I am fully aware that the solution for America’s woes is spiritual, not political. But I have been thinking a lot about politics recently and so here are my thoughts. If you aren’t interested in politics, feel free to just ignore this one!
Back on June 8, I wrote an article with a tongue in cheek title, “Dear GOP, I Want to Fall in Love, But I’m Playing Hard to Get.” I made the point that I wanted to find a candidate I respected, someone I could get excited about this presidential cycle. It’s pretty trendy and hip to act like all the candidates are buffoons, like there’s nothing but numskulls out there, but I’ve been impressed, even through the idiotic questions asked by the CNN and CNBC Moderators, that there are some pretty good choices among the GOP contenders.
- No, I could not vote for a Democrat, as long as the Democrats are the party of death. They embrace abortion as if it is a virtue and they champion the butchers of Planned Parenthood. They promote and celebrate every form of perversion and so I simply cannot vote for anyone affiliated with that party.
- I am not ready to vote for an independent candidate. It is a waste of my vote. For the time being an independent candidate is not going to win. If Donald Trump would become the GOP nominee, then an independent would be the only resort – I won’t vote for the destruction of America and that is precisely what Trump would be.
- So, that leaves me to pick among the GOP candidates. There have been times when I’ve been disgusted by my choices, left to choose the lesser of evils. But I don’t feel that way this time. There are several people in this group I can vote for happily. In the last article, I mentioned at least 30 candidates, some of whom I’d never heard of and many I never heard of again. As time has gone forward a few of the candidates have dropped out and some have faded so far into the woodwork I’m not really sure whether they are actually in the running anymore or not.
As an Iowan, I’ve had a front row seat in the political wranglings of the GOP primary (much to Bart Barber’s chagrin!). I’ve met one candidate and been interviewed by the LA Times’ Seema Mehta who showed up during Sunday School last week, because she thought Mike Huckabee was going to be in church. Welcome to Iowa. The first Tuesday in February (according to Seema it looks like we won’t have to move the date up this year) I will head down to the Sergeant Bluff Community Center to caucus with the other registered Republicans in the neighborhoods near our home. For the last several months I’ve been reading, listening, and watching debates, trying to find a candidate I would “fall in love with.”
So, after all this time, I’m shopping for a ring. I haven’t popped the question yet, but my eye is on a candidate and I’m thinking of settling down. I’m not absolutely sure yet, but I’ve looked the field over and I think I’m ready to make a commitment.
- Marco Rubio is the best candidate!
I first heard Marco Rubio at the SEND conference in Nashville when he was interviewed by Dr. Moore. I was impressed by his intelligence and the way he answered questions. He moved up from “I don’t know a thing about him” to “hmmm, I want to know more.” Every time I’ve heard him speak I’ve been more impressed. This man knows his stuff. He is a man of conviction and he does not back down when challenged. I like where he stands on the issues. His debate performances have been uniformly impressive and intelligent. He seems to understand how to deal with the press.
Unless something changes, unless new information comes forward or he does something stupid, it is my intent to go to Sgt. Bluff for the caucus and speak for Marco Rubio.
If things don’t work out with Marco...
It’s politics, things can change. Someone can say something stupid. New information can come to the surface and my mind can be changed. If my opinion of Marco Rubio changes there are some fallback positions out there.
- Carly Fiorina is a close second.
For a few weeks I was trying to decide between Carly Fiorina and Marco Rubio as my main candidate. My ideal ticket would have the two of them on it and I wouldn’t be too concerned who is the name at the top. I’ve come to think that Rubio may be the more electable and the better candidate in some ways, so I’ve settled on him as the top of the ticket. Carly may have some baggage from her time at HP that the press can use to drag her down. But I could enthusiastically support Carly Fiorina if the GOP nominated her.
- If Jeb Bush makes a comeback, I’m okay with that.
Lots of people hate him, or at least disdain him, because of his last name. I don’t mind him. I just don’t think its much of an issue. He’s sinking like a rock and it doesn’t appear he has much of a chance of making the Bush “dynasty” a reality. I think he might be a better president than he’s been a candidate, bur we are never going to find out.
In a pinch, I guess he’ll do…
There’s some other candidates that I’m not too impressed with, but if they get the nomination, I’ll support them.
- Ben Carson is a nice guy, but…
I think Ben Carson is a good man. I’m not sure about his Christian faith – we are quick to accept heretical doctrine when someone is politically sympathetic. But he is a good man who genuinely attempts to live out his faith. And he is a brilliant man. But he seems to have a tin ear when it comes to politics. He has made some statements that have blown up in the press – a wiser politician probably wouldn’t have made such statements. He has evidenced at times that he doesn’t really understand how government works. Granted, if he can figure out how to do neurosurgery, he can probably figure out the machinations of Washington. I just wonder if this is the job for him. I am not sure he is wired for the presidency. If he gets the nomination I will thank him for beating Trump and support him against Hillary.
- Ted Cruz had a moment!
Had the line of the year against the CNBC moderators and that almost pushes him up into the second category for me. He seems like a pretty smart guy, but sometimes he seems like he is trying to say the most extreme thing possible – pandering to the most extreme elements in the party.
- Bobby Jindal
I like what I hear from him, but the way he appeals to evangelicals makes me wonder if he is one of us or just pandering.
- Mike Huckabee
I like Mike, but I’m just not feeling him this time around.
Well, at least he’s better than Hillary…
If you look up “lesser of two evils” his picture appears.
- Chris Christie.
Maybe I should like him more, but I have doubts about his pro-life credentials and his integrity is at issue.
- John Kasich
I know little about him, but he comes across as sanctimonious and arrogant in debates. He might make a great president, but he annoyed me.
- Rand Paul
I like a few things about him, but his foreign policy is not for me. Isolationism SOUNDS good but it would be a disaster for America, so he slips down the list.
- Lindsay Graham
Is it Lindsey? I don’t know. He’s really non-descript and I can’t imagine him inspiring America to reject Hillary.
Is he still running?
- George Pataki
Well, is he? He’s pro-death, so he doesn’t get my vote anyway. I don’t think I’ve heard a single thing about him in the entire campaign.
- Rick Santorum
I actually caucused for him last time, but he is getting just about no traction this time. I don’t think he’s dropped out but I’m not sure.
Not in a million years….
- Donald Trump.
No way. I would not vote for an immoral, megalomaniac, narcissist even if he is my party’s nominee. He has no solutions other than his own inflated ego. I will either find a third party/independent to waste my vote on as a protest or I will leave that part of my ballot empty and vote only on the other issues. The good news is that the GOP is waking up and Trump’s act seems to be growing old. His poll numbers are slipping.
So, after a lot of thought, I’ve settled in as a Marco Rubio supporter. Carly is close second and a Rubio/Fiorina ticket (or vice-versa) would be great. That’s where I am these days.
Where do you come down?
I like Ben Carson and what he stand for but, I believe that in Mike Huckabee we have a godly candidate with executive experience in government. Therefore, Huckabee is my first choice. It’s going to be a tragic situation if we end up with an ungodly President when we did have godly choices. I hope Evangelical Christians don’t sleep through this next election.
I like Huckabee, but a) I don’t know that he is electable – he’s barely registering in polls and b) he seems more interested at times in taking controversial “moral” stands than in offering solutions.
I am certainly not against him but I don’t think he’s going to make a solid run.
With both Carson and Huckabee, my deep-seated fear is that they are better people than candidates and perhaps than they would be presidents. By all accounts Jimmy Carter is a good person. I thought he was a terrible president. Good person and good president are not necessarily the same. Even godly man and good president.
I think that Huckabee would be more akin to Reagan than Carter. Reagan was successful in getting things done with a Democrat controlled congress. Huckabee was successful as Governor of Arkansas under similar circumstances. Neither one compromised on core values. I used to worry about the electability issue but, now I believe that I should vote for the right candidate and let God handle the rest.
Are you reading my mind on Rubio and Fiorina? I could have written almost the same description you did on both of them. Bush would be farther down my list. I was pretty neutral about him for the most part but when he attacked Rubio during the last debate my opinion went way negative—because I thought his line of attack was knowingly disingenuous. It might as well have come from a CNBC moderator.
As far as Bush goes, I think he paid dearly for his swipe at Marco, who nailed it. Someone convinced him he needed to get tough and he tried an attack and got smacked down for it. It was badly conceived and badly executed.
Yeah, I’m with you: Rubio and Fiorina.
Wish Graham would make the big debate panel. Here’s his quote on ISIS (with slight adjustments for this forum): We need to go into Syria and “kill every one of those b******* we can find.”
Bush just doesn’t do it for me.
I could easily vote for Kasich. He’s seasoned, sensible, and knowledgable.
If Cruz would smile once every decade or so, I’d like him better.
My sample size on Kasich is very small. He may be lots better than what I’ve seen. But my experience with him was only focused on his kind of condescending lectures at the last debate. And I didn’t get to watch that debate, but snippets of it. So, he may be much better than my gut reaction to him.
I’d pick Ted Cruz. His proven leadership, his economic policies and tax plan, and his stands on religious liberty make him my first choice.
Not that anyone much delves into the tax plan details but Cruz (and Paul) propose a value-added tax (VAT), called by National Review “the revenue engine of big-government welfare states, not a proper funding source for the small federal government that both senators favor for America.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426469/ted-cruz-rand-paul-vat
Most of the big tax ideas are DOA anyway but a VAT hides taxes from taxpayers by indirectly raising prices of everything.
I agree that these proposals should be reviewed carefully. See http://taxfoundation.org/comparing-2016-presidential-tax-reform-proposals
However, we’d be much better off with a flat 10% personal income tax and cut out all of the IRS and congressional maneuvers to favor one group over another. Treating everyone the same is the definition of justice, right?
We will see. Sort of like the CP, lots of powerful constituencies.
I have to say that Cruz went WAY up in my esteem at that last debate.
Also, Bush slipped a lot.
I think circling one candidate’s name as the Chief of Narcissists is fair. But suggesting the rest aren’t affected by an inflated view of themselves just because each other candidate manages his/her public image better might be naive.
I’m now a Texan and I’m thankful to be out of the caucus fishbowl and think it is a hyper-artificial show that overemphasizes the “salt of the earth” nature of Iowans to hold forked branches in their hands who then “discern” when those forked branches deflect towards particular candidates.
Therefore I’m almost more interested in early comments on how your prayer life is planned in order to maximize time on your knees during this next year leading up to the second Tuesday NEXT November. Because if God isn’t intimately involved in every voting booth in America, we could very well lose this nation to deep, abiding, generational, NATIONAL sin. And largely that will happen if we think of ourselves as wise and abandon the prayer closet in this visible time of deep spiritual need throughout our nation.
And if you are exerting yourself to pray earnestly for the nation, please focus yourself on the holistic solution not the temporary fix. And I think we Southern Baptists know exactly who I mean.
Yeah, this list is about where I am. I may have listed the lesser candidates a bit differently. Huckabee would be further down for me, perhaps just above Pataki. I am not impressed at all with him. I disagree with your assessment of Trump. I would have said “not in a billion years”.
I will yield to your wisdom. NOT IN A BILLION YEARS.
If Trump’s the nominee and you don’t support him, you might as well vote for Hillary.
Won’t do either. It’s a conscience thing. I can’t vote for either person for reasons of conscience. I’m not sure which would be worse for America, but I know I won’t give my support to either.
I like Rubio. I haven’t seen any of the debates because I’m too cheap to pay for cable, so I’ve settled for reading transcripts and watching a few snippets. I like some of what I’ve heard from Kasich. Fiorina has done well in the debates; not sure if she has the experience to govern. But she’s sharp, and I’d love to see her going toe-to-toe with Hillary on the debate stage. Just not entirely easy about seeing anyone who’s never held office going straight to the presidency.
If you can find me a way to get live sports without cable, I’d like to join you in getting rid of cable!!
Lol. It can be done, but I don’t know how much it would save you depending on how much you’d subscribe to. https://www.groundedreason.com/the-streaming-tv-services-for-you/
The reviews on Sling TV were really bad, but if they get it working better, I’ll be ditching cable TV.
All the debates are on youtube…
Rubio is the worst of the lot. He plays the game and gets in bed with all The Usual Suspects. He’s banded with the Gang of Eight. He’s pro-Amnesty. He’s in personal debt to the moon, and you expect him to balance the books?
Perhaps we could ask what we think the biggest issues facing the nation are, and which candidate(s) actually would correct them. Here are my biggest issues.
1. Illegal Immigration – This one issue leads to so many other problems: welfare, Obamacare, border security, drug-trafficking, and the list goes on and on, rapid advancement to socialism
2. Refusal of Congress to Actual Lead via the U.S. Constitution – Only Congress can declare war. Why new Speaker Ryan didn’t immediately doesn’t call out Obama for staging troops on the Syrian border. All this leads to Presidents who exceed their power. All those currently in the Senate have allowed this same thing by Obama–which means they will do the same
3. Free Trade Mania – We are the only nation that allows other countries to bring in their goods without tariffs while they devalue their currency or ours so that our exports have no value in their country… See China, see Mexico (point #1), Korea, Japan, and on and on. Because of this we continue to pile up Trade imbalances
4. Taking in Refugees (a.k.a. Terrorists) Are you kidding me that there are candidates that actually think this is a good idea.
There is a huge reason most average Americans have Trump and Carson at the top of all the polls. And that is because anyone who is currently in politics can’t wipe or clean the dirt and smell of “business as usual, tell the voters what they want to hear, but keep doing the same thing to them” stink that follows them like the plague.
A narcissistic megalomaniac is no improvement over anything that is going on. Trump has no solutions except his own egoism and the bubble is bursting. People are beginning to realize that the would-be emperor has no clothes and they are looking for serious candidates with serious solutions – those that do not simply play to anger and extremism – men like Marco Rubio.
Dave, considering you didn’t address any of Rubio’s “faults” that I mentioned, but only continue to state that Trump isn’t a possibility, I can only assume you’ll stay home or vote Democrat should he be nominated. So, if you’re saying you think Hillary or Bernie are better options than Trump , I would love to hear your attempt to justify that.
I would hold my nose and pull the lever for Rubio should he be nominated only because Hillary or Bernie are impossible to imagine as President. However, the sheer fact that SBC Leaders (not saying this is you) openly denounce Trump and refuse to say anything against Hillary, Bernie, or even Obama in their Tweets and Columns is outrageous.
As to your implication of who my guy was and that he is “extreme” is certainly enlightening, since I didn’t say who I preferred as the nominee, I only said that Trump and Carson were leading all the polls and stated my opinion as to why.
One more time to make sure you understand what I’m saying. My #1 issue is Illegal Immigration and immigration in general. That one issue, if left unchecked will turn this country to a completely socialist country within the next decade or less. Rubio has no answer for it, in fact, he wants more of the same. He is smoking something to believe he can win the Latino vote which has gone Democrat by almost a 70-30 pct over the last 4 presidential elections. That’s 70% voting for more welfare, Obamacare, and socialism. 75% of immigrants are on welfare and over 50% of illegals are on it as well. If you think they will vote to get off the dole, well…
Care to share the source for your welfare stats? They are as phony as a $3 bill.
Also the average length of time for someone to be “on the dole” to use your term is 18 months. That’s it. No one is living on SNAP anymore and hasn’t for 20 years.
Ignorance breeds this kind of rhetoric. Please educate yourself.
Are you really trying to tell us that welfare can only be used by an individual for 18 months and then they will never get another dime? Are you serious? You obviously don’t live in my church’s community. Have you never heard of Govt. disability?
Here are two links for you:
http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Legal-Illegal-Immigrant-Households
http://www.gao.gov/products/HEHS-98-30
I in no way said access to benefits ends after 18 months. I said the average person accessing benefits uses them for 18 months or less.
Disability is completely different from SNAP or TANF.
The CIS website you linked to is laughable. Over and over again the “report” lists assumptions and leaps of logic that are not capable of being taken seriously. I do appreciate that they wear their position on their sleeves- “low immigration”- but it is a pretty sad position for an organization to take in a country that was established by immigrants.
Dave asked me to back off so I am done.
Nate, You didn’t raise a single serious allegation about Rubio – just rants and such.
Trump? No, because I have conscience, I could never vote for him. He is an immoral man who cares only about himself. I would never vote for him because he would be the candidate most likely to bring America to an end. Hillary or Bernie, whom I oppose, could possibly be better candidate.
Trump has NO workable positions. All he does in lampoon others (much as you did). He attacks and ridicules.
His solutions? Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it? Seriously? Round up all the illegals and ship them back? Can you imagine that? Run America like a business? We AREN’T a business. We are a Republic. We elect a president to work with elected representatives. You can’t bully them.
When challenged for specifics, he just says, “I’m wonderful and I can handle it. I’ll figure it out and do a better job than these yahoos.”
Challenge – name ONE workable solutions Trump has come up with to a single problem in America.
In foreign policy he is would be a disaster. Foreign heads of state would not take well to being insulted or bullied. Trump believes he can walk into office and everyone will just kowtow to him. It won’t happen and he cannot change the world by the force of his self-perceived personality.
He is a misogynist whose treatment of women is despicable. I love my wife and my daughter and I would not want them subjected to a Trump presidency. When he speaks of women it is usually about their looks and if you review his statements on women, it is the most disgusting collection of wickedness imaginable.
If you think he is really pro-life and cares about those issues, I’ve got some land in south central Florida i could offer you for sale.
I am flabbergasted that any Christian would give even a second thought to supporting him. But i will not. I will never vote for a pro-death Democrat, but I will not vote for Donald Trump – not in a BILLION years. I don’t think he would be an improvement in any way over Hillary or Bernie.
That clear enough?
If you offer a reasonable analysis of anything that Marco Rubio actually believes, I would be willing to engage with that as well.
On Trump – ” he would be the candidate most likely to bring America to an end.”
I guess I’m supposed to know why you say this, but would you clarify?
Because he thinks he can bully people, our government would do nothing. He would offend our allies and inflame our enemies.
Plus, he is such a megalomaniac that I could see him trampling the constitution even more than Obama has.
Dave, that seems a bit weak for “most likely to destroy America!”. I really don’t get the bias.
Looking at the four positions on his page, how do they qualify as ” no workable solutions or reasonable policies”?
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions
Perhaps a civics lesson is in order Nate. You accuse Rubio of being in bed with The Usual Suspects. That’s how work gets done in the federal government. Through compromise and working together. Not the divisive “us against them” foolishness of the House. In the Senate, you have to work across the aisle to move forward. That’s why it is the healthiest body in our federal government.
The Tea Party morons have broken the House which is why statesmen like Boehner cant survive. Hopefully, the 16 cycle culls the TP from the herd and we can get back to governing instead of grandstanding.
As far as your “big 3” go. They reveal a high level of ignorance about how things actually work. Illegal immigration is not driving the ACA or welfare. Illegals qualify for neither. What’s driving both is a broken and biased I durance system, a health care cost increase driven by the pharmaceutical industry and lawsuit happy attorney chasing ambulances, and the after affects of The Great Recession combined with stagnated wages.
Further, although I don’t agree with him President Obama has as much right to use Executive Action as any other president and had used it far less than Reagan or Bush did. Check the numbers.
Finally, your lack of concern for refugees is deplorable. When have Christins ever put their personal safety ahead of the good of those in need of mercy or rescue. That may work in the Gospel according to Trump and Coulter but it doesn’t square with the Gospel once for all revealed to the saints.
Lastly, what’s wrong with amnesty? Do you really think we can deport millions of people? That’s nonsensical. They are already here. Why not develop a plan to assimilate rather than creating millions of new enemies and forgoing a chance to build bridges rather than walls? What’s lost in amnesty? Nothing but a talking point for radical right wingers. And I for one would be happy to see that monologue end.
Should never comment using mobile. Sorry for all the typos. Dang.
One of the things I’ve noticed is that because there is no real reason to support Trump – he’s offered no workable solutions or reasonable policies – Trump and his supporters tend to spend more time in tearing down other candidates than in anything else. It’s nuclear politics. Destroy everyone and hope your candidate is the only one who survives.
Also, that is one of the false accusations of many. “Amnesty” is a blanket claim – usually used falsely to lump everyone together who doesn’t buy into the racist “ship them all to the border” party line.
Iowa has 3.1 million citizens. Can you imagine rounding up and deporting 4 times the population of Iowa (11 to 12 million people) and deporting them?
What, are we going to fund a special police to kick down doors and check green cards?
So, it’s a long way from “amnesty” to reasonable and humane immigration policy. Republicans have to abandon ridiculous anti-immigration policies and find something reasonable.
“So, it’s a long way from “amnesty” to reasonable and humane immigration policy. Republicans have to abandon ridiculous anti-immigration policies and find something reasonable.”
Agreed!
Its a two part solution. Its the all in one “comprehensive immigration reform” approach I reject.
They should be honest enough to deal with it as TWO issues.
1. Border SECURITY first – gotta stop the flow of illegals. Its not racist to identify them as illegals – thats what they are if they came over without papers/improperly. We have to stop to hemorrhaging before anything else..
Then – once that is in place and implemented, and/or triggers are met….
2. How do we deal fairly and equitably with illegals without abandoning the rule of law.
Ryan, you need to check the facts. Illegals use welfare all the time. They get free health care, states have voted them in-state tuition, etc. What, you think they are living in tents, hunting for their food?
Also, I would include Bush as one who abused Presidential powers as well. That wasn’t my point. Congress has to hold a President in check and all the guys in the Senate running have failed to do so. And they will abuse the Position as well. Have you read the Constitution about declaring war? Or do you consider the “war in the Middle East” to be a police-action.
What’s wrong with amnesty? Why don’t you unlock your door to your home, then when an “illegal” squatter comes in and takes up residence in part of your home, you can give them amnesty, and not kick them out, but let them have part of your house. How about we give Amnesty to all those who commit crimes? We can be like the Sanctuary Cities and not deport felons who have been deported and keep returning. They want Amnesty too….
My lack of concern for refugees has nothing to do with legitimate refugees as it does with no protocol and no policy to determine who is “hiding” among them. Again, why don’t you just open the door of your home to anyone who wants to come in? Perhaps you do, pretty much everybody else doesn’t, unless they know exactly who is coming in.
Once again care to share your facts big talker? All I’m hearing is opinion and innuendo. Unlucky for you, I work in poverty alleviation and with those in need all the time. And I know your stats are full of it.
Provide some verification for your assertions or admit you have none and drop it.
Ryan, I think we can calm the rhetoric a bit, okay?
You da boss.
Forgot the emoji!
🙂
I stopped reading after I read “statesman like Boehner…”
Hopefully you retracted that and clarified that you were just kidding.
And that attitude and statement right there is what’s wrong with the House.
Boehner is a statesman and a gentleman of the highest order. His reward for his hard work is to have to try to keep a group of entitled children, who were elected based on fearmongering, in line.
Once again, people who criticize Boehner, who will soon turn on Paul Ryan as well, don’t understand how government works. Governing is about working together and compromise. When you refuse to do so, you get the mess we are in now.
The sooner you figure that out Tarheel the better. Else you will keep voting for fools who are destroying the country obstruction by obstruction.
In your opinion….
Who do you support? Paul, right?
You do remember that he was elected to current position by campaigning with and being supported by those Tea Partiers you express so much disdain for.
Just sayin’
The problem with Boehner is not that he did not compromise but that he always seemed to give away the house – literally – the BHO on every major debate that took place during his tenure as Speaker.
Can you demonstrate what exactly the conservative republicans (of which Boehner claimed to be) got out of the numerous “deals” he made with Obama?
Compromise is not giving away the bank….you have to hold out to get something of value before you give the other side what they want – that is something he never seemed to understand.
Tea party morons huh? I suppose it takes one to know one. I guess not wanting to raise the debt level every 6 months is moronic and obstructionist. I want to make it plain though that I do not support the Tea Party’s position on immigration. But calling those people morons is a bit over the top.
I had to look up the Tea Parties immigration policies, not that there is one voice in the party.
Real reform would prioritize securing the border.
Real reform wouldn’t pay lip service to border security or treat Americans like naive little children; it would secure our borders before any other steps are taken.
Real reform would represent the people’s voice.
Real reform would be written and implemented by people accountable to voters.
Real reform would be fair and Constitutional.
Real reform would uphold the rule of law and justice rather than mocking it.
Real reform would be understandable.
Real reform would be broken into pieces that are manageable and understandable to the American people – no more comprehensive bills.
Real reform would benefit the economy.
Real reform would be a boon to our economy, the jobs situation, and wouldn’t add a penny to our debt.
Real reform would promote American values.
Real reform would promote and instill the American values that made our country so great.
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/real-immigration-reform/
Sounds rational and constitutional to me. I must be a proud moron.
The ironic thing, as a point out before, Trump said in the first debate “I gave Hillary and other politicians money because I want them to do what I want them to do” – so since he’s been giving money to every politician in every position of leadership for the last 30 years – isn’t it reasonable to think that they’re doing exactly what he wants them to do therefore it’s impractical to think that he will bring about change. Because after all he pays them and they do his bidding – that’s what HE said.
Anyone who thinks that Donald Trump is an outsider to our current regime of politics is demonstrating an incredibly naïve understanding of political reality.
I have a very godly friend (a former Pastor) who works for Rubio. Obviously, he’s impressed with him.
Cool.
Dave,
In my opinion you are too involved in politics and are blind to the larger issues because of your singleness of sight. I agree with you about abortion and SSM, there is enough blame on these issues to convict both parties of murder and perversion.
The question is: Do we destroy America in a fight to do away with these two Supreme Court rulings. I really don’t think America will have a Republican President at this time. We just simply can’t afford it as a country. In case we do have an R in the White House, may God have mercy on our souls. In the last 50 years no Republican has reduced the deficit. Only the Democrats have reduced the deficit.
Haven’t you watched the News? Marco Rubio cannot control his own finances, he certainly doesn’t need access to billions.
Dave, you need to step away from the establishment and it’s politics. God doesn’t have anything to do with politics, God is not an R or a D, for one to believe otherwise is heresy.
In your article you have thrown a punch at Ben Carson because of his religion. I ask you to think for a minute with an open heart. If everyone in America were Baptist’s, where would be the freedom of religion that the constitution allows. My friend, where is the separation of church and state? Our first President’s were not members of an established church. I think we need to be very careful about pushing religion on America just to make us feel better.
Dave, if CNBC questions was to hard for the candidates, they are certainly not ready for the big questions. I would not walk across the street to vote for any of the GOP candidates, other than Trump or Carson. I prefer Trump, a business man can bring jobs to America.
Dave, there is no charge for these wise words, consider them a Thanksgiving gift.
First of all, I need no reminder that politics is not the solution in America. I’ve preached that and I believe that.
I do believe that politics matters and I voiced my opinion. I suspect that if I’d endorsed a Democrat, you’d have praised me.
I’m never voting for the party of death, Jess. Never. As long as they love abortion, Planned Parenthood, celebrate perversion, and endorse the killing of babies in their mother’s wombs as something good, I’m not joining with them. Not going to happen. Sorry.
You are being hypocritical here, Jess. Your problem is not with me talking politics, but with me disagreeing with your democratic politics. Sorry. I’m not a Dem and never will be.
Dave,
A good thing about our country is even you can believe what you want to believe. The GOP is only trying to court the church for their vote. I really believe they do not care about the issues you mentioned in your post. I think Ben Carson is the only one who does care. I think if we were to elect a Republican President, at the end of his term or terms, there would be no more conservatism in this country forever. I think the far right is bordering on dictatorship, and not the rights of all people, only a select few. I think this is what is destroying the church from the inside.
I wonder who is really being hypocritical, here.
I do believe there is one greater than the temple and all it represents, don’t you?
Did you thank your Republican Supreme Court for the murder of millions of babies? If you think the Republicans will fix this I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
Dave, the facts sure can haunt us at times.
What we are doing is not working anymore. It’s going to take winning one soul at a time to Jesus. The church cannot grasp this simple thought, because the church majority no longer believes in visitation.
If we elect a pro-lifer and he abandons the cause I’ll probably abandon the party, not for the abortion -loving Democrats but for independent status.
Jess, can you make any without re-articulating Democrat talking points? I’m just going to take one of them that came from the mouth of our president and then respond to it with something that Ben Carson said:
“if CNBC questions was to hard for the candidates, they are certainly not ready for the big questions”.
“that statement is silly coming from the president who refuses to go on FOXNews or be interviewed by any reporters from FOXNews.”
Yesterday was a good day in politics.
Houston, Texas defeated the HERO ordinance.
Ohio voted down marijuana.
Texas passed Proposition 6 putting the right to hunt and fish in the Texas Constitution.
http://bpnews.net/45779/profamily-voters-score-massive-victory
David R. Brumbelow
You might not have noticed the post that went up about an hour ago.
Trump, the man so many people seem to be thankful is in the race, was just forced to delete a twitter post showing Jeb Bush in a sombrero and next to a swastika.
This is the man some of you think would make a good president.
Donald Trump couldn’t be worse than Clinton or Sanders? Don’t bet on it. Of course he could be, of course he would be.
I am supporting Ted Cruz.
The following are some of the reasons I support him. Along with his principle stance in fighting for the issues he was elected to represent.
How does a man who is part Cuban, part Italian, and part Irish end up a Southern Baptist?
“I come from a family that has been Roman Catholic for generations,” Ted Cruz admitted, “but my parents converted while living in Texas and raised me Southern Baptist.”
The conservative candidate for United States Senate in Texas and former state Solicitor General told me he is not particularly concerned with the crime of being Christian, so to say, but the evidence. “I am always skeptical of politicians who say, ‘I’m running because God told me to.’ My view as a voter is: ‘When God tells me to vote for you, we’ll be on the same page.'”
As of late, Texans have been on Cruz’s page. And it’s quite a page to read.
“Talk is cheap,” Cruz says, “we need principled conservatives who are accomplished fighters,” and perhaps hereditary ones as well. At the age of fourteen, Cruz’s father, Rafael fought in the Cuban revolution. He was jailed, tortured, and has the veneers — the top row of his teeth having been kicked in — to prove it. (His father is a pastor and director of an international ministry).
“It’s a tremendous blessing to be a child of an immigrant who fled oppression because it makes you understand just how fragile liberty is.” As a child, Cruz would hear his father remark, “When we faced oppression in Cuba, I had a place to flee to. If we lose our freedom here, where do we go?”
From collectivist economics to government mandating contraception, Cruz warns, “the stakes have never been higher” than they are in America’s preset political conflicts. One culprit he fingers is the “imperial judiciary” and he vows to defend the Constitution from its would-be interpreters.
As a Harvard Law grad and former clerk to the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, he should know a thing or two about the United States Constitution.
In fact, Cruz knows it cold. He memorized the Constitution as a high school member of a Houston-based program “Constitutional Corroborators.” He and his friends would speak to local crowds for scholarship money. They set up easels and wrote out the entire Constitution from memory.
“In four years of high school, 80 speeches, it became what I wanted to do in life,” he remembered. “It really was the intellectual foundation for the next 30 years of my life.” After all, Cruz knows that “there’s a consistent lack of principled, effective, free-market warriors and if we don’t defend liberty, we’ll lose it.”
Cruz has since made a career out of being one such warrior. He has a knack for winning, too. Exhibit A: Medellín v. Texas.
On June 24, 1993, José Ernesto Medellín and others raped and killed two young girls in Houston. Medellín was arrested, tried, and convicted of his crimes. The state did not, however, advise him of his right as a Mexican citizen to contact his consulate under the terms of the Vienna Convention. After many failed appeals, Medellín sued the United States in the United Nations’ International Court of Justice. Federal judges and even the President wanted to obey the decision of an international court.
They lost. Cruz won.
Cruz fears that it may be only a temporary victory, however. “There are four justices on the [Supreme] Court willing to subject us to the authority of a world court and the United Nations. We’re one vote away from the Court being able to fundamentally undermine our sovereignty.”
“Our Constitution was truly a revolutionary document because they inverted the entire concept of sovereignty.” Throughout history, rights were given to people by the grace of a King. Our Founders said rights come from God. The role of the constitution, therefore, is to serve as “chains to bind the mischief of government.”
Not the sort of stuff you’d typically read on a candidate’s website “issues” section. Cruz’s doesn’t have one. Instead there’s “Proven Record.” Recalling Matthew 7:16, Cruz bluntly asks “When have you fought for your principles, when have you bled for them, and what have you accomplished?”
Returning to his faith, Cruz sees “a particular susceptibility for candidates to be like Pharisees who wear their faith on their sleeve as convenient political garb.
“It is far better to let actions speak louder than words.”
http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2012/02/29/you_shall_know_cruz_by_his_deeds.html
Cruz understands what makes America great! Cruz can lead is back to the vision of American Exceptionalism like no other one running.
Right now, Cruz is my first choice.
Here are the rest in order of preference – the ones who have a chance.
Rubio
Carson
Fiorina
Others I like reasonably well – but will be gone soon, but if the for some reason hang around I will reevaluate them. Again, in order of my preference.
Jindal
Santorum
Huckabee
Please, pretty please – don’t make me do it…
Kasich
Christie
I would strongly consider a good third party candidate or either write in Dave Miller!
Graham
Bush
Trump
Pataki
I personally like Ben Carson, but I will vote for anyone who wins the Republican nomination.
It may be because we have had 8 years of a constant self-promotion tour for presidential leadership but it seems regardless of who is president we will be settling. I recently watched a video of President Reagan awarding a congressional medal of honor to a soldier. I listened to him speak and wondered how awesome it must have been to have RR give you such an award. I would think similar emotions would be provoked if JFK, Teddy or Franklin, Ike or many other presidents were to recite your accomplishments and give you this award.
If President Obama, Hillary, Donald Trump, Christie or just about any of the others were to award such a medal it would seem to be lacking something RR provided.
I think the words you may be looking for in relation to RR might be “optimistic and inspiring.”
IMO, Rubio’s rhetoric in many ways is RR-esque.
I am starting to like him more and more. I still think we lost our best option when Scott Walker backed out though.
I will not vote for anyone who believes SSM is more important to do away with than empty bowls for children. This is one of the reasons I hate the Republican party.
James 2:5
Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?
Matthew 26:11
For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me.
As much as I don’t agree with Jess, I would like to ask John K what your meaning is in posting those passages in response to his comment?
We will always have the poor, those that may struggle financially here in this life and yet they may be the richest in heaven. Faith does not come from Hate.
Of course Jess loves the Democrat problem who believes in unborn children from their mother’s womb.
Jess, that is a false choice. It is true that Democrats support SSM, but it is not true that Republicans want to starve children. We certainly don’t want then killed in their mothers wombs and their body parts sold.
But we may disagree on how to best help children. Saying that Republicans want to starve children is a lie, it is slander, and it is sinfully offensive.
Amen, Dave Miller.
There are more ways to help the poor than the democrat mantra of “take from some and give to others”.
“The problem with liberal economic policies is that sooner or later you run out of others people’s money.” Margret Thatcher
“Give someone a fish and he eats for a day, tech him to fish and he eats for a lifetime.” – Came from some one, some time.
Build a man a fire and he’s warm for an hour. Set a man on fire and he’s warm for the rest of his life.
LOL!
Dave,
This is no false choice, these choices are true. The Republicans want to cut school programs and anything that will help the poor. The church is now in bed with the whole Republican doctrine.
Give one source, other than the radical leftist hate-sites, that would give any credance to that.
Jess, you need to let go of the hate that blinds you. You are so filled with hate that you cannot see truth or reality.
It’s funny to me that Jess places the blame for gay marriage and abortion completely on the Republicans, but he fails to recognize that 100% of the Dem members of the SCOTUS voted for both of those measures. Dems don’t care about the poor either. Historically the people who have done the most for the poor have been CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS actually pulling money out of their own pockets.
Dave,
You watch the same speeches and the same debates as I do. You may not listen to all the House speeches, but I do. These things are everywhere on the news, but I guess you choose not to listen. Some of the Republican candidates have said we have to cut entitlements in their speeches. Social Security is not an entitlement, we have paid for it all our lives.
Then it should not be hard for you to offer some proof for your wild accusations. Either offer a little bit of proof or apologize for saying ridiculous and untrue things and stop saying them.
Jess,
If a family decides to move to smaller house in a less expensive city because the father is getting less hours at work and therefore less money – does that mean that the mother and father do not love their children?
Buy your argument it would mean so that would mean they don’t love their children because they are cutting back on expenses – by my argument it would mean that they actually do love them because they are still seeking to provide as best they can but doing so with in their means.
Extrapolating then analogy to the government you have the Democrats who believe that even though they have less money they should keep spending like they’ve always spent and spending even more because they just have to provide – the Republicans would say no – to really care for and provide for your children sometimes means cutting back.
Cutting back on expenses of does not necessarily mean one doesn’t care – in fact it means that they do – because if the family the above example keeps spending money they don’t have then eventually they won’t have anything at all to provide for the children and the children end up far worse off than if they simply cut back.
See that’s the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives – liberals while pretending to bor see this the fundamental problem for progressives/socialist liberals – while pretending to abhore money and power in reality are inextricably linked to both in that all of their solutions to every problem is spend more money on it and give more away by way of taking from some and giving to others (Thus increasing their power among those who may have given stuff to).
Tarheel,
That is so funny! Don’t you know the Dems are the ones that reduces the deficit and keeps spending under control. You were not born under a rock.
Barack Obama, our President once said: If ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance, you don’t have to do anything. Just let them talk.
In a way I agree with the President. The church should be the smartest folks on earth, but when the church climbs in bed with a political party it’s still adultery and will be punished. I believe in multiple parties, I prefer at least three parties with term limits.
Jess: All I can say is that you are very generous, with other people’s money. How much are you willing for YOUR taxes to go up? The government is taking about 30% of my income. Is that enough? What’s fair?
Bill Mac, please explain the “30% that you are talking about. Are you counting your state’s sales tax and the payroll taxes? Or what?
Bennett: Fed rate is 25%. State rate is 6.45%. SS / Medicate is 7.65%. With sales tax it looks like it’s going to be closer to 40%.
But for some, that’s not enough. If I don’t willingly give up more to the government, I hate children and the elderly.
I really haven’t spent much time on this board. I was thinking it was a blog for Southern Baptists but after reading some of the comments I began to wonder if I was in the right place so I went back and checked and it looks like it is in fact a Southern Baptist blog so, I guess I’m in the right place.
By the way, under the President’s leadership we now have the longest stretch of job growth in history. Each time a Republican gets into office the economy is ruined.
There is a vast difference between the President of the United States and the President of the church. I will choose the President of the United States over the President of the church every time, because the President of the United States will represent all the people. The President of the church will only represent the church.
I think you guys have no earthly idea what you are talking about. Republican does not mean God, and God does not mean Republican or Democrat either.
According to your definition of liberal, Jesus was liberal, because he believed in the rich paying their fair share, he required some to give all they had.
The deficit has more than tripled under Obama…but do not let the facts stop you from your slathering but absolutely nonsensical love affair with all things progressive and particularly President Obama….they never do.
“we now have the longest stretch of job growth in history”
Cooked numbers…..
And now there’s this:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/ben-carson-west-point-215598
And now Carson is through, and should be.
Then again, Trump is an inveterate liar and it hasn’t seemed to hurt him.
There is a difference there. If you are running on a basis of morality and decency, like Carson has been, then you have to be moral and decent. No one think Trump is moral or a decent human being, so he does not have to behave morally or adhere to standards of decency.
wow, you cast him aside that quickly….
I realize this article has a conservative bent…but they include the actual text in question, the campaign responses and politico’s comments….
It is pretty clear that Politico’s accusations are flimsy and stretching to find a lie or “fabrication” where there no evidence for it having happened.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/960/no-ben-carson-didnt-lie-about-west-point-its-ben-shapiro
I feel bad about this, even though I’ve not been a huge Carson supporter. He has seemed like such a decent man. Now, the media grinder is chewing him up and spitting him out. Part of that is unfair, and part of it is “the way it is.” If you fictionalized your biography and you are a conservative running for president, you can count on CNN or NBC or someone like that to find your untruths and expose them. That is the nature of things.
Yep. Ask Herman Cain….
Black conservatives will be stopped….its just that simple. They do not fit the motif that the media is deadset on propagating…..so they will be undercut at any cost.
News outlets like Politico, and NBC fell over themselves defending Obama when he was caught in lies and statements of Marxism, and calling a terrorists his mentor, on and on….during his first campaign. Conservatives do not get the fawning….and CERTAINLY not black conservatives. Its the way the game is played.
Fiorina will go next. Same reasons…can’t have a female conservative…it cannot happen.
Then Rubio and Cruz….they are already working on Rubio. Same reasons…conservative Hispanics cannot be!
That will leave Trump and Bush to fight it out….that is what the media wants….and its the dems favorite outcome…..the Republican primary coming down to two people that no one wants to vote for….and Hillary (and Bill) walk back into 1600 Pennsylvania ave.
I’m withholding judgment for the moment. Looking carefully at the wording of the biography, it’s possible that “lied” is too strong a word.
1. Carson attends banquet: Still possibly true, although the date is probably wrong (easily could fit in the category of “mistake” rather than “lie”).
2. Westmoreland also attends banquet: True.
3. Carson meets Westmoreland: True. Probable, given Carson’s undisputed role in ROTC?
4. Discussion of West Point arises: Plausible.
5. Someone mentions that Carson’s education at West Point (if admitted) would be at no cost to Carson: Plausible.
6. Carson (unfamiliar with West Point tuition structure) believes he has been offered a scholarship: Plausible.
7. Carson construes this as an offer of a scholarship: Plausible.
8. Carson pursues it not at all, wanting to go into medicine. Carson therefore never learns more than this about West Point: Plausible.
9. In autobiography Carson mentions this whole episode as he perceived it, never asserting that he was admitted to West Point: True.
Rubio’s my guy, and I’m (quite obviously, given past events) prepared to criticize Carson. But I also can see that neither side has met any sort of a burden of proof here.
I got interrupted along the way. Items 6 & 7 are obviously identical. Between them is where I got interrupted.
I am not a Carson supporter either – but lied is a strong word and one that does not meet the burden of proof.
Your scenario is exactly how I described to a friend a few minutes ago….
If General Westmoreland mentions in conversation something along the lines of “Son, I can get you into Westpoint” then plain and simple he was offered an opportunity to go to Westpoint….
The point about jumping the gun is appropriate, but let’s consider the facts as they emerge regardless of the agenda of those who may want to bring Carson down. Let’s not have one standard for Carson and another for Caner.
LOL…..this story – if even a fabrication – does not even come close the lifestyle and pervasive pattern of lying that took place by Caner….
At this point comparing the two is apples and rocket ships. There may be more but this is really weak. I mean really weak.
Does anyone have the book? “I can get you into West Point” is not the same as being offered a full scholarship.
I am pretty sure that no one pays to go to Westpoint….if you get in it is “scholarshipped” in the sense that you are enlisted for a period of time afterwards.
Well, you wouldn’t be “enlisted”… 😉
If you haven’t seen David Barton’s American Heritage Collection I would highly recommend seeing it before the next election. There is one particular DVD titled “The Role of Pastors and Christians in Civil Government” that is particularly enlightening. It’s amazing how many of us aren’t really very knowledgeable about our American history and the beliefs of our founders. They were very wise men. They believed that the Constitution was a framework for government that was only as good as the leaders that the people elected to office. They actually warned us about what would happen if we failed to elect godly leaders.
In fairness, a lot of solid, Christian historians question both the validity of Barton’s results and the research techniques he uses – to put it charitably. He has been discredited as a historian in the eyes of Christian academicians.
I’ve seen general criticism but, when I look for any specific criticisms that I could check out for myself I’m unable to find any. I would invite you to watch the America’s Godly Heritage DVD and let me know if you find any inaccuracies in what he says. After watching it, I went back and read Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists and I read Washington’s Farewell Address and a few other things that he cited and he seems to be spot on. I think he makes a very compelling case. Frankly, if only 50% of his evidence is accurate it’s still overwhelming proof that America was a godly nation until 1963.
He’s has been invited to speak at Charles Stanley’s church in Atlanta and he has spoken at Liberty University. It seems to mainly be liberal historians that are criticizing him. They seem to take turns citing each other as authority and ignore documented evidence that they don’t like; much like liberal pastors do with the Bible.
No sir. It is historians in general who are criticizing him because his assertions are either inaccurate, misconstrued, or outright falsehoods. Thomas Nelson (a Christian publishing house) spent a whole load of money to promote “The Jefferson Lies” and then pulled it because it was roundly debunked and disproved. They didn’t do that because of the “liberals” they did it because the book was as factual as a fairy tale. Now the only people who will touch it, and who are planning to republish it, are World News Daily…which is all you need to know about the veracity of that volume. (Simon and Schuster considered it and declined it, for the same reasons that TN pulled it originally- blatant falsehood)
I have watched the DVD you mentioned. It does not hold up to historical scrutiny. The letter to the Danbury Baptists is proof that Jefferson wanted the church and state separated, but that in no way makes Jefferson any more than an advocate against what he had seen in England. Further, the truth of the “Jefferson Bible”- from which he excised all supernatural activity in keeping with his staunch deism- is a matter of historical record. Copies of said Bible are available for purchase today.
You mention that America was a “godly nation” until 1963. Do you consider slavery, the theft from and slaughter of native peoples, the state sanctioned oppression of minorities for the sake of monetary gain, and the systemic denial of rights to women, minorities, and natives to be in keeping with “godly” action?
The false doctrine of “American Exceptionalism” is thankfully dying a merciful death in these days. America was never a “godly” nation. It was not the “new Israel” and it was not founded as a Christian nation. It was the product of a group of people who wanted freedom from an oppressive government. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but can we please STOP acting like the Founding Fathers would have fit into 21st century conservative evangelicalism. A cursory reading of documents written by Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, and others reveals this to be far from the truth. And these documents also reveal David Barton for who he is, a revisionist historian of the first order, whose work cannot stand up the barest of scholarly scrutiny.
The idea of American exceptionalism is not a bad thing – America is exceptional in that (although we are losing it daily) it’s exceptionally free and is truly the freest nation in the world.
I will say that I agree with you very much regarding what you said about Barton, America not being the new Israel and several other statements you’ve made.
I’ve watched the entire American Heritage DVD series and to the best of my recollection Barton never makes the assertion that America is the new Israel. America has obviously been blessed in its short history because it was founded on Christian biblical principles and our leaders governed by these principles for the first 180 years of so. However, I believe that God will withdraw His blessing from America or any other nation that falls away from Him. In that sense we are similar to Israel. That’s essentially what Barton says and he substantiates it with historical and biblical support.
Could you give me some specific examples from the DVD where his historical quotes are incorrect or taken out of context so that I can investigate? I did read the letter that the Danbury Baptists wrote to Jefferson and I read his response and you’re clearly wrong about the separation of church and state issue.
The Southern Baptist Convention removed the language regarding separation of church and state from the Baptist Faith and Message in 2000 because it had been distorted in the way that you describe.
The evidence that Barton presents appears to be overwhelming. Are you saying that he made it all up? Barton’s message is that it’s wrong to compartmentalize our faith. The founders didn’t nor should we.
Bill,
Here is a link to a 13 page paper that summarizes some of the historical inaccuracies contained in the videos. Before you dismiss it as “liberal propaganda” you should know it was written by Gregg Frazer, history professor at The Master’s College, hardly a bastio of liberalism.
http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/files/2014/11/Americas-Godly-Heritage-review-by-Gregg-Frazer.pdf
When you are done reading this. I suggest you take a look at the critique of The Jefferson Lies by two professors from Grove City College (another conservative Christian institution) It is easily available via Google.
Happy reading.
Thanks for the link. I’ll read the review.
I did read the review. It seemed to be mostly general criticism as I suspected it would be. It was interesting that he opens by affirming Barton’s opinion that the founding fathers did NOT intend to erect a wall of separation between church and state and that Supreme Court decisions based on this premise were bad decisions. He made reference to Barton having said some things that he didn’t say in the video that I saw. I believe that Frazer may have been reviewing the earlier version of the video presentation. Barton actually remade the video just a few years ago. I think the original version came out in the early nineties. Barton may have corrected some earlier errors that were in the original version; I don’t know. As I said in a earlier post, if only 50% of what he says in the DVD is accurate, it’s still an overwhelming amount of evidence that the Christian faith had a significant role in the development of our nation. It’s illogical to think that America would have developed as it did if this had not been the case. Just to reassure myself I reached into my wallet and pulled out a $1 bill. Sure enough it really does say “In God We Trust”!
I join DM and RA in a more realistic view of Barton. The sooner we distance ourselves from him the better off we will be.
I once had a guy in my church who sais he was a “constitutional expert.” Not quite. Nor a historian.
But he can deliver votes…so some of the pols love him.
Bill,
Are you sure you read the correct article? That was 13 pages of specifics. Names, dates, facts. Based on your reaction, I don’t think you are interested in the truth. You just don’t want your view of history messed with. Which makes you a revisionist- someone who won’t let facts get in the way of their opinion.
And by the way, “In God We Trust” wasn’t put on money until 1956. The Founding Fathers didn’t choose it as their national motto. Eisenhower did- and based on the dates he lived and died he can’t be a Founding Father- unless your name is David Barton.
Enjoy your delusion.
The fact that “In God We Trust” was added to the currency in 1956 helps to support my point the America was a godly nation until 1963.
David Barton is a poor historian. Nobody who supports him supports him because they like his historiography; people support him because they like his politics.
Which is no skin off my nose. He’s a politician (not in the sense of a politician running for office, but a person trying to advocate for political change), and some people like him as a politician. So be it. But let’s clearly understand that he’s endured public exposure of his many failures as a historian. He’s sort of the conservative counterweight against Oliver Stone, if you will.
If it matters, I offer that opinion as someone with a Ph.D. in History.
Finally, I think it serves us well to acknowledge that there are broad changes in society that took place in the latter half of the twentieth century. To tie it all to Abington v Schemp is foolish—I might add here that anything that has to be propagated by the government in government schools in order to survive is not Christianity— but there is a palpable hostility against Christianity in our era that was absent from American discourse in the immediately preceding period.
I think it has less to do with the Supreme Court than it has to do with Darwin, Marx, and the Beatles. Marxism is a political application of Darwin, and Marx’s theories are forcefully anti-religious. That Progressive and Liberal movements draw at least somewhat from Marxist theory is a fact easily demonstrated (no, I’m not asserting that all Democrats are full-fledged Marxists). The anti-religious theory of Marx is influencing those movements. Finally, the promotion of Far Eastern religion accomplished to some significant degree by the Beatles is an important cultural marker that deserves some attention.
People alive today have lived through this (if they are old enough). Barton’s slipshod historical work doesn’t prevent him from selling DVDs because, wrong as he is about the eighteenth century in so many ways, he touches upon something that is real about the twentieth and twenty-first centuries—something that his customers powerfully understand to be true based upon their personal experience. David Barton’s expertise isn’t the past; it’s the present, which he reads well with an emotional intelligence that enables him to connect with the passions of those who purchase his material.
Ah, the voice of reason strikes again.
Bart is right –
Barton is a terrible historian and gets a lot of stuff wrong – but he has his finger on the pulse of the present – what I called the “progressive philosophical persecution of Christians” – and that is what makes him popular.
Right now the persecution of the Christians in America is not physical like it is in many countries of the world – no it is philosophical – and philosophically persecution tends to lead the way to physical persecution .
The progressives or certainly philosophically persecuting Christians in America – they are forcing a worldview that is contrary to anything Christian.
Actually, it’s all tied to Engle v. Vitalle. Everything after that was all downhill.
Everyone kept saying 1963. That’s why I went with Abington. Engel v Vitale was a 1962 decision.
Are we at a point where this is too serious for me to ask why Dick Vitale is such a problem for civilization?
Other than his Duke fixation, of course…
That’s reason enough…reason enough indeed.
bIll Payne, if you want specifics, try http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/davidbarton/
You’ve set a pretty low threshold for truthfulness, 50%. I am pretty certain at least half of what DB says or writes is accurate.
Actually, what I said was that 50% is overwhelming evidence to support Barton’s assertion that America was a godly nation until 1963 when an activist liberal court changed things. I’m not sure why any Christian would be so intent on proving it not to be true. My personal observations, although totally unscientific, are that things have gotten progressively worse since 1963 culminating in the recent US Supreme Court decision in Oberfell v. Hodges.
Bill: What about Ryan’s point about American treatment of natives, slavery, Jim Crow, not to mention Japanese internment? All prior to 1963? What about these were Godly?
I never said that America was perfect but, as a godly nation, we overcame all those things. Since 1963 we have steadily progressed to the point where divorce is the rule rather than the exception; that is if people even get married to begin with. Christian business owners are being persecuted and losing their businesses just because they have the courage to stand up for their faith. We are killing millions of unborn babies each year. The Supreme Court has warped the Constitution so badly that same sex marriage has been ruled the law of the land. As a nation that has fallen away from God, these things seem to be getting worse rather than better. That’s the difference between America today and America before 1963.
So let me make sure I am understanding you correctly. Same sex marriage is worse than- the systemic enslavement, exploitation, and oppression of an entire people based on their skin color. The systemic theft and annihilation of a native people and their way of life. The imprisonment of a group of people based on their nationality when they were guilty of no crime. The systemic oppression of an entire group of people- not limited to and including their denial of basic rights, their murder without repurcussions, and their abuse by authorities.
You think SSM is worse than those things? Divorce is worse than those things?
Also, I would like to invite you to meet some of my friends from China when they are in the country and visit with them to learn what “persecution” actually is. I’m sure they would enjoy the conversation.
Again, enjoy your delusion.
Actually, I said that as a godly nation we overcame those terrible things. I never said they were better or worse. They are all sinful. However, as a nation that seems intent on abandoning God, I just don’t see us overcoming the abominations that are afflicting us today. Things seem to be getting worse. The Bible tells us that God will withdraw his blessing from a nation that turns away from Him.
Late to the conversation. And I am certainly no defender of Barton. I know of him and have read some of his stuff. Still no defender.
But, in comparing the sins of our nation, the horrible sin of man slaves this country endured, the way native Americans were treated, the way the Japanese were treated, and so forth, pale in comparison, IMO, to the what, almost 60 million babies murdered in the womb since Roe v Wade. IMO the mistreatment of a people group, as bad as that is, is really no comparison to the murder of babies in their mother’s womb. Now I’m not saying anyone here has tried to equate them. Just had to put that out there.
My choices…Cruz/Paul/Rubio…in that order
Trump=He’s clearly smart. He knows how all of this works. He’s changing the game. He’s also a pragmatist. I have no idea what kind of president he’d be. He appeals to those people who vote Republican, but don’t really know what it means to be conservative.
Bush=If I’d want to vote for a liberal, I’d just vote for Hillary. Sheesh. Why can’t folks see that ALL of the Bush’s have been govt-expanding, debt-balooning, liberals. You can always tell a neo-con from a real conservative…The neo-cons are always the first to suggest spending billions liberating some future-enemy and they never reduce the size of our huge govt. They just talk about “reforming” whats already there. The reason Bush’s even registering in the polls is because of the media and the neo-con “establishment” cash donors propping him up. He’ll probably get the nomination. He’ll lose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Carson= I’m tired of having to jack up my TV’s volume just to hear him talk. After deciphering what he says, he shows he actually knows a lot about the issues. Unfortunately, his wacky religious beliefs are gonna catch up with him. I don’t think we’ve seen the end of it with the Joseph/pyramids video. SOP for Seventh-Day speaking engagements. I do think he’d go a long way in restoring the Presidency to a role more in-line with the Constitution…significantly weaker.
Carly=Not bad. Spouts a lot of red-meat so I cant really tell where she is any different than anyone else would be. Says exactly what I think someone running for president would say. She’s lose handily.
Huckabee= Never thought someone named “Huckabee” would ever be president. But I also thought the same thing about “Obama”. Probably tosses the most red-meat of all of the candidates. Loves the socialist “entitlements” conservatives should be against by principle. Why? Cause most folks don’t know what a conservative is and love their free stuff just like everyone else.
Christie= Police-state shock jock. Pragmatist. Would love to spend big money on his own “conservative” pet projects…like security, security, and more security. Also a lot like Trump in his tactics, just a more polished. I’d actually vote for Trump before this guy. Glad he’s been sent down to the minors.
With all of that said, I think it’s VERY likely that Hillary will be our next President. I’ve been pessimistic regarding the abilities of the american public to vote for a proper president for a good while now. Really, we elected Obama twice. Ack!! Problem is we are all ignorant. Don’t have a clue about the Constitution, what it actually says, or what the framers had in mind when they founded this nation. In a sense, excluding Dr. Willingham’s often-touted 3rd Great Awakening, we are doomed as a nation. Whats in store? Less liberty in general. Spread-thin and more involved in over-hyped skirmishes around the world. Less diplomatically involved(the real isolationism). Absurdity and celebrity continue as our national zeitgeist.
I’m near convinced that the nation I was taught in school and heard about from my parents died about a hundred years go when the pragmatists/progressives/fabians rose to power. Laid to rest by the likes of Woodrow Wilson, Oliver W. Holmes, William James, James Dewey, Teddy Roosevelt, etc.
So someone has convinced Jeb Bush that he needs to toughen up. One of the ways he seeks to prove that is saying if he had the chance, he’d kill Hitler as a baby. Good grief. I swear these guys are taking turns driving the clown car.
In unsurprising display of low class, intelligence, and basic decency, Trump likens Ben Carson to a child molester. If you are wondering how low a person can stoop, Trump the one to watch, but I don’t think we’ve seen anything yet.
I knew that this would happen once someone really started to contest him – this is revealing trumps character – this is revealing who he is – if people still vote for him – to use his words – “how stupid are you!”
That’s ridiculous. Trump’s character can’t be revealed – he has no character!
True.
We call that jumping the shark, Bill.
The problem is that he’s jumped the shark so many times, but his supporters don’t seem to have any shame about the things he says.
He speaks shamefully about women – never has a presidential candidate been this consistently disrespectful of women – and they just laugh it off.
He offers nothing but insults to other candidates, and they say he’s “not politically correct.
His solutions are patently absurd, but people say he’s a “leader.”
Let’s hope the people of Iowa get tired of being called stupid and send this guy back to the circus where he belongs.