Day: December 21, 2017

Democratic surrealism


The Russian attempt to influence the elections in America seems to have been confirmed. This attempt was carried out not through Donald Trump, but by Democratic supporters of Hillary Clinton.

The 13th month after the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States has just ended. For his political opponents, this month was as unfortunate as anything that is usually associated with the “unlucky” number thirteen.

The strategy of the Democrats after the defeat in November 2016 was understandable from the very beginning — to deprive Trump of the post of president at any cost by either declaring him an illegitimate president, or recognizing him as legitimate, but removing him from the White House by impeachment. For example, the investigation by special prosecutor Robert Mueller concerning the “criminal collusion between Trump and Putin” was for many months considered by “Democrats” the highest achievement of anti-Trumpism.

But no one knew about Trump’s survival strategy in the Washington swamp.

The events of the past month give every reason to believe that Trump is aiming at the full-scale bankruptcy of his political opponents. This bankruptcy refers not only to financial, but also political, legal, and moral bankruptcy of the Democratic and its allies in the disinformation media.

Put yourself in Trump’s place.

After all, he knows like no other that he is not Putin’s marionette. It is reasonable to assume that Trump has built his counterstrike strategy based on this fact. Why did the Washington swamp not think about the possibility of such a counterpunch and precisely from this direction? Are Soros, Obama, and Clinton so naive that they sincerely believed that Trump would accept their rules of engagement and just idly sit by?

Did they seriously expect that an investigation into something that doesn’t exist would trigger no answer from Trump? None of these neo-Marxists with allegedly high IQs bothered to consider a strategy to forestall Trump just in case he turned out not to be guilty of anything. Could the creatures of the Washington swamp have hoped that Trump would not take advantage of the opportunity provided to him by the Democratic surrealists?

The list of Trump’s counterpunches during the 13th month is impressive. We suddenly found out that:

  • The trumped-up dossier on Trump about his adventures in Russia was ordered and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign The fabricated dossier was probably used by the Obama administration for obtaining FISA court warrant for surveillance and wiretapping of Trump and his campaign headquarters until his inauguration.
  • The wife of U.S. Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr (in the Obama administration) was hired by Fusion GPS (the main contractor of the “Russian dossier”) for work on drafting the dossier.
  • Bruce Ohr met both with the head of Fusion GPS and with former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele (a subcontractor of the “Russian dossier”). It was Steele who, using his old contacts in Moscow, managed to organize a communication channel for a Russian FSB disinformation diversion into the West.
  • The FSB-produced disinformation served as the basis for fabricating the “Russian dossier.”
  • The same FBI “super-agent,” Peter Strzok, was implicated in the case of Hillary Clinton, in the case of General Flynn, in the team of prosecutor Mueller, and in an extensive conspiracy against Trump.

This list is far from complete. Every day we learn something that no Hollywood screenwriter could ever come up with.

For example, look at the composition of the Mueller team. It’s impressive. All of his investigators are supporters of Hillary Clinton. One of Mueller’s investigators spent the election night of 2016 at Hillary’s headquarters to take part in the expected celebration of Hillary Clinton’s victory. Another investigator at one time was one of the Clinton Foundation lawyers. Mueller’s right-hand man was a lawyer for a computer engineer who installed a vulnerable e-mail server for Hillary Clinton. It is documented that 9 of the 16 Mueller team investigators donated large sums of money to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

What was Mueller thinking while assembling his openly anti-Trump team? A man who has made his way to the very top of the Washington swamp is not a naif. Perhaps the Washington elites are not as smart as their lapdog press pretends.

It’s impressive that the pause before Trump’s counterpunch lasted a full year. For twelve months Trump was mostly picking fights with pseudo-reporters. And then someone turned on the green light. Almost every day, America began to learn the detials of the unprecedented “witch hunt,” in which the investigation of Mueller is just the tip of the iceberg. The method and frequency of public disclosure of this information indicate that the people behind it are perfectly aware of the news cycle.

After only one month of Trump’s counterpunches, most Americans are questioning the objectivity of Mueller and his team. The reputation of Mueller’s team drops further every day. This is also facilitated by the fact that all the official charges put forward by the Mueller team so far are unrelated to either Trump or Russia. FBI agent Strzok (who was fired from Mueller’s team for ardent anti-Trumpism) mentioned that this whole “Russiagate” against Trump started simply as an “insurance policy” for the Washington swamp in case of Trump’s win. Nobody needs to explain to Americans what it means.

Since it became known that it was agent Strzok, a Hillary supporter, who not only initiated the Russian investigation but also the termination of the case against Hillary Clinton for criminal negligence in possession of top secret documents, many are calling for the “investigation of investigators.” Of course, the criminalization of American politics will make our country look and feel very similar to the proverbial banana republics. Nevertheless, the Democrats have made their choice in favor of this particular method of political vendetta.

If evidence is presented that the Obama administration used FSU disinformation to obtain permission from the secret FISA court to wiretap the Trump campaign, the reputation of the Democrats and Obama will be destroyed. It is no secret to anyone that the Watergate scandal has led to the fact that the use of government institutions to spy on political opponents has become a real political taboo in America.

The surrealism of the situation lies in the fact that the Russian attempt to influence the elections in America seems to have been confirmed. Republicans should have listened to the Democrats when they accused Russia of interfering in the election process in America — the Democrats knew exactly what they were talking about.

They knew that this Russian attempt was carried out not through Donald Trump, but through Democratic supporters of Hillary Clinton.

Gary Gindler is a conservative Russian-American blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.

The Russian attempt to influence the elections in America seems to have been confirmed. This attempt was carried out not through Donald Trump, but by Democratic supporters of Hillary Clinton.

The 13th month after the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States has just ended. For his political opponents, this month was as unfortunate as anything that is usually associated with the “unlucky” number thirteen.

The strategy of the Democrats after the defeat in November 2016 was understandable from the very beginning — to deprive Trump of the post of president at any cost by either declaring him an illegitimate president, or recognizing him as legitimate, but removing him from the White House by impeachment. For example, the investigation by special prosecutor Robert Mueller concerning the “criminal collusion between Trump and Putin” was for many months considered by “Democrats” the highest achievement of anti-Trumpism.

But no one knew about Trump’s survival strategy in the Washington swamp.

The events of the past month give every reason to believe that Trump is aiming at the full-scale bankruptcy of his political opponents. This bankruptcy refers not only to financial, but also political, legal, and moral bankruptcy of the Democratic and its allies in the disinformation media.

Put yourself in Trump’s place.

After all, he knows like no other that he is not Putin’s marionette. It is reasonable to assume that Trump has built his counterstrike strategy based on this fact. Why did the Washington swamp not think about the possibility of such a counterpunch and precisely from this direction? Are Soros, Obama, and Clinton so naive that they sincerely believed that Trump would accept their rules of engagement and just idly sit by?

Did they seriously expect that an investigation into something that doesn’t exist would trigger no answer from Trump? None of these neo-Marxists with allegedly high IQs bothered to consider a strategy to forestall Trump just in case he turned out not to be guilty of anything. Could the creatures of the Washington swamp have hoped that Trump would not take advantage of the opportunity provided to him by the Democratic surrealists?

The list of Trump’s counterpunches during the 13th month is impressive. We suddenly found out that:

  • The trumped-up dossier on Trump about his adventures in Russia was ordered and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign The fabricated dossier was probably used by the Obama administration for obtaining FISA court warrant for surveillance and wiretapping of Trump and his campaign headquarters until his inauguration.
  • The wife of U.S. Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr (in the Obama administration) was hired by Fusion GPS (the main contractor of the “Russian dossier”) for work on drafting the dossier.
  • Bruce Ohr met both with the head of Fusion GPS and with former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele (a subcontractor of the “Russian dossier”). It was Steele who, using his old contacts in Moscow, managed to organize a communication channel for a Russian FSB disinformation diversion into the West.
  • The FSB-produced disinformation served as the basis for fabricating the “Russian dossier.”
  • The same FBI “super-agent,” Peter Strzok, was implicated in the case of Hillary Clinton, in the case of General Flynn, in the team of prosecutor Mueller, and in an extensive conspiracy against Trump.

This list is far from complete. Every day we learn something that no Hollywood screenwriter could ever come up with.

For example, look at the composition of the Mueller team. It’s impressive. All of his investigators are supporters of Hillary Clinton. One of Mueller’s investigators spent the election night of 2016 at Hillary’s headquarters to take part in the expected celebration of Hillary Clinton’s victory. Another investigator at one time was one of the Clinton Foundation lawyers. Mueller’s right-hand man was a lawyer for a computer engineer who installed a vulnerable e-mail server for Hillary Clinton. It is documented that 9 of the 16 Mueller team investigators donated large sums of money to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

What was Mueller thinking while assembling his openly anti-Trump team? A man who has made his way to the very top of the Washington swamp is not a naif. Perhaps the Washington elites are not as smart as their lapdog press pretends.

It’s impressive that the pause before Trump’s counterpunch lasted a full year. For twelve months Trump was mostly picking fights with pseudo-reporters. And then someone turned on the green light. Almost every day, America began to learn the detials of the unprecedented “witch hunt,” in which the investigation of Mueller is just the tip of the iceberg. The method and frequency of public disclosure of this information indicate that the people behind it are perfectly aware of the news cycle.

After only one month of Trump’s counterpunches, most Americans are questioning the objectivity of Mueller and his team. The reputation of Mueller’s team drops further every day. This is also facilitated by the fact that all the official charges put forward by the Mueller team so far are unrelated to either Trump or Russia. FBI agent Strzok (who was fired from Mueller’s team for ardent anti-Trumpism) mentioned that this whole “Russiagate” against Trump started simply as an “insurance policy” for the Washington swamp in case of Trump’s win. Nobody needs to explain to Americans what it means.

Since it became known that it was agent Strzok, a Hillary supporter, who not only initiated the Russian investigation but also the termination of the case against Hillary Clinton for criminal negligence in possession of top secret documents, many are calling for the “investigation of investigators.” Of course, the criminalization of American politics will make our country look and feel very similar to the proverbial banana republics. Nevertheless, the Democrats have made their choice in favor of this particular method of political vendetta.

If evidence is presented that the Obama administration used FSU disinformation to obtain permission from the secret FISA court to wiretap the Trump campaign, the reputation of the Democrats and Obama will be destroyed. It is no secret to anyone that the Watergate scandal has led to the fact that the use of government institutions to spy on political opponents has become a real political taboo in America.

The surrealism of the situation lies in the fact that the Russian attempt to influence the elections in America seems to have been confirmed. Republicans should have listened to the Democrats when they accused Russia of interfering in the election process in America — the Democrats knew exactly what they were talking about.

They knew that this Russian attempt was carried out not through Donald Trump, but through Democratic supporters of Hillary Clinton.

Gary Gindler is a conservative Russian-American blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.



Source link

An Insult the US Won't Forget


On Monday, the U.S. vetoed a UN Security Council draft resolution criticizing the United States’ decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.  The vote was 14 to 1 and stated that the U.S. decision is null and void and must be rescinded, with only the U.S. voting against it.  Under pressure by the Palestinians and Arab and Muslim nations, the president of the UN General Assembly has called an emergency session of the General Assembly for Thursday to consider a resolution similar to the one presented to the Security Council for the sole purpose of condemning the U.S. again. 

These 14 countries, including supposed American allies that are supported financially by the U.S., did not mind embarrassing, humiliating, and insulting President Trump on the international stage and challenging U.S. sovereignty. The UN Security Council with its 14 members was trying to interfere and dictate to the U.S. what its foreign policy should be while being hosted by the U.S. on American soil and being supported financially by the generosity of the American taxpayers. These nations chose to vote for and appease Mahmoud Abbas, the corrupt Palestinian leader who was the second in command to the notorious terrorist Yasser Arafat, the financier of Palestinian anti-Israel and American terrorist attacks for decades, a Holocaust denier, and an unelected tyrant, over the leader of the free world.

In forcing the U.S. to use its veto, the other countries emboldened America’s enemies and adversaries by highlighting the isolation the U.S. faces on the world stage. All this on the same day Trump presented his administration ‘s national security strategy.  As U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said “what we witnessed here today in the Security Council is an insult. It won’t be forgotten. For the simple act of deciding where to put our embassy, the U.S. was forced to defend its sovereignty. The record will reflect that we did it proudly.” 

The 14 members of the security council included supposedly very strong U.S. allies such as Britain, France, Japan, Italy, Sweden, and Egypt, which was the one to introduce the resolution.  France and Britain stated they voted for the Security Council resolution in the search of peace in the Middle East. The other countries were Bolivia, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Senegal, Ukraine, and Uruguay, China, and Russia. Ironically, the U.S. has its embassies in all those countries ‘s own designated capital city.  

The Palestinian Authority, which receives more than 50 percent of its foreign financial aid from the U.S., has been shamelessly leading the attack and the defamation campaign against the U.S. and the Trump administration.  The Palestinian negotiators stated that the point of the resolution was to show that the U.S. stands alone on the Jerusalem recognition, to isolate the U.S., and to pressure the U.S. to reverse its position. 

On December 13, in a speech at the special meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Abbas made false and anti-Semitic statements about Israel, Jews, and Jerusalem. Abbas revealed himself as an Arafat in a suit by following his predecessor beliefs in denying any Jewish history in Jerusalem at all and presenting Jerusalem as a Christian/Muslim city whose only connection to Jews is that they are lying about it and defiling it, and “are excellent in faking and counterfeiting history and religion.” On December 18, the UK, France, Sweden, Japan, and Italy chose to support the position and claims of such a leader for the sake of supposed peace over their important U.S. ally.  

This is a critical moment for the Trump Administration and an important turning point in American foreign policy. The only explanation to those one-sided anti-American vote and criticism is a lack of fear of those nations and entities from any retaliation from the United States. It seems those nations seem to be more afraid of insulting or humiliating the Muslim, Arab, and the Palestinian crime family than the United States. If these allies are not afraid of the Trump administration why would the dangerous actors in the Middle East such as Iran, its proxies, and other Jihadists be afraid? If tiny, weak nations such as Bolivia, Uruguay, and Ukraine are not deterred by the U.S., why would North Korea be? If the PA which survives mainly because of U.S. funding, dares to disrespect and threaten the U.S. and continues violating existing U.S. laws by going after Israeli nationals in International bodies including the International Criminal Court, why would Hamas, Hizb’allah, and other terrorist entities hesitate to attack the U.S. and its allies?

In order for the Trump administration to retain its deterrence power and diplomatic leverage, Trump must fulfill his campaign promise by beginning to cut some of the aid it has provided to the UN, NATO, Japan, and any other country that it has helped financially and gotten nothing in return including the Palestinians. The U.S. seems to be as isolated as Israel internationally, but Israel is of course a geographically small nation while the U.S. is the only superpower left.   

In 2017, United States provided the Palestinian Authority around $362 million for economic and security training, making Palestine the largest per capita recipient of foreign aid worldwide and accounting for 52 percent of all its foreign aid. In addition, America gave UNRWA, the UN agency that caters solely to Palestinian refugees and their descendants, $300 million, which funded almost 30 percent of its budget. Since 1950, the U.S. has given over $5 billion to UNRWA. Since 1979, the U.S. has given Egypt $1.3 billion a year which makes up 1/3 of Egypt’s military budget. 

The United Nations consists of 193 sovereign nations and still the U.S. pays 22 percent of its budget, or about $1.2 billion, and 28 percent of the UN Peacekeeping budget, or about $2.2 billion a year.  NATO is a military alliance that consists of 29 countries across North America and Europe and its main purpose is to protect European countries such as France, Britain, Italy who voted against the US. The U.S. contributes more than 22.1 percent of the direct collective funding that has kept NATO ‘s military and civilian operations running since 1949, spending $1,877  for each American taxpayer annually. 

The U.S. supports Japan militarily against the threats of countries such as North Korea and China with two billion dollars by having U.S. military bases in Japan with 49,000 U.S. troops stationed costing the U.S. $40,000 per soldier per year.  

On Tuesday, Nikki Haley warned that “the U.S. will be taking names“during the UN General Assembly vote on Thursday. It is about time. American generosity should not be taken for granted anymore and the time has arrived that those countries doing so are hit where it hurts the most, in their pocketbook. 

Watch Shoula Romano Horing’s speech on YouTube “Why Trump is right to Recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital” 

On Monday, the U.S. vetoed a UN Security Council draft resolution criticizing the United States’ decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.  The vote was 14 to 1 and stated that the U.S. decision is null and void and must be rescinded, with only the U.S. voting against it.  Under pressure by the Palestinians and Arab and Muslim nations, the president of the UN General Assembly has called an emergency session of the General Assembly for Thursday to consider a resolution similar to the one presented to the Security Council for the sole purpose of condemning the U.S. again. 

These 14 countries, including supposed American allies that are supported financially by the U.S., did not mind embarrassing, humiliating, and insulting President Trump on the international stage and challenging U.S. sovereignty. The UN Security Council with its 14 members was trying to interfere and dictate to the U.S. what its foreign policy should be while being hosted by the U.S. on American soil and being supported financially by the generosity of the American taxpayers. These nations chose to vote for and appease Mahmoud Abbas, the corrupt Palestinian leader who was the second in command to the notorious terrorist Yasser Arafat, the financier of Palestinian anti-Israel and American terrorist attacks for decades, a Holocaust denier, and an unelected tyrant, over the leader of the free world.

In forcing the U.S. to use its veto, the other countries emboldened America’s enemies and adversaries by highlighting the isolation the U.S. faces on the world stage. All this on the same day Trump presented his administration ‘s national security strategy.  As U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said “what we witnessed here today in the Security Council is an insult. It won’t be forgotten. For the simple act of deciding where to put our embassy, the U.S. was forced to defend its sovereignty. The record will reflect that we did it proudly.” 

The 14 members of the security council included supposedly very strong U.S. allies such as Britain, France, Japan, Italy, Sweden, and Egypt, which was the one to introduce the resolution.  France and Britain stated they voted for the Security Council resolution in the search of peace in the Middle East. The other countries were Bolivia, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Senegal, Ukraine, and Uruguay, China, and Russia. Ironically, the U.S. has its embassies in all those countries ‘s own designated capital city.  

The Palestinian Authority, which receives more than 50 percent of its foreign financial aid from the U.S., has been shamelessly leading the attack and the defamation campaign against the U.S. and the Trump administration.  The Palestinian negotiators stated that the point of the resolution was to show that the U.S. stands alone on the Jerusalem recognition, to isolate the U.S., and to pressure the U.S. to reverse its position. 

On December 13, in a speech at the special meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Abbas made false and anti-Semitic statements about Israel, Jews, and Jerusalem. Abbas revealed himself as an Arafat in a suit by following his predecessor beliefs in denying any Jewish history in Jerusalem at all and presenting Jerusalem as a Christian/Muslim city whose only connection to Jews is that they are lying about it and defiling it, and “are excellent in faking and counterfeiting history and religion.” On December 18, the UK, France, Sweden, Japan, and Italy chose to support the position and claims of such a leader for the sake of supposed peace over their important U.S. ally.  

This is a critical moment for the Trump Administration and an important turning point in American foreign policy. The only explanation to those one-sided anti-American vote and criticism is a lack of fear of those nations and entities from any retaliation from the United States. It seems those nations seem to be more afraid of insulting or humiliating the Muslim, Arab, and the Palestinian crime family than the United States. If these allies are not afraid of the Trump administration why would the dangerous actors in the Middle East such as Iran, its proxies, and other Jihadists be afraid? If tiny, weak nations such as Bolivia, Uruguay, and Ukraine are not deterred by the U.S., why would North Korea be? If the PA which survives mainly because of U.S. funding, dares to disrespect and threaten the U.S. and continues violating existing U.S. laws by going after Israeli nationals in International bodies including the International Criminal Court, why would Hamas, Hizb’allah, and other terrorist entities hesitate to attack the U.S. and its allies?

In order for the Trump administration to retain its deterrence power and diplomatic leverage, Trump must fulfill his campaign promise by beginning to cut some of the aid it has provided to the UN, NATO, Japan, and any other country that it has helped financially and gotten nothing in return including the Palestinians. The U.S. seems to be as isolated as Israel internationally, but Israel is of course a geographically small nation while the U.S. is the only superpower left.   

In 2017, United States provided the Palestinian Authority around $362 million for economic and security training, making Palestine the largest per capita recipient of foreign aid worldwide and accounting for 52 percent of all its foreign aid. In addition, America gave UNRWA, the UN agency that caters solely to Palestinian refugees and their descendants, $300 million, which funded almost 30 percent of its budget. Since 1950, the U.S. has given over $5 billion to UNRWA. Since 1979, the U.S. has given Egypt $1.3 billion a year which makes up 1/3 of Egypt’s military budget. 

The United Nations consists of 193 sovereign nations and still the U.S. pays 22 percent of its budget, or about $1.2 billion, and 28 percent of the UN Peacekeeping budget, or about $2.2 billion a year.  NATO is a military alliance that consists of 29 countries across North America and Europe and its main purpose is to protect European countries such as France, Britain, Italy who voted against the US. The U.S. contributes more than 22.1 percent of the direct collective funding that has kept NATO ‘s military and civilian operations running since 1949, spending $1,877  for each American taxpayer annually. 

The U.S. supports Japan militarily against the threats of countries such as North Korea and China with two billion dollars by having U.S. military bases in Japan with 49,000 U.S. troops stationed costing the U.S. $40,000 per soldier per year.  

On Tuesday, Nikki Haley warned that “the U.S. will be taking names“during the UN General Assembly vote on Thursday. It is about time. American generosity should not be taken for granted anymore and the time has arrived that those countries doing so are hit where it hurts the most, in their pocketbook. 

Watch Shoula Romano Horing’s speech on YouTube “Why Trump is right to Recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital” 



Source link

'He Said We Were Good': Why Trump's Message Resonates with Evangelicals


Despite Donald Trump’s sometimes boorish behavior, his approval ratings remain stubbornly high among evangelicals. According to an analysis of Pew Research surveys conducted in February and April 2017, Trump’s approval ratings are at 75% among evangelical Christians, almost twice as high as among the general populace. While some Democrats might express surprise at evangelicals’ support for a man whose extravagant lifestyle would seem to eliminate him as a conservative hero, a closer look reveals the close alignment between Donald Trump’s rhetoric and the Biblical values of evangelicals.

Evangelicals are by and large a churchgoing group. According to Pew Research Center, among white evangelical Protestant registered voters interviewed in 2016, eight in ten said they attended church once a week, and 63% said they attended religious service at least once a week.  While the values of evangelicals are anything but uniform, University of Stirling historian David W. Bebbington  boiled the evangelical belief system down to four core ideas, what he called the “quadrilateral of priorities”:

  1. The need to be born again;
  2. The supremacy of biblical authority;
  3. Salvation through the death and resurrection of the Son of God;
  4. Active sharing of the gospel through evangelism.

When looking at Trump’s rhetoric, for example, in his Poland speech on July 6 and his inaugural speech in January, certain patterns emerge that align closely with the Biblical worldview of Christian evangelicals.

1. You are good. You are loving. You are courageous.

In the Obama years, we commonly heard negative things said about America and Americans. We could do better on healthcare, for example. We needed to overcome our inherent racism. The lecture of Attorney General Eric Holder under the Obama administration and the attendance of representatives from the White House at the funeral of Michael Brown, for example, signaled to some the administration’s embrace of a narrative that America was guilty and in some ways, irredeemably so.

Trump’s Inaugural Address, on the other hand, asserted a very different view of Americans:

“So to all Americans, in every city near and far, small and large, from mountain to mountain, from ocean to ocean, hear these words:


You will never be ignored again.


Your voices, your hopes, and your dreams will define our American destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us along the way.”

Trump’s simple allusion to the courage, goodness, and love of all Americans was to many evangelicals a gentle reassurance that the highest office in the land no longer viewed us as bad. Trump even went further than to simply exculpate us from guilt. He called us courageous and good and loving. Such a view is in close alignment with the evangelical view that while all humans are sinners, through Christ’s love we are redeemed and made clean no matter the color of our skin or our gender. Such a positive perception of our identity as Americans was not lost on evangelicals in no small part because they closely aligned with the Biblical view of our redeemed spirit as a result of our faith in Christ.

2. Everyone deserves redemption.

In his inaugural speech, Trump continued to develop this theme that everyone deserves redemption regardless of his or her external identity. Once again, his reference to Detroit, a city nearly 85% black, and Nebraska, a state nearly 90% white, and his assertion that the children from both places are God’s children resonated powerfully with evangelicals.

“And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky; they fill their heart with the same dreams, and they are infused with the same breath of life by the same almighty Creator.”

Such a message was inclusive enough to even include Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables,” whom the once favored-to-win Democratic nominee reviled and slandered as racist, homophobic, and sexist for supporting Trump.

Some may recall that clever pundits and journalists were once skeptical that any Trump supporters actually existed. The Russian-American satirist Oleg Atbashian wrote a clever piece on this phenomenon back in March 2016 before the election called “Some of my best friends are Trump supporters.”

When the electoral map is fluid, when things are happening rapidly in real time, and when no reliable historical data exists, we rely on personal experience and anecdotal evidence. In the absence of such, the writers simply fill the gap in their knowledge with their own prejudices, similar to how medieval mapmakers marked unexplored areas with “here be dragons.”

In retrospect, it did seem that Clinton’s Democrats marked vast stretches of territory with the words “Here be dragons.” The idea that our current Commander-in-Chief thought highly of these “dragons” as worthy, righteous people garnered even more support for the president from evangelicals.

3. We are a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values.

Under Obama we were often told that the United States was a secular multicultural nation where people of many different creeds and colors came together to make a rich American tapestry. Trump presented a very different image of our nation. According to him, we are a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles and this foundation is at the core of our free society.

Trump asserted the historical foundations of our religiosity at a speech he gave at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia in May 2017:

“When the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, they prayed. When the Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, they invoked our Creator four times, because in America, we don’t worship government, we worship God. That is why our elected officials put their hands on the Bible, and say, ‘so help me God’ as they take the oath of office.”

In Trump’s America, we the people have a soul and a spirit. We are good and loving people, and we have the right to defend our identity as at our core our identity is linked to our belief in a loving God.

4. America has a soul worth preserving.

Such a vision, of course, fits neatly into the worldview of evangelicals. A loving God created each one of us and gave us a soul. Trump’s Poland speech extended this theme as he projected his worldview that the West is engaged in a grand struggle between good and evil. Here Trump’s central and recurring idea of the everlasting soul of a nation rising against the Zeitgeist to assert its place and identity resurfaces.

As Mark Bauerlein wrote in his excellent analysis “We Want God,” religious Americans understood the message of Trump’s Poland speech clearly because even though some in the mainstream media presented it as being subliminally racist, “It wasn’t a dog whistle. It was an acclamation.”

Trump states, “Poland is the geographic heart of Europe, but more importantly, in the Polish people, we see the soul of Europe.”

Later, he goes on to say, “I’m here to hold Poland up as an example for those who wish to summon the courage and the will to defend our civilization.” According to Trump, our civilization is under threat and we are engaged in a battle that we don’t even realize is taking place.

“Our own fight of the West does not begin on the battlefield — It begins with our minds, our wills, and our souls.”

In the same way that Bebbington boiled evangelical beliefs down to four core values, I would argue that the values espoused in Trump’s rhetoric can be boiled down to four main principles:

  1. We are good people with a good history.
  2. We are deserving of redemption;
  3. We are a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values;
  4. We have a soul that is worth preserving.

My prediction is that as long as Trump’s message remains consistent, evangelical Americans will continue to overlook his personal and political failings and remain instead Trump’s most ardent supporters, for Trump was one of the few who said they were good when for so long they had been told they were bad. 

Despite Donald Trump’s sometimes boorish behavior, his approval ratings remain stubbornly high among evangelicals. According to an analysis of Pew Research surveys conducted in February and April 2017, Trump’s approval ratings are at 75% among evangelical Christians, almost twice as high as among the general populace. While some Democrats might express surprise at evangelicals’ support for a man whose extravagant lifestyle would seem to eliminate him as a conservative hero, a closer look reveals the close alignment between Donald Trump’s rhetoric and the Biblical values of evangelicals.

Evangelicals are by and large a churchgoing group. According to Pew Research Center, among white evangelical Protestant registered voters interviewed in 2016, eight in ten said they attended church once a week, and 63% said they attended religious service at least once a week.  While the values of evangelicals are anything but uniform, University of Stirling historian David W. Bebbington  boiled the evangelical belief system down to four core ideas, what he called the “quadrilateral of priorities”:

  1. The need to be born again;
  2. The supremacy of biblical authority;
  3. Salvation through the death and resurrection of the Son of God;
  4. Active sharing of the gospel through evangelism.

When looking at Trump’s rhetoric, for example, in his Poland speech on July 6 and his inaugural speech in January, certain patterns emerge that align closely with the Biblical worldview of Christian evangelicals.

1. You are good. You are loving. You are courageous.

In the Obama years, we commonly heard negative things said about America and Americans. We could do better on healthcare, for example. We needed to overcome our inherent racism. The lecture of Attorney General Eric Holder under the Obama administration and the attendance of representatives from the White House at the funeral of Michael Brown, for example, signaled to some the administration’s embrace of a narrative that America was guilty and in some ways, irredeemably so.

Trump’s Inaugural Address, on the other hand, asserted a very different view of Americans:

“So to all Americans, in every city near and far, small and large, from mountain to mountain, from ocean to ocean, hear these words:


You will never be ignored again.


Your voices, your hopes, and your dreams will define our American destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us along the way.”

Trump’s simple allusion to the courage, goodness, and love of all Americans was to many evangelicals a gentle reassurance that the highest office in the land no longer viewed us as bad. Trump even went further than to simply exculpate us from guilt. He called us courageous and good and loving. Such a view is in close alignment with the evangelical view that while all humans are sinners, through Christ’s love we are redeemed and made clean no matter the color of our skin or our gender. Such a positive perception of our identity as Americans was not lost on evangelicals in no small part because they closely aligned with the Biblical view of our redeemed spirit as a result of our faith in Christ.

2. Everyone deserves redemption.

In his inaugural speech, Trump continued to develop this theme that everyone deserves redemption regardless of his or her external identity. Once again, his reference to Detroit, a city nearly 85% black, and Nebraska, a state nearly 90% white, and his assertion that the children from both places are God’s children resonated powerfully with evangelicals.

“And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky; they fill their heart with the same dreams, and they are infused with the same breath of life by the same almighty Creator.”

Such a message was inclusive enough to even include Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables,” whom the once favored-to-win Democratic nominee reviled and slandered as racist, homophobic, and sexist for supporting Trump.

Some may recall that clever pundits and journalists were once skeptical that any Trump supporters actually existed. The Russian-American satirist Oleg Atbashian wrote a clever piece on this phenomenon back in March 2016 before the election called “Some of my best friends are Trump supporters.”

When the electoral map is fluid, when things are happening rapidly in real time, and when no reliable historical data exists, we rely on personal experience and anecdotal evidence. In the absence of such, the writers simply fill the gap in their knowledge with their own prejudices, similar to how medieval mapmakers marked unexplored areas with “here be dragons.”

In retrospect, it did seem that Clinton’s Democrats marked vast stretches of territory with the words “Here be dragons.” The idea that our current Commander-in-Chief thought highly of these “dragons” as worthy, righteous people garnered even more support for the president from evangelicals.

3. We are a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values.

Under Obama we were often told that the United States was a secular multicultural nation where people of many different creeds and colors came together to make a rich American tapestry. Trump presented a very different image of our nation. According to him, we are a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles and this foundation is at the core of our free society.

Trump asserted the historical foundations of our religiosity at a speech he gave at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia in May 2017:

“When the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, they prayed. When the Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, they invoked our Creator four times, because in America, we don’t worship government, we worship God. That is why our elected officials put their hands on the Bible, and say, ‘so help me God’ as they take the oath of office.”

In Trump’s America, we the people have a soul and a spirit. We are good and loving people, and we have the right to defend our identity as at our core our identity is linked to our belief in a loving God.

4. America has a soul worth preserving.

Such a vision, of course, fits neatly into the worldview of evangelicals. A loving God created each one of us and gave us a soul. Trump’s Poland speech extended this theme as he projected his worldview that the West is engaged in a grand struggle between good and evil. Here Trump’s central and recurring idea of the everlasting soul of a nation rising against the Zeitgeist to assert its place and identity resurfaces.

As Mark Bauerlein wrote in his excellent analysis “We Want God,” religious Americans understood the message of Trump’s Poland speech clearly because even though some in the mainstream media presented it as being subliminally racist, “It wasn’t a dog whistle. It was an acclamation.”

Trump states, “Poland is the geographic heart of Europe, but more importantly, in the Polish people, we see the soul of Europe.”

Later, he goes on to say, “I’m here to hold Poland up as an example for those who wish to summon the courage and the will to defend our civilization.” According to Trump, our civilization is under threat and we are engaged in a battle that we don’t even realize is taking place.

“Our own fight of the West does not begin on the battlefield — It begins with our minds, our wills, and our souls.”

In the same way that Bebbington boiled evangelical beliefs down to four core values, I would argue that the values espoused in Trump’s rhetoric can be boiled down to four main principles:

  1. We are good people with a good history.
  2. We are deserving of redemption;
  3. We are a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values;
  4. We have a soul that is worth preserving.

My prediction is that as long as Trump’s message remains consistent, evangelical Americans will continue to overlook his personal and political failings and remain instead Trump’s most ardent supporters, for Trump was one of the few who said they were good when for so long they had been told they were bad. 



Source link

Not Just Jerusalem: Why America's Rabbis Voted Trump and Don't Regret It


Yes, you read correctly.  America’s rabbis voted for Donald Trump.

Given the common belief that Jews are liberal, this may come as a surprise to many.  But not only do Orthodox Jews (the traditionally observant) have very different political leanings from their more liberal brethren, but they now encompass the vast majority of American Jewish clergy.

Lakewood, N.J. is the home of the largest rabbinic seminary in America and home to tens of thousands of its alumni.  In a few square blocks, you’ll encounter more rabbis than liberal seminaries have produced in several decades.  Lakewood also produced the largest pro-Trump majority in 2016 of any New Jersey town, despite a higher percentage of immigrants, impoverished, and non-whites than most other pro-Trump communities.

Rabbis voted Trump not for financial benefits; it is liberal candidates who support generous government programs.  They supported him not simply because of his pro-Israel posture, although he has exceeded expectations with his new, commonsense approach to the right of Israelis to live in peace and security.

Neither did they blind themselves to Trump’s failings.  They do not support what he said on a bus 12 years ago or appreciate the un-presidential things he says or tweets on a daily basis.  They look askance at casinos and beauty pageants and have little patience for “reality TV.”

So what is it about Trump that they liked on Election Day, and like even more a year later?

First of all, Trump understands that good and evil remain vibrant in today’s world and refuses to point fingers only at those who liberals agree are evil.  Charlottesville provided a great example of this phenomenon.

No honest reading of the president’s remarks has him calling white supremacists “fine people.”  This nonsense, so loudly proclaimed in the media, was designed to prevent sober analysis of Trump’s true crime: he dared point out that violence and bigotry are not unique to those perceived as “right-wing.”  This, liberals could not countenance.  As Maxine Waters put it, “No, Trump.  Not on many sides – your side.”

That liberal narrative is both false and profoundly dangerous.  Our First Amendment liberties depend upon protection of free speech even for those with abhorrent views.  Disruption of opposition events was a Nazi tactic, and had Antifa not violently employed it against the Nazis, we might hardly have heard of Charlottesville.

In the succeeding weeks and months, Antifa repeatedly proved President Trump correct, using force to stifle free speech not from Nazis, but from anyone with whom they disagreed — including Ben Shapiro, the conservative, yarmulke-clad Jew who was the journalist most targeted by anti-Semites in 2016.  Trump deserved an ovation for stating that hatred is not a one-sided phenomenon.

The leading belief of anti-Semites is that all Jewish property is stolen; this is something rabbis know from both rabbinic literature and world history.  It is why Jews were forced to live in ghettos and barred from most professions during the Middle Ages.  It is why the Nazis began with a boycott that declared that Germans should “protect themselves” rather than buy from Jews.  And it is why the Arab League co-opted the German boycott, which leftists then renamed BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) to make a “human rights” cause out of economic warfare against Jews living in their ancestral homeland, something visited upon none of those engaged in true, unquestioned occupations of the homelands of others around the world.

Thus, anti-Semitism travels seamlessly between the far right and the far left.  It is too real and too dangerous to be wielded as a partisan cudgel.

We already had a president who said Israel is “occupying” Palestinian land and who sat idly while the U.N. called Jewish life in Judea “illegal.”  Similar language was seven percentage points away from being part of the Democratic platform.  The only foreign flag flown inside the DNC was Palestinian, while they burned the Israeli flag outside.  That’s not about Israel’s politics, government, or policy.  That’s about anti-Semitism.

The Republican platform rejected the “false notion” that Israel is an occupier, and President Trump has unquestionably acted in accordance with those positions.  He has a history of trusting visibly observant Jews, and he put two of them, Jared Kushner and Jason Dov Greenblatt, in charge of negotiating peace with Mahmoud Abbas.  Their first demand was that Abbas stop funding terrorism.  In any other context, this would seem obvious, yet this revolutionary idea entirely escaped previous negotiating teams.

Nikki Haley’s indignant, even furious reaction to the U.N. Security Council’s attempt to tell the United States where it can put its embassy to Israel was merely her latest verbal fusillade against U.N. bias regarding the world’s sole Jewish state.  Trump’s decision to move the embassy, recognizing that no peace can be achieved that does not recognize the attachment of Jews to Jerusalem, showed that he is unafraid to speak truth to world powers.  The administration was far too busy protecting Jewish interests to pay attention to Jewish liberals claiming that Trump was “encouraging” Alt-Right hatred.

And then there is the “big picture” – the underlying vision for the future of America.  Western civilization traces its roots to what are called Judeo-Christian values, which trace their roots to a small community of liberated slaves clustered on the Eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea.

Their Bible sanctified human life and peace, while surrounding countries glorified warfare and considered fights to the death a form of entertainment.  They taught that a ruler’s power must be limited, that even a king must live within the law.  They pioneered universal education, which other cultures reserved for the wealthy.  And they valued family and social responsibility while others regarded these as signs of weakness.

Western civilization depends upon choosing biblical values over those of Greeks, Romans, Huns, and Visigoths.  This is not a political posture, but reference to our moral foundation.  It is a sad commentary that one party seems devoted to tearing down traditional moral norms, expressing the belief that what is new is automatically superior.

Rabbis were guided by rabbinic scholarship and their consciences.  We do not look to politicians as role models, and the idea of a perfect human is foreign to Judaism in any case.  Rather, an election is a binary choice.  Which candidate and which party will better protect innocent lives – our lives – here and around the world, and keep America closer to our core values?

This is why rabbis voted for Trump in 2016 and are yet happier with that choice today.

Rabbi Menken is the managing director of the Coalition for Jewish Values.

Yes, you read correctly.  America’s rabbis voted for Donald Trump.

Given the common belief that Jews are liberal, this may come as a surprise to many.  But not only do Orthodox Jews (the traditionally observant) have very different political leanings from their more liberal brethren, but they now encompass the vast majority of American Jewish clergy.

Lakewood, N.J. is the home of the largest rabbinic seminary in America and home to tens of thousands of its alumni.  In a few square blocks, you’ll encounter more rabbis than liberal seminaries have produced in several decades.  Lakewood also produced the largest pro-Trump majority in 2016 of any New Jersey town, despite a higher percentage of immigrants, impoverished, and non-whites than most other pro-Trump communities.

Rabbis voted Trump not for financial benefits; it is liberal candidates who support generous government programs.  They supported him not simply because of his pro-Israel posture, although he has exceeded expectations with his new, commonsense approach to the right of Israelis to live in peace and security.

Neither did they blind themselves to Trump’s failings.  They do not support what he said on a bus 12 years ago or appreciate the un-presidential things he says or tweets on a daily basis.  They look askance at casinos and beauty pageants and have little patience for “reality TV.”

So what is it about Trump that they liked on Election Day, and like even more a year later?

First of all, Trump understands that good and evil remain vibrant in today’s world and refuses to point fingers only at those who liberals agree are evil.  Charlottesville provided a great example of this phenomenon.

No honest reading of the president’s remarks has him calling white supremacists “fine people.”  This nonsense, so loudly proclaimed in the media, was designed to prevent sober analysis of Trump’s true crime: he dared point out that violence and bigotry are not unique to those perceived as “right-wing.”  This, liberals could not countenance.  As Maxine Waters put it, “No, Trump.  Not on many sides – your side.”

That liberal narrative is both false and profoundly dangerous.  Our First Amendment liberties depend upon protection of free speech even for those with abhorrent views.  Disruption of opposition events was a Nazi tactic, and had Antifa not violently employed it against the Nazis, we might hardly have heard of Charlottesville.

In the succeeding weeks and months, Antifa repeatedly proved President Trump correct, using force to stifle free speech not from Nazis, but from anyone with whom they disagreed — including Ben Shapiro, the conservative, yarmulke-clad Jew who was the journalist most targeted by anti-Semites in 2016.  Trump deserved an ovation for stating that hatred is not a one-sided phenomenon.

The leading belief of anti-Semites is that all Jewish property is stolen; this is something rabbis know from both rabbinic literature and world history.  It is why Jews were forced to live in ghettos and barred from most professions during the Middle Ages.  It is why the Nazis began with a boycott that declared that Germans should “protect themselves” rather than buy from Jews.  And it is why the Arab League co-opted the German boycott, which leftists then renamed BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) to make a “human rights” cause out of economic warfare against Jews living in their ancestral homeland, something visited upon none of those engaged in true, unquestioned occupations of the homelands of others around the world.

Thus, anti-Semitism travels seamlessly between the far right and the far left.  It is too real and too dangerous to be wielded as a partisan cudgel.

We already had a president who said Israel is “occupying” Palestinian land and who sat idly while the U.N. called Jewish life in Judea “illegal.”  Similar language was seven percentage points away from being part of the Democratic platform.  The only foreign flag flown inside the DNC was Palestinian, while they burned the Israeli flag outside.  That’s not about Israel’s politics, government, or policy.  That’s about anti-Semitism.

The Republican platform rejected the “false notion” that Israel is an occupier, and President Trump has unquestionably acted in accordance with those positions.  He has a history of trusting visibly observant Jews, and he put two of them, Jared Kushner and Jason Dov Greenblatt, in charge of negotiating peace with Mahmoud Abbas.  Their first demand was that Abbas stop funding terrorism.  In any other context, this would seem obvious, yet this revolutionary idea entirely escaped previous negotiating teams.

Nikki Haley’s indignant, even furious reaction to the U.N. Security Council’s attempt to tell the United States where it can put its embassy to Israel was merely her latest verbal fusillade against U.N. bias regarding the world’s sole Jewish state.  Trump’s decision to move the embassy, recognizing that no peace can be achieved that does not recognize the attachment of Jews to Jerusalem, showed that he is unafraid to speak truth to world powers.  The administration was far too busy protecting Jewish interests to pay attention to Jewish liberals claiming that Trump was “encouraging” Alt-Right hatred.

And then there is the “big picture” – the underlying vision for the future of America.  Western civilization traces its roots to what are called Judeo-Christian values, which trace their roots to a small community of liberated slaves clustered on the Eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea.

Their Bible sanctified human life and peace, while surrounding countries glorified warfare and considered fights to the death a form of entertainment.  They taught that a ruler’s power must be limited, that even a king must live within the law.  They pioneered universal education, which other cultures reserved for the wealthy.  And they valued family and social responsibility while others regarded these as signs of weakness.

Western civilization depends upon choosing biblical values over those of Greeks, Romans, Huns, and Visigoths.  This is not a political posture, but reference to our moral foundation.  It is a sad commentary that one party seems devoted to tearing down traditional moral norms, expressing the belief that what is new is automatically superior.

Rabbis were guided by rabbinic scholarship and their consciences.  We do not look to politicians as role models, and the idea of a perfect human is foreign to Judaism in any case.  Rather, an election is a binary choice.  Which candidate and which party will better protect innocent lives – our lives – here and around the world, and keep America closer to our core values?

This is why rabbis voted for Trump in 2016 and are yet happier with that choice today.

Rabbi Menken is the managing director of the Coalition for Jewish Values.



Source link