Advertisement

August 16, 2020
|

AFTERNOON EDITION

August 16, 2020 

By Mike Huckabee

"HUCKABEE" PREVIEW

Tune in tonight on TBN for a can’t-miss episode of “Huckabee!” I’ll talk to Rep. Devin Nunes about the latest on the “Russian collusion” hoax investigation and more. US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman will tell us about the historic peace deal President Trump just brokered between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. Chad Connelly will talk about the importance of people of faith voting and what his group Faith Wins is doing to help. Sean Hannity will pay a visit, along with hilarious stand-up comic Cory Rodrigues. And we’ll top it all off with music from “American Idol” winner Laine Hardy.

It’s all on the way tonight at 8 and 11 EST, 7 and 10 CST, only on TBN. To find where you can watch TBN, from local cable and broadcast channels to streaming, visit https://www.tbn.org/huckabee and click on the “WATCH” menu at the top. You can also stream previous episodes, highlights and Internet-only “Digital Exclusives,” like extended interviews and extra performances by our musical and comedy guests. It’s all at https://www.tbn.org/huckabee

MICHELLE O:  WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION SHOULD BE A PART OF "BROADER POLICY"

** This article was originally posted on August 8th.

Michelle Obama is in the news again.

It doesn't surprise us --- one of my writers has said for two years that the former First Lady would be on the ticket for 2020 --- but Michelle O is starting to take a higher profile now that doubts are being expressed more publicly about Joe Biden’s mental decline. We know that even if he makes it across the finish line to Election Day and (shudder) wins, the new VP will be taking his place soon in the Oval Office. Biden won’t be able to find the Oval Office, or tell an oval from a rectangle.

Putting Michelle –- or someone, but probably her –- in at the last minute was likely the plan all along. She’s black, she’s female, she's famous, there won't be much time to take a hard look, and for many Democrats and possibly independents, she puts an appealing and, yes, moderate face on the increasingly radical Democrat Party, a friendly image that they very badly need now. She’s been voted the Most Admired Woman in America, and even Most Admired worldwide! But Michelle Obama is NOT in the mainstream.

Watch, though, how she can take a leftist goal like income redistribution and skillfully finesse it to make it seem downright middle-of-the-road. Wednesday, in her new podcast (yes, she has a new podcast), she did just that in a conversation with Michele Norris. She called coronavirus an opportunity to think about “how wealth is distributed” to lower-income essential workers.

Read the transcript, and you’ll see how she lays the groundwork for “thinking” about wealth in a different way. “...We have to think about that [being essential],” she says, “in terms of how wealth is distributed.” As she goes on about this, it sounds so reasonable, so thoughtful, so compassionate, until you realize that the solution to this, in the mind of anyone on the left, will be a monstrous government program involving large-scale bureaucratically-calibrated income redistribution, with more pages of regulations than in Obamacare (which is a good real-world example of what I’m talking about).

Michelle even helps us understand why nothing in the budget is ever cut. “...All the things that we look to cut were put in place in response to some crisis.” I see. That’s why, once we have a government program, we can NEVER cut it. The crisis never goes away, so we always have to keep it as-is (or bigger).

More: “...We actually have power; we can...change so much of what we do, we can sacrifice a little more...we can shift priorities, and not just in our own lives, ‘cause IT’S NOT ENOUGH TO JUST DO IT IN YOUR OWN LIFE IF YOU’RE NOT WILLING TO DO IT IN OUR BROADER POLICY.” (Emphasis mine.) In other words, out of compassion, we have to force everyone to do what we would have them do. This kind of thinking can be used to rationalize all kinds of control and taken to tremendous lengths. Goodbye freedom.

"It’s in our country’s DNA to step up,” she says. But she warns that this is “always with great opposition, because you’re asking people to sacrifice, to give up things that, that they think they deserve, that they’re entitled to, for the sake of the greater good.”

See how she subtly suggests that the “opposition” is against personal sacrifice and the greater good? Why, some people are just selfish, that’s what they are, thinking they deserve things. We’ll decide who deserves things! And to do that, we’ll have to force everyone into a “broader policy.”

Beware. Someone with this kind of skill, teamed with the more pushy radicals like AOC and "the Squad," could take control of just about everything in your life. Trump 2020!

TO LEAVE ME A COMMENT ABOUT THIS ARTICLE, PLEASE GO TO MY WEBSITE HERE>>>

ICYMI:  AINSWORTH: WHAT I WISH TRUMP WOULD SAY IN "DEBATE"

** This article was originally posted on August 14th.

If (when!) Joe Biden’s campaign manages to weasel out of any debate appearances with President Trump, Trump's campaign should just buy some prime airtime, put him next to an empty chair (or maybe a cardboard cut-out of Biden), and have him give the opening statement he might have made in a real debate (but significantly longer, since Joe's not there). Here's what I wish he would say:

PRESIDENT TRUMP:

"My fellow Americans, I love my country –- I love America, with all my heart. I always have. And I feel really bad right now, because millions of Americans, just because they don’t like ME –- don’t like my style, don’t like my tweets, don’t like things they think I’ve said (most of which are twisted-up versions that convey something I never intended) –- are ready to vote for anybody but me. Anybody. I mean……..ANYBODY. That’s what “never-Trumper” means, after all; I know that. And THAT means, right now, this country is in big trouble.

“Because they don’t like ME, some Americans might unwittingly put into power a radical political machine that will decimate their most basic freedoms, with ruthless, violent tactics and a long list of demands that will change America into something unrecognizable, probably forever. (Some of this has been a long time coming, but because the virus hit, they’re jumping on the crisis as a way to take control quickly.)

"Because they don’t like ME, some Americans might unwittingly offer inroads to groups that literally want to destroy American cities --- that are ALREADY destroying American cities, GREAT American cities.

“Because they don’t like ME, some in our government abused our own justice system to try to bring me down, and if they get away with what they did, mark my word, they’ll do it again to the next leader they don’t like. They went so far as to accuse me, with no evidence at all except for what was falsified, of working as an agent of Russia. It was crazy –- 2020 will go down in history as “the year America went crazy.” Who needs Russia to interfere in our elections when we’ve got our own bureaucracy to do it, as well as various outside influences with virtually limitless resources, pouring money into radical leftist anti-American groups?

“Because they don’t like ME, some Americans ignore all that I did --- before the virus arrived from China to at least temporarily undo much of it --- to bring the economy back like gangbusters after years of weak semi-recovery. They ignore the incredible benefit that came out of that to hard-working Americans, men and women, of all races, in all walks of life.

“Because they don’t like ME, some Americans even ignore the legitimate work of some doctors and researchers because they think it’s more important to believe I’m wrong. And they forget that I was the one to stop incoming travel from China and Europe, which likely saved thousands of American lives, when my opponents ridiculed that.

“Because they don’t like ME, some Americans paint me as someone I don’t even know. Really, I don’t even recognize myself from what they say. If I met that person, I wouldn’t like him, either! They’ve said I only care about myself, when that is such a lie. I know, I know, it’s just politics. Say whatever you need to, right? (Like Kamala, she knows all about that.) But those of you who don’t like me need to understand: the object of your hatred is a phantom, something made up. My own style –- which can be misinterpreted, I know –- may have helped fixate that in your mind, as I’m obviously not a slick politician, but it’s still false.

“I don’t care a whole lot about that part of it, because I knew when I got into politics that it would be rough. I got into it anyway because I love my country and had a beautiful vision of what we could do. I kind of expected the lies from the politicians, but the media –- you have a lot to answer for. Because YOU don’t like me, you have become a shameful propaganda machine for my opponents. You are to journalism what potted meat is to chateaubriand. And it doesn’t seem to matter to you how this might damage our country in the long run. You just wanted Americans to hate me.

“And now, because you did your job and some of them DO hate me, they may be on the verge of putting into power a group of people, those on the far left, who don’t know what in hell they are doing. I mean, they don’t. We can all see they don’t, unless pure anarchy really is what they want. They’ve shown they can’t run cities. They can’t run states. They won’t enforce the law. They’ll gladly take away your police AND your means to defend yourself.

And everywhere they look, they see racism that in most cases isn’t even there, except in their own minds. They don’t understand that in our country, in just the past several decades, most hearts and minds have changed drastically about race, which is fantastic. And it was only going to get better. It’s as if for some reason they weren’t comfortable with that and wanted to do something, quite deliberately, to make it worse again. I wonder why that is?

These people don’t care about law and order. They don’t care about your personal freedom. They don’t care about learning from history; they want to rewrite it to fit their own agenda, which is to tear down the results of hundreds of years of hard work and incredible advancement.

“Now, simply because some Americans don’t like ME, America is in jeopardy of losing everything that makes it...America. I want you to be aware of this when you cast your vote. PLEASE don’t put our beloved country into the hands of people who are set on destroying its very foundation, and I am not exaggerating, not one bit. I love this country. I’ve showed you the kinds of things I can do for this country, to make it better for all. We’ll get through this virus, and you know I’m the one who needs to be in charge of the vibrant recovery we’ll need afterwards.

So I’m asking for your vote. Remember, it has to be a landslide vote that can be counted right away because so many people will be mailing in their ballots –- vote in person! –-and it has be decisive to save this country from even more chaos. More is at stake now than almost ever before in the history of our country, and I know you realize that. Thank you with all my heart, and God bless America.

TO LEAVE LAURA A COMMENT PLEASE GO TO MIKEHUCKABEE.COM HERE>>>

DEMOCRAT MEMO INSTRUCTS MEDIA ON COVERING KAMALA HARRIS

As if the mainstream media needed any help deciding how to treat Democrats with kid gloves, party operatives have actually sent a memo to media organizations telling them how and how not to cover Kamala Harris. As Tammy Bruce says in a must-read op-ed in the WASHINGTON TIMES, “the fact that they expected this partisan missive to be accepted and adhered to by media entities tells you all you need to know about the problem with today’s legacy media.”

The Democrats are wrapping their demands in identity politics. “The implication of the memo,” Bruce writes, “is that any critical coverage of her deemed unfair (and all would be deemed so) will be declared racist and/or sexist.” For extra emphasis, it even manages to work in the name of George Floyd.

Oh, and they just want to be “helpful.” It’s “challenging” this year to cover “a Black or Brown woman candidate.” (THEY capitalized those words; I’m sticking with the old stylebook, thank you.) So to “help” journalists, they say, “we intend to collectively and individually monitor coverage and we will call out those we believe take the country backwards with sexist and/or racist coverage. As we enter another historic moment, WE WILL BE WATCHING YOU.” (Emphasis mine.)

Among the women signing on to this travesty are Obama and Clinton operatives such as Valerie Jarrett.

Quite masterfully, Bruce makes the case that it’s this very letter and the assumptions behind it that are sexist, as they presume that a woman needs special treatment. It’s that idea that is disgusting. I don’t know if they plan to “monitor” opinion sites such as this one, but if they do, I’ll tell them right now that their warnings and demands will have precisely no effect on anything we say or don’t say about Kamala Harris, who essentially is running for the office of President, not VP, right now. As a candidate, she will be treated like anyone else of any race or gender running for such high office. And that means no kid gloves.

Though it’s generally not my style to put things this way, in this case I will: they can take their memo filled with implicit threats and shove it.

TO LEAVE ME A COMMENT ABOUT THIS STORY, PLEASE GO TO MY WEBSITE HERE>>>

BIBLE VERSE OF THE DAY (KJV)

 



Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

More Stories

Comments 1-14 of 14

  • Nancy Price

    08/17/2020 02:44 PM

    I thought I heard you say to sign up at ivote.com to read about all candidates or politicians and what they stand for, or have voted for etc. Google will NOT bring it up for me. Is there another way..or did I misunderstand?

  • LeeMar Zarr

    08/17/2020 01:42 PM

    Mike, or whomever reads these when are people going to stop wasting their "attentions" on all this bogus political game playing farce, and talk about, and more important DO! Everyone says we are at "War Against COVID." Therefore, why are NOT those whose job is to combat the enemy day after day and hour after hour (just like DOD military do), get "Hazard/Combat Pay!" The military can physically see the enemy as they are visible to the naked eye...these viruses are NOT visible to the naked eye plus these virus are AIRBORNE trained attackers! It is time that these pompous ass politicians including the President earn those fat paychecks with benefits that are scammed off the taxpayer (so far Trump takes no pay?), and do some good for the people that really deserve and need it,,,,,,if I was a poly-tick-shammer I'd be so ashamed to claim that title!
    Do the right thing and recommend, vote and approve Combat Hazard pay for those that put themselves in harms way everyday because that is their "Just Over Broke" (JOB)!

  • Walt Miller

    08/17/2020 01:20 PM

    I would like to know who are the people that admire Michelle Obama. I believe this is all political to help get her into the White House.

  • Jerry korba

    08/17/2020 10:04 AM

    Listening to biden and Harris is like preparing for a colonoscopy older people know what a treat that is people on the left are delusional incoherent they say one thing and do the opposite why bother hoping for something sane it will not happen unless you are into total destruction of the country only than do they make any sense

  • Stephen Russell

    08/17/2020 08:57 AM

    Media covering Kamala:

    Waiting on 1 minor media error & then see the Media divide itself even more
    Hoorah
    A divided media cannot Stand

  • Jerry Korba

    08/16/2020 07:26 PM

    Anti American MSM is so unwatchable I had to get away. Chris Wallace is playing the 2 Anti American leftist Candidates idea of Justice we Open a case and just shut it no in-between no evidence, no facts, reasonable doubt guilty if its American your guilty of something we will figure out what it is later 15 years from now.that is the Harris way. The new Jersey Governor gave some reassuring facts about mail in ballots going to the wrong residents, addresses, he says the committee is still learning how to fix the problems less than 3 months away he is solid the guy is a solid anti american where does, these people come from Wuhan China they are as bad as its virus. Murphy just anti American

  • William Fuhrer

    08/16/2020 07:19 PM

    In honor of Bernie Sanders: Joe Biden and Kamela Harris should be listed as SOCIALISTS on ballots

  • Floyd A Unger

    08/16/2020 06:52 PM

    Boy....scary times.....very scary

  • Elizabeth Crouse

    08/16/2020 06:39 PM

    Watched your program last night. Always great.
    I don’t believe the so called polls. I am voting for Trump because he is the best proven leader. But, I have not heard anyone who says they are voting for Biden, so I don’t believe the polls.

  • JODY K SMITH

    08/16/2020 06:14 PM

    Mr. President,
    You have our vote ... We are conservatives, We are not afraid to praise our Lord and Savior, We are not afraid to tell people about Jesus and the good news. We are sad, disgusted, confused, and simply do not understand why the Democrats want America to fall. How is it that they keep a Presidential candidate on the ballot who is failing so quickly, elder abuse is what comes to mind. The outright insanity that is being allowed to progress to such an uninhabitable and detrimental place is beyond mental comprehension. The undoing of our history and bringing this country back to a place that we should never have to experience is a scary thought. We are supposed to learn from the past and change for the better as we move forward. Spiritual warfare is real and we must fight, you must fight Mr. President for all that is good and right in this America. We need you for another four years, I say this for myself, my family, my brothers, and sisters in Christ. We Americans have been fortunate and so very blessed to have you, Mr. President for the last four years and we are praying that another four will follow. This pandemic has caused so much darkness, the world has fallen on black days. My brother left us because of the madness, the enemy got him and he couldn't fight anymore as he was in such a vulnerable and he was plagued by weakness. It is said that this "thing" (COVID-19) causes all kinds of other issues such as domestic violence, drug use, out of control drinking, suicide, and child abuse. So yes I have felt first hand what this CCP virus can do besides attacking one's respiratory system. It's a killer in so many other ways. Mr. President may your brother be at peace and glorious heaven has received another angel. You are in our prayers always and with that, I will leave you with this:
    Deuteronomy 31:6
    Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified because of them,
    for the LORD your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you.”
    Thank you for being you, Mr. President. You are America's Greatest Rock Star!
    Ms. J. Smith

  • kurt beier

    08/16/2020 06:13 PM

    Couple of points:
    1) Democrats and media whole plan is to make you think "people rather than POLICIES". That if they can make you hate Donald Trump enough by creating false negative stories and burying the good he does , that you will simply vote just to keep Trump out of office inspite of his good policies and the lefts bad policies.
    2) Trump has to come out of the campaign gate stating this is about USA policies that will govern how they live and ability to earn a wage. NOT about weather you like or agree how he gets things done, but if you like the goals he is trying to achieve and his accomplishment record (secure borders / strong military / law & order / criminal reform / Fair trade deals / bringing jobs back to USA / stop funding Iran & unfriendly countries / untying our militaries hands when engaging enemies / bringing peace to middle east / bringing troops home / opposing socialist governments abroad and those at home / war on drugs / war on gang members / etc...and basically puting the USA peoples interest first!). You will notice that I purposefully left out hot button issues such as abortion issues / judge selections / etc... because there is so much that unites us than divides us as Americans that we majorly focus on. If we agree on 80% of policies, let's first bring ourselves together as US citizens there first. Once we are together again rather than enemies, we are in a better place to work through the 20% of differences. If we begin at the differences wich is here the Democrates want us to be, we will just further divide.

  • William Matthews

    08/16/2020 05:31 PM

    With the mass media against Trump and the RNC it seems our only hope is to PRAY & LEAVE EVERYTHING IN GOD'S HANDS!!! God brought Trump to the presidency in 2016 so prayerfully and hopefully God will bring conservative, God fearing people into winning this 2020 election. I firmly believe that if the liberal, radical, communistic, marxist dems win this election, then that will be the sign that GOD HAS TAKEN HIS HAND OFF OF AMERICA because of our forsaking HIM. GOD PLEASE CONTINUE TO BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Vernon Thompson

    08/16/2020 05:01 PM

    The following letter was shared with me today. I have vetted the author, Wayne Grudem, and I believe the letter to be actual. It is a long read but it is the clearest, calmest, most accurate, and overall best-articulated reasoning on the topic of the election that I have seen. Refreshing just on the face of it (with the lack of vitriol and downright politeness!), and I have to say “spot on” throughout. Happens also to be embedded with some Christian beliefs and observations.

    Aug. 5, 2020
    Dear Zachary,
    Thank you for your thoughtful, honest email explaining why you felt frustration and anger about my public support of Donald Trump. I'm glad that you wrote as you did rather than leaving the matter unspoken.
    Thank you also for writing, as a long-time friend, to express your concerns that my support of Trump might jeopardize the reputation that I have built as a trusted professor of theology and ethics for the last 43 years, and that my pro-Trump stance undermines the credibility of the label “evangelical,” and even of the Christian gospel itself.
    I take these objections seriously. I have pondered them for several days. Please consider the following twelve points of response:
    1. No consideration of policies
    At the beginning of your email, you write, “This email does not concern policy.” The rest of the email concerns what you see as President Trump’s character flaws.
    But that means that your email fails to address the entire reason for my support of Trump. In every column that I’ve published in support of Trump, I have explicitly registered my disapproval of his character flaws and previous immoral behavior. I support him because of the policies he has enacted and will enact, and in spite of his character flaws (which I don’t think rise to a level that would disqualify him from being president; more on this below).
    This means that, as I read and re-read your eloquent email, I did not find it to be persuasive. It does not even acknowledge, much less argue against, the reasons why I continue to support President Trump.
    A few months ago, while the impeachment trial was going on, a younger faculty colleague asked me at lunch, “What would Trump have to do to make you stop supporting him?” My response was something like this: “I would stop supporting him if he began to favor higher taxes, more government regulation, a weaker military, open borders, judges who believed in a “living Constitution,” extended abortion rights, restrictions on freedom of religion, hostility toward Israel…” I didn’t finish the list because he said, “Okay, the question for you is policies. I get it.” But your email did not discuss policies.
    2. My last 56 years
    My conservative political views are not new. My convictions about the best political policies for a nation began long before I ever heard of Donald Trump. In 1964, as a high school junior, I read the book Choice, Not an Echoby Phyllis Schlafly (a Harvard Law grad) and I became convinced of conservative political policies (low taxes, smaller government, strong defense). I became president of the Young Republicans club at Memorial High School in Eau Claire Wisconsin, and helped campaign for Barry Goldwater against Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1964 election. (A very cute and fun girl named Margaret White was active in young Republicans with me – little did we know that in the year 2020 we would be celebrating our 51stwedding anniversary.)
    During the 1968 election, as a junior in college, I attended a meeting of the Harvard Republican Club (yes, there was one!) and volunteered to stand on a freeway overpass in Boston holding a Richard Nixon campaign sign during the morning rush hour, because I thought his mostly-conservative policies would be far better for the nation than the liberal views of Hubert Humphrey.
    In 1980, at a faculty panel discussion about the November election at Bethel College in St. Paul, I was the faculty speaker who spoke in favor of Ronald Reagan because his conservative policies were far better, and far more consistent with biblical standards, then the liberal policies of Jimmy Carter (an evangelical Southern Baptist Sunday school teacher) or the muddled views of third-party candidate John Anderson (an evangelical Christian). In other elections, I have similarly spoken and written in favor of George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, and others.
    In 2010 (still pre-Trump), I argued extensively for numerous conservative political positions in my book Politics According to the Bible. So my support for Donald Trump is nothing new, but flows out of my deep and long-held political convictions that he also supports.
    But your email addresses none of these policy issues, which have determined my political involvement for the last 56 years.
    3. Am I sacrificing moral principles for the sake of political gain?
    You write, “It seems that you are elevating politics above the Bible. You are possibly sacrificing your calling … for the sake of some judges in America who will last at max 15-20 years. You are putting the temporal in front of the eternal, and it worries me.”
    Can you understand that I’m seeking to influence politics because of the Bible, because of my conviction that the Bible speaks to all of life? Like the Jewish people in exile in Babylon, I believe that we are called by God as Christians to be exiles on the earth and simultaneously to “seek the welfare of the city” (or today the country; Jeremiah 29:7) where God has called us to live as exiles.
    Don’t you think that Jesus wants his disciples to influence the world for good? He said, “Let your light so shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). Paul says that “we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10).
    When I wrote the book, Business for the Glory of God, I was trying to influence the business world for good. Was that putting the temporal in front of the eternal? I think it was trying to apply the teachings of the Bible to the business world, which is an important aspect of people’s lives today.
    When I wrote the book, The Poverty of Nations: A Sustainable Solution, I was trying to influence government leaders in the poor countries of the world to adopt laws and economic policies that would bring their nations from poverty to prosperity. Was that putting the temporal in front of the eternal? I think it was another example of trying to apply the teachings of the Bible to an important aspect of people’s lives today.
    When I wrote the book, Politics According to the Bible, I was trying to influence the leaders of governments to adopt policies consistent with the principles of Scripture, and I thought this would be beneficial for the nations that did adopt these principles. Was that putting the temporal in front of the eternal? No, I think it was applying the teachings of the Bible to the functions of government.
    I firmly believe that we as Christians should never intentionally sin in order to bring about what we think to be a good result (see my book Christian Ethics, chapter 7). For example, it would be morally wrong, and displeasing to God, if I ever were to tell a lie in order to promote a political candidate. It would be morally wrong for me to steal ballots or stuff a ballot box with fraudulent ballots. And I think it would be morally wrong for me to say or write that I approve of a political candidate’s adultery, or falsehood, or embezzlement, and so forth.
    But I see nothing wrong with speaking and writing in support of a certain political position or political candidate. Christian leaders have done that throughout the history of our country. And if I write an article saying that I disapprove of certain aspects of Donald Trump’s conduct, but I also support him as a candidate, I see nothing morally wrong with that. If others say that supporting him at all is implicitly condoning all of his behavior, then they are carelessly or intentionally misrepresenting what I wrote.
    4. The choice is between two whole packages
    The question now facing the nation is not, “Does Donald Trump have an exemplary moral character?” or, “Does Donald Trump have flaws?” or even, “Do I like Donald Trump?” The question is, “Which of two package deals is better for the nation?”
    (a) Donald Trump and Republican policies or
    (b) Joe Biden and Democratic policies?
    There are no other choices. The nation will either have the option (a) or option (b) as a whole package for at least the next four years, and probably longer. If I withhold support from Trump, that makes it easier for Biden to win, and thereby for Democratic policies to bring (in my opinion) great destructiveness to the nation (more specifics below.)
    In making a choice between package (a) and package (b), questions about a candidate’s character of course are relevant. But, to my mind, the question is not, “Does Donald Trump have flaws?” but rather, “Is Donald Trump so clearly unsuited to be president that our only valid choice is to accept package (b) and the great damage to the nation that (in my opinion) will flow from Joe Biden and Democratic policies?” When I ask the question in that way, the answer is clearly No, and it isn’t even close. Package (a) is far preferable.
    You mentioned possibly voting for a third party candidate. But that would not change the fact that the nation will have either package (a) or package (b). Therefore, a third party vote would be throwing away your opportunity to influence the government of this nation for good in the laws and policies it enacts. “Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it” (Proverbs 3:27). You have an opportunity (by voting) to help protect the nation from great harm that would come from the Democratic party policies (see below) and to help the nation by promoting the great good that would come from Republican party policies. These laws and policies will set the course of the nation for years to come in ways that will far outweigh any harm that might come from Donald Trump’s abrasive behavior.
    5. Trump is not perfect, but your criticisms are excessive and speculative
    At the heart of our disagreement is the fact that my evaluation of Donald Trump’s character is more positive than your evaluation. Can we least agree that the evaluation of a person’s character is a complex process that requires wise judgments based on a wide variety of factors, and that people can legitimately disagree in their honest assessments of someone else’s character?
    As for specific arguments, you begin by saying that Donald Trump does not measure up to the moral standards of the Bible, such as exemplified by the “blessed man” of Psalm 1. On this topic, I agree with you. The only man who truly fulfilled Psalm 1 was Jesus. Both Biden and Trump have flaws. The question is whether either one has such blatant flaws that they make him clearly unfit for the office of president.
    I wrote this about Trump in aTownhall.comcolumn in July, 2016:
    He is egotistical, bombastic, and brash. He often lacks nuance in his statements. Sometimes he blurts out mistaken ideas … that he later must abandon. He insults people. He can be vindictive when people attack him …. He has been married three times and claims to have been unfaithful in his marriages. These are certainly flaws, but I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws in this election.
    But you go much further than that, making statements that I see as unjustified speculation. For example, at several places you attribute to Trump only sinister motives. You write, “I don’t think that Trump is interested in anything but division,” and, “He wants people to hate each other.”
    Do you really know what his motives are? It is appropriate to be cautious in speaking about another person’s motives. It is often difficult to know the motives in our own hearts regarding decisions that we make. And our evaluation of other people’s motives is influenced significantly by our previous opinions about them.
    I have posted on my website a list of things that President Trump has done while in office, and dozens more could be added. Do these actions show evidence that he “wants people to hate each other”? Certainly not. In fact, I support all 25 of those actions.
    If I evaluate Donald Trump’s policies and actions not as a hostile observer but as a sympathetic observer, I think his actions are consistent with someone who is genuinely seeking to do good for the nation. The reason I favor the Republican policy positions that I mentioned above is because I think they are best for the nation, not because I’m interested in promoting division and not because I want people to hate each other. Is it not possible that Donald Trump similarly supports those Republican policy positions for a good motive, and that he too thinks they are best for the nation?
    I recently had the opportunity to meet with several committed Christians who have worked in the White House since the beginning of Trump’s presidency. In an entirely private conversation, they were convinced that Trump’s decisions are based on what is best for the nation, and that he feels a sense of responsibility to do the best job possible with the office he has been given. These are people who have been on the inside of the workings of the White House. They impressed me as genuine, sincere, honest, wise Christians. Will you admit that their testimony carries some value? Might you be wrong about Trump’s motives?
    There is a real need for both pro-Trump and anti-Trump people to acknowledge the legitimacy of a middle-ground assessment of Donald Trump’s character. On the one hand, Trump is not perfect, and I do not see any need to defend everything he says and does. On the other hand, Trump is not completely evil, completely corrupt, as many in the media wish to portray him.
    My own assessment is, I think, a middle-ground perspective. Trump has flaws, but (by God’s grace) he has, overall, done many good things as president. The mainstream media often refuses to say anything positive about him, but a balanced evaluation would also point out that he has a remarkable ability to get things done that no one else had been able to do (massive tax cuts, ending thousands of government regulations, moving our embassy to Jerusalem, building hundreds of miles of 18-foot to 30-foot high border wall, persuading NATO allies to increase their share of the funding). He has admirable courage, faithfulness to his promises, remarkable energy and diligence in the performance of his presidential duties, deep patriotism, and what seems to be a dominant motive of seeking what is best for the country (captured in the slogan, “Make America Great Again”). Do you think this perspective on Trump is a legitimate view to hold, even if you do not hold it yourself? Or do you think that your overwhelmingly negative view of Trump’s character is the only legitimate conclusion to draw from the evidence?
    6. Both character and policies must be considered: I am not saying that assessment of a candidate’s character is irrelevant. There is a minimal standard of behavior which, if a candidate falls below it, would disqualify a candidate from governmental office. You may think that Trump has fallen beneath such a standard. I do not. But this is a judgment call that each person has to make -- about every candidate.
    Character is not the only factor to consider, however. The declared policies of a candidate, and of a candidate’s party (Democrat or Republican) give a good indication of what the candidate will do if elected. In this year’s election, there is a vast difference between the policies of the two parties and their candidates. The Democrats have moved further to the left, in the direction of a highly government-regulated, oppressive, anti-Christian, quasi-socialist country, than we have ever seen in our history. Is there no level of harmful policies that a party could advocate that would cause you to rise up and do what you could to stop them?
    If you want to know what government under Democratic control would look like, I urge you to watch the kangaroo-court behavior of the Democratic majority when Attorney General William Barr appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on July 28, 2020 (watch especially the last 45 minutes).
    7. What will Trump do in a second term?
    You say, “I fear the only thing that has kept Trump in check is the fact that he had to run for a second term. I’m afraid of what he will do if he no longer has that check to stop his more egregious actions.” You also say, “What happens if he abandons evangelicals because they are no longer necessary? What policy will he pursue? What will stop him from making immoral decisions that will reflect back on the evangelicals who elected him?” And you say, “What if he no longer has to lay aside his natural tendencies for the sake of political expediency?”
    I see this also as unfounded speculation. If the president in a second term begins to betray the policies and promises that he campaigned on, he will quickly erode his political support in Congress and in the nation as a whole, and for the remainder of his term he will be able to accomplish very little. (Such loss of political support happened to Richard Nixon after the 1972 election, which he had won in a huge landslide, but then the country turned against him because of the Watergate scandal and he resigned from office in 1974. It also happened after President Lyndon Johnson’s landslide victory in the 1964 election, when in 1966-68 the political mood of the nation turned against the Vietnam War and against Johnson so decisively that he decided not to run for election in 1968.)
    Your earlier predictions about damage Trump would do (if elected) have not been very accurate. I remember that, after the election in November 2016, you told me that you thought Trump was going to ruin the economy, ruin our relationship with other nations, and weaken NATO. In fact, we have a much stronger economy (except for the setback of the COVID-19 pandemic), a strengthened NATO with several European nations finally boosting their defense budgets, improved new trade deals with Mexico, Canada, and China, and good relationships with many other nations.
    What will Trump do in a second term? The best basis for predicting his conduct in a second term is his conduct for the past four years. If in a second term Donald Trump acts in the way he has acted in his first term, this will bring a continued strong economy, a strengthened military, better trade terms with other nations, a secure border, more originalist judges, stronger protections for unborn children, strong employment and wage growth, greater energy independence, greater school choice, more safety in inner cities, protection of religious freedoms, and greater liberty for Americans in general.
    8. The strategy of the political left is increasingly to avoid policy discussions and focus on ad hominem arguments
    It has seemed to me recently that the strategy of the political left has been to deemphasize policy arguments (where their progressive policies cannot prevail in elections) and to focus their efforts on attacks against the person they are running against. To put it in simple terms, many prominent Democrats have shifted from arguing, “The Republican candidate has bad policies” to arguing, “The Republican candidate is a bad person.” (And even, “If you support Trump you are a bad person” – which stifles healthy political discussion.)
    This approach has been helped by a shamefully biased mainstream media including the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC. I receive a newsfeed each morning from the New York Times and the Washington Post, and their blatantly biased reporting reveals a hostility toward President Trump unlike anything I’ve seen regarding any other political leader in my lifetime.
    Therefore it does not surprise me if, after 3 and a half years of listening to this constant character assassination by the dominant media forces in the country, many people distrust Donald Trump. His flaws, many of which are evident in what he says and what he tweets, provide a pretext for much more serious allegations of character deficiencies. But I don’t think that those people in the general population of the United States who hate Donald Trump are basing their reaction to him on accurate information.
    I have some concern that your email to me, by avoiding policy issues and focusing only on criticism of Trump’s character, seemed to follow a similar pattern of exclusively attacking the person and avoiding any interaction regarding policies.
    9. The source of divisiveness in the country
    I will admit that there is an unhealthy level of political division and hostility in this country today. I will also admit that President Trump bears some measure of responsibility for this because of his habit of insulting his opponents and calling them derogatory names.
    But I think a far larger portion of the responsibility for this polarization lies with the Democrats and their supporters. I already wrote about this in my December 30 column at Townhall.com:
    It is the political Left, not conservatives, who have rendered themselves “the Resistance” and have continued to do everything they can to prevent the Trump administration from even functioning.
    I have no objection to both parties making their best arguments in the public square and attempting to persuade others of their viewpoint. This is essential for a healthy democracy. But it is quite another thing to “resist” the legitimate government through violence and intimidation.
    It is not conservatives but the political Left that supports sanctuary cities (hindering enforcement of immigration laws rather than seeking to change the laws through the political process). It is the political Left that has instigated shouting at Trump administration officials and their friends until they are driven out of restaurants and their families are terrified in their own homes. It is the political Left that has repeatedly disrupted congressional hearings with shouted protests. It is the political Left that has abandoned established procedural rules and precedents, fair play, and due process in congressional hearings. It is the political Left that has organized mass protests to prevent conservative speakers from even being heard on university campuses. It is the political Left that has attacked innocent people and made thousands of conservatives (including me) afraid to say they support Trump, or wear a MAGA hat, or put a Trump bumper sticker on their car. These actions do not belong in a healthy society, for they are not part of acceptable political opposition, but are characteristics of the Resistance.
    Yet the New Testament tells us, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment” (Romans 13:1).
    It seems to me that these actions, driven by an apparent hatred of Donald Trump, are primarily responsible for our toxic political culture.
    10. The label “evangelical.”
    Over 80% of evangelical voters supported Donald Trump not because they liked him as a person but because they favored most or all of these policies:
    - Originalist judges,
    - Pro-life policies,
    - A stronger military,
    - A free-market economic system,
    - Lower taxes,
    - Fewer government regulations,
    - Strong support for Israel,
    - Clearheaded recognition of the economic, military, and information threat of China
    - A high value placed on human freedom,
    - Personal accountability for committing crimes,
    - Good jobs and school choice as the best way to help the poor,
    - A strong border wall and a secure border, followed by a comprehensive reform of our immigration system,
    - Careful extraction and clean use of carbon-based fuels (coal, oil, natural gas),
    - Freedom of conscience (government should not force Christians to use their artistic skills to convey a message of approval of same-sex marriage or to use their medical skills to perform an abortion, or to use their pharmacies as the distribution point for drugs that cause abortion),
    - Racial inequalities in income and quality of education should primarily be solved by
    - Greater availability of tax-supported school choice in low-income neighborhoods,
    - Economic growth resulting in more and better jobs, and
    - An increase in safety through an increase in police presence in high crime neighborhoods
    - -Medical marijuana should be allowed (with a prescription from a doctor) but recreational marijuana should be prohibited, and
    - Restrooms, locker rooms, and single-gender sports teams should be restricted to people of one biological sex or the other.
    On the other hand, I fail to see how an evangelical Christian who believes in the moral values of the Bible could support the increasingly far-left Democratic Party. How could Christian in good conscience support a party that promotes laws and policies that?
    - Allow abortion up to the moment of birth,
    - Authorize the use of our tax money to pay for abortions and gender reassignment surgery,
    - Cripple our economy with ever-increasing government control and taxes,
    - Further cripple the economy with expensive Green New Deal energy regulations,
    - Increase unemployment,
    - Weaken our military in the face of increased aggressiveness by China,
    - Promote a Jimmy Carter-like foreign policy of appeasement,
    - Abandon Israel to fend for itself,
    - Nullify the Senate filibuster rule (both Obama and Biden have recently spoken about this) so that all legislation can be passed with only 50 senators plus the vice president casting the tie-breaking vote,
    - Support the rising influence of judges who are not constrained by the original meaning of the words of the Constitution or of the laws, perhaps even adding six additional seats to the Supreme Court in order to be able to give the court a new 10-5 majority of such justices (this could be done with control of both the House, the Senate, and the presidency)
    - Grant statehood to both Washington DC and Puerto Rico, thus adding four more Democrats to the U.S. Senate (I have heard three US senators already predict that the Democrats would do this if they had the votes)
    - Support draconian laws that compel an artistic professional or a professional counselor to affirm the validity of same-sex marriage even when that is contrary to the professional person’s conscience,
    - -Reinstate the Obama-era guidelines that required schools to allow biological males who claim to be transgender females to use girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers (the guidelines were canceled by Trump),
    - Allow biological males to compete in women’s sports, setting new statewide records in women’s track events and other sports
    - Pass multiple new, extremely strict green energy laws that will massively increase energy costs and therefore will also increase the cost of everything that is made or transported with the use of energy,
    - -Seek to defund the police (to be precise, Biden has said he favors “redirecting” some police funding to other programs, which is a partial “defunding” of police, which will lead predictably to a substantial increase in crime),
    - -Use violence and intimidation to nullify freedom of speech (in practice) for those who disagree with them politically,
    - Support open borders and sanctuary cities in defiance of the law, and that
    - Promote a complete federal government takeover of our healthcare system.
    It is not the fault of evangelical Christians that Republican Party policies have increasingly favored policies consistent with Christian values, while Democratic Party policies have increasingly strayed from Christian values (this happened initially and most notably over the issue of abortion rights but then it spread to many other policies). Since that has happened, it seems to me that evangelicals face an easy choice of which party to support. (In fact, many of the policies favored in the 2016 Republican Party platform are the same as those advocated in my book, Politics According to the Bible.)
    Because of this wide gap between Republicans and Democrats on values and policies, I expect that President Trump will get an even higher percentage of the evangelical vote in this election. I have spoken with a number of people who did not vote for Trump in 2016 but who will vote for him in 2020. I have not met anyone who voted for him in 2016 but will not vote for him in 2020.
    You write that, because of evangelical support for Trump, many of your friends “most likely will never enter church again.” But I wonder if that’s because of Trump or because of the policies he represents. Would they have had the same reaction if Mike Pence had been elected president and had supported the same policies that President Trump has supported? Then the problem is not Trump but the policies he supports.
    11. Risking my reputation as an evangelical professor of theology
    You say that if I write another article in defense of Trump, “You will be tarnishing your theological legacy for the sake of a man who does not deserve it.”
    I’m deeply aware that God has given me a positive reputation in much of the evangelical world, and I count that reputation as a stewardship from God. I’m deeply aware of the responsibility that comes with that stewardship. “It is required of stewards that they be found faithful” (1 Corinthians 4:2).
    But I have been thinking that God might want me to use whatever influence I have to help the country move in the right direction politically. When I think of the thousands of Americans who gave their lives to protect this country, it is a small thing to risk my “reputation.” In addition, supporting Trump by writing additional articles could cut both ways – it could improve my reputation with some people as well as damage it with others. Who knows? In any case, I don’t want to stand before God at the Last Day and have him ask why I did not use my reputation and my writing ability (that he gave me) to influence the United States for good when it was at a decisive turning point in history, and I would have to say, “But I was trying to protect my reputation.”
    As far as I know, I have not in my lifetime backed away from advocating an unpopular position simply to protect my reputation. On subjects like spiritual gifts, the roles of men and women in marriage and the church, the defense of the Vineyard movement, accuracy of gender language in Bible translations, the superiority of essentially literal Bible translations, opposition to theistic evolution, and support of Reformed theology, I have advocated positions that were in many circles unpopular but that seemed to me to be faithful to Scripture. I don’t want to stop doing that now.
    12. The need for greater civility in political discussions
    Democracy functions best when people who have different political viewpoints say to others who disagree with them, “I disagree with you, but I respect your right to reach a different decision.”
    But that is not what has been happening. Instead of showing mutual respect, anti-Trump individuals have labeled political conservatives as an entire group as “haters,” “deplorables,” “fascists,” and “racists.” In some cases, they have engaged in intimidation, bullying, and even violence. Responsible conservative speakers are regularly prevented from speaking on university campuses. This is not “the wisdom from above” that James mentions (James 3:17). This is destructive to the nation, and it threatens the spirit of one of our most cherished freedoms, the freedom of speech. Yet I know of no Democratic leader who has called on his or her supporters to stop this violence and intimidation.
    In a democracy that is functioning well, family members, friends, and neighbors should be able to disagree about their viewpoints regarding political candidates (including Trump) without damaging the personal relationships. This may be difficult at first, but we should recognize that it was much more difficult in the past, as in the aftermath of the American Civil War. Abraham Lincoln at that time wisely encouraged the nation, “With malice toward none, with charity toward all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds ….”
    We as a nation are facing many crucial political decisions. We need God’s wisdom, which will come about through reasoned discussions such as represented in your two thoughtful emails, and, I hope, in my response to your thoughts. “But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere” (James 3:17).
    Respectfully, and with appreciation for your friendship,
    Wayne
    Wayne Grudem, is Distinguished Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary in Arizona. The views expressed in this article represent the views of the author and should not be understood to represent the position of Phoenix Seminary.


  • Mary Haas

    08/16/2020 04:38 PM

    I don't get TBN. I have seen your show when I had a different cable system. How can I watch it now? Is it on Facebook or Internet or something.