Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Why are Christians voting for Donald Trump?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I don't have many problems with those who voted for Cruz. For me, there are too many coincidences and relationships that cause me to question his intent. Yes, his stance on issues is great. But I feel he could be a "Trojan Horse". He worked under Bush, his wife works for Goldman Sachs, and i don't feel he's genuine. Trump isn't even close to perfect. I hate that he believes in torture, but he has shown that he can be informed about something and change. He's calling 9/11 an inside job, and calling to audit the Federal Reserve. The only 2 to talk about doing that, Lincoln and JFK. Huckabee said this is a revolution, we should be happy that it isn't violent. Newt Gingrich said the establishment doesn't like Trump because he isn't part of the secret society. I am not naive enough to believe Trump is really the answer, but I believe he is a chance. 

Here is the analogy. We've been hiring these plumbers from 2 different companies for a long time. Neither one of them is fixing our leak, yet we keep hiring them. Not only do they not fix the leak, but it gets worse. We don't care what the plumber looks like, but we aren't hiring from those 2 companies. We don't care if he has an animal on his head, or he likes women, or he has a foul mouth, we just want something different. This is why so many people are going for Sanders. Right or wrong, he's different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
32 minutes ago, Matthew24 said:

I don't have many problems with those who voted for Cruz. For me, there are too many coincidences and relationships that cause me to question his intent. Yes, his stance on issues is great. But I feel he could be a "Trojan Horse". He worked under Bush, his wife works for Goldman Sachs, and i don't feel he's genuine. Trump isn't even close to perfect. I hate that he believes in torture, but he has shown that he can be informed about something and change. He's calling 9/11 an inside job, and calling to audit the Federal Reserve. The only 2 to talk about doing that, Lincoln and JFK. Huckabee said this is a revolution, we should be happy that it isn't violent. Newt Gingrich said the establishment doesn't like Trump because he isn't part of the secret society. I am not naive enough to believe Trump is really the answer, but I believe he is a chance. 

Here is the analogy. We've been hiring these plumbers from 2 different companies for a long time. Neither one of them is fixing our leak, yet we keep hiring them. Not only do they not fix the leak, but it gets worse. We don't care what the plumber looks like, but we aren't hiring from those 2 companies. We don't care if he has an animal on his head, or he likes women, or he has a foul mouth, we just want something different. This is why so many people are going for Sanders. Right or wrong, he's different.

  I know he wasn't perfect, and I certainly didn't agree with some things he did, but I would take "GW" right now over the one we have now, and the majority of the ones who are running for office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

YES! I'd take George Washington over any of them. lol. idk about Bush...he's still a traitor. The Reagan's hated them. Obama is the worst, and possibly the AC in my opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't an election. Civil emergency to keep him in power. If you don't think Bush knew about 9/11 you are willingly ignorant. Dumb on purpose. Jeb escorted the Bin Laden's out of Florida. There is really so much evidence if you don't know by now....you don't want to know, because it's easier to go through life waiving your American flag and calling us conspiracy theorists....while the real patriots want to know the truth. Read your bible. The antichrist can't run the New World Order with the 1 world super power against him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
31 minutes ago, Matthew24 said:

YES! I'd take George Washington over any of them. lol. idk about Bush...he's still a traitor. The Reagan's hated them. Obama is the worst, and possibly the AC in my opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't an election. Civil emergency to keep him in power. If you don't think Bush knew about 9/11 you are willingly ignorant. Dumb on purpose. Jeb escorted the Bin Laden's out of Florida. There is really so much evidence if you don't know by now....you don't want to know, because it's easier to go through life waiving your American flag and calling us conspiracy theorists....while the real patriots want to know the truth. Read your bible. The antichrist can't run the New World Order with the 1 world super power against him. 

Well, yeah I would too. But, how was Bush #2 a traitor? And no, I don't believe George Bush knew Al Quaeda was planning to destroy the World Trade Center. Sorry bro, I believe there are many conspiracies going on but I don't believe George did that one. I believe he did do the right thing invading Iraq, and I believe Sadaam Hussein had those WMD's too. The Muslim/Islamofacist/Ismaelites hate Israel and they hate us, for the most part, for supporting her, and they fully believe they are serving God by detonating suicide vests, setting off pressure cooker bombs, shooting up military bases, recruiting centers, workplaces, shopping centers, schools, cutting off heads and slashing people's throats. It doesn't take a "conspiracy" of American traitors for America-hating religious nut jobs to fly planes into buildings to serve "allah".

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There are Islamic nut jobs, we have one as president. That doesn't mean the New World Order, who daddy bush pushed so hard on us and openly talked about, can't use and fund these Islamic extremist to take away freedoms. Then call us racist because we don't want them living next door to us. Wake up. Iraq isn't better now?/? We destroyed families and childrens lives. They weren't all extremist....and I would be extremist vs someone else if they were driving down my street killing people i know. Saddam wasn't a threat....nor Gaddahfi...there is real reasons  we went over there. It wasn't to stabalize it.....just like we shouldn't be destabalizing syria. look up syrian girl on youtube if you want an intelligent syrians perscpective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

With the creation of the unconstitutional Department of Homeland Security Bush the Second did more to prepare America to become a police state than any of his Democrat predecessors.

Even the Bush people now admit there were no WMDs in Iraq. Iraq was never a threat to America. In fact, Iraq under Saddam served as a check to both Iran and Syria. He was a strongman dictator but no worse than the many others America has worked with, even sided with. Under Saddam, unless a person posed a threat to his power, there was more freedom and commerce than other Arab nations, including our phony "ally" Saudi Arabia. The income of the average Iraqi was far greater than for those of other Arab nations. Christians were safe in Iraq. Look at the mess the place is in now.

I don't recall who it was, it's been posted here in the past, but a man who worked in the Bush White House when Bush the Second first took office pointed out that at the top of Bush's list was to figure out a way to attack Saddam...this was months before 9-11.

Also, some conservative group put out a list of Cruz's close advisers and most are from the Bush camp. Why would any true conservative or constitutionalist want warmed over liberal neo-cons as his advisers?

We are lied to constantly but most people don't care. As I've said before, there were very good reasons the Founders created a Republic with limits upon who could vote and an electoral college. Too bad we gave that up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, John81 said:

With the creation of the unconstitutional Department of Homeland Security Bush the Second did more to prepare America to become a police state than any of his Democrat predecessors.

Even the Bush people now admit there were no WMDs in Iraq. Iraq was never a threat to America. In fact, Iraq under Saddam served as a check to both Iran and Syria. He was a strongman dictator but no worse than the many others America has worked with, even sided with. Under Saddam, unless a person posed a threat to his power, there was more freedom and commerce than other Arab nations, including our phony "ally" Saudi Arabia. The income of the average Iraqi was far greater than for those of other Arab nations. Christians were safe in Iraq. Look at the mess the place is in now.

I don't recall who it was, it's been posted here in the past, but a man who worked in the Bush White House when Bush the Second first took office pointed out that at the top of Bush's list was to figure out a way to attack Saddam...this was months before 9-11.

Also, some conservative group put out a list of Cruz's close advisers and most are from the Bush camp. Why would any true conservative or constitutionalist want warmed over liberal neo-cons as his advisers?

We are lied to constantly but most people don't care. As I've said before, there were very good reasons the Founders created a Republic with limits upon who could vote and an electoral college. Too bad we gave that up.

AMEN!  

It really isn't that hard to find out information on this topic. The hardest part is that we've been conditioned our entire lives to always believe that USA is fighting for freedom world wide. If you study these wars in depth and can put together coincedences/facts...you may find out that we were lied to. But most people will continue to waive the red, white, and blue, yell "Merica", say that people like me hate the troops, when the real Patriots are those who seek truth. Our founding fathers would have most of these politicians swinging from trees for treason. I love the troops, i hate the people that control the troops. I believe it was Feinstein that was asked "is 1 million dead Iraqi children worth it?" She replied, "yes". 

 

Youtube: incubator baby conspiracy               It is the truth about media propaganda convincing the American people we needed to go to Iraq in Desert Storm.

Edited by Matthew24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't believe it is wise to allow false accusations to go unchallenged. If you're going to make posts about Cruz then don't ignore providing your source. He is by far the best choice at present for POTUS. As much as you prefer Jesus Christ as POTUS, it ain't happening. Cruz's record for Christian preferred legislation should be a rallying point. If you can't back it up don't be a false accuser. 

P.S. I prefer Jesus Christ as Savior, Lord, and ruler over the new heaven and new earth. Reference: My KJB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
TED CRUZ IS NOT A LEGAL U.S. CITIZEN AT ALL

 

By J.B. Williams
February 8, 2016
NewsWithViews.com

The debate over whether or not Senator Ted Cruz is eligible for the U.S. Presidency is about to end. It has now been confirmed that Senator Ted Cruz is neither a “U.S. natural born Citizen” or a “legal U.S. citizen.”

According to all relative legal citizenship documentation available at present, Senator Ted Cruz was born Rafael Edward Cruz, a legal citizen of Canada on December 22, 1970 and maintained his legal Canadian citizenship from birth until May 14, 2014, 43 years later.

The Cruz Campaign for the U.S. Presidency has claimed that Senator Ted Cruz was a “citizen at birth” via his U.S. mother and a “dual citizen” of both Canada and the United States in 1970 and that by renouncing his Canadian citizenship in 2014, he would become eligible for the Oval Office.

There are several problems with this claim… which make the claim false

1. “citizen at birth” is a 14th Amendment naturalization term based upon “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

Senator Cruz was born in Canada, subject to the jurisdiction of Canada. Further, any U.S. citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment only, is a “citizen” and not a “natural born Citizen,” as you will see below. (Source is Cornell Law on the 14th)

2. “dual citizenship” was prohibited in Canada in December 1970. (Source is Canadian Law)

From May 22, 1868 until December 31, 1946, all residents of Canada were British subjects. There was no such thing as a Canadian citizen or Canadian citizenship until January 1, 1947.

From January 1, 1947 until February 15, 1977, Canadian law prohibited “dual citizenship.” Foreign parents giving birth to a child in Canada in 1970 were forced to choose between Canadian citizenship only, or citizenship in another country, and to declare that with Canadian officials at the time of birth. The parents of Ted Cruz chose and declared “Canadian citizenship” for Rafael Edward Cruz.

3. United States laws make it possible to be a legal U.S. citizen by only the following means…

 
a) NATURAL BORN CITIZEN – “As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.” (The Natural Law as understood by the Founders in Article II of the US Constitution)

B) NATIVE BORN CITIZEN - All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. (The 14th Amendment definition for “citizen”)

c) NATURALIZED CITIZEN - the legal act or process by which a non-citizen in a country may acquire citizenship or nationality of that country. It may be done by a statute, without any effort on the part of the individual (aka anchor baby), or it may involve an application and approval by legal authorities, (such as a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) form filed with the US State Department at the time of birth). (This includes “anchor baby” or “citizen at birth” born here or abroad, under the 14th) Source is U.S. State Department

4. “dual citizens” are prohibited from being “natural born Citizens” as it pertains to Article II requirements for the Oval Office.

As the stated purpose of the Article II “natural born Citizen” requirement for the Oval Office is to prevent anyone with foreign allegiance at birth from ever occupying the Oval Office, and all “dual citizens” at birth are born with “dual national allegiance” at birth. The mere condition of “dual citizen at birth” would be a direct violation of the known purpose and intent of the natural born Citizen requirement in Article II. Source is a letter from Founder John Jay in proposing the NBC requirement for the Oval Office.

Now, Senator Ted Cruz has repeatedly stated that he has never “naturalized” to the United States, which eliminated the possibility that Ted Cruz is a “naturalized” U.S. Citizen.

Senator Ted Cruz has also documented the fact that he was not a “native born citizen” of the United States, but rather a “native born citizen” of Canada on December 22, 1970, who maintained his legal Canadian citizenship until May 14, 2014.

The Harvard opinion letter written by two of Senator Cruz’s Harvard friends, Neal Katyal & Paul Clement, a mere “commentary” on the subject, relies upon the 14th Amendment naturalized citizen at birth concept, despite the fact that Ted Cruz was not “born in or under the jurisdiction of the United States,” was never “naturalized” to the United States, and completely ignoring the fact that Canada prohibited “dual citizenship” in 1970, as well as the fact that “dual citizenship” alone would prevent him from “natural born U.S.” status.

All of this explains why Senator Ted Cruz has no legal U.S. citizenship documentation of any kind. He is not a “natural born” – “native born” or “naturalized” citizen of the United States. Because someone must be one of the three in order to be a legal citizen of the United States, Senator Ted Cruz cannot possibly be a “legal U.S. citizen” of any form.

Only days ago, a 17-year-old first time voter at a New Hampshire town hall meeting for Senator Ted Cruz asked a very reasonable question… “How and why, until recently, were you unaware that you were a Canadian citizen?

As the young man explained, this is not an eligibility question, but a credibility question… which Senator Cruz refused to answer, preferring instead to regurgitate the talking points carefully crafted by his Harvard friends and eventually, shouting the young man down, after a Cruz fan in the audience shouted “better a Canadian than a Kenyan!” (VIDEO) Meanwhile, a growing number of Constitutional Law Professors agree, “Cruz is NOT eligible.

 

Of course, Senator Marco Rubio is also “ineligible,” as a “native born citizen at birth” by virtue of 14th Amendment “anchor baby” policies only.

In the end, the only possible way to consider Senator Ted Cruz eligible for the Oval Office is if every “undocumented resident alien” is eligible for the Oval Office, which I personally believe is the real agenda of both political parties, as they work to meld the USA into the global commune where there is no legal difference between “natural born Americans” and “undocumented aliens.”

The fact that so many Americans do not know or care to know the truth about the Constitutional “natural born Citizen” requirement for the Oval Office, demonstrates just how far down the road of “hope and change” for the destruction of the Constitutional Republic, the enemy within has already achieved.

Soon, “natural born Americans” will be in the American minority… and they will be ruled by foreigners who have no legal U.S. citizenship at all.

© 2016 JB Williams - All Rights Reserved

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Mr. Williams is wrong.  Canadian laws on immigration do not affect our immigration laws with regards to citizenship.  We were taught in grade school that if you are born to American parents in a foreign country you are considered a natural born citizen.  See 3a.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
11 hours ago, Matthew24 said:

I don't have many problems with those who voted for Cruz. For me, there are too many coincidences and relationships that cause me to question his intent. Yes, his stance on issues is great. But I feel he could be a "Trojan Horse". He worked under Bush, his wife works for Goldman Sachs, and i don't feel he's genuine. Trump isn't even close to perfect. I hate that he believes in torture, but he has shown that he can be informed about something and change. He's calling 9/11 an inside job, and calling to audit the Federal Reserve. The only 2 to talk about doing that, Lincoln and JFK. Huckabee said this is a revolution, we should be happy that it isn't violent. Newt Gingrich said the establishment doesn't like Trump because he isn't part of the secret society. I am not naive enough to believe Trump is really the answer, but I believe he is a chance. 

Here is the analogy. We've been hiring these plumbers from 2 different companies for a long time. Neither one of them is fixing our leak, yet we keep hiring them. Not only do they not fix the leak, but it gets worse. We don't care what the plumber looks like, but we aren't hiring from those 2 companies. We don't care if he has an animal on his head, or he likes women, or he has a foul mouth, we just want something different. This is why so many people are going for Sanders. Right or wrong, he's different.

Well, here'e the thing...just because someone works somewhere does not mean they are tied in with them. As for Goldman Sachs, Heidi is a regional head in the investment management division in Houston (but is on leave of absence). So that is a bad thing exactly why? I realize that Trump and others have yammered quite a bit about Goldman Sachs, but how is working for them different from the job you choose to do? She's an employee, not an owner of the organization. Nor is she a shareholder, like Trump is. If Goldman Sachs is so very wicked that her working for the company means Ted won't make a good POTUS, then you can't vote for Trump. As a shareholder, he profits from their business. Same/same (actually worse cuz shareholders often make decisions re: the company's actions).

As for calling to audit the fed - Trump is late to that party. He joined both Cruz and Paul in the chorus (much later than them, though), with Ron Paul being the lead singer long ago.

9/11 an inside job? Trump can't actually decide what he believes - kinda like in everything. Because, as he said, "everything's negotiable."

Wanting something different is what landed us BO. 

John, J.B.Williams is just wrong. I was a member of a couple of different groups on Facebook that he was in...sorry, but with the experiences I've had there, I'll never again read or accept anything that man says. Plus - more than one true constitutional scholar has proven him wrong.

Swath, you are spot on. US law is what those in the US go by. And US law tells us Cruz is natural born.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Here is an article attempting to address the OP:

 

AMERICANS ARE VOTING FOR MANHOOD

 

By Coach Dave Daubenmire
March 10, 2016

NewsWithViews.com

I couldn’t put my finger on it until the other night. What is it about The Donald that is engendering so much support?

By all accounts he is, uncouth, petty, and a bastion of other un-biblical behaviors. Yet he is very popular. What is it about Donald Trump that has drawn so many to his side?

Donald Trump is a MAN in a nation where manhood is in very short supply.

His popularity is not about his “conservatism” or his “Christianity.” But, as we saw again last night, in Mississippi of all places…the buckle of the Bible-belt…the Trumpster again won a majority of the evangelical vote.

The South was supposed to be Cruz country…the heart of Christianity where clinging to Bibles and guns is passed through the DNA from one generation to the next. A state where using the name of Jesus is a token of praise rather than an object of damnation… where Ted Cruz values were as common as gumbo and rattlesnakes. The official beverage of Mississippi is milk, for Pete’s sake.

Yet supposed Ted Cruz voters pulled the lever for Donald Trump. Something BIG is going on in America and most people have yet to put their finger on it. Why are “Christians” voting for Donald Trump?

Sweeping the South was the plan that Ted Cruz had drawn up as the path to The White House. Certainly his unashamed Christianity would resonate in the Land of Dixie. The solid-South has been the stronghold of Conservative Christians and their favorite politicians for the past 50 years.

Yet this moderate, some say liberal, from the Northeast was swooping in and sucking up all of the energy…and votes…in this most-religious area of the nation. Rattle them off…Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, were going solidly for the reality TV star resident of the home base of progressive politicians.

Trump, not Cruz has swept the south. Something HUGE is happening before our very eyes.

Now, before you get yourself into to tizzy, you have to understand that I am not supporting the crude, crass, calloused side of Trump. In fact, many of the things I hear him say make me cringe. But we cannot deny that the things that he does that make American’s queasy are the same things that draw people to him. America is starving for manhood. America is looking for a MAN.

For at least two generations American Christianity has been creating soft men. We see it everywhere we turn. Men that are afraid to offend. Our pulpits are filled with soft weak men. Our “worship leaders” are dainty men with spiked hair and skinny jeans singing sissified songs about an effeminate Savior. Women, and men who act like women, run the average American church.

Americans know we are in trouble and realize our politicians are dainty “men of culture” who use words as weapons in a faux fight against an unrelenting foe. They realize that the last person you would ever call if you were in a street fight would be either a pastor or a politician. In a time when we need a John the Baptist we get Joel Osteen.

Trump is a bit rough on the edges and he may not be up-to-snuff on all of the social graces expected in our political leaders, but he oozes manhood…not Biblical manhood…but secular manhood. We like a little grit in our champions.

The Christians in the South have analyzed the situation that is confronting this nation and although they would like their President to be someone who shares their values, their belief in God, and their quiet faith, they realize that the times demand a warrior…someone to stand and fight against the thieves who are stealing this nation.

Trump makes women feel safe. Trump says what the average Christian man is thinking. They are sick of PC America and pastors and politicians too cowardly to speak the truth. They see The Donald as a man who doesn't bend to pressure and doesn't need their approval.

American’s are looking for a fighter. Donald Trump, as crass and harsh as he is has proven that he will not roll over when attacked. They are sick of compromise. They look in the pulpits and they look at the politicians and they see nothing but capitulation. Let's all get along types.

America is not electing a king or a pastor and because they are so disgusted they are ready to roll the dice on a gambler from Atlantic City.

“Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. Kill ‘em all and let God sort it out.” Americans are voting for a return to the days of straight shooters like Clint Eastwood and John Wayne.

Masculinity is making a comeback in America. It is no more complicated than that. Now, all we need is pastors with a spine and we may be able to save America.

© 2016 Dave Daubenmire - All Rights Reserved

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
12 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

Well, here'e the thing...just because someone works somewhere does not mean they are tied in with them. As for Goldman Sachs, Heidi is a regional head in the investment management division in Houston (but is on leave of absence). So that is a bad thing exactly why? I realize that Trump and others have yammered quite a bit about Goldman Sachs, but how is working for them different from the job you choose to do? She's an employee, not an owner of the organization. Nor is she a shareholder, like Trump is. If Goldman Sachs is so very wicked that her working for the company means Ted won't make a good POTUS, then you can't vote for Trump. As a shareholder, he profits from their business. Same/same (actually worse cuz shareholders often make decisions re: the company's actions).

As for calling to audit the fed - Trump is late to that party. He joined both Cruz and Paul in the chorus (much later than them, though), with Ron Paul being the lead singer long ago.

9/11 an inside job? Trump can't actually decide what he believes - kinda like in everything. Because, as he said, "everything's negotiable."

Wanting something different is what landed us BO. 

John, J.B.Williams is just wrong. I was a member of a couple of different groups on Facebook that he was in...sorry, but with the experiences I've had there, I'll never again read or accept anything that man says. Plus - more than one true constitutional scholar has proven him wrong.

Swath, you are spot on. US law is what those in the US go by. And US law tells us Cruz is natural born.

 "Wanting something different is what landed us BO."  Yes, I thought about that when i was writing that....but did we get anything different with BO. Yes, we got more extreme in destroying our nation, but we were already well on the way. GW isn't a liberty loving conservative...he's a killer, just like BO. We are an empire with bases in well over 100 countries. Russia has like 3. Putin is the one that sounds more like a born again christian than any of these fools, but most of us can't see that because we are so blinded with hatred to the Russians. George Washington isn't walking through the door and if he was he'd be labeled a racist extremist even by moderates. The facts are we can't fix the country until we do our job as christians and win more to christ. It is our fault. We teach our kids that the earth is billions of years old, and life came from nothing, and then expect them to come home and be great christians. We bring them to the non denom church and put them in play centers and expect them to know anything about God's word. Kids aren't expected to sit still and listen in church...and if they are parents hand them a cell phone....or they go to kid's church to dumb down the message even more. Most churches i've been to are on about a 3rd grade preaching level. Christians can't grow listening to this dumbed down crud. Church is for saved people...not for winning the lost. Rant over. whew that felt good. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
23 minutes ago, Matthew24 said:

. Most churches i've been to are on about a 3rd grade preaching level. Christians can't grow listening to this dumbed down crud. Church is for saved people...not for winning the lost. Actually No; Church is for both. See 1 Corinthians 14:24-25 Rant over. whew that felt good. lol

 

Edited by heartstrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, John81 said:

Here is an article attempting to address the OP:

 

AMERICANS ARE VOTING FOR MANHOOD

 

By Coach Dave Daubenmire
March 10, 2016

NewsWithViews.com

I couldn’t put my finger on it until the other night. What is it about The Donald that is engendering so much support?

By all accounts he is, uncouth, petty, and a bastion of other un-biblical behaviors. Yet he is very popular. What is it about Donald Trump that has drawn so many to his side?

Donald Trump is a MAN in a nation where manhood is in very short supply.

His popularity is not about his “conservatism” or his “Christianity.” But, as we saw again last night, in Mississippi of all places…the buckle of the Bible-belt…the Trumpster again won a majority of the evangelical vote.

The South was supposed to be Cruz country…the heart of Christianity where clinging to Bibles and guns is passed through the DNA from one generation to the next. A state where using the name of Jesus is a token of praise rather than an object of damnation… where Ted Cruz values were as common as gumbo and rattlesnakes. The official beverage of Mississippi is milk, for Pete’s sake.

Yet supposed Ted Cruz voters pulled the lever for Donald Trump. Something BIG is going on in America and most people have yet to put their finger on it. Why are “Christians” voting for Donald Trump?

Sweeping the South was the plan that Ted Cruz had drawn up as the path to The White House. Certainly his unashamed Christianity would resonate in the Land of Dixie. The solid-South has been the stronghold of Conservative Christians and their favorite politicians for the past 50 years.

Yet this moderate, some say liberal, from the Northeast was swooping in and sucking up all of the energy…and votes…in this most-religious area of the nation. Rattle them off…Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, were going solidly for the reality TV star resident of the home base of progressive politicians.

Trump, not Cruz has swept the south. Something HUGE is happening before our very eyes.

Now, before you get yourself into to tizzy, you have to understand that I am not supporting the crude, crass, calloused side of Trump. In fact, many of the things I hear him say make me cringe. But we cannot deny that the things that he does that make American’s queasy are the same things that draw people to him. America is starving for manhood. America is looking for a MAN.

For at least two generations American Christianity has been creating soft men. We see it everywhere we turn. Men that are afraid to offend. Our pulpits are filled with soft weak men. Our “worship leaders” are dainty men with spiked hair and skinny jeans singing sissified songs about an effeminate Savior. Women, and men who act like women, run the average American church.

Americans know we are in trouble and realize our politicians are dainty “men of culture” who use words as weapons in a faux fight against an unrelenting foe. They realize that the last person you would ever call if you were in a street fight would be either a pastor or a politician. In a time when we need a John the Baptist we get Joel Osteen.

Trump is a bit rough on the edges and he may not be up-to-snuff on all of the social graces expected in our political leaders, but he oozes manhood…not Biblical manhood…but secular manhood. We like a little grit in our champions.

The Christians in the South have analyzed the situation that is confronting this nation and although they would like their President to be someone who shares their values, their belief in God, and their quiet faith, they realize that the times demand a warrior…someone to stand and fight against the thieves who are stealing this nation.

Trump makes women feel safe. Trump says what the average Christian man is thinking. They are sick of PC America and pastors and politicians too cowardly to speak the truth. They see The Donald as a man who doesn't bend to pressure and doesn't need their approval.

American’s are looking for a fighter. Donald Trump, as crass and harsh as he is has proven that he will not roll over when attacked. They are sick of compromise. They look in the pulpits and they look at the politicians and they see nothing but capitulation. Let's all get along types.

America is not electing a king or a pastor and because they are so disgusted they are ready to roll the dice on a gambler from Atlantic City.

“Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. Kill ‘em all and let God sort it out.” Americans are voting for a return to the days of straight shooters like Clint Eastwood and John Wayne.

Masculinity is making a comeback in America. It is no more complicated than that. Now, all we need is pastors with a spine and we may be able to save America.

© 2016 Dave Daubenmire - All Rights Reserved

Proverbs 18:23 The poor useth intreaties; but the rich answereth roughly.

 

Donald Trump can afford to say whatever he feels like saying. Just because you say whatever you want, do whatever you want, drink and cuss, sleep around and shoot'em-up like "John Wayne" and "Clint Eastwood" while having no real principles, doesn't make you a man...not the Biblical model of one anyway.

 

Here's one spiritual application for that Proverbs 18:23 verse too, BTW:  A person who is "poor in spirit" can humbly preach the Gospel, in it's simplicity,  preach against the dangers of sin and the love of Jesus with TEARS in his eyes and compassion in his heart, and draw people to Jesus. A "rich" one, on the other hand, can brag about how he "preaches the Bible" while spending too much time of it on talking about how those liberals down the street don't, and pridefully use a lot of fancy, supposedly "deep" stuff, or "skin folks alive" with NO compassion and do far more harm than good. I've seen it both ways, and I'll take the former any day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...