One woman's tough and tender approach to grassroots conservative principles in an era of unreasonable logic from those who claim progressive strategies but fail to heed how those same strategies have failed miserably throughout history.
"Be wise as serpents ... harmless as doves."
Margaret Louise Sanger (1879 – 1966) was a birth control, population control, and eugenics activist. She changed the world, but for the worse.
By 1911, Sanger had moved to New York City, where she became heavily influenced by anarchist, socialist, and labor activists. She began joining and participating in radical groups and causes.
In March 1914, Sanger published the first issue of her own paper, The Woman Rebel. Along with providing information about birth control, Sanger wholeheartedly supported the use of violence to achieve political, economic, and social goals. Case in point, the Lexington Avenue bombing. On July 4th of that year, a bomb accidentally exploded in a Harlem apartment, killing three men and one woman. The three men were planning to bomb the home of industrialist John D. Rockefeller, but the bomb exploded prematurely. The plan was devised at the Ferrer Center, an educational institution, which also served as the meeting place for a movement of radicals. Sanger lectured at the institution, and was active in the movement.
After the failed terrorist attempt, Sanger wrote a commentary, calling the deaths a display of “courage, determination, conviction, a spirit of defiance.” She argued the “real tragedy” was “the cowardice and the poisonous respectability” of the movement’s leaders who offered apologies, rather than defiance, for the episode. Sanger urged those in the movement to “accept and exult in every act of revolt against oppression,” including terrorist acts. She also published a complementary article that defended the assassination of political or industrial leaders.
The following month, August 1914, Sanger was indicted for inciting murder and assassination, and for violating obscenity laws. But instead of facing the charges, she fled the country. On the trip to England, after the ship had entered international waters, Sanger instructed her supporters to distribute 100,000 copies of her pamphlet, Family Limitation. In February 1916, the charges were dropped.
In October 1916, Sanger opened America’s first birth control clinic. Located in Brownsville, New York, the clinic permanently closed a month later, after Sanger was charged with maintaining a public nuisance. In February 1917, she was convicted and given a thirty day prison sentence.
Also in February 1917, the first issue of Sanger’s journal, The Birth Control Review, was published. She was The Review’s editor until 1929, and used her editorials to promote birth control and eugenics. For Sanger, these issues were inseparable.
The word eugenics, which means well born, was coined in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. Positive eugenics was a movement that attempted to “improve” the human population by encouraging “fit” people to reproduce. Negative eugenics, conversely, attempted to “improve” the human population by discouraging “unfit” people from reproducing. The “unfit” people included the poor, the sick, the disabled, and the “feeble-minded,” the “idiots,” the “morons,” and the “insane.” And “discouragement” from reproducing included the use of force.
Sanger rejected positive eugenics, while embracing negative eugenics. She wrote, “Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit. Both are seeking a single end but they lay emphasis upon different methods.” She stressed the need to merge eugenics with birth control, adding, “Eugenics without Birth Control seems to us a house builded upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit.”
And Sanger advocated birth control backed up by forced sterilization or segregation to achieve her aims, writing, “While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit. They are excellent means of meeting a certain phase of the situation, but I believe in regard to these, as in regard to other eugenic means, that they do not go to the bottom of the matter.” The bottom of the matter was “to create a race of thoroughbreds.” So the government, Sanger concluded, needed “to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring” and “to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.”
In her 1920 book, Woman and the New Race, Sanger wrote that birth control “is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.”
She had a plan. And she was about to get an organization. In 1921, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which (following a 1939 merger with the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau and then a 1942 name change) became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. While the organization was growing, the close association between the birth control movement and the eugenics movement had made a name change necessary. Nazi Germany had implemented racial hygiene policies, including mass sterilizations, inspired by the eugenics movement in America. So “birth control” was removed from the name to create a new public image. The agenda, though, stayed the same. And in 1948, Sanger helped form the International Committee on Planned Parenthood, which (in 1952) became the International Planned Parenthood Federation.
Through it all, the underlying theme, eliminating the unfit, never changed. In her 1922 book, The Pivot of Civilization, she attacked charity as counterproductive, and dangerous, for helping the poor to produce even more “human waste.” (Sanger’s term for the children of the poor.) She wrote, “Organized charity is itself the symptom of a malignant social disease.” And, “Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks [of people] that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant.”
In a 1925 book, Birth Control: Facts and Responsibilities, Sanger contributed an essay, writing, “Birth Control is not merely an individual problem; it is not merely a national question, it concerns the whole wide world, the ultimate destiny of the human race. In his last book, Mr. [H.G.] Wells speaks of the meaningless, aimless lives which cram this world of ours, hordes of people who are born, who live, yet who have done absolutely nothing to advance the race one iota. Their lives are hopeless repetitions. All that they have said has been said before; all that they have done has been done better before. Such human weeds clog up the path, drain up the energies and the resources of this little earth. We must clear the way for a better world; we must cultivate our garden.”
Then in 1926, Sanger spoke at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Silver Lake, New Jersey. Writing about the event in her autobiography, she highlighted its success, noting that “a dozen invitations to speak to similar groups” were offered.
And in 1939, Sanger went to work “cultivating the garden.” She initiated the Negro Project to weed out the unfit from the black population. In bringing birth control to the then largely poor (i.e. unfit) population of the South, with a few influential black ministers promoting the project as the solution to poverty, Sanger hoped to significantly reduce the black population. Martin Luther King, Sr., as the eldest son of nine children born into poverty in a family of sharecroppers, would have made the perfect target for “elimination.” But his birth had already taken place.
In her later years, Sanger still believed that there were people “who never should have been born at all.” In a 1957 interview with Mike Wallace, she said, “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world – that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin – that people can – can commit.”
Sanger’s impact during her lifetime was highly negative, and included the cruelty of forced sterilization, which became a common practice. In America, over 60,000 people were sterilized against their will. And most occurred during the 1930s and 1940s when Sanger and the birth control and population control movements were pushing states hard to enact and enforce compulsory sterilization laws. Among the victims were the blind, the deaf, epileptics, the mentally retarded, the mentally ill, and people with low IQs diagnosed as “feeble-minded.”
Sanger’s legacy today, which is being carried on by Planned Parenthood, includes the devastating impact of “birth control” on the black community. Planned Parenthood has continued the practice of targeting the black population. Over 30% of all abortions are performed on black women and close to 40% of black pregnancies end in abortion.
Planned Parenthood successfully created a public image of an organization working to help the poor, while hiding the reality that it targets the vulnerable. That was Sanger’s plan from the start.
JULIAN ASSANGE: “Crazed” Clinton Campaign Tried to Hack Wikileaks
(Zero Hedge) – In an amusing twist, Julian Assange whose Wikileaks has now had 20 individual releases of hacked John Podesta emails over the past three weeks and who has been accused by Hillary Clinton of collaborating with the Russians in an attempt to disrupt and subvert the US electoral process, accused the Clinton campaign of attacking the servers used by WikiLeaks. Speaking via telephone at a conference in Argentina on Wednesday, RT reported that Assange claimed the daily email release ritual has “whipped up a crazed hornet’s nest atmosphere in the Hillary Clinton campaign” leading them to attack WikiLeaks.
“They attacked our servers and attempted hacking attacks and there is an amazing ongoing campaign where state documents were put in the UN and British courts to accuse me of being both a Russian spy and a pedophile,” he added.
Assange described Ecuador’s decision to shut down his internet for the duration of the presidential campaign as a “strategic position” so that its “policy of non-intervention can’t be misinterpreted by actors in the US and even domestically in Ecuador.” He said he was sympathetic with Ecuador, insisting they face the dilemma of having the US interfere with their elections next year if they appear to interfere with the US elections next month. He also said that he did not agree with Ecuador’s decision but did understand it. WikiLeaks will not be affected by the decision as they do not publish from Ecuador, he said.
He did, however, reject the idea that WikiLeaks is interfering with the US election, claiming, “this is not the interference of electoral process, this is the definition of electoral process – for media organizations and, in fact, everyone to publish the truth and their opinion about what is occurring. It cannot be a free and informed election unless people are free to inform.”
It will, of course, be spun as interference if Hillary were to lose as the tables would then be turned, and instead of Trump slamming the “rigged” elections, it will be Hillary who will demand a pound of flesh, perhaps literally.
Assange did not stop there and also attacked US TV networks, many of whom he accused of being “controlled by Clinton supporters.” If there is anything the Podesta emails have revealed, it is that he is correct in his assessment.
Then Assange went one better and even predicted that Trump will lose, saying that the Podesta emails will make no difference to the election result, according to Assange. “I don’t think there’s any chance of Donald Trump winning the election, even with the amazing material we are publishing, because most of the media organizations are strongly aligned with Hillary Clinton,” he said adding that journalists and people who work in the media are predominantly middle class and view Trump as representing “what in their mind is white trash.”
* * *
Meanwhile, in the latest spin in this ongoing drama, moments ago a member of the anti-Putin Russian punk band Pussy Riot became the latest to accuse Assange of directly collaborating with Moscow. “But Julian Assange, he openly works with [Russia],” Nadezhda Tolokonnikova aka Nadya Tolokno, told The Daily Beast in an interview Thursday. “It’s not a secret. He’s connected with the Russian government, and I feel that he’s proud of it.
“I generally support the work that WikiLeaks is doing, but I’m not that thrilled about his decisions that are unethical, in my view, concerning his connections to the Russian government.”
What, if any, was Tolokno’s evidence? The Pussy Riot member said she visited Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London two years ago, saying their meeting convinced her WikiLeaks has ties to the Kremlin.
“He couldn’t deny it,” Tolokno said. “He often works with the Russian propaganda machine, and he doesn’t try to hide it. “Julian Assange doesn’t try to hide that fact because he hosts at the Ecuadorian Embassy the editor-in-chief of the Russian propaganda team, Russia Today, and he has projects with them,” she added.
RT has repeatedly denied that it collaborates with Assange, however at this late stage in the game we have long since moved past the evidentiary phase, and word of mouth accusations are the norm.
Tolokno added she confronted Assange about advancing Russian interests ahead of America’s. “I understood his position: He’s in a state of war with the American government,” she said. “He’s smart and charismatic and will use any means to destroy the American government.
Tolokno also made her own political views regarding the US election quite clear: “I wish that Hillary Clinton will win this presidential election, and if I had the option to go and vote, I would vote for her. Everyone needs to vote for her because it will save a lot of lives. I know people are apathetic right now because everything surrounding this election has been pretty ugly, but it’s really important to go out and vote and stop Trump.”
The anti-Putin activist, who has repeatedly made her own anger at the Putin regime well known, said that “we had a conversation if it was really the ethical thing to do that with the hands of another government [Russia] which is, in fact, much worse and a real authoritarian government.”
Well, if Assange truly hates the American government as much as he does, he may need to leak a smoking gun filled with so much smoke that it penetrates even the biased American press and convinces most Americans. Considering he has just 11 days in which to do it, he may want to hurry up, or else the next time President Hillary Clinton talks about droning Julian Assange, it won’t be a joke.
Report: Top Global Warming Center Faked Research to Bag Million$ from Taxpayers
The seedy unscientific reality behind the trillion-dollar global warming industry has been exposed a little more after one of the world's leading climate change research centers was caught reportedly stealing millions of taxpayer dollars for fraudulent research.
The prestigious London School of Economics recently bagged about $11 million from UK taxpayers in research grant money for its Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP), an entity that has raised some $37 million since 2008. But after a little closer scrutiny, it appears that the research for which the center was awarded the massive infusion of dollars was actually not even conducted by CCCEP. Instead, it was allegedly "stolen" from rival researchers and some of it was conducted before the taxpayer money was handed over.
Video: Judge Approves Volkswagen Settlement
"Many papers CCCEP claimed to have published to get government money weren’t about global warming, were written before the organization was even founded, or were written by researchers unaffiliated with CCCEP," the Daily Caller explains. "The government never checked CCCEP’s supposed publication lists, saying they were 'taken on trust,' according to the report."
The fraud was exposed by The Daily Mail, who spoke with one climate economics expert from Sussex University whose work was allegedly plagiarized by CCCEP.
"It is serious misconduct to claim credit for a paper you haven’t supported, and it’s fraud to use that in a bid to renew a grant."
Professor Richard Tol
"It is serious misconduct to claim credit for a paper you haven’t supported, and it’s fraud to use that in a bid to renew a grant. I've never come across anything like it before. It stinks," Professor Richard Tol told The Daily Mail. "Our paper had no relationship to the CCCEP. At the time, the CCCEP did not exist, and it only came into existence after the paper was published. Fraud means deception for financial gain. That is what this is."
Several other damning realities of the climate change research funding racket are highlighted by the case, including the predetermined nature of the studies and the fact that as much as half of public sector funding depends on getting positive results. In other words, researchers have overwhelming financial incentive to "prove" their politically-charged, predetermined premises. As TheDC highlights, another particularly troubling aspect of research receiving public funds is that researchers do not have to disclose any ethical conflicts of interest.
Nobel Winner to Obama on Global Warming: 'Mr. President, You're Wrong'
(CNSNews.com) -- President Obama’s statements on global warming are “dead wrong,” said Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever, who rejected the president's claims that man-made global warming is causing climate change.
“I think Obama is a clever person, but he gets bad advice. Global warming is all wet,” Giaever said in a speech entitled Global Warming Revisited he gave on July 1 to scientists from 90 countries attending the 65th annual Nobel Laureate Meeting in Lindau, Germany.
Giaever, who was born in Norway and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1964, was one of three recipients of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973.
Although he endorsed Obama in 2008 along with more than 70 other Nobel-winning scientists, Giaever is now criticizing the president’s statements on climate change -- particularly his 2015 State of the Union remark that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.”
"The biggest problem Obama faces is climate change? How can he say that?" Giaever asked. "I say this to Obama: 'Excuse me, Mr. President, but you're wrong.' He is dead wrong...
"So global warming really starts with these two people: Al Gore and [former United Nations climate head Rajendra] Pachauri," Giaever continued. "And what they did - they made this curve popular...And what did this curve measure? Well, this curve measures what is the average temperature for the world for a whole year...For one year. So there's an average temperature for the whole Earth for one year and that measures in a fraction of a degree.
"So what does that mean? I think probably nothing. Let me talk about that again: From 1880 to 2015, the temperature has increased from 288 K [degrees Kelvin] to 288.8 K - 0.3 percent. I think the temperature has been amazingly stable.
"If I take where I live in Albany, New York, there is roughly an 80 K difference between summer and winter at some time, so would you think that a 0.8 degree average on the Earth makes any difference to the climate in Albany? Is that sensible to you?...
"I would say that global warming basically is a non-problem. Just leave it alone, it will take care of itself,” he added.
On July 3, 36 Nobel laureates attending the meeting signed the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change, which compared “human-induced climate change” to nuclear war, calling it “another threat of comparable magnitude.”
But Giaever reminded the assembled scientists that climate change “has happened all the time, has happened everywhere, and has nothing to do with global warming.”
“So far we have left the world in a better shape than when we arrived, and this will continue, with one exception: we have to stop wasting a huge, I mean huge, amount of money on global warming. We have to do that,” he said.
Giaever rejected the notion that man-made global warming is an “incontrovertible” truth, telling his Lindau audience that “global warming really has become a new religion. Because you can’t discuss it -- it’s not proper.”
But he said he was concerned about the United Nation’s climate change conference, which will be held in Paris later this year.
“I really worry about that, because when the conference was in Copenhagen, that almost became a disaster but nothing got decided. But now I think the people who are ‘alarmists’ are in a very strong position.” he warned, accusing them of resorting to scare tactics without having temperature data to back up their claims.
“If climate change doesn’t work to scare people, they can scare people by talking about the extreme weather. That must work,” he joked, observing that the U.S. is currently seeing a “low period” in both hurricane and tornado activity.
Giaever resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) in 2011 over its official statement on global warming: “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”
In an email to APS’ executive director, he wrote: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time, and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"
Although APS warned of the dangers of global warming, Giaever pointed out in his speech that there has been only a 0.3% increase in the global average temperature (GAT) between 1880 and 2015 (from 288 to 288.8 Kelvin), which he called “amazingly stable.”
“Everything is going to hell. But the facts are that in the last 100 years we have measured the temperature, it has gone up 0.8 degrees and everything in the world has gotten better...We live better, we have better work, better health, better everything -- but if we go [up] another 0.8 degrees, we’re gonna die, I guess,” he said sarcastically.
Giaever also does not perceive a threat in rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, noting that “if you have more CO2 the plant grows faster...It’s a wonderful thing, but they don’t talk about that in Nature magazine, which he accused of wanting to “cash in on the [global warming] fad.”
“I think the average temperature of the Earth is equal to the emperor’s new clothes. There was a boy who cried, ‘The emperor has no clothes on.’ And I would cry out and say you can’t measure the temperature for the whole Earth with such accuracy.”
He added that the "optimal temperature" for the globe has never been establsihed.
“What is the optimal temperature for the Earth? Is it the temperature we have right now? That would be a miracle.” he said. “Maybe it’s two degrees warmer. Maybe it’s two degrees colder. No one has told me what the optimal temperature is for the whole Earth.”
If you listened to a contemporary Democrat, you’d believe Republicans are responsible for all of society’s race problems, past and present. Say what you will about individual conservatives, but the Democrats have a dirty past Republicans could easily use. Dinesh D’Souza does his part in Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party to prove that it is the Democratic Party that is the party of racism.
Democrats have a storied history of supporting the worst human rights atrocity in American history. As Dinesh D’Souza points out, Southern Democrats promoted the idea that slavery was good for all parties involved. Democrats held the Supreme Court when the infamous Dred Scott decision was handed down.
By portraying the Civil War as a purely North/South dispute, Democrats fail to acknowledge their party was a driving force in the Confederacy. Jefferson Davis? Democrat. John C. Calhoun? Democrat. Chief Justice Roger Taney? Democrat.
As for Republicans? Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, and Abraham Lincoln. This “Republican equals racist” rhetoric the left throws around doesn’t stand the test of time.
Succeeding Lincoln was Andrew Johnson, a Tennessee Democrat. In his 1867 congressional address, Johnson described blacks as having “less capacity for government than any other race of people.” When he voted the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Republicans sought to impeach him, but fell one vote short of doing so.
The GOP responded by over-riding Johnson’s veto. How did Democrats respond? They created the Black Codes, which included limiting black individuals to certain jobs, allowing whites to whip their black servants, not allowing blacks to travel freely lest they be labeled “vagrants,” thus being subject to harsh labor or other consequences. Blacks in most southern areas couldn’t serve on juries, and minor crimes such as assault yielded the death penalty for blacks.
It’s rather ironic that it’s members of the party that helped prop up the Ku Klux Klan and defended the hideously racist film Birth of a Nation (which led to the rebirth of and some of the deadliest attacks committed by the Klan) now calling for black reparations.
Hillary’s America also points out that Democrats played a big role in stifling the rights of African Americans during the 20th century, as well. Democrats blame blue-collar southerners for being racist bigots, but the “South” they claim to hate became their stomping grounds post-Reconstruction.
Senator Ben Tillman of South Carolina once said, “Republicanism means equality, while the Democratic Party means that the white man is superior.” Meanwhile, Alabama Governor George Wallace (also a Democrat) was blocking a black man from entering his state’s flagship university. Just a year after Wallace’s famous “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door,” President Lyndon B. Johnson, another Democrat, signed the Civil Rights Act. D’Souza reminds us Johnson saw this as a way to keep “n*ggers” down.
I could go on… and I’m tempted to. But I think the hideous racism that has been endemic in the Democratic Party for two centuries speaks for itself. Just remember, the next time a Democrat accuses Republicans of being racist, history’s already won the debate for you.
Thomas Ertl -- An Evangelical Analysis of the Trump Candidacy, Part 2
AN EVANGELICAL ANALYSIS OF THE TRUMP CANDIDACY
PART 2 of 2
By Thomas Ertl March 18, 2016 NewsWithViews.com
THE COMPROMISE OF THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT
During the present election cycle, we are seeing the usual endorsement of candidates by Christian Right leaders alongside all the other endorsements being announced. Most Christian Right endorsements are going to Cruz and Rubio. Very few prominent leaders have endorsed Trump; exceptions are Jerry Falwell Jr., Pat Robertson, Phyllis Schlafly and Dr. Robert Jeffress.
Sadly, many of these Evangelical Establishment leaders are not qualified to make informed political assessments. They may well be effective and successful businessmen and administrators. They are no doubt sincere and well-qualified for the day-to-day work involved in their ministry leadership. Most of them, however, do not have a biblical view of civil government and have not been theologically and strategically trained in the art of Christian political theory. American elections are plagued by “low information voters.” Evangelicalism suffers from its “low information leaders.”
Most of these leaders get much of their political knowledge, insight and beliefs from Fox News, thus the term “Fox News Christians.” Their political worldview is taken more from Krauthammer, Kristol, and Will rather than from Augustine, Calvin and Beza. In fact, most of them have no idea who Theodore Beza is, much less his Christian political theory published in the 16th century. Charles Krauthammer was a Mondale speechwriter, Bill Kristol’s father, Irving, was a Marxist and a disciple of Leon Trotsky. George Will is a self-proclaimed soft atheist. Relying on sources like these for one’s political worldview and, baptizing these views with a thin veneer of “Christian-ese” is a recipe for failure. Today’s supposedly conservative outlets for news and commentary are more often part of the problem rather than contributors to real solutions.
These are the Evangelical leaders who have enthusiastically supported all of the unbiblical, unconstitutional Bush Middle East wars and the slaughter of over 1.5 million innocent lives. They have never studied or understood the historic Christian theory of just war, established long ago by Augustine and the Protestant Reformers. Their promotion of this Neo-Con, Republican blood-letting has greatly compromised their pro-life doctrine and stands in direct violation of the command in Scripture against the “shedding of innocent blood.” Do the fifty-one verses against the shedding of innocent blood mean anything? Well, at least Trump is dealing with this critical pro-life issue with his criticism of American foreign policy.
These respected Christian leaders are often tied too closely to the Republican Establishment, so they can’t prophetically confront them and call them back to truth and justice. These men are easily manipulated by the Republican Establishment, which figured out long ago how to manipulate Christian Right leadership. Give them a little “God talk” (“I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ”), tell them you support the sanctity of life and traditional marriage and, voila, you have their support and their vote. The Evangelical Establishment should be hammering the Republican Party for their treasonous policies and their sell-out of the country to the money class. They should be calling for a new party or a complete overhaul of the present one, yet they remain silent.
The Christian Right has been politically irrelevant on the federal level mainly because of its limited two issue constituency. The four decade failure of the Christian Right to influence American culture is because they have been a reactionary group in their strategies and organizations instead of one with an aggressive Christian vision of cultural renewal. They have failed to take a comprehensive worldview in every area of culture and life and develop strategies to build new Christian institutions in the places where ordinary Americans live out their daily lives.
What is interesting about Trump’s candidacy is that the Christian Right rank and file is separating from their leadership and voting for Trump. They seem to be expanding beyond the traditional two issues to the ones Trump is raising. They are very worried about the future of their country, its economic and national security.
Both the GOP Establishment and Evangelical Establishment lost big in the South Carolina Primary. The people are finally starting to figure out who the GOP really is. The indignation is at unforeseen levels. The peasants are mad. The trust is gone. In the recent primaries, if you add the numbers of both Trump and Cruz, who are considered as anti-Establishment candidates, you get an anti-Establishment vote well over 60%. I don’t think the GOP will ever recover from this to re-establish its control over its base. This is a historic battle and a positive step towards liberty.
TRUMP’S POLITICAL POSITIONS
Along with Donald Trump’s populist theme of “Make America Great Again” come many key issues on which he is outspoken.
This is where I see his real strength. Trump goes after issues of national interest that other politicians won’t touch. Many of these issues are of primary importance and so are more critical than the ones raised by conservative purists.
Trump, labels himself as a “common sense conservative,” not a purist but, in doing so, he shows himself to be the most conservative of all the Republican candidates on the issues he is raising. Following is a list of some of his political positions.
SUMMARY OF TRUMP’S POLICY POSITIONS
• WALL AT THE MEXICAN BORDER o He is firm in his position of building the wall, sealing the border, and talks of changing immigration policies.
• TRADE POLICIES o He talks aggressively of reversing all of the anti-American trade agreements that have sent industry overseas. He might possibly undo NAFTA, GATT, WTO and TPP.
• AMERICAN INDUSTRY o The US industrial base is being dismantled by the globalists and their politicians and Trump seeks to reverse it. o He talks about dealing with the US corporate tax rate to get industry back on American soil. o He uses threats of tariffs to get industry back. o He talks about dealing with China’s internal tariffs that hurt US industry.
• HEALTH CARE o He has attacked present healthcare which he says was written by corporate interests for the enrichment of the corporation. He promotes a repeal of the current system with a plan that involves much more free enterprise.
• FOREIGN POLICY o He has been a huge critic of the Bush foreign policy that is used to serve global interests rather than that of the United States.
• REDRESS US MILITARY POLICY o He is a constant critic of the human and financial cost of the Iraq War and calls it a 2 trillion dollar fiasco. o He questions US soldiers in Europe and South Korea for over 70 years.
• FEDERAL RESERVE AUDIT o He knows that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation. What he will propose here is unknown. At least he is making an appeal for an audit here.
• WALL STREET PILLAGING o He has gone after hedge fund ethics and he talks of reform in this area. o By not taking Wall Street donations he may be more effective in dealing with their criminal activity.
• BIG PHARMA/VACCINES o He questions the toxic vaccine industry and complains that pharmaceuticals, because of their control of the political class through donations, get a free ride. He said he will start bidding on federal pharmaceutical purchases.
• GLOBALISM o This is where most of the Establishment works for their dream of a world government and one world currency. Trump might reject any movement in this direction in favor of American sovereignty.
• WESTERN LAND RIGHTS o Trump has come out against the Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and has called them a “dictatorial agency.”
• ROLLING BACK FEDERAL GOVERNMENT o He advocates the elimination of the Department of Education and Environmental Protection Agency and states that he will go after government fraud and waste.
• GUN RIGHTS o Solid on the 2nd Amendment.
You can see with this list that Trump is going after the Establishment’s financial and corporate control. This is the heart of many of our national issues, including issues related to US sovereignty and protection of the American people’s interests.
Related to Trump’s policy positions is his constant attack on elements of the Establishment, whether Wall Street, corporatism, or Republican Party policy. This courageous stance, if continued, will reap many political rewards. Trump, in his policy positions, is truly going after the head and core issues that have led to our national demise.
TRUMP THE ANTI-POLITICIAN POPULIST
Donald Trump follows two lines of populism in American presidential history.
The first is that of 19th-century populist Andrew Jackson. Jackson was the “alpha male” in his time. He had the tremendous courage and determination to take on the international banking Establishment represented by Nicholas Biddle. He was victorious in that great battle against the Second Bank of America and the Establishment of his day.
Jackson has been criticized for his lack of personal refinement, his crudeness, and his questionable manners. Sounds like Trump!
The second line of populism came in the 20th century. Here Trump is in the line of four American populists, Charles Lindbergh and his America First Committee of the early 1940s, Senator Robert Taft of the 50s and Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot of the 90s. A common characteristic of national populism is its attack on the Establishment’s agenda.
Trump’s aggressive America first populism is his tremendous appeal. In a day of undelivered political promises made by compromised conservative politicians, we have Donald Trump addressing the areas where Republicans have sold off America’s future and economic well-being. He is exposing how these so-called conservatives have promoted all these horrendous trade agreements where our country has lost its economic and political sovereignty. These agreements, supported by the Bushes, McCain, Cruz and Rubio, will one day create a North American union of the United States with Mexico and Canada. This would be intolerable to Trump and most Americans. All such agreements could be dealt with and possibly reversed by the new American populist Donald Trump.
RUBIO AND CRUZ: ESTABLISHMENT CONTROLLED
At this stage, does one have to say much to make the case that Marco Rubio is the Establishment candidate? If he loses to Trump in the Florida primary, his donors will ask him to bow out. They may then recruit Romney or Ryan to take his place as their man.
Ted Cruz is a whole different candidate, and is not who he appears to be. In-depth research on him and his wife, Heidi, is very revealing and shows strong ties into the Establishment. He is an Ivy Leaguer, having attended Princeton and Harvard Law School.
Ted Cruz was a “Bushman” and an insider and top policy advisor to George W. Bush. It was Cruz who vetted and encouraged Bush to nominate John Roberts to the Supreme Court. So much for principled conservativism!
Cruz is also a confirmed Neo-Con and very much a supporter of the disastrous Bush wars and the current aggressive involvement of the American military in the Middle East and beyond. He has former CIA directors as his advisors and recently hired Neil Bush to join his national finance team.
His wife Heidi Cruz worked under Condoleezza Rice in the Bush Administration in the crafting and implementing the North America Free Trade Agreement. She is also tied to David Rockefeller’s globalist, one world government organization, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). She is still listed on their site as a member who worked on the Taskforce of the Future of America.
She served as deputy to U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick, who was formerly president of the World Bank (2007-2012). She worked with the globalist, Zoellick, on the U.S.-China trade policy.
Mrs. Cruz is on leave from her vice-president position at the notorious investment bank, Goldman Sachs, which is well known as a key player in the Establishment’s global financial control apparatus.
You can hardly get more Establishment than the Cruz family. Their close political association inside the Establishment would be detrimental to the sovereignty and future well-being of the United States.
TRUMP AS PRESIDENT
Age and experience always temper political hopes and excitement. Despite Trump’s high energy and passionate promises to bring our country around, as president he will need a consensus with Congress to move aggressively on his agenda. Even more difficult in carrying out his agenda will be all the maneuverings of the Establishment that would seek to undo the Trump agenda. The latter is of greater concern.
Even with that understood, commentator Alex Jones says that if he can deliver only 20% of what he promises, he will be in the presidential category of a George Washington. Geo-political expert Joel Skousen says if he could only seal the border and build the wall, it would be a monumental accomplishment in light of our useless Republican leaders.
The Christian is told in Scripture “Do not put your trust in princes, nor in a son of man, in whom there is no help” (Psalm 146:3). How wise. This puts our political hopes in perspective with the reality of the human condition, putting our final rest in God’s sovereignty.
As president, would Donald Trump become some kind of a great Christian statesman? No, probably not. But, in a Trump presidency, we hope we would get someone who will fearlessly go after the Establishment, its financiers and corporations that, in monopolistic fashion, have pillaged the country. He may make a tremendous leader who will hold back the forces of evil and of further destruction of our country and culture, benefitting the Church in the process.
When considering a Trump presidency there is still the unknown. If he starts to appoint Establishment men as his close counselors – vice-president, chief of staff and cabinet positions – then his effectiveness as an American populist will be greatly diminished and possibly co-opted.
This was the case with Reagan. The Reagan revolution was over before it began when he succumbed to Establishment pressure and appointed George H.W. Bush to the vice presidency and Bush confidant, James A. Baker, to Chief of Staff. Reagan, the outsider, became president over a Bush, Establishment, CFR staffed administration. The reform of government was stopped in its tracks and all we got thereafter was great speeches.
The pressure on Trump to line his administration with globalist, CFR insiders would be beyond intense. It would take a tremendous depth of courage to reject the Establishment and staff his administration with true American patriots. Reagan caved! Will Trump? Time will tell.
CONCLUSION
In our political activism and responsibility in the public sphere we can never forget the goal of our faith. The Word of God gives us the assurance of Christ’s triumph in time and history. The Christian also is to build for the day when the nations of this world are discipled (as per the Great Commission), and bow their knee to Jesus Christ as Lord. Until we see a worldwide Christian renewal, we work to keep our enemies at bay and to labor with what we can to improve the Church’s situation in the world.
We are in the midst of a historic political movement, a sea change in the political landscape for many years to come, and most of the Evangelical Establishment leadership has no idea what is happening politically right before their eyes. Instead of embracing this historic national rebellion and pushback against the Establishment, admitting their four decades of mistakes and compromise, rethinking their positions and strategies, they remain in the comforts of the past, endorsing Establishment Republicans with the hope of maintaining their status quo positions and living off the political crumbs that fall from the Republican table.
Fortunately in this election cycle, the Evangelical rank and file is not listening to their Establishment Evangelical leaders.
Many Americans, for the first time, are beginning to understand how the geo-political world works. This means they are also grasping the bigger picture in the domestic battle over the future of America. They are seeing that the real enemy is not secondary institutions like the Democratic Party (within the false ideological/political paradigm of left and right) but the Establishment itself.
Fundamental to Christian responsibility is questioning anything that comes out of the Establishment. The rejection of their influence goes beyond that of the political parties to their policies and their candidates for federal office. A candidate who espouses so-called conservative ideology but who is tied to the Establishment should be rejected by the Christian voter because that politician will end up falling in line with Establishment policies. Marco Rubio is a case in point.
Evangelical Christians are now given a unique opportunity in American political history to play their part in reversing the fortunes of Establishment control and redressing the Establishment’s pillaging and destruction of their country.
Tom is a home builder in Tallahassee, Florida and is a member of a local congregation in the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA). He is a publisher of Christian theological works and has sat on the boards of several Evangelical Christian organizations.
Thomas Ertl -- An Evangelical Analysis of the Trump Candidacy, Part 1
AN EVANGELICAL ANALYSIS OF THE TRUMP CANDIDACY
PART 1 of 2
By Thomas Ertl March 18, 2016 NewsWithViews.com
On February 29, 2016, the day before Super Tuesday, I attended a Trump rally in Valdosta, Georgia. I was not prepared for what I was to see. I have followed presidential races since 1964, in the days of Johnson and Goldwater, and I must say I have never seen anything like what I witnessed at the Valdosta Trump rally.
8,000 south Georgians were packed into a 5,000 seat arena two hours before the time Trump was scheduled to speak. Another 12,000 were outside and could not get in. For two hours, I was watching a new wave of American political history as it flowed through this state, a populist insurrection. It is a movement fueled by the indignation and frustration of middle class people against the established ruling order, a movement that has found its mouthpiece in the newly ordained political persona of Donald J. Trump.
How can a brash New York City businessman become embraced and adored in 2016 as the national political leader of rural south Georgians?
The answer to that question is not hard to understand. After several decades of failed representation and disillusionment, the people see in Trump a political candidate who finally appears to be willing to represent them and take their values to Washington. Here is a man who gives them some hope for the representation of their 30, 40, 50 years of built-up frustration against America’s political class and their tearing down of this once great nation.
I will attempt to examine Donald Trump as an option for Evangelical Christians in the 2016 presidential race. But the question of a Trump candidacy cannot be effectively answered or understood without first explaining some political fundamentals. These have to do with the national and geopolitical situation and the place the Christian Church has in modern America.
HOW THE WORLD WORKS
It is generally believed by Americans across the political spectrum that elected federal politicians in the legislature (House and Senate) and in the executive (President and Cabinet) hold the true authority and real political power in the United States.
This statement could not be further from the truth. Western countries are, in fact, dominated and run by private central banks and multi-national corporations. This fact is not difficult to discover considering the tremendous amount of information available. Yet, because of the banking and corporate control of the media, Americans are led to believe that the elected federal politician holds the authority and that their vote actually counts for something.
Since the end of 1913, with the passing of the Federal Reserve Act, where Congress gave the issuance and control of the US currency over to private European bankers, the United States has lost its economic sovereignty. One hundred years later, it has also lost much of its national and political sovereignty.
Instead of a government for and by the people we have a government for and by the central bankers and their multi-national corporations.
Thomas Jefferson’s warning has never been more pertinent.
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered… I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies… The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
It is interesting that Jefferson feared central banks more than foreign armies. Much more could be written here, but for the sake of space, I will label this globalist control grid and call it the Establishment.
The Establishment not only determines most aspects of American economic life, but also controls all federal regulatory agencies (for example, Monsanto has 21 executives in the Food and Drug Administration). Not only is the federal government run by the Establishment, but it also rewards the Establishment with a state monopoly maximizing their profits.
With this understanding, we realize that the purpose of elected politicians is to serve the banking and corporate establishment. The modern American politician is there to serve the money oligarchy (which is why the term “crony capitalism” was coined). Without this basic understanding of the American political power structure, all political analysis is skewed.
LIFE IN BABYLON
The other fundamental fact that is highly important for the Christian to understand is that America is no longer a Christian country. The United States of America in its public institutions and government is not Christian. Though many of its people are Christian, the nation has been secularized.
Practically, we do not have enough of a national Christian consensus to elect a Christian candidate with a pure biblical ideology. The Church is living in a form of internal exile – a modern type of Babylonian captivity – in which the people of God have very little influence in the public affairs of the country. The Church is on the outside looking in to a country their spiritual ancestors once created. This is another important fact for Evangelicals to appreciate when considering a Trump candidacy.
In our current context, it’s worth noting the captivity of Israel in ancient Babylon and the call of God on Cyrus, King of Persia. Cyrus was a typical idolator in antiquity who built pagan temples to false gods, yet God calls him His “shepherd.” Isaiah 44:28:
Who says of Cyrus, “He is My shepherd, And he shall perform all My pleasure, Saying to Jerusalem, ‘You shall be built,’ And to the temple, ‘Your foundation shall be laid’.”
Looking back, we see in God’s providence the raising up of a pagan ruler at a critical time in Israel’s history to protect and bless the people of God. The lesson here is for the church to be open to God’s providence that may be very different from our own spiritual expectations including the kind of leaders he may raise up in unusual times.
THE REBELLION
We live in a time and are witnessing before our eyes a historic pushback and outright rebellion against the Establishment and all of its controllers, especially those within the Republican Party hierarchy. The rebellion is not so much one of political ideologies but more of the middle class rejection of the rule of the Establishment.
Peggy Noonan, Reagan’s speechwriter, stated in a February 13-14, 2016 Wall Street Journal article on the “American Rebellion”:
What is happening in American politics? We’re in the midst of a rebellion. The bottom and middle are pushing against the top. It’s a throwing off of old claims and it’s been going on for a while….There’s something deep, suggestive, even epochal about what’s happening now….Yes, it is about the Democratic National Committee, that house of hacks, and about a Republican establishment owned by the donor class.
Laura Ingraham, after the South Carolina primary, said:
The establishment GOP is lying to itself. This election at its core is a rejection of their globalist economic agenda and failed immigration policies — and of rule by the donor class.
Roger Stone, the 45-year GOP insider, in discussing the Primary domination by Donald Trump, said:
The anti-establishment vote…is repudiating the foreign policy, immigration policy, trade policy, fiscal policies of the Bush wing of the Republican Party.
The rebellion is quite extensive. It has found its way into criticizing what a decade ago was considered acceptable and even untouchable in conservative and Republican circles. This includes the Bushes, Fox News, Neo-Cons, The Weekly Standard, National Review, Rove, McCain, Graham, Romney, Boehner and Ryan.
In this year’s Primaries, the Republican electorate is repudiating 40 years of Republican bipartisanship in the economic and cultural dismantling of America.
This revolt against the established order is truly historic and it did not begin with Donald Trump, but Trump recognized what was going on and positioned himself to represent this Movement in the current presidential election race and, because he did, he is seeing his popularity soar. The people see in him a leader who represents them, and who is quickly earning their trust because he speaks their language and seems to have the track record and strength of personality to bring them and their principles out of 40+ years of political wilderness. Especially with a strong leader, this rebellion by the conservative rank and file has the potential to change the political landscape for a very long time.
REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT IMPLOSION
The Republican Party has launched a full-frontal attack on Donald Trump and, therefore, also against its own Republican voter base. They behave as if they hate their own base. Reports even surfaced about the Republican Party Establishment wanting to resurrect Mitt Romney as a preferred alternative to Trump as the Party’s presidential nominee.
The Republican Party is in the process of committing political suicide as it rejects the people’s choice for president. If they are successful, the ramifications of their arrogance will be felt for a generation. This may well involve the introduction of a new federal conservative party to replace the dying husk of the 162-year-old GOP.
Over the past four decades, the Republican base has voted dutifully for the Party’s candidates and has sent their sons off to fight Republican Neo-Con wars, and what have they got for it? Political civil war by Party leadership that is willing to go great lengths to exploit these foot soldiers of the party to advance their own interests. Amazing!
The Republican Establishment would prefer a Hillary Clinton presidency than Trump’s victory. That is where their ideological loyalty lies. Trump, to his credit, is smoking out of the Republican tent the Neo-Cons and liberals who really belong in the Democratic Party. As he wins more races, the curtain will be pulled back further on the Party bosses. They are no friend to our Christian faith.
VOTING FOR THE RESISTANCE
In the selection of their civil leaders Christian people often use a somewhat narrow “spiritual” standard for making their decisions. If a candidate declares he is “born again” or verbalizes some acceptable religious lingo, he can capture a huge block of Evangelical voters. The man may be incompetent — or worse, a tyrant — but he passed their self-styled spiritual test.
Sixteenth-century Swiss Reformer Pierre Viret wrote that there were certain “detestable, villainous” rulers who “pretended the Christian religion” for social and political reasons. That tactic is nothing new.
I agree with Viret that “the best magistrates are Christian magistrates,” and we must always aim for such a time when this is the norm. However, considering life in Babylon, a much more important requirement than a surface spirituality would be a candidate’s commitment and ability to preserve personal liberties and limited government in the battle against the Establishment.
Dick Knodel, an Ohio pastor, writes, “Many Christians don’t seem to have the capacity to think broadly and strategically (philosophically). They only think morally, or theologically. The problem with that kind of thinking is Genesis 4:16-26, where such thinking would accuse the Living God of promoting the world of unbelief. God uses the many facets of creation (culture) to accomplish his ends, not just theology and personal morality. And right now, he’s promoting Donald Trump — for our nation’s good. It’s a mercy. I don’t pretend to understand it, but I can see it.”
This presidential election is very unique in comparison to any federal election in the last half century. Everything in national politics has changed. The traditional method of selecting the best candidate based on a precise evaluation of character and political positions, though important, is not as relevant as it once was.
The reason is the change in the American electorate and of their massive pushback against the Establishment and Republican Party. It is a historic revolt of the middle class against its ruling elites.
So, it is not so much a battle of ideas as it is a battle of authority and control of the federal government and the people looking for representation against the moneyed institutions that have ruled them for a century.
Instead of promoting the politician with the purest of ideas, the nation is in greater need of a president to lead the resistance against the ruling national and global oligarchy which is directly responsible for the devastation of much of the country.
The approval of today’s candidates is more based on which candidate has the courage, spirit, and will to fight to represent the American people in this historic political battle of authority.
The Christian must understand the times and respond in a proper and new way: “And the children of Issachar, who were men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do…” (1 Chronicles 12:31).
KEY POLITICAL ISSUES OF OUR TIME
Knowing the real source of political power, we can have a clearer view of what are the primary and critical issues of our day.
The primary political issues are not homosexual acceptance, the definition of marriage, pornography, educational decline, family breakdown, or even socialism, the Democratic Party or liberalism. These are all symptoms and downstream manifestations of the political beast, not its core or head.
This is why the 50-year effort of the Conservative Movement and the Christian Right has experienced limited success: its activism has always aimed at the symptoms and manifestations of its enemy, not at the foundation or the head. This mal-informed, defensive, rear-guard action has produced failure after failure in what has become known as “Culture Wars,” conserving nothing.
The head of the leviathan is the international banking cartel’s control of the money supply, political parties, media, American military, foreign policy and immigration policy, and the control of multi-national corporations over public and private life. These represent the key elements of Establishment control, and they form the head of leviathan that is the enemy of America and of Western Christian civilization in the 20th and 21st centuries.
It is critical for Christians to recognize the times in which we live. We are seeing in the political realm a historic awakening and monumental shift that is far greater than one personality, and yet Donald Trump has become the political figurehead and catalyst of this movement at this time because he has tapped into this populist spirit of dissatisfaction and fomented it with hope and expectation for a better America. In this upheaval and insurrection against the failed old guard, Christian people must see the bigger picture of the Establishment power base and aim their political activism at this source. This is the way the American population is moving, if Christians don’t figure out what’s going on, they will be playing catch-up once again instead of exercising leadership in the next stage of American history.
TRUMP THE MAN
Donald Trump’s personality, as well as some of his business issues, have made it difficult for many Evangelicals to support him. He is often crass and uncouth, disrespectful and abrasive. There’s his cursing and arrogance, his casino ownership, three marriages, and questions of personal faith. He is what he is and his shortcomings are obvious to all.
Trump is a brawler; when attacked he will attack back. His fighting spirit is not something we have seen much in recent political figures, especially on the national stage. This may be an unfamiliar and an uncomfortable characteristic, but is it objectionable?
But we have to remember that in life in Babylon we are not going to get many faithful Christian candidates for federal office. We also have to remember we are not voting for a national pastor but for a civil office.
Most Evangelicals probably have not seen an “alpha male” like Donald Trump in operation very often. Western men, since the emergence of feminism in the early 60s, have been weakened and feminized.
An “alpha male,” by definition, is a man who assumes a dominant role in his affairs. He is an assertive, persistent and purposeful man. This defines Trump and his lifestyle of a 20-hour work day. With Trump, you have a man who is similar to his peers of three generations ago. Today, the “alpha male” character type is actually still very highly esteemed – but only when it’s exhibited by women!
TRUMP AND CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY
Movement conservatives complain that Trump does not have a pure conservative ideology. That may be so. He certainly has some views that are contrary to my conservative liberty ideology.
I disagree with him on eminent domain, subsidized ethanol and in some areas concerning the role of the Federal Government. Cruz is better on some of these traditional conservative issues. I would differ with Trump on the partial defunding of Planned Parenthood. He, like Reagan and the Bushes, has come late to the correct side of the abortion issue. Some of his views are still in the process of development. Trump only entered the political stage nine months ago. These issues are much more important to a politician than to a businessman. But these areas of disagreement are matters of secondary importance on today’s political battlefield. Trump is setting his sights on primary issues. Matters like eminent domain and transgender rights are not critical until the Establishment is exposed and judged, and a law-order and a framework for liberty and justice are re-established in a functioning Christian republic.
The GOP Establishment is not made up of purist conservatives either, but they have established litmus test issues or have learned how to answer correctly those issues that have become litmus test positions by interest groups, including Evangelical organizations. They have also put forward their political candidates who would successfully champion these issues and advance their reforms. These conservative leaders apparently have a great product, but they can never get it to market. The people never see and benefit from all this great and true conservatism.
Trump calls it “all talk and no action,” but it is really worse than that because these so-called “Movement Conservatives” end up backing politicians who are subservient to the corporations and the money elites who bankroll them. So the middle class never gets any practical delivery of their ideas via the candidates screened by the Republican Establishment. Instead, the government money trucks seem to flow to Georgetown and the suburbs of Northern Virginia where the donor class live, and especially to Wall Street. These deliveries never seem to be interrupted no matter who is in office. For part two click below.
Tom is a home builder in Tallahassee, Florida and is a member of a local congregation in the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA). He is a publisher of Christian theological works and has sat on the boards of several Evangelical Christian organizations.
During the present election cycle, we are seeing the usual endorsement of candidates by Christian Right leaders alongside all the other endorsements being announced. Most Christian Right endorsements are going to Cruz and Rubio. Very few prominent leaders have endorsed Trump; exceptions are Jerry Falwell Jr., Pat Robertson, Phyllis Schlafly and Dr. Robert Jeffress.
Sadly, many of these Evangelical Establishment leaders are not qualified to make informed political assessments. They may well be effective and successful businessmen and administrators. They are no doubt sincere and well-qualified for the day-to-day work involved in their ministry leadership. Most of them, however, do not have a biblical view of civil government and have not been theologically and strategically trained in the art of Christian political theory. American elections are plagued by “low information voters.” Evangelicalism suffers from its “low information leaders.”
Most of these leaders get much of their political knowledge, insight and beliefs from Fox News, thus the term “Fox News Christians.” Their political worldview is taken more from Krauthammer, Kristol, and Will rather than from Augustine, Calvin and Beza. In fact, most of them have no idea who Theodore Beza is, much less his Christian political theory published in the 16th century. Charles Krauthammer was a Mondale speechwriter, Bill Kristol’s father, Irving, was a Marxist and a disciple of Leon Trotsky. George Will is a self-proclaimed soft atheist. Relying on sources like these for one’s political worldview and, baptizing these views with a thin veneer of “Christian-ese” is a recipe for failure. Today’s supposedly conservative outlets for news and commentary are more often part of the problem rather than contributors to real solutions.
These are the Evangelical leaders who have enthusiastically supported all of the unbiblical, unconstitutional Bush Middle East wars and the slaughter of over 1.5 million innocent lives. They have never studied or understood the historic Christian theory of just war, established long ago by Augustine and the Protestant Reformers. Their promotion of this Neo-Con, Republican blood-letting has greatly compromised their pro-life doctrine and stands in direct violation of the command in Scripture against the “shedding of innocent blood.” Do the fifty-one verses against the shedding of innocent blood mean anything? Well, at least Trump is dealing with this critical pro-life issue with his criticism of American foreign policy.
These respected Christian leaders are often tied too closely to the Republican Establishment, so they can’t prophetically confront them and call them back to truth and justice. These men are easily manipulated by the Republican Establishment, which figured out long ago how to manipulate Christian Right leadership. Give them a little “God talk” (“I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ”), tell them you support the sanctity of life and traditional marriage and, voila, you have their support and their vote. The Evangelical Establishment should be hammering the Republican Party for their treasonous policies and their sell-out of the country to the money class. They should be calling for a new party or a complete overhaul of the present one, yet they remain silent.
The Christian Right has been politically irrelevant on the federal level mainly because of its limited two issue constituency. The four decade failure of the Christian Right to influence American culture is because they have been a reactionary group in their strategies and organizations instead of one with an aggressive Christian vision of cultural renewal. They have failed to take a comprehensive worldview in every area of culture and life and develop strategies to build new Christian institutions in the places where ordinary Americans live out their daily lives.
What is interesting about Trump’s candidacy is that the Christian Right rank and file is separating from their leadership and voting for Trump. They seem to be expanding beyond the traditional two issues to the ones Trump is raising. They are very worried about the future of their country, its economic and national security.
Both the GOP Establishment and Evangelical Establishment lost big in the South Carolina Primary. The people are finally starting to figure out who the GOP really is. The indignation is at unforeseen levels. The peasants are mad. The trust is gone. In the recent primaries, if you add the numbers of both Trump and Cruz, who are considered as anti-Establishment candidates, you get an anti-Establishment vote well over 60%. I don’t think the GOP will ever recover from this to re-establish its control over its base. This is a historic battle and a positive step towards liberty.
TRUMP’S POLITICAL POSITIONS
Along with Donald Trump’s populist theme of “Make America Great Again” come many key issues on which he is outspoken.
This is where I see his real strength. Trump goes after issues of national interest that other politicians won’t touch. Many of these issues are of primary importance and so are more critical than the ones raised by conservative purists.
Trump, labels himself as a “common sense conservative,” not a purist but, in doing so, he shows himself to be the most conservative of all the Republican candidates on the issues he is raising. Following is a list of some of his political positions.
SUMMARY OF TRUMP’S POLICY POSITIONS
• WALL AT THE MEXICAN BORDER o He is firm in his position of building the wall, sealing the border, and talks of changing immigration policies.
• TRADE POLICIES o He talks aggressively of reversing all of the anti-American trade agreements that have sent industry overseas. He might possibly undo NAFTA, GATT, WTO and TPP.
• AMERICAN INDUSTRY o The US industrial base is being dismantled by the globalists and their politicians and Trump seeks to reverse it. o He talks about dealing with the US corporate tax rate to get industry back on American soil. o He uses threats of tariffs to get industry back. o He talks about dealing with China’s internal tariffs that hurt US industry.
• HEALTH CARE o He has attacked present healthcare which he says was written by corporate interests for the enrichment of the corporation. He promotes a repeal of the current system with a plan that involves much more free enterprise.
• FOREIGN POLICY o He has been a huge critic of the Bush foreign policy that is used to serve global interests rather than that of the United States.
• REDRESS US MILITARY POLICY o He is a constant critic of the human and financial cost of the Iraq War and calls it a 2 trillion dollar fiasco. o He questions US soldiers in Europe and South Korea for over 70 years.
• FEDERAL RESERVE AUDIT o He knows that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation. What he will propose here is unknown. At least he is making an appeal for an audit here.
• WALL STREET PILLAGING o He has gone after hedge fund ethics and he talks of reform in this area. o By not taking Wall Street donations he may be more effective in dealing with their criminal activity.
• BIG PHARMA/VACCINES o He questions the toxic vaccine industry and complains that pharmaceuticals, because of their control of the political class through donations, get a free ride. He said he will start bidding on federal pharmaceutical purchases.
• GLOBALISM o This is where most of the Establishment works for their dream of a world government and one world currency. Trump might reject any movement in this direction in favor of American sovereignty.
• WESTERN LAND RIGHTS o Trump has come out against the Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and has called them a “dictatorial agency.”
• ROLLING BACK FEDERAL GOVERNMENT o He advocates the elimination of the Department of Education and Environmental Protection Agency and states that he will go after government fraud and waste.
• GUN RIGHTS o Solid on the 2nd Amendment.
You can see with this list that Trump is going after the Establishment’s financial and corporate control. This is the heart of many of our national issues, including issues related to US sovereignty and protection of the American people’s interests.
Related to Trump’s policy positions is his constant attack on elements of the Establishment, whether Wall Street, corporatism, or Republican Party policy. This courageous stance, if continued, will reap many political rewards. Trump, in his policy positions, is truly going after the head and core issues that have led to our national demise.
TRUMP THE ANTI-POLITICIAN POPULIST
Donald Trump follows two lines of populism in American presidential history.
The first is that of 19th-century populist Andrew Jackson. Jackson was the “alpha male” in his time. He had the tremendous courage and determination to take on the international banking Establishment represented by Nicholas Biddle. He was victorious in that great battle against the Second Bank of America and the Establishment of his day.
Jackson has been criticized for his lack of personal refinement, his crudeness, and his questionable manners. Sounds like Trump!
The second line of populism came in the 20th century. Here Trump is in the line of four American populists, Charles Lindbergh and his America First Committee of the early 1940s, Senator Robert Taft of the 50s and Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot of the 90s. A common characteristic of national populism is its attack on the Establishment’s agenda.
Trump’s aggressive America first populism is his tremendous appeal. In a day of undelivered political promises made by compromised conservative politicians, we have Donald Trump addressing the areas where Republicans have sold off America’s future and economic well-being. He is exposing how these so-called conservatives have promoted all these horrendous trade agreements where our country has lost its economic and political sovereignty. These agreements, supported by the Bushes, McCain, Cruz and Rubio, will one day create a North American union of the United States with Mexico and Canada. This would be intolerable to Trump and most Americans. All such agreements could be dealt with and possibly reversed by the new American populist Donald Trump.
RUBIO AND CRUZ: ESTABLISHMENT CONTROLLED
At this stage, does one have to say much to make the case that Marco Rubio is the Establishment candidate? If he loses to Trump in the Florida primary, his donors will ask him to bow out. They may then recruit Romney or Ryan to take his place as their man.
Ted Cruz is a whole different candidate, and is not who he appears to be. In-depth research on him and his wife, Heidi, is very revealing and shows strong ties into the Establishment. He is an Ivy Leaguer, having attended Princeton and Harvard Law School.
Ted Cruz was a “Bushman” and an insider and top policy advisor to George W. Bush. It was Cruz who vetted and encouraged Bush to nominate John Roberts to the Supreme Court. So much for principled conservativism!
Cruz is also a confirmed Neo-Con and very much a supporter of the disastrous Bush wars and the current aggressive involvement of the American military in the Middle East and beyond. He has former CIA directors as his advisors and recently hired Neil Bush to join his national finance team.
His wife Heidi Cruz worked under Condoleezza Rice in the Bush Administration in the crafting and implementing the North America Free Trade Agreement. She is also tied to David Rockefeller’s globalist, one world government organization, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). She is still listed on their site as a member who worked on the Taskforce of the Future of America.
She served as deputy to U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick, who was formerly president of the World Bank (2007-2012). She worked with the globalist, Zoellick, on the U.S.-China trade policy.
Mrs. Cruz is on leave from her vice-president position at the notorious investment bank, Goldman Sachs, which is well known as a key player in the Establishment’s global financial control apparatus.
You can hardly get more Establishment than the Cruz family. Their close political association inside the Establishment would be detrimental to the sovereignty and future well-being of the United States.
TRUMP AS PRESIDENT
Age and experience always temper political hopes and excitement. Despite Trump’s high energy and passionate promises to bring our country around, as president he will need a consensus with Congress to move aggressively on his agenda. Even more difficult in carrying out his agenda will be all the maneuverings of the Establishment that would seek to undo the Trump agenda. The latter is of greater concern.
Even with that understood, commentator Alex Jones says that if he can deliver only 20% of what he promises, he will be in the presidential category of a George Washington. Geo-political expert Joel Skousen says if he could only seal the border and build the wall, it would be a monumental accomplishment in light of our useless Republican leaders.
The Christian is told in Scripture “Do not put your trust in princes, nor in a son of man, in whom there is no help” (Psalm 146:3). How wise. This puts our political hopes in perspective with the reality of the human condition, putting our final rest in God’s sovereignty.
As president, would Donald Trump become some kind of a great Christian statesman? No, probably not. But, in a Trump presidency, we hope we would get someone who will fearlessly go after the Establishment, its financiers and corporations that, in monopolistic fashion, have pillaged the country. He may make a tremendous leader who will hold back the forces of evil and of further destruction of our country and culture, benefitting the Church in the process.
When considering a Trump presidency there is still the unknown. If he starts to appoint Establishment men as his close counselors – vice-president, chief of staff and cabinet positions – then his effectiveness as an American populist will be greatly diminished and possibly co-opted.
This was the case with Reagan. The Reagan revolution was over before it began when he succumbed to Establishment pressure and appointed George H.W. Bush to the vice presidency and Bush confidant, James A. Baker, to Chief of Staff. Reagan, the outsider, became president over a Bush, Establishment, CFR staffed administration. The reform of government was stopped in its tracks and all we got thereafter was great speeches.
The pressure on Trump to line his administration with globalist, CFR insiders would be beyond intense. It would take a tremendous depth of courage to reject the Establishment and staff his administration with true American patriots. Reagan caved! Will Trump? Time will tell.
CONCLUSION
In our political activism and responsibility in the public sphere we can never forget the goal of our faith. The Word of God gives us the assurance of Christ’s triumph in time and history. The Christian also is to build for the day when the nations of this world are discipled (as per the Great Commission), and bow their knee to Jesus Christ as Lord. Until we see a worldwide Christian renewal, we work to keep our enemies at bay and to labor with what we can to improve the Church’s situation in the world.
We are in the midst of a historic political movement, a sea change in the political landscape for many years to come, and most of the Evangelical Establishment leadership has no idea what is happening politically right before their eyes. Instead of embracing this historic national rebellion and pushback against the Establishment, admitting their four decades of mistakes and compromise, rethinking their positions and strategies, they remain in the comforts of the past, endorsing Establishment Republicans with the hope of maintaining their status quo positions and living off the political crumbs that fall from the Republican table.
Fortunately in this election cycle, the Evangelical rank and file is not listening to their Establishment Evangelical leaders.
Many Americans, for the first time, are beginning to understand how the geo-political world works. This means they are also grasping the bigger picture in the domestic battle over the future of America. They are seeing that the real enemy is not secondary institutions like the Democratic Party (within the false ideological/political paradigm of left and right) but the Establishment itself.
Fundamental to Christian responsibility is questioning anything that comes out of the Establishment. The rejection of their influence goes beyond that of the political parties to their policies and their candidates for federal office. A candidate who espouses so-called conservative ideology but who is tied to the Establishment should be rejected by the Christian voter because that politician will end up falling in line with Establishment policies. Marco Rubio is a case in point.
Evangelical Christians are now given a unique opportunity in American political history to play their part in reversing the fortunes of Establishment control and redressing the Establishment’s pillaging and destruction of their country.
Tom is a home builder in Tallahassee, Florida and is a member of a local congregation in the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA). He is a publisher of Christian theological works and has sat on the boards of several Evangelical Christian organizations.
By Thomas Ertl 