SPIRITUALIZING DESERTION

SPIRITUALIZING DESERTION

By Mario Murillo

 

Edmund Burke said “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

There are pastors who refuse to vote for Trump because they believe that God is bringing judgement to America through Hillary Clinton.  I find their viewpoint abhorrent but I can at least respect their honesty:  They admit their non-vote helps elect Hillary Clinton.  What I cannot stomach are those who won’t admit it.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, makes certain anti-Trump ministers more defensive than to tell them that if they don’t vote for Trump, they are voting for Hillary.  The quasi-religious hissy fit that ensues is truly remarkable.   They will uncork an exercise in mental gymnastics that exceeds anything we have seen at the Rio Olympics.   They will pour out high-sounding religious non sequitur like a cuttlefish squirting ink.  Pastor why not just admit the obvious?  You are helping Hillary.

Earth to Pastors: There are only two candidates for president.  The one with the most electoral votes wins.  Take a deep breath and try it again: Only Clinton or Trump will be elected president.  All of the others on the ballot are window dressing.  None of them can win.

Here is simple science: When you are down to two choices if you do not help one  you are helping the other one.

We have no doubt what will happen if Hillary wins.  She has made it clear she will continue the Obama disaster.

Trump is not the perfect candidate—he is the only candidate.  Trump is not the best choice—he is the only choice.

Okay, we admit it.  We are accusing you of: HELPING HILLARY WIN.

At least be truthful about why you are not voting for Trump.  You don’t like him.  You wanted Ted Cruz… which is strange—if I you are using the standard “I won’t choose the lesser of two evils” escape clause—because Mr. Cruz comes with baggage also.

Be honest: Just admit that your religious fever means more to you than the damage Hillary will do to America.  Don’t tell us you are being noble if you are spiritualizing desertion.  You are not taking a moral stand when you deny the damage of your decision.

LOS ANGELES, CA - JULY 18: Laura Ingraham visits Extra at The Grove on July 18, 2011 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Noel Vasquez/Getty Images for Extra)

Laura Ingraham told us what you are really doing when you waste  your vote:

“It means aligning yourself, at least temporarily, with left-wing nightmares Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and all the other radicals who want Trump to lose.

It means turning a deaf ear to your fellow Americans who can’t take four more years of decline, and who are desperate for new leadership.

It means allowing another four or eight years of flat-lining wages and growth, and high taxes on American businesses.

It means hardening your heart against people those who have spent 40 years trying to stop abortion.

It means rejecting the advice of Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and the vast majority of elected Republican officials — all of whom are supporting Trump.

It means doing nothing when The New York Times, and The Washington Post, and every other left-wing outlet mocks and ridicules the Trump supporters as racists and bigots.

It means cheering (silently or not) along with every smear and every snide comment that Hollywood and the media can use to attack Trump’s voters.

That’s the choice the NeverTrumpers have made — a decision to do nothing, to wash their hands of the election, of the Republican Party, of the country itself.”

All it takes for evil to win is for Christians to do nothing.  Don’t tell me that you won’t vote for the lesser of two evils when you are helping elect the greatest evil.

 

The Morality of Voting for Trump

The Morality of Voting for Trump

#NeverTrumpers fails to persuade as Dems focus on helping their candidate win

by Laura Ingraham | Updated 12 Aug 2016 at 1:57 PM

Knowing what we know about Hillary Clinton and her plans for America, and the importance of the Supreme Court, we conservatives have a moral obligation to both oppose her and support Donald Trump.

That’s the choice the NeverTrumpers have made — a decision to do nothing.

This is the sentiment I expressed on Sean Hannity’s television show Thursday that has sent some #NeverTrump conservatives into a tizzy. Ben Shapiro is the latest in a long line of mostly Acela-corridor Republicans who spend much of their days “see-I-told-you-so’ing” about Trump.

Shapiro responded on behalf of Team #NeverTrump Friday in a piece titled “Hannity, Ingraham Say It’s Immoral Not to Vote Trump. Here Are 3 Reasons They’re Wrong,” published in the Daily Wire.

Here are his three arguments, none of which is persuasive:

1. Electing Trump as president will do more damage to the country in the long run because a Trump presidency would be the end of conservatism.
Really? What conservatism is that? The conservatism that ran up huge deficits in the 2000s? The conservatism that encouraged illegal immigration? The conservatism that pushed trade policies that led to the rise of China? The conservatism that rolled over for Obama on issue after issue? The conservatism that does whatever The Wall Street Journal editorial page wants? The conservatism of Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain? That conservatism won’t be around anymore? Good.

Those are reasons to support Trump, not reasons to fear him. Over the last 25 years, the conservative movement has failed to win a single election against Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. They failed to stop social liberalism. They failed to stop the rise of China. They failed to shrink the federal government, balance the federal budget, return power to the states, or generally do any of the things that GOP voters wanted them to do.

Now, peeved and spiteful that the base no longer trusts them to do almost anything, they are supporting Hillary Clinton — a radical liberal whose 25 years on the national stage have been an absolute disaster for the average American.

If ending this record of failure, and launching a new conservatism that actually tries to help working-class Americans, is one of the consequences of the Trump campaign, then that campaign will have been well worth it.

2. There are costs to supporting Trump if he loses.
They’re worried about conservatism being tainted by Trump? Were they there when the housing bubble collapsed in 2008, and the nation watched in horror as a Republican president struggled to explain why the U.S. economy was in free fall? Were they there when the Bush administration disbanded the Iraqi military, which made stabilizing that sectarian quicksand impossible? Were they there when Republicans were crushed in the 2006 and 2008 elections — in large part because they could make no defense of the Bush administration? Of course they were.

To this day, conservatism is tainted by its association with the Bush administration — and yet the GOP re-took the House in 2010, and re-gained the Senate in 2014. If conservatives can overcome eight years of disastrous policies that left this country crying out for Barack Obama, of all people, they can certainly overcome Donald Trump.

 3. Your vote is a moral instrument, not just an instrument of policy.
Yes, it is. Voting for Trump means that when your country had been in decline for almost two decades, and you had the chance to set the country on a different course, you took it.

Voting for Trump means that when you finally had the chance to end the corrupt and decadent Clinton machine, you took it.

Voting for Trump means that when you had the chance to write in the history books that the country had rejected the last eight years of President Obama, you took it.

Voting for Trump means that when you had the chance to save the First Amendment, and the Second Amendment, and to restore the proper checks and balances that are at risk from another Clinton administration, you took it.

Voting for Trump means that when you had the chance to stand up to pro-China billionaires who make money off of a global system that is rigged in favor of a Chinese dictatorship, and rigged against the American worker, you took it.

Voting for Trump means saying yes to a 15 percent top corporate tax rate, which will boost American wages and jobs.

Voting for Trump means that we know how critical the Supreme Court is and if we lose it, game’s over on many of the policies and principles we’ve been fighting for decades.

Is Trump perfect? Of course not. Do you know how many perfect presidents we’ve had? Zero. In the real world, if you want to be a citizen — and have the responsibilities of a citizen — you have to be a grown-up, and you have to recognize that life presents us with difficult choices.

Voting for Trump means fighting against the ennui and decline that is destroying this country.

Voting for Trump does not mean that you agree with everything he says, or that you never criticize him. It does not mean giving up your right to disagree with him — or even oppose him — when he does something you think is wrong. Does anyone think that Paul Ryan — who is supporting Trump — will simply be a rubber stamp for Trump’s policies? Does anyone think that the numerous GOP Senators who support Trump will blindly follow wherever he leads? Of course not.

The NeverTrumpers like to pretend that Trump’s supporters are weak-minded simpletons who don’t understand how politics works. But the truth is that those of us who support Trump understand all too well the reality of the choice that faces us, and are doing the best we can to save this country.

On the other hand, not voting for Trump — and hoping that he loses — also represents a moral choice:

It means being worried every time you hear a story suggesting that Hillary still faces real hurdles before Election Day and could still lose this.

It means aligning yourself, at least temporarily, with left-wing nightmares Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and all the other radicals who want Trump to lose.

It means turning a deaf ear to your fellow Americans who can’t take four more years of decline, and who are desperate for new leadership.

It means allowing another four or eight years of flat-lining wages and growth, and high taxes on American businesses.

It means hardening your heart against people those who have spent 40 years trying to stop abortion.

It means rejecting the advice of Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and the vast majority of elected Republican officials — all of whom are supporting Trump.

It means doing nothing when The New York Times, and The Washington Post, and every other left-wing outlet mocks and ridicules the Trump supporters as racists and bigots.

It means cheering (silently or not) along with every smear and every snide comment that Hollywood and the media can use to attack Trump’s voters.

That’s the choice the NeverTrumpers have made — a decision to do nothing, to wash their hands of the election, of the Republican Party, of the country itself.

That may represent some people’s version of morality. But it’s not mine.

National Review’s Unwise Trump Excommunication

 unwise

National Review’s Unwise Trump Excommunication

By Laura Ingraham

National Review, in its issue dedicated to taking down GOP front-runner Donald Trump, has made a big mistake. With so much on the line for America, how is it smart to close the door to Trump’s voters and to populism in general?

The folks at NR launched a similar effort to excommunicate conservatives in 2003, with a much-hyped cover story titled “Unpatriotic Conservatives.” Back then it was Pat Buchanan and the now-deceased Bob Novak who were the targets. Former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum, a dear friend, made the case that these men and others who stood against our invasion of Iraq, had “made common cause with the left-wing and Islamist antiwar movements.” In other words, these “disgruntled paleos,” weren’t truly conservative because they opposed the war in Iraq.

As it turned out, of course, that small band of thinkers knew more about what was in the national interest than anyone at National Review or myself, who was also a strong advocate for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

“I never received an apology note,” Buchanan told me on my radio show. “They’re Davos conservatives,” he added, referencing the annual meeting of the world’s elites in Switzerland.

Whatever you think of Trump personally, his supporters are pushing for three big things:

  • A return to traditional GOP law and order practices when it comes to illegal immigration.
  • A return to a more traditional GOP foreign policy that would put the national interest ahead of globalism.
  • A return to a more traditional GOP trade policy that would analyze trade deals from the perspective of the country as a whole and not blindly support any deal — even one negotiated by President Obama.

On each of these issues, Trump’s voters are calling for a return to policies that were GOP orthodoxy as recently as the late 1990s.

The matriarch of the conservative movement, Phyllis Schlafly, who likes but isn’t endorsing Trump, put it this way: “I’m not going to tell you that Donald Trump is perfect, or right on everything … but immigration is the top issue today, and he’s the one who made it a front-burner issue.”

By refusing to make room for these ideas within conservatism, NR risks creating the impression that the revolution brought about by George W. Bush — in particular, his belief in open borders, his effort to create a permanent U.S. military mission in the Middle East, and his notion that trade can never be regulated, no matter how unfair — is now a permanent part of conservatism that can never be questioned. They are also inviting those who disagree with Bush on those points to leave conservatism and start seeking their allies elsewhere.

This is an absolute disaster for conservatism. It is obvious by now that Bushism — however well-intentioned it may appear on paper — does not work for the average American. It is also clear that Bushism has almost no support within the rank and file of the GOP, much less within the country as a whole. Making the tenets of Bushism into an orthodoxy that conservatives cannot question will cripple conservatism for years to come.

National Review’s Manhattan-based editors brand Trump as a “menace to conservatism” and even ding him for his “outer-borough” accent. But who really is the menace — the rough-edged Queens native or the smooth-talking GOP Establishment that has brought us open borders; massive giveaway trade deals; monstrous debt; bank bailouts; and a sprawling government that never stops expanding? The failure to ruthlessly oppose and defeat such existential threats to the country — and the passivity in the face of such peril — is the real menace to the credibility of conservatism.

National Review Editor Rich Lowry and his people will be left preaching their narrow doctrine to a smaller and smaller audience.

If blue-collar Americans are told that their concerns on immigration, trade, and foreign policy cannot be addressed within the conservative movement, they will look elsewhere — just as they looked elsewhere in the late 1960s after they learned that their problems couldn’t be addressed within liberalism. National Review Editor Rich Lowry and his people will be left preaching their narrow doctrine to a smaller and smaller audience.

Portrait
Portrait

There is room for all voices in the GOP “big tent” — including relative newcomers like Trump, who has garnered such a following. That’s why I have an open door on my radio show to everyone from Marco Rubio to Ted Cruz. (We look forward to having Lowry on radio soon.)

Back in 2008, another populist was running for president, and ended up winning the Iowa caucuses. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who’s running again in 2016, sympathized with Trump in the NR dust-up. Recalling that the publication also took after him during his primary fight with Arizona Sen. John McCain, he said, “This is a fool-hearty effort … [by] the elitists who live in their own little bubble.”

NR is “completely out of touch … [and] represents big business, not the American people,” he added, noting NR’s support for the 5,500-page Trans-Pacific Partnership. “Out here in Iowa, they are not representative and their views are not representative.”

Of course there is ample room to criticize Trump’s approach and his lapse into sloganeering where substance is needed — as I have done on many occasions. But if NR rejects the Trump voters, it will be reversing the decision by Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, and others to welcome blue-collar voters, Democrats, and independents into the conservative fold. Whatever that means for the country, it will do major damage to conservatism. If the conservative movement devotes itself to defending the legacy of George W. Bush at all costs, it will become irrelevant to the debate over how to make things better for most Americans.

In the end, NR’s attempted hit-job on Trump won’t won’t matter much. Folks who like Trump will continue to like him. Those who don’t will feel reconfirmed in their views. One of the many reasons I loved Reagan is that he understood how important it was to grow the conservative movement.

“Conservatism,” Reagan biographer Craig Shirley said, “transcends any individual or organization, because it’s ultimately about the God-inspired belief that we are destined to be free.”