Free Candy*; Part 2

*It has been pointed out to me that some take my rhetorical, tongue-in-cheek remarks such as this seriously. Please understand that "free candy" means the promise of government benefits at someone else's expense.

**also denotes a tongue-in-cheek statement.

Well, two more primary contests down, and it's still not looking particularly good for the home team.**  The "free candy"* message continues to strike a note with the voters, and none of the candidates that I think would bring about the change that we need are getting any traction. In fact it seems that they are beating each other to death while the others are stealing the show.

I must admit that, while I continue to hope that a better candidate emerges, I find myself ready to settle for less than what could be.

So what am I looking for as I decide for whom I will vote? I find that three issues are surfacing in my thinking.

I mentioned in my last post that Lou Dobbs on Fox News commented about his impression that in this election year Christians are willing to support anyone for president who will not hate us. This is a primary concern for me. There is no question that Queen Hillary** is going to follow the same Evangelical-bashing line that King Baraack** has followed in his administration. And it seems that she will be just as willing to circumvent the Congress, and the Constitution itself to achieve her ends. Evangelical Christians will have to accept her standards, either by reason of legislation, or by executive order, or by supreme court ruling, which will be in her favor if she or her predecessor appoint a liberal to the high court. This Supreme Court issue is particularly important as it will live on well beyond the next administration.

Her opponent, Mr. Sanders, being Jewish, probably is more sympathetic to the religious beliefs of Christians, given the history of his people's own religious persecution, both in this country and around the world. I doubt that he would be as bad, and may even be more respectful to Evangelicals. Of course, I would still have to disagree with the direction he wants to take our country.

And then there's "Teflon Don" Trump (it seems that none of his opponents' criticisms stick to him).** I would never get into the position that Pope Francis did, by trying to say that he is not a Christian (yes, the Pope did say that. I heard it myself. The implication was unmistakable!) yet it seems clear that he is guided by the gospel of himself, rather than that of Jesus Christ.** Nevertheless, he has already won the endorsement of some prominent Evangelicals. At the very  least, he will not hate us, and may even be supportive sometimes. Score this one for Trump.

Then there's my second important issue, that of self-determination. Self-determination is a term that you don't hear much anymore. For those who may never have heard it, it means the right of an individual in a democratic society to follow a life-course in which they will be able to determine their own destiny. Socialism is the very antithesis of self-determination. Socialism seeks "the greatest good for the greatest number", often at the expense of the individual. The larger society is paramount, and the individual whose needs and desires may be different from the majority is insignificant. This goes beyond entrepreneurialism and extends to such things as excessive taxation, excessive regulatory statutes, and extensive restrictions on everyday life. This is the stuff of the bureaucrat's  dream. While it is unlikely that Bernie Sanders can turn the country to socialism completely in his term, there can be no doubt that he will make a valiant attempt, and that during his administration he can make enough progress to leave self-determination in the dust. That leaves him out for me.

The "closet socialist", Mrs. Clinton, has already declared her belief that "it takes a village" and there is every indication that she has no regard for any village member who will not go along with her ideas,** The greatest good for the greatest number at the expense of the minority. I think not.

Mr. Trump is himself the beneficiary of self-determination, and is doubtlessly in favor of it.

My third issue of importance is the destruction of the Second Amendment. Never before in history has there been such a concerted effort on the part of some politicians to remove the effect of an amendment to the Constitution, if not to outright repeal it as there is for this amendment today! I avoided the NRA most of my life as they formerly seemed a bit over-the-top. I became a member of the NRA about five or six years ago because I realized that they were the only organization in the nation that was standing up for the rights and interests of law-abiding gun owners such as myself.

In recent years, in addition to hunting and target shooting I am seeing more necessity for the self-defense function of firearms ownership as well. On the Police Department where I served for twenty-five years, we were very proud of our response times, less than five minutes usually. We watched this erode through the years as more pressure was upon us to do more with less manpower. Still, we were able to keep this to under five minutes in the instances of violent crimes. I expressed this to a young man from Chicago once. He replied to me that in his town the police could be right next door when you called about a life-threatening event, "and you're still dead"! Enough said about that.

Hillary has made it no secret about her desire to disarm everyone (except the criminals of course), and make us all dependent on Law Enforcement response (who she also hates and would restrict in any way that she can). Mr. Sanders does not seem as ready to disarm ordinary citizens, yet he also expresses no particular commitment to retaining the Second Amendment intact. I fear that he would cave in to the anti-gun wing of his party if he found it expedient.

Mr. Trump does in fact express a commitment to the right to keep and bear arms. I'm afraid that this one goes to the Donald too.

So why am I not taking any of the other candidates seriously? It is hard to do so when they are all barely breaking double-digits in the polls. If there was only one of them to accrue the "other-than-Trump" vote, it would be different. I am personally very favorable to Mr. Cruz and Mr. Rubio, as I also was toward Mr. Huckabee, and Jindal, who have both fallen by the wayside. The electorate seems not to be willing to get behind any of the candidates that I would prefer over Mr. Trump.

I know that many of the things that I have expressed above are somewhat subjective. They seem that way to me as well. But I am just a voter, trying to figure out where to place my one and only vote.

Thanks for sharing this moment with me today.

Free Candy*

As we move toward the coming November election it is too early to tell for sure who the presidential candidates for the two parties are going to be, but so far I don't like what I am seeing on either side. In my previous post, The Election and the Direction (11/16/2014), I expressed that though we had experienced a political change by reason of the mid-term election of November 2014, what we needed even more was a change in moral and spiritual direction. I am disturbed that this appears not to be happening.

One of my major concerns has always been the country's economic problem, which too is a moral and spiritual dilemma (see my post, The Economic Crisis, Jan. 2014). If our economy does not collapse under the weight of the now over 18 trillion dollar debt during the remaining months of King Obama's reign, it will almost certainly do so under the next president, regardless of which party wins the election.

The reason that I see so little hope at this point is the fact that every leading  candidate, on both sides of the aisle, is luring voters with promises of "free candy"* and it seems to be working for them.

Hillary Clinton's income equality theme resonates with many, despite the fact that the cost of this is always passed on in the form of higher prices for goods and services further down the line. Just what we fixed income folks need! I don't know about you, but I would rather keep more of my own money than get more of someone else's. But we're going to make those billionaires and multi-billionaires pay their fair share (all 536 of them)!** I'm sure that this will encourage them to expand their business endeavors and hire more people**. Out of the three leading candidates, Hillary is the only one who wants to disarm law-abiding citizens in order to reduce the criminal use of firearms. She also is out to demoralize our law-enforcement officers and destroy their will to protect us and our communities. Perhaps she will disarm them too. I have to confess that I am not all that worried about her making it to the Whitehouse. If this email scandal plays out to its fullest extent she may be heading for the Big House  instead. At the very least, it seems that the electorate is waking up to her dishonesty.

Bernie Sanders is even more eager to pass out the free candy. Hey Bernie, I don't suppose that you could make that student loan forgiveness retroactive to 1969? I watched and listened to him last night on TV, and was impressed at how resonant he is with the young people (including the young women, much to the dismay of Gloria Steinem and Madeline Albright). This made me think back to another presidential candidate of the 60's, George McGovern, who led the young people of an earlier day around like the Pied Piper with the promise of free candy. I recall that he was trounced in the general election, winning only two states! On the upside, Mr. Sanders seems to respect the constitution and probably will not run roughshod over it as Mr. Obama has.

Donald Trump isn't really any better. He seems to be on the conservative version of the free candy wagon, and his mouth continues to write checks that his body can't cash.** He says that he wants to cut spending, and I'm all for that. He says that he wants to rebuild the military, and I'm all for that. He says that he wants to use tax incentives, and rebuild the nation's infrastructure to create jobs to rebuild the economy. That too sounds like a good idea. But what about the "19 trillion dollar debt" (that's the figure he used on TV last night)? Maybe Donald will give us a loan until his proposals start paying off. **

Recently I heard a commentator say that Donald Trump is a narcissist who views the American Presidency as a prize to be achieved, and that he would say or do whatever he must in order to win it. I am not sure that this is entirely true. At the very least this is an overstatement, and I think that he has the country's  best interest at heart, but I also think that all of the above could be said for Mrs. Clinton as well.

There are other candidates in the race also, including some true Christians, but they don't seem to be able to get any traction. So far we had only seen two state's primaries (yes I know that one was a "caucus" and not a primary), and the usual speculative and somewhat unreliable polls, but it is not looking good for  the "home team."**  Lou Dobbs on Fox News commented about his impression that in this election year Christians are willing to support anyone for president who will not hate us. I find this to be the mindset that I am in at the present time.

I read a scripture this morning that touched me, Zechariah 11:16:

" . . . behold, I am going  to raise up a shepherd in the land who will not care for the perishing, seek the scattered, heal the broken, . . . but will devour the flesh of the fat sheep, and tear off their hoofs." (NASB)

While I know that this was a prophecy that came true in the life of Israel, I cannot help but wonder if God is saying something similar to us today: "If you folks won't follow me, I will give you the leadership  that you deserve!"

I also read an interesting article this morning in the Olive Tree Ministries newsletter, Understanding the Times. The article in the edition dated February 11, by staff member Jill Martin Riche was entitled: Saving America: We Are at a Fork in the Road. I recommend that you access and read the whole article at www.olivetreeviews.org

One statement in particular struck a note with me:

"If millions of Christians walk away from the choice God gives us this year, the result will be another Barack [sic] Obama. . . our job is to DO SOMETHING to defend our families and our country against [evil]"

We need to pray about the election. We need to ask God to raise up both a presidential candidate and candidates for the other offices that we can support. We need primarily, and above all else, to seek His will in our votes.

Thanks for sharing this moment with me today.

*It has been pointed out to me that some may take my rhetorical, tongue-in-cheek remarks such as this seriously. Please understand that "free candy" means the promise of government benefits at someone else's expense.

**also a tongue-in-cheek statement