Why I, as a Christian Woman, Support Donald Trump (by Donna Vermillion)

 

Why I, as a Christian Woman,

Support Donald Trump

by Donna Vermillion

 

On the left, Megyn Kelly is shown in a cropped excerpt from her sleezy GQ photoshoot. On the right is Donald Trump, as if he is pondering her hypocrisy.

On the left, Megyn Kelly is shown in an excerpt from her sleazy GQ photo-shoot. (NOTE: The picture was downloaded from the Internet and cropped by Donna Vermillion in order to keep things “rated G” on this website.) On the right is Donald Trump, as if he is pondering her hypocrisy in implying during the first 2015 Fox News “debate” that he treats women like objects.

I find Donald Trump to be a very intriguing man. To be frank, I never really gave him much thought until recently. Moreover, I did not really take his candidacy very seriously at first. Morality-wise, the fruit I have seen in him over the years has been far from Christ-like. I have never seen even one of his “Apprentice” episodes. I did not know much about his real estate ventures, except that I knew from the news that he had casinos in Atlantic City at one time, and about the Trump Towers in New York and in Panama. (My husband and I and our children have lived in Central America, so Panama stands out to us.)

Frankly, there is a lot about Trump I did not know until recent weeks. Interestingly, much of what I have seen has been diametrically opposite of anything I ever thought of him as being. I have researched him and his views and, to my surprise, cannot find any major political issues with which I disagree. Every time I think, “Well, I agree with him on that point, but what does he have to say about…,” I once again discover that we are on the same side.

So here I am, a Christian, agreeing with (so far) every presidential objective this seemingly un-Christian man presents. Although he says that he is a Protestant, I have to believe that he is an unsaved one, based on his apparent track record of such things as being loose with women. The danger is that some people think they are Christian by default, simply because they are not Muslim or some other religion. But it is very clear in the Scriptures, that unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Christianity is more than just NOT being anything else. It requires a decision TO become one through faith in the finished work of the cross, and by accepting Jesus Christ as Lord. It is a turning away from sin and a turning towards the only true and living God by acknowledging that we are hell-bound sinners in need of the Savior who died for us. It is the receiving of what Jesus did for us on the Cross and committing to live for Him, no matter how hard it is on our flesh. (For more information, click here to download Rich’s FREE mp3 series called “The Fundamentals of the REAL Gospel.”)

Although I am not sure that Donald Trump has ever decisively made Jesus the Lord of his life, I have seen something about his heart by observing his current views. There is a somewhat curious repentance that seems to have taken place in his life—a dramatic shifting away from the ungodly liberal ideologies, and a determination to further Christian-friendly policies. Simply put, if not born again, Mr. Trump’s heart does seem to be steered by the Lord. When he changes his view about a matter, it seems to be because of a realization on his part that his former paradigm was simply wrong. From what I can tell, his switching of positions has nothing whatsoever to do with politics and everything to do with conscience.

Trump’s “Tone” Towards Women

What about his “negative” comments concerning women that certain female news anchors love to bring up? Why would I want to vote for such a guy? I look beyond the dart-like questions they fire at him and listen to the man’s answers, whereby I understand the rest of the report. I am observant enough to see through the viewer-manipulation techniques as I strive to be truly “fair and balanced” concerning the whole story.

I understand, for example, that although a woman during a deposition with him was wanting to leave the room to pump breast milk for her newborn baby, Trump understood her to mean that she was going to do it in front of him. So now we can see why he allegedly said that she was disgusting and lashed out at her with a belligerently defensive tone. She was understandably hurt by the incident, but couldn’t she have been more tactful on her end? Maybe she could have just insisted on being excused for a few minutes and kept things in generalities, rather than mentioning her breasts and a pump and triggering a knee-jerk reaction and some insensitive words on Trump’s part. Not that it is always a valid excuse, but why do people expect a man from Brooklyn to respond to such situations with a southern-hospitality-type of tone? He is from New York, not Georgia.

Perhaps he does owe the woman an apology (with a southern accent, of course). I don’t know. I wasn’t there.  What I do know is that there is a massive push to dig for dirt on Trump, even to the point of sometimes manufacturing dirt, just to have something against him. However, those with hidden, wicked agendas primarily seem to find things that are insignificant that have no bearing on his capability to function well in the highest office of the land. Moreover, I have read some very complimentary things that he has said about women, such as Sarah Palin. But that just is not news-worthy enough, I guess.

What about Megyn Kelly, whom he described as having blood “coming out of her eyes” and “coming out of her…wherever,” concerning her demeanor during the GOP presidential “debate” (or better yet, inquisition) a few days ago? When a thinking person evaluates the situation for themselves and cuts out all the unhelpful media middlemen, they can deduce that Trump wasn’t talking about Kelly’s menstrual cycle. For crying out loud. He was referring to COMBAT. And she fired the first shot! It is important to note that she brought up his referring to some women as “pigs.” In light of the recent discovery of her disgusting 2010 interview with Howard Stern (WARNING: this hyperlinked Newsweek article contains vulgar content) along with the whorish pictures of her posing for GQ magazine years ago (also vulgar!), she ironically fits the “piggish” definition spoken about in Proverbs:

 

As a ring of gold in a swine’s snout,
So is a lovely woman who lacks discretion.

(Proverbs 11:22, NKJV)

In other words, as many people have already noted, it is quite hypocritical for Megyn Kelly to come at Donald Trump with guns blazing concerning his alleged tendency to demean women, while she herself has proven herself to be a morally “piggish” woman in her own life. No wonder she was so offended by the “pig” reference. It was hitting home with her, as her personal history is one of wallowing in the mire.

It was obvious that all three of the Fox News “moderators” (inquisitors) of the event were targeting Trump, continually trying to entrap him, rather than conducting a genuine presidential debate. Furthermore, why was his “tone” questioned ONLY with regard to how he speaks to some women? He seems to insult men just as often whenever they attack him. As others have noted, Trump is an equal opportunity provocateur when it comes to responding to those who insult or attack him, regardless of their gender.

Moreover, why are people wanting Trump to apologize for his “blood” comment when he has repeatedly said that what they are accusing him of implying, did not even enter his mind when he made the statement? And why are some people harping on Megyn Kelly’s “emotions” when there are FAR more critical issues, such as baby body parts being sold by abortionists and people being murdered by illegal immigrants, that need to be confronted? Many viewers noticed that the “debate” rarely touched on bona fide issues, but instead seemed more like a panel of prosecutors grilling certain candidates—particularly Donald Trump.

Nevertheless, unfortunately, there are still many others who refuse to do their own due diligence concerning the issues today. Such people blindly believe whatever the news media spoon-feeds them in sound bites. Too few question how “fair and balanced” even Fox News might really be.

Photo credit: NY Daily News

Photo credit: NY Daily News

Most people agree that Trump’s popularity was the primary cause of the record-breaking 24-million viewers of the debate. I certainly have no question that this was the case. I, for one, was one of the people who watched it just to see him. If he had not attended, I would not have cared less about it.

Yes, he is very blunt and rude at times. But he has had years of combat experience in the business realm (and now in the political arena). From what I have observed, he has lived a life wherein he needed to constantly stand his ground and fight in order to overcome opposition to his many business projects. Because of his misconstrued temperament, some individuals even seem to be afraid that if he were to become the President, then he would be dropping bombs on every country that disagrees with us. However, a person does not get to be worth over $10 billion by being an out-of-control, loose cannon. On the contrary, I believe he has the kind of personality that would make a great Commander-in-Chief. The last thing we need is a soft-spoken, socially-polite President who will not act on anything for fear of “offending” people, or one who smiles to our faces but stabs the American people in the back behind closed doors. We have certainly had enough of that over the years, have we not? It is time to put a stake in the heart of “political correctness.” It is time to get things straightened out in Washington, D.C. and with American interests around the world.

We need… the TRUMPINATOR.

God’s Man for the Hour?

Trump-The Art of the Deal Smaller

RICH VERMILLION’S NOTE: You cannot possibly understand Donald Trump unless you read his 1987 book, “The Art of the Deal.” It is a fascinating read without a single boring moment. You will think that it was written last year because he is exactly the same today. The book contains his biography, so you can know what influences shaped his character. It also explains his attitude toward business, so you can finally know what he means when he uses terms like “negotiation,” “leverage” (which is NOT bank debt to him), putting good people in charge of things, and making a “deal,” etc. You will also learn how big a heart the man has. For those on a limited budget, the Kindle eBook edition costs very little, and there are used copies available too (last time that I checked). So get a copy of this best-selling book today by clicking on the book cover image above. Whether you love him or hate him, once you read this enjoyable book you will at least finally understand him. – R.V.

 

For the most part, the American people are smart enough to know a true leader when they see one. They also recognize when there is an absence of such leadership. I have been completely unengaged from national politics for several years. I was so disgruntled that I had set my sights on Texas (where I and my family live) seceding from the Union. I wanted to be a citizen of Texas and forget the United States existed.

Waiting for the Obama term to end has been almost as bad as Chinese water torture for the average U.S. citizen. But then, what would be next? Who would be next? As far as leadership for this country, particularly concerning the executive branch, the fear of the unknown enters the picture as we look at the past. We ponder upon how we have had to endure year after year of pitiful candidate choices picked by the “establishment” (i.e., the elite power-brokers). Decent people like Ron Paul, who drew massive crowds, were ignored by the news media (including Fox News’ “debate” co-inquisitors, Christ Wallace and Bret Baier). Such people fought to get their message out, but were bullied out of the game by the “establishment” and their media cronies.

So Donald Trump is like a breath of fresh air to me, politically. He has proven that he cannot be “ignored,” nor will he ever let anyone “bully” him out of the race for President of the United States. I really believe that God is going to use this man to bring genuine, positive change to this nation that we have not seen in a long time. Why? Because he will not have someone behind the scenes pulling his strings, telling him when to open his mouth and what to say or do. It is obvious to me that he is going against the plan of political creepdom. He is a man with a backbone who will not only take office (if elected), but take charge and lead once he is in there.

I do believe that he is most likely unsaved, and he certainly needs our prayers (and has the prayers of our family). But frankly, he is the best choice that we have right now to reform how our government works. He is simply the best candidate that we have had in a LONG time. (And again, I had not even taken him seriously until recently.)
Here are TEN reasons WHY I, as a Christian woman, plan to vote for him, despite his controversial comments (most of which have been blown way out of proportion anyway):
  1. He has voiced fervent concern for the decapitation of Christians and, in an interview with Bill O’Reilly, has openly stated that there is a Muslim problem. (It is certainly not “politically correct” to call out the Muslims, but he did it anyway). Trump told O’Reilly, “I don’t notice Swedish people knocking down the World Trade Center,” although he also does NOT see all Muslims as terrorists.
  2. He has voiced a determination to de-fund Planned Parenthood, even to the point of shutting down the government if necessary.
  3. He has shown a genuine concern for our veterans, even to the point of loaning a veteran organization in New York his OWN helicopter, while also donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to them. (Have you ever seen televangelist Kenneth Copeland, who claims to be a “minister,” do such a thing with ANY of his aircraft? I didn’t think so.)
  4. He has a plan to secure our border by building walls where necessary. He even intends to make the Mexican government pay for it by forcing them into negotiations and using economic leverage in order to get them to fund it. He is determined to put a stop to the drugs and criminals freely coming into this country, while at the same time is willing to have a “big beautiful door” in the wall to let legitimate immigrants into the country.
  5. He is pro-traditional marriage, and I am confident he will fight for the rights of Christians who, for conscience sake, refuse to decorate cakes for Sodom-and-Gomorrah “weddings.”
  6. Trump has enough money to not need any outside financial backing. Consequently, he cannot be bought by deep-pocketed special interest groups and other billionaires.
  7. Although he can be over the top at times with the insults, his consistent exposure of corrupt politicians is not only refreshing but necessary to “clean house”—especially the White House. Why in the world do people think that we can elect a “fighter” to make changes in Washington, D.C., but then expect that person to be “nice” all of the time to everyone? (Even Jesus was NOT always “nice” to everyone—and He even called people derogatory names!)
  8. He wants to obliterate Obamacare. Yet, he still wants to take care of the people who cannot afford health insurance by working deals with hospitals, etc. He has a heart for the poor and wants to help them, and has shown evidence of such behavior in his own personal actions in donating to people who were in need of help.
  9. He has already shown presidential-type of action to help this country, doing such things as meeting with the families of those who have had loved ones killed by illegal immigrants. Frankly, he has already been far more “presidential” in his demeanor than our current President.
  10. He is a bulldog who cannot be bullied around by the “powers that be” behind the scenes. He does not need a political career, so he is not trying to win political favor from anyone. THAT enables me to trust him more than any of the others, especially Mike Huckabee.

One thing that makes a good leader is having a heart to take care of the people he is leading. I see that in Trump. From protecting the lives of the unborn to taking care of our veterans, I do believe he is the man for the hour for this country.

Would I trust him to pastor a church? No way! Would I trust him with this country? At the moment, I can honestly say yes.

Donna Vermillion

 
RICH’S NOTE: Donna has written a sequel to this article entitled, The “Model” First Lady: What to Expect of Melania Trump. Click the link to view that article in a new browser window.

Posted in Christianity.

29 Comments

  1. The second part of the interview dealt specifically with immigration, the wall on the border with Mexico, and women’s health issues.

    This interview has been badly misrepresented in the media with respect to the latter topic. It has been reported that he wishes to fund Planned Parenthood (PP for short, but aka “Planned Butcherhood”) despite his earlier statements to the contrary. What he actually SAID in this interview is that many conservative GOP women have come to him and informed him that PP also does important women’s health services. So he would like to fund THOSE and NOT the abortions, which he is adamant SHOULD NOT get a dime of taxpayers’ money. (It appears to me that he does not know about the women’s health clinics that could receive those funds instead, and don’t do abortion services.)

    When Sean Hannity pointed out that they could use the federal money for their other things, but then that would allow PP up to fund abortions with those freed up funds, Donald Trump said that if that was the case, then they would probably require them to get out of the abortion business entirely in order to get the federal funds. Regardless, he emphasized repeatedly that the abortions need to stop, and that his concern is women’s health programs continuing. He also said that he is looking further into the issue. So we are quite sure in our own minds that upon further investigation, he will ensure that PP does not get any money as long as they are in the abortion business, and/or that money will be diverted to non-baby-murdering women’s clinics instead. Here is the whole video (length 7 minutes 27 seconds):

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/4415400272001/donald-trump-lays-out-plans-for-immigration-health-reform/?playlist_id=930909813001

  2. The third and last part of the interview is below. It covers mainly economic points and policies. What Trump makes clear here is that negotiation is how you solve the problems, and that our foreign competitors (i.e., the other nations) have been taking advantage (“abusing” is the word he used) of us because our leaders are “incompetent.” Again, if you read “The Art of the Deal” book that he wrote, which I detailed in a caption under the book’s image in the article above, you will better understand exactly his points. In short, however, he really does know what he is talking about and, yes, he can get the right negotiators to see to it that our trade imbalances improve.

    Here is this last part (length 5 minutes 35 seconds):

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/4415400271001/can-donald-trump-stimulate-the-american-economy/?playlist_id=930909813001

    • In several ways, I can agree with that statement. One similarity is Trump’s desire to build infrastructure. Ike built our national interstate system, and Trump wants to update/improve it and other aging infrastructure projects, and build new ones that are needed (particularly a wall on our southern border).

      Great observation, Alli. 🙂

      Rich

  3. so pleased to read, ‘why I, as a christian woman support Trump”. There were many instances in OT wherein God used ungodly men to further his mission with the Jews. And I believe the same is happening here, that is I hope this is the case. I am an evangelical, born-again christian who is supporting Trump for the same reasons Donna outlined above. I might add I also admire and pray for Ted Cruz and Dr. Carson, two great men of God who I bellieve are to be used in a mighty way in the next administration.

  4. Great article! I agree on each point you made. I’m a born-again Christian and I support Trump. He got my attention after watching his press con with the families of the murdered victims of illegal immigrants. Became a supporter after watching his Arizona campaign rally speech. My husband (not saved yet) and I both support him enthusiastically because he’s the only candidate who is truly passionate about building the wall. He says what we wish we can say in public. Trump is pro-America, pro-Veterans and pro-Christians and he speaks from the heart. My husband says we’re not voting for a religious leader. I’m voting for the first time in my life. 🙂 I pray for Trump’s salvation everyday. With God, ALL THINGS are possible.

    • Mary Jane, thank you for your encouraging and thought-provoking comment. There are so many people who are voting for the first time in years (or ever, like yourself), simply because we finally have someone decent to vote for! We definitely need to keep praying for Trump and his family. Yes, with God, all things ARE possible! God bless you!

  5. Tears flowing as I read the letter, I feel exactly the same feeling that there is something about this man, as I had the opportunity to know him not personally but in business. I remember going in details the terms of the loan two days before the meeting because it is cut throat when he negotiates and dear lord you better know what you are doing he does not hesitate to question you loudly if you know what you are doing. After the meeting I found myself hating him for it was so emotionally draining to deal with him, he would not stop whining until he gets, what he wants. When he announced he is running for President, I chuckled turn my back and come back and decided to listen what he has to say.I felt it in my heart finally the President of this country is here. This is him as I remember him, he is real never ever speak politically correct. Him and Putin will get along very well.

    • Wow, Onelia! Thank you for sharing that personal testimony of having worked with Mr. Trump directly in a business deal. Your recollection of those events matches my impression of him from his book, “The Art of the Deal,” and highlight once again how important it is to have someone in the Oval Office who can handle such executive responsibility. We need GOOD deals for America again! We need to “Make America Great Again” after so many years of “establishment” politicians from BOTH parties tearing it down. Donna and I believe that Donald Trump is just the guy to make that happen, and the fact that the “establishment” of both parties fear him so much is further proof that he’s the right guy for the job. 🙂

      Thank you for sharing that. I’ll let Donna know about your comment shortly. God bless you.

      Always in Jesus,

      Rich

  6. I hardly got past the Megyn Kelly bashing because it was hard to understand why Donna would call her a pig. I was also sad to learn that if it were not for Donald she wouldn’t have cared about watching the debate. America is failing, and we all need to get out and vote! I am glad that Donald has stepped up and loudly announces what needs to be done in our country, but he is overbearing and only tells us ” I can make America great again, and we need to build a huge wall on the Mexican border”. Those are not real answers for me, I trusted Obama first term when he said he will unite us, and screwed us over like no other president has done before. I want a president who tells us about his plans so that we can decide, and who doesn’t have to yell and waive his hands all the time to try to make a point. I want a president who doesn’t speak down to America, but who lifts us and show us that we can individually become successful with the desire no matter what our background. Actions speak much louder than “loud words”, and although Donald is a very wealthy man, I think we have another candidate who’s actions speak for themself. He is also a non-politician, and he is a brain surgeon.

    • Howdy, Laurie. Thank you for your comment. 🙂

      Donna explained why THE BIBLE calls Megyn Kelly a “pig” above by quoting the passage from Proverbs and applying it to Kelly’s raunchy GQ photo shoot of years ago, and her more recent disgusting interview on the Howard Stern program about 5 years ago. So I don’t see any need to reiterate her point on that subject, but I will instead encourage you to read what she wrote above more carefully a second time and see if it makes more sense now.

      The country is indeed falling apart, but we already had our second choice for the presidential nomination: Ted Cruz. So the debate would have not been terribly interesting to us as it would have been superfluous. We do our research on the candidates online and don’t need a debate to help us decide which seems to be best suited to the job. So by the time of the first debate we had decided on Trump, with Cruz as our second choice. The debate was made far more interesting for us to watch because of Trump and our enthusiasm for his candidacy, plus to see what Cruz would have to say. We were apparently not alone in that view either, since the initial debates during the summer before the primaries, usually do not get more than about 1-3 million viewers at best. With 24 million tuning in, it set an all time record that exceeded ALL presidential debate ratings EVER…which is rather shocking for an early debate during what is called “silly season” (i.e., the time when candidates are usually sounding out their platforms and have rarely published anything substantial yet).

      Expanding on that last point:
      You really need to re-read the article above again ALSO to better understand Trump’s persona. He’s built a multi-billion dollar empire by having something between the ears, and “being nice” is not necessarily the best way to get things done. In fact, even Jesus knew how to be confrontational and rude at times. Do you remember how He chased the money-changers out of the Temple with a whip of chords TWICE? (John records Him doing so at the beginning of His earthly ministry, and Matthew, Mark, and Luke, record Jesus doing it again just before He went to the Cross.) Read Matthew chapter 23 sometime too and take note how often Jesus called people names (i.e., applying them correctly) as He rebuked the Pharisees and Scribes.

      So yes, as Donna noted, Trump can be rough around the edges. However, the man knows how to hire the best people and coordinate them to do the best work. He knows how to negotiate deals. He has extensive executive experience, and indeed, has many executives working for him. Out of the 100+ businesses/deals that he has negotiated through the years, he has had only 4 of them fail. Thus, he has MORE than a 96% success rate in business, which far exceeds EVERY person running for president now — and perhaps EVER.

      In terms of how he operates, Donald Trump, as a visionary, is in the habit of saying basically, “This is what we are going to do” and then working with the best people to hammer out the details and finalize the plan to make it happen. That is how things work in the real world, frankly. Have you ever noticed that RARELY does a politician get elected to office who actually does what they say that they will to, much less do it exactly as they described it on the campaign trail? If you think that the proposals made by the other candidates are 100% exact specifications for what they will do, then you need to revisit political history in America and learn a bit about how unrealistic that is. Even honest politicians (e.g., Ted Cruz) cannot do EXACTLY what they planned because they do not have all of the information available to them that they will have later once they are in office, NOR have they calculated in the interests of other stakeholders who will be necessary to bring about the change desired. There is give and take that must happen before a deal is finalized. Therefore, Trump is being MORE honest than most by simply laying out his plan in broad paint strokes and explaining that he has the best people lined up to bring it to pass once he is in office.

      Moreover, Trump has laid out MORE specifics about his immigration plan that ANY other candidate to date — and he did so first. Hence, it is incorrect to say that he does not provide specifics. Furthermore, he will be releasing more policies over the next several weeks on tax reform, trade, women’s issues, etc.

      If you study the other candidates, you will discover that their campaigns are still rather vague on the issues, and often even self-contradictory. Part of the reason for this is that they are using “silly season” to try and find out “what works” (i.e., runs their poll numbers up) before they stake out their positions more firmly and specifically. Trump has announced his positions more boldly than anyone, has published more specifics than most of them have. Furthermore, he has not waffled on his positions (as many of them have done) except in making minor adjustments (e.g., once he found out that some of our 1,800-mile border with Mexico does not need a wall due to natural terrain features, he reduced his estimate down to about 1,000 miles to reflect that fact). He’s an experienced executive that is used to working with experts in their fields, who help him bring his visionary plans into sharp focus and then build those projects. Whenever he gets credible data that warrants alterations to the plan/deal, he adjusts accordingly. His book, “The Art of the Deal,” described in a text box by me within the article above, is full of examples of how he did that in several of his real estate deals.

      On Ben Carson: We do NOT support Ben Carson’s candidacy at all for several reasons that we may lay out in an article in the near future. Chief among these reasons, however, is the fact that he has a VERY duplicitous record in the area of abortion. He says that he is personally against abortions, and has never performed one himself (and that is good). However, he has referred patients to doctors who DO perform abortions; he was once on the board of a non-profit that funded Planned Parenthood with $200,000 in donations; and he claims that abortion should NOT be made illegal because he feels that “we cannot legislate morality.” It is this last point that is most troubling because it is absurd and self-contradictory. Murder is immoral, but also illegal. Theft is immoral, but also illegal. ALL criminal laws are in-fact efforts to “legislate morality,” and there is NO criminal law that fails to do just that (although we might argue if a given law is itself immoral). Hence, to claim that one is personally against abortions, but yet claims that the murder of innocent children in the womb is somehow not something that should be criminalized, is to be self-contradicted and immoral. I cannot trust such a person to work toward reversing the UNGODLY and UNCONSTITUTIONAL decision of Roe v. Wade when he has already announced beforehand that he has NO intention to make such an immoral AND criminal act officially illegal. If we add to his deceitful stance on abortion his utter lack of executive experience (i.e., he has never managed more than a few medical people during operating room procedures, nor hired/fired people as an executive must do, etc.), his utter lack of negotiations with respect to deal-making, his professed “admiration” of Al Sharpton, etc., and we cannot help but consider him a very dangerous man to entrust with the highest executive office of the nation, particularly since we are adamantly pro-life. He may make a great Surgeon General, but he would NOT be a good president (at least in our view of things).

      (Note: Here is one article to examine on Carson with respect to his alleged pro-life position and his many self-contradictions: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/ben-carson-abortion-stance-121456 .)

      Thank you for taking the time to write us, and for reading my lengthy reply. I hope it proves helpful to you. 🙂

      Before replying to my comment again, however, I would suggest that you take the time to re-read Donna’s article above carefully in order to understand her points better than your first review enabled you to do. It may prove helpful to click on some of her many hyperlinks to other sources of information so that you can better understand Donna’s points.

      Please have a great day, and thank you again for stopping by.

      Always in Jesus,

      Rich

  7. I was leaning to Ted Cruz and was not in favor of Trump because of doubting his positions or sincerity or that desire to want a man of God who is willing to fall to his knees for wisdom, but now I am not so sure. I will certainly pray about it more.

    • Donna and I really like Ted Cruz too, and would certainly be thrilled to have him win the nomination as our second choice. In fact, our “dream ticket,” so to speak, would be a Trump/Cruz team to win the White House. I think the two would be unstoppable together, and they are already good friends. So either candidate winning the nomination would thrill us, and both being on the same ticket would be even better. However, our first choice is Trump for the reasons that Donna listed above. 🙂

      Thank you for your comment.

      Rich

  8. Oh good Lord, Joseph and Mary are rolling over in their graves. Trump? I guess, the Lord did use a prostitute… I don’t think he would bless such a thing as this. This is just stupid. By your fruits you shall know them…. 1But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,…

    • First of all, NOBODY is “rolling over in their graves.” They are either in Heaven or Hell, and obviously Mary and Joseph would both be in Heaven.

      Second, I discussed the “fruit” of Trump and that I cannot see how he could be saved. I’m not sure what you’re point is there.

      Third, the Scripture you quoted out of context in 1 Timothy is talking about taking heed that your teaching as a minister (Paul talking to Timothy) is doctrinally sound, in accordance with God’s Word. In the article, I plainly stated that, although it is possible that Trump is an underdeveloped baby Christian, the “fruit” I have seen concerning him is that of an unsaved man. I plainly stated that I was concerned about Trump’s soul in that I am concerned that he may be in the category of THINKING he is a Christian simply because he is aware that God exists and that he goes to church. I explained clearly that it takes more than that to be an actual Christian. I also made a very blunt statement at the end of the article about how there is “no way” I would trust him to pastor a church, thus implying he is unfit to teach God’s Word.

      Moreover, he does not EVER teach from the Bible, nor does he try to push a twisted teaching of it (i.e., doctrines of demons), nor does he claim to speak for God. So if you were referring to him deceiving people by teaching hypocritical doctrines, you are way off base with that one. And what in the world did you mean by quoting the verse about some “falling from the faith”? In what way am I doing that? Or were you talking about Trump? I’m am not clear on who you are accusing and of what you are accusing them.

      I would suggest you go back and actually READ my article, rather than skimming it, and go to the hyperlinks I provided–one of which will send you to my husband’s free mp3 series called, “THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE REAL GOSPEL.” I do not mind you critically judging my article, but you are accountable to God (as I am) to do it RIGHTEOUSLY (John 7:24), rather than just getting mad and throwing around baseless accusations and trying to quote half Scriptures to back up your view. If you take your time and carefully read what I wrote and look at the Scripture references I provided, I think you will be in a better position to give a more substantive, well-argued comment from a biblical perspective.

    • Maurice,

      I have to agree with Donna here that this other comment of yours is rambling, irrational, and it seems to misapply Scripture to the subject at hand. Several fallacies could be noted here too, of course. However, your attempt at a rebuttal within this particular comment is so incoherent that it is pointless to name them. Donna has already highlighted them indirectly within her response anyway, so again, no further analysis is needed.

      So thank you for at least caring enough about the subject to attempt a reply to the article. However, as Donna noted, you really do need to re-read it carefully to ensure that you fully understand the points being made therein before attempting to write any further comments. You seemed to have only skimmed the article the first time through. Regardless, it is obvious that you misunderstood various points and then reached false conclusions as a result. Donna’s suggestion that you read the numerous articles to which she provided hyperlinks is a good idea also, as that will help you to better understand her own points when you have that further knowledge of the premises upon which she based her conclusions as reflected in the article above.

      Always in Jesus,

      Rich

    • Maurice, thank you for your comment (minus the “FOOLS” accusation). My objective of the “Megyn Kelly” part of the article was to point out HER hypocrisy in attacking Trump. I am completely against ANY woman posing in such magazines, but we cannot expect much morality to come from unsaved women, since they still have the nature of sin living inside of them. Nancy Reagan was known to have been actively involved in psychic-type of activities that the Bible condemns, yet Ronald Reagan was an outstanding President. We are not voting for Melania Trump. Donald is the one running.

    • Maurice, as Donna noted, we agree that any such public display of human anatomy is wrong. However, you seemed to miss the point regarding Megyn Kelly. Let me provide a dictionary definition that will help me to clarify things a bit for you:

      hypocrite
      [hip-uh-krit]
      noun
      1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
      2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements. (Source)

      Megyn Kelly attacked Donald Trump for allegedly insinuating that women were objects, even sexual objects, within some of his comments (all of which were quoted out of context, by the way, and some of the people involved in those conversations on the Apprentice show later denied her interpretation). Nevertheless, Megyn Kelly was herself CONTRIBUTING to the culture that treats women in such a way by posing as she did for GQ Magazine and in doing the Howard Stern interview. Thus, she was — by dictionary definition — being a complete hypocrite within those attacks, and that is the focus of this article’s point about her (plus the extended point about her overall character in the light of the Proverbs quote).

      Moreover, we are NOT aware of ANY instance in which Donald Trump’s current wife has criticized ANY man or candidate for treating women as “objects.” Thus, although the Bible does condemn many of her former modeling shoots, etc., she is not being a hypocrite about the issue. If she were to ever become a Christian and become critical of that industry and part of our culture, then she would likewise not be a hypocrite for doing so because she would be condemning what she once did as a former industry insider, much like some ex-porn stars that have become born again do today.

      Thus, your implied argument within your comment above falls into the following informal fallacy categories:

      (1) The Fallacy of Irrelevant Thesis – In short, the fact that Trump’s wife did that in times past is completely irrelevant to the point being made in this article about Megyn Kelly. So while we can all agree that what Mrs. Trump did before their marriage was wrong, it is completely irrelevant to the fact that Megyn Kelly was being a hypocrite for attacking Trump on this issue (as I just explained above).

      (2) The Fallacy of Ad Hominem – This Latin term at the end of the fallacy’s name means “at the man.” Essentially, when a person bases their rebuttal on irrelevant insults that are NOT valid (i.e., that we are somehow “fools,” which has yet to be proven) instead of on substantive facts, they are demonstrating error in reasoning in a significant way. Since it yet remains to be proven that we are in any way “fools” for making the points above about Megyn Kelly, your fallacy here also can be considered an example of the “Begging the Question” fallacy (aka, “circular reasoning”) with an added “epithet” at the end to hide your confusion.

      By the way: We also could not help but notice the mocking manner in which Megyn Kelly asked the last viewer question at the debate as to whether they had a “word from God” about their candidacies. In general, she seems to be far more anti-Christ than ANY person within the Trump family, all of which try to at least demonstrate a clear reverence for the Bible and Christian subjects within their public statements.

      Now, let’s take your word “fool” and look at the first dictionary definition for a moment (emphasis mine):

      fool
      noun
      1. a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense. (Source)

      Since your evaluation of Donna’s article above lacked correct judgment about the point being made, and your rebuttal was entirely fallacious, it would appear that you match this dictionary definition quite well, rather than either of us. 😉

      Let me also add that the Bible’s definition of a “fool” (i.e., like this term is used throughout the Book of Proverbs) indicates a person who loves sin, is in rebellion against God, who despises wisdom and instruction, etc. Any rational examination of our website will demonstrate that we do NOT match the biblical definition of a “fool” either. Of course, it remains to be seen if you do, depending on how well you receive our corrective replies (Proverbs 12:1).

      Always in Jesus,

      Rich

    • You need to research that subject more, Ruth. As a general rule, shallow analysis tends to produce wrong conclusions:

      ** John 7:24 “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”

      So let me point you in the right direction to get you started: In his book, “The Art of the Comeback” (sequel to “The Art of the Deal,” excerpts of which are available online) Donald Trump does into shockingly honest detail regarding his own mistakes in his first two marriages. He explains why he believed that they failed, while he was very kind in his comments on both Ivana and Marla (i.e., not faulting them). Hence, he truly was the first to admit that he made mistakes in both marriages, and by all accounts, he seems to have a solid one now with Melania. Their family is also close, and Ivana called her relationship today with Donald as “the best of friends” in her recent public statement here:

      http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/28/trumps-ex-wife-ivana-dismisses-daily-beast-smear-job-story-is-totally-without-merit/

      So yes, Donald believes that marriage can only exist properly as ONE man and ONE woman, which history, nature, and of course, the Bible, tells us is the case. He readily admitted publicly (and rather candidly) how he blew it in his first two marriages, and now he is working to have a good third marriage.

      Hence, your comment, while intended to be negative, is actually a reason why someone can respect the man. MANY people blame their ex-spouses for failed marriages, but he blames himself and the unique circumstances of each situation; he’s holding to the ONLY natural and rational form of marriage; he readily admits his mistakes in his first two attempts; and Trump is working to make a real success in his third marriage.

      Therefore, he has our support, as Donna explained above. 😀

      Thank you for commenting. I hope my reply helps to clarify things for you. Please find some of those excerpts from “The Art of the Comeback,” however, before attempting any further reply. It is good to be informed before commenting further in this matter (Proverbs 18:13 & 26:16).

      Always in Jesus,

      Rich

  9. I really enjoyed the piece. However, it doesn’t seem Christain like to drill down on each and every comment. The reader can read the comments and determine who is off base and who isn’t. The reader can determine who the fools are etc. I guess it’s your right to drill down on each and every comment offered. But it just feels more like a bar fight. 🙁

    • Howdy, Tracy. 🙂

      Well even as a sinner, before I came to Jesus, I never participated in any bar fights. And I was even a U.S. Marine! Imagine that! 😉

      That said, I understand your point, but disagree with your assessment of our replies AND regarding which behavior is biblically qualified as “Christian.” So please bear with me while I explain. 🙂

      The comments in question brought up issues that needed to be expounded upon, particularly with respect to points that were not addressed in the main article above or perhaps needed further clarification. A few of the commentators also seemed to have only skimmed the article in question, given the fact that their replies thereto were already addressed. Also, keep in mind that the comments that received out strongest replies were the very ones that were their strongest in criticism of either Donna and I, or of the Trump family, etc. Thus, analysis of these comments, and replies to their factually and/or biblically unjust criticisms, is very appropriate.

      Now CONSIDER THIS: The apostle, Paul, was quite adamant in his defense against criticisms in some of his epistles too (e.g., read 2 Corinthians chapter 11-13; Galatians, etc.). Jesus was also NOT One Who avoided “telling it like it is” either whenever He was confronted with unjust criticisms. Here is just one example of several that could be quoted (bold emphasis mine):

      ** Matthew 15:1 Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, 2 “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”

      3 He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”— 6 then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:

      8 ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
      And honor Me with their lips,
      But their heart is far from Me.
      9 And in vain they worship Me,
      Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ”

      10 When He had called the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear and understand: 11 Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.”

      12 Then His disciples came and said to Him, “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?”

      13 But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. 14 Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch.

      How would you classify Jesus’ calling them “hypocrites” and “blind leaders,” even intentionally “offending” them with this rather blunt reply of His? Can you rightly say that anything that we have written in reply to others in this thread is anywhere near as intense as what He did in the passage above?

      Please also keep in mind that Jesus Christ (and even Paul, see Philippians 3:17) is our EXAMPLE, and it is in His footsteps that we are to walk. In other words, what HE did is to serve as an example to us for how we are to conduct ourselves too:

      ** Matthew 10:38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.

      ** 1 John 2:6 He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.

      So contrary to the popular MYTH, Jesus was NOT always “nice” to people, nor “polite” in all of His replies. (In fact, please see Revelation 2:18-23 if you want to see Him rebuke a WHOLE CHURCH rather strongly!) Thus, if we are walking according to His example, we will likewise NOT be “soft” with our every response. 😉

      SO IN SUMMARY: We “drill down” into comments (including yours) because that is the rational thing to do in order to analyze what was said (Acts 17:10-12), and we responded accordingly. Given some of the examples of how Jesus responded to people publicly (consider also Matthew 23), we were actually quite subdued in comparison! LOL! Thus, YES, our behavior herein has been VERY Christian, for nobody can truly have “Christian conduct” without imitating Jesus Christ, which we have done. 🙂

      Thank you for your comment and compliment regarding Donna’s article, etc. I hope that my explanation clarifies things for you with respect to why we have replied the way that we have done. Please have a marvelous day. 😀

      Always in Jesus,

      Rich

  10. UPDATE: In previous comments, I noted that Donna and I formerly supported Ted Cruz as our #2 pick for president, and our primary choice for Donald Trump’s VP. That is NO LONGER the case, given the outright lies, frauds, and dirty politics we have repeatedly seen from Cruz’s campaign. We reject him entirely now, and although we live in Texas, we will vote AGAINST him in the GOP primary in two years when he tries to run for re-election as a senator (i.e., if there is another person running in the primary then).

    For a quick understanding of our reasons why we have changed our minds, first look at the following two videos. The first one demonstrates CLEARLY what a bald-faced liar Ted Cruz is. The second one shows him lying in front of his own mother, who (behind his field of view) seems to get under conviction and indicates she DOESN’T agree with his statement. As you watch these two videos, please note how “sincere” Cruz is while he is telling outright lies. This means that his “conscience is seared as with a hot iron” (1 Timothy 4:2) and he can lie like a dog without demonstrating the slightest conviction about what he is saying:

    Now look at the “outtakes” (obtained by Gawker) from Ted Cruz’s family video filming, which shows how fake and staged he and his family really are:

    After watching those for a few times so that you can see him lie yourself, you should read the following article entitled, “The Real Ted Cruz,” in which the author states, “I studied nearly every word the Texas senator uttered during the immigration showdown. He may be the most spectacular liar ever to run for president.” While it is true that the website in question is Liberal, the article cites its sources and provides excellent analysis of Cruz’s ability to manipulate the English language in such a way as to deceive people. In fact, the author of the article seems IMPRESSED by the guy’s ability to lie like a dog with such subtlety that it is often hard to detect when he’s not challenged. NOTE: This article is three pages long, so you have to keep advancing in order to see all of the details:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/01/ted_cruz_may_be_the_most_gifted_liar_ever_to_run_for_president.html

    WITH THIS FOUNDATION LAID regarding Cruz’s seemingly pathological propensity to lie and deceive, consider these facts:

    (1) He is a lawyer, trained in the art of “sophistry,” which is the rhetorical skill to argue ANY side of a given case, regardless of what the truth/facts might be.

    (2) He is also a “debate champion” from both Princeton and Harvard Law School, which means he has taken this standard lawyer training to an even higher level. Debaters only become “champions” when they can convincingly argue ANY assigned role in a debate, with sincerity and rhetorical manipulation of the audience’s emotions, in order to consistently win in competitions.

    (3) Thus, regardless of the TRUTH about ANY issue, Ted Cruz is able to present a “case” that SEEMS honest, sincere, emotionally-touching, and convincing, unless someone CONSIDERS COUNTER-EVIDENCE CAREFULLY in order to fact-check him. Of course, this is what the Bible demand of ALL of us when considering a debate on any issue, particularly with respect to accusations against others:

    ** Exodus 20:16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

    ** Proverbs 14:5 A faithful witness does not lie, but a false witness will utter lies.

    ** Proverbs 18:17 The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him.

    ** Ephesians 4:20 But you have not so learned Christ, 21 if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: 22 that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, 23 and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24 and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness. 25 Therefore, putting away lying, “Let each one of you speak truth with his neighbor,” for we are members of one another.

    ** 1 Timothy 5:19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.


    Hence, you had BETTER FACT-CHECK EVERYTHING TED CRUZ SAYS!!!
    This is especially true when you consider how his campaign OPENLY BRAGS that it has hired psychologists in order to craft messages that are micro-targeted to their supporters:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cruz-campaign-credits-psychological-data-and-analytics-for-its-rising-success/2015/12/13/4cb0baf8-9dc5-11e5-bce4-708fe33e3288_story.html

    Please keep in mind that the campaign COOPERATED with the article above, and that this is NOT a “hit piece” or some kind of anti-Cruz propaganda. They WANTED others to know how “well” they micro-target their followers in order to raise money and to solicit their votes. Hence, NUMEROUS other websites are pointing out that this amounts to psychological operations (psych-ops) to deceive people, which is indeed a charge that is supported by facts. See the evidence these articles supply in order to make this case:

    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/12/13/ted-cruz-campaign-head-credits-psychological-operations-as-primary-source-of-voter-support/

    And here is a MASSIVE multi-page Google search query that provides you many, many more such articles by sites with different political leanings:

    https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Ted+Cruz+psych+ops+campaign&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=Ted+Cruz+psych+ops+campaign&tbs=qdr:y

    And after you ponder the psych-ops concept (which includes using mass hypnosis techniques), watch the following video. Therein, the makers took some of the Gawker excerpts and put them together in such a way as to HIGHLIGHT the very obvious use of hypnotic techniques of repetition, mantra-like statements, etc., and how utterly scripted the Cruz’s are (both Ted and Heidi) as they raise money and solicit votes. Since these photos are taken from the outtakes, some of the weird facial expressions of Heidi are included too:

    Now let’s get to some articles about Ted Cruz’s LYING DIRTY CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR, JEFF ROE, so that you know what kind of people want to work for Cruz, and what kind of people he surrounds himself with. First, here’s an article from 2010 in which Ted Cruz’s campaign manager did the VERY SAME FALSE CLAIM that an opponent was “quitting the race” that they just pulled in Iowa regarding Ben Carson’s campaign:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/18/cruz-campaign-manager-allegedly-behind-false-drop-out-rumors-in-2010-race.html?intcmp=ob_article_sidebar_video&intcmp=obnetwork

    Here’s an original story on the above: http://www.missourinet.com/2010/10/29/eckersley-calls-e-mail-a-hoax-says-hes-still-in-the-race-audio/

    And now, more on this subject regarding Iowa & beyond:

    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/20/campaign-watchdog-group-files-fec-complaint-ted-cruz-failure-to-disclose-goldman-sachscitibank-financials/

    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/02/04/explosive-audio-surfaces-cruz-campaign-telling-iowa-precinct-captains-carson-had-dropped-out-of-race/

    http://www.impulsetoday.com/breaking-ted-cruzs-pr-guy-who-slanders-trump-for-carson-lie-is-founder-of-shilling-company/

    https://twitter.com/vivelafra/status/695655323206455296

    http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/02/04/ben-carson-record-ted-cruz-must-take-action-wake-iowa-caucus-controversy

    http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=5621

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/03/media/ted-cruz-ben-carson-cnn-controversy/

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268528-cnn-cruz-knowingly-misleading-voters-about-our-reporting

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/16/trey-gowdy-upset-after-fake-facebook-page-claims-he-switched-endorsement/

    AND NOW, LET’S LOOK AT WHY TED CRUZ RUNS SUCH A DIRTY, DECEIVING, CAMPAIGN OPERATION:

    Why in the world would a “Christian” candidate have to hire dirty-political operatives and psychologists, send out “shaming” letters and other fraudulent mailers, and basically LIE LIKE A DOG about HIS OWN RECORD and his opponents?

    Simple: Ted Cruz is a “New World Order” wolf in sheep’s clothing and “Dominionist” heretic, which is why he is actually VERY WELL FUNDED through globalist groups, and backed by known “Dominionists,” who are themselves liars, cheats, and heretics:

    http://www.newswithviews.com/Nelson/kelleigh262.htm (an excellent, non-partisan, well-documented, Christian article)

    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/17/ted-cruzs-father-my-son-anointed-to-take-control-of-society/ (Cruz’s father in his own words)

    https://themarshallreport.wordpress.com/2015/12/04/its-time-to-meet-the-cruzs/ (well-documented, although partisan)

    http://lettersfromthegulag.blogspot.com/2015/12/ted-and-heidi-cruz-expose.html (well-documented, although partisan…and the videos will CREEP YOU OUT!)

    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/21/senator-ted-cruz-has-an-unstable-glenn-beck-problem-the-beck-barton-and-mercer-connections/ (Cruz’s Glenn Beck problem)

    http://pulpitandpen.org/2016/02/09/ted-cruz-endorsed-by-his-father-at-a-kenneth-copeland-conference/ (Dominionist “televangelist,” Kenneth Copeland’s, near endorsement of Ted Cruz)

    I could continue from here, but this will suffice for now. I just wanted to state publicly THE FACT that neither Donna or I consider Ted Cruz to even be a bona fide Christian, much less support the lying fraud, and to document at least SOME of the major reasons why we do NOT support either his campaign OR political future, in contrast to our earlier statements otherwise.

    So the record is straight now. Thank you for taking the time to read this comment and to do your own research, perhaps starting with some of the many links I provided you herein.

    Always in Jesus,

    Rich Vermillion

Leave a Reply