Monday, August 1, 2016

Save Me From The Do Gooders, The PC Instigators and Incrementalist Fixers When It Ain't Broke! Hillary and Chess!

Tc95BowCLcB/s320/unnamed%2B%25286%2529.jpg" width="320" />


In response to my comment in my last memo: "Dick,

My view is somewhat more pessimistic (remember, I’ve been around this game longer than you, so………), to wit:

How did we get this far off track, you ask. In my admittedly cynical view, we got here because the average American has had it so good for so long they forgot what made all that possible, viz., freedom, the Constitution and the rule of law.  Over the years, they gradually gave away small pieces of each to encourage our government to give us still more until now we no longer have a basis for our well being. We have become susceptible to any snake oil salesman who offers to give us everything at little cost and no effort on our part. When Roosevelt began his "tax, tax, tax; spend, spend, spend; elect, elect, elect!" philosophy in the 30s the average citizen bought it and at that point it was Katy bar the door. With only periodic attempts to bring common sense to the people, and those only halfheartedly, we have simply progressed steadily on the road to socialism - just as Norman Thomas predicted we would in 1944. The old saying, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything" is proved once again. I fear, short of a real revolution, we'll never see another Republican president. Fortunately, I won't have to suffer that indignity all that much longer. But YOU, poor devil....... 

This from a very dear friend and ellow memo reader:

 A Modern Parable

 A Japanese company (Toyota) and an American company (General Motors) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River . Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.

On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile

The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.

Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people paddling and 1 person steering, while the American team had 7 people steering and 2 people paddling.

Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.

They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were paddling.

Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the paddling team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 2 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager.

They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 2 people paddling the boat greater incentive to work harder
. It was called the 'Rowing Team Quality First Program,' with meetings, dinners and free pens for the paddlers. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices, and bonuses. The pension program was trimmed to 'equal the competition' and some of the resultant savings were channelled into morale boosting programs and teamwork posters.

The next year the Japanese won by two miles.

Humiliated, the American management laid off one paddler, halted development of a new canoe, sold all the paddles, and cancelled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses. 

The next year, try as he might, the lone designated paddler was unable to even finish the race (having no paddles), so he was laid off for unacceptable performance, all canoe equipment was sold and the next year's racing team was out-sourced to India.

Sadly, the end.

Here's something else to think about: GM has spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US, claiming they can't make money paying American wages.

TOYOTA has spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the US. The last quarter's results:

TOYOTA makes 4 billion in profits while GM rack s up 9 billion in losses.

GM folks are still scratching their heads, and collecting bonuses...
Hillary and the Clinton Russian connection. 

Did Hillary's re-set actually work and benefit Russia's military and cyber technology which has come full circle to bite her and her party in the behind?

Bill may be right about Hillary being a change artist but he also could be wrong about her being able to understand the consequences of her enthusiasm for change.  I doubt Hillary ever played Chess and the Russians are experts.  In Chess you must think several moves ahead and visualize the entire board.  Hillary is simply myopic and boring. (See 1 and  1a below.)
Member of Saudi delegation says Palestinians and Arabs want peace among the various peoples in The Middle East. 

I believe it is inevitable and one day it will happen and when it does the rest of the world will probably be at war. (See 2 below.)
Another case of hell being paved with good intentions and now we all suffer because of this "well meaning decision."  

I had dinner with a very fine doctor, a wonderful friend several days ago and he lamented about the fact that his profession, and specifically his specialty, was being decimated by increased costs and lower reimbursements.  He spoke about the time when he willingly gave advice for no charge because he could afford to and now could no longer practice as he had and still wanted.  In fact, he predicted his specialty would not exist and he has one of the largest practices in our city.

All of this is due to bureaucrats who think they know more than those whose lives they impact and who have real life versus theoretical experience.

As I have said thousands of times, save me from the do gooders and the PC  instigators.
If it ain't broke why fix it but to them everything is broken and only they can fix it.  These incrementalists have done more damage than is humanly calculable.(See 3 below.)
Just cannot pull the lever for Trump. (See 4 below.)
Finally three love making tips for senior citizens:
   1. Wear your glasses to make sure your partner is actually in the bed.

2. Use extra polygrip so your teeth don't end up under the bed.*

3. Make all the noise you want....the neighbors are deaf, too.*

The Clinton Foundation, State and Kremlin Connections

Why did Hillary’s State Department urge U.S. investors to fund Russian research for military uses?

By Peter Schweizer

Hillary Clinton touts her tenure as secretary of state as a time of hardheaded realism and “commercial diplomacy” that advanced American national and commercial interests. But her handling of a major technology transfer initiative at the heart of Washington’s effort to “reset” relations with Russia raises serious questions about her record. Far from enhancing American national interests, Mrs. Clinton’s efforts in this area may have substantially undermined U.S. national security.

Consider Skolkovo, an “innovation city” of 30,000 people on the outskirts of Moscow, billed as Russia’s version of Silicon Valley—and a core piece of Mrs. Clinton’s quarterbacking of the Russian reset.

Following his 2009 visit to Moscow, President Obama announced the creation of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission. Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state directed the American side, and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov represented the Russians. The stated goal at the time: “identifying areas of cooperation and pursuing joint projects and actions that strengthen strategic stability, international security, economic well-being, and the development of ties between the Russian and American people.”

The Kremlin committed $5 billion over three years to fund Skolkovo. Mrs. Clinton’s State Department worked aggressively to attract U.S. investment partners and helped the Russian State Investment Fund, Rusnano, identify American tech companies worthy of Russian investment. Rusnano, which a scientific adviser to President Vladimir Putin called “Putin’s child,” was created in 2007 and relies entirely on Russian state funding.

What could possibly go wrong?

Soon, dozens of U.S. tech firms, including top Clinton Foundation donors like Google, Intel and Cisco, made major financial contributions to Skolkovo, with Cisco committing a cool $1 billion. In May 2010, the State Department facilitated a Moscow visit by 22 of the biggest names in U.S. venture capital—and weeks later the first memorandums of understanding were signed by Skolkovo and American companies.

By 2012 the vice president of the Skolkovo Foundation, Conor Lenihan—who had previously partnered with the Clinton Foundation—recorded that Skolkovo had assembled 28 Russian, American and European “Key Partners.” Of the 28 “partners,” 17, or 60%, have made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation, totaling tens of millions of dollars, or sponsored speeches by Bill Clinton.

Russians tied to Skolkovo also flowed funds to the Clinton Foundation. Andrey Vavilov, the chairman of SuperOx, which is part of Skolkovo’s nuclear-research cluster, donated between $10,000 and $25,000 (donations are reported in ranges, not exact amounts) to the Clinton’s family charity. Skolkovo Foundation chief and billionaire Putin confidant Viktor Vekselberg also gave to the Clinton Foundation through his company, Renova Group.

Amid all the sloshing of Russia rubles and American dollars, however, the state-of-the-art technological research coming out of Skolkovo raised alarms among U.S. military experts and federal law-enforcement officials. Research conducted in 2012 on Skolkovo by the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Program at Fort Leavenworth declared that the purpose of  Skolkovo was to serve as a “vehicle for world-wide technology transfer to Russia in the areas of information technology, biomedicine, energy, satellite and space technology, and nuclear technology.”

Moreover, the report said: “the Skolkovo Foundation has, in fact, been involved in defense-related activities since December 2011, when it approved the first weapons-related project—the development of a hypersonic cruise missile engine. . . . Not all of the center’s efforts are civilian in nature.”

Technology can have multiple uses—civilian and military. But in 2014 the Boston Business Journal ran an op-ed placed by the FBI, and noted that the agency had sent warnings to technology and other companies approached by Russian venture-capital firms. The op-ed—under the byline of Lucia Ziobro, an assistant special agent at the FBI’s Boston office—said that “The FBI believes the true motives of the Russian partners, who are often funded by their government, is to gain access to classified, sensitive, and emerging technology from the companies.”

Ms. Ziobro also wrote that “The [Skolkovo] foundation may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research development facilities and dual-use technologies with military and commercial application.”

To anyone who was paying attention, the FBI’s warnings should have come as little surprise. A State Department cable sent to then-Secretary Clinton (and obtained via WikiLeaks) mentioned possible “dual use and export control concerns” related to research and development technology ventures with Moscow. And in its own promotional literature Skolkovo heralded the success of its development of the Atlant hybrid airship.

“Particularly noteworthy is Atlant’s ability to deliver military cargoes,” boasts the Made in Skolkovo publication: “The introduction of this unique vehicle is fully consistent with the concept of creating a mobile army and opens up new possibilities for mobile use of the means of radar surveillance, air and missile defense, and delivery of airborne troops.”

Even if it could be proven that these tens of millions of dollars in Clinton Foundation donations by Skolkovo’s key partners played no role in the Clinton State Department’s missing or ignoring obvious red flags about the Russian enterprise, the perception would still be problematic. (Neither the Clinton campaign nor the Clinton Foundation responded to requests for comment.) What is known is that the State Department recruited and facilitated the commitment of billions of American dollars in the creation of a Russian “Silicon Valley” whose technological innovations include Russian hypersonic cruise-missile engines, radar surveillance equipment, and vehicles capable of delivering airborne Russian troops.
A Russian reset, indeed.

Mr. Schweizer is president of the Government Accountability Institute and the author of “ Clinton Cash.” A larger report on the subject of this article is available at


Putin’s Infowar on America

The DNC leaks were another Russian victory as the U.S. fails to fight back.

The Russian president in Slovenia, July 30.ENLARGE
The Russian president in Slovenia, July 30. PHOTO: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGE
This column recently predicted that Russia would disclose hacked emails just before the presidential election as an “October surprise.” The first surprise came early, with last week’s release of emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee, whose chairman resigned for rigging the primaries in Hillary Clinton’s favor.
Expect more surprises before the election. Vladimir Putin has an unprecedented trove of hacked communications at his fingertips—and shows canny timing on when to hit “send.” Moscow has an ambitious strategy for information war that goes beyond affecting a presidential election. Israeli analyst Dima Adamsky wrote last year that the Russian “information struggle” entails “technological and psychological components designed to manipulate the adversary’s picture of reality, misinform it, and eventually interfere with the decision-making process of individuals, organizations, governments, and societies.”
Security experts believe Russia hacked all 63,000 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails as secretary of state, including the 33,000 emails she destroyed, and that Russia supplemented this information by later hacking the Clinton Foundation and the State Department. That would mean Mr. Putin has a trifecta of sources to identify suspicious links between Mrs. Clinton and multi-million dollar donors to her foundation, including authoritarian governments and crony capitalists, and favors granted by the Clinton State Department.
In a paper entitled “The Anatomy of Russian Information Warfare” written in 2014, Polish analyst Jolanta Darczewska traced Russian information warfare theory to Stalin’sspetspropaganda (special propaganda) program in the 1940s. In recent years Mr. Putin, a KGB veteran, extended infowar to include “information manipulation,” which includes “using authentic information in a way that gives rise to false implications,” disinformation, fabricating information and blackmail.According to Mr. Adamsky, Russia’s goal is to cause “disillusionment and discontent with the government and disorganization of the state and military command and control and management functions.” It’s hard to imagine anything more disillusioning to Americans than the release by Russia of incriminating emails Mrs. Clinton had refused to disclose even under U.S. court order.

Russia attacked Estonian government websites and hacked Ukraine’s election commission days before a vote. A German investigator last year concluded there was no evidence behind the WikiLeaks claim that the National Security Agency eavesdropped on Chancellor Angela Merkel’s mobile phone. It was likely disinformation to drive a wedge between the U.S. and Germany. Russia’s information manipulation is intended both to embarrass people and to inhibit honest communications by demonstrating that governments can’t protect confidential communications.
Liberals who long treated Edward Snowden and Julian Assange as heroes are now offended that WikiLeaks distributed the Russian hacks of the DNC. Journalist Franklin Foer complained in Slate last week that the “breathtaking transgression of privacy” of Democratic Party officials will have a “chilling effect” undermining the ability “to communicate honestly.” That was the exact purpose of the hacks of hundreds of thousands of U.S. diplomatic cables distributed by WikiLeaks in 2011 through the New York Times and London’s Guardian.
“It is not our goal to achieve a more transparent society,” Mr. Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, told Time in 2010. Instead, the objective is to force U.S. officials to “lock down internally and to balkanize” so they will “cease to be as efficient as they were.”
What can be done about infowar? Donald Trump was criticized last week for encouraging Russia to disclose Mrs. Clinton’s emails, but making them public would be the best way to deprive Mr. Putin of the advantage he gains by holding them. A U.S. ally that spies on Washington as much as Washington spies on it, such as Israel or France, would do Americans a favor by making public its copy of Mrs. Clinton’s emails. Otherwise, Moscow can drip the emails out on its schedule with its spin—or hold them back as blackmail against Mrs. Clinton should she reach the White House. American voters should know what Mr. Putin knows.
The Obama administration has been passive in response to Russia’s infowar—even reluctant to admit its existence officially. Washington’s best deterrence would be to reply in kind. The U.S. could hack and release Mr. Putin’s bank accounts detailing how rich he has become in office. U.S. prosecutors could use hacked information to indict Putin business cronies and deny visas to their associates and relatives.
Despite Russia’s audacious hacking, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper last week would only go as far as to concede: “It’s fair to say Vladimir Putin feels like he is fighting a low-level, asymmetric war with the U.S.” Because of the Obama administration’s failure to fight back, Mr. Putin is enjoying many victories.
Print Edition
Former Saudi general Dr. Anwar Eshki and a group of Saudi businessmen and academics in Jerusalem, July 22, 2016.(Photo by: Courtesy)
Member of Saudi delegation: Israeli society wants peace
“The Israeli society that I encountered embraces a culture of peace, has accomplishments it wants to (protect), wants coexistence, and wants peace,” says Abd al-Mujid al-Hakim.
Abd al-Mujid al-Hakim, a member of the Saudi Arabian delegation that recently visited Israel and the Palestinian territories, told BBC Arabic on Friday that he believes Israeli society wants peace. 

“In Arab societies, the picture of Israeli society is that it embraces a culture of death, wants to spill blood, and does not believe in peace. That [picture] is not correct.” He continued, “The Israeli society that I encountered embraces a culture of peace, has accomplishments it wants to (protect), wants coexistence, and wants peace.”

Hakim, who also serves as director of the Middle East Center for Strategic and Legal Policy in Jedda, added that he thinks that the current stalemate in the peace process does not relate to differences in policy between the Israelis and Palestinians. 

“The problem between the Israeli and Palestinian sides is not that they have different positions. When we dialogued with Mr. Dore Gold, members of Knesset, and members of organizations fighting for peace, the disagreements did not relate to the Arab Peace Initiative. They accept the Arab Peace Initiative.” Instead he suggested, “The problem is the lack of mutual trust between the two sides.”

Hakim added that he and his colleagues do not just want to achieve a political peace between states, but also a general peace between peoples. “We do not want peace like Camp David. It is true that it is a peace that has succeeded in terms of politics, but it failed on the popular level. We want peace and an end to suffering through a political and popular peace.”

Hakim also called on parties that condemned his delegation’s visit to not use the Palestinian issue for political gain. “Lets stop exploiting the Palestinian suffering and issue to achieve political gains in the region…Enough of this exploitation.”

He then defended his delegation’s visit, saying it seeks to achieve peace. “We are spreading peace. We want to achieve a new reality for the Palestinian citizen, different from the miserable reality under which he currently lives.” 

Hakim and his colleague, Former Saudi General Anwar Eshki, and other Saudis, who arrived as a part of a delegation to meet with Israeli and Palestinian officials and members of civil society, have confronted multiple criticisms for their visit in the past week.

How I Was Wrong About ObamaCare

The law’s drafters wanted consolidation: 112 hospital mergers last year. But smaller practices have improved care better.

I was wrong. Wrong about an important part of ObamaCare.
When I joined the Obama White House to advise the president on health-care policy as the only physician on the National Economic Council, I was deeply committed to developing the best health-care reform we could to expand coverage, improve quality and bring down costs. We worked for months to pass this landmark legislation, and I still count celebrating the passage of the Affordable Care Act with the president one balmy spring night in 2010 as one of my greatest Washington memories.
What I got wrong about ObamaCare was how the change in the delivery of health care would, and should, happen. I believed then that the consolidation of doctors into larger physician groups was inevitable and desirable under the ACA. I joined my White House health-care colleagues— Ezekiel Emanuel and Nancy-Ann DeParle—in writing a medical journal article arguing that “these reforms will unleash forces that favor integration across the continuum of care.” We added that “only hospitals or health plans can afford to make the necessary investments” needed to provide the care we will need in a post-ACA world.
Well, the consolidation we predicted has happened: Last year saw 112 hospital mergers (up 18% from 2014). Now I think we were wrong to favor it.

I still believe that organizing medicine into networks that can share information, coordinate care for patients and manage risk is critical for delivering higher-quality care, generating cost savings and improving the experience for patients. What I know now, though, is that having every provider in health care “owned” by a single organization is more likely to be a barrier to better care.
Over the past five years, published research, some of it well summarized on a Harvard Medical School site, has indicated that savings and quality improvement are generated much more often by independent primary-care doctors than by large hospital-centric health systems.
Look at accountable-care organizations (ACOs), in which doctors and health-care providers come together to provide complete care for an individual and are compensated for keeping them healthy and generating savings. Based upon the latest data the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has released,from 2014, independent physician-led ACOs, like the Rio Grande ACO on the Texas border, are outperforming ACOs from many of the most famous health systems. Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore has been ranked as one of the top three health systems in the nation, but its ACO failed to achieve shared savings in 2014.
Small, independent practices know their patients better than any large health system ever can. They are going up against the incumbent and thus are driven to innovate. These small businesses can learn faster without holding weeks of committee discussions and without permission from finance, legal and IT departments to make a change.
More often than not, one of the most important changes these practices make is embracing technology. The ability to store, analyze and make sense of data has now become so easy and inexpensive that all physicians can use “big data.”
In my White House days, we believed it would take three to five years for physicians to use electronic health records effectively. We were wrong about that too. At every opportunity, organized medicine has asked to delay and lower thresholds for tracking and reporting basic quality measures; yet they have no reason to delay.
In the ACOs run by Aledade, which advises small medical practices (I sit on its board), we have found that independent primary-care doctors are able to change their care models in weeks and rapidly learn how to use data to drive savings and quality. For small practices, it does not take years to root out waste, rewire referrals to providers who charge less but deliver more, and redesign schedules so patients can see their doctors more often to avert emergency-room visits and readmissions.
Recognizing the strength in the small practices, the federal government needs to write rules that make it easier for them to thrive under ObamaCare and don’t tip the scales toward consolidation. That means introducing payment models that limit losses for small providers to the Medicare dollars they receive rather than total spending, and which rely on multiyear benchmarks instead of single-year swings. It also means comparing small practices to other small ones—instead of to large health systems with large balance sheets—when determining if a practice deserves bonus payments for savings.
Large health systems deliver “personalized” care in the same way that GM can sell you a car with the desired options. Yet personal relationships of the kind often found in smaller practices are the key to the practice of medicine. They are the relationships that doctors want to forge with patients, and vice versa. It may sound old-fashioned, but what I have learned is that we do not need to sacrifice this unique feature of our health-care system as we move forward in adapting new value-based payment models and improving the health of patients.
Dr. Kocher was special assistant to President Obama for health care and economic policy from 2009 to 2010. He is now a partner at Venrock, the venture-capital firm.

Why Wayne Grudem is Wrong About Trump

Wayne Grudem is one of the most influential Christian leaders in the nation. Many of the lessons I taught as an intern in my local church’s youth ministry (shoutout Ingleside Baptist) were done only after copiously studying Grudem’s book, “Systematic Theology” (
order here). Grudem is a Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary and has helped equip countless pastors to take the Gospel to the ends of the earth. Wayne Grudem is a brother in Christ regardless of his position to Donald Trump.
As much as I think of Grudem, he is dead wrong on Trump. Grudem recently published an article entitled “Why Voting for Donald Trump is a Morally Good Choice”. While voting for Donald Trump is not moral or immoral, I believe it is not wise. Let’s take this point by point:
Grudem opened his article with a few paragraphs in saying this about Trump:
Grudem: “He is egotistical, bombastic, and brash. He often lacks nuance in his statements. Sometimes he blurts out mistaken ideas (such as bombing the families of terrorists) that he later must abandon. He insults people. He can be vindictive when people attack him. He has been slow to disown and rebuke the wrongful words and actions of some angry fringe supporters. He has been married three times and claims to have been unfaithful in his marriages. These are certainly flaws, but I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws in this election.”
This description by Trump supporters, who happen to be Christians, is not uncommon. It is eerily familiar to the excuses given by an abused wife, desperately making excuses for not leaving her husband. “I know my husband hits me but we can work it out,” “I know my husband says awful things about me, but it was just a mistake.” Are our standards not any higher? Is prefacing a political endorsement with “I know he’s a terrible person, but…” acceptable now? I honestly feel badly for Trump supporters who justify their existence in this abusive relationship by saying, “I know he said (something awful) and has done (something worse) but he’s the best I have.” No. Choose higher standards. Make politicians earn your vote. Is there a perfect candidate? No. But, choose policy positions and character traits that you will not compromise on. Period.
Not voting is a vote for Clinton
Grudem: “If this election is close (which seems likely), then if someone votes for a write-in candidate instead of voting for Trump, this action will directly help Hillary Clinton, because she will need one less vote to win. Therefore the question that Christians should ask is this: Can I in good conscience act in a way that helps a liberal like Hillary Clinton win the presidency?”
Let’s break this down… As Erick Erickson is forced to point out many times: If not voting for Trump is a vote for Clinton, then not voting for Clinton is a vote for Trump. It is a zero sum game.  A “no-vote” is just that, not a vote at all. To assume that my vote and your vote is a right of a political party is synonymous with political enslavement. To say that they already had my vote before I cast it, means that they are entitled to my vote. Again, make them earn your vote. Not voting because you deem neither candidate is qualified to run the free world is simply that, not a vote.
MOST IMPORTANT: How can we know Trump won’t change his mind?
Grudem: “My reply (to Trump changing his mind) is that we can never know the future conduct of any human being with 100% certainty, but in making an ethical decision like this one, we should base the decision on the most likely results. In this case, the most likely result is that Trump will do most or all of what he has said.”
My response to this is very simple and historically clear; Trump is a pathological liar. Anyone who believes any less is simply naive or misinformed. The problem with trusting Trump, is everything he says has, at best, has an expiration date. The list of Supreme Court Justices is a great example. He and his team put out a list of great Justices. The very next day he said he may not stick to the list. The list does not do any good if the first 11 are Scalias and number 12 is a Ginsburg. My friend, Josh Hammer pointed out that Trump put out 5 positions on abortion in 3 days back in March. Trump has also flipped, flopped and flipped on H1B visas, an issue at the very center of his campaign. One of my personal favorites is Trump committing to be neutral between Israel and Palestine (LOL) before later offering a horrible explanation. Donald Trump LITERALLY uttered this, “’I’m Capable of Changing To Anything I Want to Change To.” It is like he wants us to know that he will say anything or do anything to get in office. Trust Trump at your own expense.
The scriptures command us to vote
Grudem: “Some may feel it is easier just to stay away from this messy Trump-Clinton election, and perhaps not even vote. But the teachings of Scripture do not allow us to escape moral responsibility by saying that we decided to do nothing. The prophet Obadiah rebuked the people of the Edom for standing by and doing nothing to help when the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem: ‘On the day that you stood aloof, on the day that . . . foreigners entered his gates and cast lots for Jerusalem, you were like one of them.’ (Obadiah 1:11).”
While I defer to Dr. Grudem on almost every biblical matter, I am forced to take exception with this. Choosing not to vote is not as easy as Grudem says. There is a difference in hitting the golf course on November 8th and thoroughly evaluating the positions of both candidates and deeming them both unqualified. Erick Erickson has a saying that goes, “Know when you are in the minority, even when you think you are right.” #NeverTrump is in the minority. Out of every political conversation I have been in, I am yet to find one where more people in the group agree with me than not on Trump. It is not easy choosing to go to the polls, vote down the ballot and leave the top spot blank. However, I believe it is right. In the example Grudem gave, there was a clear good guy and bad guy. The prophet commanded the people of Edom to go and fight for the good guy. What I am saying is, there is no good guy.
The Supreme Court
Grudem: “Trump has released a list of 11 judges to show the kind of nominee he would appoint to the Supreme Court. A lawyer familiar with many of these names has told me that they constitute a “dream list” of outstanding judges who would uphold the original meaning of the Constitution and would not create new laws from the bench.”
The Supreme Court is usually the issue that sways Republicans on the fence to the #TrumpTrain. However, there is 3 MASSIVE problem with this logic. 1. Trump has said that his sister, a federal judge, would make an excellent Supreme Court Justice. His sister is a massive, flaming pro-abortion liberal.  2. After Trump released the list, he said there were other possible names that he could appoint. More on that later. 3. Republican presidents suck at appointing conservative justices. For example, Ronald Reagan, conservative folk hero appointed 2 conservatives in William H. Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia but also pointed 2 conservative-light justices in Kennedy and O’Connor. George H. W. Bush appointed a raging liberal in David Souter and the conservative stalwart Clarence Thomas. George W. Bush appointed the John “Obamacare can stay because it’s a tax” Roberts and the very conservative Samuel Alito. The point is this: Any sober person would say the past 3 Republican presidents were much more consistently conservative than Trump and still batted only around 60%. If these guys couldn’t get it right, do you really think Trump will? I don’t.
Trump is moving in a conservative direction
Grudem: And notice how Trump has changed his mind. He continues to move in a more conservative direction, as evidenced by his list of judges and his choice for vice president.
Now that the primary is over and Trump doesn’t have to worry about us pesky conservatives, he just last week said the minimum wage must go up. Politifact gave him a “full flip-flop”.  Trump made it abundantly clear at the convention that social issues were not near the top of his list. The man did not mention abortion or religious liberty ONCE. He is not moving in a more conservative direction.
Grudem: Trump will work to repeal Obamacare, which is ruining the nation’s health care system, and replace it with an affordable free market system in which companies have the ability to sell insurance across state lines, thus substantially lowering insurance prices especially in those states that currently allow only high-priced “Cadillac” insurance plans. But, Clinton would continue to work relentlessly toward federal government control of our entire health care industry.
Again, I think the world of Dr. Grudem, but this is inaccurate. Way back in 2015, Trump endorsed universal healthcare, saying “the government is going to pay for it.”
Trump even doubled down on this in early 2016. Sure Trump hates Obamacare, he hates that Obama’s name is on it and not Trump’s. Trump believes that big government is the answer; Obama just has the wrong people running it. Trump will get “the best people” to lead our massive government programs.
I think the world of Dr. Grudem and hope to meet him one day. Many good Christians will go out and vote for Trump on November 8th, and their eternal status will remain unchanged. Before you pull the lever on November 8th, make sure Donald Trump has earned your vote. He is not entitled to it, and you will not be helping Hillary Clinton if you choose not to. As for me, I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton or her pathological, lying donor, Donald Trump.

No comments: