You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Hillary’ tag.
Once I was told that we voted about 2000 times each legislative session. There were many instances where we’d vote ten times on the same bill and on various versions of it. Each year I lost count of how many times I voted while holding my nose.
People in South Dakota will remember the Governor’s controversial 2011 education reform bill, HB1234. Wow, did I wish voting for it was as easy as one, two, three, four.
For six weeks I went back and forth on how to vote, was lobbied hard by schools and teachers and was taken by the Governor behind the mansion for a “chat” in his woodshed. Ultimately I voted for it, and nearly cost myself re-election. In my public statements on the bill I said it was “my least favourite bill of the session.” My angry critics marvelled and scoffed at how I could vote for a bill I disliked so much.
Welcome to the world of important and hard decisions.
Sometimes a vote either way has huge negatives and fall out. And, unlike former Illinois State Senator Obama, we couldn’t just vote “present” on everything and magically –poof– two years later sit in the Oval Office. A legislator has to decide which negatives they’d rather live with, and hope some of the promised positives will realise. With every vote I made and lost both friends and support, and with every vote I both created and solved problems.
So, now we come to Trump or Hillary. Here’s how I have come to view it.
Jesus is not running this year.
Hillary is corrupt and apparently above the law and all of us little people. She does the bidding of the worst people in the world. People who oppose her, die. She viciously attacks women her lurid husband sexually exploits. Aborting children is to her, a sacrament. The enemies of the American people are not her enemies. I have nothing positive to say about her and can’t name any accomplishments. She assumes the Presidency is her next entitlement. The large sums of strings-attached money that went to the Clinton Foundation from foreign interests while she was Secretary of State is a story that is yet to be fully told.
No secret, Trump is addicted to his own greatness, has failed marriages, adulteries, a track record of womanising, has bought politicians on both sides of the aisle including the Clintons, has a few bankruptcies, and like Obama, he’s not a man of peace. He’s a bully with an unbridled tongue. My son can’t stand him and asked me to name something good about him. In Trump’s case I do note some positives…
Trump leans toward sound money policy, wants to audit the Fed, and Wall Street hates him. These are very good signs. He has given signals that he’s an anti-corporatist though people dispute it. He says he will quit paying the bills of foreign and enemy armies or make them pay for US support. He supports the Second Amendment, and unlike Obama/Hillary and others clamouring out one side of their mouth for gun control, Trump say he won’t secretly give our enemies weapons as the Clintons, Bushes and Obamas all did. Trump has given assurances he will choose pro-life judges, and picked a VP who has long advocated for the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Maybe Pence will soften him into a more compassionate position on immigration. He has a track record of working easily with all races, including Jews. He supported Brexit which speaks volumes for him not being a globalist. He was born in America. hahaha .
So, what. to. do? Not voting is to vote for the worst one.
If you lived centuries back, and had a vote, would you vote for the ruler who might bring less suffering for the little people even if they went through various wives, owned the clergy, and lived high on the hog with ornate feasts? I’m not saying the Trumpster is a people’s king but he does seem to be an enemy of the real bad people in the world who have zero regard for the little people on the planet. There is something in Trump that the working class sees. It’s quite the irony that a billionaire is somehow a friend of cabbies….
“The people that I do best with are the people that drive the taxis – you know, wealthy people don’t like me because I’m competing against them all the time, and I like to win. The fact is, I go down the streets of New York, and the people that really like me are the taxi drivers and the workers…” – Trump being interviewed by Larry King at the 1988 GOP convention
“But as far as his worldview, Trump’s worldview, you know… I was debating an evangelical professor on NPR and this professor said, ‘Pastor, don’t you want a candidate who embodies the teaching of Jesus and would govern this country according to the principles found in the Sermon on the Mount?’ I said, ‘Heck no.’ I would run from that candidate as far as possible, because the Sermon on the Mount was not given as a governing principle for this nation…. “Nowhere is government told to forgive those who wrong it. Nowhere is government told to turn the other cheek. Government is to be a strongman to protect its citizens against evildoers. When I’m looking for somebody who’s going to deal with ISIS and exterminate ISIS, I don’t care about that candidate’s tone or vocabulary. I want the meanest, toughest, son of a you-know-what I can find. And I believe that’s biblical.”
Trump is as much a Christian as Obama, in my view. Regarding an issue very important to me, to all the other little people like me all over the world, and to Jesus, neither Obama or Trump are men of peace. Hillary has become a stunningly corrupt, bought and arrogant tool of those who give the world’s bad guys free weapons and the rest of us bloody war– the elites, Wall Streeters, globalists and central banksters who for centuries have made war to make more money.
Lance Wallnau made a comment recently that we should all think long and hard about; “Christ in you is the hope of glory, not Christ in the White House. What do you think, should we really give up hope on any sort of notion of a Christian (Christlike) nation? The Sermon on the Mount is what Christlikeness looks like.
My friends on the Christian Right (who BTW consider me a grand disappointment) have long been saying we need to elect people who represent “Biblical values.” Apparently we now learn from Pastor Jeffries those are not the values of Jesus. Apparently it is okay with Pastor Jeffries if governments more reflect the values of Genghis Khan than, say, Jesus. The Sermon on the Mount, he believes may work on a micro level but not in a macro application.
In Pastor Jeffrees re-reading of the infamous Sermon on the Mount he in so much imagines Jesus ascended the Mount to say: “These are some strategies that I commend to you for little matters. Honestly, for the more complex conflicts I have nothing for you in terms of heavenly wisdom or strategy so go ahead and ‘do unto them what they’ve do unto you’ and I’m okay with whatever response seems and feels right for you at the time. Not to worry, forgiveness comes easy with me, and grace cheap.”
When will the Christian Right wake up to how inconsistent they are in valuing all human life? Bombs away, Jesus love you!
Ya, ya, ya… here comes someone to remind me of Romans 13 (someone who apparently has never read Romans 12: if your enemy is hungry, feed him… overcome evil with good, etc).
How many times do I have to say this?… In Romans 13:4 Paul was writing to believers in Rome saying they need to revere Roman authority as God gives governments even the authority of the sword. He was not telling Christians that they are justified to forsake the mercy path when they one day get in power. Why then are so many Christians today defending the values of the Romans and the ethics of Nero?
For those genuinely conflicted on the application of the Sermon on the Mount to anything beyond an individual Christian life I offer the following (which will soon appear in a book I’m now putting the finishing touches on: Tolstoy’s Novel Idea: Obey the Sermon on the Mount).
From chapter seven of my forthcoming book:
The two main interpretative questions for the Sermon on the Mount, again, are; Is it liveable? and; To whom is it for? Over the centuries, very few interpreters of the Sermon on the Mount have given the Sermon application beyond the individual believer. The contention is that the ethic was given to individuals, not to nation-states. Yet, Tolstoy challenged this entirely and sought to settle this centuries-old ambiguity with a simple appeal to the words Jesus actually used in Matthew 5:43-44 (and what they would have meant to his original hearers); “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies…” Tolstoy explained: [N]eighbour in the Hebrew language meant, invariably and exclusively, ‘a Hebrew.’” Considering the lengths he went to describe the thoroughness of his study of these words, that he seems to imply Jesus spoke this originally in Hebrew, not Aramaic, is peculiar. His justification may be it is the same word and meaning as in Luke 10:29 where the “neighbour” is a Samaritan– someone a Hebrew would have clearly not regarded as a neighbour. Finding the same meaning in Acts 7:27, his conclusion is “‘neighbour’ in Gospel language, means a compatriot, a person belonging to the same nationality. Therefore the antithesis used by Jesus in the citation, ‘love thy neighbour, hate thine enemy,’ must be in the distinction between the words ‘compatriot’ and ‘foreigner.’” Tolstoy contended his supposition was further confirmed when seeking the Jewish understanding of enemy. “The word enemy is nearly always employed in the Gospels in the sense, not of a personal enemy, but, in general, of a ‘hostile people.’”
Based on the words Jesus used, Tolstoy’s conclusion is that it is not possible that Jesus intended his teaching to be applicable only on the interpersonal level. Jesus never differentiated between loving a neighbour and loving a neighbouring nation. Tolstoy spoke of “the widening sphere of love” and believed a nation could be loved too…. Tolstoy believed obedience to the teachings of Jesus worked on both the micro and the macro level. Goodness on a small scale does not somehow become badness on a larger scale and he decried the notion that badness on a small scale could be construed as goodness on a larger scale…