We are not going to appear at the Fox News debate, for we are most seriously displeased. Once the royal majesty of the deal-maker is insulted, how can Ailes still expects the deals to happen? Makes no sense.
We have been in a long campaign. Thus far I have said what I think and I think I have thought what I have said, although to be totally honest it has kind of been a stream of consciousness thing. That being the case, why not live stream the consciousness?
This is a totally new approach. Never been done in presidential politics before. I have top people on it. Listen up, America. Top people. These top people do exactly what I say, which is how we found out they were top people. Top people who try to boss us are really pretend top people. Total losers.
Have you seen the polls? Totally ahead in the polls. Totally ahead in every poll that isn’t one of those stupid loser polls.
There was a kid named Eddie in eighth grade who used to make fun of us. You know where he is now? He owns a laundromat in Queens. We had our people look him up. His wife looks like a pear. Our research people said they invited them in and offered them some lemonade. They seemed like real happy folks, they said. Top wives should make you think of cantaloupes.
Megyn Kelly! With flashing eyes, floating hair, and weaving round me thrice . . . we don’t have a background that can keep up with that kind of thing. Totally unfair, and completely biased. We even had to look Coleridge up.
And we would say this to all our loyal supporters, except for that one guy I shot on 5th Avenue. We are withdrawing from the Fox News debate, which is not the same thing as withdrawing from the race. Two completely different things. We know that we are not showing up where we were supposed to be, but we still expect you to show up to where you are supposed to be. We need you to turn out next Monday for the caucuses, regardless of any challenges or obstacles in your way. Except for Megyn Kelly. If you see Megyn Kelly there, you can beat it.
We are vacuous, fatuous, and fabulous. We are vain and petulant, and we expect you to keep up with our whims however they may come out. It is not our job to keep up with us. It is your job to keep up with us. If you want an autocrat narcissist for president — excuse us, if you want another autocrat narcissist for president — then you have to watch closely. You have to be vacuous and fatuous also. And if you want to be that way, you must vote that way.
But you can’t be fabulous. That space is reserved. We spent our own money on it.
Excellent Doug. Though the Trump-man would never say “thrice”. :)
And, really, if you were to vote for us, and we know you’re going to, we would assure you that after we are elected it would be nothing at all like what happened in Minnesota with Jesse Ventura. Not even close. Really.
As a Minnesotan who has endured (well-deserved) mockery from our recent election results, I can only hope Trump isn’t the GOP nominee. For some reason, the cult of personality is a very tangible thing around here. Get on national TV and we decide you’re totally electable.
If we really want to take it up a notch we refer to ourselves in the 3rd person. Putting on the after-burners, they should refer to themselves in the 3rd person plural…..
Godspeed Donald Trump!
Good to see that Mike Huckabee is using all those donations from his Christian supporters to good use, and demonstrating that, unlike Donald Trump, he’s a serious candidate for President. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG_pEGVpQfc
What donations? Huckabee has raised less money than all but one or two other remaining candidates. Though they may have supported him in the past, evangelicals are not sending Mike Huckabee money in any serious way.
Praise the Lord! At least they’re finally getting wise to some of these con artists.
That Trump is nothing but a big “whatever.”
This is another savvy move by Trump. At this point he has nothing to gain by participating in the debates. If Pastor Wilson is upset by his lack of participation, I suggest he watch a recording of the last one, as the moderators will assuredly only repeat the same dumb questions and receive the same dumb answers. They need to start eliminating some of the stragglers and get to more substance to justify any more debates.
I agree as far as number of people on stage – it should be down to 7, period:
Trump (if he must), Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Christie, Paul, Bush
I like how they’ve added in Gilman now in the lesser debate…whoever he is.
What, don’t tell me you haven’t heard of Jim Gilmore? Everyone knows Jim Gilmore!
Just kidding, I’m a political junkie and I had to Google him.
You miss the point. Boycotting the debate is only the latest evidence of Trump’s narcissism and immaturity, that anyone would vote for him for president is mind boggling to me.
And those who choose to kneel at the altar of TV News are thus more mature and humble? I don’t see how this follows.
Cruz certainly wasn’t kneeling when he previously called out the moderators for their ridiculous questions instead of focusing on substantive issues.
If complaining about the bad behaviour of the news media was enough to fix it, I would agree.
I wouldn’t call it complaining so much as cutting through the bullsh*t.
Which he has done time and again on the senate floor. These principled stances Trump has referred to as “nasty”, of course this is coming from the guy who values the love and adoration of Nancy Pelosi.
Ted Cruz values the “love and adoration” of Shmuley Boteach, who denounced The Passion of the Christ as “hate speech”, and says that the New Testament is a pack of anti-Semitic lies that has caused the death of millions of Jews.
Yeah, because Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are mere humble servants of the Lord, with no vainglory or narcissism to speak of.
Nobody runs for president of the U.S. without a healthy ego, but you have to admit that Trump takes it to a new level.
So the bigger the ego, the worse the president? Why does that somehow apply in politics but not in business, where of course, Trump has done very well?
Because he’s never had to pay for any of his mistakes. He’s still a spoiled rich boy protected by daddy’s money. He talks tough, but he sleeps on silk sheets and gets limousine’d everywhere.
Also – and this is important – Cruz and Rubio are conservatives, whereas Trump is not.
Being a “conservative” is no virtue at this point.
There’s more to conservatism than being in the GOP. Being a conservative means working and fighting for limited gov’t, privatization, and individual liberty. This is a thing of ultimate value in this day and age.
As a Christian I cannot agree that these are of “ultimate value”, even if they are valuable.
“Limited government” is a deceptive phrase — limited by whom, or what?
Privatization and individual liberty may have value in some contexts, but in America they are used to attack and destroy Christian families and businesses; why should I respect those ideas? What makes them so “ultimate”?
He’s still a spoiled rich boy protected by daddy’s money. He talks tough, but he sleeps on silk sheets and gets limousine’d everywhere.
You’ve just described George W. Bush.
Except that Bush is a conservative and Trump is not. Also, Bush at least did his best to act honourably during his political career, while Trump engages in morally disgusting smear tactics.
Good stuff, Doug.
This is great satire: using very style of which Trump is so proud to show the vainglory and deceit.
Hilarious stuff, Doug.
But you left out the word “great.”
and “YUUUGE”
And not a word about China! Can’t possibly be The Donald…
Meanwhile, heard Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) on Glenn Beck yesterday. I don’t know whether or not he’s a member of the GOP establishment, but he grand-slammed Trump.
http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/01/26/nebraska-senator-questions-donald-trump-on-core-principles/
“excuse us, if you want another autocrat narcissist for president”
Bravo, you even captured Trump’s characteristic “rare, bewildering, and probably accidental moment of lucidity”.
Every time another prominent evangelical endorses Trump I wonder what dirt Trump has on that person or what he or she was offered for the endorsement. My bad?
LOL!!!
I’ve been following Trump in the news mainly for entertainment value, but this actually increases my respect for the man. The media is the priesthood that holds a significant portion of actual power in the USA. The fact that Trump is willing to stand up to it bodes well.
If Trump is able to crush Fox News, that’s more than any of the other candidates would do for us.
Some information that may have contributed to Trump’s decision: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/01/26/2868743/
Don’t need any complicated explanation. The Donald ‘s just yella. Scared of a woman.
“This country doesn’t need a third party, it needs a second one.”
Nope, this country needs to come to the wedding it was invited to! ????
As vain and self-obsessed as I think Trump is, in this case he simply seems to be side-stepping the foul smell of a media circus setup. Apparently Google and Fox News recruited some internet social justice warriors to be in the debate line-up specifically to ambush Trump over nonsense like Muslim bigotry. This is gotcha entertainment. It’s the sort of “reality TV” that mainstream news media has devolved to. It’s an orchestrated distraction from what should be an opportunity to discuss critical issues (even though I don’t believe that any of these candidates can do a tenth of what they… Read more »
I think you are missing the point. Trump has a huuuge ego (spell that how you want). There is no denying this fact. The point that is missed is that he treats his ego as a tool to be used as effectively as possible. And he is using it in just that way. He doesn’t care if you make fun of him, or think of him as imperious. He is trying to accomplish something very few people have accomplished. If you haven’t read Scott Adams’ (blog.dilbert.com) master persuader series about Trump you haven’t begun to understand why he is as… Read more »
The point is that Trump wouldn’t be a good president. It is entierly possible that 65% of the voting populus don’t have the sense to see that.
I don’t think Trump’s popularity stems from people believing he would be a good president.
Obviously it doesn’t. That’s what makes it short-sighted. No matter what psychic satisfaction is generated by supporting him, they’re still supporting somebody who would be a lousy president.
I think his supporters are taking some adolescent pleasure in sticking it to The Man. Speaking truth to power. Thumbing their nose at the establishment. They refuse to see that he is The Man.
This isn’t about “speaking truth to power” but about negotiating the allocation of power. Anybody who can successfully take power away from the news media is my ally.
Sure. But plenty of people have felt that all the other choices are lousy too, and have been for their entire lives. At that point, it hardly matters.
We need a really, really YUUUGE–as in worldwide–EMP…just to reset everything and force us to straighten out our priorities.
Godspeed Donald Trump!
It only hardly matters if you can sleep at night while supporting a thoroughly depraved (in the common, not theological sense) person who doesn’t even have the grace to pretend otherwise, as a candidate. Not all of us can.
“..doesn’t even have the grace to pretend otherwise, as a candidate.” Bulls eye again Jane.
So what do you think is a better choice?
I think it’s largely, even if but latently, a rejection of democracy. And avoiding the debate is a power play, I think, on Trump’s part. If Trump can make Fox drop Kelly from the debate, he’s showing he can get them to do anything, but also showing that Fox has no interest in actual content, if they don’t, since their celebrity news babe means more to them than having all candidates represented. In addition, if their ratings tank, Trump wins and he gets to parade his popularity. It’s a gamble on his part, but I don’t think Fox is going… Read more »
Interesting take…calling Kelly’s bluff. Hmmm…
Apparently Fox executives have been contacting Trump’s wife and daughter begging him to reconsider. Trump has stated he will only discuss the matter in a face-to-face meeting with Rupert Murdoch.
The kicker about that is that Scarborough, on ***MSNBC***, reported such. And what a tremendous play. Trump says that Ailes is not important or worthy or capable enough to convince him to change his mind–only his [Ailes’] *boss* is able to possibly convince him to change his mind. Meanwhile, Ailes is, if MSNBC is correct, reduced to groveling at the feet of Trump’s wife and daughter. I mean, *maybe* it’s an Abigail and Nabal type situation… but… I dunno.. I’m not in the Trump camp, but a lot of people who needed to have fingers stuck in their eyes are… Read more »
That is possible, which makes all this pointing to his numerous flaws rather amusing.
Yes, it’s largely beside the point. A better man would be desirable, but Trump is the only person taking several important issues seriously.
How is it that a guy named Adam, demonstrates no ability to think about cantaloupes or pears?????
Oh, I think about them plenty. I’m just not going to make fruit salad and tell.
A “top” fruit salad no doubt!
????
If you think Trump is going to get 65% of the vote, you are delusional. Reagan, in 1984, where he won 49 of 50 states, got 58.8% of the vote. There is no way Trump gets anywhere close to that. His unfavorables in the general are through the roof. He is getting killed by Sanders (a socialist) in head to head match ups. Trump has tapped into a populist vein in this country, which is why he has been so successful up to this point, but he has alienated many other voters. Voters he would need to win the general.… Read more »
It’s way too early for any of that. A pet rock would win against Sanders, so that ought to tell you something.
Reagan “was” an idiot washed up actor cowboy, right up until he wasn’t.
“A pet rock would win against Sanders”
Sanders is the favorite among the anti-republicans I know, I wouldn’t bet on the pet rock.
What Christopher said about anti-Republican support for Sanders. And regardless, 65% just doesn’t happen. I agree with “it’s too early to make predictions” but that candidates don’t get 65% is more of a truism than a prediction. And the election in question was Reagan’s re-election, when he was running against the unappealing Mondale and everything was going fairly swimmingly, domestically speaking. He already wasn’t the washed up actor cowboy anymore, he was the Great Communicator and the guy who pulled us out of Carternomics and sent the Mullahs packing. It was “Morning in America” and he coasted to victory. With… Read more »
Brilliant! Absolutely Brilliant!!
Trump already won the debate. He trounced the field by announcing he wouldn’t be there.
People on here, including Doug Wilson, think they’re opposing Trump. No, they’re just kissing Rupert Murdoch’s butt. There’s nothing in the Constitution that requires candidates for president to show up at fake “debates” run by a bunch of phony “conservatives.”
Ted Cruz has had one thing on his mind since Trump announced he wouldn’t be there – “Why didn’t I have the guts to do this? I could’ve tricked people into believing I’m a real man with real principles.”
Godspeed Donald Trump.
quote: fake “debates” run by a bunch of phony “conservatives.”
That anyone could use the term “phony conservatives” with a straight face while supporting Mr. Trump, boggles the imagination.
A better explanation would be that in the American political lexicon, “conservative” means phoniness. I do not believe Mr Trump to be the man with the most integrity and forthrightness, but there’s nobody in the Republican camp doing any better on that score.
I’m sure it does boggle the imagination of anyone who can’t imagine that there are other folks in the world besides “liberals” and “conservatives.” And where if the world did you get the idea that I’m a “conservative, or I think Trump is a “conservative”?
Well, I did not state or imply that you were a conservative, but the way you used the term phony conservative did make me think it was meant as a term of derision. That might lead a person to think you would consider a “real conservative” to be a good thing. Re-reading your comment now though, I have to wonder if you are not just praising Trump for tricking “people into believing” that he’s “a real man with real principles.”
The “real conservatives” have been growing government and throwing Christians under the bus ever since Reagan left office. Maybe it’s time to try some fake ones.
“Ted Cruz has had one thing on his mind since Trump announced he wouldn’t be there – “Why didn’t I have the guts to do this? I could’ve tricked people into believing I’m a real man with real principles.” ”
Why would Cruz want to be more like Trump?
What’s new is that we are watching our secular institutions of trust being discredited, and mocked, now from candidates who are themselves vying for the highest levels of credibility. In other words, it has now become credible at the highest levels, and in spite of those authorized institutions, to ridicule their condition. As a result more eyes are being opened to systemic fraud. Some of us may have already had our eyes opened to the extent of the corruption awhile ago, but Trump seems like a significant agent in this process. He speaks openly about the obvious failures of Republicans,… Read more »
Someone’s voting for Truuuu-ump! Someone’s voting for Truuuu-ump!
katecho! Say it ain’t so!
Behold:
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/we-are-most-seriously-displeased.html#comment-2482006930
Thanks, Jane.
Kind of like Fox News did with Cruz and Rubio, only with the opposite motive. :)
I had already said that it ain’t so. But Trump can still be quite effective in other ways, even if he doesn’t represent us politically.
I suspect that a lot of someones will be voting for Trump. Perhaps even enough to get him elected president. Such is the nature of our idolatry of the ballot box, and our hopelessness to find salvation anywhere but in the arms of government. Trump has done a lot to open people’s eyes to the depravity of our secular institutions, and the extent to which we really do need salvation. Trump just doesn’t know where salvation comes from. Let’s just say that Trump’s art of the deal isn’t working on me. His conservative appeal is a veneer so fresh you… Read more »
Don’t you see the contradiction in your position? You talk of “idolatry of the ballot box”, and say that salvation is not to be found in government; that the system is essentially rotten, yet you have the highest standards for who you will vote for. I think the correct Christian view is to accept that while governmental authority is established by God, it is not itself necessarily Godly, thereby freeing yourself to vote for the lesser of two evils, which in this case means a vote for Trump, as any other vote cast is essentially a vote for Hillary (or… Read more »
Unless we want to make the valid point that we’re all sinners then there is no reason to characterize all political candidates as evil choices, with the only alternatives being always the greater or the lesser evil. All candidates are sinners, all are not evil choices; we’re talking about two who are. I need not and will not cast a vote for one of two evils. Trump is not the lesser evil anyway.
Killmaster wrote: Don’t you see the contradiction in your position? You talk of “idolatry of the ballot box”, and say that salvation is not to be found in government; that the system is essentially rotten, yet you have the highest standards for who you will vote for. No, I don’t see the contradiction in my position. Standards don’t exclude consideration of humility and repentance for past failures, but they do consider an unrepentant track record and future expectation. Salvation is not found in good works either, but it doesn’t follow that I should abandon standards of conduct (so that grace… Read more »
I appreciate your response. It seems to me that you view voting as a nearly sacred act reflecting your moral being, whereas I view my vote merely as a tool to be used to advance the interests of the common good. Keeping to your banking example, if you know that one of the men is definitely going to fill the vacant office, it makes sense to me to use the power bestowed on you to cast a vote for the less corrupt embezzler. After all, it may mean the difference between the destruction of 10 families’ financial lives instead of… Read more »
Yep. From Tucker Carlson ( I won’t link to it because there’s vulgar word near the top of the article): A temporary ban on Muslim immigration? That sounds a little extreme (meaning nobody else has said it recently in public). But is it? Millions of Muslims have moved to Western Europe over the past 50 years, and a sizable number of them still haven’t assimilated. Instead, they remain hostile and sometimes dangerous to the cultures that welcomed them. By any measure, that experiment has failed. What’s our strategy for not repeating it here, especially after San Bernardino—attacks that seemed to… Read more »
“…he seems to be playing a role in challenging how Americans perceive ourselves and our social institutions.”
This is, at least in part, a description of the role of the prophet, and I wonder what the news cycle looked like when Ezekiel was laying on his side, or talking about horse-sized emissions, or Isaiah was walking around naked?
This is not to say that Trump is in any way sent by God, but simply that his behaviors and his challenging of the status quo has a prophetic quality to it.
He is a vile man who boasts and brags about his sexual immorality and adultery. He has left a wake of brokenness and sadness behind him already. We don’t need more.
You guys are hilarious. You act like Trump is the stereotypical politician and all the rest are viable options. Cruz’s wife is a Bankster so if you like things like TARP, QE and Banksters going scott free while destroying the economy by all means vote for him. Rubio is Amnesty Intl along with Bush and who doesn’t want more deficit spending and foreign wars. These people are not the answer. Do you think any one of them would not look you in the eye, lie to you and have even a second of regret? These people are all sociopaths. At… Read more »
Yeah, Samson wasn’t exactly role model material either.
Awfully handy when the Philistines were around, though.
Except, in your example, Trump is the Philistine.
If you recall, the Philistines were illegal immigrants. (Who, by the way, implemented a quite successful sword control program.)
The Philistines were in the land at least by the time of Isaac. For the children of Israel they were prior inhabitants to be driven out, not illegal aliens. Of course they were rather unpleasant characters too, so Trump is a Philistine kind of does work.
In the UK to “Trump” is to pass wind/fart. Is that the same in USA? & his 1st wise was Ivana.. We all snigger. It’s like being called Ivor Payne. You can’t make this up
Tucker Carlson wrote an interesting piece on Trump for Politico recently that made a very good point on why Trump is getting support from evangelicals. His comments probably don’t apply to Cruz, but they might apply to Rubio despite his claim to be the Christian candidate in the last debate: “You read surveys that indicate the majority of Christian conservatives support Trump, and then you see the video: Trump on stage with pastors, looking pained as they pray over him, misidentifying key books in the New Testament, and in general doing a ludicrous imitation of a faithful Christian, the least… Read more »
They’re looking for “someone to shield them from mounting
(and real) threats to their freedom of speech and worship”. Not really. They’re looking for someone to moon the mainstream and harry the Hispanics. In that they’re no different than the pagans supporting Trump, so I’m not sure they should still be counted as Evangelicals.
Pagans? Are they dying their hair orange and reciting passages from The Art of the Deal?
Heathens, if you prefer.
Does worship have to follow some specified forms in order to be identifiably pagan?
I’m sure there are people who are caught up in his cult of personality, which could be considered pagan worship. But pulling the lever for Trump in the voting booth doesn’t make you a pagan if you think he’s going to be the best person to protect Christianity. You might be a naive Christian to think so, but you’re still a Christian. Now if Trump gets elected and goes against his word when it comes to abortion and other issues important to Christians and you vote to reelect him, then we have a problem. Personally, I don’t think Trump is… Read more »
Since I’m the one who said it – the point was that when the professing Evangelical Christian’s bad motives for supporting Trump are no different than the bad motives of a pagan/heathen then the professing Evangelical is thinking like the pagans do, instead of like Christian would, which makes you wonder. It doesn’t make you know, but it does make you wonder. Neither is Trump the “good attorney” who has won every case. Even if an attorney were that, if I knew he was not merely a heathen, but also a sleazy, shady lawyer I would not engage his services.… Read more »
Further points to consider: http://freenortherner.com/2016/01/29/why-trump/
Hi Ashv, I read that carefully and I really don’t get it. I understand despair and anger over abortion, jobs going overseas, punitive taxation, and excessive regulation of business. But how is America a police state? What is it that the writer wants to say and cannot for fear of job loss and public shaming? All I could come up with, other than the items above, is that it is no longer okay in many circles to express extreme hostility to gays, immigrants, and people of other races. But people do this all the time, even in liberal Los Angeles,… Read more »
Look up Brendan Eich and Jason Richwine for prominent examples.
Neither of those examples, bad as they are in terms of people’s speech rights, suggest a government-run police state. Most Americans not only support but strongly favor the workings of the free market. So does Trump. I am morally certain that if a Trump employee says something that embarrasses Trump or the company or that might have the potential of upsetting customers, he is going to run into some very negative consequences. It is a fact of life that no matter how exalted an executive may be, he is answerable to the CEO or the board of directors or his… Read more »
I don’t believe in a right to free speech. But I oppose people and organizations that hate me and mine (and in the process, suppress truth and righteousness). Trump is currently fighting some of those people and winning. For today, that is enough.
You and yours being British descended residents of the southern United States, I take it? Let’s pretend for the moment all British descended residents of the southern United States share your cultural preferences. They don’t, but let’s pretend. Now Trump is fighting the other Republican candidates who have demonstrated their hate for British descended residents of the southern United States by (fill in the blank for me). And the mere fact that Trump is fighting them benefits British descended residents of the southern United States by (fill in the blank for me). Now here’s a really hard one – Trump… Read more »
Well, that’d be a subtler situation than we face right now. Get back to me when it happens.
I don’t expect Trump to solve any problems as President. I do expect him to continue to take power away from the media and disrupt the narrative.
Well, I think you did answer my how do you think it benefits question. But if it’s disruption you want, couldn’t we just have a massive solar flare, or a reversal of the magnetic poles, or something like that? Does it have to be something disruptive *and* tacky?
Apparently so. Not the guy I would have picked, to be sure. The Republican party has had 30 years to come up with someone better, and at this point they seem constitutionally incapable of it. Trump is who they deserve now.
Well, I’ve said myself the Republican party is circling the drain and deserves to be, or we wouldn’t be talking about Trump at all. For all that though, in my lifetime the Democrats have never offered an alternative I could consider, and they won’t this year either, but for the first time the choice they present may be no worse.
I think it’s too early to say that Trump is winning.
Not really. Look at what he did to National Review.
I don’t follow the National Review. What has he done to them? and why should I care?
Points considered. There is an element of validity to the general complaint there. But ashv, part of my take away is that I was right about mooning the mainstream, aka the establishment. I read an F-bomb laced diatribe repeatedly citing hate and fear. Now *that* is what Trump is to me – a walking F-bomb throwing fuel on the fires of hate and fear. Ironically, usually the kind of thing you see on the fringe left. Nothing about a man who has always given every indication of being all about himself suggests to me he has my back, nor would… Read more »
No, Trump certainly doesn’t reflect my views perfectly. But he doesn’t talk like he hates me and mine, nor has he acted in a way to suggest he does. None of the other contestants qualify for that, and he is successfully attacking the people who do hate us. So he’ll do til something better comes along.
You know what’s really odd? All these Christian pundits and celebrity pastors mock Trump for pronouncing II Corinthians as it reads, instead of “Second Corinthians.” Meanwhile, Ted Cruz’s website prominently features an endorsement from a man who denounced The Passion of the Christ as “hate speech”, and says that the New Testament is a pack of anti-Semitic lies that has caused the death of millions of Jews. But the Christian leaders have no problem with that. Pretty strange.
I may very well be wrong, but I don’t think anyone would have ridiculed Trump’s error if he had not made such a point of being a practicing Christian. I think the error reminded the skeptical that Trump could not name a Bible verse (the one from II Corinthians was given to him by Falwell, Jr.), called the communion wafer a cracker, and could not remember ever having repented of wrongdoing. If I was pretending to be Jewish to get votes, I would expect to be ridiculed if I could not pronounce “shibboleth”.
The point is that Ted Cruz claims to be a practicing Christian, yet boasts about an endorsement from a man who denounced The Passion of the Christ as “hate speech”, and claims that the New Testament is a pack of anti-Semitic lies that has caused the death of millions of Jews.
What kind of “Christian” would welcome an endorsement from such a person, let alone draw attention to it with a prominent blurb on his website?
But the Christian leaders attacking Trump have no problem with Cruz. Why isn’t Douglas Wilson bothered by it?
If I was pretending to be Jewish to get votes, I would expect to be ridiculed if I could not pronounce “shibboleth”. Well, how much more ridicule would you expect if you were pretending to be Jewish to get votes and your website prominently displayed an endorsement from the head of the American Nazi Party? That’s the equivalent of what Cruz is doing – claiming he loves Jesus Christ and God’s word, while prominently displaying an endorsement from a man who hates Jesus Christ, and says the New Testament is pack of lies that has caused the death of millions… Read more »
I am no fan of Shmuley Boteach, but from what I have read, I have not sensed a hatred for Jesus. Obviously, as a Jewish Orthodox rabbi, he doesn’t accept Christ’s divinity. But his description in “Kosher Jesus” is of “a Jewish patriot murdered by Rome for his struggle on behalf of his people.” From what I read online, some Orthodox rabbis have forbidden their followers from reading this book because it is considered too friendly a handling. It seems to me that if Cruz has any hope of the presidency, he has to forge close relationships with the leaders… Read more »
If I understand you correctly, you’re saying 1) Shmuley Boteach has never said that the New Testament is a pack of anti-Semitic lies that has led to millions of Jews being murdered throughout history and 2) even if he did say that, he’s Jewish, so it’s OK.
No, I haven’t read enough of his writings to know that. What I said is that I saw no signs of hatred towards our Lord Jesus. He appears to believe that Jesus was a patriot who was murdered by the Romans. Not accepting the divinity of our Lord cannot be equated with hating Him. Many Jews are very sensitive to any suggestion that they killed Jesus. I think this is understandable in view of the fact that many Jews over the centuries were in fact killed as retribution for deicide. I don’t know what Boteach said about this. But it… Read more »
Boteach is an ultra-Orthodox rabbi. Ultra-orthodox rabbis spend years studying their holy book, the Talmud.
The Talmud teaches that Jesus was a sorcerer, and deserved to put to death.
It says that Jesus’ mother was a whore.
It teaches that Jesus is now in hell, being boiled in hot excrement.
But you see “no signs of hatred towards our Lord Jesus.”
Where on Cruz’s website is Boteach prominently featured? The only thing I found on the website was an article about Cruz speaking at a gala organized by Boteach, which also had Elie Wiesel in attendance. I can’t even find where Boteach has even endorsed Cruz, though they are friends.
This also seems like an odd line of attack considering Trump regularly retweets white nationalists and Stormfront wackos on his official twitter account. If we are going to play the “What nutjob supports your candidate?” game, Trump will win in a landslide.
https://www.tedcruz.org/issues/stand-with-israel/
Thanks for the link
And here’s an article where Boteach talks about how he bonded with Cruz over their shared love of Jonathan Pollard, who committed treason against the United States.
Cruz approved of Obama ordering the Justice Department to drop their opposition to Pollard being paroled. And before Obama set Pollard free, Cruz told a group that if he were elected president, he would consider pardoning Pollard.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/29/ted-cruz-s-favorite-rabbi.html
Rafael “Ted” Cruz talks tough about national security, but he doesn’t mean it. He just means he wants to attack more countries on behalf of Israel. Israel’s security is of paramount importance to Rafael, but America’s? Not so much. One thing Rafael hasn’t been talking about much on the campaign trail is that he supported Obama when he ordered the Justice Dept. not to oppose parole for Jonathan Pollard, a man who was in prison for life for selling top secret intelligence. Not only did Rafael support parole for a traitor who did massive harm to American intelligence service, he… Read more »