When I was in college, my basic logic instructor asked us a simple question: What is it — specifically — that differentiates humans from the rest of the animals?  Predictably, one of the first suggestions from the class was that humans are sentient, but our instructor quickly reminded us that many animals meet the definition of ‘sentient.’  Next, the class offered the notion that humans are self-aware.  Again, our instructor reminded us that work with higher primates suggest they are capable of self-awareness, at least on the most basic levels.  After several more suggestions, our instructor suggested the quality that separates humans from all other animals is the ability to reason.  Unfortunately, our instructor was also wrong.  Anyone who has been around a dog, bird, primate or other animal of higher intelligence is well aware that they can reason.  So what is it that separates humans from animals, and why was my instructor — a certified genius and member of “Whose Who Among American Geniuses” — why was he wrong?

The answer is actually simple: man is the only creature capable of recognizing and making moral decisions.  The reason my instructor didn’t understand this is because he was an Atheist, and morality demands a Creator.  Without a Creator, there can be no such thing as morality — only culture and ethics.  Thus, my instructor couldn’t define the thing that separates humans from animals because he was blind to the true nature of the very thing he was trying to define.

The issue is actually less complicated than people like to believe.  In order for something to be a moral law, it must be universal.  In other words, it must apply equally to all people, everywhere, and at all times — past, present and future.  But many people think that differences in how these universal laws are recognized proves there are different moral codes.  This is not the case.  All we are seeing is cultural differences in how the laws are recognized and honored.  In fact, my professor provided a perfect illustration of my point.

The first day of our logic class, our instructor told us that what makes us ‘human’ is our rationality.  He also said that, if we are presented with a sound, valid and rational argument, and we cannot counter it or refuse to accept it, we are irrational.  Thus, we are no longer human.  Then he told us our final exam would be to write one of two papers.  We either had to prove the unborn was a person, or that God existed.  He did not believe in either, so he thought this was his version of the Kobayashi Maru test.  I discovered I have a natural knack for logic, so I excelled in his class.  However, on the last day of class, I did not turn in a final exam paper.  When he asked me why, I told him I didn’t need to: I could give mine orally, in class — if he let me.  So he agreed.

I started by asking him to affirm two prepositions: that we lived in the United States of America, and that the U.S. Constitution was the highest law in the nation.  He agreed to both and told me to proceed.  So I explained that the Constitution admits to the per-existence of the United States.  As he was intellectually honest, my instructor granted my point.  So I then pointed to the fact that the document that actually founded the nation was the Declaration of Independence.  Again, he granted my point.  At this point, I got up and started walking up to the stage from where he taught, reciting “We hold these truths to be self-evident.  That all men are Created equal, and endowed by their Creator with the right to life…”  I was walking up the stairs when I said “Created means at conception, not birth.  And endowed by their Creator means our right to life is given to us — by God — at the moment of conception.  Therefore, there is not only a God, but the unborn is human.”

By now I was facing him on the stage, so I asked him: “Now, do you believe in God, and that the unborn is a person?”

My instructor said no!

So I asked: “Is my argument sound?”

He said yes.

“Is it valid?”

He said yes.

“Is it rational?” (I started walking toward him).

He hesitated, but then said yes.

“So you now believe in God and that the unborn is a person, right?”

He said no (I was just a few steps away at this point).

“Then that makes you irrational, and if you are irrational, you are not human.  I can kill you without consequence if you are not human.  After all, if you are irrational, you are just an animal…”

It was at this moment that the lights went on in his head and he started to back away from me smiling and holding his hands up in a gesture meant to stop my advance and get him out of the trap he had laid on the first day of class (you see, he was a small man, and, at the time, I was still in the Marines and quite a bit larger than he was — so I was an imposing threat to him).

Now here is the point: by his own standard, I had just ‘proven’ my instructor was not human and I could kill him like any other animal.  Yet, he objected.  He still believed he had a right to his own life — and he did.  But why, after he made the rules to the game, did he object?  Because morality is universal, and all humans instinctively know this from birth — just as The Book of Romans says (incidentally, The Book of Romans is where John Locke got his ideas for government, and Locke was the second most cited source in our founders writings on this nation’s government — right behind the Bible).

This same reality was claimed by the Allies as the basis for the Nuremberg Trials.  When Axis war criminals tried to claim they were just following orders, the Allies countered by saying there are universal laws which govern individual behavior, and they take precedence to man-made law.  Were this not true, then the Allies would have been wrong to try, convict and punish the NAZI’s for their many crimes.  After all, if morality is different for different nations, then the Holocaust — which was legal — would have simply been Germany’s morality.  How could the U.S. then impose its morality on Germany without admitting that morality is nothing more than “might-makes-right?”  And if morality is just “might-makes-right,” then there can be no such thing as a right or the rule of law.  All that exists is what one person or group can force on another — which means slavery was a moral action and we are wrong to judge the Colonial South for the practice.

Now for the hard part of this post.  If you do not see my point by now, then you do not see and recognize the universal moral law governing all human behavior.  The logical conclusion which follows this circumstance would then place you back in my instructor’s shoes on the day I demonstrated to him that — by his own definition — he is not human.

[NOTE: I no longer think of my voice as anything special.  There was a time when I believed I had something important to say, but not so much these days.  I write now because I feel driven to do so.  Something inside me will not let me rest until I post the pages you just read.  I’d just as soon not bother anymore.  It all seems like no one is listening and I do more harm than good.  So I have come to trust that whatever it is driving me has all this under control.  Personally, I believe it is God, but others may not.  All I ask is that, if anything I write helps you, or you think it might help others in any way, please, share this page.  Re-blog it, share it on FB or send the link to your friends.  So long as you feel it will do more good than harm, then please, use this page however you wish.  Thank you.]

If you are a Trump supporter, I’d like to talk to you for a moment — please.  I am not a Trump supporter.  I do not see much of a difference between him and Hillary Clinton — or Barack Obama, for that matter.  Now, I understand the desire to correct many of the things the Democrat Party has done to this country.  I love America, myself — but not necessarily the United States.  I believe there is a difference. My problem is that I do not think Trump does.  He may be patriotic in the sense that he loves the United States, but I see no evidence in his life or words that he loves liberty, personal responsibility or the rule of law.  Now, if you love the United States, then I doubt I’ll be able to reach you.  But if you believe in the principles and ideals upon which this nation was founded, I’d like to make a moral appeal to you; to beg you to reconsider your support for Donal Trump.  If you believe in America — the idea that men can live free, and self-governing according to the rule of law — then I want to ask you when two wrongs started making things right?

The first thing I would like to point out is that the American Right is not the same as it is in Europe.  In this nation, the Right is supposed to stand for individual rights and responsibilities, as well as small government and the rule of law.  Our founders were principled men.  They found ways to compromise, but they did so without abandoning their principles.  Even those who opposed slavery found a way to compromise on the Constitution without abandoning their opposition to that abominable institution.  That is what the 3/5 clause was all about: a structurally imposed time bomb that insured the nation would re-visit that issue.  So, if a person believes in the founding ideals of America, it must also include sticking to principle.  Where matters of right and wrong are concerned, there can be no compromise.  This is part of living a moral life, what ‘The Pursuit of Happiness’ really means (and how our founders understood the term).  So, why are so many who claimed to be on the American Right now thinking that they can correct perceived wrongs by supporting a candidate whose life has been in opposition to everything they claim to believe?

Let’s start with Trump’ inability to tell the truth.  It is a well known fact that Trump has been caught contradicting himself — a lot!  And when confronted with these contradictions, Trump has denied he ever said them.  Even when presented with the video or audio evidence, Trump has denied the truth:

Donald Trump’s file

Now that we have established that we should not trust anything Trump says, let’s consider his ‘evolving’ positions of matters such as gun control, abortion and immigration.  At various times in his life, Donald Trump has supported gun control, abortion and immigration.  However, with his announcement that he would be running in the Republican Presidential primary, Trump’s views changed.  If you look, you can easily find stories covering these changes.  You will also find that, when Trump has been asked about these changes, he has said his views have ‘evolved.’  If a Democrat were to say something like this, Republicans would be quick to question their sincerity and, as history has shown, they would be justified in doing so.  However, now that the apparent Republican nominee is doing the same thing, the same people who would have questioned a Democrat for ‘evolving’ are ignoring or even defending Trump when he does it.  This is not the action of a principled person — on either side: Trump’s or his supporters.

Related to this is the fact that Trump has already signaled that he will change his positions whenever it suits his purposes:

Trump: ‘I’m Capable of Changing To Anything I Want to Change To’

Trump: When I get to Washington, I’m Going to Become Part of the Establishment so I can Make Deals With Democrats

Again, when Democrats announce that they will not hold themselves accountable to anything they said in the past, Republicans are correct to criticize them.  So why not when the Republican candidate does the same thing?  How can one criticize their political opponent for being a hypocrite, then turn around and act the exact same way as that political opponent?  Where is the morality in such an action?  Many people did not listen when candidate Obama said he was going to fundamentally change America and they elected a man who did just that.  Now, Trump is telling the world he will change positions to make deals with the Democrats — the very thing his supporters claim to be tired of Republicans doing — and people are supporting Trump anyway.  Why should anyone expect the result to be any different from what Obama gave us?

The American Right is supposed to support the rule of law, which includes peaceful protest.  Yet, Donal Trump advocates, calls for and offers to defend violence from his supporters:

Donald Trump gives supporters permission to be violent at rallies: ‘I’ll defend you in court’

Trump rally turns violent: photographer thrown to ground amid protests

Many people are decrying the violence which supposedly shut down Trump’s rally in Chicago (note: the Chicago PD reported they never told Trump to do this, he did it on his own).  So why do Trumps supporters not see the fact that Trump not only supports violence, but he was the first to call for his supporters to use violence to defend him in this campaign cycle?  Why should we believe Trumps supporters are any different than those of Clinton and Sanders?  They are all doing the same thing, so where is the difference between them on this issue?

And if you dare to oppose Trump, or even say something he does not like, he threatens to sue you.  He has gone so far as to threaten the media if they say anything about him he does not like:

Trump just issued MASSIVE THREAT to news media

Threats and calls for violence are the traits of a dictator or tyrant.  Add narcissism to the equation and you have a very dangerous person on your hands.  Many Republicans have pointed out that President Obama says “I,” “me,” or ‘my” far too often in his speeches, but no one seems to care that Donald Trump does so just as, if not more often than Obama.  So, again, where is the difference between Trump and Obama (or Hillary, who also likes to speak of herself)?  How are so many missing the clear warning signs about Trump’s character?  When a Presidential candidate says things like this, it is foolish to dismiss it as a ‘joke:’

Trump: I could ‘shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters’

Trump has been compared to Hitler.  Hitler told the world he planned to eliminate the Jews, and people thought he wasn’t serious: they thought it was political posturing.  Look what happened.  Are we really willing to just trust that Trump was ‘political posturing?’

Trump has also shown a hesitancy to denounce racism.  This campaign has shown he has no reservations denouncing or insulting anyone with whom he disagrees.  How many times have his supporters actually cheered when he has insulted someone?  Yet, when asked to denounce racists supporting his campaign, Trump drug his feet.  In fact, he did not do so until the public heat over the issue became unbearable and he was forced to do so:

The Latest: Rubio keeps up taunts of Trump

How can his supporters miss the clear warning signs?

The American Right is supposed to oppose fiscal irresponsibility — until it comes to Trump.  Republicans complain about Democrat spending, but they have shown a willingness to look the other way when their people spend recklessly.  Until President Obama, George W Bush was the biggest spender in U.S. history.  Now, after Obama doubled the debt Bush left us with, Republicans are supporting a man who boasts about his fiscal irresponsibility.  To Trump, it is a matter of pride that he used the U.S. bankruptcy laws ‘to his personal advantage.’

Fox News moderator confronts Trump: How can we trust you after 4 bankruptcies?

Trump has lost some $6.5 billion of other people’s money — and he laughs about it.  Why would anyone think he will be any different were he to become President?  Why would anyone who cares about fiscal responsibility even take the chance on such a man?

Then there is the matter of Trumps boasting about being perfect.  Trump claims to be a Christian, yet he says he has never asked God for forgiveness “because he does not make mistakes:”

Trump: ‘Why Do I Have to Repent or Ask for Forgiveness If I Am Not Making Mistakes?’

All Christians know that we are all sinners (we all make mistakes), and that one must confess our sins and ask God for forgiveness.  If you have never done so, you are not a Christian.  This is not a matter of ‘opinion,’ but a clear explanation from Jesus, himself.  Now, if a man will not only lie to God, but boast about being God (which is what Trump is really claiming when he says he doesn’t make mistakes), then why would anyone trust him as President?  Is it any wonder that people would compare an unrepentant narcissist with a messiah complex to Adolf Hitler?

How do so many people miss the warning signs?  They are everywhere.  By all appearances, Trump is a sociopath,  but people are still willing to support him.  Why?  Hillary is also a sociopath, so, if the choice is the male sociopath vs. the female sociopath, what is the difference?  How does one who wants to live chose between suicide by gun or poison: it is still suicide.  Which means, those who are supporting Trump are saying that their wrong can make right the wrongs of the Democrats — only they are looking to a Democrat in Republican clothing to make that correction.  MADNESS!  It is madness, I say!  All Trump will do is destroy the American Right, leaving one Party — the Progressive (i.e. American Communist) Party.

Do I really need to go back over all the similarities between the state of the U.S. and that of 1930’s Germany — again?

 

[NOTE: I no longer think of my voice as anything special.  There was a time when I believed I had something important to say, but not so much these days.  I write now because I feel driven to do so.  Something inside me will not let me rest until I post the pages you just read.  I’d just as soon not bother anymore.  It all seems like no one is listening and I do more harm than good.  So I have come to trust that whatever it is driving me has all this under control.  Personally, I believe it is God, but others may not.  All I ask is that, if anything I write helps you, or you think it might help others in any way, please, share this page.  Re-blog it, share it on FB or send the link to your friends.  So long as you feel it will do more good than harm, then please, use this page however you wish.  Thank you.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have already explained my understanding of what it means to be an American. To me, an American is someone who embraces the principles and ideals upon which this nation was originally founded.  This means you must uphold and defend those principles and ideals, but also live them in your daily life.  However, as I watch the 2016 Presidential primaries unfold, I find myself wondering more and more where that nation we once called America has gone?  Where are her people?  How is it that we have gone from a nation that would elect Abraham Lincoln, a man known for his honesty, to fighting over which of two dishonest and known liars will become President.  But more than this, how does a nation which still considers itself to be nominally Christian support such people in such overwhelming numbers?  I have to confess: I have all but lost faith in my fellow countrymen.

First, if you support Hillary Clinton of Bernie Sanders, then we really don’t have much in common.  You might be fun or pleasant to be around, but it is impossible for you to be good — not by any Biblical standards, anyway.  Yeah, I know: “The Bible says not to judge!”  Well, that’s what I mean: if you do not know Scripture well enough to know that this is not what Jesus said, then how can I expect you to know what Christ said about being ‘good?’  The simple truth is, Hillary is a corrupt liar who has committed treason.  If she were anyone else, she would have been imprisoned long ago.  And Sanders is a thief by another name.  In fact, both of them are: all socialists are.  Nothing in Scripture allows for a believer to grant government authority to take another’s property for their personal gain.  Whether you do it directly or by government proxy, Scripture calls this theft — and anyone who openly supports unrepentant theft is far from the Lord.  So you and I have little to discuss.  Scripture teaches that I should keep an agape love for you (and I do), but that I should also separate from you (and I will).

Republicans: you are supposed to be the Party of ‘Conservatism:’ the Party of principle: the Party that still stands for law and order, small government and the Constitution.  To the best of my knowledge (and I actually pay attention), Trump has never spoken of the Constitution — not once!  In fact, if his actual words are to be any judge, I don’t believe he has even read it — ever!  If he has, he certainly doesn’t seem to feel he would be constrained by it in any way should he win the Presidency.  Trump has been advocating for the Democrat Party platform, but the GOP continues to vote for him.  Exactly how does that work?  How does one claim principle while actively supporting a man who is the antithesis of everything your Party is supposed to be?

To those of you ‘Patriots’ who are supporting Donald Trump: what is your definition of an ‘American?!’  Trump is not a ‘Conservative.’  He is a Progressive through and through.  Policy wise, there is little difference between him and Hillary or Bernie Sanders.  Either of the three will give us the same result.  Trump is doing the same thing Obama did: he is repeating a snappy little slogan and promising the moon without ever explaining what he really means or how he will achieve his promises.  Many of you viciously attacked Obama supporters for doing this — and rightly so.  But now you are acting like Obama drones, only on the other side of the coin.  How do you not see this?  Or don’t you even care anymore?

Finally, and most painful of all, to you Christians who are supporting Trump: you have lost your way!  I can say this with absolute certainty; with the certainty of Jeremiah when he warned Israel of God’s impending judgment.  And I can do it because it is not me who testifies against you, but you who testifies against yourself by ignoring Scripture.

Trump said he has never asked Go for forgiveness because he is ‘good’ and has no need of forgiveness.  Well, if you were not ignorant of or willfully ignoring God’s Word, then you would know that no one can be saved without admitting they are a sinner and asking God for forgiveness.  And if you are not saved, then you are not of God — period!  But you would also know why this applies to trump.  Taking Trump’s own words and holding them up against God’s Word, you will find that no one is good except for God:

Mark 10:18

 

 

[NOTE: I no longer think of my voice as anything special.  There was a time when I believed I had something important to say, but not so much these days.  I write now because I feel driven to do so.  Something inside me will not let me rest until I post the pages you just read.  I’d just as soon not bother anymore.  It all seems like no one is listening and I do more harm than good.  So I have come to trust that whatever it is driving me has all this under control.  Personally, I believe it is God, but others may not.  All I ask is that, if anything I write helps you, or you think it might help others in any way, please, share this page.  Re-blog it, share it on FB or send the link to your friends.  So long as you feel it will do more good than harm, then please, use this page however you wish.  Thank you.]

 

The news was recently filled with stories of people comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler, but are these comparisons ‘legitimate?’  By that, I mean, are they accurate and, therefore, warranted?  Before we examine these questions, let me first share a few of the many stories on this subject — for those who may not have seen them:

Glenn Beck Compares Trump To Hitler

Another Hitler? How world leaders see Donald Trump

Trump-Hitler Roundup: Here’s Who Compared Donald Trump to Hitler This Weekend

OK, now, whether you love him or hate him, the best story on the comparison of Trump to Hitler is probably the Glenn Beck piece.  That is because Beck explains why the comparison is legitimate by pointing out that the people making these comparisons know history better than the average person.  By that, Beck means they know who Hitler was before he became known for starting the Holocaust and WW II.  The people comparing Trump to Hitler are not saying Trump is the 1939-45 Hitler, but the 1929-1938 Hitler.  Hitler was a different person before 1939, and it is that person to whom people are comparing Trump — and as you will soon see, they are correct to do so.

Now, before we begin looking at the similarities, let me suggest that you not look for exact matches.  Trump does not need to be repeating, word-for-word, the same things as Hitler to be using the same tactics.  Nor does Trump have to advocate the exact same program to be pushing the same agenda.  What we have to do is look for things that are similar between the two and then see if they both point to the same underlying agenda and tactics.  So, with this in mind, let me share a few useful links and highlight a few key points in them and let you determine whether or not they bear any resemblance to the things Trump has been doing and saying on the campaign trail.

THE RISE OF ADOLF HITLER

“He would find in this downtrodden people, an audience very willing to listen. In his speeches, Hitler offered the Germans what they needed most, encouragement. He gave them heaps of vague promises while avoiding the details. He used simple catchphrases, repeated over and over….”

Does this sound like Trump and the Trump audience?  Does he speak to those who feel they have no voice in government?  Does he encourage them?  Does he offer a lot of promises without giving any specifics as to how he will affect those promises?  Does he stick to repeating simple catch-phrases?

“His campaign appearances were carefully staged events. Audiences were always kept waiting, deliberately letting the tension increase, only to be broken by solemn processions of Brownshirts with golden banners, blaring military music, and finally the appearance of Hitler amid shouts of “Heil!” The effect in a closed in hall with theatrical style lighting and decorations of swastikas was overwhelming and very catching.”

Does Trump carefully orchestrate his rallies in a similar manner?  Does he intentionally ‘work the crowed’ to create emotional responses? As Beck recently explained on his radio show, Trump recently gave an interview to Hannity in which the lighting and cameras used were of the quality usually reserved for the movies and never used for Presidential candidates.  Is this similar to the theatrics Hitler used?

“Hitler offered something to everyone: work to the unemployed; prosperity to failed business people; profits to industry; expansion to the Army; social harmony and an end of class distinctions to idealistic young students; and restoration of German glory to those in despair. He promised to bring order amid chaos; a feeling of unity to all and the chance to belong. He would make Germany strong again…”

Has Trump made such promises?  Has he made them to nearly every group in American society?  And has he promised to “make America great again?”

So far, these are all just tactics, and, admittedly, Trump would not be the first to study and employ them:

Donald Trump’s ex-wife once said Trump kept a book of Hitler’s speeches by his bed

Is Obama studying the Hitler handbook?

Now let’s look to see if there are any personality traits that might justify comparing Trump to Hitler:

The Führer Myth: How Hitler Won Over the German People

“I overcame chaos in Germany, restored order, enormously raised production in all fields of our national economy…I succeeded in completely resettling in useful production those 7 million unemployed who so touched our hearts…I have not only politically united the German nation but also rearmed it militarily, and I have further tried to liquidate that Treaty sheet by sheet whose 448 Articles contain the vilest rape that nations and human beings have ever been expected to submit to. I have restored to the Reich the provinces grabbed from us in 1919; I have led millions of deeply unhappy Germans, who have been snatched away from us, back into the Fatherland; I have restored the thousand-year-old historical unity of German living space; and I have attempted to accomplish all that without shedding blood and without inflicting the sufferings of war on my people or any other. I have accomplished all this, as one who 21 years ago was still an unknown worker and soldier of my people, by my own efforts…”

Does Trump ever stress the “I, I, I, all by myself and my own efforts” mantra?

ADOLF HITLER

“Hitler was certainly gifted in some subjects, but he lacked self-control. He was argumentative and bad-tempered, and unable to submit to school discipline….moreover, he was lazy. He reacted with hostility to advice or criticism. (Humer)“

Has Trump ever shown a lack of self control, or impatience or, more importantly, a tendency to act with hostility toward those who disagree with or criticize him?

Has Trump ever encouraged the use of violence against those who oppose him?  Have his supporters ever used violence against those who oppose Trump?  Has he repudiated that violence in a convincing manner?

Has Trump ever shown a tendency to blame a group or set of groups for either his personal failures or the troubles of the nation?

Has Trump ever claimed he is going to be the savior and defender of Christianity?

Has Trump ever promised he will restore economic prosperity without explaining how?

Has Trump ever suggested the nation needs government healthcare and/or the confiscation of firearms?

Has Trump ever demanded his supporters swear a loyalty oath?

Has Trump ever said that the military will obey him — even if he issues unconstitutional/unlawful orders?

Has he ever shown intolerance, either toward religion or ethnic minorities?

Has Trump ever threatened his political opponents with the use of government force?

Has Trump ever given any indication that he would claim credit for and plaster his name over everything the nation does?

Has Trump used the ‘royal we’ in referring to the nation?  By that, has he used the word “we” when he really means himself?

If you have been paying attention to the campaign, and if you will be honest with yourself, then you know the answer to every question I have asked about Trump is yes!  If you disagree, I can post video of Trump saying or doing every last one of these points.  This really isn’t a matter of ‘opinion;’ it is a fact that can be demonstrated by Trump, himself.  All one has to do is look for it and you will find the video — unedited –of Trump affirming everything I just said.  Therefore, yes, it is legitimate to compare Trump to Hitler — the 1929-1938 Hitler.

However, we must not overlook how the 1939-1945 Hitler was created.  As Hitler seized more and more power, the people grew more afraid of him.  Rather than opposing him when he was still weak and could have been stopped, they supported and praised him.  In many ways, he bought them off, so they allowed him to continue.  This gave Hitler more confidence that he was the savior of Germany, and he acted accordingly.  Then, in 1938-39, when Hitler started using the military against neighboring nations, the world appeased him.  Instead of opposing him when he could have been stopped relatively easily, the world gave in to his demands and looked the other way when he invaded other sovereign nations.  So how would a narcissistic individual with an insecurity complex and a messianic delusion react when he saw that no one in the world was willing to oppose him?  By convincing himself he was unstoppable because he was incapable of doing any wrong.  Well, for those of us who see the warning signs, this is exactly what we fear we may create if we elect Trump to the Presidency.

Others will disagree, to be sure.  But then, this is how we, as a species, keep repeating history: by being too stupid to actually learn from it and then act prudently in the future.

I suppose this leaves us with just one last question: is it still permissible to speak the truth to power?  If so, then why does the comparison of Trump to Hitler offend so many people?  But if not, doesn’t that actually affirm the comparison?

ADDENDUM: 13 March

Some of my readers have suggested I have been unfair to Trump.  That I should be accusing Hillary and Sanders of being like Hitler because of the violence at the recent Trump rally.  Well, first, I’d like to point out that I wrote this post about Trump, not Hillary or Sanders — and I wrote it before the Trump rally.  But, even with the Trump rally in mind, the way Trump and his supporters have responded has demonstrated — through actions — that he is no different than they are.  Here are just a few of the stories that demonstrate this:

Trump Looking into Paying Legal Fees of Man Who Punched Protester

By making it public knowledge that he will pay for the legal defense of anyone who physically attacks his opponents, Trump is openly supporting and even encouraging that violence.  This is similar to the way Hitler encouraged the brown shirts to do his dirty work.

‘Be Careful Bernie’: Trump Accuses Sanders of ‘Lying’ About Sending His Supporters to Disrupt Trump’s Weekend Rallies

This is an open threat to the Sanders’ campaign.  This makes Trump little different from the people who disrupted his rally.  it also solidifies the comparisons of Trump to Hitler.

On top of this, it is fallacious (bad reasoning) to argue that a comparison between Trump and Hitler is false because you can make the same comparison between Hillary or Sanders and Hitler.  If the shoe fits, then it applies to whomever it fits.  This does not mean Trump is the only one who can rightly be compared to Hitler.  The same can easily be said about the majority of the Democrat Party and Republican leadership — because it is true.  They all use the tactics of control.  But the purpose of this post was not to excuse one person by pointing the finger at others.  It was to explain why the comparison of Trump to Hitler is valid, and I believe I have more than made that case.

[NOTE: I no longer think of my voice as anything special.  There was a time when I believed I had something important to say, but not so much these days.  I write now because I feel driven to do so.  Something inside me will not let me rest until I post the pages you just read.  I’d just as soon not bother anymore.  It all seems like no one is listening and I do more harm than good.  So I have come to trust that whatever it is driving me has all this under control.  Personally, I believe it is God, but others may not.  All I ask is that, if anything I write helps you, or you think it might help others in any way, please, share this page.  Re-blog it, share it on FB or send the link to your friends.  So long as you feel it will do more good than harm, then please, use this page however you wish.  Thank you.]

NOTE: One of the most common complaints I hear about my blogging is that I spend too much time worrying over the meaning of words.  Well, I’m sorry if this bother some people, but if we do not have a common understanding of what we mean by the words we use, then we can never be sure we understand anything we read?  So I have started this series as a means of recording my thoughts on Why Definitions Matter.’  I hope you’ll find it of some use in your own quest for understanding.

What is an ‘American?’  It is not a citizen of the United States.  How can we know that, because this is the United States of America, but it is not ‘America.‘  America is a continent, and there is a North and South America, each containing more than one nation.  So how can we say a citizen of the United States is an American, but not a Canadian, a Mexican or even a Brazilian or Argentinian?  Obviously, ‘American’ means something more than just citizenship.  Luckily, as with so many things, our founders left us a little help.

“Where liberty dwells, there is my country.”

— Benjamin Franklin (attributed), letter to Benjamin Vaughn, March 14, 1783

The spirit of this quote was echoed many years later in the Superman comic book series:

“Truth, Justice and the American Way!”

So what is the American way and how is it connected to what we mean by ‘American?’

For me, it all goes back to Franklin’s words.  Before we won our independence, we were called ‘Colonists‘ — not Americans!  Shortly after our independence, the world started to call us Americans, but that was not who we were.  We were a confederacy: a collection of independent nations.  So you might have been a New Yorker, or a Virginian or a Georgian, but you were not technically an American (you still aren’t).  Whether consciously or not, I believe the world referred to us as ‘Americans‘ as a short-hand way of describing the value set that epitomized the people of our confederation.  In short, ‘American‘ originally referred to the spirit which drove the people of our United States and, as Franklin pointed out, that spirit was Liberty.

Now that spirit of Liberty was also a short hand term used to describe much more than just freedom.  It stood for a set of ideals which, among other things, included a value placed on the individual, and on individual rights.  This included the right to property.  It included the rule of law, and of a system of justice whereby the law was applied equally to all — regardless of a person’s wealth or social status.  It also included small governments, limited in power by the specific functions listed by the people who created that government.  That government also remained the servant of and answerable to those same people.  But above all, Liberty rested upon individual responsibility and accountability.  One had duties to others and to their nation, and was expected to see to those duties and to answer to the rest of their fellow citizens if they did not do so.

This was the spirit which attracted so many immigrants over the years.  They came to this nation to become part of it by adapting these principles into their own lives and then living them.  It is why this nation was once called The Great Melting Pot: because people came here to become an ‘American.’  They became citizens of a State through the Naturalization process, but they became Americans by adapting this set of principles and living according to them.  More than that, they taught them to their children and defended them — sometimes, even with their own lives.

Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the value set which drives the majority of those calling themselves ‘American’ these days.  Many of them do not even know this history, nor do they feel any obligation to learn it.  For too many, the idea of ‘American’ carries a feeling of superiority and/or entitlement.  Immigrants no longer feel any desire to ‘assimilate,’ and even if they did, to what would they assimilate?  Our nation has become so balkanized that we have lost national identity.  In other words, we have lost what it meant to be American.  Now, it means whatever an individual wants it to mean.  What’s more, if you were to try to explain any of this to most people, they would most likely react negatively, telling you that you have no right to tell them what anything means.  You see, words have lost their meaning, and with them, we have lost the ability to communicate, which then leads to social decay and — eventually — collapse.

I’ll end by trying to illustrate what I mean.  We have groups in this country calling themselves Americans, but they are openly Socialist.  There is nothing compatible between the U.S. Constitution and Socialism.  They are contradictory systems of governance, but the socialists in this country still think of themselves as Americans.  You have a similar situation with those people supporting Fascism (most of them call it ‘conservatism’).  They support a State-supported (i.e. public) system of corporations, but insist that their corporate property is private and deserving of private property protections.  Well, Jefferson and Franklin (to name two of our founders) both said this is not the case.  They said property which exists because of the public (i.e. govt) remains in the control of the public.  So these Fascist Americans are also at odds with the founding ideology of this nation, yet they are among the fiercest calling themselves American.  Then there are the Libertarians, who advocate for an ideal which the founders rejected as being too far toward Anarchy.  They call themselves American, but the founders would have disagreed (and did).  And don’t forget the small remnant which is still clinging to the founding ideology.  Today, we call them Classic Liberals.  All call themselves American!

Now, here’s why this matters.  Suppose I have a large audience made up of equal numbers of each of the groups I just described, and I tell them that one group is a ‘true’ American and the rest are all traitors to the American ideal.  What do you think will be the result?  Now consider this: there was once a time when I could have done this without causing a fight.  In fact, the groups not included by the definition I gave would have recognized that they were not included.  I know this to be true because I have read the political writings of these groups from the time periods when they were fighting to change the meaning of American — so they could be included in the new definition.  The problem is, you cannot change the meaning of a thing, and when you try to force it, all you do is create opposition.  If and when that opposition becomes angry enough…  Well, look around.  Today, we have a Fascist, a Socialist and a Communist fighting for the Presidency and all three call themselves American!  But none of the three actually are — not as I understand the meaning of the term.

And it’s all because we no longer have a collective understanding of what words mean…

[NOTE: I no longer think of my voice as anything special.  There was a time when I believed I had something important to say, but not so much these days.  I write now because I feel driven to do so.  Something inside me will not let me rest until I post the pages you just read.  I’d just as soon not bother anymore.  It all seems like no one is listening and I do more harm than good.  So I have come to trust that whatever it is driving me has all this under control.  Personally, I believe it is God, but others may not.  All I ask is that, if anything I write helps you, or you think it might help others in any way, please, share this page.  Re-blog it, share it on FB or send the link to your friends.  So long as you feel it will do more good than harm, then please, use this page however you wish.  Thank you.]

It is popular to think that we, as ‘modern’ people, are superior to the people of the past.  Sadly, this reveals one of the many lies we tell ourselves.  We look at our technology and we tell ourselves it represents ‘progress.’  But is it ‘progress’ when we give microwave ovens to monkeys?  No!  A monkey with a microwave is just an un-thinking beast with a piece of technology — nothing more.  Well, watching the debate last night and then reading the reactions to it in the media, I am forced to conclude that this is what we have become: monkeys with microwaves.  Why do I say that?  Because of stories like this one:

Frank Luntz Asks Focus Group Who Won the Debate — Members Overwhelmingly Select One Candidate

So, if I accept the ‘popular’ wisdom, Rubio won the debate.  But why?  Mostly because he won the insult war: he had a lot of great ‘zingers.’  But where is the substance in ‘zingers?’  Yes, they can be funny, and definitely gratifying when the object of the attack is some one with whom we disagree.  But where is the intellect in insult?  The truth is, Rubio engaged in something akin to an adult version of playground warfare.  He didn’t prove or demonstrate anything factual.  He just threw insult, and in the language of reason, it is a mistake.  It is called the fallacy of ad hominem, or against the man (i.e. a personal attack).  Now, don’t get me wrong: I understand this has and will always be part of human nature.  However, there was a time when it would not have held as much sway with people as it does today.  The Renaissance is one example of such a time, and I would argue that it was because the people of that time were more intellectually advanced than we are today.

The Renaissance was a time for thinking people.  Yes!  People were still swayed by emotional appeals, but there was also a general mood of reason guiding the people.  They worked at learning how to think and to use that rational ability to harness their emotions.  It is one of the primary reasons our founders were able to create a document as unique as the U.S. Constitution: because they allowed reason to temper and govern their emotional desires.  But where is the evidence that we still do this today?

If this nation still valued reason, then Cruz won the debate last night.  Where Rubio made the better un-supported attacks, Cruz used reason to maneuver Trump into demonstrating he, Trump, is a pathological liar.  Did anyone notice how skillfully Cruz trapped Trump into saying he never said he would have the government pay for all healthcare?  Cruz also nailed Trump on his lies about not being able to release his tax records because he is being audited.  These are just just two of several examples of Cruz getting Trump to say things during the debate that could be held up against video evidence later to show that Trump lies as a matter of habit.  Yet, for some reason, people saw Rubio the insulter as the winner over Cruz the demonstrator.  They chose emotion over reason, and that is not progress, it is a step or two backward.

Now, before you think I am defending Cruz, don’t.  Honestly, this is not a political discussion.  I just chose the debate as an illustration so I could get your attention.  What I really want to discuss is the role of the mind (reason) in training the heart (emotion).  Christians should pay especially close attention to this next point, because we tend to get Scripture very wrong on this issue.  The heart is a term we use to describe our inner, true self: the things we really feel and believe.  It is emotional.  It does not think.  It just feels…and wants.  So the heart must be trained, disciplined — and that requires the mind!

Those who actually read Scripture, especially those who study the original Hebrew and the Hebrew culture will know that the Scriptures speak of the need to use our minds to train our hearts.  Scripture teaches that discipline is a crucial part of our faith.  The heart does not naturally love our enemies, or give to others — especially people outside our families.  These things must be learned through discipline, and discipline requires sound reason so we can determine what things are best for us and what things will eventually harm us.  Our founders were children of the Renaissance, and if we read their personal writings, we will see this understanding in their words.  They knew and understood the role of the mind in teaching the heart what it should want and what it should not.  But this is because the Renaissance was just a period of re-claiming what had been lost in the Dark Ages.  If we look back in time, we will find that this understanding was taught first in Scripture:

Matthew 22:37

³⁷ And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’

Luke 10:27

²⁷ And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.”

These passages are just from the New Testament, but they are directly from Christ.  Go back farther and you will find this principle where the mind is to train the soul all through the Old Testament, as well.  But we ‘modern’ people have not only rejected the wisdom of the Renaissance (as our founders understood the concept), but we have also turned our back on the Wisdom of God.  So, today, we think it is more ‘enlightened’ to chase after emotional appeal rather than reasoned consideration.  Well, Scripture speaks to this, as well:

Isaiah 5:20-21

This post is addressed to God’s people; and specifically to those who support Donald Trump while claiming to be God’s people.  It was not that long ago that I could not have written this post — because I did not know God’s Word.  And while I still have much to learn, I have read the Scriptures through every year, and have for more than three years.  This is why I now understand that you may know about the Lord by listening to others talk about Scripture, but you cannot know the Lord unless you read and study His Word.  So, I will reference God’s Word, but I will not cite it for you.  This is actually to help those readers who may need the warning that follows.  If you do not recognize the Truth of God’s Word in my post, or you disagree with it, then you may need to have a heart-felt discussion with the Lord.  But for those who do know Him, there will be no need for me to reference the chapter and verse as you will already know and recognize the Spiritual Truths in this post.  So, with that said, if you claim to be of God and still support Donald Trump, then you may want to give some serious consideration to what follows.

Not too long ago, I lost a friend because of this issue.  He is always talking about God and God’s Word, but he is also an adamant Trump supporter.  When I tried to ask him why, he attacked me, and it was a vicious, personal attack.  Then, when I tried to apologize to him for offending him, he questioned my faith.  I tried to remind him about what Scripture says regarding the way he was treating me and he replied with even more hatred.  So I broke off relations with this person, but because I believed him to be strong with the Lord, I remained troubled.  I wondered whether or not he was right about me.  It was then that the Lord answered my questioning in two ways.  First, the Lord reminded me that through the whole exchange, I was offering Scripture to my friend and he was replying with his own words.  He never cited Scripture to support himself –not once.  Then the Lord reminded me that my friend claimed to belong to the Lord, yet he was fighting for a man who boasted about not needing to repent or ask God for forgiveness.  With just these two things, the Lord showed me that my friend has strayed from the Lord, and so have all the others who support this man, Trump.

Moses told God’s people to elect Godly leaders from among them: men who knew God’s Word and who sought to uphold it impartially — without respect to persons.  This is not Donald Trump.  Trump has repeatedly demonstrated — by word and by deed — that he does not know the Constitution and is perfectly willing to break the law to get what he wants.  This is lawlessness, and God’s word condemns lawlessness.

Scripture tells us that the people of Israel demanded a king.  This is actually a turning away from God.  They had God’s Laws to guide and govern them, but they wanted a king, not the rule of law.  Trump brags about what he will do without any regard to the law or Constitution, and his supporters cheer him.  Again, this is not only lawlessness, but it is trust in a man, not the Lord.  God repeatedly warns us not to trust ourselves over Him, but this is exactly what Trump’s supporters are doing.

God’s Word tells us not to bear false witness, but Trump lies as a matter of habit.  He has been caught in these lies repeatedly, even by the Left-wing media which is currently supporting him.  God’s people are not to support people who knowingly bear false witness, but Trump’s supporters do not seem to care about this.  Worse, they do not seem to even be able to see the lies.

Trump constantly insults and threatens all those who oppose him.  This is just a different version of living by the sword, and God’s Word tells us that His people are not to live by the sword, but to live by faith in Him.  Yet, Trump’s supporters seem to revel in Trump’s strong-man tactics and threats.

Trump has used the law to take things that were not his.  When he declared bankruptcy, he stole that money from the people who had lent it to him.  When he took that lady’s property for his parking garage, he abused the law for personal gain.  He tried to do the same thing in Ireland or Scotland (I do not remember which).  Trump even boasts about ‘buying’ politicians so they will return the favor when he needs something.  This is the exact same type of corruption for which God destroyed Ephraim and the Ten Northern Tribes.  God’s prophets loudly and repeatedly condemned this sort of corruption and lawlessness, but Trump’s supporters do not care.  Just like Ephraim, Trump’s supporters do not seem to even see the sin.

Trump boasts about himself and all the things he has done.  This is ‘the man of lawlessness.’  Today, the Temple is in the heart of every believer, and — in his heart — Trump is telling himself that he is God.  But Trump’s supporters cannot see this.  All they see is their own personal champion.  They do not see the Spirit of Antichrist which lies behind Trump’s words and actions.

I could go on, because there is much more, but why bother?  The people supporting Trump seem to be little different from the Pharisees who crucified Christ.  They believed they were God’s children because they were descendants of Abraham and had the Law of Moses.  But they did not see or obey the Spirit of God’s Law.  They only saw their own ambitions, so they turned the law to their purposes.  What’s more, the Pharisees knew Who Christ was, but they wanted an earthly, political ‘savior,’ so they killed Him.  All of this was driven by a love of this world and not for the things of God.  It reveals a Spiritual blindness.  Sadly, there is a similar Spiritual blindness wrapped around those believers who support Trump.  I will not say they do not believe.  The Pharisees believed in God and the Messiah.  It’s just that they have allowed their own desires to lead them away from the Lord’s Wisdom and His Commands.  If they had not, then there is no way they would be supporting a un-repentant, pride-filled, lawless man like Trump.

As for me, I can look back on my life and see exactly how easy it is to get lead astray by someone like Trump.  Had the Lord not grabbed hold of me and drew me to Him and to His Word, I may well be among the Trump supporters now.  But, if I were, I would be supporting him in direct opposition to everything God’s Word teaches and commands.  But I love the Lord, and I am seeking a relationship with Him.  In part, this is done by reading and studying His Word, and by burying His Word in my heart and in my mind — just as the Scriptures tell me to do.  And this is how and why I know that Trump represents everything that is wrong with our nation, and not the answer to it.  I just pray that, if you, dear reader, are among those who call themselves by the Lord’s name but still support Trump, I pray that you will earnestly and sincerely seek the Lord’s counsel — and that you start by reading the Lord’s Word every day!  Because Trump will not ‘save’ this nation.  The only thing that is going to do that is the Lord, and then, only if His people — His true people — humble themselves and seek His forgiveness first.

We, individually and as a nation, have been wondering in the wilderness for far too long.  Donald Trump is just another of a string of warnings the Lord has been sending to get us to wake up and realize just how far astray we have wondered.  The Lord is calling us back, but only His children will hear and respond.  I pray you are among the few who respond by hitting their knees and saying Your will, Lord, and not my will be done.

From my other blog page, The Road to Concord:

‘NATURAL BORN’ Under Natural Law

I have a confession to make: I was wrong about my understanding of what ‘Natural Born’ means in terms of citizenship.  In fact, I think many of our best legal minds may be just as confused.  It wasn’t until I saw a video that is going around claiming to ‘prove’ that Ted Cruz is not natural born that I realized why I was wrong.  In the video, the woman speaker mentions Natural Law.  So I started looking to Natural Law for the answer and what I found showed me why I (and the woman in the video) was wrong about my understanding of this term.  So, if you will allow me, I will now use Natural Law to explain what ‘natural born’ means.

First, let me point out that I am not referring to or addressing the letter of any law.  I am looking only to the principle of this matter, not the twisting or distorting of that principle.  The letter of the law is often wrong because laws are written with language meant to allow one to get around the spirit of the law.  Therefore, I want the reader to know I will be addressing the spirit of the law regarding natural born citizens.

We start by pointing out that nations do not exist in nature.  A nation is an artificial entity.  By that, I mean it is man-made.  Now, under Natural Law, this creation we call a nation falls under the notion of the Social Contract.  The Social Contract governing a given nation defines the requirements for citizenship of that nation/society.  Whatever these terms are, we must understand they are the product of Natural Law, but they are not a part of Natural Law, themselves.  Therefore, all conditions of citizenship are man-made, as well.

So how does one become a natural born citizen?  Well, as far as I know, all nations grant citizenship to the children of those who are currently citizens of that nation.  Now, if one parent is not a citizen, or the child is born outside the physical borders of the nation, the laws may have restrictions on automatic citizenship.  We would have to check each individual nation’s laws to be sure of the specifics.  But, if a child is born into conditions which grant citizenship according to a given nation’s laws, they are naturally born into citizenship of that nation.  In other words, they do not have to go through any legal process to obtain citizenship of that nation.  This is what it means to be ‘natural born’ under the principles of  Natural law.  And yes, this could — but does not have to — mean that a child can be a natural born citizen of two or even three nations.  If a child has two parents from different nations, each of which grant citizenship to the children of citizen parents, but the child is born in a third nation that grants citizenship to those children born within its physical borders, then you would have a child ‘naturally born into’ citizenship of three nations.

What threw me was A — my desire to disqualify Barak Obama because I did not like his politics and B — my stupidity in trusting people who claimed to know better because they had degrees.  In both cases, I ignored the principles governing Natural Law.  Had I looked to them first, I would have understood that, so long as the law granted citizenship under the conditions of Obama’s birth, he was a citizen.  I wish I had looked to the spirit of the law first.  It would have saved me a lot of grief.  But now I have and, while I still oppose Obama’s ideology and policies, I understand that, given the information we have been told, he is a natural born citizen — but so is Ted Cruz!  At the time of his birth, U.S. law granted citizenship to the children of U.S. citizens regardless of where they were born.  Cruz’s mother was a U.S. citizen.  Cruz never had to go through the naturalization process because he was naturally born into his citizenship.  it is this simple.

There was one other reason I initially believed Obama was not natural born, and that Cruz couldn’t be, either.  I understood that what the founders were trying to do was exclude the possibility of electing a person whose loyalties were not to the United States.  Well, given the open support for Communism in this country, and for Islam, I can see how a person could be born in the United States, to two U.S. citizens — natural born in all respects — yet hate this nation.  That person would be technically qualified to run for President even though they would be an enemy of this nation.  In this case, it is up to the people to stop them by not voting for them.  This did not happen with Obama (partly because the press no longer does its job in our republic).  And now we are about to nominate a man who is openly telling us he does not feel constrained by any law because we are more interested in demanding a king than we are in preserving our liberty.

Well, no law can protect a corrupt and lawless people from themselves.  If they are intent on using force to impose their will, they will do so — either directly as a mob, or by giving their voice to a strongman.  And this is what is at the heart of America’s real problem.  We would rather let strongmen fight for us than obey the principles of Natural Law.  Sadly, this affirms the words of the Speaker of the House, Robert Winthrop:

“Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.”

It looks like we would prefer the bayonet to God…