Tag: Trump

Posted on

Wordplay: Dismissing voter fraud with a phrase

“There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election.”

How many times have you heard this phrase parroted by pundits and partisans in media and politics? They say it and repeat it for one purpose—to convince Americans that the 2020 election was free and fair.
 
By using the word “widespread,” they create an artificial bar to imply that, absent of widespread voter fraud, our 2020 election is legit and Joe Biden is our president-elect.
 
In contrast, I have a better, fair and responsible statement:
 
“There is alleged evidence of strategic voter fraud in the 2020 election. The question is whether it exists and, if so, does it rise to the legal level necessary to affect the outcome of the 2020 election.”
 
That media members are tripping over themselves to quash all mention of voter fraud is DEEPLY disturbing. This is not how truth-seeking objective journalists pursue their vocation. Instead of acting as our watchdog over people in power, they’re acting like one party’s attack dog.
 
Additionally, there is no constitutional office or designation of “president-elect.” This term is a media creation. In the 2000 election, apparent winner George W. Bush became the president-elect only when all results in all states were verified and electors had cast their votes.
 
Joe Biden is the apparent winner of the 2020 election. He is not the president-elect. The votes have not been certified and electors have not cast their votes.
 
Finally, if our government does not overhaul our election system to restore trust in future elections, we’ll forever lose faith in our most essential freedom.
Posted on

Killing Soleimani: The end of the world or the beginning of a bolder, better one?

Killing Soleimani
Fars News Agency [CC BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)]

By killing Iranian General Soleimani, America just kicked Iran in the teeth.

Many say his fiery demise was long overdue and will save lives. Not sure about this metric, but one thing’s certain—there’s one less terrorist doing his dastardly worst in the world.

Best of all, Soleimani’s death may trigger the end of an evil Iranian regime and the beginning of real freedom for Iranians.

Worth the risk? It is to them. Risk and reward aside, we’re living in dangerous days.

Is America’s playing with fire and inviting more bloodshed? Absolutely. A leading presidential candidate says we just “threw a stick of dynamite into a tinder box” and he may be right this time.

To be fair, the president has an age-old Iran problem on his hands. It’s a situation he claims was exacerbated by the policies of his predecessor in the form of clandestine cash payoffs, hostage ransoms and flat-out appeasement.

All true. But I would argue that the supreme monument to Barack Obama’s misunderstanding of the Iranian regime (and other truly Islamic nations) is his signing of a worthless and enabling nuclear agreement.

It’s a testament to self-deception or narcissism or naiveté or a blend of all three. No matter. What’s done is done.

Soleimani is dead.

And now leaders of the regime see blood red. Depending on whom you read or watch, Iranians are either enraged and ready for revenge or are secretly overjoyed and itching to rebel.

I’m no foreign policy expert, but based on actionable evidence and word of mouth, I must conclude that Iranians who chant “Death to America! Death to Israel!” likely mean us harm.

Here’s my advice to the administration:

Keep punching them in the mouth. Meet force with overwhelming force. Violent people respect violence; give them more to respect. Draw a real red line in the sand and send this message. Hit us and we’ll hit you back—harder.

This approach will hearten Israel, our only real ally in the region. They daily face Iranian haters with missiles and nuclear dreams. All they hear from their Arab enemies is that the Jews and their Zionist friends deserve death. Israel’s annihilation is the will of Allah, you infidel.

Tough choice, only choice

How does America deal with a regime that refuses to recognize, let alone value, Israel’s right to exist and our right to help them do so?

Refuse to give an inch. Deploy the diplomacy of power. Respond disproportionately. Proportionate responses are for proportionate adversaries. We’re the superpower and they’re not. And their regime may be weaker than we know.

Iran’s leaders are clinging to power by subjugating their people and engaging in tired propaganda and incessant chest beating. The sanctions are squeezing them. The killing of Soleimani has unnerved them.

This strategy seems extreme because it is. It could mean war. But let’s be honest with ourselves for once about Islam and Iran—it’s not a religion of peace, and they’ve been at war with the West for centuries.

Gasp. Truth.

And to those ripping Trump and going all Chicken Little over the killing of Soleimani and its repercussions, what is your strategy? How would you deal with a regime that seeks regional dominance and the destruction of Israel?

End of Part One. Part Two coming soon.

Posted on

Christianity Today is dead wrong about Christians and Trump

As a Christian, I profoundly disagree with Christianity Today’s call for me to support President Trump’s removal from office for this reason—it’s based on flawed premises.

Flawed premise #1: Unambiguous facts

“But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents.” ~ Christianity Today

No, the facts are not unambiguous—many Christians do not agree that the president attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of his political opponents.

This premise requires us to believe that Trump feared a political opponent so much that he tried to get a foreign leader to discredit him. As an aside, do even casual political observers believe Trump has ever feared Joe Biden?

Christianity Today’s central premise is simply not supported by the context of the infamous phone call.

A fair-minded reading of the transcript reveals Ukraine’s Zelensky gushing over Trump’s attempts to drain the American “swamp.” Clearly, he’s either enamored with Trump or wants him to think he is. The context shows that Zelensky appears to greatly respect Trump. He even credits his win on his promise to drain his Ukrainian swamp. Sound familiar?

I and many other Christians believe Trump made his request in the context of both administrations rooting out corruption in their respective swamps—and with residual anger over the FBI spying of his candidacy, charges of an illegitimate presidency, and the baseless Russia collusion investigation.

Clearly, the phone call is far from “perfect,” but the context of Trump’s request for Zelensky to investigate the Bidens’ Burisma entanglement is perfectly reasonable given the company’s shady nature and the firing of the prosecutor who was investigating it—at Joe Biden’s demand.

Flawed premise #2: Immorality demands removal

Donald Trump is not a moral man. And neither am I. I’m a sinner saved by grace. Our Constitution, written by immoral men, does not call for the removal of presidents based solely on immorality. It calls for removal based on illegality.

In this case and to this point, it has not been proven that this president committed an illegal act that rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.

If it were, the House Judiciary Committee would have presented genuine articles of impeachment and voted to impeach Trump in a bipartisan manner. They have not and did not. And now the majority leader is hesitating to transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial. Why? Because they know they’re weak, partisan and will not prove the case for removal.

Flawed premise #3: Clinton’s impeachment = Trump’s

Christianity Today mistakenly compares Trumps’ phone call, and their acceptance of the partisan analysis of it, to the immorality—and illegality—of Bill Clinton’s commitment of perjury and obstruction of justice—high crimes that were accepted as self-evident by republicans and democrats.

Again, if there was a legitimate comparison to be made, the House Judiciary Committee would have produced comparable articles of impeachment. In Clinton’s case there was perjury and obstruction of justice—both charges are legally- and constitutionally-recognized high crimes and misdemeanors.

Trump was (almost) impeached for abusing power and obstructing Congress. If abuse of power is a legally- and constitutionally-recognized high crime and misdemeanor, every single president should be impeached.

Obstruction of Congress is not a valid charge because every president can and does turn to the courts regarding the release of documents and witnesses pertaining to executive privilege. Not only is this article of impeachment nonsensical, it would wither under the slightest scrutiny in a courtroom or Senate impeachment trial.

Flawed premise #4: Serve God or Trump

Christianity Today exhorts its Christian readers to “remember whom you serve” and erects a false dichotomy based on the flawed premise that we as Christians either sacrifice our Christian witness by continuing to support Trump or we protect it by supporting his removal from office.

Clearly, Christians are called to serve God, not presidents. This premise is irrelevant because it’s based on a non-argument. We support presidents; we don’t serve them. We serve God, and we do so by supporting our leaders—until we can’t.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. ~ Romans 13:1-7

Flawed premise #5: Supporting Trump harms Christian witness

Christianity Today encourages Christians who support their president to “Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior.”

Notice how the call for careful consideration is framed with bias and a rejection of any other view other than this: Trump is a moral midget whose continuing sins as president can no longer be tolerated.

Never mind that his presidency has produced greater pro-life and freedom of religion protections. CT refers to these as “political expediencies” and uses the abortion issue in light of our calling as Christians to be witnesses for Jesus Christ in a corrupt world:

“Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?”

Yes and no.

This rigged question is another straw man. Who thinks a president’s character doesn’t matter? How is the self-evident evil of abortion affected by whether a Christian supports the president or condemns him?

To be bent and broken is to be human.

Bent and broken? We’re all bent and broken. The question is not whether this president’s character is bent and broken; it’s whether or not it has propelled him to commit high crimes and misdemeanors. So far, the answer is a resounding no.

Based on the legal and constitutional weakness of the articles of impeachment, I cannot support an unconstitutional removal from office of President Trump. And I believe Christianity Today’s call for me to do so as a Christian is intellectually lazy and unbiblical.

Does preserving my Christian witness require me to accept one side’s understanding of a phone call over the other’s? I think respecting the presumption of innocence and the rule of law are necessary to sharing truth in a world of deception and division.

Donald Trump is our president and authority. Until his actions warrant legitimate impeachment and removal from office, as a Christian, I’ll submit to his God-given authority and resist wrong-headed calls to do otherwise.