the Demise of Republican Political Prospects” written in 2010.

A comparison of voting patterns in presidential elections across counties over the last three decades shows that large-scale immigration has caused a steady drop in presidential Republican vote shares throughout the country. Once politically marginal counties are now safely Democratic due to the propensity of immigrants, especially Latinos, to identify and vote Democratic.

Again…

You be the judge.

1. “Adios America”, Ann Coulter, Regnery Publishing, Washington, D.C. 2015, p15

2. Ibid, p74

3. Ibid, p74

4. Ibid, p73

Dear President Trump…

Painting by Jon McNaughton. Click here to read more.

Dear President Trump,

I wanted to take a moment and offer you some words of encouragement and affirmation.

I’m currently reading “The Churchill Factor: How One Man Made History.” Its a great read in that you’re getting some insight into a man that, while he was loathed by some of his peers, it was the very characteristics that they disliked that made him the right man for the job at that particular point in history.

I’m not talking about some of his more vulgar habits as much as I’m talking about his outspoken manner, his assertiveness and his resolve to get things done regardless of the innumerable naysayers that seemed to dominate the headlines and the cultural elite.

With Hitler you had two sides in Parliment: One side wanted to compromise and make a deal with a tyrant that posed as a reasonable individual but was, in truth, a violent and unstable dictator whose only absolute was power. The other side knew that Hitler couldn’t be trusted, yet they questioned whether or not he could be opposed.

He had ransacked the whole of Europe with a military machine that posed a very real threat to England. You could say that making a deal might’ve been the prudent thing to do in the interest of saving hundreds of thousands of lives. But Churchill knew instinctively that to enter in any kind of negotiations was to be dialoguing with the devil. He stood firm. He listened to the voices of the populace that valued freedom and truth as well as his own conscience. He took to the the airwaves to saturate the cultural atmosphere with messages that inspired noble thoughts of right defeating that which was wrong. In some instances, he exaggerated England’s strength in order to stir up a “can do” attitude. He never bowed before the idol of popularity, he never compromised his principles and because of that resolve he was able to defeat the power of facism and unconscionable evil.

Your message of “Make America Great Again” is dead on. While we are not fighting Hitler we are nevertheless fighting a mindset that it is amoral, irresponsible and genuinely lethal.

It’s a disposition that says if something can be defined as “legal” is is therefore “right.” It’s an attitude that says individuals are not responsible for their actions. Rather, it is someone else’s responsiblilty to clean up your mess, subsidize your mistakes and justify your behavior. It demonizes America’s heritage, it scoffs at God, it sneers as the law and yet insists it’s the law alone that can change a person’s thought process. It’s a cheap and pointless version of who America is, what it’s capable of and the beacon of hope and Truth that it has been in the past.

Stay the course, sir. Your are right on so many fronts. Our borders do need to be protected, our industry needs to be enccouraged, our government needs to be streamlined and the incessant lies proclaimed by the corrupt and the mindlessly greedy need to be revealed for what they are and brought down on their own heads.

And do not be influenced by this most recent display of teens insisting that their lives matter more than guns. They have a point in that their lives do have value. Their posters should send tremors of truth through the landscape of those that insist on Pro Choice. But aside from that, it’s the fact that their lives do have value that the focus should be directed towards those are pulling the trigger and not the trigger itself. Once again, you see the liberal mindset on display that says you can eliminate criminal behavior by simply making it illegal just like you can make something that is outrageously immoral acceptable by making it legal.

Your platform is precisely what this nation needs in the way it underscores a philosophical given that is intentionally ignored by those political paradigms that seek to win votes at the expense of what’s True. A man is responsible for his actions. He will not be encouraged every step of the way, he will be inclined to make poor choices but he will also be exposed to the Power he requires in order to make good decisions. Inspire your country to make good choices and be able to enjoy the benefits that go along with it. Direct them to the God our forefathers appealed to for the victory and the wisdom needed to form a nation that is unique among all others to this day. Do this with your policies, your determination and your tweets.

You’re doing well, sir! This is more than a fight for a party majority, it’s a fight to hold on to and build back up the foundation that has been negelected for a long, long time. It’s inscribed on the Liberty Bell, it’s referenced in our Declaration of Independence and it burns in the heart of every American.

Freedom.

Real Freedom.

The kind that falls under the heading of the “unalienable human rights” that are given to us by your Creator. Not socialism, not fascism nor any of the dynamics veiled by the Left in the context of “social justice” or “compassion.” Freedom beginning with the Divine value you have as a child of God and the freedom that blossoms every time you deploy the Power He gives you in the context of wise, moral and productive decisions.

THAT’S America.

Make it great again…

Have a good day!

Jerusalem 2017

President Trump made a campaign promise to move the American Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Given the way the militant Muslims have reacted as well as the manner in which the media has painted the administration as being reckless and irresponsible, it might come as a surprise that Trump is simply acting on a law that was passed in 1995 and affirmed by Congress just this past June.

What is irritating is the way in which some Muslims are saying that it will interfere with the “peace process.”

The “peace process…”

Our nation’s history has been punctuated repeatedly with acts of terror / war accomplished in the name of Allah. During the administration of Thomas Jefferson, you had the War with the Barbary Pirates. World War I was instigated by the Ottoman Empire and both the 20th and the 21st century have seen a despicable number of terrorist acts – again, all coming from a group of people who have the audacity to promote themselves as agents of peace in the face of President Trump moving our embassy to what represents the judicial and legitimate capital of Israel.

However flawed President Trump may be, it is his disregard for political correctness / cowardice that inspired me to vote for him. Neither Bush, Clinton nor Obama were willing to do it despite they’re being ethically and legislatively justified in doing so and frankly I’m glad that the US is positioning itself as a legitimate friend to Israel and not a subordinate to Islamic terror.

For more in-depth reading, feel free to peruse the following:

Why I Will Vote for Donald Trump

I’ve never been as intrigued with an election, nor so resolved to be better educated when it comes to current events than I am this election cycle.

During the last six weeks, I resolved to reach beyond debates and headlines and read some books in order to get up to speed in the context of a more comprehensive perspective. I’ve read the following:

“Stealing America” by Dinesh D’souza
“Great Again” by Donald Trump
“In Trump We Trust” by Ann Coulter
“Hillary’s America” by Dinesh D’souza

“Great Again” – in order to hear what Trump was bringing to the table in the absence of screaming protestors and antagonistic critics.

“In Trump We Trust” in order to get the perspective of someone who I knew to be like-minded when it comes to current events and to see how well Trump’s proposals address those concerns.

“Stealing America” and “Hillary’s America” to hear the platform of someone who Obama had imprisoned in part because of the film he made entitled “Obama 2016” where he reveals Obama to be an “anti-colonialist” based on his family background and his obvious regard for the legal extortion techniques pioneered by Saul Alinski. Anyone who has paid that kind of price for his convictions is worth a hearing and both books are very thought provoking.

The next president could possibly nominate up to 4 Supreme Court Justices. This is a position that is held for life. There are nine positions. Four of those are currently held by people who’ve been in those spots between 20 and 30 years. Some of them are approaching 80 years old. The president that is elected this coming November will establish as many as four justices that will be in power up to the time of your grandchildren.

You need to vote this November…!

The resulting foundation for my voting convictions is solid – at least as far as being able to articulate why I’m voting for Trump as opposed to simply that I’m voting for Trump. Perhaps it’s because of having become better educated where the candidates are concerned that I’m even more frustrated when I hear of people dismissing their responsibility to vote altogether. The two most common would be that #1) both candidates are less than worthy of their consideration #2) the voting system is corrupt.

The Democrat party represents a legacy of theft dressed up in compassion and equality. Hillary is an enhanced version of that paradigm that can trace it’s lineage back to Andrew Jackson. In addition, the substance of America has been substantially minimized with the administration of Barack Obama. Our national debt, our standing in the eyes of other other nations in terms of our foreign policy, the way in which he encourages racial division – these are all manifestations of a mindset that seeks to subtlety, yet strategically, decrease the influence and capacity of America as a nation. And when anyone who represents a conservative mindset begins to disagree or assert a different approach, the tenor of the culture led by Obama discredits them as enemies of progress.

Maybe this is what makes this particular election so volatile. For the Democrats, it’s no longer about promoting the common welfare, as much as it’s about hacking the system, redefining ethics and morality in the name of “equal opportunity” and retooling America’s influence in the world by forcefully bending its knee before the champions of evil and injustice. This election isn’t only about the platform of Donald Trump. What he represents is a very much needed perspective in the world of “politics as usual.” But in a more profound and crucial way, it’s about defeating the Democrat party – specifically those who veil their true intentions beneath a thin layer of noble sounding sentiments.Trump is more than worthy of consideration if only for that reason.

As far as being casual in your resolve to participate in the democratic process because you believe that the system is corrupt, bear in mind that between Hillary and Trump, over $11,000,000.00 dollars have been spent in order to influence voters. Whatever “corruption” exists, it’s more in the context of how party platforms are presented more than the way in which the integrity of ballot boxes are compromised. You have a duty as well as the privilege to become knowledgeable and cast your vote in the direction of a healthy future for this nation. To shrug that off for any reason is lazy, irresponsible and, from a biblical standpoint, even sinful (1 Chron 12:32; 1 Tim 2:1-2).

While it’s not necessarily unethical, it borders on sinister to see the way in which some of what Trump has said be quoted out of context and twisted into something outrageous by his opponents. It makes sense, however, when you take an inventory of the personalities conducting the violent protests and publishing the damaging smears and calculate what they stand to lose; either in the context of political clout or ill gotten gain should he be elected president.

But What About Trump?

But what about Trump?

Bigot? Typhoon? Hates Women, Warmonger? Hates Veterans?

These days, people hear with their eyes and think with their feelings. Headlines can be misleading and articles can be selective about what is said and what is not said thus leading the reader to a conclusion that may or may not be accurate (click here for an exposition on the difference between Facts, Information and Truth). That’s not to say that Trump makes it difficult for reporters to cast him as a problem child. He rarely holds back in what he thinks, which isn’t always healthy or appropriate.

But rarely does he not have a point. And the fact that he has nothing to lose, in terms of the game played by your stereotypical politician, makes for a perspective that is very different in the world of politics where candidates go overboard in their efforts to sanitize and filter every word in order to ensure no one is offended and campaign contributions are unhindered.

Combat Veterans

When I was in the military, I always enjoyed working for combat veterans. They didn’t do “drama.” Having experienced life and death scenarios where your ego was subordinate to getting the job done, these guys tended to lead in a way that intentionally brushed aside the subjective and problematic elements of people’s personalities when it was needful to make a decision and get something accomplished. They weren’t necessarily abrasive, but you knew where you stood at all times. When you did well, you got a pat on the back. When you blew it, you got a good swift kick in the pants, you got over it and did better the next time. It wasn’t about the way you felt or what you thought, it was about what needed to get done in order to promote the corporate role and wellbeing of the unit.

Trump reminds me of that kind of personality / leadership style. He does not allow himself to be distracted by the deployment of debating tactics designed to either minimize the central issue or ignore it altogether. He’s blunt, he’s confident and he’s not at all bothered by those who “have an issue” with what he’s saying. If it was a selfish agenda that he was championing, it would be a problem. I believe that in part because you don’t subject yourself to the kind of abuse and character maligning he’s endured since he announced his candidacy. If you were focused on yourself, you would find other ways to spend your time and money pretty quick. But because he’s genuinely committed to the preservation and promotion of the ideals upon which this country is based, he’s a needed influence in an arena that has deteriorated into a world of corruption and humanistic thinking.

It’s been disappointing to see some prominent personalities come out and mirror the media in their assessment and statements pertaining to Trump. It’s as though there’s a script being circulated and whoever it is that’s willing to parrot the talking points that are documented, they’re broadcasted as much and as loudly as they can – as though they’re trying to drown out the practical and substantial dynamics this man brings to the table.

This brings up a good point.

I Voted for Cruz

I didn’t vote for Trump in the primaries. I voted for Cruz because I tend to gravitate to those who are the most vocal in terms of their faith. If I had to do it again, however, I don’t think I would’ve voted for Cruz and here’s why:

In the military, the fact that you’re a godly man doesn’t mean that you’re an effective leader. I’ve seen this in action. While I might prefer to have a staff enlisted man standing in front of me that can communicate without being crass and can tell me about his most recent exchange with his Heavenly Father, I will take a leader over a manager any day. And if that leader is going to hell on a skateboard, I’ll pray for him, but I’m not going to prefer working for a weak leader who may be godly as opposed to a strong leader that rates my respect, justifies my trust and inspires my best.

Philip Yancey, who’s a great writer, was featured on a video clip recently where he stated that he’s shocked and surprised that any evangelical could support Trump. He cites Trump’s failed marriages, his affairs, and the fact that he’s made a substantial amount of money with his casinos as reasons why you shouldn’t support him.

First of all, it’s not just casinos. His fortune is based on a number of income streams, his most obvious and substantial being commercial real estate. I was somewhat familiar with the Trunp name and brand, but it wasn’t until after I read “Great Again” that I became familiar with the number of buildings and properties he’s developed around the globe. He’s a very talented business man.

What frustrates me most about Yancey’s rhetoric, however, is that, given the agenda of the Democratic party, evangelicals, nor anyone else for that matter, can afford to be less than diligent (see 1 Chron 12:32). When you vote, you’re up to bat. Refusing to swing, or swinging pointlessly at wild pitches, is neither responsible nor wise. The Israelites most likely used Egyptian tools to build the Tabernacle. The Temple and the city wall were both rebuilt as a result of the provisions and administrative endorsesements provided by pagan rulers. Stop insisting that your party’s champion has to be consistent with your spiritual preferences in order to be used by God to accomplish good things. If nothing else, recognize that a failure to vote for Trump represents a vote for Hillary.

Think…

For the Record

When a liberal is confronted with a platform that is difficult to dispute, the crosshairs of their criticism is aimed at the person proclaiming that platform. In that way, attention is diverted from the issue being addressed and instead the topic is now whatever accusation they’ve just made. In the case of Donald Trump, his adversaries are both his political opponents and the arm of the Democrat party – the liberal media.

“You didn’t build that…” even when proponents of President Obama attempt to better justify his comments by quoting them in context, when you process his statement as part of the Progressive dynamic as a whole, the message is still the same: If you’re not rich, you are persecuted and the victim of a flawed system. If you are rich, you are guilty of extortion and an unethical exploitation of people not as fortunate as yourself.

The Solution: Give government the necessary amount of control it needs to force a level playing ground, regardless of an individual’s work ethic, their ability to risk and their creative talent.

The Result: Facism. Those who work are compelled to surrender the fruits of their labor, their convictions, and whatever right they have to themselves to a constituency that makes demands more than they make contributions. All the while, those in government profit from the control they now have and justify their financial position by insisting that they are promoting the best interests of society.

The press has done a fabulous job of painting Trump as a villain that can’t be trusted. Some of this is based on the fact that he’s rich which, from a progressive standpoint, constitutes a form of abuse and thievery by default. President Obama demonstrates this by minimizing the presence of boldness, creativity and entrepreneurship when it comes to building a business, insisting that “you didn’t build that.” Everything from roads, infrastructure, mentors and family are credited with the success any one person could possibly achieve. Work ethic, risk and ingenuity are dismissed all together. This is the philosophical starting point for the Democratic party who thrives on the mantra of the “have’s” and the “have not’s.” It is through this kind of rhetoric that they are able to secure votes and power with which they institute programs that appear to be founded on compassion and equality, but in reality are tactics designed to secure control and power.

Born Into Privilege

Trump is mocked as a person who was born into privilege and his wealth is nothing other than an inherited fortune. But such is not the case. Although Donald’s father wasn’t wealthy to start off with, by the time Donald Trump was ready to go into business for himself, Fred Trump was a rich man.¹ When Donald struck out on his own, his father loaned him a million dollars. Trump wanted to venture beyond his father’s territory of Queens and Brooklyn and establish some developments in Manhattan which, at the time, was not a promising endeavor. While some look at a million dollars as proof that Trump had it made right from the start, one has to pause and realize that a million dollars doesn’t go very far when you consider what he was attempting to do and the risk that was involved. Trump made it happen and paid his father back with full interest a few years later.²

Donald was able to succeed because of having a solid work ethic and a real talent as an entrepreneur. That wasn’t the case in his early years, though. He personified what some would expect as far as being a “spoiled brat,”and a troublemaker. To cure that, his parents shipped him of to military school. Initially, he didn’t do well at all. But by the time he graduated, however, he was captain of his cadet class – a position that you had to be voted into by your peers.³

John McCain and the Military Vote

While Trump never served in the military, his respect and appreciate for the military is beyond question. Not simply because of his military academy experience, but also because of the way in which he has supported the military in situations such as the Veteran’s Day Parade in New York City in 1987 and in 1995 when donations were embarrassingly low and Trump stepped in with his own resources and gave the parade and the veterans it honored the dignity it deserved.

That by itself may not mean much to someone who’s focused on Trump’s comments about John McCain or his most recent comments about combat veterans suffering from PTSD as “not being able to handle it.” Fact is, even after Trump insulted McCain’s military service, polls showed that the military preferred Trump to McCain.⁴ And when you look at the comment made by Trump pertaining to PTSD in context, you see a much different picture than what Trump’s opponents attempt to present.

Take a look at the comment Trump made pertaining to McCain in the context of his conversation with Frank Luntz at the Family Leadership Summit in Iowa:

Luntz: Referring to John McCain, a war hero, five and a half years as a POW, and you call him a “dummy.” Is that appropriate in running for president?

Trump: You have to let me speak, Frank, because you interrupt all the time, okay? [laughter] No, I know him too well, that’s the problem.

Let’s take John McCain. I’m in Phoenix. We have a meeting that is going to have 500 people at the Biltmore Hotel. We get a call from the hotel: It’s turmoil. Thousands and thousands of people are showing up three, four days before – they’re pitching tents on the hotel grass. The hotel says, We can’t handle this, it’s gonna destroy the hotel. We move it to the Convention Center. We have fifteen thousand people – the biggest one ever. Bigger than Bernie Sanders, bigger than – fifteen thousand people – the biggest one ever. Bigger than anybody. And everybody knows it. A beautiful day with incredible people that were wonderful, great Americans, I will tell you.

John McCain goes, Oh, boy, Trump makes my life difficult. He had fifteen thousand crazies show up. “Crazies” – he called them all crazy. I said, They weren’t crazy. They were great Americans. These people, if you would’ve seen these people – I know what crazy is. I know all about crazies. These weren’t crazy.

So he insulted me and he insulted everybody in that room. And I said, Somebody should run against John McCain, who has been, in my opinion, not so hot. And I supported him – I supported him for president. I raised a million dollars for him. That’s a lot of money. I supported him. He lost, he let us down. But, you know, he lost. So I have never liked him as much after that, because I don’t like losers. [Laughter]

But, Frank, let me get to it.

Luntz: He is a war hero, he’s a war hero.

Trump: He hit me. He’s not a war hero.

Luntz: Five and a half years in a Vietnamese prison camp.

Trump: He’s a war hero because he was captured, okay? I hate to tell you. He was a war hero because he was captured, okay And I believe – perhaps he is a war hero, but right now, he said some very bad things about a lot of people. So what I said is: John McCain, I disagree with him, that these people aren’t crazy. And, very importantly, and I speak the truth, he graduated last in his class at Annapolis. So I said – nobody knows that – I said, He graduated last, or second to last, he graduated last in his class at Annapolis.⁵

While Trump was out of line to minimize McCain’s courage and selflessness as a POW, he wasn’t wrong in state that McCain was out of line himself. One week later, polls showed that veterans and those currently serving in the military preferred Trump to McCain 53% to 41%. That’s because what the press wants to insinuate is distinct from what veterans heard and processed. Reason being is that what was actually said was different than what the press wants to promote.

The same thing applies to Trump’s comments about veterans suffering from PTSD. When you look at what was actually said versus what was quoted, you’re confronted with a much different scenario.

Bankruptcy

Trump’s business acumen is undeniable. By that I mean, it’s obvious from his accomplishments that he’s capable of some extraordinary things in terms of leading and envisioning a highly successful business venture. But those who want to distract from the multitude of highly successful income streams zealously highlight those instances when he’s declared bankruptcy.

Snopes.com does a great job of providing some balance to what bankruptcy is and how it should affect one’s perspective on Trump’s business acumen. Bankruptcy, while it’s obviously not the signature of a thriving business, is not a tell tale sign of failure either. It’s a restructuring that’s simultaneously conducted in the context of negotiating a manageable way of paying off debt. Trump has not succeeded in every one of business ventures. Then again, to succeed every time in an arena where you can’t control every nuance of a business, that might be more of a cue to question his ability then the situation where his efforts haven’t always succeeded. But when you take stock of his net worth as well as the properties he has scattered throughout the world, it’s obvious that he has exceptional skill and to focus exclusively on the handful of times he’s declared bankruptcy and not give any attention to the multiple times he’s succeeded is neither wise nor fair. The bottom line is he has far more experience and far more accolades in his trophy case than the vast majority of his peers. The fact that his book, “The Art of the Deal” is considered a business classic – yet another indicator that the man’s ability to run a highly successful business wasn’t called into question until he had the gaul to run for president under the Republican banner.

Miscellaneous

Alicia Machado won the Miss Universe in 1996. Two years later, she was an accessory to murder and further smeared her reputation by threatening to kill the judge that presided over her case. This coupled with her having gained 50 pounds earned Trump the dubious title of a woman-hater when he referred to Machado as “Miss Piggy.” Certainly not one of his finest moments, but not altogether inappropriate given Machado’s obvious lack of character.

The issue of Trump’s tax returns is an interesting topic. First of all, he’s not required to surrender his tax returns. Some do, he has chosen not to. Trump’s 1995 tax returns have been made public. Did you know that it’s illegal to publish a person’s tax returns? I didn’t. Apparently the editor of the New York Times that printed Trump’s returns is facing possible jail time. What’s on that return has been replayed over and over again, as far as how Trump carried a loss forward. The fact that you and I can’t think using those numbers doesn’t change the fact that it’s an accepted practice. The New York Times did the same thing. It’s not uncommon, but it’s being promoted as such by the opponents of Trump in hopes that the public doesn’t take the time to ask how the return was made public to begin with and whether or not what Trump did was a common practice among big businesses.

Finally, the recently released recording of Trump saying some positively lewd things pertaining to women – if you’re not familiar with it, click here, but be forewarned, it’s explicit and vulgar.

First off, I think it’s significant that it’s 11 years old. Someone had to invest a fair amount of time to find this and the timing of it being made public – I doubt is coincidental. It’s even more suspicious when you consider some of the testimonies coming from several parties that state the tape was purposefully leaked by GOP elites who are uncomfortable with Trump. Should that prove to be credible, Paul Ryan, and those who think like him, may find himself in a very awkward position.

What Trump says is disgusting. It’s in line with Bill Clinton’s conduct in the Oval Office, Hillary’s role in destroying the reputation of anyone who would presume to indict Bill for molesting them, JFK’s multiple affairs and Lyndon B. Johnson exposing himself to female reporters. Joe Biden swimming naked in his pool in front of female Secret Service agents he had assigned to him. Ted Kennedy’s Chappaquiddick and Barry Sanders’ essay entitled “Man and Woman” where he elaborates on his take on rape. What’s significant about those who fly the banner of the Democrat party is that their exploits aren’t viewed with the same kind of disdain. There’s a sanctimonious dynamic deployed by those who would condemn Trump that doesn’t make sense when you consider their party and, in some cases, their own indiscretions.

Here’s the bottom line: Moses was a killer, David was an adulterer and Abraham was a liar. Paul was a Pharisee and Peter was a coward. Moral failings are not unique and fairly common, especially among those who fly solo in the face of temptation rather than align themselves with the Power of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 10:13). Even those who are fully equipped to overcome whatever potential compromise stands in their way are not always consistent in their resolve to give the keys to their Heavenly Father and they wind up as moral disasters.

Where does Trump fall in all of this? Is he wrong? Yes. What should be expected of him now, eleven years after the fact? Own it. Apologize. He has. Is it indicative of a flawed character that’s unqualified to lead? Not according to the legacy of the Democrat party, yet this is where the majority of the indictments are coming from.

What about the conscience of the person who’s mortified by what Trump said, yet still plans on supporting him in the election? Is it hypocrisy to endorse a man who has this kind of dynamic in his past?

No.

It would be hypocritical to contribute to a Democrat victory by either not voting for him or refusing to vote at all. It’s his platform that I’m supporting, not the actions and attitudes he displayed in 2005.

Paul talks about slavery in Colossians 3:22. He’s not condoning slavery (Ex 21:16; Lev 25:39-43), he’s encouraging wisdom and noble behavior in the context of a vice that some were being compelled to participate in. I don’t see Trump as a “vice,” but in the absence of someone who’s completely consistent with my preferences, I’m compelled to be wise and not just “convicted.” I”m not cutting him slack nor am I being hypocritical. I’m being wise in that he represents the best match for the one who will champion policies and legislation in keeping with Biblical Absolutes and the common good.

Connecting the Dots

Here’s the bottom line: Trump receives toxic condemnation and ridicule from both sides of the political aisle. Why? Is it because of what he says? To some extent. But the bottom line is that he’s saying something. And oftentimes what he says rattles the cage of either those whose political convictions run contrary to the welfare of America or agitate those who fly the Republican banner, but would rather appear to be an advocate of change than actually champion real progress.

America as an ideal is under attack by those who fill the ranks of the Democrat party. The genius behind the attack, however, is that the issues that serves as the bullet points for the Democrat party are not topics as much as they are tactics. Whether it’s racism, same sex marriage, illegal immigration, foreign policy – whatever it is that constitutes a headline – is used to promote further government control. And when you couple the liberal rhetoric with the themes of the media and entertainment, it’s downright unnerving when you begin to connect the dots.

Trump sees unsecured borders and talks about solving it in the context of a wall. Did you know that there’s already a wall in Arizona? You would thing Trump was introducing something demonic, given the way his ideas on border control have been sneered at. But it’s a good plan and it needs to happen. The fact that he’s even talking about it is significant given the way border patrol is often discussed but never acted upon

He sees a 32 trillion dollar debt and talks about solving it in the context of retooling trade agreements. He wants to repeal Obamacare. When asked about “Black Lives Matter” in the first presidential debate, his first comment was “law and order.”

While you can connect the dots, in terms of the way in which the Democrat party and it’s accessories have contributed to the deterioration of the nation on every possible level, you can just as easily connect the dots where Trump’s vision, plans, experience and confidence is concerned.

I’m voting for Trump.

Parting Thoughts

When Obama leaves office, he will have accumulated more debt than every president before him combined.
Paul Ryan, the current Republican Speaker of the House, came out recently and stated that he would not support Donald Trump as president.

Those two dynamics taken together represent a need to interrupt politics as usual and assert a personality that is not dependent on a government check for their sustenance, nor is he resolved to lessen the substance of America, all the while claiming to do so in the name of equal opportunity and justice.

RINO stands for “Republican In Name Only.” Ann Coulter does a great job of bringing into the light the fact that a number of Republican congressman do a stellar job of looking into the camera and stating exactly what their constituents want to hear, but then make a career of not putting any any of their words into action. This was especially evident during the Republican debates when the topic of illegal immigration came up. In 2014, Senator Mitch McConnell promised to block Obama’s “executive amnesty,” if only the voters would facilitate a Republican majority in the Senate. The Republicans won a majority in both houses and the voters were promptly betrayed.⁶

Now you’ve got talking heads in the Republican party conveniently broadcast by the liberal media stating that they will not support Trump. At this point, as a whole, they’ve so worn out their welcome in the mind of the attentive voter that their endorsement doesn’t really matter. If anything, it reinforces the notion that they realize there’s a new sheriff in town who will hold them accountable and that makes them squirm.

As far as Barak Obama and the Democrat party is concerned, consider this:

Andrew Jackson established himself as a wealthy man through the art of extortion – specifically in the context of real estate. He positioned himself as the “Great Father” to Indians before either manipulating them or forcefully removing them from their land. This was happening while he was simultaneously deploying surveyors to assess the same land at which point he would buy it and then sell it at a tremendous profit.

Steve Inskeep, in his book, “Jacksonland” elaborates by saying:

Jackson managed national security affairs in a way that match his interest in land development…He shaped his real estate investments to compliment his official duties, and performed his official duties in a way that benefited his real estate interests.⁷

Behold the founder of today’s Democrat / Progressive movement. The idea is to seize a topic and turn it into a tactic that can be used to influence voters resulting in greater government control and enhanced income streams for those in positions of power.

The events leading up to the Civil War, in terms of the preservation of slavery, were championed by Democrats. Not just in the South, but even Northern Democrats were vehement in their belief that slavery was a good thing and even healthy for blacks. As stated in the Charleston Mercury during the Secession debate, the duty of the South was to, “…rally under the banner of the Democratic Party which has recognized and supported…the rights of the South.”⁸

Oftentimes when the issue of slavery is discussed, it’s referenced as an “American” sin. It’s not. It was promoted and protected my men who were decidedly Democrats. In the aftermath of the Civil War, the Klu Klux Klan, Black Codes, Jim Crow and other techniques were deployed by the the South beneath the flag of the Democrat party.

It’s confusing, sometimes, to equate Democrats with racism given the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Bill in 1968 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965 were all championed by Lyndon B. Johnson and it was Johnson who convinced a Democratic Congress to pass all three.

But Johnson was simply reinforcing Constitutional amendments that had been passed immediately following the Civil War. The Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment granted full citizenship and equal rights to blacks. Two years later, in 1868, the Fifteenth Amendment was passed which gave voting rights to black people. The Civil Rights Movement in the 60’s was nothing more than bait. Lyndon Johnson appeared to be aggressive in drumming up support for the Civil Rights Act. Traveling on Air Force One with two governors, he told them both how important it was that they vote in favor of it. When asked why, he told them both that it was part of his long term strategy. “I’ll have them n**gers voting Democratic for the next 200 years!”⁹

The fact of the matter was, the Democrats needed the black vote. As the South became less agrarian, the Republican message of upward mobility resonated more so than racism. As more and more white people migrated over to the Republican side, the black vote grew more crucial.

It’s interesting when you look at the percentage of Democrats versus the percentage of Republicans that voted in favor of the various Civil Rights Acts. Even with a Democratic president spearheading the campaign, Republicans outnumbered the Democrats when the final tally was made. Had the Republicans voted in the same proportion as the Democrats, those laws would never have passed. So even in the guise of equality and compassion, the Democrat party has always been the seat of racism. The fact that black minorities typically vote Democrat is because of the way the Democrats’ pitch how subsidies are more of a priority than salaries and entitlement should be preferred over employment. But what makes this even more sinister is the way in which this platform so gracefully segues into fascism.

Obamacare, free college education, EPA regulations, financial subsidies – these all represent stages of increasing government control. On the surface, it may appear like a logical solution to the challenges facing individuals, but there’s more to it than that. Obamacare represents control over the healthcare industry. Secondary education, the energy sector and the banking industry are all being retooled to make them more accessible, but the catch is that the government now has control, and this is the goal of the Progressive movement that characterizes the Democrat party.

FDR admired Mussolini. JFK had some good things to say about Hitler before Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and compelled the USA to enter WWII. Prior to that, however, Fascism appealed to FDR for the way in which economic unrest could justify greater control over the private sector. The “New Deal” centralized power; put a new class of planners in charge of the productive wealth of the society, restricted the operation of the free market and used modern propaganda techniques to rally the masses in the name of collective solidarity.

In the aftermath of WWII, the terminology had to be made more subtle and approachable, but the aim remained the same. A new approach, a different vocabulary, but the same goal.

Saul Alinski represents the next phase of Progressivism in that he was able to enhance the technique represented by the mafioso phrase, “a deal you can’t refuse.” He found that by approaching an industry or an iconic company, simply by threatening to create a disturbance in the name of “injustice,” he could extort all kinds of favors and financial rewards.

In the 1980’s and 1990’s, a promising young man became fascinated with the legacy of Saul Alinski and the way in which he could extract change and resources through extortion. While Alinski had passed away in 1972, his operation still thrived. He would have to move to Chicago, however. Later, this young man would write a book and say, “All the strands of my life came together and I really became a man when I moved to Chicago.”¹⁰ He would teach workshops and over time assume greater amounts of responsibility. He would actually be elected to the Senate and today he is leader of the free world.

While he’s often heralded as a champion of the working man and an advocate of civil rights, his actions and his words reveal otherwise. Still, the fact that he was successful in his shakedown operations was appealing, especially to young people in the sixties who saw the establishment as something that needed to be changed.

One individual in particular was a college student at Wellesley college. She was drawn to Alinsky and based her thesis on his life. What inspired her imagination, however, was the possibility of being able to deploy his tactics in a way that went beyond corporate America. She felt that more could be accomplished from a position of authority rather than constantly warring against the authority. Alinski disagreed. Still, he was impressed with this young lady’s passion and ambition and offered her a job. She turned it down to go to Yale Law School.

Over time, she would prove Alinski wrong. By prosecuting your agenda from within the halls of government, you can control the NSA and have access to an unlimited amount of private information. You can control the IRS and use the threat of audits and other forms of intimidation to get what you want. You can control the judiciary, as far as who gets prosecuted and who gets pardoned. In short, you don’t have to fight “the power,” you can be “the power.” This is exactly what this young lady did and today she is the Democrat nominee for president.

Conclusion

The election that’s getting ready to happen this November represents a difficult landscape to navigate. Evangelicals are longing for a “Pastor-in-Chief,” career politicians stress over having to answer to an outsider, the press constantly and aggressively pursues anything it can seize upon in order to smear and distort anyone who has the gaul to champion a Republican agenda. But in the end, it’s about establishing a presence in the White House that defeats the extortion, the fascism, the treachery that is condoned and used by the Democrat party the same way Andrew Jackson used his position to build the Hermitage. It’s twisted, but it’s real. And while not every Democrat falls into the category of a fascist, if you’re a supporter of Hillary Clinton, or cast a vote in a way that boosts Hillary’s chances of success, you endorse that school of thought by default.

I will vote for Donald Trump.

1. “Great Again”, Donald J. Trump, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 2015, p128 (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Trump)

2. Ibid, p99

3. Ibid, p129

4. “In Trump We Trust”, Ann Coulter, Penguin Random House, New York, NY, 2016, p40

5. Ibid, p109

6. Ibid, 171

7. Jacksonland, Steve Inskeep, Penguin Press, New York, 2015, p92, 104

8. “Hillary’s America”, Dinesh D’souza, Regewery Publishing, Washington, D.C., 2016, p69

9. Ibid, p139

10. Ibid, p163

11. Ibid, p171