Ted Cruz is a good talker, but can he win a General Election?

To my knowledge Donald Trump has never said Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President of the United States. He has said repeatedly there is a question and someone would most likely file a lawsuit challenging Cruz’s eligibility. It turns out once again Donald Trump was right.

An attorney in Houston, Texas has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Canadian-born senator's eligibility to be president. Newton Schwartz asked the Supreme Court to decide if Cruz's birth to an American mother and Cuban father while they lived in Calgary, Canada violates the Constitution's "natural born citizen" requirement.

Ted Cruz argues that because his mother is American, he became a U.S. citizen at birth. But the Supreme Court hasn't previously considered the eligibility question. Until recently, Cruz held dual citizenships in Canada and the United States. He renounced his Canadian citizenship to run for President of the United States. I have always questioned the loyalty of a man who wanted to be a U.S. Senator, but did not want to give up his Canadian citizenship to do so.  I never understood why my fellow Texans elected a man Senator who was not sure if he wanted to be a citizen of the United States or Canada.

The issue could harm Cruz. In a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken from January 7 to January 14, a quarter of Republicans, along with a quarter of independents and voters in general, said they believed Cruz is unqualified. Only 47 percent of respondents said that Cruz is qualified and 26 percent said they weren’t sure.  The matter needs to be settled before the General Election.

The Tea Party Republican from Texas has continued to seek out a spot at center stage in politics by being divisive. His enemies characterize him as power-hungry and self-righteous. I do not consider myself an enemy of Ted Cruz, but from all I know of the man I think his enemies have defined him well, but I would add to it ruthlessly ambitious. I also believe he would be another power hungry, self-righteous, ruthlessly ambitious clone of President Obama.

Ted Cruz brags that his three years at Harvard Law School, from 1992 to 1995, sharpened his political vision and trained him for his intense sparring with liberals. Sparring has become his signature style as a national politician. I think one of the main problems with our government today is there has been too much sparring between conservatives and liberals in Washington and not enough discussion of what is good for the American people.

 Ted Cruz says he has mellowed since his days at Harvard, but frankly if he has he must have been a monster at Harvard.  Ted Cruz’s father was happy his son was going to Harvard and said Harvard was a place that would allow his conservative son to preach to the liberal elite. It is obvious Ted Cruz and his father has an ‘us vs them’ attitude so Ted Cruz came by his naturally. I do not want a President or any politician preaching to me. I have had eight years of a President preaching he knows what is better for me than I do.

Ted Cruz claims that after working on George W. Bush's 2000 campaign then being passed over for a senior position with the new administration was "a crushing blow."  That is not true. Cruz was offered a job as White House associate counsel, but he rejected it. Cruz thought the job was beneath him and that he should have had a more senior role of deputy White House counsel. The incident is an example of how his personal ambition rubs colleagues the wrong way. If Cruz would have taken the position instead of letting his pride stand in his way the position would have better qualified him to be President. Later Ted Cruz acknowledged his refusal to take the position was a mistake and said, "I was far too cocky for my own good." His stint in the Senate tells me that he is still too cocky for his own good.

When Ted Cruz mocked what he called Donald Trump's "New York values," in the debate the other night, some New Yorkers have taken it very personally and I don’t blame them. The Daily News hit the streets with a big front-page illustration of the Statue of Liberty giving Cruz the finger. The headline: "DROP DEAD, TED." New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, took to the airwaves to denounce the Texas senator and demanded an apology for comments he called "obnoxious on every level." During the debate, moderator Maria Bartiromo asked Cruz to explain his comments on "New York values." Cruz replied, “You know, I think most people know exactly what New York values are.” Bartiromo said, "I am from New York. I don't."

Cruz was playing to the Iowa voters, but it may have just cost him the New York Republican voters. It should! Representative Steve King, a conservative Iowa Republican who supports Cruz, suggested on CNN that Cruz's remark may have backfired, saying, "It would have been better on the part of Ted Cruz not to have had that exchange." One New Yorker, Wall Street hedge fund mogul Robert Mercer, contributed $11 million last April to a super PAC that supports Cruz. Cruz doesn’t have any problems bashing New Yorkers, but he certainly will take money from Wall Street.  New York has 29 Republican Electoral Votes to Iowa’s 6.

I don’t believe Cruz can win in a general election. Americans don’t typically elect politicians who are seen as polarizing to become president, but I must confess 2012 with Obama’s second win contradicts that statement. Goldwater was a hardcore conservative who was also seen as polarizing, and he got destroyed in a general election.  I see Cruz as being a Goldwater Republican. I just cannot imagine over 50% of the country coming together and voting for Ted Cruz to be our next president.

Americans look for someone who will unite the country, not divide it even further. That’s why they voted for Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Obama ran as one who would unite and the media pushed that narrative. He was perceived that way by many Americans, who didn’t know the details of his past, or the radical policies he supported in the past. LET US NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE AGAIN - know who you are voting for!

How would Ted Cruz work with Congress to get bills passed when he admits that most politicians in both parties of Congress can’t stand him? Cruz has always said both parties in DC are like a cartel who only care about staying in power, but if he’s elected president, he is going to have to find a way to work with that cartel.

+++Ted Cruz proved who he was and what he was at the Republican Convention.  Republican's should be proud of the fact they found him out before they elected him their candidate for President in 2016.  Win or lose in November I am thankful Cruz is not on the ticket and I hope his political career is over.

Is celebrity worshipping healthy?

 Being interested in the personal lives of celebrities might seem like harmless fun, but is it?  Celebrities are worshiped worldwide, especially in poor countries. Celebrity worship is not new it can be traced back to ancient Greece and Olympus. Celebrity worship is more prevalent today than in the past because we have more access to celebrity’s personal lives due to modern technology.

There is a thin line between politics and celebrities in the Philippines. As of October 15^th there had been 29 celebrities file for election in 2016. I doubt very seriously if they are depending on their vast knowledge of governance, law, economics, national or world affairs to win them a spot in government.  

One Representative attended the third grade and has gotten a G.E.D. His ambition is to become a Senator and then President of the Philippines. English and Tagalog are the languages most used in the National government and he speaks neither fluently. Celebrity status has it perks outside of sports and entertainment.

I can remember when women started throwing their underwear on stage at Elvis Presley and media acted as if it was a new phenomenon.  Women threw their underwear on stage when composers Frederic Chopin and Franz Liszt performed on stage in the 19th century.

Celebrities tap into the public's fantasies and basic emotions. They allow people to escape their everyday mundane lives and believe anything is possible. The problem with idolizing celebrity’s lives’ is that the lives idolized are usually created by managers and agents and are fantasies. The celebrities we think we know turn out to be nothing more than fictional characters.

I think the dwindling influence of religion contributes to greater celebrity worshipping. The celebrities exploit’s and eccentricities become more than a form of entertainment. They become an escape to fill a painful void in our lives, a void the church and religion once filled.

Just because someone is good at acting or a sport is no reason for us to care about their opinions on domestic/foreign policy, the environment or healthcare, but many people do. When I want a view on the current situation in Iraq or Syria I look for an interview with a diplomat, an academic, someone whose profession is to know foreign affairs.

I may agree with the personal opinion of some actor or athlete, but I am not going to search them out for advice. I will go to an expert in the area that I am interested in. Yet on many topics unrelated to acting or sports, the media is more than happy to offer celebrities a platform to air their views, no matter how shallow they are. I heard Simon Cowell giving his political opinions, the same Simon Cowell who admits to reading nothing and watching only cartoons on television, but he got access to news media because they knew he would attract an audience.

I know some are saying I am being mean spirited celebrities are just getting “the message” out to a public who lack awareness. I sort of get that. I guess what bothers me is if you are listening to celebrities on global affairs are you really asking the hard questions? 

Did you support the crisis in Haiti because of Shean Penn or because there was a legitimate need. The crisis is not over are you still contributing to rebuild the lives of Haitians? Where is Shean Penn today in regards to Hatti? I no longer hear anything about Penn and Hatti. Has he moved on to another celebrity cause? There are exceptions Elizabeth Taylor and A.I.D.S. she remained dedicated to the cause until her death.

Sean Penn denied anything was wrong with Haiti’s government and announced to the world that the small Caribbean nation had finally “turned a corner.”  In a Newsweek magazine article Sean Penn stated, “Haiti’s economy is among the fastest-growing in the Caribbean, as the government continues to make economic development a priority.” He fell to add they were making economic development a priority on the backs of the poor and middle class. Was his statements made out of ignorance of the real problems or out of friendship to the Martelly government.

It is a fact Sean Penn was friendly with the Martelly government therefore it would only be natural he would say good things about them. In fact Penn became Ambassador-at-large for the Martelly government the same government that confiscated and leveled homes in downtown Port au Prince for tourism in order to further enrich their friends.

The World Bank’s website shows that Haiti’s annual GDP growth was actually at 5.6% (following the 2008 hurricane) when Martelly came to power through highly controversial elections in 2011. GDP growth in Haiti dropped to 2.8% in 2012 and was at 3.6% in 2014. In many ways, the hurricane season of 2008 was the cruelest ever experienced in Haiti, 70% of Haiti's crops were lost, the damage was estimated to be $1 billion, up to that time it was the costliest natural disaster in Haitian history, but they recovered quickly.

Granted the earthquake cost far more lives and the damage was estimated at $14 billion. But, the aid Haiti received in 2010 following the earthquake was unprecedented. Within ten months of the earthquake $8.75 billion had been given for reconstruction. The Haitien Martelly government was having so many difficulties managing and disbursing the funds the Red Cross stopped actively soliciting donations. Penn was blaming everyone but himself for all the disasters of good intention, without ever considering he may not have had the qualification to lead a disaster relief program. 

Americans by August 2011 had donated over $12 billion. Where has the $14 billion raised as of 2015 gone? Six years later the rubble is off the streets. Haiti's back more or less to normal. But there have not been the improvements there should have been, given the resources.  

Penn was right Hatti turned the corner it went from having ghetto areas to being a ghetto country. “Millions of Haitians live on less than US$1 per day, and approximately 80% of the ten million live on less than US$2 per day. It is also one of the most unequal when it comes to rich and poor.  Penn never mentioned that Haiti’s national economy remains hostage to the powerful wealthy elite, his friends.

Penn’s claim that Martelly’s election in 2011 represented a peaceful democratic transition is absurd. Once again I ask was his statement made out of ignorance of the facts or friendship. The violence preceding and following the first round of the November 2010 presidential elections in Haiti is well documented. In fact, it is equally documented that most of the violence was perpetrated by the supporters of Michel Martelly.

Penn is just one of many examples why I do not want my news coming from celebrities or celebrities running charitable organizations. I want professionals that have dedicated their lives to those causes doing it. I have no objection to celebrities making public service spots to raise money or raising money from their friends, but I do not want them involved in the day to day operation.  I don’t go to an auto mechanic for medical issues and I am not going to a celebrity for advice on world or national affairs.

Why do we automatically become idolizers of celebrities the moment they make their first million or sign their first autograph? I know I am in the minority, but I cannot tell you the name of the star in any movie I have ever seen, not even the latest Star Trek movie that I saw only a few weeks ago. I am impressed or not impressed by the work they did in the movie I am watching and when it is over they have absolutely no influence on my life.

I was not let down when I discovered Michael Jackson was probably a pedophile; nor when I found out Bill Cosby probably had been drugging and raping women for decades; I did not expect Tiger Woods to be perfect and nothing Justin Bieber does surprises me. They or no other celebrity are my idols. I do not place any human on a pedestal. It does bother me that celebrities seem to get better treatment by the justice system than ordinary citizens.

Children are dying from starvation and lack of medical care and the public is saddened by some celebrity being arrested. They probably were released a few hours later simply because they were celebrities. Is it just me who believes the lives of celebrity are not important enough to be worrying about?

The people who I idolize and think we all should be idolizing are the ones who save lives doctors, police officers, firemen, nurses, medics or the ones giving of their time, energy and money to help the poor or teachers that are preparing our youth to be our future, or military personnel safe guarding our freedom or scientist discovering cures for illnesses. Instead many choose to idolize over paid entertainers who in most cases pretend to be something they are not.

People Magazine has a weekly audience of 4.6 million readers the largest audience of any American magazine. People Magazine attempts to satisfy the public’s obsession with celebrities. That is a lot of people spending their time and money reading about people they don’t know and will never know.

Celebrity worship has become such a problem psychologists have a name for it, Celebrity Worship Syndrome or CWS. It is estimated 36% of the public suffer from it. I came across one story of a woman who cut her own wrists and throat when her favorite celebrity got engaged. John Lennon was killed by a “fan”. While most go nowhere near those extremes, there is still a wide spread fascination with the famous.

Taylor Swift, Shania Twain, J Lo, Halle Berry, Justin Bieber and Madonna all have their own perfume. Do we really want to smell like them? I would buy their product if it met my approval, but I would not buy it because the label has their name on it. We should remember celebrities are just people. People packaged up very nicely, but people all the same. They have the same ups and downs, fears and joys, successes and challenges as the rest of us. We can appreciate them when they entertain us, for that is their job, and then we should get on with our own lives.

Don’t let the fascination with celebrities become a substitution for real life - Your focus should be on your own life. Depression, anxiety, and a decrease in self-esteem are just some of the problems that can result when we take the focus off our own lives and focus all our energy on the life of a celebrity.

In closing parents should be role models and heroes for their children. When parents allow celebrities to be their children's primary role models, the line between fantasy and reality sometimes becomes too blurred for parents to teach them lessons on ethics, character and responsibility.

I must admit The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet at 4p.m. everyday gave me a perspective on family life I did not get at home. It allowed me to consider not all families were like mine, but I always felt somewhat depressed after watching and was left wishing for something that would not be.

Needless to say I was shocked many years back when the Nelson boys confessed they felt the show not only controlled their lives but, in many ways, left them confused about their own reality. They used the camera to communicate things to each other that they could not communicate to each other face to face.

The Nelson family, in real life, were not the Nelsons they portrayed on television. Rick Nelson’s life was shattered by drugs and other demons. The real-life Ozzie was the producer, director and writer of the shows; he worked all night, the show came before the family and he was a dictator that loomed over the family. Ozzie was a hands-on businessman who prevented his sons from attending college and constantly reminded them that they were obliged to work on television. Harriet Nelson began appearing in vaudeville when she was 3 years old and on Broadway as a teen-ager. She hung out at the Cotton Club, began smoking at 13, was briefly married to an abusive comedian and lived a high-flying life until she fell in love with Ozzie and handed over her career to him.

The Nelson family may not have been as dysfunctional as mine, but they certainly were close to it. In real life they dealt with an immense amount of pressure and unreconciled issues.

I am not saying all celebrities have a negative impact on the lives of young fans. There are actors who support charities, athletes who launch after-school programs and comedians who visit hospitals to cheer up patients. These are the "unsung hero" some celebrity personalities are inspirational and worthy of admiration. If your children choose celebrities as their role models, it's important that you discuss with them the specific traits you like, respect and want them to imitate.  Discuss with your children if the traits you like reflect the celebrities true values.

If you vote for a politician based solely on his or her celebrity status then do not complain when nothing improves.  

Catholic Hierarchy - Double Talk.

 The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) on Tuesday urged voters not to support candidates in the 2016 elections who are pushing for divorce, death penalty and other measures that it said are against the Church's doctrines.

CBCP President Archbishop Socrates Villegas issued some guidelines for Catholic voters to follow in choosing their candidates in 2016. According to Villegas, a Catholic voter should not support a candidate "who’s legislative or executive programs include initiatives diametrically opposed to (Catholic) Church moral teachings on such vital issues as abortion, euthanasia, the return of the death penalty, divorce and the dilution of the character of Christian marriage," even if the candidate is honest, qualified and the best candidate. We all know there are NO Catholics in the Philippines that are violating their marriage vows taking Communion every Sunday in the Philippines. 

"While we expect every public officer to give life to the constitutional posture of 'benevolent neutrality' in respect to the attitude of the State towards religion, the Catholic voter cannot and should not lend his support to any candidate whose ideology binds him or her to make of the Philippines a secular state that has no tolerance for religion in its public life," Villegas said.

"It has never been the practice of the Catholic Church to hold out a candidate to the faithful as the 'chosen' candidate of the Church," he said. "Church doctrine has remained consistent: Partisanship is an arena into which the Church should not venture."

Villegas also urged the voters to consider political aspirants from other religions. "A Catholic is not closed to the candidacy of a non-Catholic," he said. "In fact, there are worthy candidates from other Christian communities and other religions." "Their qualifications and aspirations must be given serious heed by our Catholic voters, their truly helpful plans and visions must be supported,” Villegas said. As long as they uphold Catholic teachings!

There are an estimated 75,594,148 Catholics in the Philippines according to the latest statistics. The population of the Philippines was estimated at 100,096,496 as of July 1, 2014. The total registered voters in the Philippines as of January 22, 2013 were 52,014,648. Roughly 75% plus (85%) Filipinos are Catholic. That is enough to control any election if 75% (85%) of registered voters are Catholic. I know it is said that Catholics tend not to block vote. But, any time the hierarchy of the Catholic Church speaks out about an election it has to have some influence on the election and to pretend they do not try to choose candidates in my opinion is not entirely honest.

The Philippines is the only country in the world, aside from Vatican City, which lacks divorce laws. How could anyone deny that is not due to the influence of the Catholic Church hierarchy in the Philippines? The Catholic Church does get involved in the political arena in the Philippines the recent battle over artificial birth control is evidence of that. They have a strong influence over any and all laws passed in the Philippines. To my knowledge the only time they have lost a political battle was the one over artificial birth control.

UPDATE: THE BISHOPS LOST THE WAR, BUT WON THE BATTLE THEY MANAGE TO GET THE PHILIPPINE CONGRESS NOT TO FUND THE REPRODUCTIVE BILL IN THE 2016 BUDGET - FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSE NO FUNDS MEANS NO REPRODUCTIVE BILL. 

Any non-Catholic candidate would need to adhere to Catholic doctrine, even if his or her denomination or religion did not support Catholic doctrine, if they wanted the support of the Catholic hierarchy. In other words a non-Catholic candidate might have to go against his or her religious beliefs to satisfy the Catholic hierarchy of the Philippines in order to be elected. Most mainstream Protestant denominations support divorce and artificial birth control.  Many Protestant denominations are not opposed to the death penalty.

I cannot reconcile in my mind how the Catholic hierarchy can maintain they do not demonstrate some partisanship when they dictate what a candidate must believe or support in order to get the Catholic vote.

For a country to have tolerance for  religion in its public life is one thing, but to dictate religious doctrine in public life is quite another. Is the Philippines a secular state where freedom of religion is allowed or is it a religious run state?

While the Philippine law does not permit divorce it does permit Legal separation which allows a couple to live apart and separate their assets, but they are not free to marry again. In fact, they face being charged with adultery if caught with another partner. I wonder how many Filipinos are forced to violate the law because of the Catholic hierarchy’s position on divorce.

Banning divorce in my opinion has not stopped couples from separating and starting new families. Banning divorce appears to me to have contributed to illegitimate births which may cause inheritance problems and certainly could cause emotional stigma for a child.  I have absolutely no problem with Catholic hierarchy requiring Catholics to follow their doctrine, but to attempt to impose their religious beliefs on non-Catholics is unjust to me. 

I have heard obtaining a civil and church annulment can take up to four years and $4000. That would likely be more than a years’ worth of income for the average mall worker. I wonder when forced to choose are they going to choose annulment or to ignore the law. In addition a married couple must have lived separately for five years or had a legal separation for two years before an annulment can be granted.

In 2012 there were only 10,528 people who applied for annulments in the Philippines. There were 476,408 marriages registered in 2011. I find it impossible to believe that only a little over 2% of the marriage ended. It is estimated 40 to 50% of marriages end in divorce/separation in First World countries and I do not believe that number would be much different in any country.

Could it be possible that divorce laws may make couples think twice before walking out on their marriages? Statistics show that the divorce rate in the U.S. in 1981 was 5.3 per 1000 people and in 2012 it had fallen to 3.6 per 1000 people.

The Catholic hierarchy in the Philippines does get involved in politics and governance in the Philippines. When the clergy called for civil unrest and even threatened to excommunicate President Aquino over contraception how can they say they do not. There is no proof that Catholic doctrine pertaining to separation and artificial birth control is even being followed by Catholics and to attempt to impose that on non-Catholics is unjust. 

I would not be surprised if sometime prior to the 2016 election there is a list floating around with the names of candidate that the Catholic hierarchy is supporting.  Of course the Catholic hierarchy will deny having anything to do with it like they did the banner flying from a Catholic church in one of the previous elections.

Is it just for religious leaders in a country that is supposed to have a democratic form of government to use threats of excommunication against any elected official, elected to represent ALL the people, in order to get what they want? 

The Church’s influence in the Philippines is diminishing. The power of social media is taking its toll. It might help the country if they put their devout Catholic past behind them and move toward a more secular state. Politics needs to go beyond religious groups and be more concerned with the needs of all the people regardless of religious affiliation. But, keep in mind no group gives up power without a fight and the Catholic hierarchy will not either.

Protestant denominations are growing in the Philippines and other predominantly Catholic nations like Mexico. How much of that growth could be contributed to the Catholic hierarchy’s desire for influence and control in the political arena. 

Do Trump's actions say he is a Christian?

There was a time when I thought I could and would support Trump, but those days have come and gone. I resent him trying to use Christians to get votes.

Recently, Donald Trump sat down with Christian Broadcasting Network’s (CBN) David Brody and brought up his religion. Trump talked about his relationship with God, the church, the Bible, his being a Presbyterian, and his commitment to attending church.

Trump said: “I believe in God. I am Christian. I think The Bible is certainly, THE book. It is THE thing. The Bible is my favorite book. I was raised and I gave you a picture of my confirmation just now and perhaps you’ll use that picture (Trump is always looking for additional media coverage) I found it from a long time ago

First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica queens is where I went to church. I’m a protestant, I’m a Presbyterian (in past interviews before running for president he said he belong to the Reform Church of America). And you know I’ve had a good relationship with the church over the years. I think religion is a wonderful thing. I think my religion is a wonderful religion.”

As I watch the interview, it seemed that Trump struggled to talk about his faith and even stumbles to articulate his beliefs. But, just how genuine was this interview?  When you read the above transcript it looks genuine, but his demeanor in the video was strange.

He mentions how he always goes to church on Christmas and Easter… wow, big commitment there: “Well, I go as much as I can, always on Christmas, always on Easter, always when there’s a major occasion (weddings and funerals I guess) and during the Sundays. I’m a Sunday church person. I’ll go when I can” (I noticed he did not say how often he has attended in the last year).

Trump is pandering to the Christian right to solicit support for his run for the presidency. He is testing the waters to see if the religious right responds well to his faith statements. The fact that this interview occurred on CBN tells it all.  Why was it not done on CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX or MSNBC? Trump targeted his interview to conservative Christians, who make up the majority of the CBN audience.

Even CBN’s analysis wanted to connect Evangelicals with Trump: “Brody’s File analysis stated: “Donald Trump has piqued the interest of some Evangelical leaders. His bold talk is something conservative Christians like to hear. Remember, Evangelicals tend to operate in a world of Biblical absolutes. Their world is very black and white. Not many shades of gray. That’s how Trump sees the world too.”

It’s great that Trump is a Christian and makes a point to mention it, but I question his timing. Why didn’t he mention it 5 or10 years ago? Well, for one, he was not thinking about running for president.

I certainly commend and respect Trump for talking about his faith, but I would have preferred he did it when it didn’t profit him personally. I would prefer that we knew Donald was a Christian by his actions and not his words.

Trump says he collects Bibles. He saves them and stores them because he would never do anything negative to a Bible. I would prefer he read ‘one’ Bible than have hundreds in a collection.

Trump said on CNN he's never sought forgiveness for his sins. Please explain how you can be a Christian and not have sought forgiveness for your sins. We all sin and we all need to repent and seek forgiveness.

Trump said, "People are so shocked when they find out I am Protestant. I am Presbyterian. And I go to church and I love God and I love my church.” People would not be shocked if he was actually living his faith. They would have known he was a Christian by his actions.

Trump said, “He thinks the Bible is ‘THE’ book”, yet he says, “He does not think God is all into that asking for forgiveness stuff” – what Bible is he reading? Trump believes he does not need to ask for forgiveness because he takes ‘communion’ – WOW!  The call to confession and the need for forgiveness are central to the entire Christian tradition, and particularly to the Reformed and Presbyterian versions of it. In the Presbyterian (USA) Book of Common Worship there is a prayer for repentance and forgiveness, “A Service for Repentance and Forgiveness”.

Trump said, "When I drink my little wine -- which is about the only wine I drink -- and have my little cracker, I guess that is a form of asking for forgiveness and I do that as often as possible because I feel cleansed (again he avoided saying how often), I think in terms of 'let's go on and let's make it right.” Sound to me like he takes partaking communion really seriously. He talks of it with such reverence.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer once wrote, forgiveness without repentance, like communion without confession, is not the real thing.

Although the United States Constitution disallows a religious test for holding public office Americans have always been interested in the religious beliefs and practices of their national leaders ever since Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Among announced candidates for the 2016 race, seven are Catholics, while four are Southern Baptist.

Norman Vincent Peale once said he saw in Trump kindness and courtesy and a trait some missed—“a profound streak of honest humility.” Sorry Vincent I missed that to!

It appears that Donald Trump has apparently decided that claiming the Bible is his favorite book isn’t enough to earn him the continued support of the more religious elements of the Republican Party. He has summoned dozens of influential evangelical Christian leaders to a meeting at Trump Tower in New York City for a ‘prayer’ meeting. I wonder how often he has done that in the past.

Trump the thrice-married former reality television star, once a supporter of abortion rights, purveyor of pageants that parade scantily clad teenage girls in front of television cameras, the man whose name is emblazoned on casinos around the world is currently leading the Republican field among the most deeply religious segment of the GOP electorate.

Money has defined Trump during the 30-plus years he has spent in the public eye. He frequently brags of his billions, and even sued a journalist who had the nerve to question whether those 10-figure pronouncements were severely inflated.

What does Trump do with his money?  Internal Revenue Service returns dating back to 1990 reveals that Trump, the Trump Foundation’s president, may be the least charitable billionaire in the United States. From 1990 through 2009, Trump has personally donated a total of just $3.7 million to his foundation, which was incorporated in 1987. In fact, the billionaire is not even the largest contributor to his own charitable organization. During the past two decades, the Trump foundation has made charitable contributions totaling a paltry $6.7 million to help those in need. This is not much for a man that bragged before he started running for President, “I have seven billion f---ing dollars in the bank.” Does a Christian really talk like that - Donald  Trump does?

Trump’s small donations have also been dwarfed by the charitable contributions of Leona Helmsley; she was the hotel owner whom Trump took great pleasure in mercilessly attacking for being cheap. Helmsley, who died in 2007, left billions to her charitable trust, which last month alone made donations totaling $12.93 million or nearly twice what Trump’s foundation has donated in the past 20 years.

In 2006, Trump’s foundation did give $1000 to the New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Fund, a controversial Scientology program (co-founded by Tom Cruise) that promoted a “purification rundown” for firemen and others who inhaled toxins while working near the smoldering remains of the World Trade Center.

Donald Trump’s religious pandering should insult the intelligence of Christians. I really don’t like it when candidates mislead people about the sincerity of their religious beliefs. Tell us the truth, either you are dedicated to your faith or you are not. Don’t lie about it in order to win votes.

Now that Trump has shown me his true colors I do not know who I will vote for. In the beginning I was eager to get behind Trump, but no more.

I did not think Megan Kelly of Fox News was fair to Donald Trump during and after the first Fox debate, but she obviously knew more about him than I did at the time. She probably knew he needed to be exposed and that she had a responsibility as a journalist to do so.

All I have stated about Donald Trump is fine and good, but the real question is - DOES OUR ACTIONS SAY WE ARE CHRISTIANS?

 

Will you again believe the lies of politicians and once again be disappointed?

The next elections are not that far away.  It is not too early to start listening closely to what the candidates are saying and if they have a record to investigate what they have done in the past. Regardless of their party affiliation all politicians make big promises.

How many of these promises are just bold-faced lies that you have heard many times in the past?  It is unfortunate that voters are more likely to believe statements made by their own political party, even if they’re totally false. Politicians make big promises they know they cannot keep because the lies work. They work because they say what people want to hear and not what is realistic. They give hopeless people false hope!  They feed the greed of greedy people.   If they make promises their audience wants to hear they can secure campaign money and win more votes. Voters have short memories if they are elected and fail to keep their promises people forget. President Obama proved that. He failed to keep his promises in his first term and was reelected.

Some politicians have learnt the art of telling half-truths or they have become experts at making excuses and blaming others. Again President Obama is a perfect example of that.

We need to learn the political language:

When a politician says “I will try” it does not mean he or she will. You can say you’ll “try to do the dishes,” even if you never get off the couch, technically you are not lying. “Try” is a great word for taking a stance that doesn’t actually require the politician to carry out any action.

When politicians are hot on the campaign trail, they’re willing to say just about anything to get votes. The words “I am committed to” flow freely. Committed to end poverty, increase jobs, improve education, end corruption, etc. If they say I promise to and don’t voters get turned off, but saying committed to does not sound like a promise to voters.

When a politician says, “The people are my biggest priority “you should start doubting all of his or her words. A politician’s biggest priority is to make sure they don’t turn off voters prior to the election. If that means making cuts, raising taxes, or prioritizing the demands of corporate lobbyists over your welfare once elected, they’ll do it. They will do it because there is always another election that they want to win.

Once a politician gets to the primaries or takes office, they’re going to have to make compromises, even if it means going back on their original agenda. They know that! When a candidate tells you, “I will not compromise on my political or moral views” take that to mean he or she is lying to you.

When a politician plants an idea in your mind, even a false one, you don’t forget it. That’s why we still joke that Al Gore thinks he invented the Internet, rumors circulated that Bill Clinton and John McCain fathered illegitimate children, and 20% of Americans don’t think Obama is a U.S. citizen. Politicians are well aware of this trick, and they use it to smear their opponents. Even if their claims are completely false they do not care. They have one goal win at all cost. Also know that the bias media does the same thing. Look at what the media is doing to Dr. Carson in the U.S.

You need to know that when politicians deny allegations made against them their denial could be a lie. Bill Clinton lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky under oath.  Presidential candidate John Edwards continually denied having an extramarital affair. Then, in a 2008 when his political career was over he admitted to the affair. He lied for two more years that he had fathered a child during that relationship. Nixon said, “I’m not a crook.” Turns out, he was. In 1974, Nixon was ordered to repay over $400,000 in back taxes to the IRS for making incorrect deductions.

I said earlier politicians are good at blaming others well consider the following: Anthony Weiner claimed in an interview that his “system was hacked.” He only admitted the scandalous photos were him once the women started coming out and telling their stories.  Politician Michael Grimm when he was under federal investigation for two years for allegations related to campaign finance fraud claimed government prosecutors had a “politically driven vendetta against” him. He eventually pleaded guilty.

Politicians are experienced wordsmiths. They spend a lot of time raising campaign money, getting votes, and striking deals. They know how to spin a story to get what they want, and they have the resources they need to cover up past offenses. When their office and reputation is at stake, the ends sometimes justify the means.

t is important that the citizens remember if the people are corrupt their politicians will be corrupt. Corrupt people elect corrupt politicians. We should examine ourselves before we vote and make sure our own selfish greed and immorality are not influencing our vote. The needs of the nation as a whole are more important than our personal needs.

 

 

What do you think of politicians who use religion to try and win elections?

Donald Trump knew exactly what he was doing when he said, “I’m Presbyterian, boy, that’s down the middle of the road, folks, in all fairness. I mean, Seventh-day Adventist, I don’t know about. I just don’t know about.” He was attempting to alienate evangelical Christian voters in Iowa, who like Dr. Ben Carson. In painting a religion as unknown, Trump seems to me to be suggesting there must be something wrong with Carson’s faith. Trump or his advisors knew that Evangelical Christian’s are a bit suspicious of the Mormon and Seven-day Adventist faith.

The church of Carson’s choice has already touched and will continue to touch the lives of millions of faithful followers around the world, even if Trump is ignorant of the denomination. They own and operate hospitals and clinics. In fact The Adventist lifestyle, which encourages abstinence from alcohol, tobacco, caffeine and meat, is credited with extending lifespan. Studies have proven that those that follow the Adventist lifestyle live on average seven years longer.

In addition to providing excellent medical care the Adventists maintain a large education system, from kindergarten through postgraduate. They train approximately 1.8 million students around the world at any given time.  The low-cost, high-quality Adventist education is often a way up to escape poverty, especially in Third World countries.

Adventism is a Protestant Christian faith granted somewhat different from Trump’s Presbyterian religion. They worship on Saturday instead of Sunday as all Christians did until the Catholic Church selected Sunday as the Sabbath. They use the same Bible as all other Protestant denominations. They strongly believe that religious liberty belongs to all people, everywhere. They do not believe any writings should take preference over the Bible.

Donald Trump’s comment demonstrated his ignorance, but I am sure there are millions of Adventist that would like to inform him about their faith.  Donald Trump is not the first nor will he be the last who will try to use religion to win elections or destroy opponents. Politicians in Singapore created racial and religious riots in the 1960s. The religious issue is used often in Malaysia in an attempt to win elections. I am Republican, but I have to be honest it seems to me that the Republicans play the God card more than the Democrats. Most politicians would use almost anything, God included, to win elections and to maintain power.

Instead of using God and religion to divide us, I would like to see politicians use religion to unite us.  Christianity according to Jesus is to be used to unite and not divide. I am tired of politicians who have probably never studied the Bible using O.T. scriptures to try and influence voters. My party the Republican Party has been cherry-picking from the Old Testament for years to bash gays and justify capital punishment. If I am not mistaken Christianity began with the words, actions and life of Jesus, not Leviticus and Exodus. The use of Old Testament Biblical scripture to justify a "moral agenda" for America is clearly wrong.

A general lack of Biblical and Christian understanding on the part of Americans has allowed the GOP to present itself as "God's Official Party." The reality is that any reading and interpretation of the New Testament will show that Jesus was not conservative, nor Republican.

Our Founders were correct when they proclaimed that the separation of church and state is paramount for our government. The invoking of God and Jesus Christ by our elected representatives is shameful, but not as shameful as Americans who believe that Jesus-God would take sides in a political debate.