As the current presidential election cycle draws to a close, it seemed good to me to put down in writing what I see as the big issues at that will be determined by the November 8th vote.
It’s not uncommon to hear the upcoming election described in superlative terms such as “the most important ever,” or “the most revolting ever.” For my part, I try to steer clear of such statements, if only because I’m not sure how prove that they’re true.
But if I hesitate to say that the 2016 election is the most important ever in American history, I am willing to go on record and say that it may very well be the most important election of my fifty-year lifetime. I do not recall any previous election in which there were so many major issues at stake, issues, which depending on how the vote goes, that very likely will determine the course of our nation for a long time to come.
With that in mind, today’s post is intended to be more high-level, addressing the major overarching themes of this election, which I have cast in these terms: Oligarchy vs. the Rule of Law, Feminism vs. Patriarchy, and Globalism vs. Westphalian Sovereignty.
Oligarchy vs. The Rule of Law
In 1959, Charles Van Doren appeared before Congress to testify to his complicity in a famous scandal of the day. What was it?, you may ask. Did Van Doren commit treason by passing secret to the Soviet Union? Was he involved in a ponzi scheme that defrauded millions from investors? Did he cheat on his taxes?
The answer is none of the above.
Van Doren went before Congress to confess his involvement in a game show fraud.
Van Doren, you see, had risen to national fame two years earlier on the game show Twenty One. He was the Ken Jennings of his day, sustaining a long winning streak on the quiz show that netted him a payday of $129,000 in 1957 dollars. That’s a cool million dollars in today’s money.
And it was a fraud. All of it. As it turned out, the producers of the show had been feeding Van Doren the answers to the questions.
Fast forward to 2016. The leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination is provided questions to be used in upcoming debates by Donna Brazile, the chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
There’s no question that it took place. The obvious fraud was too much even for CNN, which dismissed Brazile from her post as contributor to the network.
But after all the pro forma huffing and puffing, Brazile is still in her job at the DNC. And so far as I have been able to find, Hillary has never been asked by the mainstream media to comment on the fraud she committed with Brazile’s help.
Apparently cheating on a game show was a bigger deal in 1959 that cheating in a presidential primary is in 2016.
I bring this up by way of introduction to the subject of oligarchy vs. the rule of law. An Oligarchy is the rule of a small clique of corrupt individuals to whom the regular laws of the nation and expected norms of society do not apply. Think Banana Republic. And if Hillary is elected, the US could fairly be considered the world’s largest.
The debate rigging example is one of my favorite Clinton initiatives. It is easy to understand. It is beyond a reasonable doubt is true. And it is directly pertinent to the presidential election at hand.
But Hillary’s debate fraud is but one example of her arrogant disregard for the rule of law. Consider the following ,
- Servergate: That Mrs. Clinton kept an unsecured private server, actually two unsecured private servers, in her home in Chappaqua, New York which she used to conduct office business is absolutely staggering. Former CIA operation officer Charles Faddis said of this, “I have worked in national security my entire life…Nobody uses a private email server for official business. Period. Full stop. The entire notion is, to borrow a phrase from a Clinton campaign official, ‘insane.’ ” According to Scott Uehlinger, another former CIA, agent, the information on Clinton’s servers was, “so high in classification that the FBI agents investigating her case were not allowed to see [it].” Uehlinger also noted that, “The fact that she set up a private server, in and of itself, means she is guilty of a felony right there. Obviously, by having a private server, she was conspiring to evade her signed sworn statements that she would uphold secrecy agreements.”
- The Clinton Foundation: Wall Street investment analyst Charles Ortel has termed the William J. Clinton foundation, “the largest unprosecuted charity fraud ever,” a designation supported by recent Wikileaks documents. Author Peter Schweitzer’s 2015 book Clinton Cash detailed the pay-to-play (bribery) nature of the Foundation. In short, the Clinton’s accepted large donations t the Foundation in return for doling out political favors.
- Election Rigging: Given the Clinton’s penchant for skullduggery, it is unsurprising that Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign has been dogged by allegations of cheating. Notably, Wikileaks released a trove of documents just before the 2016 Democratic convention showing the DNC conspired against Clinton’s main rival Bernie Sanders. The release forced the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who was mirabile dictu immediately joined the Clinton campaign as “honorary chair” in which she will head the “campaign’s 50-state program to help elect Democrats around the country.” Apparently it is too small a thing for Wasserman-Schultz to rig the Democratic primary, now she is set up to rig the whole country.
And what I’ve listed above is just to top of the proverbial iceberg. For a list of Hillary’s greatest scandals (admitted somewhat outdated since it was published in 2015, she’s added to it since then), see here. You may find the Clinton Dead Pool of some interest as well.
The election of Hillary would be tantamount to the American people saying, “You know all that rampant Clinton criminality, that notion that the laws of the nation apply only to little people, you know all that?, yeah, we’re fine with it.”
The rule of law of one of the most precious possessions of the West. It is based on the Biblical truth that God is not a respecter of persons. And if God is not a respecter of persons, neither should be the government.
Equality before the law is a political implication of the Gospel of Justification by Faith Alone that was recovered at the time of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. It ended the oligarchies in the nations to which it came.
Donald Trump has promised to bring accountability to government. In doing this, he shows himself an heir, at least rhetorically, to the Reformation. His vow to “drain the swamp” of corruption in Washington is right on target and consistent with the attitude that should prevail in a nation with a Biblical sense of justice.
Over the summer, the FBI punted its opportunity to principle of equality before the law to Hillary Clinton when FBI director James Comey refused to recommend charges be brought against her for her obvious criminality in the case of Servergate.
Now, the American voters are the republic’s last line of defense. On Tuesday, they have before them the choice before them: the rule of law or oligarchy.
If they make the wrong choice, the republic may well be at an end.
Feminism vs. Patriarchy
In a recent campaign stop in Ohio, Barak Obama remarked,
To the guys out there, I want to be honest. You know there’s a reason why we haven’t had a woman president before …I want every man out there who’s voting to kind of look inside yourself and ask yourself. If you’re having problems with this stuff, how much of it is you know that we’re not just used to it?
When a guy’s ambitious and out in the public arena and working hard well that’s OK, but when a woman suddenly does it, suddenly you’re all like – well why’s she doing that?
To which I’m tempted to say, “Barak Obama being honest with me? Well, that’s a first!” But apart from the obvious cheap shot at the president on my part, there’s another, more important issue here.
When Obama says “there’s a reason why we haven’t had a woman president before” he is, of course, entirely right.
There is a reason America hasn’t had a woman president before.
The reason is this: It’s a bad idea.
God created the human race male and female. But more than that, he created a man and woman in a relationship with each other that is patriarchal. And despite the anguished wailings of contemporary feminists, it was so from the beginning.
In the three spheres of human government – the family, the church, and the state – headship is given to men, not to women.
In Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians, the apostle draws a direct parallel between the husband and wife in a marriage to the relationship between Christ and his church. As the husband is head of the wife, so too is Christ the head of the Church.
And as it is patently unchristian and against the ordinance of God for a woman to rule her husband or for the church to rule over Christ, so too is it against all good order for a woman to rule over a nation. Female government is not a sign of progress, but of decay and disgrace.
John Knox famously and boldly gave voice to this truth when he wrote his First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. Here’s some of what Knox said,
To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature, contumelious to God, a think most contrary to his revealed will and approved ordinance, and finally it is the subversion of good order, and of all equity and justice…
…The revealed will and perfect ordinance of God…do manifestly oppose t hat any woman shall reign or bear dominion over man. For God first by order of his creation, and after by the curse and malediction pronounced against the woman by the reason of her rebellion, has pronounced the contrary.
For she that is made subject to one, may never be preferred to many, and that the Holy Ghost does manifestly express, saying: I suffer not that woman should usurp authority abover her husband, but he nameth man in general, taking from her all power and authority to speak, to reason, to interpret, or to teach, but principally to rule or to judge in the assemble of men. So that woman by the law of God and by the interpretation of the Holy Ghost is utterly forbidden to occupy the place of God in the offices aforesaid which he has assigned to man, whom he has appointed and ordained his lieutenant in Earth…(The Place of Women, ed. John Robbins).
But the Bible not only proscribes women from ruling nations, it also offers positive commands for how women are to conduct themselves in a way that is pleasing to God.
Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. Do not let your adornment be merely outward – arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel – rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quite spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror (1 Peter 3:1-6).
This is worlds apart from the advice proffered by our current feminist president, who flings charges of sexism at any man who dares question the wisdom of having a female president or a woman acting with the ambition of a man in the public sphere.
But what ungodly feminists call sexism or gender bias is called “precious is the sight of God” by Peter under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Shame of face belongs not to those who refuse to support a woman for a woman president, but to those who promote this monstrosity.
And if anyone is wondering, the same prohibition that applies to Hillary also applies to conservative women. This means, among others, that Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Carly Fiorina all have violated the ordinance of God by running for president, despite their claims to be Christians and despite the support they’ve received support from large swaths of conservative Evangelicals.
The Feminism vs. Patriarchy theme is clearly delineated in this election cycle. A victory by Hillary Clinton would be viewed as the apotheosis of feminism. And not just feminism only, but its daughter movements such as the LGBT agenda.
For Feminism, and this likely would surprise many people, implies homosexuality. It is no accident that the homosexual movement arose shortly after the modern feminist movement began with Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique.
And a moment’s thought should make clear why this is. Feminism is an all out attack on God’s created order. It attempts to conflate what God has made separate – men and women and the roles he ordained for them.
If it is true, as feminist theory holds, that the roles men and women are interchangeable in the family and in society, what difference does it make if men marry men, and women marry women? We’re all the same, so really, it doesn’t matter if Heather Has Two Mommies.
A victory by Trump, would represent a win for patriarchy. And that, as they say, is a good thing.
Globalism (Rome) vs. Westphalian Sovereignty (Geneva)
Although he didn’t coin the term, George H.W. Bush did a lot to burn the phrase “New World Order” into the consciousness of American nation. He did this in a speech to a joint session of Congress given, curiously enough, on September 11, 1990. Here’s the quote,
A new partnership of nations has begun, and we stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward and historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective – a new world order – can emerge: A new era – freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony.
The idea of globalism, the push for one world government, existed prior to Bush’s speech. But term New World Order with all its creepy, Messianic overtones quickly became a popular way of talking about globalism.
As one who follows the so-called “alternate media” – blogs, podcasts, Youtubers, etc. – I have listed to a great deal of commentary on the New World Order. Some of it helpful, some of it not so much.
In the popular understanding of the New World Order, the lowerarchy of villains includes such luminaries as: George Soros, the Rothchilds, the Rockefellers, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bush family, central bankers and the Bilderbergers.
Now far be it from me to pronounce these characters innocent. They are, in fact, globalists and anything they’re involved with ought to be suspect.
But what nearly all alternate media types miss when it comes to the New World Order is the 500 pound globalist gorilla sitting right in front of their noses: The Antichrist Roman Church-State.
The popes were the original globalists, holding sway as absolute monarchs over the nations of Europe for centuries until the Protestant Reformation ended their evil rule over parts of the continent.
The popes grip on Europe was first weakened by Luther in Germany and Calvin in Geneva and then in other nations such as Holland and England.
What Luther began in the religious sphere was ratified in the political sphere with Protestant military victories such as the Sir Francis Drake’s defeat the Spanish Armada – the Armada was the pope’s fleet sent to escort an army sent to recapture England for the papacy – and the victory of the Protestant forces of the Romanists in the Thirty Years’ War.
The Thirty Years’ War, settled as it was by the Treaty of Westphalia, gave rise to the modern world, ushering in a new relationship between nations states. A relationship known today as Westphalian Sovereignty.
What is Westphalian Sovereignty? Most people today would simply call it common sense. But it’s not. It’s actually the product of a Protestant reading of the Bible.
In short, Westphalian Sovereignty says that, “each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country’s domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law” (Wikipedia).
To put it another way, Westphalian Sovereignty is the application of the Biblical principle of Mind Your Own Business (MYOB) – one explicit example of MYOB in the Bible is from Second Thessalonians 3:11-12, “For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread” – to the realm of international relations.
Rome, of course, has never accepted the idea that nations have a right to conduct their own affairs apart from the pope’s directives and has spent the past 368 years attempting to overturn Westphalia.
This is what globalism is all about: reversing Westphalian Sovereignty.
To put it in other terms: Globalism is Rome, Westphalian Sovereignty is Geneva.
Any discussion of the menace of globalism that does not place the Roman Church-State and its Antichrist papacy front and center as the main culprits is seriously flawed to the point of being nearly useless.
One author who understood Rome’s connection with globalism was John Robbins. He wrote,
In its social encyclicals of the twentieth century, the Roman Church-State has frequently called for world government. One of the major documents issues by the Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, is typical:
It is our clear duty, therefore, to strain every muscle in working for the time when all war can be completely outlawed by international consent. This goal undoubtedly requires the establishment of a universal public authority acknowledged as such by all and endowed with the power to safeguard on the behalf of all, security, regard for justice, and respect for rights (Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 187).
Noteworthy is Robbins comment that the quotation from Vatican II is “typical”. Many other examples exist of Rome promoting world government, or the New World Order. See here for 12 examples from pope Francis alone. The shocked, almost beside himself response from one conservative journalist upon learning of the Vatican’s plans for global government can be found here.
A cursory review of Hillary’s platform shows that she is fully on board with the plan’s of her globalist paymasters. For example, she can’t wait to import more refugees and migrants all the while sweetening the welfare pot for them. And who could object. After all, things have worked out so great in Europe, she didn’t want Americans to miss out on all the fun.
Another favorite globalist tool is “free trade agreements”. Now Christians should support free trade. I’m not arguing with that. But complex, negotiated agreements such as NAFTA or the secretive Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) are not about free trade. They are about managed trade. And that trade is managed of globalist sponsors, by globalist sponsors, and for globalist sponsors.
In the case of the TPP, even members of Congress have only limited access to the documents and cannot discuss the details in public. They are classified.
This is a sick joke. What utter gall it takes for elected representatives of the people to spend even one second considering the merits of such a monstrosity! It should be buried post-haste, never to be spoken of again.
But Hillary has gone on record calling the secretive, sovereignty destroying, arrogant TPP the “gold standard”, although she later denied this.
One final point about Hillary’s philosophical Romanism centers around her choice of running mates. Tim Kaine graduated from Jesuit high school, spent nine months working at a Jesuit mission in Honduras, has been written up favorably in a prominent Jesuit publication, and was moved to tears when Pope Frances, the first Jesuit pope, visited Congress in 2015.
As far as I am aware, Tim Kaine’s nomination represents the first time someone with such close ties to the Jesuits has been in the running for Vice-President. If Hillary does win, America will have a Jesuit president in waiting.
Worth noting too is that America may get its first Jesuit connected Vice-President at the same time Rome has its first Jesuit pope. This seems more than a bit suspicious to at least one observer.
In short, Hillary represents, knowingly or not, Rome’s globalism. That is good for Antichrist and bad for the American people
Donald Trump, on the other hand, has consistently stood up for the principle of Westphalian Sovereignty.
In his immigration platform, Trump stated, “A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.” In other words, American immigration policy should not be driven by globalist drivel about the taxpayer subsidized right of every person in the world to immigrate to America, but should first take into account what is good for actual Americans.
In the twisted minds of Trump’s liberal critics, such crime thought is construed as racism. In truth, these are simply the words of a man who understands the job of the civil magistrate is to see to it that justice – not Romanist social justice – but actual Biblical justice, is done, and that includes justice for the people who elected him and who pay his salary by their taxes (see Romans 13).
When it comes to international treaties, Trump has stated,
We will no longer surrender this country, or its people to the false song of globalism. The nation-state remains – the true foundation of peace and harmony.
I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down. Under my administration, we will never enter America into any agreement that reduces our ability to control our own affairs.
When it comes to the question of globalism versus nationalism, Mrs. Clinton is from Rome, Donald Trump from Geneva.
For Protestants, this should make the choice between the two as clear as could be.
Conclusion
In this post we’ve looked at three of the major themes of this campaign – Oligarchy vs. The Rule of Law, Feminism vs. Patriarchy, and Globalism vs. Westphalian Sovereignty – and in every case found in favor of Donald Trump and against Hillary Clinton.
Trump is not perfect, and it is not the purpose of the post to portray him as such. But on the big issues, Trump gets it basically right, while Hillary is a hopeless wreck.
As a Christian, and more specifically, as a Calvinist, I know that the outcome of this election is in God’s hands. Whatever happens Tuesday and beyond is all part of his secret counsel, some of which he will reveal in due to us.
This I also know, it is my prayer that Trump would win and Hillary lose. Never in all my life have I seen such a basket of deplorables as Mrs. Clinton and her posse. Never in all my life have I seen anyone more deserving of a stunning comeuppance that them. Never in my life have I prayed more about an election.
But in the end, “The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD.”
Knowing this, as Christians let us pray that God grant us peace regardless of Tuesday’s outcome.
Don’t forget to vote.
And come Wednesday, whoever it is who wins, we’re going to have a lot of work to do.
Lux Lucet 
Leave a Reply