Tag Archives: 2016

Who is more conservative on the marriage issue? Trump, Cruz, Carson or Rubio?

Texas Senator Ted Cruz
Texas Senator Ted Cruz

Let’s see who is getting the endorsements of prominent social conservatives.

The first story is from the Washington Examiner.

It says:

Ted Cruz picked up the endorsement of the National Organization for Marriage, an organization that opposes gay marriage, on Wednesday.

In a statement, NOM president Brian S. Brown said endorsing Cruz was a difficult decision as so many other “tremendous candidates” remain, including Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum and Marco Rubio. But the group chose Cruz, Brown wrote, because he is a “proven champion” of marriage.

“We are endorsing Sen. Ted Cruz because of the urgent need for a marriage champion to emerge from the crowded field and capture the nomination,” Brown wrote. “Unless conservatives come together behind a full-spectrum candidate — pro-marriage, pro-life, strong national defense, etc. — there is a real risk that someone like Donald Trump could win the nomination, which would be disastrous. We need a president with a proven track record of matching strong principles with concrete action, someone who will champion the fight for marriage, not walk away from it.”

Brown wrote that Trump “folded like a cheap suit” when it came to the issue of marriage, and that electing a “pro-marriage” president would mean NOM’s supporters would have an excellent chance of reversing the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage nationwide.

What I love about that is that unlike so many pro-life organizations, NOM is aware of these other issues (economics, foreign policy) and how they are all connected. Family Research Council is another organization that really undertstands how different issues are connected – they are not merely social conservatives.

NOM is the organization that is always going to bat for marriage against the Human Rights Campaign, the organization that was linked to convicted domestic terrorist and gay activist Floyd Lee Corkins.

Why would NOM endorse Cruz? Take a look for yourself:

Transcript from Real Clear Politics.

SEN. TED CRUZ: Let me ask a question: Is there something about the left, and I am going to put the media in this category, that is obsessed with sex? Why is it the only question you want to ask concerns homosexuals? Okay, you can ask those questions over and over and over again. I recognize that you’re reading questions from MSNBC…

[…]You’re wincing. You don’t want to talk about foreign policy. I recognize you want to ask another question about gay rights. Well, you know. ISIS is executing homosexuals. You want to talk about gay rights? This week was a very bad week for gay rights because the expansion of ISIS, the expansion of radical, theocratic, Islamic zealots that crucify Christians, that behead children and that murder homosexuals. That ought to be concerning you far more than asking six questions all on the same topic.

REPORTER: Do you have a personal animosity against gay Americans?

CRUZ: Do you have a personal animosity against Christians sir? Your line of questioning is highly curious. You seem fixated on a particular subject. Look, I’m a Christian. Scripture commands us to love everybody and what I have been talking about, with respect to same-sex marriage, is the Constitution which is what we should all be focused on. The Constitution gives marriage to elected state legislators. It doesn’t give the power of marriage to a president, or to unelected judges to tear down the decisions enacted by democratically elected state legislatures.

Cruz has pledged to ignore the Supreme Court decision that redefined marriage, and he has written about various ways that conservatives could fight back in National Review. He’s been critical of Obama’s efforts to push gay and transgender issues in the armed forces. Anyone else saying things like that? Bobby Jindal was pretty good on gay marriage, but now the only two who are good on marriage are Cruz and Rubio. Cruz is by far the best, though – he graduated from Harvard Law, clerked for former Chief Justice Rehnquist, and has argued and won many cases at the Supreme Court. It’s easy to see why he was picked as the best person to defend marriage. He has the record of doing it.

Anyway, next up, the social conservatives in Iowa. Who do they like in the GOP primary?

The radically leftist CNN has the story.

Excerpt:

Evangelical leader and powerbroker Bob Vander Plaats gave Ted Cruz’s campaign a boost Thursday morning with an endorsement as the Texas Republican fights Donald Trump for the lead in Iowa.

“The extraordinary leader that we need for these extraordinary times is U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz,” Vander Plaats. the president and CEO of the conservative Family Leader organization, said at a press conference at the Iowa state Capitol.

Vander Plaats is seen as one of the most influential kingmakers in the first-in-the-nation caucus state. His close alignment with political networks and activist followings could help tip the scales in the Iowa caucuses. Vander Plaats endorsed Iowa caucus winner Rick Santorum in 2012.

[…]Vander Plaats evaluated candidates on character, competence, the company that they keep, and an infrastructure “that can go the distance and become the nominee.”

“We will be going all in for Sen. Ted Cruz,” Vander Plaats said. “We have found him as a man of deep character. A man that we can fully trust, who has a consistency of convictions, who loves his god, loves his spouse, and who loves his family. We also see him to be very, very competent. Not always popular, but very competent. He has challenged both sides of the aisle. He understands what it’s going to take to get the country out of the mess that we’re currently in. We believe that he is exceptionally competent and that adds to his extraordinary leadership.”

[…]Cruz has also locked up the endorsement of Rep. Steve King, another influential Iowan among social conservative voters.

Cruz is doing pretty well in the latest national poll, as of Thursday night:

Latest GOP primary poll has Cruz in second place
Latest GOP primary poll has Cruz in second place

Now, I think everyone agrees that Bobby Jindal was the best on the pro-life issue and on the pro-marriage issue. Nobody fought harder for the unborn and for natural marriage. But Jindal is out, Cruz is the next best. I get the feeling that he would push to allow states to decide these issues, which would be a good compromise, at this point. At least Cruz is comfortable talking about these issues, which is more than most of the other candidates do.

Doug Wilson explains the meaning of love and respect

Does government provide incentives for people to get married?
Women need love, men need respect… what does it really mean?

So, Dina sent me an audio book called “Reforming Marriage” by that Calvinist weirdbeard Doug Wilson. It actually sat on my ironing board for some time not being listened to, (I don’t iron, I have all wrinkle-free everything). I just finished listening to Bernard Cornwell’s classic on the battle of Waterloo, so I decided to pick this one up next.

I listened to the first CD, and I found something amazing in chapter 2. I want to make two points about what I heard. Fortunately, I was able to find the entire passage at one of Doug’s online haunts.

He writes:

Now the Scripture plainly gives us our duties. Wives are to respect their husbands, and husbands are to love their wives. But there is more. When we consider these requirements and look at how men and women relate to one another, we can see the harmony between what God requires and what we need both to give and to receive.

The commands are given to our respective weaknesses in the performance of our duties. Men need to do their duty with regard to their wives they need to love . Women need to do their duty in the same way they need to respect . But men are generally poor at this kind of loving. C.S. Lewis once commented that women tend to think of love as taking trouble for others (which is much closer to the biblical definition), while men tend to think of love as not giving trouble to others. Men consequently need work in this area, and they are instructed by Scripture to undertake it. In a similar way, women are fully capable of loving a man and sacrificing for him, while believing the entire time that he is a true and unvarnished jerk. Women are good at this kind of love, but the central requirement given to wives is that they respect their husbands. As Christian women gather together (for prayer? Bible study?), they frequently speak about their husbands in the most disrespectful way. They then hurry home to cook, clean, and care for his kids. Why? Because they love their husbands. It is not wrong for the wives to love their husbands, but it is wrong to substitute love for the respect God requires.

We can also see the commands which are given have regard for our respective weaknesses in another way. Men have a need to be respected , and women a need to be loved . When Scripture says, for example, that the elders of a church must feed the sheep, it is a legitimate inference to say that sheep need food. In the same way, when the Scripture emphasizes that wives must respect their husbands, it is a legitimate inference to say that husbands need respect. The same is true for wives. If the Bible requires husbands to love their wives, we may safely say that wives need to be loved.

But we are often like the man who gave his wife a shotgun for Christmas because he wanted one. When a wife is trying to work on a troubled marriage, she gives to him what she would like, and not what God commands, and not what he needs. She loves him, and she tells him so. But does she respect him and tell him so?

We have difficulty because we do not follow the scriptural instructions. When a man is communicating his love for his wife (both verbally and non-verbally), he should be seeking to communicate to her the security provided by his covenantal commitment. He will provide for her, he will nourish and cherish her, he will sacrifice for her, and so forth. Her need is to be secure in his love for her. Her need is to receive love from him.

When a wife is respecting and honoring her husband, the transaction is quite different. Instead of concentrating on the security of the relationship, respect is directed to his abilities and achievements; how hard he works, how faithfully he comes home, how patient he is with the kids, and so forth.

The specifics may cause problems with some because he thinks he might not come home, and she thinks he doesn’t work nearly hard enough. But love is to be rendered to wives, and respect to husbands, because God has required it, and not because any husband or wife has earned it. It is good for us always to remember that God requires our spouses to render to us far more than any of us deserve.

So I bolded the two parts that I want to talk about.

First thing is about the removing troubles view of love. Now, I had never really consciously thought of this before, but I was thinking about how I treat Dina and suddenly it became clear that this is exactly what I am trying to with her. She hurts her hands, has OCD, wants to vacuum up cat fur, has to lift a heavy vacuum up and down the stairs… I buy her a cordless hand vacuum! She likes to cook with a wok several times a week, uses a horrible, cheap broken-handle wok that has to be washed and dried or it will rust… I buy her a Circulon wok! She hates to iron, has to iron baskets and baskets of clothes with her hurt hands… I buy her a steam iron that makes quick work of ironing! And on, and on, and on. After all, why should she have to suffer when she is trying to do her work so she can clear her schedule in order to do other things, like care for the elderly as a volunteer? She already has a stressful job at work, she doesn’t need more stress at home. My job is to make her life easier, and that shows that I care about what her life is like. I don’t want her to be struggling, I want her to be able to do good for God without being burdened by troubles.

Second thing is about how a woman can give a man respect. Well, an important part of what a man does in a marriage is to give a woman security. And this is not something he can finesse at the end of his life, he has to be thinking about giving her that at the beginning of his life… when he is in school, when he is starting to work. The most praiseworthy way of getting money is by earning it in the private sector, by supplying the needs of consumers in a competitive free market. In order to learn how to do that, you have to study things that are valuable. to others, like mobile devices, petroleum engineering, etc. So when it comes to your education, you don’t get to study what you like or what makes you feel good. You have to study things that will allow you to earn money, money that you can use to give your wife security and freedom. Money that is saved should be invested, so that you earn more than you can even get by working. When a woman comes along, she must recognize which men have done hard things to prepare for her – hard things that were not fun. Choosing a man who understands the role of earned money in a marriage is a way of according him respect. No, he did not do what he felt like. No, he did not win the lottery. No, he did not receive money from his parents. Recognizing those sacrifices and the value others get from them is respect.

I’m going to keep working through this book and see if there are any other secrets for me to find in it. So far, so good.

Is Donald Trump’s claim about Muslims celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey accurate?

Donald Trump should stick to Miss Universe pageants
Donald Trump at a beauty pageant

Now, nobody is going to say that this blog or its author are soft on radical Islam. But that doesn’t mean that every accusation against Muslims is automatically correct.

Donald Trump says that Muslims celebrated after the 9/11 terrorist attack in New Jersey. Is he right?

Well, here’s the fact-check from the non-partisan The Hill.

Excerpt:

As Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump continues to offer newspaper clippings and soundbites he says are proof of his claim that he saw “thousands and thousands” of Muslim Americans cheering the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, in the streets of New Jersey, the TV network responsible for the rumor is stepping in to debunk it.

Digging deep into its archives, MTV News uncovered the Nov. 17, 2001, clip credited with launching the “celebrating Muslims” claim and re-released it in a short video titled “Trump Is Wrong About People ‘Cheering’ 9/11 In New Jersey — Here’s The Evidence.”

In the footage, a young Patterson, N.J., resident named Emily Acevedo is seen describing a group of teenagers — “13, maybe 14 at most” — chanting and banging sticks and stones on public property in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. “They were saying ‘burn Amerca’ and, you know, all these things about America.”

[…]Revisiting the events of that night 14 years later, Acevedo tells MTV what she saw was “not anything different than what would’ve happened on any other summer night, on any other day where school was let out early.” She said she did not recall saying in 2001 that the teens were chanting “burn America.”

“I don’t recall them or hearing the kids say ‘burn America.’ If anything, they were problably saying ‘burn something’ but not ‘burn America.’ “

Why can’t Trump admit that he was wrong about this?

Trump did a radio interview with moderate Republican Hugh Hewitt on Tuesday night. I think the interview was a good opportunity for Trump to explain his knowledge of foreign policy. So how did it go?

The MP3 file is here.

And here is a sample from the transcript:

HH: Let me switch over to national security. I always ask you this question, Donald Trump. Are you ready to roll out your national security advisory team, yet?

DT: Well, I’m meeting with people. We’re going to let you know over the next two or three weeks who they are. I think they want to be known, but I’m meeting with people. I have, you know, I feel I have a very good grasp of national security. You know, and you and I have not discussed this, but I wrote a book, The America We Deserve. And in the book, I mentioned Osama bin Laden.

HH: We did. We did talk about that once.

DT: Okay.

HH: And you were way ahead of the time.

DT: And you know, a lot of people are saying well, Trump mentioned that in his book before the World Trade Center came down, two years before the World Trade Center came down. I said you’ve got to get him, and he was a guy that was just a nasty guy talking big stuff. And I said you’d better get him, you’d better watch out for him. I didn’t like him, and you know, it was mentioned. I talked about terrorism before terrorism was terrorism.

HH: But I’d like to know your generals.

DT: And that got some current from some people.

HH: I’d love, you know, like Ben Carson has General Dees, and other people have different generals advising them. Have you got any two-stars, three-stars, four-stars that are going to sign up with Trump?

DT: The answer is yes. Oh, yes, I do. Yes, I do.

HH: And when do we get them, because I want to talk to them.

DT: I would say within the next three to four weeks.

HH: Terrific.

DT: And I’m working with them, and I’m, you know, I feel I have a very good grasp. One of them said wow, you really understand foreign policy, and you really understand military policy. A general told me that. He was shocked, actually, if you want to know the truth, because he assumes that I’m, you know, really great at real estate, and really good at deals, but I really do have an understanding of that, and I know what to do. And I see what’s happening, and I listen to some of our so-called experts on television, and it makes you nauseous to listen to them, because they don’t know what they’re talking about. So you know, I think it actually could end up, you know, every poll shows that I’m the best on leadership, I’m the best on the economy, I’m the best on the borders, and you know, and the best on terrorism. Some people have me as the best on the military. I think the military is going to be a very strong point if I win. I think the military is going to be a strong point, Hugh.

Hugh has been asking him that question for months, and the answer is always “soon, soon”.

WhenI look at Trump’s record, and I don’t see actions that cause me to believe that he is interested in foreign policy. He acted on some TV shows, but he hasn’t got the credibility on these issues that I am looking for in a President. The Presidency is not an entry-level job. There is no time for training. We already had 8 years of someone with no experience and no ability who could talk a good game, and that cost us dearly. Let’s pick someone who actually has experience in these matters. Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio would both work for me, but I much prefer Ted Cruz.