Election Countdown & The Future Of American Freedom & Morality

Prov. 12:7
The wicked are overthrown and are no more, but the house of the righteous will stand.

The 2016 Presidential election season is drawing to a close. In what has arguably been a hotly contested and probably the most contentious campaign in American history, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have outlined their positions which in many areas are in sharp contrast to one another. Of course, all of this has confused many who carry the same bible causing some to pit themselves against one another for one reason or another.

One thing is for sure, the candidates themselves both have serious issues. Hillary has email issues and a low value of confidence or trust among most non-democrats. Even among many democrats, Hillary is simply unable to connect and untrustworthy. On the other hand, Trump has issues such as his characterizations of women, immigrants and his continued statements of the election being rigged which has caused many to distance themselves from him. The career politician is enraged because Trump is not a career politician and has seemed to amass a great deal of support without their assistance, support or political pandering. 

Voting "For" Or "Against"?

With all the confusion, many individuals have shrank away from the personality of the candidates. With neither personality being particularly appealing, some have taken the thought that they are not voting "for" any particular candidate, but voting "against" ideals and ideologies that are offensive and unsupportable. In other words, some are now looking to vote on the issues that concern them as opposed to voting for the "person" that they like or that appeals to their idea of being Presidential.   

Issues at odds:

Immigration & Immigration Reform...Republican Donald Trump has outlined an America that will do more than ever to secure it's boarders. He has even promised to build a wall that Mexico will "reimburse" America for. At the same time ratchet up pressure on individuals from foreign countries hostile to America and opposed to American interests. In a controversial plan, Donald has said that immigrants, in the country now illegally, could suffer deportation while others could come under greater scrutiny simply because of where they came from. Democrat Hilary Clinton has proposed a version of immigration reform which includes a "path to citizenship" which is tantamount to the Democratic ideal of amnesty, granting immediate and unquestioned citizenship to immigrants already in the country whether here legally or not. Amnesty is something that not even the Supreme Court has upheld in recent times and is not likely to pass until another Supreme Court Justice is appointed. 

Religious Freedom... Probably the most fundamental part of this election is religious freedom and what it means to be free religiously. Some of what this comes down to is who's bathroom do you believe men and women should be allowed to enter in public, and do you want to take rights away from a woman and give them to a man born a man by gender? In addition, do you believe that the State should impose state values on religious organizations and subdue their practices effectively forcing the churches to operate according to State values? 

Democrat Hillary Clinton claims to value religion and religious freedom as a deep part of the American experience. However, she has repeatedly said that she believes that religious values and beliefs are not static, but changeable to cultural values and therefore should be flexible in accommodating values that she and others in her camp believe are better suited to be called American values. recently, When speaking of Christians and Christian values as they oppose LGBT rights, she spoke of Christians (not merely Trump supporters) as "deplorable" and "irredeemable". While the media spun the commentary to infer that she was simply be speaking of "Trump supporters, the comments were actually in reference to committed Christians living out their faith, holding to the biblical mandate that same gender relationships are morally unacceptable.

Recognizing the nature of her commentary, Breitbart reported:

"So what kind of “religious liberty” does Clinton and the Obama administration believe is acceptable? As conservative giant Ken Blackwell wrote this week in an article for The Hillpicked up by the Drudge Report, during his time in Latin America, Clinton’s running mate Tim Kaine became a zealous advocate of “liberation theology,” which is “a radical, Marxist-based ideology at odds with the Church, the pope, and the United States, but supportive of (and supported by) the Soviet Union.”

So theology that calls for government-run socialized healthcare or government redistribution of wealth is okay, but theology that adheres to millennia-old Christian teachings on human life, other social issues, and religious liberty are “deplorable,” so much so that those who hold such views are “irredeemable” in the eyes of a woman who wants to become the most powerful person in the world. That was why in 2015 she said in a speech that orthodox Christian views on these issues “have to be changed.” [ARTICLE HERE]

It seems that Hillary has gone to great lengths to associate a Trump candidacy with Russia and even Vladimir Putin, while minimizing her acceptance of Marxism which is a solidly communist ideal and value. Even the Pope, in his zeal to enter the Presidential race, sold out the Catholics to the Marxist ideal and religious freedom value.

While Donald Trump, who was not in tune with religious issues and value arguments at the beginning of his campaign, adopts the Republican platform of religious freedom which not only includes religious right of worship but is also inclusive of carrying out religious values within the public square and in all that one does. Even though Donald has been victim of an impingement upon religious freedom and personal privacy, by saying that he would allow men to enter women's bathrooms in his Trump Tower, based on gender identity, rather than birth identity, his acceptance of such ideas appears to be a business decision rather a closely held view of religious freedoms. While Hillary's acceptance of limited and restricted religious freedoms, and no personal freedom (Marxism) when gender identity is a factor, is staunchly aligned with the DNC policy of accepting and promoting the LGBT agenda and even communism itself. In fact, advocates of the DNC's position consistently call traditional values discrimination and bigotry. Hillary's version of suspended religious freedom, is limited to religious worship, and not the bearing out of one values within the public square.  Hillary's views are clear, and encourage a rolling back of religious freedom, demanding change in every proposed religious freedom extending to healthcare, the workplace, employment, contraception, childbirth and other areas. Under Hillary's vision, a stand for religion is bigotry and discrimination. To teach values contrary to the state and what the state accepts as law or right, could be un-American and subject to penalty. This is called fascism and is the exact policy that Hillary embraces and has fought for for years. I strongly believe that the Hillary's version of Religious freedom is anything but American. Unfortunately, she is hardly subject to change in this area.

So the question is can ANY committed Christian vote FOR a Clinton Presidency knowing the implications of her views and how they will be played out in the executive branch of government. 

Abortion...Donald Trump has appeared to align himself with the Republican party line of anti- abortionist rhetoric, even to the point of promising a defunding Planned Parenthood which is the leading organization in the US providing abortion services or referrals for abortions to women under the guise of "women's health services". For the Black community abortion is an issue of special importance, as the Black community has disproportionately been target with abortion services, especially the Planned Parenthood organization, some say to the tune of aborting over 13 million children since 1972. In fact, abortion has become so popular that it is and has often been marketed as a contraceptive alternative especially to low income Blacks and minorities. On the contrary, Hillary has seemingly doubled-down on the funding of Planned Parenthood (as she believes that this is one of those religious views that must change) promising that a woman's right of choice overrides any right of the unborn. Her view is in step with the 1972 Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision that declared than an unborn child did not have 14th Amendment rights, and therefore no constitutional protections. It is really quite amazing that someone that claims to be a champion of the rights of women and those who are underserved, is in abject disregard that a fetus is a human and therefore deserving of a right to life. Nonetheless, Hillary's position is an extension of the DNC's position and President Obama, who also sought to expand abortion even late into the 3rd tri-mester of pregnancy even up until the point of partial birth, ( a procedure that Democrat President Bill Clinton endorsed as well) which allows a child to be killed as long as his/her head remains within the womb. In essence, babies have no rights, little value and at the end of the day it's all about dollars and funding. Now which position sounds more Presidential? 

The War On Terrorism...Hillary clearly believes that doing what we are doing now will defeat terrorists as long as we continue to employ and recruit Muslim regimes to secure their own countries and fight for their own freedom. The problem is that as this writing is being published, what we are doing now is not working. Look at Mosul for example...under the plan that the President outlined, ISIS was expanding in the Mid-East. What seemed to be a small, extremist group, nearly doubled in size and sophistication. The Mid-East required an adequate response. A response much better than what we had been given by the Obama administration and a State department led by Hillary. Therefore, and as a result we are currently sending more and more soldiers back to war to engage the terrorist enemy when President Obama had committed no American troops back in the military venue or theater.  Donald, on the other hand makes no bones about it...he has said that the military must be ramped up to a level that is able to unequivocally defeat ISIS and terrorists threats in a hands-down manner. In other words, the level of troops or resources to defeat ISIS, under a Trump regime, is not nor has ever been defined. If we think that we will be out of the business of war, under Trump or Clinton, that is an illusion.

Foreign Trade...One of the problems with the American economy is our weak or inept foreign trade deals. Many have called our current agreements a disaster, and if we look at them, we must be honest and question what the motivations were to get into some of these deals that restrict us, while expanding the interest of others. The empty factories and closed businesses could be the best argument that the deals were bad and devestating to the American economy. It is here that seemingly both political parties agree, but with differing opinions on how to bring about a fix. While we must remember that both Republicans and Democrats agreed to these deals, that it is the republican platform reaching out with the most radical approach to the solution...AMERICA FIRST!...While that chant may not resonate with all Democrats who worry about the world's response to such sentiment, it certainly resonates with the American public, both union and factory workers who were put out of business by agreements such as NAFTA. Trump has promised to scrap the trade agreements and impliment a system of tariffs, while Clinton, realizing the system is bad, seems to seek to renegotiate the agreements and penalize companies seeking to leave the country to take advantage of deals left open by the agreements. (Remember NAFTA was signed into law under Republican George Bush)

The Economy...One can hardly separate the economy from foreign trade but we will note that while both candidates promise that their plans will improve the economy, we are yet left with the same and similar ideas that have existed for years, both failing and succeeding to some degree. Though President Obama inherited a devastated economy, the national debt of the United States has nearly doubled since he has been in office. In response and as a fix to our ills, Hillary makes war on her own social class, (the wealthy) promising more taxes from the rich elite, to whom Donald promises tax cuts and a trickle-down effect from the elite to the rank and file, similar to Reagan's economic plan. Hillary's version of economic fairness is a throw-back of Bernie Sanders style socialism where the wealth of the wealthy is seized through complex law and requirements to fund the needs of the masses and in particularly the working poor. Teasers such as "free education" is highlighted as a benefit to the poor, with no or little regard to who is actually going to pay for it (because it is NOT free) The fundamental problem is that this whole approach assumes that the poor can never get wealth by any other means than taking it from the wealthy and that the wealthy should be penalized in some fashion for success and wealth even if it is inherited wealth. In the effort of the Democrat to speak against classism, they actually CREATE and promote classism and class dissent through their efforts and rhetoric. This is similar to what republicans did under Reagan with the implementation of stricter community policing and the so called "war on drugs" which was more tantamount to a war on classes of individuals more than the drugs themselves. 

The Supreme Court...While philosophies on the use and purpose of the Supreme Court is evidently and obviously different on both sides of this campaign, this is probably one of the most critical elements of the election. Many say that the next President may appoint up to 3 Justices over his/her term. Therefore, clear guidance and a theory and view of legal precedence is in order. Why? With the passing of Antonin Scalia, who was, by all accounts, a conservative Justice, the court is currently split evenly between alleged liberals (who supposedly favor democratic arguments) and conservatives (who supposedly favor republican ideals and values) What is certain is that Hillary believes that Supreme Court Justices should be able to legislate from the bench, creating law as opposed to merely examining the constitutionality of certain legislation and questions. Therefore, under Hillary's vision the Supreme Court there would be a law making body, responsible for telling all citizens what the law is after it has reviewed a case. Whereas under a Republican vision,  the Supreme Court is a body entrusted to protect the constitutional rights of citizens. These are two totally different  philosophical approaches to the bench and legislative law in America, and will have an effect on American jurisprudence and values for generations to come, especially due to the life-time appointments of the justices.  

Conclusion

Yes, there is enough fanfare for everyone. Emails, alleged sexual misconduct,potential jail time,  threat of suit...There is more than enough to choke a horse. However, for the next 4 years we will either be bound on a worse path of values reduction than what we have seen under an Obama Presidency or we will put the brakes on some issues in an attempt to reverse what many see as a moral decline and a reversion to ideals that will not build, but that will ultimately destroy us as a people. Certainly, neither candidate will destroy or build anything over night, but each one will have an impact that will have a long lasting effect upon the plight of our nation. 

While Trump's in your face style may be offensive to some, and others claim that he is a racist, one must ask if the moral setting that Americans find themselves in currently is worth going unchecked another 4 years.

Remember, it was a Clinton State Department that hailed proliferating the homosexual agenda all over the world when she left office. She was in part responsible not for gay rights, but for gay preference that we are witnessing across the country. It is Christians and biblical values that are being put to open shame. Christians are being told that they are bigots and that they are out of step with even being American and in some cases "patriotic" simply because they accept the values upon which our nation was founded.

It is at that juncture that personalities mean nothing...only TRUTH matters in the end. It is TRUTH that builds and TRUTH that strengthens. The LIES that we have been told this election cycle are sad. Both democratic and republican lies STINK...However, the truth is that we need a reversion to traditional moral values and this false sense of a "new morality" must be challenged. What we will find is that doing the right thing, the biblical thing, will always stand and come out on top, building a nation. 

Prov. 24:3-4 ~ 3-Through wisdom is an house builded; and by understanding it is established: 4-And by knowledge shall the chambers be filled with all precious and pleasant riches.

I am Pastor Harvey Burnett and I approved this message...in Jesus name! Amen!!!

Blessed!