Should Christians Vote for Trump?

Should Christians Vote for Trump?

By Eric Metaxas

Over this past year many of Donald Trump’s comments have made me almost literally hopping mad. The hot-mic comments from 2005 are especially horrifying. Can there be any question we should denounce them with flailing arms and screeching volume?

Trump’s behavior is odious, but Clinton has a deplorable basketful of deal breakers.

This question should hardly require an essay, but let’s face it: We’re living in strange times. America is in trouble.

Over this past year many of Donald Trump’s comments have made me almost literally hopping mad. The hot-mic comments from 2005 are especially horrifying. Can there be any question we should denounce them with flailing arms and screeching volume? I must not hang out in the right locker rooms, because if anyone I know said such things I might assault him physically (and repent later). So yes, many see these comments as a deal breaker.

But we have a very knotty and larger problem. What if the other candidate also has deal breakers? Even a whole deplorable basketful? Suddenly things become horribly awkward. Would God want me simply not to vote? Is that a serious option?

-What if not pulling the lever for Mr. Trump effectively means electing someone who has actively enabled sexual predation in her husband before—and while—he was president?

-Won’t God hold me responsible for that? What if she defended a man who raped a 12-year-old and in recalling the case laughed about getting away with it? Will I be excused from letting this person become president?

-What if she used her position as secretary of state to funnel hundreds of millions into her own foundation, much of it from nations that treat women and gay people worse than dogs? Since these things are true, can I escape responsibility for them by simply not voting?

Many say they won’t vote because choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. But this is sophistry. Neither candidate is pure evil. They are human beings. We cannot escape the uncomfortable obligation to soberly choose between them.

if

Not voting—or voting for a third candidate who cannot win—is a rationalization designed more than anything to assuage our consciences. Yet people in America and abroad depend on voters to make this very difficult choice.

Children in the Middle East are forced to watch their fathers drowned in cages by ISIS. Kids in inner-city America are condemned to lives of poverty, hopelessness and increasing violence. Shall we sit on our hands and simply trust “the least of these” to God, as though that were our only option? Don’t we have an obligation to them?

Two heroes about whom I’ve written faced similar difficulties. William Wilberforce, who ended the slave trade in the British Empire, often worked with other parliamentarians he knew to be vile and immoral in their personal lives.

Why did he? First, because as a sincere Christian he knew he must extend grace and forgiveness to others, since he desperately needed them himself. Second, because he knew the main issue was not his moral purity, nor the moral impurity of his colleagues, but rather the injustices and horrors suffered by the African slaves whose cause he championed. He knew that before God his first obligation was to them, and he must do what he could to help them.

The anti-Nazi martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer also did things most Christians of his day were disgusted by. He most infamously joined a plot to kill the head of his government. He was horrified by it, but he did it nonetheless because he knew that to stay “morally pure” would allow the murder of millions to continue. Doing nothing or merely “praying” was not an option. He understood that God was merciful, and that even if his actions were wrong, God saw his heart and could forgive him. But he knew he must act.

Wilberforce and Bonhoeffer knew it was an audience of One to whom they would ultimately answer. And He asks, “What did you do to the least of these?”

 

It’s a fact that if Hillary Clinton is elected, the country’s chance to have a Supreme Court that values the Constitution—and the genuine liberty and self-government for which millions have died—is gone. Not for four years, or eight, but forever.

Many say Mr. Trump can’t be trusted to deliver on this score, but Mrs. Clinton certainly can be trusted in the opposite direction. For our kids and grandkids, are we not obliged to take our best shot at this? Shall we sit on our hands and refuse to choose?

If imperiously flouting the rules by having a private server endangered American lives and secrets and may lead to more deaths, if she cynically deleted thousands of emails, and if her foreign-policy judgment led to the rise of Islamic State, won’t refusing to vote make me responsible for those suffering as a result of these things?

vote

How do I squirm out of this horrific conundrum? It’s unavoidable: We who can vote must answer to God for these people, whom He loves. We are indeed our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers.

We would be responsible for passively electing someone who champions the abomination of partial-birth abortion, someone who is celebrated by an organization that sells baby parts. We already live in a country where judges force bakers, florists and photographers to violate their consciences and faith—and Mrs. Clinton has zealously ratified this. If we believe this ends with bakers and photographers, we are horribly mistaken. No matter your faith or lack of faith, this statist view of America will dramatically affect you and your children.

For many of us, this is very painful, pulling the lever for someone many think odious. But please consider this: A vote for Donald Trump is not necessarily a vote for Donald Trump himself. It is a vote for those who will be affected by the results of this election. Not to vote is to vote. God will not hold us guiltless.

Netanyahu Delivered Just What Obama Feared

Netanyahu Delivered Just What Obama Feared

Israel’s prime minister delivered a sober reminder of the risks of dealing with Iran—and painted Obama as naive in the process.

 Netanyahu was hailed in the House chamber like a conquering hero. The moment felt, well, presidential.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks about Iran during a joint meeting of Congress in the House chamber at the U.S. Capitol. At the risk of further straining the relationship between Israel and the Obama administration, Netanyahu warned members of Congress against what he considers an ill-advised nuclear deal with Iran.(Win McNamee/Getty Images)

March 3, 2015 Congressional Republicans haven’t had many victories in their lasting conflict with President Obama, but Tuesday brought one. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s somber, provocative speech to Congress checked all the boxes.

It called into question the efficacy of any deal the administration might strike with Iran over its nuclear program; it likely renewed momentum for another round of Iranian sanctions on the Hill; it positioned the GOP politically as the party more worried about Israeli security, and, despite the White House’s best efforts, made the president appear petty and churlish.

Obama, in an interview with Reuters, had dismissed the speech as a “distraction,” and aides made sure everyone knew he would be too busy to watch it. But if the president didn’t cast an eye at a TV, he might have been the only person in Washington not to. And that’s the problem.

For weeks, the White House has worked steadily to write the speech off as a thinly veiled Republican ploy to undermine the delicate negotiations with Iran. But network coverage treated it for what it was: the head of state of a critical ally delivering a controversial address on American soil. That served the interests of both House Speaker John Boehner, who was the impetus behind the speech, and Netanyahu, elevating both of them while key Democrats such as Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren stayed offstage.

 Netanyahu was hailed in the House chamber like a conquering hero. The moment felt, well, presidential. He smartly rose to the occasion by taking time to thank Obama’s various and sometimes under-publicized efforts on Israel’s behalf. “I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support,” he said.

Then, to little surprise, he quickly reminded Congress and the public at large of Iranian threats to annihilate Israel and kill its citizens. But beyond that, he painted a picture of a global, existential struggle against religious extremism using the kind of loaded language that Obama won’t touch. He said Iran is a regime “hijacked by religious zealots” who are on an ideological mission to wage “jihad.”

Netanyahu suggested that “Western diplomats”—such as Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, who is driving the talks—are naive and are being charmed and duped by feints toward a nuclear agreement. The Iranian regime will always be “an enemy” of America. “Don’t be fooled,” he said. He said Iran is no different than ISIS, even though Iranian forces are fighting now to free the Iraqi city of Tikrit. “The enemy of your enemy is your enemy,” he said.

In that context, Netanyahu argued that any deal struck by Obama and Kerry would fail to significantly slow Iran’s nuclear program and instead would “guarantee” that Tehran would obtain nuclear weapons. He profoundly disagreed with administration assessments on how soon Iran could build a bomb if it chose to break the compact with the United States and its allies. He was dismissive of Obama’s belief that it isn’t realistic to expect Iran to completely dismantle its program.

The potential deal, Netanyahu said, “does not block Iran’s path to the bomb. It paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”

He called on the West to keep sanctions in place until Iran shifts in tone and behavior. “If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country,” he said. “This is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. We’re better off without it.” That prompted an ovation.

In short, Netanyahu accomplished everything Republicans wanted and the White House feared. Polls show that the American public is skeptical of Iran’s motives in striking a deal, and the Israeli prime minister stoked those suspicions. Obama has taken a large—and likely a legacy-defining—risk in advocating for the talks. And Netanyahu reminded the world of just how large a risk it is.

The president’s challenge in that regard just got tougher. And it doesn’t help that he didn’t bother to engage with Netanyahu at all. In the interview with Reuters, Obama clung to the notion that he didn’t want to affect the outcome of Israeli elections in two weeks, even as he suggested that Netanyahu’s judgment with regard to Iran couldn’t be trusted.

Yes, the speech to Congress was, at heart, a propaganda piece, one carefully orchestrated by Obama’s adversaries. But that didn’t make it any less effective. And it was one whose aftereffects this White House could be feeling for a long time.

Obama is doing it out of revenge

Illegals-are-illegal copy

“To the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell’s heart, I stab at thee; For hate’s sake, I spit my last breath at thee.”   -Captain Ahab in Moby Dick

 

Obama is doing it out of revenge.

By Mario Murillo

Listen to me America.   You must wake up!  What is a man of God if he does not warn when the Lord tells him to speak out?  tonight is the eve of a great misery.  I hate to bear evil tidings but everything within me tells me I must warn you.  Obama is obsessed with hurting us in that way that Captain Ahab was obsessed with killing the whale Moby Dick.

He knows it will bitterly divide the nation.  He knows that it will destroy an already fragile economy. He knows it will take jobs away from black people.  He knows it will overwhelm all social agencies.  He knows it will increase crime.   In short, he knows that there are few things he could ever do that would hurt the nation he swore to protect as much as what he is about to do…but he will do it anyway and make no mistake, he is doing it to hurt you and those you love.

Obama is about to bring upon us the most preventable disaster in our history.  He is not doing it for humanitarian reasons.  He is doing it completely out of spite and revenge.

adult-illegal-immigrants

He is vicious, full of rage and will take his revenge.  He will eviscerate the Constitution.  He will do whatever he can to hurt us now that we rejected him.  The midterm elections enraged him because the opposition voted against his policies and his own base, disillusioned with him, stayed home.  It was the final humiliation for an utterly narcissistic president.

So with one sweep of his pen he will take his revenge on you and your children.  He will create an illegal law to legalize 5 million illegal immigrants.  He will tell the world to just sneak in here and take our dwindling resources. He will take the money of hard working Americans and give it to 5 million people who are illegally here.

jmOneNationUnderSocialism 001

He is bringing upon you and your children the most preventable disaster in our history.  He is not doing this for humanitarian reasons.  He has proven that he does not care about illegal immigrants.  From 2008 till 2010 Democrats had control of the House, the Senate and the White House and did nothing.  They could have passed comprehensive immigration reform but they did not, he did not.

He can wait but he won’t.  He is only interested in illegal immigrants now because they can hurt those he hates.

He can give the new Congress a chance but he won’t. To the last he will rage against us, to the bitter end he will show malice and depraved indifference.

Wake up my friend!  It is time for the entire church to become one voice of righteousness in America.  Time is up, what we do we must do right now.

The dictatorship continues in America

dictatorship copy

One of the architect of Obamacare said that it passed because of the stupidity of voters. Howard Kurtz, host of the Fox News Channel’s “Mediabuzz” slammed the media for failing to report the controversial comments of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber, arguing that the “inexcusable,” “virtual blackout” was an example of liberal media bias on Wednesday’s “O’Reilly Factor” on the Fox News Channel.

“It’s been a virtual blackout, Bill, and it’s inexcusable, nothing on the network evening newscasts.  One mention on CNN, not a word in the New York Times. On what planet is this kind of embarrassing admission not news?  Maybe on that comet where the spaceship just landed” he stated.

After O’Reilly argued “you don’t really get the news if it goes against the liberal orthodoxy, and this is proof,” Kurtz responded, “I cannot argue on this. I think it’s gotten more pronounced during the Obama administration and by the way you mentioned MSNBC. Jonathan Gruber goes on the afternoon show there and talks to Ronan Farrow who has got zero journalistic experience…my 9-year-old daughter could have conducted a better interview with Jonathan Gruber.”

Related:

pelosi

Nancy Pelosi claimed Thursday she didn’t know who ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber is, after several tapes surfaced showing him gloating about how the law was written to take advantage of the stupidity of the American voter.

Problem is, Gruber’s analysis of the law was cited extensively by her office back in 2009.

Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, tried to downplay Gruber’s role during a press conference on Thursday.

She claimed she doesn’t know who he is, and that he didn’t help write the law. “Let’s put him aside,” she said.

However, Gruber was involved in the process – as his newly surfaced remarks make clear – and his analysis indeed was cited by Pelosi’s office when she was House speaker in late 2009.

At the time, her office put out a “health insurance reform mythbuster” press release pointing to the work of “noted MIT health care economist Jonathan Gruber” in examining the House bill’s impact on premiums. They noted that Gruber found it “would result in lower premiums than under current law for the millions of Americans using the newly-established Health Insurance Exchange.”

Pelosi also mentioned Gruber during a press conference at the time.

Still, when the press release was brought to Pelosi’s office’s attention on Thursday, aides indicated she does not know him – as she does not know everyone they have cited on their website.

And her spokesman claimed Gruber was not technically a bill author. “We’ve cited the work of dozens upon dozens of economists over the years. As the Leader said today, Mr. Gruber played no role in drafting our bill,” Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said.

Democrats have been putting some distance between themselves and Gruber after a series of recordings – mostly from 2012 and 2013 – have surfaced showing him bad-mouthing American voters.

The latest shows him speaking at the University of Rhode Island in 2012 about the law’s so-called “Cadillac tax.” The “Cadillac tax” mandates that insurance companies be taxed rather than policy holders. He said that taxing individuals would have been “politically impossible,” but taxing the companies worked because Americans didn’t understand the difference.

“So basically it’s the same thing,” he said. “We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”

The new video follows another showing him speaking on a similar topic at an October 2013 event at Washington University in St. Louis. Referring to the “Cadillac tax,” he said: “They proposed it and that passed, because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference.” He also has said a lack of transparency helped the law pass. 

Watch video of Jonathan Gruber

Young Hispanics are turning sharply against President Obama. Millennials do not trust either party

Millennials Bolt Obama for GOP in Midterms

Long term, the future American electorate isn’t sold on either party.

(Harvard Model Congress)

October 29, 2014 In a stunning turnaround, likely voters in the so-called millennial generation prefer a Republican-led Congress after next week’s elections, and young Hispanics are turning sharply against President Obama.

A new national poll of 18-to-29-year-olds by Harvard’s Institute of Politics shows that young Americans are leaving the new Democratic coalition that twice elected Obama. The news is little better for the GOP: These voters, who more than any other voting bloc represent the future of the American electorate, generally hold Republicans in the lowest regard.

The long-view IOP findings suggest that neither party is poised to win the largest generation in U.S. history—a pragmatic, demanding, relatively nonideological electorate raised in an age of terrorism, war, and government dysfunction.

“Millennials could be a critical swing vote,” said IOP Director Maggie Williams, projecting the latest results on future elections. “Candidates for office: Ignore millennial voters at your peril.” Williams is a Democrat and a former adviser to Hillary Clinton.

In the short term, the news is worse for Democrats than Republicans.

  • Millennials who told the IOP they will “definitely be voting” Tuesday favored Republicans over Democrats, 51 percent to 47 percent. That is a reversal of September 2010 results, when the IOP found Democrats favored over Republicans among young likely voters, 55 percent to 43 percent.
  • Obama’s job-approval rating among millennials decreased from 47 percent in April to 43 percent, his second-lowest rating in the IOP surveys. Among young Americans most likely to vote, his job-approval rating is just 42 percent.
  • Obama’s job approval is below 40 percent on several issues, including the economy, health care, the federal budget deficit, and foreign policy. Nearly six of 10 young Americans disapprove of Obamacare.
  • Among the one in four millennial voters who say they definitely will vote Tuesday, Republican-leaning constituencies are significantly more enthusiastic about the election than Democrats.
  • Just 49 percent of young Hispanics approve of Obama’s job performance, the lowest since IOP began tracking in 2009. That’s a big drop from six months ago, when his rating among young Hispanics was 60 percent, and five years ago, when 81 percent of Hispanic millennials approved of Obama’s performance. Only 17 percent of Hispanic youth plan to vote Tuesday, far smaller than the non-Hispanic percentages and likely a reflection of frustration over stalled immigration reform.

Disclosure: I’m a member of the IOP’s senior advisory committee, a position that gives me an appreciation for the 26 millennial surveys produced since 2000. The latest KnowledgePanel survey, conducted with the Government and Academic research team of GfK, involved 2,029 18-to-29-year-old U.S. citizens between Sept. 26 and Oct. 9.

John Della Volpe, director of the IOP surveys, said the sweep of the work convinces him that Democrats and Republicans are losing the next generation. “Both parties should reintroduce themselves to young voters, empower them, and seek their participation in the upcoming 2016 campaign and beyond,” he said.

For instance, millennials hate government gridlock. Asked on “whom do you place the most blame regarding the political gridlock in Washington,” a whopping 56 percent said, “All of them.”

Congressional Republicans were blamed by 22 percent, compared with 13 percent who blamed Obama and just 5 percent who blamed Democrats in Congress.

While the GOP holds the upper hand Tuesday among likely young voters, millennials overall are more inclined to approve of Democrats in Congress than Republicans, 35 percent to 23 percent.

Less than 10 percent of millennials identify themselves as tea-party supporters. Millennials narrowly favor Democrats over Republicans to handle the economy, immigration, foreign policy, race relations, and even health care.

Young voters traditionally split between the two major parties, as they did in 2000 and 2002. Two wars and Hurricane Katrina under an unpopular President George W. Bush drove millennials to Obama’s promise of change and can-do bipartisanship. He didn’t live up to his hype, and by2013, many young voters were walking away from Obama and Democrats amid revelations about the administration’s domestic spying programs and the botched launch of Obamacare.

Obamacare: Destined to fall under its own weight.

obamacare-train-wreck

Vulnerable Democrats casting wary eyes at Obamacare and 2014 election

BY NOEMIE EMERY | NOVEMBER 5, 2013 AT 4:53 PM

Some on the Left have been noting with pleasure that advocates on the Right have now dropped calls to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, whose affordable nature is called into question and whose protection most patients attempt to avoid.

They’re right. But why shouldn’t they, when the act, with its built-in store of perverse incentives, has done so well at repealing itself?

The act is being repealed, piece by piece and in increments, by courts, by circumstance and by its own incoherence.

Last week, the website shut down for still more repair work, a court threw out the mandate that forced business owners to pay for employees’ access to abortion facilities, and the 16 or so million people who buy their own health plans, who found their coverage ended or the prices increased, found their voice as a mad-as-hell pressure group.

President Obama thought he’d be home free when new enrollees began receiving government benefits; he forgot he created a huge pool of losers — prosperous, articulate and including some journalists — who know how to pressure the government.

In one week, this “settled law” got a lot more unsettled. Obama, wrote Jules Witcover in the Baltimore Sun, “faces the prospect of spending the rest of his second term distracted by the imperative of defending the law all over again, amid evidence that Republican warnings of its impracticability were not all partisan ranting. … Just as the Nixon tapes … kept alive the Watergate calamity … Obamacare seems destined to haunt its parent throughout his White House tenure and beyond.”

Being haunted by health care all over again after being put through a wringer in the 2009-2010 cycle is a bridge too far for a number of Democrats, some of whom are starting a call for, if not quite “delay, repeal and replace,” at least “delay, change, but for God’s sake do something.”

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who must face re-election in 2014, says she’s drafting a bill allowing the self-insured to keep their old policies.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and nine other senators asked Obama to delay the enrollment period deadline beyond March 31.

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., is joining Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., in writing a bill to delay the imposition of penalties until 2015, and suggests other changes are needed:

“They’d better be worried about having a product,” he said in a New York Times interview. “Affordable health care means trying to get more people insurance. … Making people who had insurance buy a different product that costs more for less coverage? You can’t … defend that.”

To many Democrats, this sounds like 2010 redux, except for two ominous things: The employer mandate, set for next year, may cancel existing plans for as many as 93 million Americans just in time for 2014 midterms, and Obama is no longer the force that he was.

In 2009-2010, he was still the boy wonder, so crippling him at the start of his term was considered unthinkable and opposing his signature act was a sin.

In 2014, he’ll be battered and dinged, a lame duck on his way out, his personal approval ratings down around 40 percent for the first time ever. And this is before he was known to have lied about Americans being able to keep their coverage.

By 2014, opposing him may be tempting even for Democrats. “What we’re seeing,” a New Hampshire political scientist told Richard Cowen of Reuters, is Shaheen “trying to limit her personal downside.” If going out on a limb for Obama starts getting risky, she’ll go back to the trunk of the tree.

So may large numbers of dubious squirrels. For the future of health care, cast your eyes leftward. For the time being, cherchez les Dems.

OFFICIAL OBAMACARE FACEBOOK ERUPTS WITH CITIZEN STICKER SHOCK

OBAMACARE FACEBOOK ERUPTS WITH CITIZEN STICKER SHOCK

countdown-to-obamacare INSERT

On Thursday, the government’s official Obamacare Facebook page was riddled with people expressing sticker shock over the government’s high cost premiums after struggling for hours to wade through the technical failures vexing Obamacare exchanges all across the country.

“I am so disappointed,” wrote one woman. “These prices are outrageous and there are huge deductibles. No one can afford this!” The comment received 169 “likes.”

“There is NO WAY I can afford it,” said one commenter after using the Kaiser Subsidy Calculator. “Heck right now I couldn’t afford an extra 10$ [sic] a month…and oh apparently I make to [sic] much at 8.55/hour to get subsidies.”

Another person shared a link found on the federal government’s main Obamacare page listing premium estimates for small business employers:

The information is not very complete as I don’t see anything about deductible or other detailed info, but it does given an actual price as to the “Premium.” It is VERY SCARY!! For example, my insurance plan right now for my spouse and I costs $545 a month with 100% coverage after my $2500 deductible. We are both 32 years old. When I looked at this site for 80% coverage it says it will be $954.78 a month!!!! So compare my old Plan: 100% coverage for $545 a month To New Plan: 80% Coverage for $945 a month. This is only only an estimate but it is VERY Scary for me to see this kind of increase in rates and reduction in benefits!

A single mother of two said she is in school and working full-time while living “75% below the poverty level.” She said she was shocked to learn she did not qualify for a healthcare subsidy. “Are you F’ing kidding me????” she wrote on the government’s Obamacare Facebook page. “Where the HELL am I supposed to get $3,000 more a year to pay for this ‘bronze’ health insurance plan!?!??? And I DO NOT EVEN WANT INSURANCE to begin with!! This is frightening,” she wrote.

Amid scores of comments expressing frustration with technical failures, one woman said she is “just amazed you could even get to the point of seeing pricing” and that she had been trying to access the system for three days to no avail.

Obamacare sticker shock will not affect millions of low-income Americans; a New York Times analysis published on Wednesday found that Obamacare “will leave out two-thirds of the poor blacks and single mothers and more than half of the low-wage workers who do not have insurance, the very kinds of people that the program was intended to help.”

Obamacare will cost taxpayers an estimated $2.6 trillion over the next 10 years.