Donald Trump is not a prophet and certainly not a messiah

Donald Trump was chosen by God to save America!

I have seen this meme a few places, usually on Twitter. Technically, according to Romans 13, is is true that President Trump was put into power by God. But that also applies to Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi nationally, as well lower magistrates such as Rahm Emanuel. Internationally, it applies to Kim Jong Un. All earthly leaders have authority because it was delegated to them by God. They are all under the authority of God, whether they submit to Him or not. (For another example, see John 19:11.)

My problem with this meme is not arguing that Trump was put in place by God, because that is scripturally sound. My problem is using that as an excuse for idolatry. There is a significant cult of personality surrounding Trump, with many people treating him more as a religious leader than a political leader. Not only is this wicked idolatry, it misses a very important point about our President.

We need to be honest. Donald Trump is not a Christian. He openly admits he does not seek forgiveness from God, which is the very definition of being a Christian. (Keep in mind that I say this as a Trump supporter.) Trump has implemented some very good policies and is advocating for more good policies but Christians need to recognize that he is not one of us. It is pure hate for Trump to argue otherwise.

But for “christians” to hail Trump as some sort of emissary of God is wicked idolatry and God hates it. Trump is no messiah. God has been merciful in putting in power someone who has put the brakes on the Left’s culture war, and we should be thankful for that. But we are to worship the God who grants all earthly rulers their power, and never treat any earthly ruler as a messiah.

Trump told the truth at his “disastrous” press conference!

President Trump has been accused of “defending” white supremacists and neo-Nazis at his press conference this past week. I listened to his answers, and he did no such thing. I expect Leftists will attack Trump and distort what he said, but establishment Republicans need to stop being cowards and defend their President when he deserves to be defended. You will never be liked by the Left or the mainstream media!

In fact, I am surprised the sound bytes have been played and broadcast as often as they have, since the President completely clowned the media. This was one of the President’s best performances.

Of course Antifa (also called the “alt-left”) bears a lot of blame for the violence in Charlottesville. Had the Antifa thugs and criminals not violently attacked, there would have been no brawl. Obviously, they have the right to protest but the Antifa thugs and criminals absolutely wanted a fight.

The New York Times did a fraudulent “fact check” on Trump’s comparison:

But there is one stark difference between the violence on the two sides: The police said that James Alex Fields Jr. of Ohio drove his car into a crowd and killed at least one person, Heather Heyer. Mr. Fields was charged with second-degree murder.

Comparing Antifa to Mr. Fields’s act is like “comparing a propeller plane to a C-130 transport,” said Brian Levin, the director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino.

I would say this is shockingly dishonest, but we are talking about the fake news media here. President Trump never compared Antifa generally with Fields specifically. Al Drago is a liar.

Trump compared Antifa thugs generally with the white supremacist thugs generally, and he was absolutely right to do so. You had running street brawls (including at least one Antifa thug who made a makeshift flamethrower) between two sides that were looking for a fight. Of course there is blame on both sides and of course Trump is right to point this out. How is this controversial?

By saying that, I am obviously not defending the monster who drove his car into Leftist protesters. He should be executed and I personally volunteer to pull the switch on the electric chair to end his life.

The establishment Republicans bashing Trump for telling the truth are a bunch of cuckolded cowards. It is utterly disgusting to see them scatter for the hills when they have a real opportunity to target and attack the violent Antifa thugs that our President rightly condemned. Establishment Republicans are seeking the approval of people who will never support them, and will always try to tie them to neo-Nazis and white supremacists. It is a foolish, losing strategy.

Exploiting sex trafficking victims to kill free speech

When Congress passed the Communications Decency Act, they were shockingly forward-looking. They could not have anticipated the growth of the blogosphere and they certainly did not anticipate the influence of social media. But they did recognize that holding interactive content providers responsible for their users’ posts would be a serious threat to free speech and would have a major chilling effect on free speech online.

Of course, totalitarians always seek to restrict free speech, especially speech that is critical of politicians. Make no mistake about it: That, not protecting children, is the real reason there is a push to exempt sex trafficking from the general protections for interactive content providers.

See, politicians hate the Internet. They hate personal web sites, they hate blogs, they hate social media, they hate newspaper comment sections, and they hate anywhere that the great unwashed masses can freely express their opinion online. That is why they want to make interactive content providers worry they will be held liable if their users post something the government does not like. Today, it is sex trafficking – something that absolutely is a crime against humanity and should be subject to the death penalty.

But if you think that politicians will stop with and sex trafficking you are very naïve or you are deluding yourself. Like I said, politicians hate the fact that the average person can broadcast his views, especially criticism of politicians. Soon this precedent will be used to strip interactive content providers of protections related to “radicalized” or “terrorist” content. Government’s definition of that, of course, will be very broad. Do you oppose the cruelty to animals represented by dog fighting? Well, you must be part of the Animal Liberation Front. Say hello to the SWAT team.

Obviously, we should go after child sex traffickers hard. They should be caught, prosecuted, and, if convicted, put to death. I will even volunteer to personally pull the switch on the electric chair. But holding interactive content providers responsible for un-screened content posted by users is dangerous and that power will be abused to restrict much more speech than the proponents of this legislation claim it will. Google recognizes that, and that is why they oppose this legislation.

The idea that Google’s objection to amending the Communications Decency Act is some kind of support for child sex trafficking is the worst kind of dishonest smear tactic. Frankly, those who are accusing Google of defending child sex trafficking should be ashamed of themselves, both for the smears and for exploiting the victims of sex trafficking to grind a political axe or advance a political agenda. When “conservatives” are the ones doing it, the behavior is even more abominable. Conservatives need to hold ourselves to a higher standard, and not swim in the sewer like this.

Elitists will never understand why Donald Trump won

Leftist: “Donald Trump’s voters are a bunch of ignorant, racist, redneck, white trash, uneducated, xenophobic, trailer trash, whining victims. Now that I have explained this to them, why do Trump voters continue to ignore my wisdom and brilliant analysis?”

Well golly gee goodness guys, do you think maybe that your approach alienates them?

A few weeks ago, I explained how not to convert anti-Trump conservatives. Insulting voters who oppose Trump will not work and will backfire. The same is true, of course, for supporters of Trump. Insulting people and calling them names because they support a candidate and/or elected official you despise will not convince them they are wrong. This applies in spades to Trump voters, who have long felt that the coastal elites and power brokers look down on them with contempt.

That’s something folks like Charles M. Blow do not get. Trump voters saw him as their vessel to rebel against the elitists that look down on them, so when a columnist for the New York Times calls Trump voters a bunch of aggrieved whiners, their beliefs about the elite are reinforced. The most effective thing a New York Times opinion writer can do to shore up support for President Trump is to attack his base. As I said on Twitter, this is why you lost the election. This is also why you will lose in 2020.

Do you really not understand how human nature works? Have you never heard the expression that you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar? Yes, there are times when we have to be harsh in our words. But when you repeatedly insult a group of tens of millions of people with broad and sweeping generalizations, you are not going to convert them. Until you understand this, you will never win.

Trump sycophants take the coward’s way out

It is utterly absurd to whine that conservatives who have substantive criticisms of President Trump “wanted Hillary.”

First, allow me to let you in on a dirty little secret: Politically speaking, Hillary Clinton is dead. She will never be President. Using her for fear-mongering is not just intellectually dishonest, it is political necrophilia. Leave the corpse of her political career in the ground to rot, instead of repeatedly digging it back up. Let her fade into irrelevance where she belongs.

Whining that someone “wanted Hillary” is the coward’s way out. It does not address substantive criticisms of the President. It is a way to avoid a discussion someone deems inconvenient by putting Trump’s conservative critics on the defensive with a fraudulent attack. Using that line of attack demonstrates that one either cannot defend Trump’s antics or is afraid of a legitimate discussion of policy or behavior.

The 2016 election is over. The “binary choice” meme has expired. It is logically and factually invalid to continue to respond to substantive criticisms of the President by bringing up the choice between Trump and Hillary. There is no choice, because Hillary Clinton’s political career is over.

I have criticized President Trump since he took office, and I will continue to criticize Trump, because I want him to be better. I want him to succeed. Because his childish antics and Twitter tantrums get in the way of that, I want him to stop. There are many things in the Trump agenda that I support, and I do not want him to be in the way of those things getting passed and implemented.

It does not help President Trump when his sycophants mindlessly defend everything he does. If you truly support the President, you would want him to be the best President he can be. We have a unique opportunity to get a conservative agenda passed over the next four years. We must not waste it.

Stop funding a wicked, bloodthirsty abortion mill

Printed in the Bloomington Herald-Times, August 11, 2017

To the Editor:

Abortion is not a “small part” of what Planned Parenthood in Bloomington does. We need to put that myth to rest once and for all.

We have heard a lot about how abortions in Indiana are down, and how the “good” things Planned Parenthood does reduce the need for abortions. But the statistics from the Indiana Department of Health tell the truth.

There were 822 babies killed by abortion in Monroe County in 2015. There were 1,016 babies killed by abortion in Monroe County in 2016. This is a 23.6% increase, at a time when abortions statewide decreased by 8.5%. Less than a quarter of those abortions were done on Monroe County women.

This is why it is an abomination for the Monroe County Council to force us at gunpoint to subsidize this wicked, bloodthirsty organization. No, “at gunpoint” is not hyperbole. What do you think will happen if you do not pay your property taxes?

It is time for this farce to end. The council distributed $115,000.00 to social service agencies, but the total amount requested was $319,961.89. Of over $200,000 of requests denied, surely there was a more deserving organization, instead of an obscenely wealthy multinational corporation.

You do not have the right to follow the President on Twitter

I have been blocked by both Twitter accounts maintained by Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky. Despite the fact that PPINK is awash in tax dollars, my First Amendment rights are not violated by being blocked. The fact that I am blocked does not prevent me from following them on Twitter, of course, since I can use private browsing to follow both of PPINK’s accounts.

In the same way, President Trump’s critics are in no way deprived of their First Amendment rights when he blocks them on Twitter. They can still easily read his tweets through private browsing or setting up an alternate account – and it is a simple matter to switch between accounts on a phone, a tablet or even a desktop computer by using things like Twitter for Windows or Tweetdeck.

So why the lawsuit? Someone on Twitter made an excellent point. The people suing Trump are not bothered by being “unable” to follow him, because they can follow him easily. What they want is the prime real estate below Trump’s tweets to make their own profiles more visible. They are not denied access to Twitter and can still criticize the President to their heart’s content – provided they follow Twitter’s Terms of Service Agreement. No one is being denied the ability to read what they want, or the freedom to write what they want.

It is absurd to argue that a private social network is subject to the First Amendment. This is a fake controversy that only exists because so much of our culture is consumed with a victim mentality. The courts need to dismiss this lawsuit for the frivolous nonsense it is.

No one is saying we should eliminate all regulations

If you want to be taken seriously, then present your arguments in an honest and honorable manner. Do not make caricatures of your opponents’ arguments so you can refute the most extreme position possible. Not only is that deceitful, it is a logical fallacy known as the Straw Man. You do not accomplish anything by lying about your opponents’ arguments and then refuting your fantasies about what they said.

I said in my letter to the editor last month that I am pleased with President Donald Trump for removing some burdensome environmental regulations implemented administratively by President Barack Obama. People were claiming in the comments section that we need regulations to protect the environment, protect children from being exploited, to ensure workplace and food safety, and many other things. How could anyone be against having regulations to protect people?

Of course, no one is opposed to such regulations, and my critics know it.

The issue is not whether we should have regulations. The issue is how many regulations we should have, what those regulations should be, and what policy tools can be used alongside or instead of regulations. The very same Leftists who decried my praise for Trump are appalled at regulations of abortion clinics that allegedly infringe on the “right to choose” to murder your own child. This is not a lack of understanding about nuance, as opposed to taking an absolutist position. This is a dishonest smear.

If we are going to have any kind of bipartisanship, then we need to end these idiotic tactics and actually address what our opponents are saying. Fraudulent straw man arguments only deepen the divide and make it more difficult to cooperate and compromise when cooperation and compromise are possible. And yes, conservatives do it too. This kind of dishonorable behavior is wrong no matter who is doing it.

A lack of intellectual curiosity at the New York Times

I am not a single-issue voter, but I am not one to dismiss single-issue voters. Singe-issue voters are helpful in holding a political party’s feet to the fire and represent a core constituency. My issue with Lindy West’s column in the New York Times is not that she is a single-issue voter as much as the complete lack of intellectual curiosity about the anti-abortion position as well as her utterly deranged rhetoric.

It is absurd to argue that banning abortions results in women “stripped of ownership of their own bodies and lives.” There are methods to prevent conception in the first place, and there are alternatives to murdering a child in the womb. A woman who has a baby certainly has more responsibilities, as does the father of that baby. It is an absurd overreaction, though, to argue women are completely stripped of their bodily autonomy because one procedure is illegal. That does not convince anyone other than your own cheering partisans.

West is completely ignorant of the pro-life movement. People who oppose abortion are “indifferent to the disenfranchisement, suffering and possibly even the death of women?” Then why is it that a large number of anti-abortion activists are themselves women? Why is it that a large percentage of women say they want more restrictions on abortion in poll after poll? Are they indifferent to their own disenfranchisement, suffering and death? Does West really believe that men who oppose abortion are indifferent to the disenfranchisement, suffering and death of their wives, mothers, daughters and sisters?

Come on, now.

West argues that opposition to abortion is indefensible – that there are no valid arguments for that position. Has West ever seen the pictures of aborted babies shown by organizations like Created Equal and the Center for BioEthical reform? Even if one believes abortion must be legal, how can anyone look at those pictures and not at least understand why many people oppose abortion? Does West, as a so-called “journalist,” have any intellectual curiosity to understand why people think abortion must be restricted?

West goes even further, saying that the debate over abortion “puts people’s fundamental humanity up for debate.” Yes, because the men who oppose abortion do not believe their wives, daughters, sisters, nieces and mothers are not human. Women who oppose abortion do not believe they themselves are human. Right. I know when I walked into a Students for Life meeting filled with 95% women I was astonished that they all thought of themselves as less than human. Does West realize how utterly silly she sounds when she uses such extreme rhetoric?

In the past, Democratic politicians (even the staunchly pro-choice ones) recognized that abortion is a troubling issue and why so many people are opposed to it. There is a reason Bill Clinton said he wanted abortion to be “safe, legal and rare.” Even if he did not believe in the third part, Clinton at least understood why he needed to use that word. He understood the reasoning for opposing abortion, though he did not agree. West has no time for that, because she is far too lazy and far too bigoted to actually understand why people disagree with her. Is this what the nation’s newspaper of record sees as a serious argument?

Socialized medicine, death panels and ObamaCare

It is incredibly dishonest to equate the Charlie Gard case, and the Death Panels that murdered that precious little baby made in the image of Almighty God, with the American health care system.

Imagine this scenario: Bubba and his wife have a child, and that child is born with a genetic disease that is almost always fatal. Bubba learns of an experimental treatment that might save his baby’s life, but his insurance company denies coverage, and the hospital refuses to treat his son. Bubba raises $1.5 million dollars, and takes his baby to a different hospital for treatment, where he pays in cash. Because we seceded from the British Empire, Bubba has the freedom to do that.

In the United Kingdom, Charlie’s parents did not have that freedom. They had the money to pay for Charlie’s treatment, but the so-called “hospital” was bloodthirsty and determined to murder a baby. They kidnapped Charlie, held him hostage, and murdered him. The government’s evil Death Panels endorsed this decision, and the so-called “human rights” courts agreed that a helpless baby must be murdered. His parents would not be allowed to seek medical treatment elsewhere and pay for it themselves.

Our health care system has many flaws, and there are reforms that need to be made to bring market forces into health care, lower prices, expand coverage and encourage innovation, among other things. But we do not (yet!) have government-run Death Panels that decide whether someone’s life is worth living, regardless of the wishes of the patient or his parents. If someone has the money to pay for treatment in cash, there is nothing (yet!) that the insurance companies can do about it.

But we know where this is going, and the ultimate goal of ObamaCare. Sarah Palin was right when she warned of Death Panels in 2009. Consider the man who could have surgery to repair his injured back, and that ObamaCare will not cover it – but ObamaCare will pay for opioid painkillers. This should not be a surprise, since Barack Obama himself advocated this “treatment.”

“At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”

Obviously, Barack Obama is a very wicked man, enamored with slaughtering the innocent. Socialized medicine is wicked. Allowing government to control who does and does not get treatment – allowing government to control who does and does not get to live – is terribly wicked. If the Charlie Gard scandal proves anything, it is that socialized medicine must be avoided at all costs. That starts with ripping ObamaCare out of our laws, root and branch. No government should have this kind of power.