WHERE DO THE CANDIDATES STAND WITH RESPECT TO OUR GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS? ELECTION 2016

United States Declaration of Independence (from here)
United States Declaration of Independence (from here)

What is Donald Trump’s signature issue? He wants to control our border. Hence it is no surprise PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW: ‘Borderless’ or ‘Open Society’ = Lawless Or Tyranny

In response to your last to me Tom, Immigration policy IS federal government policy. Whether that policy is to open the flood gates and grant amnesty, or instead to build some hugely expensive giant wall down the (middle? our side? their side?) of the Reo Grande and over a thousand miles of rugged border and then set up a jackbooted deportation force to round up 11 or 12 million illegal families and send them on some sort of modern trail of tears south, either way, it has to be paid for by taxpayers and OUR federal government has to do it.

You expect the President to somehow solve the structural issues that are causing refugee problems in other countries, but wouldn’t that call for us to send taxpayer resources and/or the American people’s kids and grandkids to fight in these other countries? (continued here)

Tony, who wrote the comment above, demands that we must solve all the problems of the world before we send a “jackbooted deportation force” to control our border. Yes, Tony and other Democrats will tell you they are in favor of controlling the border; it is just that we must solve all the world’s problems of the first. Therefore, only Nazis and Indian-haters would demand that we control our borders.

Do we have to solve all the problems of the world first? Consider again The Parable of the Good Samaritan. What did that kind man do when he got home and went to bed?  Don’t you suppose he did what most of us do at night? He barred the door to his home. If he lived in a city or village, didn’t watchmen stay up at night to patrol the wall? Don’t policemen cruise through our neighborhoods all hours of the day? And what about those dreaded Roman legions? Did they not keep the barbarians at a distance? Didn’t those legions make a great effort to patrol the Mediterranean Sea and their vast network of roads to keep them safe for travel?

Should we try to solve all the problems in the world anyway? Seems like a nice thing to do, right? Not exactly. You and I have a responsibility to help our neighbor, but saving the world is not our government’s job. Why is giving all our problems — all the problems of the world — to one of our great leaders a fruitless endeavor? Who would we elect? No one is wise enough, good enough, or powerful enough to take on such a task. That is true even if he or she leads the government of the most powerful nation in the world.

Our government is not God. Our government is just composed of corruptible flesh and blood men and women. In fact, the more we expect from our government — the more we idolize it — the more we corrupt ourselves and our government, the more we deliver ourselves and our government into the hands of Satan.

Consider how Satan once tempted Jesus.

Matthew 4:8-10 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Again, the devil *took Him to a very high mountain and *showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; and he said to Him, “All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.” 10 Then Jesus *said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.’”

Did Jesus say Satan could not do as he said? No, but He knew Satan lied, boasting he could give what only God has the power to give.

What does the Bible say about government? The Bible says government exists to punish evildoers (Romans 13:1-7). We, on the other hand, if we turn to Jesus, were made to glorify God by doing good works.

Ephesians 2:4-10 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Like Satan himself, boastful politicians will promise great things, but look to the past. Which times do we remember as being best, when we had men and women boasting of the great things they could do or when we had leaders who just sought to maintain law and order? What was the difference?

  • The boaster thinks charity consists of forcing people to obey their “generous” supreme leader.
  • Wiser leaders understand that charity requires a cheerful giver (2 Corinthians 9:7), not a taxpayer.

Now compare the candidates. Which is most likely to respect and accept the limitations of government power?

ISSUE Donald Trump Hillary Clinton
Limited Government: Government grows at the expense of our rights. Advocates tax simplification, getting rid of Obama’s numerous executive orders. Would repeal Obamacare. Approves of what Obama has done. Duh!
Immigration Control: Democrats are using immigration policy to import voters, voters who will vote themselves government benefits. Ending illegal immigration is his signature issue. Favors voter ID. Hillary Clinton declares war on Voter ID
Freedom of Religion: Religious freedom involves both the freedom to worship and the right to exercise our religious beliefs. Would fight to revoke legislation that prevents churches from participating in the political process.
Gun Rights: the right of self-defense. Trump wins NRA endorsement, blasts Clinton on gun stance at forum NRA exec says it is ‘a lie’ Clinton won’t take your guns
Judicial Restraint: the intent to appoint judges who strive to abide by the original intent expressed in the Constitution. Donald J. Trump Releases List of Potential United States Supreme Court Justices. Trump’s Supreme Court list: all conservative, some provocative Clinton’s court shortlist emerges. Her first pick would be someone Obama picked.
School Choice: the right of parents to control who educates their children and what their children are taught. Donald Trump Jr. Hits Home Run On Education. End Common Core. Nation’s largest teachers union endorses Clinton for president. The NEA is dead set against school choice (see here).

Want a laugh?  Clinton vs. Trump: The Best Argument For Limited Government Yet.

Other Views

Continued from: What Are God-Given Rights?

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “WHERE DO THE CANDIDATES STAND WITH RESPECT TO OUR GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS? ELECTION 2016

    1. Because I am only human, I don’t understand your question with absolute certainty.

      Jefferson was part of a committee. The committee altered what he wrote, and a bunch of other men signed that altered document, risking their lives doing so. So it cannot have been too obtuse.

      Liked by 2 people

  1. Why then is there no mention of God at all in the subsequent documents of our founding… The Constitution and the bill of rights, other than to limit governments intrusion into people’s freedom of conscience and religion? If “thou shalt have no other God before me” were to be the law of the land, why protect other religions and defend people’s rights to do just that?

    Like

  2. Thanks for the link to your great summary of differences between Clinton and Trump.

    In my opinion, If Trump loses, it will be business as usual in Washington. Congress shoelaces will remain untied and legislation will remain in knots on progressive and conservative issues. As for the the Supreme Court, I don’t want to even think about the outcome. Same for USA involvement in foreign affairs.

    The USA land and business will continue to be bought and owned by foreign interests with the wampum USA dollars they accumulate from unbalanced USA Trade Agreements.. .

    Regards and goodwill blogging..

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Wampum USA dollars.
      😆

      We need to get rid of the Fed and go back on the gold standard, but the real issue is to much government. The craving to spend is why we went off the gold standard in the first place.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Not to sure about returning to gold standard. However I am sure about the folly of excessive debt.

        For example, the USA presently pays one half trillion dollars a year in interest to mainly foreign holders of US debt.

        Think of the home improvements, (our nations infrastructure), education, health benefits that might improve if there was no USA National Debt.

        And what are the foreign investors doing with the dollars? Buying up USA owned farmland and businesses.

        King Solomon would describe this by using these words, ‘Madness and Folly,’ in my opinion..

        Regards and goodwill blogging.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. @scatterwisdom

          Does Congress have to inflate our currency? No. Congress consciously spends more money than it gains in taxes. Inflation of the dollar is a deliberate act. That raises a question. What is the purpose of inflation?

          When Congress spends our money in excess of what it collect in taxes, Congress has to either borrow or create (or print) more money.

          Borrowing increases the debt. Since that growing pile of debt scares people, Congress is reluctant to make that pile too large relative to the GDP. Nevertheless, in our spendthrift society, Congressmen gain influence by spending, not by be fiscally responsible. So what else can they do?

          Congress can create money! That is, Congress can supposedly create money out of thin air. In reality, we end up with a larger pool money chasing the same amount of goods (not precisely true since the GDP can grow or shrink.). Since the available goods and services represents the true national wealth, not the amount of money, when Congress spends that new money, the immediate consequence is that the money supply increases. Thus money becomes less scarce and, therefore, less valuable.

          Observe, however, that the money supply does not increase until Congress spends their new money. So Congress gets the full bang for the buck. It is those people who earn a paycheck and hold the loans of others that Congress screws.

          I am not especially happy with foreign governments owning capital assets here. Those entities may have sufficient clout to meddle with our economy and buy our politicians. Nevertheless, if foreigners want to buy property here, I do not necessarily see an issue. What people own they want to increase in value. How does that hurt us?

          What I don’t want to see is foreigners buying here because they think they are participating in a fire sale. That just means we have (or are) messing up our economy. In addition, I don’t want us selling off assets just to bring more of our own money back into the country. Like as not, Congress will start selling all that land the government owns just to raise money. When that happens, things will be bad indeed.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. All you stated is true. That is why I compare our dollar to wampum.

          The wampum value did not increase over time as did the land the American Indians exchanged for wampum.

          The result is what we now see with our children having to take lifetime loans to obtain college degrees or to buy a home. In other words, we are saddling our children with debt and servitude in a similar manner as serfs were to the ancient royalty landowners.

          As more foreign landowners increase and dollar profits are sent out of the country, will history repeat the same resentment similar to the Boston tea party revolution?

          When dollar profits leave the USA, it means less dollars, or future opportunity for US children to prosper, than if the dollars were spent in the USA.

          Sixty-six families in the world own 90 per cent of all the assets in the world.

          As for a return to gold standard, gold speculators will profit and benefit more than consumers. Plus. what the present world debt is currently, we will have to use carbon as a currency, instead of gold, as a means to have an adequate amount so as not to roadblock limit the present trade and commerce in the world.

          In other words, the USA is not the only country printing currencies to pay their debts.

          Regards and goodwill blogging.

          Liked by 1 person

        3. @scatterwisdom

          Interesting comment. Reminds me that I have a couple posts to do.

          Anyway, I am not an economist. I don’t even stay at a certain hotel, but let met give it a shot.

          Carbon as a currency? Well, the colonials used tobacco. So I suppose it is possible. One thing to keep in mind is that government did not invent money. Government just thinks its job is to use money to control us. Hence, we would probably be better off if the government just regulate money the way it is supposed to regulate the rest of the market.

          What is the threat to our prosperity? The threat to our prosperity does not from foreigners. The threat is from within. We are allowing our government to divert too much wealth to nonproductive purposes. Our government is just too big, too useless, and too often trying to manipulate our markets.

          Money is just a commodity, and government constantly fiddles with it. Gold is just a commodity. If we went back using rare metals as currency instead of paper, would that create a problem with speculation? Not really. It would just make it more obvious when government tries to fiddle with the value of “money”. People make out speculation to be some sort of villain, but people speculate in everything. Corn. Oil. Meat. Land. Money. And so forth. Speculation just encourages producers to produce whatever is going up in price. All speculators do is try to buy low and sell high. Meanwhile, they have to pay the cost of storing whatever they purchase until it is needed, and they sell it for a profit, maybe.

          Could someone corner the market in gold or some other rare metal? It is possible, but they would have to pay a lot for the privilege. What would someone use to buy gold? Paper money? If China started buying up all the gold in the world, the more they bought the scarcer it would get. Meanwhile, China would have to sell a bunch of other things to get their money back. Or they would have to print money, rendering their own currency worth less. And what would they do with the gold? Eat it?

          What would be the point? Cornering the market would be difficult, and the folks who did it would probably not gain very much. A nation’s wealth consists of the capital assets, land, commodities, skilled labor, and so forth. Money is just a means of exchange. It is nice to have a pile of money, but spending is what makes money useful, not hording it. That’s why people invest. Money does not actually grow money. We cannot plant dollars in the ground and grow money trees.

          If someone cornered the market in gold, we would just use some other rare metal as “cash”. However, because gold has its uses, if someone cornered the market jewelers and the electronics industry would be unhappy. Whether we use gold as cash does not make much difference to them. Nevertheless, if someone cornered the market, gold mines would soon be striving to produce more gold, jewelers would use platinum until the price of gold went down, and the electronics industry would be thinking up alternatives and ways to use less gold.

          If the people who cornered the market did not soon sell their gold, they would eventually take a loss as the demand evaporated and the overall supply increased. Even the amount of gold is not fixed.

          Liked by 1 person

        4. If I could go back in time, I would have bought gold at $35 an ounce and Illinois farmland at $200 an acre.

          Problem then and still is today, I did not have the money to buy gold, and no one would loan me the money to put 50 percent minimum down payment on farmland that was required by law back then.

          You cannot eat gold but you can eat what farmland produces. That is why foreign investors loaded with wampum US dollars are doing with the trillions they have accumulated from unbalanced trade.

          The US allows foreign ownership of US farmland, while Mexico and Canada does not.

          That is probably the only reason the US dollar has any world value in my opinion. I doubt China and a lot of other countries do either.

          We are as foolish as the American Indians. Someday our children’s children will read how our generation sold out their future in history books.

          Regards and goodwill blogging.

          Liked by 1 person

  3. Thanks for the informative post Tom. As you know I am not a Trump fan (certainly to Hillary either) but your outline on where each one stands does open up some perspective for me. I don’t think Trump has a clue what “natural rights” are, nor understands the significance of our Founding documents but he would be better, I think, than Hillary on the major issues you discuss.

    Like

    1. @Tricia

      I don’t know what Trump understands. What people say often depends upon how they think others will react.

      When most people hear someone talking about natural rights, they only have a vague clue as to what the discussion is about. They think that subject is something only lawyers know about. Unfortunately, they don’t talk about natural rights (except to say they don’t exist) in our law schools either.

      Because of public education, we have dumped our heritage. How do we get it back? All I know to do is talk about it.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I don’t know what’s in Trumps head (although it would be fascinating to be able to take a peek I think…), all I can do is judge based on his comments and actions which have never, to my knowledge touched on the themes of natural rights or the constitution or anything relating to freedom.

        But you are absolutely right that the correct thing to do is to keep talking, writing and discussing these important matters as it does make a difference. Thanks for taking the time to write these detailed posts. I know it’s not easy but people do get informed by your blog.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Pingback: King Solomon, Rights or Wrongs? Post Four Conclusion | Rudy u Martinka

Comments are closed.