Why Is Donald Trump Leading the Pack of GOP Candidates?

Donald Trump has been leading the pack of GOP candidates, and an immediate change is not likely following last night's debate. If you haven’t asked yourself why, you certainly should.

Is it because of his reasoned approach to the issues our nations face?

Absolutely not. Deeply considered reasoned approaches are not what Donald Trump brings to the table. Please understand – I like many of the bombastic statements he makes. I completely agree with many of them. And I’m glad he is making them because he has forced discussions that many politicians want to avoid. As he said in last night’s debate, “If it weren’t for me, you wouldn’t even be talking about illegal immigration.” But Trump’s comments, though they elicit a visceral response of agreement, have no substance. They are the same superficial responses that most of us make when confronted with something disagreeable. Perhaps true, but made with no thought to how the desired goal could be accomplished.

If one or more other GOP candidates would stand up and speak out unambiguously about issues like the threat of illegal immigration, the absolute need for border security, and the threat to our very culture posed by political correctness – and do so while convincing the voters that we can actually count on them to fight to force action on those issues – Trump’s popularity would soon wane. He only holds the spotlight while he is the only one clearly speaking to these issues that resonate so well with conservative voters.

You have to ask yourself, does Donald Trump really have the character and the temperament that we need to see in the President of the United States?

I came away from the debates last night with a greater level of hope for the outcome of the 2016 election than I’ve had for years. I won’t bother to name my choices, because my personal choice really doesn’t matter in this conversation, but from the field of 17 hopefuls, there are at least a half dozen that present real hope for the 2016 election and for the future of America.

Donald Trump is not among them.

Thoughts on Obergefell v Hodges

“If I profess with loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except that little point which the world and the Devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”
― Martin Luther

This statement by Martin Luther is not at all comforting. It would be so much easier to pick topics on which there is little or no conflict as the areas where I will stand up and fight for God’s truth – but that would certainly be akin to desertion. If you’re not fighting where you’re needed, you’re not fighting at all.

We Americans are significantly divided on almost any topic. Even the idea of “God, home and apple pie” being definitively American would bring plenty of conflict today. So, it should be no surprise to anyone that marriage, and specifically same-sex marriage is the most divisive issue in our country today. Since I am writing this on June 26, 2015, I literally mean today because this is the day that the Supreme Court issued their decision in the case of Obergefell et al, v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al that same sex marriages must be recognized throughout the United States.

I recognize that there is an element to this issue that makes it one on which there was never really any possibility of compromise. To change sides on the issue means one has abandoned one’s underlying world view and accepted an opposing world view. That underlying element is the issue of whether one’s world view embraces the Word of God as the appropriate basis for all decisions, or one holds to a world view that places little or no value on the Word of God. If the Word of God is of little or no value to you, you wind up in the “If it feels good, do it” camp. If the Word of God is precious to you, you wind up in the camp that says “If God says no, He means no.”

Another facet of my feelings on the issue is that I never condemn non-believers for ignoring the Word of God. If they truly don’t believe, that is between them and God. I can grieve for them, and I can pray for them. I might fault them if their behavior is illegal and harmful to others, but that is about their behavior, not their belief. When a pagan ignores God they are just being who they are. Frankly, I have deeper concerns for those who claim to believe in God and trust Jesus Christ as their only hope of salvation – but continue to ignore God’s Word.

To bring this post to a finish, I have to say that if you do not believe in God, I cannot expect you to stand against same-sex marriage. We disagree and we will continue to do so, but I will not waste our time trying to change your mind. If you believe in God and hold His Word as a precious gift, I would expect you to stand up and speak the truth that same-sex marriage (any same-sex sexual relationship, for that matter) is wrong and should not be condoned. From a legal point of view, all of the arguments are moot now, anyway. But the divide between legal and illegal is not the same as the divide between right and wrong.

Will There Be Progress On US Border Security?

Yesterday (January 28, 2013), members of the Senate announced an immigration reform plan that was constructed by and supported by a clearly bipartisan group.  That is a major milestone in a debate that has divided our nation for decades.

There are many among my conservative fellows who are intransigent and, to my way of thinking, irrational in their desires regarding the specific details of a solution to the problem of illegal immigrants in the US.  Many will be dissatisfied with the plan outlined by the Senate “gang of eight” yesterday, primarily because they will be unsatisfied with anything short of a plan to locate and deport every person who is in this country illegally. 

I have arrived at the conclusion that a plan to deport every single illegal alien in this country is at the very least impractical.  Put aside the legitimate point that every illegal immigrant in the country is by definition a criminal, having broken US law the moment that they set foot in this country.  We could discuss at great length the relative weight of that crime in the spectrum of criminal activity in the US, as we have discussed it at great length for many years.  For the moment, I want to put that debate in perspective with a little bit of simple math.  As of today, the population of the United States is slightly in excess of 315 million.  In all of the discussions of illegal immigrants, it is estimated that approximately 11 million of those people are in the country illegally.  Some suggest it is much higher, but those numbers would just make my point all the more clear.  A little simple math reveals that 3.5 of every 100 residents of the United States of America are here illegally.  Deporting 3.5% of our population is not a practical solution.

To put the numbers in perspective, deporting all of the illegal immigrants in the country would be equivalent to deporting the entire population of Ohio.  Or, to use the example of less populous states, it would be like deporting the entire populations of eleven states and the District of Columbia:  Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, the District of Columbia, Vermont, and Wyoming. 

With those numbers in mind, it becomes clear that deportation is not the solution.  Some plan of assimilation must be found and established as law. 

As major as the problem presented by sheer numbers is, the fiscal implications of any proposal are far greater.  However, that is a not the topic of this post.

It is too early to jump on the bandwagon either for or against the Senate proposal.  We haven’t seen the proposed legislation.  But it is still a positive step that there is a truly bipartisan plan under consideration.  What we do know is that the first step in the plan outlined yesterday is to secure our borders.  It would appear that a significant majority of Americans agree on that first step.  Any other proposed steps toward immigration reform are meaningless if there is no border security.

A parting thought on border security: 

 

When we talk of border security, almost everyone immediately thinks of our border with Mexico.  That border is 1,951 miles long and is manned by approximately 11,000 border patrol agents.  Allowing for administrative personnel and off-duty personnel, there would be less than 2,000 agents on duty at any point in time – with many of them operating well inside the border, rather than on the border.  Contrast that with our border with Canada.  Our border with Canada is almost 4,000 miles long, with approximately 1,000 agents assigned to enforcement at that border.  Making the same allowance for administrative and off-duty personnel, that would leave less than 250 agents on duty to enforce border security on a 4,000 mile border.  Fortunately, on that border we also have an effective Canadian force (the RCMP) dedicated to border security on their side of the border.  A consistently overlooked “border” of the US is represented by the waters surrounding Florida.  I will pretty much overlook it at this time, too, although I know it deserves far more attention.

With that information in mind, which border might present more danger to the US?  More on that in a later post.

A Word About Egypt

I want to start out by saying that I believe religious liberty (for people of ANY faith or NO faith) should be a basic premise of any culture. 

I am a Christian.  I believe deeply what Jesus Christ said in John 14:6 – “I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.”  Those who do not follow Christ have every right to believe as they do, but as a Christian, I want all who do not follow Christ to have every opportunity to do so – and their misdirected faith is a source of sadness to me, rather than anger.  As a Christian, my primary function in life is to spread the good news of the salvation brought by Jesus, not to drive non-believers away from it.

With that said, I want to emphasize that non-belief should be respected and tolerated, not supported.  This subject is brought to mind by a news item that I read today.  In Egypt, a woman and her seven children have been sentenced to 15 years in prison for their conversion to Christianity.

Nadia Mohamed Ali was raised as a Christian.  She converted to Islam 23 years ago when she married Mohamed Abdel-Wahhab Mustafa, a Muslim.  After his death, she decided to convert back to Christianity.  It is that action that precipitated the sentence against her and her children.  As a Christian, I could succumb to the temptation to question her faith and her religious conviction – whether to Christianity or to Islam.  But the Bible clearly teaches me that the relationship between any individual and God is judged only by God – so I will leave it where it belongs.

My real issue in this story is something else.  Something not directly involved in the story.

The United States government has, currently does, and clearly plans to continue to send aid to the Egyptian government.  Beyond any cash aid, the US is scheduled to start deliveries later this month (January, 2013) of 10 F-16 fighter jets and 200 Abrams tanks.  That is about $213 million in military aid to a country that has no interest in religious liberty.  The deal was made some time ago – when Hosni Mubarak was President of Egypt.  Since it was approved by Congress at that time, it can only be withdrawn by the President.  Obama has shown no interest in rescinding the aid, thought, even though it is now destined to go to a regime headed by Mohamed Morsi, who in 2010 said of Jews and Israelis that they were “Descendents of Apes and Pigs” and “Bloodsuckers.”

To those that would say it is not the function of the United States to dictate the policies of other governments, I would respond with complete agreement.  I would further respond, though, that it is not the function of the United States to support governments that promote policies so diametrically opposed to our own, and have policies so antagonistic to our firm and long-term allies.

When we look at the importance of religious liberty in the community of nations and at the attitude of the Morsi regime toward Israel, our staunchest ally in the region, it makes no sense at all for the United States to follow through with this aid.

Free Speech vs. Hate Crimes

I’m not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar. I am an average American Citizen with an interest in the future of our country. A citizen that tries to apply common sense and historical truth to the issues of the day to determine appropriate paths for national progress. This piece – and anything else I might write – is written from that perspective.

It is time (far past the appropriate time, actually) for a return to Constitutional rights in this country. Equal rights and equal opportunities for all. That’s a concept that pretty much everyone is ready to support – until they start looking at what it really means.

First and foremost, equal rights and equal opportunities for all means no special rights or special opportunities for any. If some group has rights that others don’t have, there is clearly no equality of rights.

Probably the first target of such a movement would be hate crimes legislation. Murder is a crime. It doesn’t matter who was murdered, who committed the murder, or what the motivation for the murder was. The victim is no more dead because of one motivation than because of another. Libel and slander are crimes. Whether committed for financial or political benefit, or to simply cause harm to the victim out of ill will, the crime is the same. The idea that there should be a special punishment because of the state of mind of the person uttering the statements is absurd. While existing – and proposed – hate crimes laws cover a variety of crimes, my focus at this time is the area of speech.

The very first amendment in our “Bill of Rights” says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It is interesting to note that laws have been passed and remain in effect that are clearly in defiance of this simple constitution tenet. And many in our country clamor for even more such laws. In slander and libel laws, truth is a defense. That is, if I am accused of slandering you, an effective defense would be that I told the truth, regardless of my motivation in telling that truth.

In a nation of people largely ignorant of our Constitution and the Federalist Papers, which give great insight into the Founding Fathers’ intent in establishing the Constitution, phrases like “freedom of speech” have taken on entirely new meanings that are significantly divergent from their original meanings. At the time of the establishment of our Constitution, the idea that one might freely speak his mind on almost any subject with impunity was so established as to not require any mention.

There was, however, one area of speech where the British Parliament and colonial governments did not allow speech – even true speech – with impunity. That was the area of seditious libel. To be guilty of seditious libel, the accused need not have said anything untrue. Simply speaking truth that was unfavorable to the government (or individuals in that government) was a crime. That was clearly the area addressed in the first amendment.

So, does that mean that our freedom of speech in other areas is not absolute? Certainly not. It means that our right to freedom of speech in other areas is so clear, and so absolute, that it did not need addressing. Just as we were not given a specific “freedom to breathe” because questioning or limiting one’s right to breathe would have been patently absurd.

That having been said, our legal system seems to have established over the years some situations where an abridgement of free speech is deemed to be appropriate. In those cases, though, it is not the speech itself that is abridged, but rather the commission of a crime in which the speech is simply the manner of committing the crime. An example of this would be inciting a riot. Urging others to commit a crime is a crime. Speech (whether verbal, written or hand signals) is simply the tool used to commit the crime.

All of that brings me back to the area of hate crimes laws. There are a multitude of statements that may be subject to criminal prosecution on hate crime laws. Some of these statements might be simply incorrect. Others might be tasteless. Some might be offensive to some part of the population, whether a great part or a small part, even though they are completely true. But if they do not aim to incite violence against some individual or group, they simply amount to a person speaking his mind – whether a brilliant mind, a narrow mind, a shallow mind, or an incompetent mind.

There was a time within my memory when the reaction of most people to someone making an outrageous statement would be either “He’s sure got that right!” (I don’t care WHAT you say, there will be people who agree) or “What an idiot,” in which case they would argue the point or simply walk away – which includes turning off the radio or TV. The reaction was not an attempt to silence the speaker. That was in the day when people still stood by the idea “I detest what you’re saying, but will defend to my death your right to say it.”

Is There Any Hope For Our Economy?

My comments today are so painfully obvious, they shouldn’t even need to be expressed, but it is clear that many Americans either are unaware of the problem (maybe they’ve been living in a cave for the past few years) or are in such a state of denial that they’ve convinced themselves that the United States government can simply decide to repeal all know rules of economics and common sense.

It’s interesting that many people don’t give much thought to the finances of our country. Maybe these same people don’t give much thought to their personal finances. I don’t know. But a disaster in our nation’s finances is even worse than a disaster in your personal finances, because no matter how well you handle your personal finances a bad national economy is going to hurt you.

To be candid about it, I don’t like economics. Don’t like thinking about economics, don’t like talking about economics. This is a hangover from taking economics classes that seemed eternally bound to make the simple complex. But the truth of the matter is when you get down to looking at it, most of economics is common sense. Maybe that’s why the application of it is lost on Congress. To the extent that economists – or our elected representatives – work hard to make the application of economics to our national finances sound difficult or arcane, you know they are telling you to “be quiet and let the grownups take care of these things.”

If you earn $1,000 this month, but spend $1,724, you have a DEFICIT of $724. You have borrowed $0.42 of every $1.00 you spent. Since you spent the money that you don’t have, you have a DEBT of $724. Now you have less than $1,000 available the following month, because you have to make a payment on the debt. If you have the same income and spend the same amount the next month, your deficit is LARGER than $724, because part of your income went to service the debt incurred in the first month, and now your debt is more than your monthly income. You are borrowing money to continue the same lifestyle, and you are borrowing money to make payments on the debt you’ve incurred to maintain that lifestyle. If you continue to do this, at some point you will find that creditors are unwilling to extend credit to you any longer. Additionally, creditors will probably start using any means at their disposal to accelerate the repayment of your debt. Maybe they start repossessing things that were purchased on credit.

That is exactly where the United States is now. We have a national debt of $13.562 trillion as of September 30, 2010. That’s a LOT of money. I heard a description recently to help envision $1 trillion. If you covered a football field seven feet deep in neat stacks of $100 bills, that would be about $1 trillion. Didn’t really help me. I still can’t conceive of that amount of money.

I came up with another one. If it was your job to count $100 bills eight hours per day, five days per week, 50 weeks per year (even from counting money full-time, you’d want a vacation), and you did that for 30 years – you wouldn’t count to $1 trillion. Let’s say it’s a hereditary job and you pass it on to your child when you retire, and they pick up where you left off and count for 30 years. Still not there. It would take over 46 generations (46 plus 9 years into the 47th) to count just ONE trillion dollars. Pretty amazing, but even that didn’t help. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think human beings can actually grasp numbers that big.

Anyway, with those mental pictures in mind, consider that our Gross Domestic Product (on a national level, pretty much the same as your household income on an individual level) was $14.256 trillion for 2009. Basically, putting it down to an individual level – we owe as much as we make in a year. And the debt levels are rising.

At rates projected by the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management & Budget, our national debt will nearly double by 2020. Now, that wouldn’t be quite as bad as it sounds if our GDP increased at a rate to keep up – a rate where the debt as a percentage of GDP decreased, even though the absolute debt number increased – but that isn’t happening.

For the past nine years (including this year), debt as a percentage of GDP has increased every year. Projections for this year put debt at 94.27% of GDP – the highest it has been since the years of WWII.

To make a long story short (I know – too late for that), the United States is badly in need of a financial diet. For all the talk about whether to increase taxes and if so, how much, the clear fact is that no amount of increased tax revenues is going to solve the problem. Even if leaving taxes alone permitted the GDP to grow faster and produced more tax revenue because the whole economic pie became larger, that is not enough to solve the problem.

Only spending cuts can do it, and those can only be accomplished on the needed scale by reducing the size of our government (meaning reducing federal employment and eliminating agencies) AND by working out ways to reduce the cost of both social programs and national defense. Not one or the other – both. A diet is never pleasant. Cutting back on personal spending is always uncomfortable. Cutting back on our national spending is going to hurt a lot. And frankly, if it isn’t done in such a way that EVERYBODY hurts, it will not have been done right.

Another Point of View

My very recent post about acrimony in public discourse immediately led me to think about something I heard (in part) yesterday and today. It was about the Democrats in the House of Representatives bringing up for a vote bills regarding the future of the “Bush Tax Cuts” that were doomed to failure because they will certainly not make it through the Senate.

Much was said about that being a hollow gesture, a play to placate their political base, etc. All of which I agreed with.

Then, in the mood of my last post, I realized.

Yes, it is a play to placate their political base – but is absolutely no different from what I desire from the Republicans in the early days of the new Congressional session. I want Republicans to pass a bill in the house to start the process to repeal the health care bill. I know it will almost certainly not pass the Senate, and in the highly unlikely event that it was to do so, it would certainly be vetoed by Obama. And the votes would not be there to overcome a veto. So why do I want it done? To put the “other guys” on record, and for the Republicans to show that they are listening to their political base.

Exactly the same thing the Democrats were doing on their votes.

Some games are absolutely necessary in politics.