Category Archives: Trump

Trump’s timely evangelical appeal

There hasn’t been a time more important in recent history to clearly support traditional Christian values and unabashed American patriotism – and President Trump is stepping up. That’s why his relationship with evangelicals is growing stronger.

President Trump addressed this year’s annual Values Voters Summit in Washington, DC. He is the first sitting U.S. president to do so. (See related story)

The Values Voters Summit is hosted by the Family Research Council, an organization whose mission is addressing public policy and culture from a Christian point of view. My organization CURE works closely with FRC and I have been a regular speaker at this Summit for years.

Its base is largely evangelical Christians, and this is why President Trump deemed it appropriate to appear.

Eighty-one percent of white evangelicals voted for Trump in 2016, the highest percentage of evangelical support for any Republican in the last four presidential elections.

 

According to the Pew Research Center, 36 percent of the electorate self-identifies as evangelical Christian, so it’s indicative of Trump’s strong political instincts that he has gone out to actively engage this important and significant base of support.

( Read the rest  of this column by Star Parker. )

Advertisements

VP leaves NFL game early

Video

UNLV prof to class: Trump to blame for Vegas tragedy

A  history professor at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas told her students that President Donald Trump is to blame for the Las Vegas country music festival shooting that killed 58 and wounded more than 500 – alleging that he frequently incites violence.

UNLV professor Tess Winkelmann made an unsubstantiated claim before her students – without citing a shred of evidence or giving any logical reasoning.

“Despite no known political association nor motive for the shooter, Winkelmann was sure that the tragedy – which occurred just five miles away – was related to Trump,” Townhall reported.

 

 

( Read the rest of this story. ) 

Birth control: Trump expands opt-out for workplace insurance

Read the story.

BreakPoint: House Passes 20-Week Abortion Ban Time to Make It Law

Congress has a chance right now to end one of the most grisly types of abortion. Pro-lifers, it’s time to get loud.

On Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 36, the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” on a vote of 237-189. If enacted, this bill would criminalize abortion after twenty weeks of pregnancy except in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. While it’s similar to laws already in place in a few states, it’s also similar to federal bills that failed in 2013 and 2015.

The crucial difference between then and now, of course, is the Republican president in the White House—one who campaigned on an explicitly pro-life platform and has pledged to sign this bill. That means the only thing now standing between the Pain-Capable act and the president’s desk is the Senate—which is no small hurdle.

Why is this legislation so important? Well, as the name suggests, babies at twenty weeks of gestation have nervous systems developed enough to feel pain. Now, in a consistent pro-life worldview, functional abilities have nothing to do with human dignity, and so all abortions are wrong. But abortions conducted just two or three weeks prior to the current point of viability are particularly and obviously gruesome.

Chances are, you may have met someone who was born prematurely at around 24 weeks. Killing any child should be unthinkable, but just before viability? In fact, former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino explains how gruesome second trimester abortions are in a disturbing video for LiveAction. We’ve linked to it at BreakPoint.org, but I’ll tell you this much: It involves literally ripping a baby limb from limb.

On a purely political basis—and contrary to claims by Planned Parenthood and others—this bill is popular on both sides of the political aisle. A 2013 Gallup poll found just 27 percent of Americans think abortion should be legal after the first trimester of pregnancy which, by the way, ends at 12 weeks of gestation.

A Knights of Columbus poll in 2014 found an incredible 84 percent of Americans want to restrict abortion to the first three months of pregnancy or less! And—are you sitting down for this?—62 percent of those who are strongly pro-choice support a 20-week ban. These are folks who support paying for abortions with tax dollars. As Will Saletan at Slate admits, “even most pro-choice people aren’t sold” on killing babies within a hairs breadth of viability.

And this legislation would also moderate America’s extremely liberal federal abortion laws, making them more like those of other Western nations. Now, I’m no fan of modeling America after Europe as some are, but as Cassy Fiano explains in a video for Prager University, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, and France all heavily restrict or effectively ban abortions after the first trimester. Only seven other countries have abortion laws like America, and two of them are North Korea and China.

So, where’s our challenge? CNN reports that GOP Whip Senator John Cornyn of Texas, when asked whether his chamber would take up this legislation, said “That’s not a near-term priority.”

Say what? If ending abortion isn’t the reason pro-lifers vote overwhelmingly Republican, what is? Look, for too long we’ve heard lots of pro-life rhetoric on the GOP campaign trail, only to see the unborn take a backseat to other priorities in Washington.

So it’s time to send a clear message to Cornyn and other Senate Republicans: This is why your constituents elected you. Get busy.

And for Democratic senators, we say, “Look at the poll numbers. Listen to Americans. The majority of your voters—the pro-choice crowd—supports this legislation.” Listen to them, not to Planned Parenthood or the increasingly irrelevant abortion lobby. End this most grisly form of abortion now.

 

Now make no mistake—all abortion should be illegal. But this is a huge step in the right direction. Come to BreakPoint.org and we’ll help you get in touch with your U.S. senators. It’s their job to listen. And it’s our job to speak for those who can’t.

Standing for the flag is not about honoring Trump or protesting it is about honoring those who went to war for the USA

NFL Player honors the flag all by himself

Billy’s thoughts —- If I remain a fan of the NFL it will be because of athletes like this guy who plays for the Steelers. Sadly not many others joined him yesterday in honoring our nation.

( Read the story. ) 

This 11 year old kid does a great job mowing the lawn at the White-House

Read the story.

BreakPoint: The Dogma of Sens. Feinstein and Franken

.      

On May 8, 2017, President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to a seat on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

By any reasonable measure, Barrett is beyond qualified. After graduating with highest honors from Notre Dame Law School, she clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia at the Supreme Court. And a few years later, she returned to Notre Dame. There, she “teaches and researches in the areas of federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation.”

She is exactly the kind of person you want serving on the Court of Appeals, if we lived in more reasonable times.

As her Notre Dame affiliation suggests, Barrett is a Catholic, which wouldn’t be an issue if she were the kind of Catholic whose faith is so private, as the old joke goes, that she wouldn’t impose it on herself.

But she’s the kind of Catholic who lives as if her faith is actually true.

At her confirmation hearings, Senator Diane Feinstein, channeling Darth Vader in Star Wars, told Barrett that “When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you.” An example of what Feinstein considers “loudly living dogma” is Barrett’s address to the Law School’s 2006 graduating class.

Barrett said that “Your legal career is but a means to an end, and . . . that end is building the kingdom of God. . . . [I]f you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love, and serve God, you truly will be a different kind of lawyer.”

Feinstein and other Democratic senators also pointed to a 1998 article on the death penalty, which the Catholic Church opposes in all but a few, highly improbable, instances. Barrett wrote that “Judges cannot—nor should they try to—align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge. They should, however, conform their own behavior to the Church’s standard. Perhaps their good example will have some effect.”

What Barrett had in mind was recusal, which is done to insure impartiality. But to hear Feinstein and others discuss it, you would have thought that Barrett was talking about an auto-da-fé, the burning of heretics.

But by far the most ridiculous moment came when senator Al Franken compared Barrett’s speaking before the Alliance Defending Freedom to giving a speech to Pol Pot, the genocidal Cambodian dictator. I am not making this up.

Coming on the heels of Bernie Sanders’ mistreatment of Russell Vought, a Wheaton College grad, over his belief that Jesus is the only way to the Father, it’s clear that some Democrats seem intent on imposing a de facto religious test for government office, notwithstanding the Constitution’s explicit prohibition of such a test.

Of course, they deny they’re doing any such thing. Instead, in the case of Barrett, they’re recycling one of the oldest prejudices in American life: “The notion that Catholics are so beholden to Rome as to be incapable of rendering independent judgment in public office.”

The modern version, as the late Richard John Neuhaus used to say, goes “the only good Catholic is a bad Catholic,” someone who doesn’t live as if his faith were actually true.

As Russell Vought learned, the same is also true for Evangelicals. For some people, even the gentlest, most winsome faith is simply beyond the pale.

Condemning another ( a thought on the Bible )

Listen to a  thought on the Bible by clicking here or read it below.

Hi friends: Should we condemn people. I’m Billy David Dickson with a thought on the Bible.
I believe most of us if not all of us would agree we should not condemn others. Sadly some are condemning someone in a high position.
I want to have a discussion with those of you who have been putting President Trump down as a person. It doesn’t matter if you voted for him, or not. It doesn’t even matter what political party you embrace.
In the Bible in John 3:17 it says Jesus didn’t enter the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
My friend Cal Thomas did an awesome radio commentary awhile back.Here is what Cal said.” I am a newspaper columnist and a commentator. I am also – first and foremost – a follower of Jesus of Nazareth. The two are not contradictory.”
“As a columnist I comment on public policies and private morals. As a follower of Jesus I try not to condemn people. The difference can be a fine line at times and I admit I don’t always get it right, but I try.”
“Some fellow believers are urging me to condemn President Trump. I can criticize policies and language I may not like, but I refuse to condemn him. I am praying for him that God will make of him what God wants. All power and authority belong to the Father and he puts people in power for His purposes – from Saul, to Clinton, Obama, Bush and Trump. Anyone disagree? If not, pray for the President.”
Amen Cal. I recall when Bill Clinton was in the White House I had a shirt which read Jesus Christ loves Bill Clinton, and you too. ( Romans 5:8. ) It is one thing to disagree with policy. Which we can do, but we should not condemn President Trump, or any other leader, or anyone for that matter. If we are condemning President Trump, we might trying praying for him instead.
That is a thought on the Bible.
Until next time,
I’m Billy David Dickson

All Rights Reserved, 2017
This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Billy or read more commentary on https://billydteacher.wordpress.com/.