Archives For US Elections 2020

Ronald Reagan had a unique distaste for career politicians sucking wealth out of D.C.’s tax-payer funded tenure. Most too often more in tune with self-service, than public service. He also had a keen dislike for the faulty, seized-up mechanical inner-workings of Washington.

Reagan was a citizen president. He poked fun at the self-importance of the political class, and wasn’t afraid to include himself in it.

Talking to a gathering of Independent television stations two years after being elected to office, Reagan quipped,

‘”I sometimes think that government is like that definition – that old definition of a baby. It’s an alimentary canal with an appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”

Reagan came to office at the end of a dismal decade. In large part because Reagan was, as John O’Sullivan also wrote of Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, ‘one of the apostles of hope’, when despair, fear, and doom, was the order of the day.

The 70s were turbulent. Global instability was everywhere.

The mid to late 60s were an open wound. Peace in Vietnam War was won, and then lost by diplomatic fumbling. Americans were confronted with deep state political corruption, and suffered through a series of fearmongering, joyless Presidential leaders from Republicans to Democrats.

The biggest issue of them all was the “Energy Crisis.”

Concerns over the “Energy Crisis” – a decline in domestic energy production, coupled with Lyndon Johnson’s environmental restrictions, and an OPEC embargo (a consequence of America’s support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War), resulting in high oil prices – was echoed by both sides of the political aisle, coupled with apocalyptic projections, and big government solutions to them.

Republican, President Richard Nixon’s proposed energy rationing, was later extended by Democrat, President Jimmy Carter, who, in 1979, told Americans that the “energy crisis” was here to stay. Then tabled a policy around big government control, such as mandatory rationing. (The 1970s version of “the new normal.”)

Carter’s panic rode on the back of urgency, caused by a drop in global oil supply, a consequence of the 1979 Islamist, Iranian revolution.

His six-point plan delivered the same year, included an increase in taxes, ‘mandatory conservation, gasoline rationing’, ‘expanding public transportation’, and creating a new government department to oversee energy rationing, and conservation.

Carter’s speech wove the “energy crisis” into a “crisis of confidence,” telling Americans that they were losing their sense of purpose, and needed to act:

“I’m asking you for your good and for your nation’s security, to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel. Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense, I tell you it is an act of patriotism.”

Carter’s blame shifting by way of his infamous “crisis of confidence” gave Reagan an edge.

Who said in return that,

 “it’s true there’s a lack of confidence, an unease with things the way they are, but the confidence we’ve lost is confidence in our Government’s policies…there remains the greatness of our people, our capacity for dreaming up fantastic deeds and bringing them off to the surprise of an unbelieving world.” (NYT, 14th November, 1979)

Six years after the success of Reagan’s ‘supply-side mix’ policies, which reduced ‘intrusive and overburdening taxation, regulatory, and currency policies, delivering an effective resolution to the ‘Energy Crisis’, Reagan told administration supporters,

“I’ve always thought that the common sense and the wisdom of the Government were summed up in a sign they used to have hanging on that gigantic Hoover Dam. It said: “Government Property. Do Not Remove.” (29th June, 1987)

It’s often said that we don’t vote for individuals, we vote for political parties, their politicians, and their current policy platform.

The 2020 choice for Americans gives this axiom resonance. 

The Trump/Pence vs. Biden/Harris ballot is a ballot between a citizen President, and career politicians.

Similar in many ways to the context of Reagan vs. Carter in ’79.

One side speaks of hope, freedom, individual responsibility, perseverance, ingenuity, and protections for civil liberties.

The other speaks of crisis upon crisis; of doom, and destruction. From which they preach that only the political class, correct alignment with Leftism, and big government can save us.

Such as, Joe Biden’s “dark winter”, the alleged crises of “institutional racism”, “an unbeatable, Covid-19,” “the new normal of wearing masks, enduring lockdowns, and losing livelihoods in economic shutdowns”; unhealthy fear of conservatives in the supreme court, and apocalyptic “climate change.”

Joe Biden is too entrenched in the game to see that he is the D.C. “swamp”, that leftist activists, are part of the establishment, dancing Carter’s “crisis of confidence”, bureaucratic two-step: the art of blaming others, and looking busy while achieving nothing at all.

On this basis, a vote for Biden is a retreat into darkness. It’s a vote for a “crisis of confidence”; a vote for career politicians who are guarded by leftist activists, and guided by the idolatry inherent within their ideological nonsense.

As Ronald Reagan said in 1964,

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.”

“We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.” (A Time For Choosing)


References:

[i] Cited by Karl Menninger, 1976. Whatever became of Sin? p.142

[ii] O’Sullivan, J. 2006. The President, The Pope & The Prime Minister, Regnery Publishing

First published on Caldron Pool, 28th October, 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Note that the entire (current) Democrat policy platform is simply: “hate Trump, because love trumps hate.”

To Trump’s credit, he’s never come out and said, “if you don’t vote for me, you hate America.”

It’s bewildering to those of us who are constantly interacting with a wide range sources and material, to see and hear people accuse Trump of being dictatorial, when it’s those on the Left actually saying “if you vote for Trump, you hate America.”

Which, in Biden/Harris intersectional speak, means, ‘if you don’t vote for Biden/Harris, you ain’t American!”

It’s a risky gamble for current Democrats to rest on deception, and evasion, as a sure fire way to take political ground from political opponents by falsely claiming those opponents are doing exactly the same thing that Democrat policies, and rhetoric is doing. Such as dividing Americans.

Look at the recent debate.

Joe Biden accused Donald Trump of being a xenophobe and racist; of taking Joe’s words about fracking “out of context”, then Joe rips the context out of Trump’s relationship building attempts with North Korea, Russia, Mexico (through the USMCA deal), and America’s black community, just to orchestrate a false image of Trump. Which Biden then attempted to use as a a way of discredited the President by slapping on him terms from the Left’s usual go to of derogatory slurs, such as racist, and xenophobe.

Notice Biden’s doubletalk.

He made the claim that Americans were all gonna die of Covid-19 if they didn’t vote for him. Then, with his closing remarks, said “we’re going to choose hope over fear.”

Biden also acknowledged that the U.S provides 25% of the global economy, but that that economy essentially needs to be shut down in order to protect against COVID-19.

Another example: while advocating a fair go for small businesses, contradicted what he’d said earlier about those same small businesses having to implement costly COVID-19 protection gear, such as plexiglass.

Then Biden used an attack on Trump’s personal income taxes to dodge answering questions about the scandal involving his son, Hunter Biden.

The shots were a low blow. Trump’s businesses generate tax revenue, while Biden’s wealth, as a career politician, is built on that same revenue.

The character of each political camp can be identified by how the majority of one group is praying for their nation and candidates. While the other group is paying through their noses in order to not only see their candidate win, but to shelter him from all just criticism.

The 2020 election is about a citizen President going in to bat against a career politician. (If we’re thorough, we’d need to also add the plural, politicians, and include activists in that mix).

Trump is flawed, but he’s no fascist.

Many on the Left, and the majority of Democrats on the other hand, exhibit the very same tendencies they claim to see in Donald Trump.

As Stephen Chavura aptly put it:

Re Trump = fascist. Historically fascists take advantage of riots or street violence to declare states of emergency. They use riots to justify aggrandising their power. Trump didn’t do this at all during the riots. Nor did he use a Covid state of emergency to aggrandise his powers. Such accusations are mere projection. Over the last two years it’s not been conservatives who appealed to states of emergency to justify expanding the state’s powers, but the left appealing to “climate emergency” and Dan with his covid “emergency” in Victoria. Trump ain’t no authoritarian or fascist.’


© Rod Lampard, 2020.

Google the phrase “Trump supporters threatened with Civil War.” All that pops up is a bunch of wishful thinking mainstream media articles from 2019 pushing false claims that Trump had threatened to start a civil war if he was impeached.

These stand alongside more recent articles where leftist outlets have gone to the fringe of American society, in search of the wackiest Trump supporting American with a gun they can find, in order to slap on them the tag “Trump supporter prepares for civil war.”

With the media’s Spidey senses fine-tuned to this alleged Trump induced threat of Civil War, there’s a very noticeable absence from major news organizations about reports that Trump supporters have received letters actually threatening them with civil war, should Trump lose the upcoming U.S. election, and refuse to leave the White House.

At least three people are known to have received the anonymous letter, which states:

“You have been identified by our group as being a Trump supporter. Your address has been added to our database as a target when we attack should Trump not concede the election.”

Outspoken celebrity, James Woods posted a scanned copy of the letter onto Twitter captioning it “This is being sent al over the country to American citizens who have dared put Trump campaign signs in their yards.”

According to WMUR police are investigating the origin of the anonymous letters, saying that these are felony level criminal threats because they contain threats to “burn homes down and cause injury, but it could also be with the postal inspectors, something on the federal level.”

Silence from most in the mainstream media is another example of the national media, yet again, playing defense for the opposition.

They remain uninterested in news of serious, compromising material found on Hunter Biden’s alleged laptop, and they continue to shuck, and jive, when it comes to asking Joe Biden questions about his knowledge, and reported connection to the material.

Had these letters threatening civil war been sent to Biden supporters, or Hunter Biden been Donald Trump Jnr. it’s a given that mainstream media, and their gatekeepers on social media, would be dedicating wall-to-wall airtime to it. Complete with experts, and panels examining the evidence, speculating on how this impacts the Biden/Harris ticket.

This is proven by  The Washington Post, and CNN’s response to emails allegedly sent by Proud Boys to Democrat voters.

Proud Boys’ chief, Enrique Tarrio denied that they were being behind the emails, saying,

“No, it wasn’t us. The people [who sent the emails] used a spoofing email that pretended to be us. Whoever did this should be in prison for a long time.”      

Even though Proud Boys have denounced the threats and are said to be working with the FBI, The Washington Post’s article claiming Proud Boys association to the emails hasn’t been corrected.


First published on Caldron Pool, 23rd October 2020.

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

Mike Pence’s gentlemen’s applause for Kamala Harris’ selection as Joe Biden’s number two takes into account the fact that Harris would be the first female Vice-President, and potentially the first female President, in U.S. history.

There are three recent events, however, which highlight why Harris may not be the best choice for such an “historic” and “unprecedented” win.

The Shifty Cross-Examination of ACB:

Kamala Harris’s cross-examination of Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s Supreme Court Judge nominee, during the Senate Judiciary Committees hearings on Barrett’s suitability for the lifelong role raised a red flag.

Following a list of Democrat led bizarre lines of questioning, Harris committed the fallacy of equivocation. Harris covertly tried to connect Barrett’s position on facts about Covid-19 and lung-cancer, with hotly contested conjecture about “apocalyptic Climate Change.”

As The Daily Wire’s, Andrew Klavan reported, Harris was trying to pin on Barrett the label “climate denier” in order to discredit her in the same way, anyone versed in broadly noted, historical fact, a holocaust denier. Harris didn’t succeed, and ACB caught the trap, and pushed back, before Harris could push her into it.

The Infamous Fly on Pence’s Head:

When MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow asked Harris if she’d noticed the fly on Pence’s head, Harris responded in the affirmative. When Maddow asked Harris if she was tempted to move the fly on, Harris smiled, feigned laugh, then cracked a joke (pun) about ‘flying away’ from the subject.

If Harris knew there was a fly on Pence’s head, and Pence didn’t, why didn’t Harris do something about it? Even if the fly was only there for 2 minutes.

Why didn’t those in charge, such as the producers, boom operators, camera controllers etc. act on it in between shots?

It’s not a big issue, and I’ll be the first to admit, the borderline pettiness of even raising the point, but professionals knowing, and doing nothing about such as small event for a V.I.P raises as many questions about their professionalism, and opinion of Pence, as it does Kamala Harris’ character.

The Iran Deal:

In 2018, Harris issued a statement claiming that Trump pulling American out of the Obama administration’s 2015 “Iran nuclear deal”[i]  had violated the deal, jeopardizing U.S national security and isolating the Americans from their closest allies.”

Harris said, that this ‘nuclear deal is not perfect, but it is certainly the best existing tool we have to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and avoid a disastrous military conflict in the Middle East.’

While being truthful about the “not perfect” part, Harris was not completely honest about the Obama deal being the only way to stop Iran gaining a nuclear weapon.

The Iran deal only restricted Iran from enriching uranium for a short period of time.

As reported by Aljazeera in May of 2019, ‘the restrictions on Iran’s centrifuges would be lifted after the eighth year, and 15 years onwards, restrictions on its uranium enrichment and stockpile size would expire. Some critics believe it would be possible for Iran to go back on the nuclear path around the mid-2020s. Iran also negotiated the eventual lifting of an embargo on the import and export of conventional arms and ballistic missiles…’

This was also highlighted in part by Trump’s rebus sic stantibus reasonings for pulling out of Obama’s six nation contract with Iran.

The U.S. President sought to renegotiate restrictions, including ‘more intrusive weapons inspections and, what would effectively, be a permanent ban on ‘Iran enriching uranium.’ Trump, according to Aljazeera was open to a new deal, saying “‘the Iran deal must either be renegotiated or terminated.”

Trump called the deal “one-sided”, “poorly negotiated” and an “embarrassment.”

He cited Israel intelligence documents showing that Iran already had a long history of pursuing Nuclear weapons, saying ‘this disastrous deal gave this regime – and it’s a regime of great terror – many billions of dollars, some of it in actual cash – a great embarrassment to me as a citizen and to all citizens of the United States. A constructive deal could easily have been struck at the time, but it wasn’t. At the heart of the Iran deal was a giant fiction that a murderous regime desired only a peaceful nuclear energy program.’

Not that Trump’s haters noted it with any fanfare, but the President’s May 2018 announcement included the promise to “stand with the long-suffering Iranian people” and that his administration would “work with allies to find a real, comprehensive, and lasting solution to the Iranian nuclear threat.”

Trump’s speech concluded with criticism of the Islamist Iranian regime, and the acknowledgement that “the future of Iran belongs to its people. They are the rightful heirs to a rich culture and an ancient land, and they deserve a nation that does justice to their dreams, honor to their history and glory to God.”

While Harris berated Trump for questioning the deal, she’s also on record admitting that the Iran deal “isn’t prefect”, but has proudly stated that if she were elected President she’d rejoin Americans to the flawed contract.

To add, during the Pence/Harris debate, Harris inadvertently admitted just how precarious the original deal was. Saying that Trump “walking away” from the flawed contract put the United States “in a position where it was less safe, because they [Iran] are building up what might end up being a significant nuclear arsenal.” (Transcript)

Trump pulled the United States out in May, 2018 for these very reasons. If Iran are building a significant nuclear arsenal, as Harris surmises (in an attempt to discredit the current administration) it’s not a stretch to say that Iran has been doing it long before 2018.

The Iran Nuclear deal was a costly band-aid misapplied, in the spirit of appeasement, to the wrong kind of wound.

It wasn’t going to stop Iran’s Regime from pursuing what they’ve been pursuing for decades: the ability to “wipe Israel off the map, and erase all enemies of Allah.”

There’s also the fact that Iran’s Islamist leaders are under no obligation to remain true to the agreement.

Under the guidance of the Quranic ‘taqiyya’, lying to the infidel is an acceptable practice if it ‘advances Islam. In some cases, by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.’ For example: Quran (66:2) – “Allah has already ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths…”  (ROP)

Harris’ use of equivocation in her cross-examination of Amy Coney Barrett. Harris’ falsehoods, and discourteous inaction on Pence’s behalf during the debate, and the stereotypical mean-girl responses to it. Along with her shaky, flip-flop – it’s good, but also bad – naïve positioning on the Iran deal, give good reasons to question whether Harris is the better choice, over-against Mike Pence, for the potential role of President of the United States.


References:

[i] Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) originally signed by China, France, Russia, the UK, the United States and Germany.

First published on Caldron Pool, 18th October 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Hillsong Church has been hit with a barrage of criticism after an employee “accidently” used the official Hillsong Twitter account to ridicule Donald Trump’s performance in the first Presidential debate of the 2020 US election.

According to the Herald Sun an ‘unnamed staffer allegedly logged into the official Hillsong Twitter account, rather than their own personal one.’ The Tweet read: ‘Can’t someone just mute Trump’s microphone!! He is coming across as such a bully. No respect for him sorry.’

The “gaffe” was quickly deleted, with Hillsong posting an apology soon after, saying, “Earlier today a staff member accidentally posted on this account personal comments about the US presidential debate, that were meant for a personal account. Hillsong does not comment on partisan politics & apologizes. These comments do not represent the views of Hillsong Church.”

ChristianPost listed a series of criticisms for the original post, starting with Greg Locke, Pastor at Global Vision Bible Church in Tennessee. Who said, ‘Dear @Hillsong, that was deleted very quickly. Careful. I sat beside @brianhoustontv at the RNC acceptance speech at the White House. Your boss secretly likes Trump.’

The Post also highlighted how problematic the “gaffe” could be for Hillsong. Brian Houston has visited the White House, applauded Trump’s initiatives regarding the preservation of religious freedom, and is part of a group of Christian leaders active in lending Donald Trump prayer support.

Criticisms of the “gaffe” was met with a similar amount of fiery criticism for the apology. Candace Cameron Bure (Hallmark/Full House/Fuller House) simply remarked, “Oooof”.  While a list of other Twitter users took the apology as an opportunity to throw more anti-Christian abuse Hillsong’s way.

The loudest condemnation came from those attempting to conflate Houston with Hillsong. They labelled the apology hypocritical. Pointing out that Houston’s support for Scott Morrison, and Donald Trump negated the Churches’ claim to distance itself from political dichotomies by “not commenting on partisan politics.”

This is despite the “gaffe, mistake, accident” – whatever – suggesting that Houston’s personal views don’t necessarily represent the views of Hillsong as a whole. The false equivalence seems to have blocked the obvious irony.

It shouldn’t be forgotten that the high visibility of the Church, sins of some of its leaders, and the massive success of its music arm in recent years has brought Hillsong under a microscope.

The consequence of such close quarters’ scrutiny is that any unintentional faux pas by, or connected to the “mega-Church”, are rapidly churned out for maximum attention in order to either undermine, discredit or cancel them. And not just Hillsong, but Christianity in general.

It’s Hillsong. Just like Trump. They’re influential, but not exactly THE authority when it comes to Christian theological truths, or the conduit by which all Christians make their decisions.

It’s also almost guaranteed that most of the people acting all dismayed at the recent US election Presidential debate were just as equally entertained by it. Such is our spectator culture.

Perhaps the problem with leaders is a problem closer to home?


In this sense the debate and reactions to it are a mirror. What we condemn in others, we must first address within ourselves. For instance, eye-to-eye respect will always trump plankeye, and eye-for-an-eye relationships.

As atheist, author and ex-Muslim, Ayaan Hirsi Ali quipped: “Everyone is talking about and asking about last night’s debate. I don’t want to make light of this because it is not funny. But where in the world do people in their seventies behave like stick-your-tongue-out preschoolers on national TV while vying for the highest office?”

The election debate highlighted the fact that the future of America, and by default her allies, will be decided by the choice between a career politician and a citizen President.

Trump doesn’t need the Presidency, Biden does. Trump’s income doesn’t ride on him being President, Biden’s does. Which of these is more likely to be the public servant Americans need? All the evidence shows that it isn’t Joe Biden.

If anything positive can be drawn from the debate moderator’s obvious favoritism, it’s that Trump was inadvertently painted as the underdog.

If the plan was to save Biden midway through, or gang up on Trump, and bait him for soundbites, it’s backfired spectacularly.


First published on Caldron Pool, 1st October 2020 

©Rod Lampard, 2020

One of the first rules about giving is not parading it for all the world to see.

There’s a difference between me sharing with someone that my family and I have financially supported Compassion Australia for nearly two decades, and me boasting about how much money we’ve given to them.

Unless those asking are the tax office, it should be enough to simply state the fact about our giving, without having to prove it with subtotal, decimal, and dollar sign.

For the sake acknowledging it. The exceptions here are small businesses and corporations. Transparency exists for tax purposes. Accountability on giving to charity from a corporate income is as much for shareholders as it is for tax payers, re: the appropriate governing bodies.

Giving from personal income operates by a similar accountability structure, but has a different set of rules when it comes to freedom of information. Anonymity is to be applauded and protected. It’s none of anyone else’s business how much an individual gives from their own personal income.

There’s also a difference between a foundation, set up in a person’s name, giving to charities, and donating money to charities from that person’s own finances.

Businesses never refer to a product, or cash given out to meet a charitable need, as having been given out by the CEO, or his family. They correctly state that the business donated them.

The foundation has to be transparent; the individual doesn’t. He, or she, can remain anonymous.

As Jesus emphasized twice in His criticism of hypocrites posturing righteousness in public for all to see: ‘when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others…when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.’ (Matthew 6:3-4, ESV)

This criterion makes the morbid quest to squeeze Trump’s wallet for information that could discredit his presidency, all the more lopsided and vindictive.

As The New Yorker’s, John Cassidy made more than clear in his 2016 piece on ‘Trump & the Truth: His Charitable Giving.’ Cassidy’s piece reached hard for the fraud card, up to criticizing Trump for where, when, and how much, Trump was donating of his own money to charity.

Forbes, in a convoluted attempt at the same game, insinuated that then Presidential candidate – whom they estimated to be worth ‘$3.5 billion’ – put revenue before helping ‘kids with cancer.’

Forbes accused Trump of having ‘paid their businesses with charity money.’ Speculating that money changing hands, ‘had more in common with a drug cartel’s money-laundering operation than a charity’s best-practices textbook.’

In short, Forbes acknowledges that the Trump family gives to charity, but isn’t happy about the amount they give, where, or how they do it.

Outlining how Trump’s charities allegedly paid Trump organizations for services rendered. Forbes questions the legal and ethical aspects of Trump Charity organizations, but ultimately feeds into the now far too common dissonance of “hate Trump, because love trumps hate”.

Worth noting. Forbes lists this article as one of their “best pieces of the decade.”

Most recently, Phillip Hackeney penned a piece published by NBCNEWS, responding to news about a Nov. 2019 court ruling by Justice Saliann Scarpulla of the N.Y. Supreme Court, ordering that Trump to pay $2 million in restitution for alleged misuse of Trump foundation funds.

The ruling was based on arguments presented by N.Y. Attorney General Barbara Underwood (who’d boasted about the ruling on Twitter), alleging that the Trump family ‘”illegally” used Trump foundation to further Trump’s political interests.’

The Trump’s responded by noting that all the funds collected were eventually donated to the designated charities – something Judge Scarpulla acknowledged (NBC).

Nevertheless, the Trump family were ordered to pay the $2 million to three charities, presumably pre-chosen by the prosecuting Attorney General.

It was a political win against the President, not an ethical one.

Facebook’s “independent” fact-checkers are doing the same. Flagging posts about Trump’s giving as “missing context” isn’t out of a concern for ethics, or even charities, it’s about partisan political gain.

Snopes rated the above facts as “unproven”, even though they have video of Trump stating: “well, I have a lot of men down here, right now. We have over 100 and we have about 125 coming. So we’ll have a couple of hundred people down here. And they are very brave and what they’re doing is amazing. And we’ll be involved in some form in helping to reconstruct.”

USA Today claims they’re false, and the NY Times (predictably) doubts it.

My criticism isn’t about the attempt to keep Trump accountable for claims he makes about charitable giving. It’s the motive behind the “fact checking”.

By tone, it’s easy enough to discern how the real motivation isn’t to help charitable organizations. The motivation is to sink Trump.

Should said “fact checking” take down someone they don’t like, and win them a Pulitzer in the process? Well, hey, “it’s a dirty job, but somebody’s got to do it.”

It’s rich for any journalist to accuse a family of being ‘vainglorious’. Only to then go looking for glory in a financial shake down of the Trump family’s charitable works.

Had Trump not been running for President, and had there been no potential personal benefit involved, it’s unlikely many in the Leftist dominated mainstream media would even care.

Have the New York Attorney General and others, chased how the $2 million ripped from the Trumps was spent by court designated charities, with the same vigor? 

Have they looked into George Soros’ or the Clinton Foundation’s financial reach in the world of politics with the same scrutiny?

If I were in a diplomatic mood, I’d roll out the uber-understanding-wagon, layer on some sugar-coating, then dismiss the morbid quest to turn Trump into Scrooge, as a true-hearted selfless act of benevolence.

The truth is it isn’t. 2016 was an election year. As is 2020.

These are never-Trump self-serving gestures. Fueled by self-aggrandizement, and tinged with the flare of agitation propaganda, written for a rabid, radicalized mob who’s view of the Trump presidency only comes from the lens that’s been prescribed for them.

I doubt that even if Trump were to give away his entire fortune, those dragging him down, in order to raise themselves up, would find any benevolence in it.

Outbidding wars have their place in charitable auctions.

Outbidding wars over who is the greatest of givers has no place in politics.

For ‘each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. (2 Cor.9:6-7, ESV).


First published on Caldron Pool, 22nd September 2020.

Photo by Photoholgic on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2020