Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Presidential Campaign 2016’

Bernie Sanders_2.png

Bernie Sanders

Last week we reported that democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders was off to see the wizard. And sure enough, he got his audience. According to this report from the Daily Beast, Sanders, in Rome for a conference celebrating Centesimus AnnusCentesimus Annus, a papal encyclical by John Paul II, is a semi-Marxist celebration of an earlier papal encyclical by the 19th century socialist pope Leo XIII; pope Leo’s encyclical, titled Rerum Novarum, is a strident, socialist attack on constitutional capitalism, the economic and political system of the Bible – received his hoped for meeting with the pope during the senator’s stay in the Vatican.

 

The article quotes the pope as saying, “This morning as I was leaving [Rome], Senator Sanders was there. He knew I was coming out at that time, and he had the kindness to greet me. When I came down, he introduced himself, I greeted him with a handshake, and nothing more. It’s common courtesy, this is called common courtesy.”

The pope is further added, “If someone thinks that greeting someone is getting involved in politics, I recommend that they find a psychiatrist.”

In that case, I’d better schedule some couch time next week, because by all means I believe that the pope’s decision to meet with Sanders was political.

I’m not sure what is more offensive about this meeting. The fact that the pope is clearly attempting to influence the American presidential election, or the fact that he’s lying about it. The Roman Catholic Church-State is perhaps the most political organization on earth. And this pope may well be the most openly political man to hold the office in some time. For Francis I to dissimulate about his political meddling is insulting, but not unexpected coming from a Jesuit.

Of course, Sanders is not the only current presidential candidate to cozy up to the current occupant of the seat of Antichrist. Shortly before the pope’s visit to the US in September 2015, Hillary Clinton had this to say about Francis I,

I am not a Catholic, but I am a great admirer of the pope. I think that what he’s trying to do is take this venerable institution, the Roman Catholic Church, and really, once again, place it on a firm foundation of scriptures of Christ’s words.”

A few weeks later, still in September 2015, she penned an article for the National Catholic Reporter, in which she opined,

His Holiness Pope Francis calls Earth “our common home.” “Our common home requires our striving for the common good,” Social Service Sr. Simone Campbell, one of the Nuns on the Bus, wrote earlier this year.

In one short paragraph, Clinton used the blasphemous title favored by the popes, His Holiness, flacked for the socialist environmentalist movement, and for good measure threw in one of Rome’s favorite, antichristian economic buzz words, “the common good.” Quite an achievement that, and in a mere thirty-five words to boot.

At the same time Hillary went pandering in the National Catholic Reporter, Ted Cruz decided he wanted a piece of the papal action as well. In an article appearing in the Federalist, Cruz gushed about Pope Francis, writing,

Pope Francis has spoken to the world, proclaiming the inherent truth and goodness of life, marriage, and religious liberty. I am grateful for his leadership on these central issues. In an era when many global leaders are descending to relativism, his courageous defense of the dignity of the human person, the beauty in the sacrament of marriage[as a Baptist, Cruz is well aware that Evangelicals do not consider marriage a sacrament; here, he adopts the language of Rome, apparently to score political points with Romanists; it is this sort of subtle pandering that casts Cruz as a political opportunist rather than a man of principle], and the duty to speak for those who are persecuted is a light to the world of the scriptural truths that are ever-present in our lives.

So, Ted Cruz believes that the Man of Sin can too speak the truths of Scripture. Given the abject failure of the Protestant pulpit to warn people about the true nature of the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church-State, we now are treated to the spectacle of a an Evangelical Senator from Texas falling all over himself to praise Antichrist. A strange sight indeed.

The only candidate who thus far has not kissed the Bishop of Rome’s ring is Donald Trump, who called the pope “disgraceful” for questioning his Christian faith. From what this writer has been able to observe, Donald Trump is no Christian. But when it comes to assessing the pope, I’d say he’s right on target.


Read Full Post »

The past week saw US presidential candidate Donald Trump at the center of another controversy, this time related to the issue of abortion. In an exchange with MSNBC host Chris Matthews during a Town Hall in Wisconsin, Trump responded to Matthews’ question, “Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?,” by saying, “The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.” Matthews asked a clarifying question, “For the woman?” To which Trump answered, “Yes, there has to be some form.”

As a result of his remarks, Trump has come under fire from both pro-choice and pro-life advocates. On the pro-choice side, critics have been quick to seize on Trump’s statement as a correct logical inference of the pro-life position and, therefore, a good reason to reject pro-life arguments in favor of continuing support for Roe v. Wade. As pro-choice writer Jill Filipovic put it, “If abortion is murder, then women who have them are criminals – right?,” and further, “When you make something illegal, it comes with penalties – this is how criminal law works.”

Many pro-life advocates have moved to distance themselves from Trump’s comments, with one abortion opponent stating categorically, “No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion.” Marjorie Dannenfelser, another pro-life supporter, responding to Trump’s remarks said, “But let us be clear: punishment is solely for the abortionist who profits off the destruction of one life and the grave wounding of another.”

Matthews’ question should be of interest to anyone involved in the abortion debate, especially to Christians, whose faith implies respect for both life, law and logic. With that in mind, what should Trump have said in response to Matthews’ question? The best option open to Trump, and he would have been entirely within his right to do this, would have been for him to punt. Why is this? Because Matthews asked the question of Trump as one, “running for president of the United States [who] will be chief executive of the United States.” But the Federal government has no constitutional role in the abortion debate. As Ron Paul observed,

[T]he Constitution says nothing about abortion, murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence. There are only four crimes listed in the Constitution: counterfeiting, piracy, treason, and slavery. Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states (Liberty Defined, 2).

But underlying both Matthews’ question and Trump’s response appears to be the assumption that abortion does, in fact, properly fall within the jurisdiction of the federal courts. But if there is no mention of abortion in the Constitution itself, it is hard to see any reason for the federal courts to have jurisdiction on the matter of abortion.

Instead of allowing himself to be dragged into Matthews’ trap, Trump could have sidestepped the issue by stating he would like to see jurisdiction concerning abortion returned to the states. This can be done, “with a majority vote in Congress and the signature of the President” (Liberty Defined, 7). This approach would have allowed Trump honestly to position himself both as an opponent of Rove v. Wade and an advocate of limited, constitutional government. It would also have saved him a good deal of embarrassment and backtracking.


Read Full Post »

Rehoboam_The Arrogance of

The Arrogance of Rehoboam – Han Holbein the Younger, 1530.

The Bible is filled with statements that touch on political philosophy, but perhaps none is more important than the words Jesus spoke to his disciples when they argued amongst themselves about who was the greatest. The disciples seemed to have taken their understanding of government from examples in the world around them. The Roman Caesars were the foremost models of leadership in the time of Christ, and they were typical of sort of proud men who have ruled in most times and places. In the words of Christ, they “lorded it over” the people. A bit closer to Judea, the Pharisees were of a similar cast of mind. They loved to be greeted with “rabbi, rabbi” and to have the best seats in the synagogues. They were the masters. The people were the servants

 

But Jesus had an entirely different view on those in authority. In his words, “whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be you slave” (Matthew 26:26, 27). It is this teaching that forms the basis of the Western idea of government as a servant of the people. A notion that gained traction after the 16th century Reformation brought about the widespread preaching of, and belief in, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

If the teachings of Christ laid the foundation for the idea of government as a servant, what would one expect to see if the Gospel were to fade from men’s consciousness but a reversion to the default position of mankind, rulers who lord it over the people? And this is just what we see happening today.

The Wall Street bailouts of 2008 are one example of this. I read recently that constituent calls to Congress ran 200 to 1 against the bailout. But it happened anyway. In the realm of politics, Hillary Clinton continues her bid for the White House while lugging more legal baggage than any candidate for any office I have ever seen. None of it seems to matter. her campaign goes on with hardly a peep from the mainstream media about the massive investigation surrounding her. In today’s world, being a master of the universe means, among other things, never having to say you’re sorry…or answer for your crimes.  Donald Trump openly insults his rivals during televised debates.  And an official from the Republican party recently told and incredulous CNBC panel that it is the party officials who choose the nominee for president, not the voters in the primaries.

Bailouts, likely criminals getting away with running for president, political parties that ignore the will of their own members, what is this, if not oligarchy? What is this, if not rulers lording it over the people. What is this, if not the very thing for which Christ rebuked his disciples?

Who will our governors be?  Our servants, or our masters? It seems to me that this, more than anything else, is the central question of the 2016 election.


Read Full Post »

Rehoboam_The Arrogance of.jpg

The Arrogance of Rehoboam.

“How shall I answer these people” asked the young king as he looked about the veteran faces of the men who had counseled his father before him. The king, you see, was in a bit of a pickle. He had just been confronted by a group of men angry about his father’s policies of heavy taxation and forced labor. They had demanded a rollback of these unpopular policies, and the new king, wanting to start off his reign on the right foot, had sent them away, asking that they return in three days time for his answer.

The king’s father, a man famous for his wisdom in his own day, was not a lone ranger. He had assembled a group of able men who served as his advisors. Today, we might refer to them as his cabinet. And these cabinet advisors were now faced with a history making question. “How do you advise me to answer these people?” That was what the king wanted to know. Upon their answer, and the king’s response, hung the fate of the nation.

The atmosphere, no doubt, was pregnant with anticipation. What would the counselors say? Perhaps taking a moment to consider their words, the men gave their reply. Their answer was this, “If you will be a servant to these people today, and serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be your servants forever.” Good words, these. The nation was at the breaking point. My way or the highway was not going to work, and they knew it. What was needed was wisdom, prudence and a gentle spirit.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney speaks out against Donald Trump in Salt Lake City, March 3, 2016.

They’re only making it worse…for themselves that is. I’m speaking about the GOP establishment and it’s lame orchestrated attacks on Donald Trump. Trump, it would seem, is their worst nightmare come true. He’s the raging bull trashing their finely cultivated china shop. And, needless to say, they’re not about to take it lying down. Only given how transparent and ineffective their shots at Trump have been, lying down just might be their best option.

 

Take for example the missive released by CNBC on the morning of March 2, the day after Trump’s decisive Super Tuesday victories. In the article, titled Why Trump can’t be president,
author Julissa Acre calls Trump a sexist, a racist and a bigot. And not content with that, she smears his supporters with the same.

Now far be it from me to defend the Donald’s many outrageous statements or his desire to erect the Great Wall of the Rio Grande. But is Trump really so much worse than putative Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton that he warrants such an attack? It seems to me, no. If fact, if presidential politics were a high school yearbook, Clinton would be a shoe in to win the coveted most-likely-to-be-indicted award. There hasn’t been more guilty looking public figure than Hillary Clinton since, well, Bill Clinton. But CNBC didn’t see fit to run a hit piece titled Why Clinton can’t be president. No, they reserved that honor for Trump.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts