Some Exotic Basque Cheese

Sharing Options

So Ted Cruz has outlined his reasons for reversing course and endorsing Donald Trump. The first reason, he said, was that he had pledged to support the nominee and that he was going to do so. A little late, but he is doing so. We may now take a moment here to wait for those who condemned him for breaking his pledge to run around and push the other direction, condemning him for abandoning his principles. But their inconsistency doesn’t wash away the inconsistency of Cruz.cruz-trump-endorsement

His second reason was to outline his total opposition to Hillary. He listed six issues under this head. His six points were: 1. The Supreme Court 2. Obamacare 3. Energy 4. Immigration 5. National security and 6. Internet freedom. Hillary would be a 100% lead-pipe-cinch-disaster on all six of them, and the chances are better than even, Cruz argued, that we could get some good results from Trump on some or all of these issues. I agree with these odds, incidentally, and so more about this in a little bit.

Now this may be a shrewd move on the part of Ted Cruz, and he may pick up a lot of support for having done it. But I still think it was a bad move, and he has lost my admiration and support. Back in July I said this: “If he [Cruz] had endorsed Trump, then my support for Cruz would have gone the way of the woolly mammoth.” He has now done so, and so, as promised, my support has now gone lumbering off. I was planning on writing in Cruz for Debacle 2016, but now I shall have to seek a different rusty lance to tilt at my windmills with.

But while I am disappointed, I am not outraged. Politicians will always let you down, and that is what has now happened. Take it philosophically, champ. The reason it was a bad move is that Cruz had two basic things going for him—his intelligence and his commitment to principled integrity. This move has badly damaged confidence in the latter. Cruz is not exactly a fiery ball of charisma—that is not where his authority came from. Where it did come from is now leaking badly, and does not seem to me to be seaworthy.

That said, allow me a few comments on why it may be shrewd, and then come back around to why I wish he hadn’t done it. Conservative distaste for the Clintons goes back decades, and it has been ripening like some exotic Basque cheese that somebody dropped behind the stove last month. Conservative distaste for Trump is a very recent phenomenon. They object to him, and are embarrassed by him, but we have now gotten to the point in the campaign where many, many conservatives are trying to visualize Hillary Clinton as the POTUS, and their gorge rises every time they think of it. Hostility to the Clinton machine, particularly the Hillary part of it, goes down into their ancestral memories. So they look wistfully over at Trump, wishing that somebody would provide them with the cover they need to be able to fill in that little oval dot in the polling booth. I need not tell you that the oval dot looks like a clown nose.

Anyhow, there are many who increasingly feel that they need some sort of legit excuse to vote for Trump, and Cruz has now helped to supply it. Cruz will lose some folks, like me, but I think the mobilization angst levels against Hillary are approaching DEFCON 1.

And at the same time, this endorsement may also reflect the kind of knowledge that an insider like Cruz might have—e.g. internal polling showing Trump winning decidedly, inside information on Hillary’s actual medical condition, or a back room deal offering Cruz himself a spot on the Supreme Court. Whether such inside information is accurate or not, it may be thought to be accurate by Cruz, and he consequently may believe that Clinton is going to lose big to Donald J. Trump. I myself have been trying to figure out a way for her to lose to that particular gentleman without him becoming the president as a result. If we could do it that way, that would be especially fine. But that is not how works.

Now Cruz may not be right about Trump’s chances, and he may not be right about what Trump would do (or might do) if elected. But let us suppose he is.

Because this is the actual test for those who are #NeverTrump. Let us assume that Cruz is right about all six of his reasons. Say that Trump is elected and Cruz’s prescient reasons run the table. We get sound conservative jurists on the Supreme Court, Obamacare is repealed, domestic energy resources are intelligently exploited, the immigration disaster is mitigated, national security is strengthened, and we successfully prevent the Internet from being taken over by free speech specialists from Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and Oberlin College. If Cruz bet correctly, and he won the bet, would that retroactively justify a yes vote for Trump now?

In other words, how would I, having failed to vote in a Trumpian fashion, feel? Would I feel like a Trump chump? Or would I, having been refuted by the glorious arrival of this mini-eschaton, stand by my no vote?

I would stand by it, and here is why. Lest I be mistaken for a churl, if all these things outlined above actually happened, I would be extraordinarily grateful. I am not describing here the antics of a sore loser. I would be especially relieved at the mercies of God, which are new every morning. I would not fail to rejoice when good things happened.

What I would fail to do is attribute these mercies to compromised and/or confused voting. I would attribute the mercies of God to the mercy of God. I would not say that God had honored our vote, but had rather answered our prayers.

When I vote, I am casting a vote for a man. I am not attempting a bank shot involving 158 billiard balls. If these good things happen, I will thank the good Lord for His bank shot. Duties are ours, and the consequences are God’s.

My understanding of voting is that the “character matters” argument matters. We do not live in a time when abandonment of the “character matters” argument is in any way safe. Cast your eye over the next five presidential elections, and try to visualize the dank possibilities. Do you want every attempt you make to raise issues of character in the future to be countered with the question—“Did you vote for Trump?”

“Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens” (Ex. 18:21).

We are to look for an able man who fears God, who is a man of truth, and who hates covetousness. Hold these rules of Mosaic baseball up against Trump, and it is, quite simply, strike three.

None of this is a secret. We can see Trump’s character from his “magnanimous” response to this endorsement of Cruz.

“I am greatly honored by the endorsement of Senator Cruz. We have fought the battle and he was a tough and brilliant opponent. I look forward to working with him for many years to come in order to make America great again.”

This would be a fine and gracious thing to say if the tough battle had consisted of blows that were by and large above the belt. But they weren’t. It wasn’t a tough battle, but an extraordinarily dirty and dishonest one, as delivered by an erratic, energetic, disheveled, and very lost man. And so when Cruz counters this by saying that he has “forgiven” Trump for the personal attacks, he is revealing that he doesn’t know how forgiveness works. Trump hasn’t sought forgiveness, which is why he doesn’t have it.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
279 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
James Boyer
James Boyer
6 years ago

“back room deal offering Cruz himself a spot on the Supreme
Court.” Now that’s a wild idea. Chances of that happening is like saying
in 2015 Trump would be the republican nominee.

Billtownphysics
Billtownphysics
6 years ago

This post echoes my disappointment and feelings regarding Trump and Cruz like a mirror. If Trump somehow wins, and somehow manages to keep America from falling off the cliff, I will rejoice, but I will not regret my 2016 NeverTrump stance. Ted Cruz may have won some concessions from the Trump regime, but he lost an aweful lot of respect and capital in the process. The Trump cheerleaders already hated him for his (at the time courageous) stance at the convention. Now the NeverTrumpers like me don’t much him for his 11th hour betrayal. He loses on both fronts, I… Read more »

Frank Turk
Frank Turk
6 years ago

Yeah, this is exactly right. “The Ends Justify the Means” is not principled decision-making as far as the Christian is concerned, but it is the way political sausage-making works.

I endorse Doug. Again.

Bob French
Bob French
6 years ago
Reply to  Frank Turk

But, Pastor Wilson made an error in his evaluation of Ted Cruz, originally. He was going to write-in Mr. Cruz for President, but now that Cruz has endorsed Trump he no longer supports Cruz. What person would pass the test of Ex.18:21? Maybe Moses could choose Godly men to lead, but I doubt that the mass of humanity can do that well.

jon
jon
6 years ago
Reply to  Bob French

Exodus 18:21 seems to be a popular verse when evaluating who to vote for. But consider the context. Who was to select the rulers and judges? Moses, not the people. And who was it who selected Moses, but God?

Bob French
Bob French
6 years ago
Reply to  jon

Yes, and what happened to the rulers that Moses chose? They, and most of Israel perished in the wilderness. So, God’s choice was perfect, Mose’s choices probably were not. My choice for President would be even “less perfect”.

Qodesmith
Qodesmith
6 years ago
Reply to  jon

I agree with you that the context of that verse can’t be ignored, but I think that the point of looking at the verse is to see how it applies today (its never a 1:1 application). So the reader would put themselves in Moses’ position as it applies. And in this case, the task at hand is voting, and so the principle laid out in the verse for choosing a leader seems to apply. My $0.02.

Matt
Matt
6 years ago

“The reason it was a bad move is that Cruz had two basic things going for him—his intelligence and his commitment to principled integrity.”

Intelligent no doubt, but see http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/cruzs-boundless-opportunism/ on the latter.

“approaching DEFCON 5”

The DEFCON scale goes in reverse, 1 is the highest alert level.

“sound conservative jurists”

The SC talk makes me wonder if there has ever been a survey done of the Supreme Court talent pool to see what percentage of this pool are conservatives at all, much less “sound conservatives” in the sense used above.

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
6 years ago
Reply to  Matt

The DEFCON scale goes in reverse, 1 is the highest alert level.

Bless you for this.

Robert Mahoney
Robert Mahoney
6 years ago

Someone better do a health and safety check on Glenn Beck.

Fighting_Falcon
Fighting_Falcon
6 years ago

I was sad when Rubio did it, even more sad now that Cruz did. Not only because Trump is a fiend, but because he personally attacked Cruz’ wife, and there was never any reconciliation for that. Cruz is just letting her take it. Gross.

Alice Kauffman Arneson
Alice Kauffman Arneson
6 years ago

Not being privy to their discussions, isn’t it possible that Heidi herself urged the forgiveness? And that Ted is choosing to forgive for her sake, rather than “letting her take it” as you say?

ME
ME
6 years ago

Kind of charming you would think of Cruz’s wife and her defense. I appreciate that thought.

40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
6 years ago
Reply to  ME

he personally attacked Cruz’ wife

he personally attacked Cruz’ “wife”

FIFY

Kind of charming you would think of Cruz’s wife

Kind of charming you would think of Cruz’s “wife”

FIFY

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago

I am sure I will regret this, but why is Heidi Cruz a “wife” as opposed to a wife?

But thank you for teaching me Fixed It For You. I spent two minutes exploring obscene possibilities before going to the Urban Dictionary.

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

40 ACRES has decided that Ted and Heidi didn’t spend enough time together as a couple to be considered husband and wife. One wonders if 40 ACRES thinks that military men who are deployed, just after getting married, no longer have a wife at home, but just a “wife”.

40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Why would you think I’d post something obscene? Their marriage is a sham. They lived apart immediately after their “wedding” because she didn’t want a biblical marriage where she had to submit to her husband. She wanted to stay in DC, and he wanted to move to Texas. So they got “married”, and then went their separate ways. A lawful marriage requires living together. You can’t have a lawful marriage where the parties intend to split up immediately after the ceremony, That’s a fake marriage; a pervert marriage. It’s one thing if after a couple is married and living together… Read more »

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago

It’s not your or my idea of a healthy marriage. But, do we know that Cruz asked his wife to give up her career when he married her? Or was her compensation package part of her charm? Did he beg her to stay home with the children, or did he think that you could hire a lot of nannies for that kind of money? You are assuming that it was she who rejected a biblical marriage involving submission. Is there any evidence that she was even offered that? It would be fairer to say that Ted Cruz says he supports… Read more »

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Pure speculation, but I can’t imagine a quiet, submissive woman who actually wants to be at home but is forced by her husband to work to get very far in Goldman Sachs.

Possibly, and you can’t make definite conclusions based on that evidence alone, but I dunno..

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  Wesley Sims

Regardless of what one thinks of the wisdom of Cruz’s choices in female partners (in marriage or in politics) it has no bearing on whether he is actually married. Speaking of pure speculation, does 40 ACRES know how often Cruz travels to be together with his wife? Do people realize how often politicians at the federal level travel back and forth between DC and their families back home? It is a sacrifice? Sure. Is it a wise sacrifice? Not always. Does it have anything to do with whether they are still lawfully married? No. The problem with 40 ACRES’ Pharisaical… Read more »

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

It is assigning an extra definition to the word “married,” and we can’t do that or soon the word itself becomes useless. Is a couple “married” if they scream and yell at each other all day long? Yes, but not if we broaden the word to mean “healthily married.”

OKRickety
OKRickety
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

If you take it further, I think I have heard of women declaring that they have valid Biblical grounds for divorce, saying their husband is an unbeliever who has abandoned them because they were incarcerated for a felony.

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  Wesley Sims

I agree that it is unlikely. But not every woman who wants to be home with the children is by nature quiet and submissive. A brilliant woman with a high powered career might decide to take time off while her children are young because she and her husband believe it in their best interest. And it is possible to be intelligent and ambitious in the workplace yet submissive within a marriage. Before our daughter was born, my husband and I were DINKs. There were times I significantly out-earned him but you would never have guessed that from my demeanor in… Read more »

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

“It would be fairer to say that Ted Cruz says he supports traditional understandings of marriage and family while choosing a nontraditional marriage for himself.”

Which calls into question how much he really supports traditional marriage and family.

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago

I think he supports traditional marriage and family (meaning only its structure, and not extending the discussion to questions such as divorce or abortion) in the sense that he believes people who want it should be able to have it. He might even believe that a Leave It to Beaver family was rather nice, and promoted a stable and healthy childhood. When it came to choosing a wife for himself, he did not seek a woman with traditional views. I don’t claim to know how men think, but if I were a man who wanted a wife to stay home… Read more »

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

“He might even believe that a Leave It to Beaver family was rather nice, and promoted a stable and healthy childhood.”

If he does then why arrange his family in a less stable and healthy fasion?

It’s kind of like saying ‘I belive second hand smoke is harmful’ but intentionaly smoking around others.

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago

Well, I have a few views on that, but because I don’t know much about Cruz, I would rather express them in general terms. I have noticed, among the highly educated/highly privileged, a certain level of arrogance which supports laying down principles they would not dream of applying to themselves. There was a time when doctors married nurses, and lawyers married secretaries. In the circles I frequent, I do not see this at all anymore. “You seriously think I would settle for Jenny from the typing pool when I can marry the vice president for foreign investment?” There is also… Read more »

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

“You seriously think I would settle for Jenny from the typing pool when I can marry the vice president for foreign investment?”

Which is more of a political alliance than a marriage, with both parties lawyers hammerimg out the pre-nup for the comming divorce.

“I support traditional marriage for the average Joe (and Jill). But not for people with our education and income.”

Which is a foolish position likely to be harmful to their kids and future decendants. There’s good reason for traditional marriage to be traditional.

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago

It is exactly like a political alliance, now I come to think of it. Or the wedding of two dynasties.

I have mixed feelings about it from a personal point of view. I don’t think we can educate our girls to be stellar achievers who must either forgo marriage or give it all up. And I would not welcome restricting women’s access to the professions. So, the most I hope for is that women who want children will accept that their children’s welfare demands a willingness to stay home while they are young.

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

And the fact that he would pick Fiorina as his running mate is indicative of his understanding of femininity and the type of woman he’d have around.

40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
6 years ago
Reply to  Wesley Sims

Who brags that she was letting trannies use the ladies restroom at HP twenty years ago.

Because Ted’s all about them fambly valyahs.

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

However, attacking Cruz post-endorsement is kinda jumping the shark. He had and has faults, but his endorsement is at least some aid to Trump, if that’s one’s concern. But, I make no law.

40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

I’m not assuming anything. This has been widely reported.

But none of that matters.

You want to say that maybe they have their reasons for their perverted marriage, so their marriage isn’t perverted.

All perverts justify their behaviors.

And they’re still perverts.

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago

Well, you think women who can feel as much love and tenderness for their adopted children as for their natural ones are perverted as well. So I think you have a very elastic notion of what is perverted. It is not the kind of marriage I would choose. I don’t think it is ideal for the kids (both natural and adopted). But perverted is a bit of a stretch.

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

The question is what are they perverting? Even granting 40s definitively correct use of the word, he’s a cunning enough linguist to vary his vocabulary.

40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

But perverted is a bit of a stretch.

Well, to a liberal who thinks “civil” gay marriage is just fine, certainly it’s a stretch.

To normal people, it’s not.

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago

I think there is a difference between “I think it’s just fine” and “I don’t think my own view of what constitutes sinful sexual behavior between consenting adults should dictate secular marriage policy for people who don’t share my values.” But that is a distinction you aren’t willing to make. But, even in explicitly traditional Christian terms, there is no scriptural warrant for your belief that women who can love adopted children as much as their own are perverted. I think there are people on this board who have adopted children and who would not take it as a sign… Read more »

jon
jon
6 years ago

I’m with 40, that is no kind of marriage.

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
6 years ago

“Why would you think I’d post something obscene?”

Epic trolz?

Alice Kauffman Arneson
Alice Kauffman Arneson
6 years ago

And… having gone back and read some of his statements about this forgiveness, let me quote:
“Heidi and my dad and I, we talked about it and we made a decision together — that we are going to choose to forgive him.” That’s not “just letting her take it.” That’s making a decision together. Their full reasons may be a mixed bag of faith and politics, but aren’t all of our discussion? You may not agree with the decision to forgive the attack on Heidi, but she was part of the decision – not you.

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago

Speaking of writing, let’s just write the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Armed Services Commitee and Intelligence Commitee and instruct them to follow security statute, and not grant HRC a security clearance due to her FBI documented security violation,risk, and ignorance.
Someone who can’t be granted a security clearance can’t be The Commander in Chief of the Armed forces.????

Alice Kauffman Arneson
Alice Kauffman Arneson
6 years ago

I have a question for all you politically brilliant folks out there. I’ve been hearing that the good ol’ GOP has been blocking everything Cruz was trying to do in the Senate, no matter the consequences to America, merely because it was Cruz and Cruz had failed to salute the good ol’ GOP. Is it possible that he chose to sacrifice himself for the sake of what he perceived as more important issues? Is it possible that he believed that some of the legislation currently being blocked is so vital that he was willing to “betray his base” – and… Read more »

Alice Kauffman Arneson
Alice Kauffman Arneson
6 years ago

“And so when Cruz counters this by saying that he has “forgiven” Trump for the personal attacks, he is revealing that he doesn’t know how forgiveness works. Trump hasn’t sought forgiveness, which is why he doesn’t have it.”

I’m confused by this one, Doug. Are we supposed to wait until someone seeks forgiveness before we can grant it? Only God can forgive Trump’s sins, and repentance would be a visible witness to that… but does that prevent Cruz from choosing to forgive the attacks against him and his family? Why?

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago

I’m confused as well. Is there a distinction to be made here between private and public forgiveness? And does the timing of the announcement suggest the forgiveness is motivated by self-interest? My understanding of Christian forgiveness is that it is required, not optional, and doesn’t depend on the conduct of the offender. I must forgive people who think they were right in treating me badly. Cruz could have said at the time that, as a Christian, he forgave Trump for malicious remarks made during the heat of battle. Saying it now suggests to me that he thinks Trump may win… Read more »

John F. Kennedy
John F. Kennedy
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Matthew 6; 14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: 15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Luke 17; 3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.

ME
ME
6 years ago

I think part of the problem is that Cruz’s “forgiveness,” implies a couple of things, first it’s very self serving, as in not about his own spiritual well being at all, but rather his political well being. And second, he kind of presents himself as the One who grants forgiveness in the first place. Trump is also a guy who does not really believe in forgiveness, as in he has stated 3 times that repentance and the cross are not really his thing. So in a way Cruz is kind of helping to promote a deception, this deception that tries… Read more »

Alice Kauffman Arneson
Alice Kauffman Arneson
6 years ago
Reply to  ME

I don’t follow this logic at all. He specifically stated that he, his wife, and his father, all together, made the choice to forgive Trump for the attacks on them. He never claimed to forgive Trump all his sins – just to forgive the personal attacks, the sins against the Cruz family. He was also quoted as saying, “My faith teaches me to forgive, with or without an apology.” Beyond this, I guess I’ll wait for Doug’s comments on “how forgiveness works.” Whether or not I agree with Cruz’s decision to endorse Trump (and my personal jury is still out… Read more »

Valerie (Kyriosity)
6 years ago

Here’s how I think of it. When someone sins against me, he owes me something. If he’s unrepentant, he won’t acknowledge the debt, but I can still expunge it from my books. What I can’t necessarily do is unilaterally decide to be reconciled to him. The debt is still on his books, even if he won’t acknowledge it, and the two ledgers can’t be reconciled until he deals with his sin.

Jake Wyatt
Jake Wyatt
6 years ago

Hi Mr. Wilson,
Would you do a follow up blog about how forgiveness works? Surely Cruz can forgive Trump regardless of Trump’s response. No?
Jake

Reformed Roy
Reformed Roy
6 years ago
Reply to  Douglas Wilson

I look forward to reading this particular post. It has been the basis for an ongoing exchange among several brothers.

OKRickety
OKRickety
6 years ago
Reply to  Douglas Wilson

When you write this post, I recommend first defining forgiveness. Is forgiveness “ceasing to feel angry or resentful toward (someone) for an offense, flaw, or mistake”, or is it “canceling (a debt)”? It is my opinion that the first definition is the one most commonly understood today, but the second definition is the one used in the New Testament. The conflation of these two different concepts leads to great confusion in Christians today.

Ken De Vries
Ken De Vries
6 years ago

I recently attended an event at Tapped in Moscow where three gentlemen discussed at length the current presidential election circus. While I was not convinced that Donald Trump is the devil all three men claimed he is, Trump does have his share of faults. For the record, I have not voted for a Republican President since Reagan. My support for Trump is tenuous at best. If he begins floating internationalist names for his cabinet or the Supreme Court, I’ll simply support a 3rd Party candidate like I have done for decades. My reasons for supporting Trump are outlined here… 1)… Read more »

LittleRedMachine
LittleRedMachine
6 years ago
Reply to  Ken De Vries

agreed. “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens” (Ex. 18:21). very head scratching too that Doug Wilson applies the above to Donald Trump but encouraged people to support Mitt Romney (not sure how a cult member, Bain Capital, globalist, liberal governor of Massachusetts in any way shape or form fits in the ‘character’ department….) That the ‘nevertrumpers’ somehow got behind Romney and can’t get behind Trump… Read more »

Ken De Vries
Ken De Vries
6 years ago

This is one of the problems I have with the Johnny-come-lately (JCL) conscience voters. They have voted for RINOs like Mitt Romney and John McCain their entire lives, yet all of a sudden, they discover that their conscience prohibits them from voting for Trump. Frankly, I don’t believe it. I have even pushed the point with many people by telling them that the moment they enter the voting booth and see Hillary Clinton’s name, they will check the box for Trump. I standby that prediction. I am highly skeptical of anyone having voted for McCain or Romney now claiming that… Read more »

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  Ken De Vries

What about people who offer the argument from principle against Trump, and who didn’t vote for McCain, or Dole, or Bush, or Romney?

Ken De Vries
Ken De Vries
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

I salute them! They fall pretty close to my camp. I ALWAYS vote my conscience, never out of fear. It is voting out of fear that keeps both the Demonicrats and the Republicant’s at the top of the food chain in politics. I personally know many true conscience voters. Most are not voting for Trump. But these people have not voted for RINOs for almost as long as I have been refusing the RINO vote. When the electorate stops voting for “X” out of fear of “Y” (voting against “Y”) we’ll see some progress. Not a minute earlier. If you… Read more »

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  Ken De Vries

I agree completely with the argument against voting out of fear. Principle over pragmatics. God could remove either of these major candidates in an instant. They are each one gentle nudge away from credibility implosion.

What I conclude from Cruz is that he is looking to Trump simply out of fear of Hillary.

Ken De Vries
Ken De Vries
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

Cruz exemplifies my points. Cruz is voting for Trump out of fear of Hillary and/or for political expediency. Period. I don’t know where you live, but here in my district in Idaho, we have a Republican, an Independent (me) and a Democrat running for a particular State House seat. The R & the D are identical except for one or two bones the Republican has thrown conservatives here or there. Many Republicans will tell you flat out that they are voting for the Republican because “we can’t have a Democrat in there,” when a comparison of voting records would reveal… Read more »

mkt
mkt
6 years ago
Reply to  Ken De Vries

Amen. I’ve been saying this for months. To date, no one has offered even a semi-cogent response.

circuschaser
circuschaser
6 years ago
Reply to  Ken De Vries

That’s pretty harsh. People aren’t machines; some of us change our minds on occasion and find ourselves holding and defending positions once foreign to ourselves. That some may have done so more recently than you’d prefer is, by itself, not a strong argument that they haven’t done so at all.

For example, I might be persuaded to vote in some upcoming election (I’m currently unregistered). If that comes to pass at some point, I will presumably have been swayed by reasons, which I would then expect to articulate and defend from time to time.

Ken De Vries
Ken De Vries
6 years ago
Reply to  circuschaser

True, some people do break through. A very few. Voting out of fear, however, is not just a matter of “changing one’s mind.” It is breaking a life-long habit, much like smoking. It is also learning to defy the media, their friends and other intense forms of peer pressure. Most people simply cannot get past the fear factor and the peer pressure, which drives, I would say, about 95+% of voters. It may be a harsh assessment, but decades of voting data backs up my point. Believe me, I would absolutely love nothing more than to see an end to… Read more »

FrJ+
FrJ+
6 years ago

BINGO!

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
6 years ago

Wilson did not support Romney, and you can go back to his ’11 and/or ’12 posts to see that.

Unless you can show otherwise, I think you should revise or delete that.

mkt
mkt
6 years ago
Reply to  Wesley Sims

True. He supported John McCain, which was as bad or worse in some ways, but he didn’t endorse Romney.

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
6 years ago
Reply to  mkt

Perhaps, but the charge was that he supported Romney, which is demonstrably false. I’ve disagreed much with Pastor Wilson this election cycle–and I even brought up his thankfulness for Cruz not endorsing Trump after Cruz did end up endorsing Trump–but making false claims about a pastor, even if it’s as silly as political preferences, is not looked highly upon in Scripture. Pastor Wilson’s view of Romney is probably rather analogous to his view of Trump in that he recognizes that each probably would outweigh their opponent on a pro/con list, but each could not gain his support; Romney because of… Read more »

mkt
mkt
6 years ago
Reply to  Wesley Sims

“but making false claims about a pastor, even if it’s as silly as political preferences, is not looked highly upon in Scripture.”

I agree. However, I think it was a mistake/misunderstanding and that Gene (if he returns) will own up to it…unlike others who make false claims here daily and scoff at anyone who suggest they provide evidence.

FrJ+
FrJ+
6 years ago
Reply to  Ken De Vries

Mr. De Vries, as to your point #3, you allude to something I have been saying for years, if one is tired of the Democrat/Republican two party system and seeks other viable alternatives or another party, then one needs to start at the local and state level. Start with the town council or even the school board. It can’t be done starting with a Presidential nominee from some party few have heard of. Moreover, the two parties have rigged the system which makes viable alternatives pert near impossible. These rules will have to be challenged at the local and state… Read more »

Thursday1
Thursday1
6 years ago

What this means is that Cruz can see that Trumpism, for good and bad (and there is good in it), is here to stay. There’s no going back to the old American libertarian/conservative fusionism, of which Cruz has been the most vehement exponent.

mkt
mkt
6 years ago
Reply to  Thursday1

There’s practically nothing libertarian about the neo-con movement, other than occasional lip service.

andrewlohr
andrewlohr
6 years ago

Not Hillary and not Jill Stein (Green Party). Trump, maybe the lesser of two evils, and if Paul chose Nero over the Annas/Caiphas axis, and Jeremiah the preconverted Nebuchadnezzar over the kings of Judah, I can respect a Christian voting for or endorsing Trump on that basis. Not Gary Johnson, LINO; he grew, rather than shrink, New Mexico’s government, and would use taxed resources to get wedding cakes for gays. But given the Libertarian name brand, and that it’s the biggest party talking about real improvements, I can respect a Christian voting for him. I expect to vote for the… Read more »

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
6 years ago
Reply to  andrewlohr
ME
ME
6 years ago

Ha! Wilson has far more class and sophistication than I do,with his “Basque cheese.” I was simply thinking of Cruz as a cheese eating surrender monkey.

My interest in this election is now all about “the church” as a whole, what lurks in our hearts, how this election will impact us, what it says about us already. And I remain completely unconvinced that Trump will have either the will or the power to satisfy any of those four expectations on the Cruz list.

John F. Kennedy
John F. Kennedy
6 years ago

“We are to look for an able man who fears God, who is a man of truth, and who hates covetousness. Hold these rules of Mosaic baseball up against Trump, and it is, quite simply, strike three.”

Measured by these standards, John McCain also strikes out.

“Do you want every attempt you make to raise issues of character in the future to be countered with the question—’Did you vote for Trump?'”

Did you vote for McCain?

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago

DW:The reason it was a bad move is that Cruz had two basic things going for him—his intelligence and his commitment to principled integrity.

What a curious working definition of “principled integrity” you seem to have. Ted Cruz wasn’t even a US citizen until he was 16 years old, much less was he *ever* a natural born US citizen, yet he sought/seeks to illegally occupy the office of US president.

Dan Kreider
Dan Kreider
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

I’ve never heard this discussed in the Mablog comments. Tell me more.

jigawatt
jigawatt
6 years ago
Reply to  Dan Kreider

Yeah, I wonder why eyelion never mentioned it before.

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago
Reply to  jigawatt

Are you blind? I’ve discussed it (*) many times before.
(*) That Cruz didn’t even hold UC citizenship until he was 16 years old, because it wasn’t until then that his mother completed the legally required US paperwork that was a requisite fro her to claim US citizenship for him.

Eagle_Eyed
Eagle_Eyed
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

He was being sarcastic.

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago
Reply to  Eagle_Eyed

I know that; after all, he did intentionally misspell my name.

But he’s also willfully blind.

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

I already addressed this false claim from Ilion when he first made it months ago. The CRBA paperwork filing was for the purpose of getting his birth status formally recognized and documented. It did not grant or change the facts of his birth citizenship. Regardless of when the paperwork is filed, Cruz was either a citizen from birth (natural born), or he wasn’t. He qualified for citizenship from birth according to the laws at the time, and was therefore documented as such after his mother filed the paperwork. That’s why no naturalization process was required for him.

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  Dan Kreider

????????

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

You did actually convince me on that one. Once I learned his parents held Canadian citizenship at the time of his birth, case closed.

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Apparently jillybean has never heard of dual citizenship.

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

I have, but it was not a legal option for U.S. citizens at the time Cruz was born. When a U.S. citizen took out Canadian citizenship, he forfeited his birthright citizenship. I do know this because it applied to directly to my husband who took out Canadian citizenship in the late 1960s.

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

I wasn’t aware that Canadian naturalization required denouncing all foreign citizenships. Apparently that requirement ended in 1973, and Ted Cruz was born in 1970. However, that’s irrelevant given that Ted Cruz’s mother never applied for Canadian citizenship. Cruz’s U.S. citizenship, from birth, was because of his mother’s U.S. citizenship status. My understanding is that Cruz had Canadian citizenship from birth, requiring no naturalization process, because of his father’s Canadian citizenship, and Cruz had U.S. citizenship from birth, requiring no naturalization process, because of his mother’s U.S. citizenship. Cruz had dual citizenship from birth because of the way that each nation… Read more »

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

I wasn’t aware that Canadian naturalization required denouncing all foreign citizenships. Apparently that requirement ended in 1973, and Ted Cruz was born in 1970.

You weren’t aware … because you didn’t wish to be aware. I’d discussed that particular fact before.

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

I’m not claiming to have read every single post from Ilion on this topic. However, I would have mentioned the flaw in this line of argument if I had read it before. In any case, I notice that Ilion didn’t address my point that his father’s Canadian citizenship has no bearing on Ted Cruz’s citizenship from birth because that came through his mother’s U.S. citizenship. It doesn’t matter that the Canadian naturalization process (prior to 1973) required renouncing foreign citizenships because Ted Cruz was not a naturalized Canadian citizen. He was born a Canadian citizen because of his father’s Canadian… Read more »

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

In any case, I notice that Ilion didn’t address my point …

Which has nothing to do with what I have said, so yeah, I didn’t “address it”.

ONCE AGAIN, for the simple … or the dishonest … Cruz was not even a US citizen *at all* until he was 16 years old, because his mother did not fill out the legally required paperwork to claim US naturalized US citizenship for him until then.

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

Ilion wrote: Cruz was not even a US citizen *at all* until he was 16 years old, because his mother did not fill out the legally required paperwork to claim US naturalized US citizenship for him until then. An approved Consular Report of Birth Abroad is for the purpose of documenting citizenship from birth, it is not approved for anyone who was not already a citizen at birth. In other words, Ilion is again false to confuse this with a process of naturalization. Those who have an approved CRBA (as Ted Cruz does) are recognized as having had citizenship from… Read more »

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

Note that Ilion still didn’t address the fact that Ted Cruz’s U.S. citizenship from birth was because of his mother’s U.S. citizenship. Cruz’s mother never applied for Canadian citizenship, so the Canadian naturalization rules regarding renouncing foreign allegiances are completely irrelevant to Ted Cruz’s U.S. natural born status.

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

“Cruz was not even a US citizen *at all* until he was 16 years old, because his mother did not fill out the legally required paperwork to claim US naturalized US citizenship for him until then.”

Would it make a difference if she had done the paperwork 16 years earlier?

katecho
katecho
6 years ago

Christopher Casey wrote:

Would it make a difference if she had done the paperwork 16 years earlier?

Legally it wouldn’t have made a difference. It makes a practical difference once one approaches adulthood and starts seeking employment, etc.

Ted Cruz was a U.S. citizen from birth, and could formally claim that recognition at any time up until age 18 (without any need to undergo a naturalization process). If he didn’t assert it by then, his U.S. citizenship, while factually present, would be legally considered as abandoned.

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

“Legally it wouldn’t have made a difference.”

That’s what I was thinking, so I don’t see that it has any effect on Ilions argument.

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago

katecho likes to pretend that since an Act of Congress pursuant to naturalization accorded Cruz US citizenship “without any need to undergo a naturalization process” in his own right as an adult that therefore he isn’t a naturalized US citizen.

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

Naturalization is a process that one has to undergo if one is not born a citizen. Since Cruz was born a U.S. citizen (and was recognized so by his CRBA filing), he didn’t need to be naturalized, and he never was.

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

Once again: katecho likes to [lie] that since an Act of Congress pursuant to naturalization accorded Cruz US citizenship “without any need to undergo a naturalization process” in his own right as an adult that therefore he isn’t a naturalized US citizen … as though it were the process, rather than the Act of Congress that naturalizes a person.

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

There is only natural or naturalized citizenship. Children of citizens don’t need to be naturalized because they are natural born. Cruz didn’t need to undergo naturalization because he met the conditions of natural birth.

Congress has authority over the naturalization process, and the rules that define when naturalization is required, or not required by virtue of a natural birth.

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

Unfortunately it appears that the US government agrees with katecho.

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago

No; Ted Cruz would still be Constitutionally disqualified from occupying the office of US president. This is because — contrary to the false claims katecho likes to make — he is not, and never was, and never can be a natural born US citizen, as the US Constitution requires. katecho likes to obfuscate the issue. You may notice that he keeps making claims about Ted Cruz having “citizenship at birth”, as though even were it true that Cruz did, that alone would qualify him. But the Constitution requires that the president and vice-president have not merely “citizenship at birth”, but… Read more »

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

Ilion wrote: katecho likes to obfuscate the issue. You may notice that he keeps making claims about Ted Cruz having “citizenship at birth”, as though even were it true that Cruz did, that alone would qualify him. But the Constitution requires that the president and vice-president have not merely “citizenship at birth”, but further that they be natural born US citizens. “Natural born” is not a third category of citizenship. “Natural born” simply refers to those who are legally recognized as citizens from birth due to the facts of their natural inherent relationships and circumstances. This is in contrast to… Read more »

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago

This is a summary from a US government website Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories [1] In a general, a Child Born Outside the U.S. is a Citizen at Birth when the Child’s Parents Are Married to each other at the Time of Birth IF… Both parents are U.S. citizens at the time of birth, AND … At least one parent lived in the U.S. or its territories prior to the birth. This is not the Cruz’s case, for only *one* of his parents was a US citizen at the time of his birth;… Read more »

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

Ilion wrote: This is *also* not the Cruz’s case, as he was born *before* November 14, 1986 Does Ilion seriously think that there was no provision for citizenship for children born abroad prior to 1986? If he is aware that there was such a provision, then why does he not provide that information rather than quote summaries of the law that he acknowledges don’t even apply to Cruz? In any case, here is a summary of the law that includes the situation that applies to Cruz’s date of birth: Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock:… Read more »

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

I based my belief that Mrs. Cruz had become a Canadian citizen on her appearance on an electoral roll. But, that evidence has been disputed and is certainly not conclusive.

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

“Cruz’s U.S. citizenship, from birth, was because of his mother’s U.S. citizenship status.” This is untrue — and, given the circumstance that I have *explained* in great detail *why* it untrue, it is a lie. Cruz was not a US citizen “from birth”. He wasn’t even a US citizen at all until he was 16 years old, because it wasn’t until then that he mother completed the legally mandated paperwork to claim US citizenship — via naturalization — for him. Yet, even had she completed this paperwork at his birth, he’d still not be a natural born US citizen, for… Read more »

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

Ilion wrote: Cruz was not a US citizen “from birth”. He wasn’t even a US citizen at all until he was 16 years old, because it wasn’t until then that he mother completed the legally mandated paperwork to claim US citizenship — via naturalization — for him. This is false. The paper work that Cruz’s mother filed is called a CRBA (Consular Report of Birth Abroad). These forms do not confer citizenship, they merely document the fact of it. They are not approved for anyone who was not already a U.S. citizen from birth. Since the State Department has a… Read more »

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

I think it is time for SCOTUS to issue a clear ruling. When I first discussed this with lllion, he asked me what I thought was the purpose of the “natural born” demand, and I replied that it was, of course, to prevent dual allegiances. It seems to me that the holding of dual citizenship must surely violate the spirit of the law.

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

jillybean wrote: I replied that it was, of course, to prevent dual allegiances. It seems to me that the holding of dual citizenship must surely violate the spirit of the law. Failing to make a case based on the letter of the law, one could try to build a case on the intent or spirit of the law, but there are challenges there as well. The founders were certainly aware of the principle of multiple citizenship, and yet they placed no such restriction. Instead they only imposed a requirement of citizenship from birth. Buchanan apparently retained dual citizenship throughout his… Read more »

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

I agree with you that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Cruz feels a dual allegiance. But I can envision circumstances in which a candidate’s ongoing dual citizenship would raise concerns. Would we be concerned about divided loyalties if a person born in Israel, holding dual Israeli and U.S. citizenship derived from a non-military, non-diplomat parent married to an Israeli, were to run for president? Of course, these concerns can be dealt with case by case as they arise, but the idea that any foreign-born national can be considered a natural born U.S. citizen while retaining dual citizenship… Read more »

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

jellybean: “I think it is time for SCOTUS to issue a clear ruling.” 1) The supreme Court has no more authority to change or define the meaning of “natural born [US] citizen” than the Congress or President has; 1a) The supreme Court *has* issued rulings that state (note: not define) what “natural born [US] citizen”; I have referenced a couple of them before; 2) These days, who writes “a clear ruling” in the same sentence as “SCOTUS”? 3) The SCOTUS has accepted a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari on Ted Cruz Not Being a Natural Born Citizen — “On… Read more »

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

Ilion wrote: 1) The supreme Court has no more authority to change or define the meaning of “natural born [US] citizen” than the Congress or President has; Congress has Constitutional jurisdiction to define the criteria requiring naturalization, which necessarily and simultaneously defines the criteria where naturalization is not required, because of natural birth. One is either natural, or must be naturalized. Congress has jurisdiction over that question, and that legal definition. Ilion wrote: 3) The SCOTUS has accepted Petition for a Writ of Certiorari on Ted Cruz Not Being a Natural Born Citizen The lower Pennsylvania court had ruled just… Read more »

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

Apparently, katecho:

1) doesn’t realize that someone who holds a single citizenship from birth until age 16 does not simultaneously hold “dual citizenship”;
2) doesn’t realize that someone who holds only Canadian citizenship from birth until age 16 is thereby not even a US citizen in the first place until he was naturalized at age 16
3) doesn’t realize that “dual citizenship” is as logically incompatible with natural born citizenship as is naturalization

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

Ilion seems to have a fondness for repeating false and refuted arguments. 1) doesn’t realize that someone who holds a single citizenship from birth until age 16 does not simultaneously hold “dual citizenship”; Ted Cruz had dual citizenship from birth. Cruz was not granted citizenship in his teens, rather at that time he was formally recognized as having already had U.S. citizenship from his birth. 2) doesn’t realize that someone who holds only Canadian citizenship from birth until age 16 is thereby not even a US citizen in the first place until he was naturalized at age 16 Ilion is… Read more »

John F. Kennedy
John F. Kennedy
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

What is the basis for your claim that natural born status can result from only one parent?

katecho
katecho
6 years ago

One is either a citizen by natural circumstances at ones birth (natural born), or one must become a citizen through a naturalization process. In other words, one either is a citizen, by nature (as in natural relationship), or one must become a citizen, by procedure. The rules for determining when one is, or must become, a citizen are given by the Constitution to the authority of Congress. Over the years, Congress has defined which natural relationships and circumstances will be recognized for inherent citizenship from birth, and which will require a process of naturalization. According to the rules at the… Read more »

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago

8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

That is not the same thing as being a natural born US citizen.

To be a natural born US citizen, *both* one’s parents must be US citizens at the time of one’s birth *AND* one must be born on US territory.

If it were up to me, that second part wouldn’t be a requirement. But it isn’t up to me: this what the Founders understood the term to mean, therefore, this is what the term *means* in the US Constitution.

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

Changing understandings have made immigration law a mess. I applied for British citizenship so that my daughter could, through me, get a UK passport and the ability to work in Europe. If I were younger, I could get it from my UK-born mother. If I were older, I could get it from my British-subject father. As it is, I was born in the middle and can’t get it at all. But we still have hopes of her Lithuanian-born grandmother.

Ilion
Ilion
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

That doesn’t sound like “changing understandings”; that sounds like changing statutes … which is rather Cruz’s situation.

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  Ilion

I didn’t put that very well. Changing views about women as equal citizens, for example, led to changed statutes allowing citizenship to be conferred by either parent. When I was born, my mother’s UK-citizenship was subsumed by my father’s status as Canadian. Even now, a child born overseas to an unwed American father and a foreign mother does not qualify for U.S. citizenship except in narrowly defined circumstances. Throw in issues like assisted reproductive technology and it becomes an incoherent, contradictory mess. For example, the child of a gay marriage has three conceivable ways to claim U.S. citizenship: through either… Read more »

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

“As it is, I was born in the middle and can’t get it at all.”

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right…

John F. Kennedy
John F. Kennedy
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Thanks, Jilly. The whole thing seems pretty complicated and I don’t have the time to sort it all out, but my present opinion is that the founders had Vattel’s definition as written in The Law of Nations in mind when the Constitution was written. That would mean, as llion has pointed out, that in order to be considered a natural born citizen, both parents must be citizens, and their child must be born on U.S. soil. If this is true, the only thing that could change that would be an amendment to the Constitution.

katecho
katecho
6 years ago

Kennedy wrote: my present opinion is that the founders had Vattel’s definition as written in The Law of Nations in mind when the Constitution was written The founders may or may not have had Vattel’s definition in mind, originally, but it is important to note that they did not include a fixed definition of the term in the Constitution, and they explicitly gave jurisdiction over naturalization to Congress. By giving this authority to Congress they allowed for Congressional revision of the requirements for submitting to the naturalization process, and therefore the requirements for being recognized as natural from birth. This… Read more »

John F. Kennedy
John F. Kennedy
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

Thanks for your reply. You are of course correct that authority was given to Congress to establish rules for naturalization; but those who are natural born Citizens have no need of a naturalization process, so it doesn’t naturally follow that the founders intended to give Congress the authority to alter the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen.” The naturalization act of 1790 was completely repealed and replaced in 1795, with the words “natural born Citizens” removed from the latter similar legislation. I dug around a little to see if I could find out why the words were removed. According… Read more »

katecho
katecho
6 years ago

Kennedy wrote: … it doesn’t naturally follow that the founders intended to give Congress the authority to alter the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen.” Since one can only be a citizen naturally (natural born), or else by being naturalized, the authority to define the rules of naturalization is necessarily an authority to define the rules when naturalization is unnecessary (because of natural birth). Kennedy wrote: I dug around a little to see if I could find out why the words were removed. In digging around, one should have discovered that it was not recorded why those words were… Read more »

John F. Kennedy
John F. Kennedy
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

“In digging around, one should have discovered that it was not recorded
why those words were dropped, and that there is only speculation
offered.”

The author, in the article I linked to, claims that evidence was found in the House committee notes from 1795, though he did not provide that evidence in the article.

I found the article, along with the “Natural Born Citizen” link, to be convincing, but at this point I have exhausted my willingness to pursue this matter any further, especially since the Constitution itself is pretty much a dead letter at this point.

katecho
katecho
6 years ago

I can appreciate John F. Kennedy’s exhaustion, given the current state of Constitutional disregard. I’ll finish with this. Kennedy wrote: The author, in the article I linked to, claims that evidence was found in the House committee notes from 1795, though he did not provide that evidence in the article. I found it striking that an article claiming, in the very title, a discovery of “new evidence” on the issue never actually bothers to provide that evidence for inspection. I tried to google around a bit to find this “new evidence” based on the clues, but came up with nothing… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Well, if people actually believed that, then Obama would have been a natural born citizen even if he was born in Kenya.

Eagle_Eyed
Eagle_Eyed
6 years ago

“We are to look for an able man who fears God, who is a man of truth, and who hates covetousness. Hold these rules of Mosaic baseball up against Trump, and it is, quite simply, strike three.” The Exodus quote is from Moses’s father-in-law Jethro, not Yahweh; and is advice to the national leader regarding the delegation of authority. It regards a socio-religio-political system much different from our own. What was required for post-Exodus Israelites may not be feasible in the largely post-Christian culture we find ourselves in–only two remaining candidates have a legitimate ability to be the 45th President.… Read more »

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
6 years ago
Reply to  Eagle_Eyed

I seriously doubt that a Clinton presidency would bring with it any of those things, or that a Trump presidency would stop any of them. One point that gets missed a lot is that cultural shifts are brought about by the culture and not by the politicians. We have abortion and gay marriage because we have a culture that firmly supports both of them. The Supreme Court may occasionally give things a push in a particular direction, but usually all it’s doing is to speed up the process. Had Roe and Obergefell been decided the other way, we still would… Read more »

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

A problem with Hillary Clinton is, that she..,,
Well..,
She lies like a Clinton!
????

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
6 years ago
Reply to  "A" dad

If either Clinton or Trump were Pinocchio, their noses would look like a California redwood, though I’ve never been convinced she’s as corrupt as her detractors claim. Be that as it may, Trump is a racist, a thinly veiled fascist, quite likely a Russian agent, who thinks it’s a great idea to start a nuclear war, who is clueless about foreign policy and won’t listen to advice, and who has scared the living daylights out of our entire military and intelligence communities just because he’s a loose cannon. And just for good measure, rips off his workers and his creditors,… Read more »

John F. Kennedy
John F. Kennedy
6 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

You are simply regurgitating the talking points of the Progressives. And we all know that the Progressive movement has been built on many mountain ranges of lies (from the outset).

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
6 years ago

Which of those specific talking points is factually incorrect?

Is he not a racist? He trafficked in birtherism for five years and says Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers.

Is he not a thinly veiled fascist? He has threatened to use the military against members of Congress that don’t pass his programs or judges that make ruling he doesn’t like.

Go point by point by point through the list I gave and tell me which ones are factually wrong.

mkt
mkt
6 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

Birtherism isn’t racist. It was part of Hillary’s campaign as well. And he never said all Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers. I guess you’re claiming none of them are? Go spend a few nights sleeping on the streets of a border town (the Mexican side) and let us know how that goes. As for fascism, there’s more of it coming from the Left (including Obama) than anywhere else. Speaking of Obama, he spent years under the preaching of a angry racist and has taken the anti-white side of every racial incident in his two terms. It started with his… Read more »

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
6 years ago
Reply to  mkt

I see you forgot to take your meds again.

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  mkt

How does “it was part of Hillary’s campaign” show that birtherism isn’t racism?

You want to talk about racism and Donald Trump, his list of receipts on that matter is very, very long.

mkt
mkt
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

If you want to say Hillary’s campaign was racist, have at it. Again, Obama (whom you constantly defend here) has the most racist track record of them all. If Trump sat for years under the preaching of Jeremiah Wright’s white nationalist equivalent, he wouldn’t have made it to the primaries.

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  mkt

Saying, “Hillary’s campaign was racist” is a bit vague, but I think it can clearly be stated (and I clearly stated at the time) that Clinton and her surrogates used a lot of race-baiting during a particular stage in her campaign that was clearly meant to appeal to racist sentiments. This was widely covered at the time – do you not remember the “shuck and jive” or “he’s just another Jesse Jackson” and so on? Can you give an example of a White Nationalist equivalent to Jeremiah Wright? For example, give a statement that Jeremiah Wright said which you believe… Read more »

John F. Kennedy
John F. Kennedy
6 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

My complaint is that you were simply regurgitating talking points. Based on your previous history of comments here, you are certainly capable of making a case for your views without resorting to merely repeating what others are saying; which seems to be what you did in this instance. I’m not an apologist for Donald Trump, so I decline to answer your points.

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
6 years ago

Any list I put together would likely include stuff from somebody or other’s talking points. The question is whether the stuff on the list is true.

John F. Kennedy
John F. Kennedy
6 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

“Any list I put together would likely include stuff from somebody or other’s talking points.”

Sure, we all get information from others, but did you put any thought into it prior to rattling off the list; which you apparently got from a Barbra Streisand op-ed.

There is one thing on the list that does bother me, and that is the lawsuit. The rest, in my opinion, is demagoguery. The place of Obama’s birth, for example, has nothing to do with race; it has to do with eligibility; and so on down the list.

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
6 years ago

I got it off the top of my head; these issues have been discussed over and over again.

And sure, every white president has been asked to produce a birth certificate to show eligibility. Every white president has been the subject of rumors that he was really born somewhere else. There have been attempts to de-legitimize every white president with claims that he’s really an ineligible scam artist who fabricated the details of his birth and childhood. Nope, had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that he’s our first black president; not at all.

John F. Kennedy
John F. Kennedy
6 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

In recent history there have been questions raised about John McCain’s eligibility and also about Ted Cruz’ eligibility; I’m not buying your argument.

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
6 years ago

There was not an entire cottage industry devoted to proving that McCain and Cruz were ineligible, and further, in each of their cases, there was no question where they were born, but whether the circumstances of their birth there made them natural born citizens. In contrast, with Obama you had right wing operatives flying to Kenya and claiming to have found the missing birth certificate; you had Hawaiian state officials being publicly called liars for stating that he had been born in Hawaii; you had claims that his Hawaiian birth certificate was a forgery, and you had a whole long… Read more »

John F. Kennedy
John F. Kennedy
6 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

Typical Progressive tactics; agree with the approved narrative, or the name-calling begins.

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
6 years ago

Why should I be nice about it? For five years, the birther issue was used to play into racist stereotypes about this scary black man who has come to destroy our way of life. I notice you’re not even bothering to try to dispute my facts. It was despicable.

John F. Kennedy
John F. Kennedy
6 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

There are two issues here; eligibility and policy. Obama wanted to “fundamentally transform” the country with his Progressive policies; not “scary black man” policies. All reasonable people should be concerned about that. You complain about 5 years, yet if Obama had nothing to hide, why did he wait until April of 2011 to do anything about the controversy? Race had nothing to do with it.

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
6 years ago

If you look at his actual policies, rather than conservative media hype about his policies, he’s not much of a progressive; he’s a very-slightly-left-of-center centrist. If you go on progressive websites you will find they pretty much consider him a sell-out. So this fundamental transformation you’re talking about is mostly hype. You can find individual issues here and there where he’s a leftist, but not many. And yes, race had everything to do with the birther controversy. Not that every individual who believed it was necessarily a racist, but the controversy was cooked up and kept alive by people playing… Read more »

JL
JL
6 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

Crazy fun fact. President Obama is half white. Maybe it was his white half that increased our debt, opened our borders and invited terrorists to our country to come and play.

What now?

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
6 years ago
Reply to  JL

The debt was mostly increased by white Republican members of Congress who spend like Democrats but refuse to raise taxes; the Democrats at least understand that if you’re going to spend money, it has to come from somewhere. Please identify that terrorists that Obama invited into our country, and you may be surprised to know that illegal border crossings are actually way down from the Bush years.

Yes, he’s half white, but I think most racists still subscribe to the one drop rule, which means that as far as they’re concerned, he’s black.

JL
JL
6 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

And so how is it racist to claim a half white person is ineligible to be president?

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
6 years ago
Reply to  JL

To a racist, someone who is half white is all black.

JL
JL
6 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

You do realize that’s circular logic, right?

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
6 years ago
Reply to  JL

If racists were logical they wouldn’t be racists.

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

I don’t have any issues with Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hillary Rodham Clinton, by her own admission, has issues with brain “short circuits”. Hillary Rodham Clinton has issues with repeating false narritives. Hillary Rodham Clinton has issues with lying before congress. Hillary Rodham Clinton has issues with destroying infromation under subpeona. Hillary Rodham Clinton has issues with blaming subordinates. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s subordinates have issues with pleading the fifth amendment. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s subordinates have issues with needing immunity from criminal prosecution. Hillary Rodham Clinton: ” The buck stops there!” (never here) ‘cheky whatever issues you have with fact and honesty,… Read more »

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
6 years ago
Reply to  "A" dad

She’s not running for elder or Sunday school teacher. And when a big part of your job is dealing with crooks and scoundrels, maybe the stuff you list is actually an asset.

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

Sorry ‘checky, the “stuff” I list are facts that show criminal behavior by over privileged, over paid, over achievers.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a crook and scoundrel,
not unlike her husband, William Jefferson Clinton. (aka, Bill Clinton.)

A President best have personal integrity in “order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

That goes for Elders and Sunday School teachers as well.

Personal integrity is not a bad idea for blog commenters either! ; – )

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
6 years ago
Reply to  "A" dad

“Personal integrity is not a bad idea for blog commenters either! ; – )”

The alternative being disintegration. ;-)

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
6 years ago
Reply to  "A" dad

Except that this year, neither candidate has integrity or honesty, so if you’re voting on that basis don’t bother. On the other hand, if you don’t want to see the world on fire, vote for Hillary.

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

Whoops! Wrong again ‘checky.
If you want to see the world on liar , vote for Hillary!????

Not to mention, Hilary’s many smoking ruins.

Like ;
Libya
The State Department
Ambassador Stevens
Iraq
Iran
The Isis caliphate
Arkansas ! ????

Finally, George Washington owned slaves. Does that mean he lacked personal integrity?

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
6 years ago
Reply to  "A" dad

Well, Benghazi was the result of Congressional Republicans cutting funding for embassy security, as even the GOP investigation showed. And here’s a thought: The GOP has been investigating Hillary Clinton pretty much non-stop for the past 25 years and they have yet to come up with any real evidence of wrong doing. The only charge they’ve actually been able to substantiate is that Bill Clinton lied about sex, but he’s not running this year. I would not say she’s a paradigm of virtue, but if she were as evil as the GOP makes out, presumably they would have uncovered something… Read more »

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

‘Checky, It’s wrong and criminal to take top secret information out of its secure protocols and transmit top secret information unsecured.
The FBI found that Hillary Clinton deliberately violated those security protocols and lied about it to the FBI and congress. Hillary has not yet been prosecuted because AG lynch, a liberal democrat, also lacks personal integrity.

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
6 years ago
Reply to  "A" dad

Actually, the FBI concluded no such thing. It concluded that it was sloppy but not criminal, and that most of the emails in question were not classified at the time they were sent. And it wasn’t Lynch’s call; under federal law, decisions to prosecute or not prosecute are made by career prosecutors, not by political appointees, exactly so that the decisions won’t be politicized. The only role the president or the attorney general have is in deciding whether to grant a pardon.

mkt
mkt
6 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

And we know that the FBI under Obama is 100% unbiased and apolitical. Just like the IRS and their highly-selective audits.
Many have lost jobs and been sent to jail for much smaller things than Email-Gate. If you’ve ever handled classified data, you’d know this.

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
6 years ago
Reply to  mkt

Well, the current director of the FBI, who signed off on the Clinton email investigation, is a Republican holdover from the Bush administration.

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

Reality ‘checky.
Fact ‘checky.
You need to review Dir. Comedy’s testimony before Rep. Gowdy, where Comey confirms that Hillary’s responses to investigative questions were not true .
The facts contradict your opinion.

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
6 years ago
Reply to  "A" dad

If that’s the case, then why didn’t the Republican head of the FBI have her indicted for lying to federal agents? That is a crime, so far as I know.

mkt
mkt
6 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

Because the captain (Comey) knew his hands were ultimately tied, so why do something to infuriate the general (Obama)? Talk about career suicide. And let’s stop pretending a neo-con Bush appointee is some archconservative.

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
6 years ago
Reply to  mkt

Except that federal law forbids either the president or any of his political appointees to involve themselves in a decision about whether to prosecute. They themselves can be charged with felonies if they do. That is specifically so that politics won’t enter into prosecutorial decisions. The FBI director is not considered a political appointee because he serves a fixed ten year term and can only be fired for cause. And at this point the director of the FBI could go to work for a private law firm and make several times what he makes as FBI director, so I’m not… Read more »

mkt
mkt
6 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

Yes, that’s how it works. It’s a perfect, sinless world, where all of our spotless leaders remind each other of following Federal law. Everyone complies and no one is above the law, not even Hillary and her thousands of security breaches. When Eric Holder refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation in ’08, you should’ve realize what a mockery of justice and rule-of-law we now faced. And no, this isn’t first or last administration where this happens. But it’s been one of the worst. And get real. Comey being shamed and removed from his position wouldn’t be… Read more »

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
6 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

EtR, have you ever had a security clearance?

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
6 years ago
Reply to  Wesley Sims

Yes, when I was a Navy cryptographer.

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
6 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

As do I, though I’m certainly not a cryptographer.

What would have happened to you if you did anything remotely close to what she did?

I could lose my job if I emailed even just SBU. Certainly, I recognize there are some differences in my email and federal email, but the same principles roughly apply.

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
6 years ago
Reply to  Wesley Sims

I am not defending how she handled her emails. It was sloppy even if not criminal. To answer your question, I would have lost my job and my clearance and, depending on how egregious the circumstances, might even have been court martialled. All that said, though, either she or Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States, and he would be a catastrophe. The prospect of someone with skin that thin having his finger on the nuclear button is terrifying. He’s already said he might use the military to arrest judges or congressmen who go against his… Read more »

Wesley Sims
Wesley Sims
6 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

Meh… Trump *might* use the state in that fashion, but the left currently does it with the rabble-roused public, or federal funding, or the advocacy groups, or DOJ investigations.

And Trump took the first strike off the table last night in the debate. And he’s also not the one fear-mongering about those damned Reds over in Russia. He’s also skeptical about NATO.

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

Because HRC got preferential treatment,
That you and I , dear ‘checky, would not get.

Let’s drink to that sometime!????????????

mkt
mkt
6 years ago
Reply to  "A" dad

And her fraudulent/scandalous ways go back for decades. Here’s one from the 70s:
http://mebfaber.com/2016/08/04/much-hillaryclinton-worth-today-continued-trading-cattle-futures/

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  mkt

Mooooooooo!????

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  "A" dad

I’d love to see your list of how many of those things you believe Trump hasn’t done, or their very similar equivalent.

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

J’, hope you are well!
To your point, i am not a big trump fan. The Donald has plenty of moral failings.
Hillary as plenty of moral, criminal and national security failings.
The Donald does not, as of yet, have any national security failings that I am aware of!
This is an important distinction.

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  "A" dad

The Donald has been accused of criminal failings in actual courts far more times than Hillary Clinton has. I don’t understand how he could have the opportunity to be accused of national security failings, seeing as he’s never been involved in national security. But his character makes it easy to believe it would be very possible for him, especially considering his financial reliance on Russia, his complete disregard for the truth, his apparent lack of any moral standards for his behavior, and his consistent opportunism. So pointing out he’s never had national security experience doesn’t feel like a strong argument… Read more »

mkt
mkt
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

And he’s never had her above-the-law, political class protection (governor’s wife, president’s wife, Secretary of State, etc.). Hillary has been doing illegal activities since at least the 70s. I’ve shown examples in previous posts.

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  mkt

Trump was helped and protected by the New York political class since at least the early 1970s. His father had extremely close ties to New York’s mayor and other major city officials, who he also paid off handsomely, and Trump continued to offer bribes and receive favors all the way up until the current year. This was getting strong media coverage all the way back in the 1970s, although only his recent pay-offs to attorney generals in order to avoid prosecution is finally getting wider public rebuke.

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

J’, criminal for Donald or civil? I can believe he would have been involved in civil lawsuits.
But anyway my thought has been , when faced with a choice between “Sennacherib” and “Jezebel “, I think you go with “Sennacherib “.

mkt
mkt
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

And another:
http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/here-they-are-hillarys-22-biggest-scandals-ever/
The Atlantic and other MSM outlets play softball when they do similar pieces on Hillary.

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Yep, sounds like Sennacherib.
J, I am not a Donald apologist, however all of these issues sound Civil in nature, especially if the New York AG is suing the Donald, as opposed to prosecuting.
I actually thought the wiki blurb was more clear.
In any case, I wish I could vote for Reagan again, but alas, he is not on the ballot !????

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  "A" dad

I was curious about your reference to Jezebel because I have recently read some articles about the “Jezebel spirit.” This is not something I have ever heard Catholics talk about, so it was all new to me. What I read is that while the Biblical Jezebel is undoubtedly female, the Jezebel spirit represents what we might call malignant narcissism: a proud, arrogant mindset that never admits error, that uses people as pawns, that stirs up dissension to accomplish its goals, that lies like a rug, that breaks promises, that discards people it no longer sees as useful, and that is… Read more »

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

1 Kings 21:25-26
25 (There was never anyone like Ahab, who sold himself to do evil in the eyes of the Lord, urged on by Jezebel his wife. 26 He behaved in the vilest manner by going after idols, like the Amorites the Lord drove out before Israel.)

Jilly, Jezebel was a raging queen. It’s not like I am a huge Donald fan, but I don’t think he has the same rage issues as Hillary.

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  "A" dad

Clinton, for all her faults, appears able to publicly control herself when someone insults her. Trump does not. Trump seems to be unable to let go of personal grudges even when all advice and reason insists that he drop them. Trump can be shockingly vulgar when he gets angry at people, even when he doesn’t know them and a response is completely unnecessary. And Trump has shown a hair trigger on his anger in public rallies, expressed towards things as disparate as reporters, protesters, and microphones. As I’ve said before, Clinton typifies all that is wrong with the political establishment… Read more »

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

“Clinton, for all her faults, appears able to publicly control herself..” ??? Well J’, to quote Hillary, in one of her more out of control public moments: “What difference, at this point, does it make?” ; – ) Also, JFK was a lounge lizzard, a liar and not healthy, yet he is held out by some as a great president. JFK, for instance: ” has faults and problems that no one within a stone’s throw of the candidacy has ever had in any of our lifetimes. And in his personal life, he’s a complete disaster, and completely unrepentant about it,… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  "A" dad

I’m glad you used that example. The fact that one of her “more out of control public moments” is her saying “What difference, at this point, does it make?”, and yet you refer to her as “Jezebel” who is a “raging queen” and then say that Hillary has “rage issues” much great than Trump’s…. As far as what “difference” it makes for me, the answer is obviously none. I’m not voting for EITHER of them. I decided that many years ago in Clinton’s case, and never remotely entertained thoughts of supporting Trump. My greatest issue with the election at this… Read more »

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Well, J, I was going to disagree, but then I thought about how Bill Clinton “normalized” oral —, especially among teenagers in the northeast at least. Unfortunately, sin is pretty “normal” on this planet. I am more concerned about Hillary inspiring more liars, than I am about Donald inspiring more lounge lizards.
I wish we had a Reagan like candidate to choose.

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  "A" dad

Clinton’s painful attempts to say she wasn’t lying with long rationalizations for why the statement was actually true make it pretty obvious that lying is wrong. I have never heard a Christian minimize Clinton’s lying as something that’s okay. Trump, on the other hand, just flatly lies whenever he wants and doesn’t even try to defend it. He just repeats the lie, or goes back and forth between opposite and opposing lies (even within the same sentence or paragraph). And while some of his supporters still see his ridiculous lying as a character defect, I’ve heard many of his Christian… Read more »

"A" dad
"A" dad
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Matthew 6 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. 7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Psalm 46:9-11 9 He makes wars cease to the ends of the earth. He breaks the bow and shatters the spear; he burns the shields[a] with fire. 10 He says, “Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted… Read more »

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

I got so depressed I had to stop watching. In the words of my favorite movie, a hell of a week to run out of Prozac.

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Surely you can’t be serious…

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago

Sometimes my Special Snowflake and I weird each other out. She showed me her FB status, posted at the same time, that said “Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.”

David Alan Roberts
David Alan Roberts
6 years ago

Very interesting discussion. However, I believe that the time for idealism was in the primaries. There was a slew of good candidates on the republican side (would´t it have been nice if Trump had run as a democrat?) Perhaps the biggest downer is that Trump prevailed over so many better candidates, and with the help of the Christian community, demonstrating the level of discernment among republicans, conservatives, Christians, etc. Certainly character matters, but the time for selecting the candidate with the best character was in the primaries. I would like to point out one thing. Doug said, “when I vote,… Read more »

jon
jon
6 years ago

Does it make people feel better to write somebody’s name on the ballot who has no chance of winning? Is your conscience absolved by your meaningless gesture that no one but you cares about? Do you feel stained by voting for somebody you wouldn’t want for your pastor? It’s not a covenant. They’re not marrying into the family.

And why is surprising to everyone that the people of our country would select such a fine set of candidates? It’s what democracy does. Don’t take it too seriously.

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  jon

For most conservatives, voting is akin to a sacrament, prized for its emotional and symbolic ritual value. So, yes.

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

Voting is not salvific, if that’s what ashv means by sacrament. But there are certainly moral implications to it. God does care about who we identify ourselves with. Voting does pertain to the question of our federal identity and relationship. Rulers are representative heads that we are to submit ourselves to.

Does ashv propose that there is no moral aspect to voting? Is it complete adiaphora in his view?

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

I don’t think voting entails “identifying yourself with” anybody, no. Obviously prudence is still required.

David Trounce
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

So you would choose Barabbas after all.

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  David Trounce

Did David Trounce mean Barabbas? If he did, that’s an excellent point. Remember that the people cried out to Pilate, “No, not Him. Give us Barabbas.” This was a very culpable choice and election that they engaged in. Voting is to identify with someone to represent you. Because rulers represent those they rule over, there is no way to avoid identification. Even if we don’t vote for Hillary, and she wins, all Americans will still be identified with her in the eyes of the world to some extent. How much more if we actually voted for her? This identification is… Read more »

David Trounce
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

Yes, David Trounce meant Barabbas, despite attempts by his auto correct to subvert the conversation. Why does Katecho reply to me but then speak about me instead of to me? It reads weird.

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  jon

jon wrote:

Don’t take it too seriously.

If jon doesn’t take it too seriously, then he won’t mind us not voting for Trump or Hillary.

ashv
ashv
6 years ago

Rats climbing aboard a winning ship.

JohnM
JohnM
6 years ago
Reply to  ashv

I like that. Now everyone else aboard that ship ought to ask themselves what it is about their vessel that attracts rats.

ashv
ashv
6 years ago
Reply to  JohnM

Cheeto dust. Obviously.

Capndweeb
Capndweeb
6 years ago

I can’t be the only one who would rather chew on tinfoil and shave his head with a cheese grater than cast a vote for either repugnant option in this election. Therefore, I propose that all of us of the same mind very publicly voice that opinion and encourage others to write “NONE OF THE ABOVE!” on our ballots. (Yes, with the exclamation point.) If we get even 2 or 3% in the polls, the media will be forced to acknowledge it as a “movement” and I predict it will snowball if it gets media attention. If by some miracle… Read more »

John F. Kennedy
John F. Kennedy
6 years ago
Reply to  Capndweeb

So… you want Obama to continue in office till this is resolved?

Capndweeb
Capndweeb
6 years ago

Absolutely! Not because I love Obama, but because it would be a miracle to get to that point and have that problem.
By the way, stay out of Dallas, John.

John F. Kennedy
John F. Kennedy
6 years ago
Reply to  Capndweeb

Ah… Dallas is fine, it’s the grassy knoll I worry about.

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago

And the textbook depository. Teachers are often told that the Texan stranglehold on the textbook industry is harming the nation.

JL
JL
6 years ago
Reply to  Capndweeb

“I can’t be the only one who would rather chew on tinfoil and shave his head with a cheese grater than cast a vote for either repugnant option in this election.” Is that why you wear that hat? :) Perhaps the majority of the people have given themselves over to a “We can do” attitude. Isaiah 9:10 comes to mind here. Would God allow a few stalwart Christians to take this country back? I don’t see that in Scripture. I see instead judgment on the many and the saving of a remnant. The Macabees might be an example, but they’re… Read more »

Capndweeb
Capndweeb
6 years ago
Reply to  JL

True, JL, I have said that before. Perhaps we DO need to slip further down the slippery slope before we repent, but this country has repented before. Errant youth burnt Bibles at Harvard shortly after the revolution, but revival and repentance followed.
No matter how deep the cesspool or how violently it’s swirling, it’s never time to swim with the current.
It’s not over until God says its over.

JL
JL
6 years ago
Reply to  Capndweeb

I didn’t know about the Harvard incident. Thank you, Capn.

Edited to add, I wasn’t advocating swimming with the current, but rather recognizing that we can’t change the current. Nor are we called to try to change the current. (I’m still working this out, so would appreciate being challenged.)

Instead, aren’t we called to stand on the truth of Christ and follow the current he has established for us, regardless of the prevailing times?

Capndweeb
Capndweeb
6 years ago
Reply to  JL

Oh, I think the current can be changed, but not to our glory. To His.
And not by our own strength, by His.
And not with flaming fireballs or lightning bolts, but with a tiny number of weak and broken people willing to do His will.
I’m advocating we not give up, fix our eyes on Jesus, and do the impossible–which (to horribly mix a metaphor) is to walk right across the crashing waves of the cesspool.

Capndweeb
Capndweeb
6 years ago
Reply to  JL

Oh, and I wear the hat because I live in Minnesota. A good dead animal hat prevents frostbitten ears.

JL
JL
6 years ago
Reply to  Capndweeb

My husband has one just like it for the same reason.

OKRickety
OKRickety
6 years ago
Reply to  JL

“Is that why you wear that hat? :)”

ROTFL!

ME
ME
6 years ago
Reply to  Capndweeb

I’m with you :-)

Capndweeb
Capndweeb
6 years ago
Reply to  ME

Thanks ME. Do you know anybody who can make NOTA go viral?

Ross
Ross
6 years ago

Mr. Wilson – I enjoy reading your writings. Did you pencil anyone in for 2012 and if not and cast for Mitt, why is he any better than the Donald?

Dean Osborne
Dean Osborne
6 years ago

The level of ignorance in this article is truly something to behold.

Psmithy
Psmithy
6 years ago

What I don’t understand is how forgiving Trump has anything to do with backing him. Unless the only reason Cruz wasn’t backing him was out of spite. According to Cruz, he had many political and moral reasons for not climbing on the Trump Train. And even if Cruz’s one reason for not supporting Trump was because of how Trump treated Heidi and his father, couldn’t he still forgive him and withhold support on the grounds of, “I still can’t bring myself to support a man who would stoop so low as to go after another man’s family that way”? Forgiveness… Read more »

Mark
Mark
6 years ago

I want to preface my comments here by saying that Cruz hasn’t talked me into voting for Trump. The other preface is that I want to give Cruz the benefit of some doubt while simultaneously acknowledging that I may subsequently look naive. I admit that I don’t want to be disappointed with him. Let’s assume for a moment that Ted Cruz is a believer in the power of the Word and thus words. He is a person who has made a living understanding words and using them effectively. He is even on record for initially taking Mitch McConnell at his… Read more »

David Mullin
David Mullin
6 years ago

I agree with Doug Wilson more often than I agree with anyone else., but I disagree here. Very few of the men we have elected to the presidency in the last hundred years have lived lives worthy of the gospel. Trump may indeed be worse than some but he is also better than some (LBJ and Bill Clinton come quickly to mind). The real issue here is the Supreme Court, which has become a super legislature deciding all issues of great public import based on their own consciences, such as they are. We have one vacant seat and three elderly… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  David Mullin

I have a hard time seeing where you get “better than some”. True, other politicians committed adultery, but Trump openly and publicly bragged about it. Other politicians have lied constantly, but Trump appears unaware that something like “truth” even exists or matters. Other politicians have been as greedy as one could get, but Trump has encouraged the entire population to openly celebrate greed. Other politicians have incited others to violence behind the scenes, Trump incites violence openly as a campaign tactic. Other politicians have showed signs of unrepentant sin, Trump has boldly declared that for him, repentance isn’t even necessary.… Read more »

ME
ME
6 years ago

After reading this thread, I’m now left wondering if a test tube designer baby with 3 way DNA made for a 3 way marriage is actually natural born according to the constitution?

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  ME

This is a question that will certainly arise in the future. In surfing the net yesterday, I was reading about citizenship issues arising from Americans going overseas and using “foreign” donor sperm (as things stand right now, a DNA test is required to establish paternity by a U.S. citizen). A child born naturally to a foreign-born lesbian may currently claim U.S. citizenship through its American born other mother if they are married. And that doesn’t even begin to address surrogacy.

katecho
katecho
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Not sure if it covers all forms of DNA donation and mixing, but the newer language of the INA does address surrogacy because it refers to the “genetic or gestational mother” in regard to transmission of citizenship at birth.

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  katecho

So two married gay guys decide to have a child using a sperm donor, an egg donor, and a surrogate. The court is going to have to make sense of this!

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
6 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Much as it pains me, since the relationship is legally recognized as a marriage, this makes sense. Historically, parentage law has always presumed that the spouse of the mother is the parent. It is only if it is challenged that DNA evidence becomes relevant.

jillybean
jillybean
6 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

O brave new world… (Someone had to say that sooner or later.)

Luke Pride
6 years ago

I see voting for the sheriff or fire Cheif not requiring they be men of God. And Paul has no problem with submission to non Christian government authorities whilst having high standards for church authority. I’m very disappointed that you would lose respect for Cruz but shout accolades about Thabitti. But perhaps supporting the onslaught of culture, life and holiness means well so keeps the respect. Even if he stops so low as outright accuseing someone of racism. Someone who has been a public figure for decades and never had that charge laid against him until he ran as a… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago
Reply to  Luke Pride

Someone who has been a public figure for decades and never had that charge laid against him until he ran as a republican to fix immigration Are you seriously referring to Trump with that claim? Trump’s been called a racist in his business dealings for 50 years, and his dad was called a racist for 50 years before that. Heck, Trump has been accused of racist policy in federal cases going back to the 1970s, and in federal hearings as recently as the 1990s. And then, of course, was the whole birther thing he was running with for years before… Read more »

David Trounce
6 years ago

Doug, you seem to be applying a Covenant obligation from Exodus to a Canaanite people in New Jersey in the way you vote. I agree that such attributes in men are ideal and should be supported, but does that mean you won’t vote? Also, can you give an example of this crossover principle to something we see happening in the New Testament? Do we have an example of a New Covenant obligation being applied by an Apostle to civil government? Also, since the execution of civil justice does seem to be a biblical requirement for civil government, shouldn’t court appointments… Read more »

Doug Wright
Doug Wright
6 years ago

To say the cruize boat is on the plus side of character matters question is the most superficial thing ive read all season could someone remind this joker of cruises personal attacks and foils? Quite simply cruizer lost. Trump wins he’d be done deal; Trump loses. However he still is-Trump has so crushed his style politics that he will be Irrelevant. He cant through this try, save hos pol ‘a’

40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
6 years ago
Reply to  Doug Wright

Two questions:

1.) Are you and The Elk the same person?

2.) Any chance of re-posting this comment, but this time in English?

Doug Wright
Doug Wright
6 years ago

No, and ‘Elkin lives matter’

David Chew
David Chew
6 years ago

I agree with Doug wholeheartedly and intend to stay with my conviction not to vote for Trump even though any thought of a Clinton presidency would seem, to me, to be a travesty. And I think Doug is right about the motivations of Ted Cruz, whom I was once pulling for. However, I have always been a little uncomfortable with Cruz going back on his promise in a Psalm 15ish sort of way: “Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill? … He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.” (Am I… Read more »

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
6 years ago
Reply to  David Chew

I’m not sure this applies because I don’t see how keeping his word was to Cruz’s hurt — it was to the hurt of those who would be influenced by him to do something wrong (from his perspective, with which I happen to agree.) Keeping your word to your own hurt seems to apply more to something like sticking with a bad business deal or doing something for someone that turns out to be a lot more hassle than you thought it would be when you agreed. There is a time to go back on a foolish promise. It’s not… Read more »

40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
6 years ago

I think it was Damon Linker who pointed out that in the debate last night, there wasn’t a single word about abortion or gay marriage.

Great job at destroying your culture, Judeochristians!

Keep listening to preachers like Russell Moore and John Piper, and keep treating frauds like Francis Schaeffer and madmen like Jim Jones like prophets, and keep watching your country go down the drain.

Great job! You won one for the Gipper!

America is now that reeking outhouse on the hill.

Dabney Redivivus
Dabney Redivivus
6 years ago

I never hear anything negative about Francis Schaeffer. Please elaborate on his fraudulence.

40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
6 years ago

Not much elaboration required. Schaeffer’s religion, like Jim Jones’ religion, was a syncretism of Christianity and Equality. Jones went further down the path than Schaeffer did, but no matter the pace, the path eventually lead to one destination, Hell. There’s a reason L’Abri was in Switzerland, and not in Guatemala or the Congo. And it’s not because Schaeffer actually believed in Equality. He didn’t. Schaeffer was either stupid, or he knew that Western Civilization required both Christianity and a white population. And I don’t think he was stupid. Schaeffer was huge around 1981-1983. By this time the Immigration Act of… Read more »

katie
katie
6 years ago

LOL

Jonathan
Jonathan
6 years ago

So can we take it that your religion produces the focus of the comments you make here, and if we followed it, then our hearts and aims would end up something like yours?

40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Herp to the derp, and a herp derp derp!

40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
6 years ago
Reply to  Jonathan

So can we take it that your religion produces the focus of the comments you make here, and if we followed it, then our hearts and aims would end up something like yours?

You can take whatever you want, however you want.

It’s no skin off my beeswax.

Dabney Redivivus
Dabney Redivivus
6 years ago

If Western Civilization requires both Christianity and a white population how do you account for the fact that the emergence of Western Civilization predates Christ, and developed wholly/mostly independent of OT Israel?

Sorry if that’s a dumb question.

40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
40 ACRES & A KARDASHIAN
6 years ago

Well, I’m using the term to mean what average white people think of when they think of Western Civilization: what we used to call Christendom, until it was declared anti-semitic and hateful to use that term.

Certainly elements of Western Civ existed BC, but it didn’t come close to reaching its full flower until Europe was Christianized.

Dabney Redivivus
Dabney Redivivus
6 years ago

Jews would have called the Caesars anti-semitic too, for always putting down their rebellions, killing off potential messiahs, etc. If the term had been in use. But you just don’t see or hear ‘goyim pig’ thrown around much these days. And maybe you can disabuse me of this, but if I had to choose right now between living in classical antiquity (BC) and feudal Europe (AD), I think I’d choose the former. So what does that say about the faith’s effect on the full flower of civilization? And I am aware, at least in principle, that Enlightenment historians had an… Read more »

Qodesmith
Qodesmith
6 years ago

“Duties are ours, and the consequences are God’s.” <– That hit me like a ton of bricks. Amen, sir.