Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Presidential Campaign 2016’

Ruth_and_Naomi_Leave_Moab

Ruth and Naomi Leave Moab, 1860, by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (1794-1872).

Last week in Part 3 of this series, we looked at Donald Trump’s immigration reform proposals. This week, the focus will be on Hillary Clinton’s immigration stance.

As you may recall, the verdict on Trump’s immigration reform proposals was mixed. Some of his ideas were quite good – 1) his statement that American immigration policy should be set up to benefit all Americans and 2) his call to end birthright citizenship – can readily be reconciled with Biblical political theory. On the other hand, some of his ideas fell short of the mark – 1) Trump’s signature issue, his call to build a wall all along the US-Mexico border, and 2) his eVerify program, a proposal that would, in effect, create a national biometric ID card, requiring anyone looking to get a job to show “his papers” to prove he was eligible to work in the US.

An analysis of Hillary’s immigration plan will require a different approach than the one I used for Trump’s. Because her immigration proposals are so uniformly bad, realistically there is no way to break her ideas down into the categories of “good” and “bad” ideas.

In short, her immigration program is an unrelieved disaster that, if enacted, will go a long way to transforming the US into a third world country, while forcing ordinary Americans to foot the bill for the privilege. Or to put it another way, her immigration policy could well have been crafted by prelates of the Roman Church-State, whose destructive immigration policies she has largely adopted as her own. In fact, the only real difference between Mrs. Clinton’s ideas on immigration and those of Rome is that she doesn’t bother with trying to justify them, as the Romanists do, by twisting the Scriptures.

The following critique will be based upon Mrs. Clinton’s immigration platform as stated on her campaign website here.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Ruth_and_Naomi_Leave_Moab

Ruth and Naomi Leave Moab, 1860, by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (1794-1872).

Immigration, long an issue in American politics, has in the past year been moved from the back to the front burner. This is due in no small part to the presidential campaign of Donald Trump, who has placed immigration reform at the very center of his platform.

In Trump’s case, the most notable reform proposals are 1) his promise to build a wall along the entire border between the US and Mexico and have Mexico pay for it, and 2) his pledge to step up the deportation of illegal immigrants, that is, to forcibly those individuals who are in the country in violation of US immigration law. You can read his full immigration platform here.

Donald Trump – The Good

On Trump’s campaign website under the heading “Immigration Reform That Will Make America Great Again” are listed “three core principles of real immigration reform.” They are:

  1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.
  2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.
  3. 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.

I would like to being the discussion of Trump’s immigration stance by taking up point number three. For though it is the third “core principle” listed, it is the most noteworthy of the three.

Usually when the subject of immigration comes up, any logical thought is quickly swallowed up in a fog of altruistic sentimentality replete with buzz words such as “nation of immigrants,” “give me your poor,” “the Statue of Liberty” and “Ellis Island.”

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Well, we had quite a week this past week. Crooked Hillary became deplorable Hillary became collapsing Hillary. The tide bad economic data kept rolling in. There was more evidence (as if we needed any) that there is very little of Christianity left in our nation’s mainstream culture.

Deplorable Hillary

For someone who’s always seemed to lack a sense of humor, Hillary managed to inject a healthy dose of LOL humor last week with her “basket of deplorables” speech. Based on her comments, about 25% of the US population qualified for deplorable status due to their, drum roll please, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia and/or whateverophobia.

For my part, I’m glad she said what she said and don’t think she should take back any of it. I rather enjoy it when people speak their mind. At least we know where we all stand. In that regard, it’s a bit like Obama’s “‘bitterly clinging to their guns and religion” comments a few years back. Hillary was trying to gain SJW street cred with her LGBT friends and Barbara Streisand. And who am I to deny her such an honor?

Of course, this is a bit self-serving on my part. After all, I find her lying, war-mongering, Saul Alinsky loving, oligarch schmoozing, feminist, anti-American, crony capitalist, charity fraudster self to be not a little deplorable, and, as I would like to preserve my right to say so, I’m more than willing to grant her free rein to bare her soul to the world.

It was the very next day that Hillary collapsed like the twin towers at the 911 ceremony in New York. We can only hope that her campaign does likewise.

As a closing thought on the Hillary, I believe that while it is necessary to point out her many lies, appalling record as Secretary of State, and ideological unfitness to serve as president, it is not sufficient. There are many outlets capable of doing that. As I have pointed out elsewhere, as a Christian I must also object to the idea of a woman president. Period. As Isaiah tells us, female rulers are a sign, not of a healthy society, but of a ruined nation. Only by pointing out this rather unpopular point can a Christian writer be said to have done his job with respect to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

For a few months there I wrote a series of weekly posts I called This ‘n That dealing with various stories from the week that was. Over the summer I abandoned that format for a weekly podcast. Well, I plan to keep the podcast going, but I thought I restart the weekly review post as well under the updated name The Week in Review.

I know, I know, that’s not really the most imaginative title in the world. But I think it’s certainly appropriate for the subject matter. So, without further ado, let’s get started…

They Just Don’t Get It

The Washington Post and the liberals who love it just don’t get it. They can’t figure out why Mrs. Clinton isn’t totally dominating the presidential race and let show their frustrations in a story titled, “Democrats wonder and worry: Why isn’t Clinton far ahead of Trump?” According to the article,

With Election Day less than two months away, Democrats are increasingly worried that Hillary Clinton has not built a formidable lead against Donald Trump despite his historic weaknesses as a national party candidate.

The piece goes on to quote former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle saying, “Generally, I’m concerned, frankly…all the things that Trump has done, the numbers should be far more explicitly in her favor, but they’re not.”

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Ruth_and_Naomi_Leave_Moab

Ruth and Naomi Leave Moab, 1860, by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (1794-1872).

Of all the issues roiling Western electorates, immigration may well be the most emotional. Proponents of mass, government subsidized third-world immigration see themselves as compassionate promoters of the social justice and the common good. On the other hand, those who stand in opposition to the immigration policies currently popular among Western elites see their way of life under attack.

 

Here is the United States, Donald Trump won the Republican presidential nomination largely on the strength of his tough-on-illegal-immigration-stance. Trump has galvanized support by rejecting amnesty for those who have violated US immigration law, promising instead to deport them, especially those who have been convicted of other crimes while in the US. He also has indicated that he wants to make it harder for those in the country illegally to obtain jobs, to significantly restrict Muslim immigration and, most notably of all, to build a wall along the US-Mexico border to stanch the flow of illegal border crossings from Central and South America into the US.

While Trump’s stance has won him widespread support among rank-and-file Republicans, the Republican party leadership, Democrats and the overwhelming majority of those in the mainstream press quickly become apoplectic when it comes to anything Trump related, especially when it comes to his immigration stance. One of the most extreme offenders in this regard is The Huffington Post, which lends a serious and dignified tone to the immigration debate by placing the following paragraph at the bottom of every column it runs about the Republican nominee:

Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims – 1.6 billion members of an entire religion – from entering the U.S (Links in the original).

And the HuffPo is hardly alone. According to the New York Times, it is Trump, not the reporters and pundits who write about him, who is responsible for “testing the norms of objectivity in journalism.”

(more…)

Read Full Post »

The specific purpose of this series has been to look at what the Bible has to say about the now popular idea that , not only is it improper for voters to reject a presidential candidate because she’s a woman, but that having a female head of state is itself actually a positive development, demonstrating progressive thinking on the part of any nation whose electorate votes for such a thing.

More broadly speaking, it has been my intention to make people aware that what Martin Luther called the SchriftprinzipSchriftprinzip is German for “Scripture principle” – applies not just in matters that Christians normally think of as “spiritual”, but to all facets of life, politics included. A typical formulation of the Schriftprinzip is this: Scripture is, “in itself most certain, most easily understood, most plain, is its own interpreter, approving, judging, and illuminating all the statements of all men…Therefore nothing except the divine words are to be the first principles for Christians; all human words are conclusions drawn from them and must be brought back to them and approved by them” (emphasis added).

Note well Luther’s use of the words “all” and “nothing”. All statements of all men must be judged by nothing other than the words of the 66 books of the Bible. For some, the idea that the Bible has anything to say about politics may be a new thought, let alone that what it has to say is authoritative. God is not the God of 11 am on Sunday mornings only. He is God 24/7, and his Word is authoritative in all things 24/7.

This means, among other things, that when Christians think about politics, they must not take their cues on what is right and what is wrong from secular thinkers, but they are required to bring the statements of the political pundits and philosophers back to the Bible to see if their opinions square with the Word of God.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

monstrous-regiment-of-women

The Monstrous Regiment of Women, title page.

In part one of this series we looked at the history of the idea of a woman president. As it turns out, people have been agitating for a woman president since at least 1872 when Victoria Claflin Woodhull became the first woman to run for president of the United States.

But even though in some quarters there has been a push for a woman president for well over one hundred years, in recent decades the clamor for this has increased considerably. Those who favor this idea scored a major victory with the nomination of Hillary Clinton as the first female presidential candidate of a major political party.

The spirit of the times is such that to question the propriety of having a female chief executive is viewed at best as hopelessly out of date and at worst a thought crime worthy of severe punishment in the gulags of political correctness. No current day political thinker, at least none that I am aware of, questions whether having a woman president is a good idea. Perhaps the only high-profile secular writer of recent times who clearly opposed the notion of a woman head of state was Ayn Rand, who commented that a woman commander-in-chief was “unspeakable.”

Part two of this series took a look at woman suffrage, which was a necessary condition to bring us to the present state. When the nations of the West gave women the vote, by this very act they also implied that it is appropriate to have a woman head of state.

At least some people were aware of this at the time woman’s suffrage was being debated. According to Grace Saxon Mills, one reason to oppose women getting the vote was, “because the acquirement of the Parliamentary vote would logically involve admission to Parliament itself, and to all Government offices. It is scarcely possible to imagine a woman being Minister for War, and yet the principles of the Suffragettes involve that and many similar absurdities.”

Mills obviously understood where the logic of woman suffrage would lead and had the good sense to reject it as absurd. One could hope that today’s Evangelicals would be so perceptive and courageous. But such is not the case.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: