Evangelicals on the Bandwagon

    I get it. Republican voters are furious with a Washington that is incapable of delivering on campaign promises. Republicans captured the House of Representatives in 2010 and the Senate in 2014. Yet, they have not been able to cut spending, reform the tax code, prevent job-crushing regulations, defund ObamaCare, curb IRS partisan abuses, or target waste and fraud. They can't even pass slam-dunk legislation with massive public approval like Kate's Law or bills to defund Planned Parenthood or sanctuary cities. These angry voters want a president who can get things done. And the only one who fits the description is Donald Trump. I get it.

    The pundits said that a Trump presidency could never happen. Now these same pundits are admitting that it is possible if not inevitable. And they are falling all over each other to explain why. Most puzzling to them is how an irreligious Trump has been able to get so many evangelicals to jump on his bandwagon.

    Have not these people of faith lost their moral compass? Does it not matter to them that Donald Trump is a thrice-married adulterer who says he has no need to repent? Does it not bother their pro-life convictions that Trump once approved late-term abortions and still praises Planned Parenthood? Does it not cause them to wonder about Trump's love of neighbor when they hear him insult women, Hispanics, and the disabled? Are they prepared to turn a deaf ear to someone whose moral values are so contrary to theirs?

Even those who are willing to compromise their Christian values should be deeply concerned that Donald Trump prefers a socialist healthcare system, that he is a crony capitalist who has used his money to curry favor with Democrats, and that he has no domestic or foreign policy beyond empty slogans.

    I get it. And, like the born-again (if I may borrow the term) pundits, it puzzles me no end.

Needed: a Touch of Class

    Antonin Scalia was one of the greatest Supreme Court justices of all time. News of his death filled the front pages of newspapers around the world, because he was a great jurist, whether or not one agrees with his originalist interpretation of the Constitution. But not all mourn his departure. President Obama is one of those who sees Scalia's death not as a loss to this country, but as an opportunity to tip the balance of the Supreme Court in favor of his leftist agenda.

    The president may have considered Scalia an ideological opponent, but he owed the justice a measure of respect nonetheless. Obama ceretainly did not show any when he chose not to attend Justice Scalia's funeral. What he did show was an embarassing lack of class.

    This not the first time Obama has shown a lack of class. One of the first actions he took when assuming the presidency was to return the bust of Winston Churchill to Great Britain, a deliberate insult to a nation he despised for its colonialism. Not long after that he showed a lack a class by not attending the funeral of Margaret Thatcher, one of the greatest prime ministers in the history of Great Britain. She is not the only world leader he snubbed during his term in office. His absence was noted at the funerals of presidents and prime ministers from Israel, Singapore, South Korea, Zambia, Georgia, and Spain. But he did attend the funeral of Nelson Mandela.

    A lack of class says a lot about the character of a man. When Obama puts his feet up on his desk or prances around the Oval Office taking selfies of himself, he shows a lack of class. When he declines to join world leaders marching arm-in-arm after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, he shows a lack of class. When he responds to a video of ISIS beheading an American by going off to play golf, he shows a lack of class.

    Barack Obama may be a brilliant politician and a spell-binding orator, but as the leader of our country and our first representative to the world, I just wish he had a little more class.

Trump the Pragmatist

     People love Donald Trump because they see him as a pragmatist who can get things done.  There is nothing inherently wrong with being a pragmatist.  I would oppose any candidate whom I thought lacked the ability to approach and resolve problems in a practical way.  But one’s pragmatism must not be exercised without guiding principles; pragmatism without clear vision can lead to disastrous results. 

     We can assess a man’s principles and vision by looking at what he’s done and by listening to what he says.  On that score Donald Trump has given us plenty on which to judge his qualifications for the presidency.  But we must also judge his character not only on the soundness of his ideas and the depth of his convictions, but also on his values and his sense of right and wrong.  These qualities, in my view, count for more than his personal success in the marketplace or his ability to tap into the anger of people frustrated with the incompetence of political hacks.   

     The reasons people like me dislike Trump are numerous.  His bankruptcies and business failures are well known and cast doubt on the methods he has used to achieve his great wealth.  His flip-flops on issues like abortion, health care, and liberal causes are also well known.  His broad and often vulgar use of insults to denigrate women, the disabled, the media, and political opponents paints a picture of a shallow, thin-skinned narcissist who cannot stand criticism or defend himself with well-reasoned arguments.  And when he accuses others of being liars, even a revered figure like George W. Bush, he exposes his own troubled mendacity. 

     In all of this Donald Trump has revealed his character.  And it is not the character of a man who is qualified to be president.  It is my sincere wish that people who support Trump today will look beyond his bluster, his unreasonable promises, and his twisted view of the world.  We can do better.  We must.

I'm Trumped

For me, one of the more puzzling aspects of this presidential campaign is the support evangelicals are giving Donald Trump. Just what is it about Trump that makes him attractive to people who put their faith above all else? They certainly can't be supporting Trump because of his; whatever boast he makes about his personal piety is a bunch of bull.              

Perhaps the evangelicals' priorities are not what they claim. When voters cast their ballots in upcoming primaries, will they heed Franklin Graham's appeal to put God back into politics? When Graham urges Christians to remember their Christian values when voting, that doesn't sound to me like he's endorsing a vulgar candidate who insults women, Mexicans, Muslims, and the handicapped, not to mention political opponents.

If anything, Donald Trump is a secularist who would keep politics free of religious influence. When he says he wants to make America great again, he never mentions Judeo-Christian values. He makes no bones about wanting to round up and deport millions of illegals, regardless of what it does to families. When he says he will close our borders to Muslim refugees, even women and children, it's certainly not out of Christian charity.

While Trump was making billions for himself, he survived four bankruptcies that screwed creditors out of millions of dollars and put thousands of people out of work. He even once tried to force a little old lady off her property so he could build a parking lot for one of his casinos. As the president, would he put the welfare of ordinary Americans above his own?

Donald Trump worships one God, the God of money and power. He is an egomaniac in this race for his personal gratification. If he gains the White House, he is sure to rule as a godless tyrant. God help us.

   

(A local writer by the name of Nancy Theodore wrote a nasty letter in response to my previous missive on Muslims and Sharia Law.  This is my reponse.)

   I normally don't respond to attacks by Nancy Theodore; I leave it to readers of her letters to judge her extreme views in support, for example, of federal regulations and the Obama administration's economic policies. But last week she wrote some things about me that were just plain wrong, if not deliberate lies. I prefer to think that she simply misread what I had written about American Muslims and Sharia Law.

    First of all, I never “stated categorically that all Muslims already here in the U.S. are not willing to accept American values and integrate peacefully and productively.”

    Second, I quoted statistics from the Center for Security Policy that reveal that 51% of Muslims in America would prefer to be governed by Sharia. That is obviously not “all” Muslims. Why would I contradict myself by quoting such a statistic?

    Third, I never “insinuat[ed] that Sharia Law has replaced secular law anywhere in the U.S.” What I did say was that there are underground Sharia courts in some Muslim communities. Such a court, for instance, is reported to be operating in a Dallas suburb. Better still, the Center for Security Policy Press has documented 27 cases in 23 different states where the courts have allowed the use of Sharia Law.

    Ms. Theodore has been a consistent defender of Muslims in America, and I grant that she is well informed on the subject. I would be more inclined to agree with her, however, if she acknowledged that radical Islamic extremism is a real threat in this country and is responsible for a growing number of terrorist atrocities committed in the name of Allah. And if she doesn't believe that there are terrorist cells in the U.S., she should check with the F.B.I.

    In the meantime I'll settle for Ms. Theodore re-reading my letter.

Liberalism Corrupted

    The battle for the presidency in this election year is developing more and more into a clash of ideologies. On the Democrat side Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders move farther left to assure their supporters of their liberal purity, while on the Republican side the candidates try to outdo each other in professing their conservative faith. Even Donald Trump, who has previously espoused liberal positions on abortion, health care, and taxation, now assures us – unconvincingly, in my view -- of his conversion to conservative principles.

    Students of history might find it curious to see how those labels have been corrupted over time. Liberalism, as a political ideology, emerged in the 19^th century in opposition to the authoritarianism of the ruling class. It promoted liberty on all fronts: civil, economic, personal, social, religious, and domestic. It championed the middle class, equality under the law, and individual responsibility, while opposing the conservative, privileged elites who knew what was best for the lower classes and governed accordingly.

    Today it is the conservatives who champion personal responsibility, free enterprise, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. Liberals, who dominate the Democrat party, want big government to manage everything from the economy to health care, energy and trade, and to solve perceived problems with regulations and executive orders. Liberals have forgotten that freedom does not mean “free stuff.”

    In the 19^th century liberalism was in reality a revolution against the established, conservative order. If John Stuart Mill, liberalism's greatest advocate, were alive today, he would denounce the very movement he championed. Disgusted with Washington politics, he would probably join the Tea Party.                                                                                               

Christie the Pug

    In the summer of 1960 I stayed with my Uncle George and Aunt Laura in Lowell, Massachusetts, awaiting the return of my family from Morocco where my father had been on a diplomatic mission. Uncle George's favorite pastime was watching TV, especially a weekly boxing show called Friday Night Fights. I enjoyed watching the bouts with him and listening to his monosyllabic commentaries (Oof! Pow! Ouch!).

    This was the era of fighters like Sugar Ray Robinson, Carmen Basilio, and Kid Gavilan. But our favorite was a pug named Gene Fullmer. He was actually pretty good, earning his first Middleweight crown by beating Robinson. But if Robinson was the classic boxer, Fullmer was the bull, charging at his foes to get inside where he did his greatest damage. It didn't matter that he took a battering on the way. His face showed it, with cauliflower ears, scarred eyebrows, and a flattened nose.

    Governor Chris Christie kind of reminds me of Gene Fullmer. He's a fighter who doesn't mind mixing it up on the inside, whether it's at a town hall meeting or a presidential debate. He takes shots from his opponents, but dishes them out, too. His devastating attack on Marco Rubio at the February 6 debate is the perfect example of his counter-punching skills. I think he would be equally effective in debating Hillary Clinton.

    I don't know if Governor Christie is the best Republican candidate for the presidency. But I think he has shown that the experience of the governors in the race make them the best qualified. At the very least he has demonstrated that a president must be able to take criticism without wilting like Rubio or responding with hissy fits like Trump.

    I may be a bit of a troglodyte in wishing we still had Friday Night Fights, but for now I'll settle for the give and take on the debate stage. If nothing else, it is great entertainment.

Facts Are Stubborn Things

    A recent letter to the editor of our local newspaper by a lady named Nancy Theodore urged all to “stick to the facts.” I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, Ms. Theodore does not practice what she preaches. Her letter was full of unfounded assumptions and selective statistics that distort the truth. Let's just take the numbers she uses to prove that President Obama's economy has been a success.

   First, the drop from 18% to 11.4% in the rate of Americans without health insurance is completely misleading. Most of that drop comes from placing millions more people on Medicaid. Even more relevant is the fact that ObamaCare has failed miserably to meet its enrollment targets for young people, even under the threat of fines for not doing so. The result: enormous increases in deductibles and premiums for ObamaCare enrollees. Ms. Theodore's wishful thinking will not alter the fact that a majority of Americans think ObamaCare is a disaster.

    Second, the drop in the unemployment rate that Ms. Theodore cites is no measure of a economic health, not when we consider that the U.S. now has the lowest job participation rate since Jimmy Carter's administration. That's not because fewer people are on unemployment, but because so many have stopped looking for jobs that don't exist. The jobs created under the Obama administration are far fewer than needed to replace the jobs lost due to Obama's destructive economic policies.

    Third, it's true that budget deficits have come down, but only compared to the trillion dollar deficits in the early Obama years. The fact is that the country's debt is now over $19 trillion and still growing by hundreds of billions of dollars each year.

    Fourth, the 2% growth in the GDP under President Obama has been anemic. Worse, it was 0.7% in the last quarter of 2015. A comparison to the negative GDP growth that occurred when the housing crisis (not Bush) caused the latest recession is frankly dishonest. A much more valid comparison is to the 4% recession recovery rate under President Reagan or the 3.5% average rate since WW II.

    Ms. Theodore would like us to believe that President Obama's liberal agenda has been a success. The facts show just the opposite.