Last Night’s Debate: Vance Won on Style, Lost on Truth

Last night’s debate between the vice-presidential candidates JD Vance and Tim Walz was generally respectful, almost downright friendly. Vance came across as polished and spoke a lot of content. He partly improved his unfavorable reputation on the campaign trail where, in addition to many other absurd comments, he has falsely accused Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio of eating cats and dogs. Nevertheless, he lost the debate on credibility because he told numerous lies and refused to answer several tough questions. Here are some of the most important:

When he was asked about what the Trump/Vance administration would do about Obamacare (ACA- Affordable Care Act), Vance falsely affirmed that during his presidency Trump had “saved” Obamacare from crashing under its own weight. That is a lie. Trump tried to kill the ACA, but Senator John McCain blocked Trump in the Senate. In fact, Obamacare has increased in popularity over the years and more citizens are covered by Obamacare than ever before.
Given the devastation caused by Hurricane Helene, Vance was asked whether global warming/climate change was a “hoax” as Trump has frequently claimed. Vance would not answer the question directly, although he said climate change was “weird science”. He brazenly lied about the United States being one of the cleanest economies in the world. In fact, the U.S.A. is the third dirtiest economy, after China and India.
Vance continued Trump’s claims that immigrants were the major cause for our increasing crime rates. This is a lie on two counts. First, major crime (murder, robbery, violence) rates have gone down over the last two years. Secondly, study after study have repeatedly shown that immigrants in the United States have lower crime rates that nationals. Scapegoating immigrants without credible evidence to back it up has been a shameful practice in our history… and continues to our times.
Vance argued that our economy during Trump’s presidency was the best in the world. He conveniently omitted that Trump increased our national debt by more than any previous four-year administration. When pressed on the issue, Vance refused to answer the question.
The most important moment in the debate occurred near the end. Walz asked Vance if he acknowledges that, in fact, Trump lost the 2020 election. Vance refused to answer the question. He responded, “I want to concentrate on the future.”

Both candidates (and all humans, for that matter) have their flaws. Both have told lies, big and small. But lies seem to roll off the lips of Vance quite easily. Truth still matters and can still set us free.

What to Watch for in the Great Debate: Trump and Harris on the Economy

The great debate takes place tonight. What should we look for? Among the many important issues, I suggest we pay close attention to the economy.

Trump, of course, has a record to run on. How successful was our economy during his four-year administration as president (2017-2021)? Although he claims it was the “greatest the world has ever seen”, the facts tell a different story. During his presidency, the national debt increased by $7.8 trillion dollars (U.S. Treasury Department). This was the largest debt increase in a four-year presidential term in our country’s history! (Caveat: The debt rose $9.1 trillion under Obama, but that occurred over his eight years as president, in contrast with Trump’s four years.) Trump’s large deficit was mostly due to his huge tax cuts for the benefit of the wealthy citizens in our midst. He claimed that tax revenue would show an amazing growth due to a boom in the economy. Of course, he was wrong. The debt increase was similar to indulgent parents who buy their children expensive gifts…and buy them with a credit card. Sooner or later, someone has to pay. In this case, it is the U.S. taxpayer.

If this truth is acknowledged, it is difficult to understand why sane voters would trust Trump on the economy. Let’s look at tariffs. Trump has promised, “We will become a tariff nation”. Tariffs are usually applied on products from foreign nations in order to financially punish those countries, by raising prices and, therefore, reducing sales of those products. Trump has claimed that these tariffs will not increase inflation for U.S. consumers. This is illogical! If retail companies in the United States import products that have higher prices due to tariffs, they will pass on that increase to consumers. Even the editorial board of the conservative Wall Street Journal acknowledges this truth: Higher tariffs, by definition, lead to higher inflation.

Where does Vice-President Harris stand on the economy? Usually sitting vice-presidents are not held accountable for the successes and/or failures of the president. A question arises. Tonight will she “own” the Biden-Harris economy? On the one hand, coming out of the Covid pandemic, the U.S. economy is the “envy” of all the major capitalist nations when evaluated on criteria of jobs, inflation, GDP, etc. On the other hand, many middle-class people don’t “feel” good about their family finances. Housing costs are up. Gasoline prices are up. Grocery prices are up around 22% over the last couple of years. Harris needs to enact policies that will offer relief for the middle class. She has promised that first-time home buyers will be able to obtain up to a $25,000 tax credit for that purchase. This is a very popular policy, especially with undecided younger voters. But how will she pay for this policy? Will she, like Trump, increase the national debt? She says that she will pay for her policies, by increasing taxes on the wealthy. Most middle-class people won’t pay even a penny more in income taxes. I would like to see some clear figures tonight to back up her promises.

In a previous presidential race, the phrase “It’s the economy, stupid” became popular. Economic issues determine elections. Who do I trust with our economy? It is not Trump.

Dear Donald and Kamala, You can Run (for President), but You cannot Hide (from Our Questions)

Dear Donald and Kamala,

The conventions are over and you are your respective party’s nominee for president. Nevertheless, many important questions remain unanswered. I am not a member of the “press”, but I will press each of you with a significant question that my fellow citizens and I want answered.

Donald, what are your positions regarding the issues raised in Project 2025? (Project 2025 is a 922 page strategy document published by the Heritage Foundation and includes many conservative authors who served in your previous administration.) On the one hand, I believe you when you admit that you have not read such a lengthy volume. On the other hand, you are familiar enough with its contents to acknowledge that you think some of its positions are too “extreme” and that you do not agree with them. It would help voters to know your positions on the following recommendations:

Project 2025 recommends cutting Medicare and Medicaid. Do you agree?
It suggests eliminating the Department of Education. If elected, would you eliminate this Department?
It supports enforcing the Comstock Act which prosecutes those who send or receive contraception products. Are you in favor of the Comstock Act?

Kamala, you have made economic promises that would benefit the middle class. For example, you want to make home ownership more affordable, which is a lofty goal. To achieve this, you propose offering a credit of up to $25,000 for first-time home buyers. You also promise to increase the child tax credit (which enjoys broad bipartisan support). Nevertheless, these economic benefits must be paid for. You claim that you can raise enough revenue to pay for these programs by raising taxes on the very rich, those who have an annual income of over $400,000. The wealthy citizens in our country are infamous for being able to avoid paying their tax obligations. They hire expert lawyers who find numerous “loopholes” in our tax system. In fact, they pay a lower percentage of their income than the majority of middle-class citizens. So, Kamala, what would you do, if tax revenues do not meet expectations? Would you renege on your economic promises, or would you increase the national debt? (Trump increased the national debt more in his four-year presidency than any previous four-year administration). Why should we believe that you would not increase the debt?

Donald and Kamala, earn our votes by answering these questions.

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 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 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 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.

Which J. D. Vance should we Believe? The Author of Hillbilly Elegy or the Republican Vice-President Nominee?

Several years ago, I belonged to a reading club. Our group read J. D. Vance’s famous little book Hillbilly Elegy which came out in 2016. It was an excellent book! Vance compelling told his family’s story against the backdrop of people from Kentucky (my dad’s home state) who, for economic reasons, migrated to Ohio (where I was born and raised). His book was intensely personal and factually accurate.

At that time, he also made several sharp criticisms of Donald Trump who was running for president. Given Trump’s comments about immigrants who came from “sh.thole” countries, Vance correctly denounced Trump as a racist. Given Trump’s daily and dangerous lies, Vance said he was “unfit” for office. Vance affirmed, “I am a never-Trump guy” and “I never liked him”.

Somewhere along the way, Vance had a “political conversion”. He retracted all of his criticisms of Trump. Without a shred of credible evidence, he seconded Trump’s claim of a stolen 2020 election. (Remember, Trump appealed to dozens of courts, as was his right, but lost every appeal, even with judges that he had appointed). Vance has changed his positions to match Trump’s on all major issues (the border, Ukraine, abortion, etc.). For Vance’s newly discovered support of Trump, Donald supported him in the 2022 Senate race in Ohio which Vance won. Vance is now Trump’s VP nominee.

I believe that people can, and should, change their minds and their positions when the factual evidence compels them to do so. That is why I write these posts on my blog. Nevertheless, our changes should always be towards greater truth, not towards greater falsehoods. I fear Vance’s changes have been made due to his political ambitions.

So, who should we believe? The younger Vance who wrote and spoke with integrity and with a concern for truthfulness, or the more recent nominee who peddles “stolen elections” due to his personal and political ambition? I prefer the earlier, more honest version.

The Supreme Court and Total Audacity

The Supreme Court and Total Immunity

When Donald Trump made his claim for the total immunity of presidents, I thought it was an outrageous attempt by a guilty, out-of-touch liar making a last-ditch effort to avoid serious criminal convictions in the courts of Georgia, D.C., and Florida. I still believe that. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s ruling last Monday was even more outrageous. It essentially declared that all U.S. presidents are above the law, transforming the presidency into a monarchy.

SCOTUS tried to make a distinction between official, governmental acts (for which the president would be immune) and private, personal actions (for which the president could be criminally liable). At a superficial level, this sounds reasonable, but it is fraught with problems. Almost any action, if it involves any part of the governmental apparatus, can be declared official and, therefore, provide grounds for immunity.

Weaponizing the Federal Government – In the last decade, both Republicans and Democrats have accused the other side of utilizing the instruments of the government (The Department of Justice, the IRS, etc.) to take down political opponents. The prosecution of Hunter Biden and the current charges against Trump are examples of this alleged weaponization. Nevertheless, under the new SCOTUS ruling, if a sitting president gave the order to the DOJ, that act could be an official governmental action and, therefore, the president would be immune.

Trump – Applying the SCOTUS ruling to the cases against Trump, he would probably be declared immune from the charges leveled against him for his actions/inactions regarding the insurrection of January 6, 2021. He could be declared immune from charges for the mishandling of secret government documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida. He would probably be immune from the charge of overturning the election results (eg. phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger) and so on.

Historical Precedent – This SCOTUS ruling goes against all examples in our U.S. history. The founders of our country and the signers of our Constitution had just fought a long war to break free from the “total immunity” of a king. They gave no hint that a president would be “above the law”. They knew that power can lead to corruption and that absolute power “corrupts absolutely”, and therefore they put restrictions and limits on the presidency. Former president Nixon would be provided immunity for his Watergate crime under this ruling.

Crazy Audacity – Trump made another crazy claim. He stated that he made his appeal to the Supreme Court not merely for his own protection, but also to protect Obama and Biden from criminal prosecution. It is tragic when people believe such self-serving lies. No president is above the law. Not Obama. Not Biden. Not Trump.