If I Was Trump's Speechwriter

My fellow Americans.

My physician put something in my tea that he said will help me speak more clearly.

America is great again, thanks to my magnificent leadership.

As the greatest President of the greatest country that ever countried, it is imperative that I enforce humane standards of military aggression in the world, especially when it comes to murdering civilians.

I have ordered hundreds of sorties which have killed thousands of innocent men, women, and children. But there were some terrorists killed, too. More importantly, NOT ONE person was killed by chemical weapons. Rest assured, that if you are ever targeted for a violent death at the hands of America's military, it won't be by chemical weapons. America kills children with drone strikes, cluster bombs, napalm, as well as by conventional artillery fire and small arms. And nukes too, I think - history isn't my forte'. Because we are great, it is the United States' prerogative to decide the moral and proper way to kill innocent people. Only America and it's allies may murder civilians, and only with weapons approved by America.

Israel and Saudi Arabia have 007 status, and are licensed to murder with impunity in places like Syria, Gaza, the West Bank, and Yemen.

Now, about Syria. One year ago, a chemical weapons attack occurred in that country. All the people I regularly denounce as "fake news" assured me that Assad was responsible. For reasons I won't disclose, I heeded that mob, and launched about $100 million worth of Tomahawk missiles against Assad's Syrian Arab Army. I realize that evidence later emerged that the chemical weapons were actually launched by terrorists fighting against the SAA, but that is quite beside the point. You see, there have long been plans for a pipeline across Syria - which would redound to the benefit of Iran, Syria, and perhaps Russia. It would undermine American-Israeli-Saudi hegemony in the region, and that is unacceptable to the psychopaths who actually run our great country.

So, a year later, we have another chemical attack in Syria, and the same fake news people who blamed Assad last year, are again laying it on him. Therefore, I will be ordering more attacks on Syria, and will do so before facts have a chance to undermine the anti Assad hysteria.

Because despite the fact that I, your great President, decry the waste and harm caused by our endless wars, those wars will go on no matter who is President.

Please don't tell anyone that I'm not really in charge.

Ignorant Christians against Ron Paul

DISCLAIMER: The title of this post will strike some as overly harsh. It is meant to be severe, because the consequences of the sort of ignorance exposed here are severe for our country and for the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. I DON'T mean to imply that principled opposition to Ron Paul is ignorance; but rather to remonstrate against those who, though DEMONSTRABLY ignorant about issues pertaining to Dr. Paul, insist on maligning the character, intelligence, faith, or patriotism of us who support him. Mr. Petrovic is representative of hundreds of such detractors I have conversed with over the last few years. To him and those of his ilk, who persist in misrepresenting their opponents, an admonition: "Thou shall not bear false witness." - Exodus 20:16.

The following letter was published in the March 14th, 2012 edition of the Taney County Times:

On March 17th the Taney County Republican Party will hold its Caucus to appoint delegates for Missouri's Presidential Delegation to the convention in Florida. [sic]

All registered voters from Taney County are invited and if you value your country you should make an effort to be there.I have been hearing that a 501c4group [READ: Tera Sukman told me Ron Paul supporters would be there] is planning to try a takeover of the Caucus to promote a candidate that would allow Israel to be thrown under the bus, allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, would legalize drugs and basically take the United States into isolationism.

Yes, our beloved country is in trouble but this is not the way to solve the problem.This man is not electable and would only insure [sic] that the real problem is re-elected!

Please if you value this country come out Saturday morning to the Forsyth High School between 8:30 and 10 a.m. and help us elect honorable, thinking patriotic delegates to represent Taney County and Missouri at the National Convention!

Bill Petrovic
Christian, Conservative, Life NRA Member
Rockaway Beach

I replied on Facebook, and invited Bill Petrovic to respond. My first post (edited for syntax):

Mr. Petrovic:

I'm a "true American Patriot" and supporter of Ron Paul. Also, a Christian, and served seven years in the U.S. Air Force.

Non-interventionism isn't isolationism. A strong advocate for free trade (like Dr. Paul) can't logically be an isolationist. Dropping bombs on countries, especially while ignoring the constitutional requirement for a declaration of war by Congress - that's isolationism.

Abolishing the federal Drug Enforcement Agency doesn't legalize drugs - it removes the Federal Government from an area it has no authority to be in, constitutionally. Missouri's drug laws will be determined by Missourians, not by President Ron Paul.

Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons, and would turn Tehran into a toxic waste dump if Iran somehow built a nuclear weapon and miraculously got it delivered. Far more dangerous is North Korea with nukes - whatever happened to that issue?

Due to America's long history of intervention in the mideast, Christians are now fearing for their lives in Egypt and Iraq, and Iran has more influence than they ever would've had we not foolishly overthrown their government in the early 50's and installed the Shah. Predictably, Iranians finally succeeded in overthrowing our stooge, the Shah. So we backed Saddam Hussein in war against them. Hundreds of thousands died.

I can't for the life of me see why Iran would think of America as an enemy!

We also backed the future Taliban against the Soviets, and hobknobbed with Osama bin Laden.

So, yes, we have a very impressive record in foreign affairs - let's go to war with Iran, and see if we can start WW III.

And if I don't like the idea - I'm not a patriot?

We tolerate nukes in Pakistan - you know, our good friend to whom we gave $billions, and in return thay gave safe harbor to bin Laden.

And what about the nukes in China? And India? Oh, and Russia?

One nuke in Iran is not a good thing by any means. But compared to North Korea, Russia, China, Pakistan, and India...well I don't see the threat. What I see is Iran selling oil to other countries using currencies other than the dollar - which is not to be tolerated. Our government can't admit that the war it's started (REALITY CHECK: trade sanctions are acts of war, not diplomatic gestures) is about preserving the American Empire - hence the massive myth machine excretes copious helpings of fear and angst to the effect that Iran is capable of nuking Israel and threatening our shores. Sadly, Neoconned Christians help promulgate such nonsense with eschatological superstitions emanating more from televangelists' imaginations than from Scripture.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge..." Hosea 4:6a

By the way, the promised land extended from the Nile to the Euphrates (Gen 15:18). Israel achieved suzerainty over this area during the height of Solomon's rule (1 Kings 4:21),and actually God fulfilled His promise to Abraham four centuries earlier (Joshua 21:43-45). This I found when looking to Scripture rather than to John Hagee.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there is a prophetic restoration of NATIONAL Israel yet to come. In that case, it would involve a Christian Jewish group, not a secular movement like Zionism (cf. Romans 11:23), and it wouldn't be a little swath of land along the Mediterranean, but rather a large area extending from present day Egypt to Baghdad.

You characterize Ron Paul as anti-Israel; my guess is you are unaware of the following: "Ron Paul was one of the only Congressmen who voted against condemning Israel for bombing Iraq's nuclear reactors in 1981. '[A]lmost the entire US Congress voted to condemn the act, but Congressman Paul was one of the few Republicans who stood up and said Israel should not have to answer to America for how she defends herself. Remember, this was the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan that had condemned Israel, a coalition that included the most hawkish anti-Communists and the most fervent Christian conservatives. ' "

Other myths about Ron Paul's foreign policies are rebutted here: http://www.ronpaulmyths.com/foreign-policy.php

Please stop with the jingoism and pretending that other Christians aren't patriots if they don't share your eschatology.

Bill Petrovic's nonreply:

Steve, I can't as a Christian support anyone who is pro choice which Paul is! He is also for Same Sex Marriage. And I've stated that I can't support him for his views on Iran. Let me ask you a question, Will you support whoever the Republican Party Nominates even if it isn't Paul????

Note the complete failure to engage: all transmission, no reception. Bill didn't address even one (1) of my points, which were direct responses to claims made in his letter. This is very typical of Ron Paul's opponents. They freely report hearsay as fact, ignore all facts cited against their position, and then proceed to introduce yet more hearsay. In so doing, anti-Paulite Christians routinely bear false witness, apparently with no regard for God's word (Exodus 20:16). They ignore questions posed to them, but insist that their questions be answered.

This is a lamentable state of affairs in the Church purchased by Jesus Christ. Christians disagree about eschatology, a prime factor in ensuing disagreements over politics. This is no license to lie about each other.
Anyway, my response to Bill Petrovic, talebearer:

Bill,

You're mistaken. Ron Paul is against both abortion and homosexual marriage.

As President, Paul would ask Congress to take abortion out of the jurisdiction of federal courts. Since the Supreme Court has only appellate jurisdiction, Roe v. Wade would be nullified. This is a different approach then conservatives have been using. Have you noticed that the attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade by getting the right judges in office haven't worked?

Do you trust Santorum on the abortion issue? If so, do you know he voted for an appropriations bill that included funding for Planned Parenthood? Do you know that he supported Arlen Specter for President, when Specter's campaign started with a diatribe against pro-lifers in the Republican Party?

Do you believe that Romney was pro-choice when he ran for office in Massachusetts, but when he decided to run for President he became pro-life? Isn't that a bit much to swallow?

Do you believe Santorum is far more conservative than Romney? If so, why did Santorum endorse Romney in 2008, instead of say, Huckabee?

RE: homosexual marriage. Ron Paul believes marriage is a sacrament, and that the government should stay out of it. He would not interfere if states want to regulate it, or ban homosexual marriage, but he personally thinks the government should have nothing to do with marriage. If you think government is right to be in the marriage business, that is your opinion - it doesn't give you the right to misrepresent the views of Dr. Paul.

Will I support the Republican nominee? As of now, absolutely not! But I will reconsider when you address my points about our history of involvement with Iran, and explain to me why Billy Long and Roy Blunt voted to give President Obama power to have me arrested by the military with no right to habeas corpus, if Obama thinks I'm a threat. The "Tea Party Headquarters" in Branson supported both Long and Blunt. And Long and Blunt support Romney, as Santorum did in 2008. I want my kids to live in a free country, and vote accordingly.

More thoughts came, that I hoped Bill would address, especially GOP complicity in the pernicious clause hidden in this year's Defense appropriation:

Bill,
Your letter also claimed that Ron Paul is unelectable.

Ron Paul is the most electable of the GOP candidates. That's because the others are very similar to Obama, who is smart enough to use that fact against them.
Imagine Santorum trying to denounce Obama's wild spending, and Obama comes right back and reminds everyone that Santorum voted to raise the debt ceiling five times, and supported "No Child Left Behind."

Imagine Barack Obama saying this to Rick Santorum:"Senator Santorum, I agree with you that spending needs to be reigned in, but how do the American people take you seriously when you voted for George Bush's unfunded prescription drug bill that now costs taxpayers $60 billion per year. And far, far worse than that plan projects $16 Trillion, that's trillion with a T, in unfunded liabilites, according to the ultra-conservative Club for Growth."

How's Santorum going to answer that?

How?

Now, imagine Ron Paul attacking Barack Obama for his wreckless spending.

Obama responds: "Yes, you've earned the name 'Dr. No', 'cuz you know how to say 'no.' But folks are hurting, and 'no' doesn't help the single mom who can't afford daycare so she can look for work, or the young woman who's birth control pills are going sky high because of cruel restrictions supported by Republicans."

Dr. Paul responds by sharing about the times he delivered babies for free, and then gives a short tutorial on the Constitution, and how irresponsible it is to promise to take care of people with unsustainable entitlement programs.

Then Dr. Paul points out the hypocrisy of Obama's airstrikes against Libya his push for war with Syria and Iran, after campaigning on opposition to Bush's wars.

Paul already polls competitively against Obama. If the American people had a chance to focus on the differences between them, they'd be much more enthused about Paul than anyone is about either Romney or Santorum. </>

Just as the crickets prepared to start their symphony, Bill Petrovic, caught VWI (voting while ignorant), issues another bit of hearsay, while carefully avoiding every point I raised:

Sorry Steve, I've heard with my own ears Paul say Same Sex Marriage is OK.

Unsuccessful thus far in my attempts to get Bill off his script and into a dialogue, I go all provincial on him:

Bill,

This is Missouri. Show me!

Another appeal by me...

It would be nice if a Santorum supporter - Bill, anyone - would address some of the points of my first post in this thread.

...Results in an Edith Ann moment, courtesy of Bill:

Steve, you can't change my mind about Ron Paul. He can't win the nomination so don't push Him to me! Let Eric vote for him, I Won't..

And that's the truth! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJMKupYF14I

Confessions of a former Christian Zionist

And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. Galatians 6:16

But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God. Romans 2:29

During my twenty years as an adherent of Dispensational Premillennialism, I often heard it asserted that Christians, and the United States, have a mandate from God to support the modern state of Israel.

That's Christian Zionism, in a nutshell.

Christian Zionism focuses on God's promises to Abraham: "I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you" (Gen 12:3), and "To your seed will I give this [i.e. Canaan] land"(Gen 12:7).

Televangelists and popular Christian authors teach that these promises mean that Christians are obligated to support the modern country of Israel, unconditionally.

This - I now know - is wrong for several reasons. Here are four:

1. THE GOSPEL IS NOT RACIST

First, the promise to Abraham is to his seed. And Abraham's seed  is Jesus Christ (Gal 3:16,29). Through Jesus, the promised seed of Abraham, all the nations are to be blessed (Gen 12:3; Gal 3:16).

God's covenant has always been about faith, not race (Rom 4:3,9). Believers of all nationalities - Jews, Greeks, and all other races (Gal 3:28; Mat 28:19) are heirs of God's promise to Abraham (Gal 3:29).

This truth stands against the race based doctrines of Christian Zionists as well as the various sects who hold to British Israelite views. These groups devote vast resources and time identifying the physical descendents of Abraham, the "true Israelites," if you will. They come to different conclusions: For instance, the brand of British Israelism embraced by Christian Identity adherents holds that modern Ashkenazi Jews are imposters (and worthy of all demonization),  their own Anglo-European selves being imbued with true Israelite blood. Accordingly, their objections to Christian Zionism are typically framed in racial terms -  they regard Zionists as heretical for supporting Jews who (as they see it) don't have Israelite blood in them. 

Then again, Christian Zionists also promote a race based doctrine, being ignorant of their own New Testament which clearly indicates that a spiritual Jew isn't the same as a physical Jew. Even the outward sign of God's old covenant with Jews, circumcision of males, prefigured the inward sign of the better, new covenant characterized by "circumcision...of the heart" (Rom 2:28,29), applying to males and females, and without regard to bloodline (Gal 3:28). 

Unlike the Identity sect, Christian Zionists claim to love Jewish people. Nevertheless, many of these Christians look forward to a future event called "the Rapture," when they will (so the story goes) leave Israeli Jews behind to die by the millions. Many Christian Zionists believe that two-thirds of the Jews in Israel will die violent deaths just before Christ's second coming, based on a grim, futurist interpretation of Zechariah 13:8.

I have Christian friends in both the Identity and Zionist camps. Clearly, the former have a grievously wrong view of Jewish people. But what manner of dissonance accounts for the fact that many among the latter camp encourage Jews to migrate to Israel...to be slaughtered!? If I accepted the futurist view of Zechariah 13:8 (I don't), I'd be urging all to STAY AWAY from Israel.

2. DO JORDAN, SYRIA, AND IRAQ BELONG TO ISRAEL?

Second, the boundaries of the modern political entity, Israel, entail only a small portion of the land promised to Abraham. The promised land extended from the Nile to the Euphrates (Gen 15:18).

So, when Christians assert that God gave Israel the land it occupies, they ought to be asked whether God plans to give them the rest of the "promised land" too. Should we expect Israel to expand eastward,  annexing parts of Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq all the way to the Euphrates River?

3. THE BIBLE TRUMPS JOHN HAGEE

Third, Israel achieved suzerainty over this area during the height of Solomon's rule (1 Kings 4:21),and actually God fulfilled His promise to Abraham four centuries earlier (Joshua 21:43-45). These facts I found when looking to Scripture rather than to John Hagee.

The promise of land to Abraham's physical descendents was fulfilled. The Bible records the fact.

4. DON'T BE MORE PRO ISRAEL THAN GOD'S EVER BEEN!

Fourth, Christian Zionist support for modern Israel is stronger than God's support for ancient Israel, His own covenant people! Under the old covenant, God severely judged Israel over her unbelief and rebellion, as the epistle to the Hebrews reminds us (cp. 4:6). See Leviticus 26:17; Deuteronomy 28:15; Jeremiah 7:15 and hundreds of other passages.

Jesus "came unto his own, and his own received him not" (John 1:11). Their unbelief resulted in them being cut off, though they are the natural branches (Romans 11:20). Jesus told the Jewish religious leaders, "... the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruit of it" (Matthew 21:43). Jesus wasn't endorsing "Replacement Theology" (Supersessionism), the truly pernicious teaching that God has rejected Jews and replaced them with the church. Jesus meant that the leadership of Israel was taken from the Pharisees and given to the Apostles. The Congregation was entirely Jewish at first, then Gentiles were grafted in, just as unbelieving Jews are grafted back in (to the "olive tree", i.e. God's covenant) when they are no longer in unbelief (Romans 11:23).

The modern state of Israel was founded by unbelieving, secular Jews who were devoted to Marx, not Moses. There is no scripture for an unrepentant regathering (cp. Deuteronomy 30:1 - 3) of unbelieving Jews as a fulfillment of prophecy. The state of Israel worships the same demons that caused ancient Israel to be evicted by God: to wit, over 1 million unborn children killed, and Tel Aviv is world renowned for its embrace of homosexuality. Israel is an apartheid state, treating Palestinians (whether Muslim or Christian), and even Shephardic Jews, as second class citizens - ongoing documentation of this is found at Mondoweiss, a website run by liberal Jews who care more about being human than supporting nationalism of any kind.

Yet, my Zionist friends tell me regularly that Israel (the political entity) is the "chosen people," and worthy of unconditional support. Practically speaking, this means one cannot criticize Israeli policy without being accused of anti-Semitism. It also means that the United States must oppose every foe of Israel, or risk incurring the wrath of God (per the misreading of Genesis 12:3).

CONCLUSION

Most information about Israel and the Middle East is very one sided, eschatology notwithstanding.

I condemn the terrorist acts of Hamas. The PLO contains terrorist elements, but the Zionist movement was advanced by terrorism before there was a PLO.

Denouncing the terrorist acts of one side, while giving a pass to the other side.. is no way to appraise facts.

When Menachem (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Begin's Irgun set off explosives in the King David Hotel in 1946, it was the largest terrorist bombing in history up to that time.

The massacre of men, women, and children at Deir Yassin was also carried out by Irgun.

The attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, during the Six Day War in 1967 was not the action of a friend.

Former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky's book, By Way of Deception, exposed  the perfidy of Mossad. The Israeli government tried to block publication in the USA. The late Joe Sobran recounted Ostrovsky's story of Israeli complicity in the 1983 attack by Arab terrorists on the US Marines' barracks in Beirut:

It's time for Christians to be consistent in their denunciations of terrorists. Old Testament Israel wasn't given a pass when they engaged in treacherous behavior. The ancient Gibeonites were marked for annihilation by God, but deceived Joshua into making covenant with them. God required Israel to adhere to that covenant, and severe judgment resulted when Saul violated it. Likewise, Zionists and their friends in the British and American governments broke the many promises made to the the indigenous Arab population of Palestine, and continue to treat them with contempt.