Donald’s Trump’s nationalism and protectionism will rebuild America

I am conservative Christian and despite many differences I have with Donald Trump I have supported him for President since the beginning of his candidacy last year. Donald Trump is neither a conservative candidate nor a liberal candidate but rather he is a populist and protectionist candidate.

First I want to dispel the notion that protectionism is incompatible with free market capitalism and conservatism.

Protectionism is NOT incompatible with free market capitalism and conservatism

Since Republicans began to abandon protectionism in the 1990s and joined the Democrats in embracing a pure free trade ideology some of them have tried to convince Republicans and conservatives that protectionism was incompatible with free market capitalism and conservatism. This could not be further from the truth.

The truth is that since the time of Lincoln the Republican Party has been a protectionist party. In fact even before that most Presidents of either party going back to our first Presidents were protectionists. Even though “tariff” is swear word today in modern politics until the 16th Amendment was adopted in 1913 the majority of the federal government’s income came from tariffs on goods from other nations.

The Democrats lead by FDR in 1932 successfully convinced Americans that tariffs had led to the great depression.  See a larger discussion debunking this myth at http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/04/protectionism_didnt_cause_the.html

While free traders like to laud Reagan as free trader purist this is not historically accurate.

“President Reagan often broke with free-trade dogma. He arranged for voluntary restraint agreements to limit imports of automobiles and steel (an industry whose interests, by the way, I have represented). He provided temporary import relief for Harley-Davidson. He limited imports of sugar and textiles. His administration pushed for the “Plaza accord” of 1985, an agreement that made Japanese imports more expensive by raising the value of the yen.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/opinion/06lighthizer.html?_r=0

Our founders as well as most Presidents up until the early 20th century believed in free market capitalism in conjunction with protectionism.  What that means is they believed that within the United States trade should be free and markets should be free but at they believed strongly in protecting the economic interests of the United States from the interests of other nations.

I am glad that Donald Trump is successfully being able to make the case to Americans that we need to bring back the historic protectionism that our nation used to embrace.  Donald Trump is actually the first President since Ronald Reagan to be winning over many blue collar Democrats who are tired of watching their jobs being sent overseas.

Donald Trump’s Nationalism is good for our nation

Nationalism is the idea of rally a people around common historic and cultural values. We need Presidents that will put the American people and the American culture first.  This is why Donald Trump’s immigration message is ringing so true with millions of Americans. We should be able to tightly control the immigrants coming into this nation whether they be from Mexico or Middle Eastern countries and no it is not racist to want to protect cultural balance of your country.

Donald Trump is the natural successor to Pat Buchannan

Most people may not remember but many things on Donald Trump’s platform especially regarding his protectionist and immigration policies mirror that of another Presidential Candidate back in 2000 – Pat Buchannan.  But the reason Donald Trump is succeeding where Pat Buchannan failed is because our nation has actually seen what Pat Buchannan prophesied would come true.  American has seen its manufacturing industry decimated over the last 16 years under Bush’s and Obama’s free trade policies.  Also our culture is rapidly changing because of the lax immigration policies of 16 years of Bush and Obama.

The other reason Trump is succeeding where Buchannan failed is because he has two things Buchannan did not.  He has a powerful persona like Reagan did (albeit very different from Reagan) and he has been extremely successful in the business world where Buchannan was more of a politician.

Why am I voting for Trump even though he is not a strong Christian?

Probably the biggest difference between Trump and Buchannan is the difference in their faiths.  Buchannan is a man of deep faith where Trump is not.  For some Christians this might be an issue but for me it is not.

I am not voting for the Pastor of my Church but rather I am voting for the President of my nation. Often time’s men who make great Pastors would not make great Presidents and vice versa. I do not kid myself that Donald Trump is even a true Christian.  He might believe in God but that is about it. But I am not voting for him based on his faith but rather on his policies and my faith in his ability to protect the economy, security and culture of this nation.

I am also trusting in the fact that while he may not be a strong Christian – he has pledged to protect the freedoms of Christians to worship and conduct their businesses according to their faith.  That is good enough for me.

I encourage my fellow Christians, conservatives and Republicans to join me in voting for Donald Trump tomorrow on Super Tuesday.

Photo Source for Donald Trump:
By Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=39399660

500 Pastors committed to running for Political office in 2016

The American Renewal Project has already received commitments from over 500 Pastors nationwide to run for various political offices in 2016.   Their goal is get to 1000 pastors before the election season begins. They claim to have a network of over 100,000 pastors that are associated with them.

The group not only encourages Pastors to run for local, state and national political offices but it also encourages its members to speaking openly and candidly about politics from the pulpit.

You can read more about them here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-evangelicals-idUSKBN0TU16M20151211#hciUvRuTeYsOrfcy.97

To all this I say AMEN!

Opponents will say “But this violates our Constitution’s separation of Church and state” and “This violates the IRS’s ban on Pastors talking about politics from the pulpit”.

Separation of Church and State not found in the Constitution

Most people think the modern American idea of “separation between church and state” can be found in the Constitution.  It is it not.

The idea of the separation of Church and State was first introduced into American society by a letter written from Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut.

Thomas Jefferson was trying to address the fears of certain Churches about legislatures trying to establish state Churches when he penned his famous words that would later be cited by many America courts:

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

In essence he was trying to establish the fact that the first amendment protected the Church FROM the State.  He never said anything about the State being protected from the influence of the Church.

Separation of Church and State enshrined in Supreme Court Case law

The legal concept of separation of Church and state based on Thomas Jefferson’s letter was first introduced into the American legal system by the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. United States (1879) when the Supreme Court said this:

 “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.”

But it was not until the 1947 Supreme Court case,  Everson v. Board of Education, that the full modern interpretation and usage of Thomas Jefferson’s comments were used the way they are today with things like prayer in public institutions and schools.

It really was a small case.  The issue was a New Jersey man sued his local school district for providing tax payer funded reimbursement for children to take public transportation to school whether it was public or private.  He argued that some of these private schools were religious and this amounted to the government endorsing a particular religion.

Justice Hugo black uttering Thomas Jefferson’s words to the Danbury Baptist association added his own when he stated:

“[t]he First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.”

In later years this 1947 landmark Supreme court case would be used to strip God and religion from every Public institution in America.  It is still being used today in cases that are filed every year.

The IRS’s 501(c)(3)  Ban on Churches endorsing political parties or candidates

In 1954 Senator Lyndon B. Johnson endorsed a change to a bill modernizing the tax code that would protect him from his political opponents – many of whom were Preachers in Churches in his home state where he was running for reelection as Senator.

This bill was meant to silence free political speech in Churches, something that up to this point had been an American tradition since the founding of our nation.

In recent years the Alliance Defending Freedom has begun taking on this unconstitutional legislation and has encouraged Pastors across the nation to practice civil disobedience against this law and specifically talk about political parties and candidates from their pulpits.

Should Christians and Churches get involved in politics?

Previously I stated that opponents of Pastors running for office say “This violates our Constitution’s separation of Church and state” and “This violates the IRS’s ban on Pastors talking about politics from the pulpit”.

I agree with them that this violates the Supreme Court’s made up law of “Separation of Church and State” and the IRS 501(c)(3) code.

But to not get involved and speak the Word of God and push for Biblical values in our society would be to violate the Word of God.  We are to stand for God’s truth in all areas of our world -not just in our private lives.

Does the Bible teach the concept of Civil disobedience?

Many non-Christians and liberal Christians who do not agree with applying Biblical principles to public life will cite this Scripture passage to tell Christians that they may never disobey the laws of the United States especially in regard to religious issues:

“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.” – I Peter 2:13-14 (KJV)

Absolutely we should obey the laws of our land, whether they be city ordinances or state and Federal law IF these laws do not overstep the authority that God has granted to these authorities.

God does not grant civil authorities any power over marriage, the family or the church. When the government steps into these realms of authority it has overstepped its bounds.  When the government tells us to do things that are against God’s Word, or to not do things that God has commanded us to do they have overstepped their God given authority.

The same Apostle Peter who wrote by the inspiration of God the passage cited above, also practiced civil disobedience to his authorities:

“And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,

Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” – Acts 5:27-29 (KJV)

The Bible is crystal clear here – when our civil authorities ask us to do something God has forbidden or not do something God commands or when they overstep their authority that God has given them we have not only a right, but a duty to practice civil disobedience.

Civil disobedience in the service of God is a proud tradition in Scripture – just look at the Hebrew midwives who hid babies from being killed and when Daniel refused to stop praying to God and many other instances of civil disobedience found in the Scriptures.

Am I arguing for a theocracy?

So am I saying Christians should try to establish a theocracy in America? No. But I am arguing for gradual move to a theonomy by changing our laws to be based on the moral law of God found in the Bible.

The difference between a theocracy and a theonomy is that a theocracy is nation directly established by God and typically ruled by God through his prophets.  God is not in the business right now of coming down and directly starting nations as he did with Israel.  Instead a theonomy is a nation established by men which bases its moral laws on the Bible. 

I believe God wants people to freely choose him and the government should not force people to attend Church or become Christians and yes our founding fathers did believe in a concept of separation of church state as I showed from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist association.  But their concept of separation of church and state and the modern concept we have are two very different things.

At Beeson Divinity School on May 2nd, 2000  Richard Land made the following observation about Jefferson’s Danbury Baptist association letter:

“Clearly, Jefferson saw no contradiction between his concept of church and state separation and having a gift personally presented to him at the White House with a promise of continued prayer by a prominent Baptist preacher on the morning of the very day he wrote to the Danbury Baptist ministers, and less than 48 hours later attending a Sunday morning worship service where that minister — John Leland — preached from the Speaker’s podium in the well of the U.S. House of Representatives”

– Dwayne Hastings, “Religious freedom champion John Leland also active in public policy, Land says”, Baptist Press, 2000. [Online]. Available: http://www.bpnews.net/5785/religious-freedom-champion-john-leland-also-active-in-public-policy-land-says.

Clearly the founders would not have endorsed our modern idea of separation of church and state where we use it to ban things like prayers in schools or graduation ceremonies.  These types of polices are actually attacks on the religious freedom that our founders fought for.

The founders were against state established Churches and mandating that people must attend church or pass religious tests to run for office.

But there is a big difference between advocating for laws that force people to attend a certain Church or be a certain religion and advocating for laws that support Biblical morality.

If I vote for laws banning abortion – that is not me forcing people to become Christians.  It is me voting on a moral issue based on my Christian faith.   If I vote for a law banning homosexual marriage that is not me forcing people to become Christians, that is me voting on a moral issue based on my Christian faith.

Most laws are based on the morality of the people and as Christians where should our moral foundation be found? The answer is God’s Word.

You cannot separate your faith from your politics, if you are a true Christian your faith should inform every choice you make including the choices you make at the ballot box.

I am proud of these Pastors running for public office trying to change the moral fabric of our nation – we need many more Christian men to stand up and do the same.

 

Lindsey Graham says we need to import other country’s kids

I was watching the first part of the second Republican debate tonight and Lindsey Graham said something like this in response to questions about American concerns about illegal immigrants taking American jobs, driving down wages and affecting the culture at large:

“I am against illegal immigration, but I am for more legal immigration. We used to have seven people to every one retiree, soon we will only have 2 people to every retiree and system will not function.  We need more workers and people from other countries to help support our system.”

There is an ugly truth behind what he was saying that he would never say nor will any other politician have the courage to say.

We as a nation are not having enough children.

The reason we are not having enough children is not because of a bad economy.  American has had many economic down turns and still had a much higher fertility rate than we have now. We have had a declining fertility rate for decades.

The reason we are having less children is because of two things – feminism and materialism. We look at children as burden from a financial standpoint and as holding women back from their careers pursuits.

We need to bring back a culture that looks at families(big families) as an honor, not something to be mocked. Our tax system should encourage marriage and larger families(at least 4 children per family, as opposed to the average of 2 that we have now.) We need to encourage stay at home motherhood with massive tax incentives for married stay at home moms and tax penalties on woman who are married with children and work.

If we do this we will no longer need to import other countries children to keep our system from failing, but we will stand on our own and keep our culture in the process.

“Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.” – Psalm 127:3

Census Bureau proposes to eliminate marriage and divorce questions

Young couple having marriage problems

The Census Bureau apparently thinks that tracking marriage and divorce rates in the United States is “low benefit and low cost category.” This is not the first time in recent years the Federal Government has cut research into marriage and family issues in the United States. Back in 1996, funding for detail marriage statistics that was given to the states for almost a century was cut.

I am all for cutting government waste.  Yes there have been stupid programs that studied things like “Why a Frisbee flies” and millions of other dollars wasted on such research.  But can anyone say with a straight face that the government monitoring what our marriage and divorce rates are is wasteful spending?

I would submit that most of the people who would say “yes it is wasteful”, are either those who are serial divorcees or those who have never been married because they see this institution of marriage as “outdated” and “unnecessary” for the health of society.  A few others who would oppose it would be privacy advocates, saying “its none of the government’s business”.

The underlying truth is, there is a certain group of people, some in very powerful and influential places of government and society, that want to take the spot light off marriage, cohabitation and divorce. These people come from all political persuasions, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian…etc).  They simply want to move the whole “marriage equation” from the political spectrum, because it creates problems for them when they are running for office.

For instance, Republican law makers have secretly said they wished the Supreme Court would just end the gay marriage debate by declaring it a constitutional right. This thinking is kind of ironic since most Republicans say they don’t like Courts “legislating from the bench”, which is what they would in essence be doing by granting this new right of gay marriage out of thin air.

I agree with what the President of The National Council on Family Relations recently said about this disturbing move by our Federal Government:

“The fact that a statistic as basic as the divorce rate is in question should be a source of concern to family scholars, educators, and practitioners. Given the importance of this topic, you might think that the federal government is committed to maintaining—and even enhancing—the quality of marriage and divorce data. But in a startling development last year, the U.S. Census Bureau (under pressure from Congress to cut costs) announced its intention to drop the marital transition questions from the ACS. The ACS is currently the best source of national and state data on the frequency of marriage, divorce, widowhood, and remarriage. And the ACS is the only data source that can measure marital trends in relatively small groups in the population, such as Asian Americans, Hispanic subgroups (e.g., Cubans and Puerto Ricans), and people in same-sex marriages. Losing this resource will have serious consequences for the quality of family research.”

-Paul R. Amato, Ph.D., NCFR president

https://www.ncfr.org/ncfr-report/current-issue/presidents-report-studying-divorce-and-couple-relationships-difficult-time

I consider myself a conservative, and I generally support conservative candidates for public office. I also support the downsizing of our Federal Government.  But this is one area where I completely disagree with some fellow conservatives in Washington looking to make cuts.  The family unit is the building block of society, it affects every aspect of our culture and the government should maintain the best statistics we can in this crucial area.  We should not be cutting this funding, but rather expanding it and restoring the cuts made to in 1996.

I encourage everyone(liberal, conservative or otherwise), the believes that marriage and family is bedrock of society, and the government should be tracking this information, to write their congressmen today to pressure them not allow this to be cut. Also write to the Census Bureau as well.