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.

Falwell Hails Trump as the ‘Churchillian’ Leader the United States Needs

Falwell Hails Trump as the ‘Churchillian’ Leader the United States Needs

By Sandy Fitzgerald | Saturday, 20 Aug 2016 09:37 AM

Donald Trump is the “Churchillian” leader the United States needs, and is the clear choice in a “historic” presidential race that does not pit an establishment Republican against a liberal Democrat, Jerry Falwell Jr., one of Donald Trump’s early presidential race endorsers writes in an opinion piece for The Washington Post.

“We are at a crossroads where our first priority must be saving our nation,” writes Falwell, the president of Liberty University. “We need a leader with qualities that resemble those of Winston Churchill, and I believe that leader is Donald Trump. As Churchill did, Trump possesses the resolve to put his country first and to never give up in a world that is increasingly hostile to our values.”

President Barack Obama and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, his one-term secretary of State, remind Falwell of another historical character: Neville Chamberlain, the British Conservative prime minister who is is best known for signing the Munich Agreement in 1938, relinquishing a region of Czechoslovakia to Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime.

 

And, he writes, the nation’s $150 billion nuclear deal with Iran will clear the way for that country, “the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world and a nation committed to the destruction of Israel,” to become a nuclear power. The deal reminds Falwell of Chamberlain’s deal with Hitler.

Falwell points out in his opinion piece that Americans were “forced to choose” between a liberal Democrat [Barack Obama] and “weak establishment Republicans” [John McCain and Mitt Romney] in 2008 and 2012. After Obama won, Americans in the 2010 and 2014 midterms put Republicans in control of Congress, but “still nothing changed,” Falwell writes.

In addition, he says, the policies of Obama and Clinton had the “intended or unintended” effect of breathing life into the Islamic State, and the “feckless establishment” GOP-led Congress enabled them.

Obama and Clinton also pushed the nation’s debt to $19 trillion, and law enforcement has been “demonized” by them, he continues.

Falwell warns in his article there will be “dire consequences” if Americans don’t unite between Trump and his running mate, Indiana Gov Mike Pence.

“If Clinton appoints the next few Supreme Court justices, not only will the Second Amendment right to bear arms be effectively lost, but also activist judges will rewrite our Constitution in ways that would make it unrecognizable to our founders,” said Falwell.

 

More evidence that Hillary will be prosecuted

 BROKE copy

MORE EVIDENCE HILLARY WILL BE PROSECUTED

For months Hillary Clinton had tried to shrug off allegations that she may have committed crimes by hosting potentially classified emails on a private server while secretary of state. She even laughed at the notion that she could be prosecuted.

But now former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has come forward with a shocking legal opinion that could be a game-changer for the Clinton campaign. He believes “that the FBI will recommend prosecution.”

“Simply put, Mrs. Clinton is already in just as bad — or worse — of a legal situation than [General David] Petraeus faced,” Cuccinelli wrote in a recent op-ed for the New York Post. 

Petraeus, former CIA director, pleaded guilty to federal charges for passing classified information to a woman he was having an affair with.

Many political insiders have long believed that Clinton is essentially untouchable. But as Cuccinelli explains, “FBI Director James Comey has a long history of ignoring political pressure” and will almost assuredly recommend charging Clinton for her illegal handling of classified emails.

After that, it would be up to the Justice Department to either ignore the FBI’s recommendations, which could cause embarrassment for the department, or prosecute Clinton. It remains unclear whether President Obama or his administration would try to prevent a prosecution from going forward.

This week, Clinton’s email controversy continued to deepen. In July, State Department officials installed a safe at the office of attorney David Kendall after the government determined some of Clinton’s emails may have contained classified information.

Now they’re admitting the safe wasn’t suitable for so-called top secret, sensitive compartmented information, known as TS/SCI, which the government has said was found in some messages.

This latest development r underscores how even the nation’s diplomatic apparatus didn’t anticipate Clinton would have sent or received such highly sensitive information on her private email server while secretary of state. Questions about her use of such a server have at times dominated her White House run.

Since then, the State Department has indicated through Freedom of Information Act releases of Clinton’s emails that dozens of messages that passed through her private server were later deemed classified, and two emails have since been slapped with a “TK” marking, for the “talent keyhole” compartment, suggesting material obtained by spy satellites, according to the inspector general for the intelligence community. They also were marked “NOFORN,” meaning information that can only be shared with Americans with security clearances.