Trump’s Recent Comments are Confusing: Is He Following in Biden’s Footsteps?

Those who know me acknowledge that I call them as I see them. I strive to apply the same ethical principles across the board. If we are going to be fair, we need to apply the same standards to the political candidates that we prefer as well as to the candidates we don’t like. Two months ago, I suggested that Biden would not be mentally “fit” to be re-elected. Today I explore Trump’s mental/emotional “fitness” to be elected.

Trump’s feud with Georgia Governor Brian Kemp

Georgia is now a swing state that Trump must win if he wants to return to the White House. Earlier this month, Trump campaigned there to appeal to voters in the Peach state. When he stayed on script, he was somewhat coherent. But then he strayed from his teleprompter. He blasted Georgia’s popular conservative Republic governor, Brian Kemp. “He is a bad guy. He’s a disloyal guy. And he’s a very average governor.” Then he described him with an adjective that he has used against other rivals: “Little Brian Kemp”. Feuding with a popular Republican does not help Trump at all. It is not that Trump has a poor memory. It is that he emotionally just can’t let go of the past.

Trump’s Claim that Replacing Biden with Harris is “Unconstitutional”

For the last four years, Trump has prepared to run against Joe Biden. Up until a month ago, the polls showed Trump with a lead against the current president. But then, Biden stepped aside, and Harris appeared at the top of the Democrat ticket. This knocked Trump off his plan. He hasn’t seemed to know how to attack Harris. Therefore, he has claimed that this change of candidates is “unconstitutional”. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Constitution does not indicate how political parties should select their candidates. Trump is lobbing complaints against the wall to see if any might stick.

Trump’s Claim that More than 100% of New Created Jobs have gone to Immigrants

Last Thursday, Trump held a “press event” in New Jersey. He tried to bring together two of his favorite criticisms of the Biden administration: the economy and immigration. He affirmed, “Virtually 100% of the net job creation in the last year has gone to migrants. You know that? Most of the job creation has gone to migrants. In fact, I’ve heard that substantially more than — beyond, actually beyond that number 100%. It’s a much higher number than that, but the government has not caught up with that yet.” Although Trump claims to have been a good businessman, he is not good with numbers. His job creation statement is a mathematical impossibility! You can’t have more jobs going to immigrants than the total jobs created! It is ridiculously impossible.

Two months ago, I wrote that Biden did not have the “mental acuity” to serve four more years as president. Today I write that Trump does not have the “emotional stability” to return to the presidency. As we approach the election in November, in addition to their policies, we need to evaluate the emotional and mental “fitness” of the candidates.

The Evangelical Pro-Life Movement: Its early history, its Biblical basis?, and its role in the upcoming election (Part 3)

The Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision back in 1973 essentially legalized abortions across the country, especially during the first two trimesters of a woman’s pregnancy. In the 1960s and 1970s, there was not much difference on abortion in the Republican and Democrat parties. There were many pro-choice and pro-life advocates in both parties. That changed in the 1980s beginning with the Reagan presidency. Republican presidential candidates promised, that if elected, they would appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe. Pro-lifers, especially evangelicals, became a major constituency of the Republican Party. In contrast, the Democrats became staunchly pro-choice. For over four decades abortion has been one of the most important political issues. Many people are “single-issue” voters and are, therefore, a “safe, solid voting block” for their respective parties. These “single-issue” voters seldom criticize their own party on other issues, even when criticism is warranted. In my opinion, these voters are naively allowing failed policies and character flaws to go unchecked.

During his presidency, Trump appointed three judges to the Supreme Court (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett). In their Senate hearings, they affirmed that they would accept Roe as settled legal precedent and, as a result, hardly anyone across the political landscape thought Roe would be overturned. Nevertheless, these judges broke their promises, and joined the other conservative justices in overturning Roe through the Dobbs decision in 2022. This action returned the abortion issue to every state. Since then, seven states have put abortion on the ballot. In each of these states, the pro-choice position has won, including in conservative “red” states like Kansas and Ohio. (Democrats affirm that their pro-choice position turned the expected Republican “red wave” into a “trickle” in the 2022 midterm elections.) In other places, state legislatures enacted laws regarding abortion access and/or restrictions (for example, no abortions after six weeks, or exceptions like rape, incest, or the life of the mother).

These actions have spurred political activism by Democrats and Republicans. Some politicians, from both sides, have made campaign promises that they would bring federal legislation to Congress (either abortion access or abortion restriction, respectively). There are so many hoops to go through, that a nationwide access or restriction bill is quite unlikely to be implemented. For example, it would need 60 votes in the Senate, and there are neither 60 pro-choice nor 60 pro-life senators.

Abortion will be voted on at the state level. In the upcoming elections in November, at least five states (including Nevada and Florida) have constitutional amendment proposals on the ballot. If passed, they would enshrine abortion rights into their state constitutions. In at least five additional states, including Arizona, similar proposals are in the pipeline and will probably make the ballot. It is likely that the pro-choice position will win in most of these states. Nevertheless, it is an open question to what extent this will help the Democrat presidential, senate, and congressional candidates in their particular races. This depends on the number of Republicans who are, in fact, pro-choice voters.

I encourage all my readers to be alert during this election season. Lies will be flying all around. Let’s use our best discerning skills. Vote well…vote wisely.

The Evangelical Pro-life Movement: Its early history, Its Biblical basis?, and its role in the upcoming election (Part 2)

Evangelicals claim that their main convictions on all issues are (and should be) shaped by the Bible. It is appropriate, therefore, to explore the most relevant Biblical passages regarding the value of humanity and in particular, abortion. These texts come from the Hebrew Scriptures which are shared by the three largest monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).

Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree that “Every human being is created in the image of God, and therefore, has immense value” (Genesis 1:26-27). Being created in God’s image is precisely the reason why people’s lives are to be protected from the threat of murder (Genesis 9:6). This foundational truth is repeated and emphasized in the Ten Commandments: “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13) and in numerous additional passages in the Hebrew, Christian, and Islamic Scriptures. Nevertheless, they are not limited to their religious communities. They have influenced contemporary legislation prohibiting murder in every country in the world.

Today, there is an almost universal consensus regarding basic human rights and against murder. There is no such agreement regarding abortion. When does a fetus acquire the basic legal right to life? Theologians and ethicists generally land at three possible moments: at conception, at viability (about the beginning of the third trimester), or at birth. Sadly, the Bible does not directly address the topic of the human rights of a fetus. Nevertheless, here are two Biblical texts that provide some insights: Psalm 139:13-15 and Exodus 21:22-23.

Psalm 139:13-15

¹³For you created my inmost being;
    you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
¹⁴I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    your works are wonderful,
    I know that full well.
¹⁵My frame was not hidden from you
    when I was made in the secret place,
    when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. (NIV=New International Version of the Bible)

This passage is the most cited by the Christian pro-life movement. The entire psalm emphasizes that God knows us very well. God is all knowing and omnipresent. God knew the psalmist (and us, by implication) when we were in our mother’s womb (verse 13). Pro-lifers conclude that the fetus, who is known by God, must have full legal rights. It is not quite so simple. Every verse needs to be interpreted in its context. This passage utilizes Hebrew parallelism, where a second phrase repeats and clarifies a first phrase. In the passage before us, “in the depths of the earth” (verse 15) clarifies that God knows us not merely when we were fetuses, but God also knows us from the creation of the world. This cannot mean that my individual human rights began at creation. The psalmist’s purpose was not to address the legal status of the fetus, but he wrote to emphasize the foreknowledge of God. We should respect his purpose and not force his words to mean something the psalmist did not intend.

Exodus 21:22-23

²²When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shallbe fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. ²³If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life. (RSV=Revised Standard Version of the Bible)

There are some diverse meanings of these two verses. The more accepted scenario is that there is fight between a couple of men. A bystanding pregnant woman is accidentally hurt. The result is that she miscarriages and her fetus dies, but there is no additional harm caused to her. The punishment is a fine to be determined by judges in discussion with the husband. If the woman were to die (verse 23), then capital punishment could be considered. In this scenario, the woman has full human legal rights, but the fetus does not.

A second scenario describes a situation where the woman gives birth prematurely, but the baby and the mother are both ok. Punishment would be a monetary fine. If there were additional harm to the woman (or to her baby), the penalty could be greater (a life for a life).

I wish there wasn’t so much ambiguity on this passage. The first scenario suggests that a fetus does not have the same legal status as a born person. In the second scenario, the fetus does not die, so little light is shed on the abortion debate. Where Scripture is not dogmatic, we should not be dogmatic. A bit of humility would be most welcome for this vital debate. I hope that pro-lifers would be more compassionate and that pro-choice advocates would be less flippant about abortions. We need respectful discussion on such a serious topic.

The Evangelical Pro-Life Movement: Its early history, its Biblical basis?, and its role in the upcoming election (Part 1)

In my posts this week, I will address the Evangelical Pro-Life Movement. Today I will look at its early history. In Part 2, I will analyze some pertinent Biblical passages and in Part 3 I will explore the role abortion politics might play in the upcoming election.

History – We all know that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision took place in 1973 and essentially legalized abortions during the first two trimesters all across the country. Prior to that, states had their own policies. In my state of Ohio which prohibited abortions, those women who wanted an abortion would usually go to New York. Although most evangelicals are today in the pro-life camp, that was not the situation in the 1960s and 1970s.

In 1968 the evangelical flagship magazine Christianity Today (CT) co-sponsored a conference with the Christian Medical Society to analyze the ethical aspects regarding abortion. The final resolution illustrates a lack of consensus. “Whether the performance of an induced abortion is sinful we are not agreed, but about the necessity of it and permissibility for it under certain circumstances we are in accord.”

Carl Henry, the founder and first editor of Christianity Today (and one of my professors at Trinity) stated, “a woman’s body is not the domain and property of others”. The second editor of CT was Harold Lindsell. He also took a somewhat pro-choice position. He affirmed, “if there are compelling psychiatric reasons from a Christian point of view, mercy and prudence may favor a therapeutic abortion.”

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is not only the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, it is also one of the most conservative. Therefore, a look at the history of its stance on abortion reveals some surprises. At their 1971 Convention, the SBC delegates passed a resolution calling for the national legalization of abortion. They reaffirmed this pro-choice position in their 1974 and 1976 conventions.

W.A. Criswell was the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas (the largest SBC congregation). Shortly after the Roe decision was announced, Criswell issued the following statement. “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person, and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family who later became a staunch anti-abortionist, admitted in 1973 that the Holy Scriptures did not address the issue of abortion and therefore it was acceptable for a sincere evangelical Christian to believe that “a developing embryo or fetus was not regarded as a full human being.”

Francis Schaeffer and other leaders of the Religious Right, tried to enlist Billy Graham in their antiabortion crusade in the late 1970s, but Graham, the most famous evangelical of the last century, turned them down. Graham affirmed, “I’m for morality, but morality goes beyond sex to human freedom and social justice…. Evangelists cannot be closely identified with any particular party or person. We have to stand in the middle to preach to all people, right and left.” (I believe that his son, Franklin Graham, should have listened to his father’s words of wisdom).

The quotes mentioned above should not be interpreted as necessarily justifying either a pro-choice or a pro-life position. Here they illustrate that followers of Jesus can and do disagree on important issues, including abortion. In Part 2, we will explore the most pertinent Biblical passages.

Trump is Unbelievable! (Part 5) On abortion, choose which Trump you want to believe.

Former president Donald Trump has not had a consistent position regarding abortion. So, what is his position? It depends on the year and the context. In his earlier years as a real estate mogul, he had adopted a pro-choice position on abortion, although as a salesman, he didn’t want to turn off potential clients who might have a pro-life posture. Therefore, he waffled. Here is what he said back in October 1996 in an interview with Meet the Press

Quote #1 – “I’m very pro-choice. I hate the concept of abortion. But still—I just believe in choice.”

As Trump began to become a politician, especially within the Republican Party, he was forced to work on his abortion stance. Since Reagan, every Republican presidential candidate has promised to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade. For four decades, the Republican National Platform contained a plank advocating for a national ban on abortion. Trump, therefore, “evolved” and became pro-life (apparently for political reasons more than moral convictions). He alternated between a pro-life hardline position (including criminal punishment for a woman who had an abortion) and trying to appease both sides in this statement about Planned Parenthood in 2016.

Quote #2 – “Planned Parenthood has done very good work for millions of women, but we’re not going to allow and we’re not going to fund, as long as you have abortions going on at Planned Parenthood. We understand that, and I’ve said it loud and clear.”

During his presidency, Trump appointed three conservative justices (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett) to the Supreme Court. In June 2022, they joined the other three conservative justices and overturned Roe with their Dobbs decision. Trump took credit for this change. Some state legislatures have enacted strict restrictions on abortions. In several states (Kansas, Ohio, etc.) abortion has been on the ballot, and in every election, the pro-choice position has won. Noting that his stance which worked in his favor in 2016 but contributed to Republican losses in the 2022 midterms, Trump blamed others.

Quote #3 – “It wasn’t my fault that the Republicans didn’t live up to expectations in the midterms. It was the ‘abortion issue,’ poorly handled by many Republicans, especially those that firmly insisted on no exceptions, even in the case of rape, incest, or life of the mother, that lost large numbers of voters.”

Given that it has now become an electoral liability, Trump has moved away from a national abortion ban. Most recently, he has maneuvered the Republicans to change their platform from a national abortion ban to a position of letting the states decide. Many pro-lifers are not very happy with this change, but will probably still vote for Republicans or not vote at all.

Trump has not been known as a person with strong ethical convictions. What will be his position on abortion tomorrow? He will probably stick a figure in the air and see how the political winds are blowing.

Harris is the Democrat nominee for president. Who will be her running mate?

I interrupt my series on “the Unbelievable Trump” to take a first glance at Kamala Harris’ next important decision. On Sunday afternoon, Biden announced that he was no longer running for the presidency in the November elections. He then announced he was endorsing his Vice-President, Kamala Harris, to run for president. Somewhat surprisingly, all her potential rivals (Newsome, Whitmer, Buttigieg) also endorsed her and she has had a quite smooth beginning to her campaign. Harris raised over 84 million dollars in the first twenty-four hours, with 62% from new donors. She has recruited over 74,000 new volunteers for her campaign. She has obtained the support of well over half of the delegates to the Democratic Convention in Chicago next month, so for all practical purposes, she is the nominee.

Her next important decision is to choose a running mate. The selection process itself could be a valuable opportunity for Harris to (re) introduce herself to the electorate. Usually, a Vice-President is selected to bring “balance” to the ticket: perhaps regional or ideological balance, someone with strengths that neutralize the weaknesses of the presidential candidate, or perhaps someone from a battleground state. Legally, this person cannot be from the same state as the presidential nominee, thus excluding Newsome. I don’t think the U.S. is ready to have two women on the ticket, so Whitmer or another capable woman will probably not be selected. Here are the top four candidates….in my not so humble opinion.

Josh Shapiro is the popular governor of Pennsylvania. He defeated a Trump endorsed candidate in the governor race two years ago in a landslide. He is considered “centrist-left” for his support of both abortion and school vouchers. He would probably enable the Democratic ticket to counter the GOP arguments that Harris is too liberal. Shapiro’s appeal would probably be enough to keep “must-win” Pennsylvania in the Democrat column.

Mark Kelly is a popular senator from Arizona. He is a former NASA astronaut and a Navy veteran. Given that Republicans attack Democrats on immigration policies, Kelly would be helpful on this issue. He has also criticized Biden’s immigration policies, but he has offered strong, wise suggestions for immigration reform. His wife, Gabby Giffords, was a Representative in the U.S. Congress and then became a gun-control activist after she survived being shot in 2011. She would be a strong asset in the campaign. Mark Kelly on the ticket would probably keep battleground Arizona on the Democrat side.

Probably the candidate that Harris knows best is Roy Cooper, the Democrat governor of the red state of North Carolina. Their paths frequently crossed when they served as their state’s Attorney General. He is appreciated for his pragmatism. If he were her running mate, it is an open question whether North Carolina and its electors would come into the Democrat column in November.

Kentucky’s governor, Andy Beshear, is an interesting option. In 2020, Trump won Kentucky by 26 percentage points. Nevertheless, Beshear has been elected governor of the “Blue Grass” state… twice! He is a deacon in his church and Is well regarded for his compassion and for his skill in handling Covid and other natural disasters. In his previous races, he won a considerable portion of the evangelical vote, and perhaps earn votes from one of Trump’s main constituencies.

Who will Harris select? Watch and see!

Trump is Unbelievable! (Part 4) The facts don’t support his claims about the 2020 election being stolen

For the last four years, former president Trump has repeatedly claimed that the 2020 election was stolen. He claimed that he actually won the election, but irregularities in key battleground states cheated him out of his victory. In addition, he has required that Republicans who want his endorsement in state elections must agree with him, that is, they must also become “election deniers”. The official results revealed that Biden won the electoral college 306 to Trump’s 232 electors. Biden won the crucial battleground states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Arizona.

Fact #1 – As was his legal right, Trump appealed the election results in courts across the country. Frequently, these courts were headed up by judges that Trump himself had appointed. Trump lost every appeal!

Fact #2 – When he was president, Trump picked William Barr to be his Attorney General. Throughout his presidency Barr consistently favored Trump in every legal decision. Nevertheless, Barr did not agree with Trump about the 2020 election results. After investigating the results in the key states, Barr concluded, “We have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”

Fact #3 – The most important example comes from the state of Georgia. Although usually a Republican state, elections have been more competitive in the last decade. The Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, the official in charge of overseeing the election, (and a conservative Republican with an impeccable reputation) announced that Biden won the election in Georgia. Republicans demanded a recount. Raffensperger implemented a hand recount/audit of the 5 million votes that were cast, and the recount confirmed that Biden had won. On January 2, 2021, Trump telephoned Raffensperger and pressured him to overturn the election. Trump begged, “I just want to find 11,780 votes.” Not only did Raffensperger refused to become complicit in Trump’s crime, he had taped the phone call as evidence. The transcript of the phone call as well as the tape itself are available online for everyone to see and hear.

The 2020 election was not stolen by the Democrats. Trump’s phone call demonstrates that, in fact, Trump tried to steal the election, but was caught red-handed.

Dear MAGA readers, if you value the truth, do not spread Trump’s lie about a stolen election. Have the courage and integrity to face the facts. Trump lost.

Trump is Unbelievable! (Part 3) The facts won’t allow us to believe his comments about crime

President Biden’s announcement yesterday that he will no longer run for re-election and his endorsement of Kamala Harris is rightfully shaking up the race for the White House. I will analyze this historical event later this week. Meanwhile, I will continue my series of the unbelievable Trump.

Crime – On my blog last week, I brought facts to bear on former president Trump’s promises on the border and the budget. Today, let’s compare Trump’s affirmations about violent crime in the United States with the facts. Trump, like most opposition candidates, describes the contemporary situation in the worst possible ways. He stated that the country is “awash in bloodshed and violent crime” and that “our crime rate is going up while crime statistics all over the world are going down”. According to Trump, violent crime has increased under the Biden administration, and this is due to Biden’s “failed” policies. The truth is quite different.

Fact #1 – Violent crime actually increased during Trump’s administration and has decreased during Biden’s. In fact, the largest recent annual increase in the murder rate took place in 2020 (Trump’s last year in office, not under Biden’s watch). In that year, murders rose by almost 30% and assaults by more than 10% (Source: FBI). During the first two years of Biden’s presidency, murders fell by 7%, and in 2023 by 13%, now approaching pre-Covid levels.

Immigrants and Crime – It is a sad fact of our national history that immigrants have frequently been scapegoated, that is, blamed for the ills of society that they did not commit. This has happened to the Irish, the Italians, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Chinese, and many other immigrants. It was easy for white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants to blame newcomers to our country, especially if they were people of color or if they practiced a different religion.

Trump has continued this practice of scapegoating. He began his first campaign in 2015 claiming, “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best…. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” Trump has continued his anti-immigrant rants for over nine years. And now, he bolsters his lies about increased crime, by accusing foreign governments of emptying their jails and insane asylums and sending these “bad apples” to our southern border. Many MAGA supporters believe these lies, but they shouldn’t.

Fact #2 – Foreign born immigrants have a much lower crime rate than U.S. citizens. There is parallel data such as when undocumented immigration plummeted in 2020, murders rose by 30%. Nevertheless, there are numerous studies that back up my affirmation. I refer my readers to the book “Immigration and Crime: Taking Stock” by Kubrin and Ousey for an analysis of these studies. Common sense must also be considered. Why would undocumented immigrants, after risking their lives to travel to and cross over the border and put down roots in a new country, then expose their families and themselves to deportation, by committing violent crime?

As always, I encourage all my readers, especially my MAGA friends, to check out these figures for themselves to see if Trump is telling the truth or lying. In tomorrow’s post, I will shine the light on Trump’s ad nauseum claim that the 2020 election was stolen.

Trump is Unbelievable! (Part 2) The facts won’t allow us to believe his promises about the budget

In my post yesterday, I addressed Trump’s failed attempt to resolve the “border crisis”. In his 2016 presidential campaign, he promised to build a wall along the 2000-mile U.S. border with Mexico. In fact, he only constructed 52 miles of new wall.

Today I will shine the light on his grandiose claims for the U.S. economy. He affirmed that during his presidency (2017-2021), our country’s economy was the most successful in the history of the world. He promised that during a second term, he would unleash the economy and it would grow even faster. He promised to cut taxes for the wealthy, just like he did in his first term. Although he has made these fantastic, unbelievable affirmations, he has conveniently chosen to omit talking about the budget. What happened to our national budget and our national debt during Trump’s presidency? What happens when you cut your income (via tax breaks for the rich) and continue to spend like a drunken sailor? Here is the sad truth.

Fact #1 – The national debt increased more under Trump than in any other four-year presidential term (Source – The U.S. Department of the Treasury). The debt under Trump increased by 8.18 trillion dollars (Trillion with a T). By comparison, let’s look at the debt increase under the three previous presidencies. These presidents each served two terms for a total of 8 years. Therefore, a four-year average needs to be calculated for comparison purposes.

Bill Clinton (1993-2001) total increase 1.4 trillion dollars. Four-year average 0.7 trillion dollars.

George W. Bush (2001-2009) total increase 6.1 trillion dollars. Four-year average 3.05 trillion dollars.

Barack Obama (2009-2017) total increase 8.34 trillion dollars. Four-year average 4.17 trillion dollars.

Joe Biden (2021 to the present) total increase 6.17 trillion dollars. Extrapolating to four years would lead to about 7.2 trillion dollars. Increases in our debt have happened under both Republican and Democrat administrations. None have been especially good at living within a budget. All have claimed extenuating circumstances (wars, Covid, etc.).

Fact #2 – Trump’s businesses have not generally been successful. Trump University failed and was a disaster. His real estate deals were kept afloat by overestimating properties’ worth to obtain loans and underestimating their value for tax purposes. As a result of this tax evasion, Trump is now barred from doing business in New York.

I invite my readers to check out these figures.

In my post on Monday, I will continue my series on the unbelievable Trump. I will analyze Trump’s affirmations about crime in the United States, especially about crimes allegedly committed by undocumented immigrants.

Trump is Unbelievable! The facts won’t allow us to believe his promises about the border and the budget

Biden and Trump both have records to run on… or to hide from. God has given each of us a brain and a conscience to evaluate their actions as a former or current president. I will analyze Biden’s record in upcoming posts, but in my writings today and tomorrow, I will address Trump’s promises and practice in two areas: the Border and the Budget.

The Border

Ever since his escalator descent when he began his first presidential campaign in 2015, the southern border has been one of Trump’s principal issues. A major thrust of his solution to the “immigration crisis” was his promise to build a wall along the two-thousand-mile border between Mexico and the United States. In fact, the phrase “Build the wall… Build the wall” became the standard chant at MAGA rallies. Last night, Trump promised that he would complete the wall, although he had already “finished most of it”.

Fact # 1 – During his previous four-year presidential administration, Trump built a whopping 52 miles of new wall (according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection report). He had the full authority of the White House and a Republican controlled Congress, yet he only constructed fifty-two miles of new wall. We should evaluate people, and especially presidential candidates, by their “fruits”, that is, by their actions (or in this case, inaction). Given this fact, it is incredible that anyone would believe Trump’s words about the border.

Fact # 2 – Earlier this year, the conservative Republican Senator James Lankford was the main author of a tough immigration bill in the Senate. It included everything that Republicans wanted in immigration legislation. Republicans were in favor of the bill… until they weren’t. What happened? Trump urged Republican officials to vote against the legislation. Trump did not want to solve the “immigration crisis”; he wanted the crisis to continue as a political issue for his campaign. This was pure hypocrisy.

In my post tomorrow, I will analyze Trump’s promises about the budget and the national debt. Meanwhile, seek the truth, follow the truth, live the truth. Do not believe lies, whoever they come from.