You are currently browsing churchmouse’s articles.
A reader of The Conservative Treehouse wrote a lengthy and interesting perspective on Evangelicals who despise politics except during times of revival.
The man points out that, because the United States is not currently in a state of religious revival, the needle is not moving, so to speak, for some diehard no-politics-for-me Protestants.
Excerpts from his comment follow, emphases mine. I have also corrected a couple of spelling errors.
First, on Evangelicals and politics:
I have written on this subject before last year about Evangelicals. Evangelicals don’t get involved in politics. When I say Evangelicals I mean not just those that can name the church they go to on Christmas and Easter, but those who find their identity in their Christian faith. Those that would say they have a relationship with God. When someone becomes an Evangelical one of the first things that happens is a loss of interest in their prior life and worldly things. They prioritize their life. God first, then family, then their local church, then work and career, then national loyalty, and last politics. You hear this when Pence talks and also in Cruz. When most Evangelicals think about politics they look down at it from their higher priorities. It is like a Christian going back to their old life. There is a disgust to it and those involved in it. This is a state of a immature Christian. It is good to reject your old life. But you must still see that God is involved in all things. He is Lord of all. Christ is Lord of your personal faith, your family, your church, your work, your country, and your politics. Where ever you are God is there. But not many Christians and Evangelicals mature to that level …
So barring another ‘’Great Awakening” we have to work on one Evangelical or Christian at a time.
Just so. If we were not meant to be politically aware, we would not be praying for our respective governments and their leaders at church.
I cannot speak for all denominations but clergy at Catholic and mainline Protestant churches offer a prayer on Sunday (and weekday) services for our political leaders. Therefore, if politics is so distasteful and worldly — it could be respectable — we would not be praying for those people in church.
Now a few words about Donald Trump:
Interestingly, I do see some good signs in Mr. Trump himself. Early on in this movement of Trump Christians have been praying for him and ministers have been surrounding him. The Trump we see now is not the Trump of, say, three years ago. There is a change in him and God is testing him. We may see a large revival yet. It is hard to say what causes revivals except God. But if God is working in Trump he may be working in this movement.
Yes, I do believe Trump has changed from June 2015. He hasn’t been around clergy this often since his days with Norman Vincent Peale.
I do think that God is blessing Donald Trump with the strength and the voice to give two or three rallies per day with truth and enthusiasm. I do believe that God is keeping him and his family out of harm’s way. I also believe that Donald Trump’s candidacy is no accident; it was meant to happen in 2016.
Furthermore, I can think of no candidate who could have borne the relentless, daily slings and arrows from Democrats, the GOPe and Big Media like Donald Trump.
Finally, I believe — unlike other serious churchgoers I know, whether Evangelical, mainline Protestant or Catholic — that this year’s presidential election is one of spiritual warfare rather than politics.
In a choice between Good and Evil, there is only one option on November 8.
(Image credit: The Conservative Treehouse)
The three-year Lectionary that many Catholics and Protestants hear in public worship gives us a great variety of Holy Scripture.
Yet, it doesn’t tell the whole story.
My series Forbidden Bible Verses — ones the Lectionary editors and their clergy omit — examines the passages we do not hear in church. These missing verses are also Essential Bible Verses, ones we should study with care and attention. Often, we find that they carry difficult messages and warnings.
23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!
This is the fourth of seven woes — judgements — that Jesus pronounces on the scribes and Pharisees.
The fourth woe concerns their being more interested in the minutiae of observing the tithes of herbs and seeds rather than God’s greater laws of justice, mercy and faithfulness (verse 23). Jesus rebukes them for not observing both.
The parallel verse is Luke 11:42:
“But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
Jesus also related the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, involving a Pharisee who boasted of tithing all that he possessed (Luke 18:9-14).
The command to give tithes of herbs and seeds to God is stated in Deuteronomy 14:22:
“You shall tithe all the yield of your seed that comes from the field year by year.
It was easier for the Pharisees to enhance their reputations by placing great weight on crop and seed tithes rather than exhort themselves and the faithful to love their neighbour. The same is true today of some churches where legalism takes priority over mercy and compassion.
Another aspect, as Matthew Henry surmises, is that the Pharisees got some sort of self-enhancement by exacting tithes:
it is probable that they had ends of their own to serve, and would find their own account in it for the priests and Levites, to whom the tithes were paid …
John MacArthur tells us that tithes continue in Judaism, although they are no longer of the same nature as in the Old Testament.
However, where the Church is concerned, tithing is not obligatory (emphases mine):
… the tithe is mentioned six times in the New Testament. Three times in the gospels and each time it is mention in the text condemning the abuse of it by the scribes and the Pharisees. Three times in the book of Hebrews when it simply reaches back and describes its historical reality in the history of Israel. At no time is it ever mentioned in the New Testament as binding on the church. It had to do with taxation of the national government of Israel.
That cannot be emphasised enough. Churchgoers do not have to tithe. Nor should they be required to do so.
Verse 24 is one I have wondered about all my life. Before explaining its meaning, it is worth pointing out that Jesus once more called the scribes and Pharisees ‘blind guides’ — spiritually blind leaders of the faithful. They were false teachers actively leading their people to perdition, hence the seven woes.
Previously, Jesus made a previous reference to them as ‘blind guides’ in verse 16, as ‘blind fools’ in verse 17 and as ‘blind men’ in verse 19.
What was Jesus speaking of when He rebuked them for ‘straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel’?
As we know, Mosaic law, which observant Jews still abide by today, forbids the consumption of certain creatures. The gnat is the least of these and the camel the greatest. This goes some way towards explaining the meaning behind the verse.
In some versions, such as the King James, the verse says ‘straining at a gnat’, which causes confusion for modern readers and listeners. MacArthur tells us:
“You blind guides, you strain out,” it should be, “you strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.” You say what in the world is this? Well, you have to understand something about this. The word strain means to filter, diulizo, filter.
In Jesus’s time, the Jewish leaders were careful to remove any gnats that might have flown into their wine. MacArthur explains:
They make wine and as they’re making, crushing the grapes, a little gnat is flying around, he lands in the grapes, he gets gobbled up in the grapes, winds up in the wine or maybe he just flies in the wine and lands there. So the fastidious Pharisee drank his wine like this. Then he picked the gnat off his teeth …
That made them look pious to each other and to onlookers.
What all were ignoring were the greater violations of God’s law: the business (which it was) of the faithful making oaths to free themselves from observing one or more of the Ten Commandments in favour of ‘tradition’. One of these was the Corban which released one from honouring one’s father and mother (Mark 7:9-13), which I discussed in 2010. Here are the verses (emphases mine):
9And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 11But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”‘ (that is, given to God)— 12then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
This is the explanation of how the Corban worked:
Jesus points out to them that they distorted the commandment of honouring one’s father and one’s mother. According to the Pharisees, if a child did not wish to obey that commandment, he had a get-out clause (verses 9-10). The child could swear by the gold of the temple and the gift upon the altar — the Corban — that he washed his hands of his parents (verse 11). Should his parents ask anything of him, all he had to do is say that he made his oath (verses 12 and 13).
This is what He rebuked in Matthew 23:16-19.
The Corban and similar evasions of the Commandments were what Jesus referred to as ‘swallowing a camel’. It was a figurative way of saying that their tradition was a huge sin and violation of God’s supreme law in favour of insistence on fine minutiae that brought them prestige. It was as bad as if they had swallowed a camel.
MacArthur gives us this interpretation of Jesus’s message:
In other words, you are all confused. You’re whole priority system is inverted. You’re just fooling around with stuff that doesn’t matter. And blind to the enormous evil that you’re consuming. You’re afraid to eat the tenth mint leaf and then you’re allowing into your life hypocrisy, dishonesty, cruelty, greed, self-worship; incredible.
We can better understand this verse now that it has a context.
In closing, Matthew Henry reminds us of the importance of observing God’s greater laws and Jesus’s rebuke of the scribes and Pharisees, who cared nothing for the ordinary or destitute Jew:
Judgment and mercy toward men, and faith toward God, are the weightier matters of the law, the good things which the Lord our God requires (Micah 6:8) to do justly, and love mercy, and humble ourselves by faith to walk with God. This is the obedience which is better than sacrifice or tithe judgment is preferred before sacrifice, Isaiah 1:11. To be just to the priests in their tithe, and yet to cheat and defraud every body else, is but to mock God, and deceive ourselves. Mercy also is preferred before sacrifice, Hosea 6:6. To feed those who made themselves fat with the offering of the Lord, and at the same time to shut up the bowels of compassion from a brother or a sister that is naked, and destitute of daily food, to pay tithe-mint to the priest, and to deny a crumb to Lazarus, is to lie open to that judgment without mercy, which is awarded to those who pretended to judgment, and showed no mercy nor will judgment and mercy serve without faith in divine revelation for God will be honoured in his truths as well as in his laws.
John MacArthur concludes:
It’s amazing how fastidious religious people can be and so far from the reality of what God seeks. So many false spiritual leaders reverse divine priorities, substitute insignificant forms and outward acts of religion for essential realities of the heart. You see, that’s the point. So the false spiritual leaders are condemned for exclusion, perversion, subversion, inversion, how about extortion for a fifth; extortion.
This is why true Christians condemn legalism. It has no basis in Scripture. God will judge it harshly.
Next time: Matthew 23:25-26
The annual Al Smith dinner was held this year in Manhattan on Thursday, October 20, the day after the final presidential debate in Las Vegas.
The Alfred E Smith Memorial Foundation is named after the first Roman Catholic presidential candidate. Smith served three terms as governor of New York (state) and ran unsuccessfully for President in 1932, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt won the Democrat Party nomination.
The Foundation was started in 1945, the year after Smith’s death. Its purpose is to raise funds for Catholic charitable purposes and distribute them to worthy causes. During presidential campaign years, both candidates are invited to speak before dinner. The speeches are in the comedy ‘roast’ style, and speakers tell one-liners against themselves as well as each other.
Barack Obama’s 2012 speech to the Catholic dignitaries and media pundits can be found here. Obama waited for the laughs after every ‘joke’ (far from stellar punchlines).
His opponent, Mitt Romney, knocked it out of the park with jokes written by comedian Dennis Miller which he delivered to a T.
This year, both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton delivered speeches. Trump’s was funny yet made serious points. He began by saying that he was an insider amongst many seated around him on the dais. Now he is an outsider. Then, in talking about his and Cardinal Dolan’s properties on Fifth Avenue — Trump Tower and St Patrick’s Cathedral — he offered praise by saying that while his is manmade, Cardinal Dolan’s was ‘made by the hands of God’.
After that, it was time to joke about the campaign and Hillary, which included barbs about the debate and the missing emails.
At 12:39, he said, ‘Hillary is so corrupt …’ which brought a stunning reaction from the man on the right of the screen, Stephen Schwarzman of the Blackstone Group, and Cardinal Dolan who wiped his forehead with a handkerchief and removed his cap for the remainder of the speech. Trump continued with more one-liners that got everyone laughing again:
At the end, he spoke about the importance of life (anti-abortion statement) and the excellent work of the Al Smith Foundation which, this year alone, raised $6 million to help needy children in New York.
The barometer for laughs is the lady in the red dress, Maria Bartiromo of Fox Business Network. She didn’t laugh nearly as often at Hillary Clinton’s monologue. In the interest of fairness, here is her speech:
My thanks to the citizen sleuths at The Conservative Treehouse for identifying people and mentioning that Bill Clinton was the only presidential candidate disinvited from this event. That was because of his support of partial-birth abortion. Bill was not in attendance last night, either.
Of course, since then, other Democratic nominees have supported abortion, including Hillary, who made no secret of it at the third debate. But, as many know, Cafeteria Catholics abound these days, including at the Al Smith Dinner.
It is profoundly sad to see Old Glory desecrated by a group of high schoolers who have no respect for it or for their country.
Their coach and the school should talk about the importance of the flag at a mandatory hour-long class assembly.
I realise this desecration is being done because of a certain trendy, yet ignorant, professional football player whose name will never appear on my site. Why anyone gave him the oxygen of publicity I will never know.
May God bless the man — a veteran with a walking stick! — who cared enough to pick the flag up off the ground. He knows what it represents as well as how many men and women have died to keep it flying.
The comments following this post at The_Donald are edifying. Most of the subreddit’s members are twenty-somethings. They applaud this brave American and criticise the students.
This week has produced a mother lode for Donald Trump just in time for the final presidential debate on Wednesday, October 19.
Between the Podesta Wikileaks and the two James O’Keefe videos — with a third to appear before the debate — he has a gold mine of information to use against Hillary Clinton and his other debate opponent, FOX’s Chris Wallace.
For those who have not been watching, Trump — as is usual for the Republican candidate since 2008 — must also debate the moderator(s) who are in league with the Democrat candidates.
Three topics Trump must not spend much time on
The two of them will attempt to bog Trump down with three topics: sex, Russia and nuclear war. He should give nothing but a brief, clear statement on each, turning measured verbiage on the Democrats and the Clintons.
For those who are unaware, the Democrats engineered each of those narratives, but Big Media are keeping it quiet, because they are in league with the Dems, as the Wikileaks releases have been revealing.
With that in mind, let’s take a look at these three topics:
1/ Sex: Even though Big Media have not told you so, all of last weeks’ allegations against Trump have been debunked.
Gateway Pundit reported (emphasis in the original):
The media clearly did not fact check these stories. They ran the stories no matter how farfetched they were. It is clear from the number of stories dropped in the last week that this was a coordinated effort, probably from inside the Hillary Clinton campaign. The goal was not to present facts to the public. Their goal was to destroy Donald Trump.
All the details are at the link.
2/ Russia: According to the Democrats, Donald Trump and two of his past advisors, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone have ties to Russia and Vladimir Putin. None of them does. Manafort had a previous contract with Ukraine.
However, highly placed Democrats do have such links, as the Panama Papers revealed in April 2016:
Almost lost among the many revelations is the fact that Russia’s biggest bank uses The Podesta Group as its lobbyist in Washington, D.C. Though hardly a household name, this firm is well known inside the Beltway, not least because its CEO is Tony Podesta, one of the best-connected Democratic machers in the country. He founded the firm in 1998 with his brother John, formerly chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, then counselor to President Barack Obama, Mr. Podesta is the very definition of a Democratic insider. Outsiders engage the Podestas and their well-connected lobbying firm to improve their image and get access to Democratic bigwigs.
John Podesta oversees Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Furthermore, in 2013, Rosatom — Russia’s atomic energy agency — acquired control of one-fifth of America’s uranium production capacity. Crucial to the deal were the Clinton Foundation and the then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The New York Times reported:
At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.
… the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation …
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
3/ WWIII/nuclear war: Neither of these has anything to do with Donald Trump.
In 2008, Rahm Emanuel, now mayor of Chicago, but then a prominent member of Obama’s campaign team said (emphases mine below):
You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.
Such as martial law or postponing the election.
I do not think that will happen this year, but the longer the US has Democrats in the White House, the more plausible those become in future.
Similarly, where there is no crisis, the Democrats see nothing wrong in inventing one for the same nefarious purposes.
This brings us to what happened last week. On Friday, October 14, Wikileaks tweeted:
NBC: White House claims it told CIA to prep plans to launch a cyber attack against Russia [Ed: creating ‘war’ to ensure a ruling party win]
US ruling party also authorized, filmed and promoted a very public armed attack on Yemen, Wednesday.
Tonight is Trump’s last chance to not only compose but also perform his symphony for and to the American people.
His topics are the various sections of his rhetorical orchestra. He will need to blend these together in a melodious, harmonious way that resonates with all voters.
Deft precision is required in order for it to become an American classic by November 8.
What follows are the various movements. In classical music — or even good modern tunes — certain instrumentals and refrains weave in and out throughout or between each movement, creating a cohesive work.
Donald Trump truly is a change candidate. It is unfathomable that Americans will see his like again for at least a generation, if not half a century. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
Therefore, change becomes the dominant theme unifying the others into a cohesive whole.
He refers to support of his campaign as a movement, one to Make America Great Again (MAGA). (Ronald Reagan’s 1980 slogan was ‘Let’s make America great again’. Trump knows this.)
Trump reiterated the change theme during his speeches on October 18 in Colorado:
his ideas are “an agenda of change, we’re not going to let them change greatest moment in history”
No doubt he will say the same tonight.
On October 17, Trump rolled out his Ethics Reform Plan.
It involves doing away with the ‘Clinton Cartel’ and its associated cronyism:
First: I am going to re-institute a 5-year ban on all executive branch officials lobbying the government for 5 years after they leave government service. I am going to ask Congress to pass this ban into law so that it cannot be lifted by executive order.
Second: I am going to ask Congress to institute its own 5-year ban on lobbying by former members of Congress and their staffs.
Third: I am going to expand the definition of lobbyist so we close all the loopholes that former government officials use by labeling themselves consultants and advisors when we all know they are lobbyists.
Fourth: I am going to issue a lifetime ban against senior executive branch officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.
And Fifth: I am going to ask Congress to pass a campaign finance reform that prevents registered foreign lobbyists from raising money in American elections.
This worked well in his two Colorado speeches in Colorado Springs and Grand Junction:
Trump repackages idea seemingly popular w/ Colorado crowd, “I’m going to push for constitutional amendment to put term limits” on Congress.
“It’s time to drain the swamp in Washington, D.C.” …
Trump claimed the plan would also jumpstart the economy.
“Not only will we end our government corruption, but we will end the economic stagnation,” he said.
Trump must play on the venality of the Democratic Party and ‘advocacy groups’ doing their work.
This ties in with his ethics proposals.
Wikileaks’ Podesta emails gave us an idea of the corruption in Hillary’s campaign. This is what Hillary’s campaign manager Robby Mook wrote:
Taking foreign donations is a crime.
Other crimes involve voter fraud, violent ‘protests’ and vandalising property belonging to the Republican Party and its supporters.
James O’Keefe’s first investigative video released on Monday, October 17, revealed that Democratic operatives and connected advocacy groups pay ‘protesters’ to disrupt Trump rallies and provoke fights. This is called bird dogging.
I cannot guarantee what will show on the still of the video, so please accept my apologies for any disgusting language. That aside, there’s 100% truth — in the following:
O’Keefe’s second video, which appeared on Tuesday, concerns voter fraud which does exist, regardless of Big Media’s denials. Again, my apologies for any foul language you might see on the screen:
Scott Foval was immediately fired from People for the American Way.
Bob Creamer, who also appears in the videos, stood down from his post at Democracy Partners.
Regardless, you will see or read about them again once the election is over.
Trump is aware of these videos:
the protestors are paid a lot by the DNC to protest … it’s a big story hardly covered by the media.
Complicit Big Media
Wikileaks’ Podesta emails have revealed that reporters from all the major news organisations are in close contact with the Clinton campaign.
I will go into this in more detail in another post, but Politico and New York Times reporters clear Clinton-related copy with Podesta and his team before publishing.
Television and newspaper reporters have been wined and dined at Podesta’s Washington, DC, home and elsewhere.
The debates have been a particular sticking point for both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. In 2015, DNC operative — current chairwoman — and then-CNN employee Donna Brazile gave questions to Hillary before a primary debate against Sanders.
During the presidential debates, in at least one incidence, the moderators or news organisations have been providing Clinton with debate questions in advance:
The questionable polls
Then we have polling that seems at odds with reality.
Trump supporters believe that their numbers are artificially down to depress support. We saw the same in Britain with Brexit which showed Remain winning nearly all bar one or two at the end. It was the same with our election in 2015. How surprised we were to find that the Conservatives won!
Some aggregate sites in the US, e.g. RealClearPolitics, do not show all polling companies’ data. Such aggregate sites say certain companies’ data or methods are ‘discredited’.
We can see why Donald Trump refers to the ‘rigged’ system.
Democrats have been saying it for years:
Democrats say Trump can’t say that:
The climax of Trump’s symphony concerns Billary.
Now that his presidency has passed into history, the Clinton Foundation has its tentacles everywhere and his wife hopes to enter the Oval Office in January, we can better understand their ‘partnership’. It brings with it certain privileges, as the photo at left explains.
There are too many issues and scandals to explore now. My past emails have touched on a few.
Trump might wish to feature a small interlude about Hillary’s temperament, especially after the Commander in Chief Forum moderated by NBC’s Matt Lauer:
The source of his information originated at a Comcast email address, the parent company of NBC. It is supposedly from members of the technical crew that worked the event and describes what happened moments after Clinton walked off the set. They described “a massive profanity-laced tirade” on the part of Clinton that was directed at Matt Lauer in particular, but had moments for others, including DNC Chairperson Donna Brazile.
As he learned, Clinton had been given all of the questions in advance but was tripped up by Lauer asking her something she hadn’t been given, throwing her completely off her game and script. The topic was a tricky one for Clinton, her use of an illegal home server for the storing, receiving and transmitting of government secret documents. One of those working the event for Comcast described her as visibly beginning to boil with the asking of that question.
Her outburst began immediately after she left the stage, with her first throwing a full glass of water into the face of her assistant, with manic, uncontrolled screaming beginning at that point. The source described Clinton as the “most foul-mouthed woman I’ve ever heard, and that voice at screech level – awful.”
She also had some racist condescending comments for the black DNC chairman, Brazile, including suggestions that she was better qualified to be the campaign’s janitor.
Trump can also give the audience a brief interlude of Jill Stein (Green candidate):
Trade and the nation
The theme of the closing movement must be jobs, Obamacare and the American people.
This new Trump ad is about fair — not free (globalist) — trade deals he will make in the interests of Americans:
He must also say that he will bring in truly affordable health care, unlike Obamacare which is crippling people financially:
More and more people are boarding the Trump Train, including Bernie’s supporters:
Trump supporters will hope that their candidate knocks it out of the park at a crossroads in American history, the likes of which we have not seen in the past 50 years.
If anyone still wants to vote for Hillary or a third party after reading this post, good luck to them.
On October 14, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by David Gelernter, who is a professor of computer science at Yale and author of America Lite, a critique of American education.
‘Trump and the emasculated voter’ sums up perfectly where many Americans see themselves this year. A summary with excerpts follows, emphases mine. (I have put the Google link in from Real Clear Politics, because the WSJ has a paywall. Click and open in a private window.)
Voters are unimpressed by both Obama and Hillary:
Mr. Obama is arch, patronizing, so magnificently weary of having to explain it all, again and again, to the dummies surrounding him. Mrs. Clinton has told us proudly how thoroughly she prepared for the first debate and has prepared to be president. For her, it is all a matter of learning your lines. Her whole life has been memorized in advance. Mr. Obama is at least sincere. Mrs. Clinton is as phony as a three-dollar bill, as a Clinton Global Initiative.
The Democrats are sniffy, fed up with ordinary Americans whom they regard as children:
Policy is for smart people, who are people of the left by definition—leftists having scored all those big successes over the years in foreign policy, race relations, policing, restarting wounded economies, making unsecured loans, running school systems and so on. On topics from Keystone to Guantanamo, Mr. Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t give a damn what people think—he no longer even tries to explain to the citizenry. Do your homework! Understand? …
Trump voters have noticed that, not just over Mr. Obama’s term but in recent decades, their own opinions have grown increasingly irrelevant. It’s something you feel, like encroaching numbness. Since when has the American public endorsed affirmative action? Yet it’s a major factor in the lives of every student and many workers. Since when did we decide that men and women are interchangeable in hand-to-hand combat on the front lines? Why do we insist on women in combat but not in the NFL? Because we take football seriously. That’s no joke; it’s the sad truth.
Did we invite the federal bureaucracy to take charge of school bathrooms? I guess I missed that meeting. The schools are corrupt and the universities rotten to the core, and everyone has known it since the 1980s. But the Democrats are owned by the teachers unions, and Republicans have made only small-scale corrections to a system that needs to be ripped out and carefully disposed of, like poison ivy.
Gelernter calls such Americans Emasculated Voters. He is not wrong:
The Emasculated Voter to whom no one pays any attention is the story of modern democracy. Instead of putting voters in charge, we tell them they’re in charge, and it’s just as good.
Along came Donald Trump who wasted no time in tackling left-wing shibboleths like immigration:
The liberal theory is that, other things being equal, all human beings have an equal right to settle in America. For liberals this is too obvious to spell out. But it is also too ludicrous to defend. Does all mankind have a right to camp in your backyard, eat in your kitchen, work at your office and borrow your best jogging outfit? We fail in our duty if we don’t think carefully whom we want in this country, who would be best for America.
Yes! I have written in a similar vein this year in response to a few churchgoers who say the US must accommodate illegal immigrants. I did not hear from them after that.
Then there is the Muslim question:
… freedom of religion means freedom for American citizens—what else could it possibly mean? We must not admit, as possible future citizens, anyone we don’t choose to; anyone we don’t think will be good for America. Not to admit Muslims is bad policy but it does not violate freedom of religion and the American people have a perfect right to discuss and debate it.
Hillary acts as if she owns the White House from her previous role in Billary (1992-2000). Yes, but, Trump is so unpredictable, many voters say.
Gelernter has this magnificent response:
Nothing can stop Mr. Trump from shooting off his mouth, but that’s all right. I want America’s enemies off-balance and guessing. For eight years it’s been Humiliate America season—buzz our ships, capture and embarrass our men, murder an American ambassador—a resoundingly successful attempt to spit in our faces and tell each one of us to drop dead. Thanks, Mr. President. Enough is enough. You know that Hillary is Obama Part III. We can’t let that happen. Parts I and II have brought us close enough to catastrophe.
That is the problem for those whose integrity or nobility won’t allow them to vote for Mr. Trump despite their dislike of Mrs. Clinton. There is only one way to take part in protecting this nation from Hillary Clinton, and that is to vote for Donald Trump. A vote for anyone else or for no one might be an honest, admirable gesture in principle, but we don’t need conscientious objectors in this war for the country’s international standing and hence for the safety of the world and the American way of life. It’s too bad one has to vote for Mr. Trump. It will be an unhappy moment at best. Some people will feel dirty, or pained, or outright disgraced.
But when all is said and done, it’s no big deal of a sacrifice for your country. I can think of bigger ones.
So can millions of Americans!
Unfortunately, a number of WSJ readers strongly disagreed with the editorial. Well, they can reap what they sow on November 8.
This reminds me of two graphics I saw recently.
The first is from Silence is Consent:
The second is from The Conservative Treehouse:
Make America Great Again! Trump/Pence 2016!
A human heartbeat comes earlier than previously thought.
This is further evidence against the popular ‘pro-choice’ belief that a foetus remains a ‘lump of cells’ for months on end.
A study finds an unborn baby’s first heartbeat occurs as early as 16 days after conception.
A research team funded by the British Heart Foundation (BHF) at the University of Oxford says a baby’s first heartbeat is now far earlier than was previously understood, reports the Daily Mail.
The objective of the research is to help treat congenital heart disease. However, this points out how early the human foetus begins to develop.
The Daily Mail article explains that researchers (emphases mine):
have demonstrated earlier beating of the heart in mouse embryos which, if extrapolated to the human heart, suggests beating as early as 16 days after conception.
In the study, published today in the scientific journal eLife, researchers studied the developing mouse heart and found that the muscle started to contract as soon as it formed the cardiac crescent – an early stage in heart development.
In mice, this crescent forms 7.5 days after conception, which is equivalent to day 16 in the human embryo.
Previously, it was thought that the heart started to contract a stage later, when the heart appears as a linear tube.
Congenital heart disease is diagnosed in at least 1 in 180 births, which equates to around 4,000 each year or 12 babies each day, in the UK.
The researchers ultimately hope that by understanding more about how the heart forms in the womb they will one day be able to prevent heart conditions that arise as a foetus develops.
God has the development of His creatures — including mankind — planned as only He can.
We begin functioning very early. This should put a big question mark around abortion in everyone’s mind.
Abortion is the taking of human life.
The ancient Jews never practised abortion. This is why it is not mentioned in the Bible.
When the early Church began to expand into Greece and the Roman Empire, provision had to be made to condemn the practice.
This is how the document known as the Didache (‘did-uh-kay’) came to be written. Excerpts follow from my post from 2009 (emphases mine):
There appear to be no records or treatises on abortion for social reasons prior to the ancient Greek Empire in its decline.
Hippocrates — he of the oath which doctors take — made the first mention of the procedure and instructed physicians of the day not to give an expectant mother drinks or potions fatal to the child in the womb. By the time he devised the Hippocratic Oath, social abortion was becoming more commonplace among the ancient Greeks.
Social abortion continued when the Roman Empire was in its decline. They were the first to legalise against it. The Romans ordered the mother into exile. Those involved with procuring or administering the necessary potion were exiled to an island if they were from the upper classes or sentenced to work in metal mines if they were from lower social classes.
The early fathers of the Christian Church wrote the Didache which dealt not only with abortion but also other sins, e.g. witchcraft, which were unknown to the Jews.
Author and lecturer Dr Paul L Williams explains the early opprobrium regarding abortion and how it became infused into Roman society:
‘You shall not kill an unborn child or murder a newborn infant.’ This equation of abortion with homicide was upheld by Tertullian, the father of Latin theology. In his treatise ‘On the Veiling of Virgins’ (206 A.D.), this Church father railed against women who ‘conceal their sinful failures’ by committing ‘homicide’ by means of procured abortions. In 250 A.D., St. Cyprian maintained that abortion represented a crime far worse than ‘parricide’.
A century later, the Church in Spain declared abortion a sin of ‘double damnation’ when it was the result of fornication (pre-marital sex) or adultery. The guilty woman was forbidden from taking Holy Communion for the rest of her life, including on her deathbed.
Later penalties included those for murderers. Eventually, any society which had converted to Christianity, like the Visigoths, prohibited abortion.
But, these days, it’s a legal ‘right’. Some ‘progressive’ thinkers would like to extend that ‘right’ to infancy.
Very wrong. Very wrong.
The WikiLeaks dumps are fascinating.
Too bad there are no show-stoppers yet that would bury Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
However, here is something that Catholics might be interested in.
WikiLeaks email ID 6293 calls for a ‘Catholic Spring’. Sandy Newman, who is Jewish, is the president of Voices for Progress. In 2012, he wrote the following to John Podesta (emphases mine throughout):
This whole controversy with the bishops opposing contraceptive coverage even though 98% of Catholic women (and their conjugal partners) have used contraception has me thinking . . . There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic church. Is contraceptive coverage an issue around which that could happen. The Bishops will undoubtedly continue the fight. Does the Catholic Hospital Association support of the Administration’s new policy, together with “the 98%” create an opportunity?
Of course, this idea may just reveal my total lack of understanding of the Catholic church, the economic power it can bring to bear against nuns and priests who count on it for their maintenance, etc. Even if the idea isn’t crazy, I don’t qualify to be involved and I have not thought at all about how one would “plant the seeds of the revolution,” or who would plant them. Just wondering . . .
We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United.
Catholics would do well to be leery of such organisations.
Note the words ‘We created’ and ‘organize’. That should give Catholics pause for thought.
When I initially read that email exchange, I was not sure whether to post on it. Was it nothing or something?
So, I dug around a bit and found Bill Donohue’s Catholic League site.
In ‘Podesta must now be fired’, he tells us that both the organisations Podesta names are Soros funded:
Both of these groups, Catholics in Alliance and Catholics United, were created by Podesta, and funded by Soros, for the express purpose of staging a revolt within the Catholic Church.
Donohue went on CNN on October 23, 2008 — weeks before Obama was elected to his first term — to expose the Soros connection. Catholics United got the IRS onto him:
Catholics in Alliance is known for sponsoring dissident Catholics, including priests, to give talks around the nation. Catholics United was the force behind a contrived effort by the IRS to go after me in 2008.
The latter story is illuminating.
On October 23, 2008, I appeared on CNN to discuss the George Soros connection to Catholics United. Before I went on, Chris Korzen of Catholics United contacted CNN in an effort to have me booted. Fortunately, he was so stupid as to share with a producer a lengthy document (it was leaked to me) detailing how unfair I had been to Barack Obama, especially noting his rabid support for abortion.
I say Korzen was stupid because when the IRS contacted me the next month, right around Thanksgiving, I recognized the complaint: it was basically the same as the one that Korzen’s lawyers had sent to CNN.
(The IRS probe finally ended without penalties.)
Podesta suggested that Kathleen Kennedy Townsend might be a go-to person for Catholic Spring.
Donohue tells us:
On March 29, 2012, I quoted her saying that the Catholic Church’s teachings “encourage bigotry and harm.”
Any Catholic who thinks that the Podesta-Soros connection is just another activist alliance is kidding himself. They are creating and funding a campaign to promote a revolution in the Catholic Church.
In ‘Clinton must sanction her bigoted chiefs’, he provides quotes from Podesta — Clinton’s campaign manager — and Jennifer Palmieri, her communications director:
Their contempt for Catholicism is palpable. Documents have surfaced showing that they ridiculed News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch, and Wall Street Journal managing editor Robert Thomson, for raising their children Catholic.
He quotes the documents but does not say whether they are online. You can read the quotes at the link. The language and content are offensive.
Die-hard Democrats will say, ‘So what?’
However, should Hillary Clinton reach the Oval Office again — because it’s never been a secret that she and Bill co-governed — who knows how far this could reach?
Conservative Protestants should also take this on board. They, too, could be affected adversely in time.
Donohue wants Clinton to sanction Podesta.
Because of the duplicitous nature of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party, to borrow Hillary’s own words about Benghazi: ‘What difference, at this point, does it make?’
Can you imagine, though, if Donald Trump’s team said such things? Donohue says:
If Trump’s inner circle spoke with derision about transgender persons, the sirens would be sounded by the mainstream media and his operatives would be hung out to dry.
You bet they would.
Duplicitous Democrats: bad for Catholics, bad for America.
However, the Trump campaign are already on to this. On October 12, they condemned the email during a conference call with the press. Kellyanne Conway and others also called for action to be taken.
Of course, no action will be taken. Regardless, what this does do is point out how anti-Catholic the Clinton campaign people are, even if they have seemingly Catholic names. A great ruse.
Conway, a married mother of four, said:
The hostility to religious liberty and the beliefs that we hold as Catholics should not go unnoticed or unpunished.
Newt Gingrich, a convert to Catholicism, said:
“Now we know what Hillary meant by ‘deplorables’ — it was people of faith,” Gingrich reacted to the email.
He said that this should raise concerns to voters about the Supreme Court justices Clinton would appoint, suggesting she would select the “most anti-religious liberty” and “anti-free speech” justices.
Matt Schlapp of Trump’s Catholic advisory group said:
“We’ve all watched this campaign and the public discourse…now we know when the cameras are off and the doors are closed what senior campaign officials think about us. They think we’re backwards,” Schlapp charged, referencing the email mocking baptism. “To me, it demonstrates who the real bigots are in this race.”
Indeed. This is why Protestants should not rest easily.
Interested readers can follow #CatholicSpring on Twitter for the latest news and views.
POSTSCRIPT: My reader undergroundpewster, an Episcopalian, sent in an article by Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia for First Things. He describes a meeting two operatives from Catholics United had with him during the McCain/Obama campaign of 2008 then discusses Catholic Spring.
An excerpt follows:
They voiced great concern at the manipulative skill of Catholic agents for the Republican Party. And they hoped my brother bishops and I would resist identifying the Church with single-issue and partisan (read: abortion) politics.
It was an interesting experience. Both men were obvious flacks for the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party—creatures of a political machine, not men of the Church; less concerned with Catholic teaching than with its influence. And presumably (for them) bishops were dumb enough to be used as tools, or at least prevented from helping the other side. Yet these two young men not only equaled but surpassed their Republican cousins in the talents of servile partisan hustling. Thanks to their work, and activists like them, American Catholics helped to elect an administration that has been the most stubbornly unfriendly to religious believers, institutions, concerns and liberty in generations.
I never saw either young man again. The cultural damage done by the current White House has—apparently—made courting America’s bishops unnecessary.
Only one candidate this year will actively defend Christian principles and values: Donald J Trump.
The three-year Lectionary that many Catholics and Protestants hear in public worship gives us a great variety of Holy Scripture.
Yet, it doesn’t tell the whole story.
My series Forbidden Bible Verses — ones the Lectionary editors and their clergy omit — examines the passages we do not hear in church. These missing verses are also Essential Bible Verses, ones we should study with care and attention. Often, we find that they carry difficult messages and warnings.
20 So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it. 22 And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it.
Last week’s post, which concerned Matthew 23:16-19, discussed the first part of the second woe — judgement — that Jesus pronounced on the scribes and the Pharisees.
If you haven’t yet read it, those verses explain the context of today’s passage.
Jesus called the scribes and Pharisees spiritually ‘blind guides’ and ‘blind fools’ for encouraging a twisted means of swearing oaths, indicating promises the faithful made at the temple which were to be kept. Their ungodly system maintained that oaths made with gifts, sacrifices and gold were more binding than those made by the altar or by the temple. This is because they wanted people to put more money in the temple coffers — with which they lined their pockets.
Last week’s verses ended with this question from Jesus:
19 You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred?
He provides the answer in today’s reading.
Essentially, any and all types of oath made in the temple were binding because they were made in the name of the Lord.
First, swearing by the altar is swearing by the Almighty, to whose honour the Jews created it (verse 20). An oath made by the altar cannot be disregarded or non-binding merely because the altar is an object. That was the excuse the scribes and Pharisees told the faithful to use as a get-out clause. In reality, it was all the more binding because whatever was offered on it was given to God. Therefore, someone making an oath in that manner was actually invoking God’s witness to it. Matthew Henry explains:
Secondly, oaths made by the temple were equally binding (verse 21). The temple was God’s house as it was dedicated to His service and He dwelt therein. Therefore, swearing an oath there was doing so in His name.
Thirdly, there were the oaths made by heaven (verse 22). Jesus said that these were the most sinful (Matthew 5:34-35):
But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
(I’ll get to verse 35 shortly.)
Making an oath by heaven is swearing by the throne of God in His kingdom. It is the most direct type of oath made in His name.
That said, God expects anyone who makes these types of oaths to fulfil them. Otherwise, as Henry tells us:
he resents the affront done to him in the form of the oath, so he will certainly revenge the greater affront done to him by the violation of it.
Christ will not countenance the evasion of a solemn oath, though ever so plausible.
Therefore, we can better understand Matthew 5:35, which forbids any type of oath because God created earth, and Jerusalem is His holy city (Psalm 48:2).
John MacArthur explains that swearing by anything is swearing by the Almighty:
I mean, everything you touch eventually is going back to God, right? You swear by anything that represents God, a gift, an altar, the gold of the temple, the temple, the heaven of heavens, the throne of God and you’re going to touch the God who fills it all.
In other words, have you forgotten that God is everywhere, as creator of all and Lord of all?
But, if you’re going to make an oath, you’d better keep it, because you made it in God’s name. This is why people only make one in a court of law and it is taken so seriously that to violate that oath is criminal.
As for the Pharisees and scribes telling people certain types of oaths were more binding that others, MacArthur says that Jesus was telling them:
They subverted the truth. They developed reasoning that undermined truth.
He warns that false teachers in our churches do much the same thing in different ways:
False spiritual leaders don’t tell the truth folks, but they parade [piety]. Try to cover up for their lying pretense. We need to be careful of that. They subvert whole houses. They by their great covetousness, says Peter, use feigned words to make merchandise out of you. They lie. They say they need money when they don’t need money. They say God told them something, when He never told them anything. They say Jesus led them into something, when He never led them into anything. They lie. Beware of those liars who are false spiritual leaders.
We have seen that happen with televangelists and faith healers who then get involved in terrible scandals. They dupe people, especially for money.
Cults and sects are also common hunting grounds for false teachers in search of naive believers.
This is yet another reason why it is so important to know and understand the Holy Bible.
Regularly praying for discernment is a great thing. The Holy Spirit is always there to help us.
This brings to mind Jesus’s counsel to the Apostles when He sent them out on their trial ministry (Matthew 10:16):
“Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
Be nice, be good but be careful.
Next time: Matthew 23:23-24
Since the 2005 Billy Bush/Donald Trump tape was leaked last Friday, timed with the Wikileaks drop of the Democrats’, including Hillary Clinton’s emails, the Deplorables have resolved to fight on — with or without the GOPe.
WARNING: This post has Clinton-related content and some links with language unsuitable for children. I apologise in advance, but the truth must come out, no matter how distasteful.
The Deplorables’ situation
It is essential to understand what the Deplorables experience in American life.
Many worry how they will get by. Tax increases are a huge issue.
One Pittsburgh resident — an ex-Hillary supporter — describes what he and his family members experience. Excerpts and a summary follow. I have edited spelling and grammar.
How is it there is not enough tax to make sure homeless veterans are taken care of, yet the United States can afford to send countless mobile phones to Africa? There are more sanctuary cities for notional refugees, yet there is not enough tax revenue to finance Social Security for older Americans.
Taxes continue to increase, but (emphases mine):
Burden is shared. I have no say … Where does that money go? Same thing with the lottery; where is that cash? Tax tax tax … My school dropped German and French. My dad gets 1700 a month social security. He has no 401k. He had six kids all of whom pay lots of taxes. He always paid his taxes. My mom became a nurse once dad [left]. She has some money but how many people know it was under Clinton that food was excluded from COLA? I said from the beginning Obamacare was about privatizing Social Security. Demand you pay for health care, we can demand you pay for retirement. Think of the money. Trillions to be made: what choice would you have? You might support a homophobic misogynist regime like Saudi Arabia every hour you worked and paid a tax as Supreme Court ruled Obamacare went through; why not retirement?
Then, there is the elite’s perception of these Americans, from 2008 to the present. The main author of The Crawdad Hole — ex-Clinton supporters for the most part — has a Twitter description which sums it up perfectly:
Obama called me a bitter clinger. Hillary called me deplorable. Terrorists call me an infidel. Trump calls me an American.
I do not know how many of my readers have seen the following tee shirt, which originated with Infowars, but a lot of anti-Hillary voters are wearing it:
After the Billy Bush/Donald Trump tape was released, the GOP elite denounced Trump.
Trump was supposed to appear in Wisconsin last Saturday, October 8, but a sanctimonious Paul Ryan — Speaker of the House — rescinded his invitation to the state’s annual GOP fundraiser.
Attendees paid $30 apiece to get in. They expected to see Trump.
ELKHORN, Wisconsin — In a jarring illustration of the chaos now engulfing the Republican Party, supporters of Donald Trump clashed bitterly with GOP leaders at a rally here Saturday — booing elected officials, heckling Paul Ryan, and angrily demanding greater establishment support for their beleaguered presidential nominee …
When, early in the event’s program, Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel tried to address the recently leaked video that has sent Trump’s campaign into a tailspin, the crowd erupted in angry protest.
“Get over it!” one heckler yelled.
“Trump! Trump! Trump!” others chanted.
Appearing taken aback by the reaction, Schimel made a brief nod toward support for the nominee — “Donald Trump will appoint judges that will defend our Constitution” — and then quickly changed the subject.
Other elected officials became more combative with the audience. When Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner talked about how voters had been coming to the Fall Fest for years to support Ryan and other local Republicans, hecklers shouted, “Not anymore!” and, “I’m for Donald Trump!”
“Why don’t you listen to what I have to say instead of interrupting me?” Sensenbrenner snapped. Soon, the 73-year-old congressman was in a shouting match with the Trump supporters in the crowd. “Listen to me, please,” he kept repeating, before ordering the audience to “clean up your act.”
By the time it was Ryan’s turn to speak, the mood had grown indisputably hostile. He took the stage to scattered boos, and shouts of, “What about Donald Trump?” and, “Shame on you!” …
Trump supporters are now unlikely to vote down ticket for Republicans who have shunned their candidate.
This is audience reaction to Ryan’s speech:
One young man wore a RAPE shirt with Bill Clinton’s image on it — another popular Infowars product.
Alex Jones is giving between $1,000 and $5,000 to anyone who can get captured on camera with it at a rally. More money is given to those who can stay on camera for several seconds and mention Infowars.
Alex is looking forward to hearing from this man who turned up at Clinton’s October 11 rally in Detroit. Not only will he receive $5,000, but he will be invited for an interview on the Infowars show:
How he was able to get one of the privileged places on the podium will make for an interesting story.
Townhall has a really clear close up.
Amazingly, the woman with the slogan ‘Stronger Together’ and who is a self-described tireless advocate of minorities had this reaction:
Hillary Clinton sarcastically laughed as the man was shoved down the stairs and she told people outside the event to “follow him” and “stage an intervention.”
Wow! I hope the man stayed safe.
I bet Big Media will ignore that story.
At an Obama rally for Clinton, a man and a woman paraded beneath the stage in Greensboro on Tuesday, October 11. Each wore homemade ‘Bill Clinton Rapist’ tee shirts (8 seconds in).
An American Lookout article says that Obama was interrupted again by other protesters:
The second and third times by people yelling about Bill Clinton and rape.
The article continues (emphases in the original):
These protesters are everywhere!
Will the mainstream media finally do some reporting on what these people are saying? On what they’re willing to get arrested for to say? …
It’s become counter-cultural to be Conservative. Conservatives are now the rock stars. The punk rockers of politics.
And these are courageous citizens! They’re standing up against Obama, the Clintons and the Mainstream Media to shout the truth!
At the weekend in Bakersfield, the city’s local Business Conference took place.
Hundreds of people showed up to hear conservative commentator Laura Ingraham (LifeZette) speak in support of Trump.
Gateway Pundit has a brief excerpt of the crowd cheering:
THIS IS AN AMAZING VIDEO–
Thousands of voters at the Bakersfield Business Conference tell the GOP to stand by Donald Trump and FIGHT!
The same day that Trump supporters booed Wisconsin GOPe types, Nevada Rep. Joe Heck disavowed the candidate. The audience booed him:
Breitbart reports that Heck has fallen prey to the George Soros funded Common Defense PAC, notionally comprised of military veterans, and a MoveOn.org petition hidden within (emphases mine):
Common Defense PAC has a simple mission statement: “As veterans, we swore to protect the rights of every American. We continue to fulfill this promise by standing against Donald Trump.” Its “leadership team” page on its website lists sixteen military veterans with no contact information for them.
On its Facebook page, the PAC features a video from a different super PAC in which a mainstream reporter asks Nevada congressman Joe Heck if he trusts Trump having the nuclear codes.
“Watch this. Share it. Then sign the petition to tell Congressman Heck to disavow Donald Trump,” says Common Defense PAC, with the link to the petition: fornevadasfuture.com/heck.
But the petition is actually a MoveOn.org petition called “Joe Heck: Disavow Donald Trump.”
One can be pretty sure that Heck and the rest of the GOPe don’t know the men behind the PAC:
Common Defense PAC is registered with the Federal Election Commission at a P.O. Box in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. The group’s treasurer is Jonathan Matthew Smucker, a Berkeley doctoral student, activist, and radical writer who did not return a request for comment for this report.
The PAC’s July quarterly filing report with the FEC only lists one donor: a Baltimore IT consultant named Marjorie Roswell who gave $20,000 on June 30.
Perry O’Brien is the group’s director. O’Brien is a longtime left-wing activist.
O’Brien was a medic in Afghanistan with the 82nd Airborne and received a discharge in 2004 for being a conscientious objector.
Perry O’Brien personally started a MoveOn.org petition called “Tell GOP leaders to disavow Trump and his attacks on veterans.” The petition, which has 121,242 signatures as of this writing, is “To be delivered to Sen. John McCain, Sen. Mitch McConnell, Rep. Paul Ryan, and all GOP leaders.”
Well, there you go. It worked. Don’t Republicans investigate these things? It took me a simple Internet search.
What Deplorables will remember
On Tuesday, October 11, Laura Ingraham analysed the disparity between GOPe and their core voters:
The vast majority of Republicans want Donald Trump to be president … they have come together in an effort to save the country from Hillary Clinton.
A small minority of Republicans do not want Donald Trump to be president. They prefer Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately for most of the Republican Party, this small group of angry dissenters includes many of the people at the top of the party — officeholders, major donors, “strategists,” and “conservative” pundits. These people have been able to leverage their connections with the mainstream press to repeatedly attack Trump — even though they refuse to say anything nice about Hillary.
… instead of having an honest discussion as to whether the GOP should be a globalist party or a nationalist party, everything dissolves into personal attacks.
When this election is over, the vast majority of Republicans are going to remember that their supposed leaders — the same officeholders, millionaires, and pundits who told them that they had to “come together” and support John McCain and Mitt Romney — refused to do the same for Donald Trump. They will know that what they have long suspected is true — the Republican Party is led by people who have more in common with the Clintons than with the GOP base. And that knowledge will affect the future of the GOP for years to come.
The biggest irony in all this is that, as one pro-Trump Rep. Steve King of Iowa said, quoting a fellow congressman:
“He said, ‘If you are so worried about a sexual deviant in the White House, helping Hillary Clinton will put Bill Clinton in the White House,’” King paraphrased.
Very true, indeed.