Applying God's Word to Politics

[rewriter]

I admit that's still strange to me. As long as I have lived here. I come from a country without free speech.
You would never see the Clan handing out fliers in the neighborhood. I do understand free speech but it must be peaceful correct? Now where my issue with free speech comes in is when we are talking about Sharia law, or Communism etc, is when you come to America, you pledge allegiance to this country. I didn't come here to change America to my country.



I don't think Biden knew anything that was going on in the WH.

I often wonder about what Biden knew during at least the second half of his time in the WH. He was noticeably slipping mentally. That does not mean that he was willingly making bad choices, just that he might not have realized the implications of the choices he made.

Free speech must not advocate/promote unjust violence. America's founders justified their independence from England.
Communists and Islamists do not justify violent oppression of people, although Marxists may cite exploitation of workers and
Islamists may cite God's will as excuses for their evil deeds.

Biden represents all who cooperated with his demonic/Dem administration, including RINOs and Davos globalists.

The framers of the Constitution knew that a lot of their speech in the 1770's would have been considered illegal under British law, and their stress of freedom of speech seems to have recognized that. In any conflict, the victor will find ways to justify their actions and condemn the actions of their opponents, but that does not make the actions of either side proper or just, rather as the saying goes, winning a war does not decide who is right, just who is left.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

I often wonder about what Biden knew during at least the second half of his time in the WH. He was noticeably slipping mentally. That does not mean that he was willingly making bad choices, just that he might not have realized the implications of the choices he made.

It's amazing the power of the mind. Some people can hide symptoms for a time and even people closest to them are fooled. I do blame people around him more than Biden himself. I don't care what "side" a person is on, I don't like to see people suffer, especially a disease like that.

 

[GWH]

I often wonder about what Biden knew during at least the second half of his time in the WH. He was noticeably slipping mentally. That does not mean that he was willingly making bad choices, just that he might not have realized the implications of the choices he made.

The framers of the Constitution knew that a lot of their speech in the 1770's would have been considered illegal under British law, and their stress of freedom of speech seems to have recognized that. In any conflict, the victor will find ways to justify their actions and condemn the actions of their opponents, but that does not make the actions of either side proper or just, rather as the saying goes, winning a war does not decide who is right, just who is left.

What makes words just is whether they align or contradict God's Word.

I believe MAGA is more closely aligned with Scripture than the atheist Dems,
and we can cite specifics if needed, including abortion, lawfare, transgenderism,
wasteful & fraudulent spending, ruining the economy, abetting crime, etc.

What do YOU think?

 

[rewriter]

What makes words just is whether they align or contradict God's Word.

I believe MAGA is more closely aligned with Scripture than the atheist Dems,
and we can cite specifics if needed, including abortion, lawfare, transgenderism,
wasteful & fraudulent spending, ruining the economy, abetting crime, etc.

What do YOU think?

Ruining the economy, have you checked the price of gas recently?

There was an agreement that kept Iran from developing nuclear weapons, enforced by the USA, Russia, China, Germany, France and England. Iran was complying. Guess who ripped it up because they "could do better". 6 years, safely over 30 bi9llion dollars, multiple deaths, mostly Iranians, including civilians, but also American servicemembers, at least two clearly different declarations that Iran's nuclear program was set back by multiple years, if not decades (both made within the past two years), we still claim that we must remove the nuclear threat from Iran. To my mind that is ego driven lies and wasteful spending and ruining the economy.

the number of abortions has not substantially decreased since the Supreme Court changed the rules, but the number of preventable pregnancy related deaths has increased. Lawfare appears to have increased while approved law enforcement related injuries and deaths among civilians has increased. Numerous American citizens have been imprisoned or expelled to foreign countries against their wishes because of false immigration charges.

There has been no clear reduction in fraud and wasteful spending, but there has been clear elimination of appropriate benefits to the American public, including reduced food safety inspections and emergency assistance to deal with natural disasters. Many government employees were fired, only to be rehired, when they were willing to return, leading to losses in necessary government services.

Numerous, expensive government projects have been begun without proper authorization, sometimes in defiance of existing laws. Tariffs, which are a form of taxation on the American people, have been enacted, overturned by the Supreme Court, and reenacted under different justifications (still questionable) while continuing to lie to the American people about who will pay (not the American people, but in fact plausibly in the neighborhood of $1300 per American citizen).

Crime has continued to decline, but the key word is continued, as the rates of crime were declining before Trump's actions and there is no clear sign that Trump's actions have contributed anything other than increased costs.

Trump has used the office of the presidency to feed his ego, but how much of that usage has actually benefited the general public is highly questionable. If you wish to claim it has, please cite specific, verifiable statistics.

 

[Burn1986]

Applying Christian beliefs to politics has been problematic ever since Peter told the Sanhedrin "We must obey God rather than men!" (Acts 5:29)

How should we do this in the current political situation to issues such as national borders, abortion, globalism and lawfare?

How are you gonna apply it to politics?

 

[JaumeJ]

Our Blessed Lord and Savior did declare that His Kingdom is not of this world, so what in the world is the question here?
It does not serve the Lord.

 

[Burn1986]

^^^81 pages later.. “…What is the question here?”
Lol

 

[GWH]

Ruining the economy, have you checked the price of gas recently?

There was an agreement that kept Iran from developing nuclear weapons, enforced by the USA, Russia, China, Germany, France and England. Iran was complying. Guess who ripped it up because they "could do better". 6 years, safely over 30 bi9llion dollars, multiple deaths, mostly Iranians, including civilians, but also American servicemembers, at least two clearly different declarations that Iran's nuclear program was set back by multiple years, if not decades (both made within the past two years), we still claim that we must remove the nuclear threat from Iran. To my mind that is ego driven lies and wasteful spending and ruining the economy.

the number of abortions has not substantially decreased since the Supreme Court changed the rules, but the number of preventable pregnancy related deaths has increased. Lawfare appears to have increased while approved law enforcement related injuries and deaths among civilians has increased. Numerous American citizens have been imprisoned or expelled to foreign countries against their wishes because of false immigration charges.

There has been no clear reduction in fraud and wasteful spending, but there has been clear elimination of appropriate benefits to the American public, including reduced food safety inspections and emergency assistance to deal with natural disasters. Many government employees were fired, only to be rehired, when they were willing to return, leading to losses in necessary government services.

Numerous, expensive government projects have been begun without proper authorization, sometimes in defiance of existing laws. Tariffs, which are a form of taxation on the American people, have been enacted, overturned by the Supreme Court, and reenacted under different justifications (still questionable) while continuing to lie to the American people about who will pay (not the American people, but in fact plausibly in the neighborhood of $1300 per American citizen).

Crime has continued to decline, but the key word is continued, as the rates of crime were declining before Trump's actions and there is no clear sign that Trump's actions have contributed anything other than increased costs.

Trump has used the office of the presidency to feed his ego, but how much of that usage has actually benefited the general public is highly questionable. If you wish to claim it has, please cite specific, verifiable statistics.

The economy is booming with gas prices temporarily high because of Iran, which was working on developing nuclear weapons despite the "agreement" before the facilities were bombed. Learn not to repeat the mistake made of not stopping Hitler before he gained power.

The Dems are for murdering babies in the womb, and they fined and jailed those who opposed them. The fraud is mostly in Democrat cities. The need for various government services is debatable, but the blame for inaction must mainly be put on
the do-nothing Senate, which does nothing because of the Dems and RINOs.

Tariffs are for the purpose of on-shoring critical industry so we will not be dependent on China. They have not caused inflation, because of Trump's pro-growth policies, including the large tax reduction bill.

The Supreme Court needs to reign in the activist DAs put in power thanks to Soros. Trump's polices would benefit the public more and sooner if not blocked by the Dems.

Crime rates were high and still are mostly in Democrat led cities that are sanctuaries for criminals.

I agree that government spending needs to balance the budget and reduce the debt, because interest on the debt can cause a depression.

The astute among us will realize that communism does not align with God's Word, and all communists in the USA are Dems.

 

[GWH]

How are you gonna apply it to politics?

Pick a political issue that is also a moral issue, and God's Word will be applicable.

 

[Burn1986]

Pick a political issue that is also a moral issue, and God's Word will be applicable.

Okay, like California land mgmt. why try to apply the Bible to that. Hunter Biden being on the Ukrainian energy company board. I mean, why waste energy trying to apply religion to that.

 

[GWH]

Okay, like California land mgmt. why try to apply the Bible to that. Hunter Biden being on the Ukrainian energy company board. I mean, why waste energy trying to apply religion to that.

I agree that those are minor issues, but what about major ones?

 

[Churchgoer]

Pick a political issue that is also a moral issue, and God's Word will be applicable.

War bomb on Iran.

 

[GWH]

War bomb on Iran.

Not sure what that means, but here is my understanding of just war:

War and Capital Punishment

We are saved by faith (EPH 2:8-9), but God’s grace is not cheap, so genuine saving faith IS followed by good works (EPH 2:10, cf. JM 2:17). By cooperating with God’s Word = Holy Spirit (PHP 2:13) and rejecting evil desires (2TM 2:22), we can be a “good soldier of Christ Jesus” (2TM 2:3), spiritually trained and “equipped for every good work” (2TM 3:17). Speaking of being a soldier and good works leads us to address the following question: Is military soldiering a good work? Can we be both a good soldier of Christ and a military soldier?

The Bible does not condemn any occupation other than prostitution, and notice that Paul here (and Jesus in MT 8:5-13) spoke of soldiering without condemning it, and such silence speaks volumes! This silence leaves us with the freedom and consequent responsibility to evaluate vocations including soldiering. The most relevant scriptural references are RM 13:1-5 and 1PT 2:13-14. Pacifists cite Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek (in MT 5:39) and Paul’s instruction to overcome evil with good rather than seek revenge (in RM 12:17-21) as implying that policing and soldiering are wrong, but these passages refer to personal relationships rather than to governmental enforcement of criminal laws.

In the Romans passage, verses 3&4 are the key ones: “Rulers hold no terror [imprisonment or execution—a very contemporary term!] for those who do right, but for those who do wrong… the one in authority… is God’s servant to do you good [this eliminates rulers such as Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Hussein]. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword [means to kill] for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer [murderer, terrorist].” (By the way, “God’s servant” is what the word “Muslim” means.)

Similarly, 1PT 2:14 says that governors “are sent by [God] to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.” This truth applies not only to police forces in cities and states but also to soldiers in national governments, implying that (more godly, though imperfect) nations should punish evil tyrants and terrorists.

Thus, soldiers who serve God’s will to fight in righteous or justified wars to defeat murderers are agents of His wrath (Muslims). Let us note that wrath does not mean a hateful fit of rage, but rather the loving action of righteous anger, such as that displayed by Jesus when he cleared the temple of money-changers (in MT 21:12-13). God’s wrath metes out the just or appropriate consequence for those who choose to behave evilly and hatefully. Thus, any killing or other violent actions we do should be motivated by love: love for God, for divine justice and for the victims of demonic injustice.

We wage war on three levels. Within our own hearts we seek to let God’s love and wisdom overcome temptations to be selfish and foolish (RM 7:23, 2CR 10:3-5, 1PT 2:11). On an interpersonal level, we must bear with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity and peace of the Holy Spirit (EPH 4:2-3) rather than be deceived by lies and attempts of the ungodly spirit to divide and conquer us (1CR 3:3, 2CR 12:20, GL 5:20). And on a corporate level, we must cooperate and enforce just laws, so that murderers are not allowed to destroy more righteous, though imperfect, people (EX 21:12, 21:23).

Because the Bible contains detailed instructions regarding the punishment of crimes such as murder, it is logical to assume that it would contain a commandment and specific teachings against war if pacifism were correct, but it does not. The OT principle of “life for life” (EX 21:24) indicates that murder is the capital crime for which execution is just, although the NT teaching about forgiveness for minor crimes (TOJ #29 & #36) implies that a society may grant even violent criminals a chance to hear the gospel, repent and be rehabilitated. Some say that capital punishment risks unjust executions, but this concern needs to be balanced with ensuring that a penal system does not encourage unjust murders. (See the essay on Criminal Justice.)

The justification of capital punishment can be applied on an international scale. Godly or civilized nations must cooperate and enforce just laws so that demonic souls like Hitler and Stalin are not allowed to conquer or destroy more righteous, though imperfect, governments. (See TOJ #30.) We have a responsibility as ministers of God and disciples of Christ to share the gospel with people in all nations (MT 28:19) and thereby help them to acquire their God-given rights to life (JN 10:10), liberty (JN 8:32&36) and the pursuit of happiness (JN 15:11). To the extent we are able, we should prevent murder and stop murderous dictators from killing and enslaving people (JM 4:17). As the world’s super-power, may God grant our leaders the courage to use this power with wisdom to show divine love (RM 5:8) for the poor and enslaved by defeating ungodly regimes (TOJ #45&129, RM 14:19).

As we contemplate the deaths of our soldiers and the sorrow of their families during times of military war, may it remind us of the great sacrifices that have been made by those who have gone before us in order to preserve the blessings of freedom for our country and humanity. And may their sacrifice remind us of the sacrifice of Christ (PHP 2:8), whose death one day will free us from the sinful nature that does evil and necessitates war against extremely evildoers, so that there will be “no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (RV 21:4). This recreation of the world is the meaning of Easter, and indeed the reason for the creation of the present universe in the beginning of time. May it begin in our hearts and be evidenced by our lives, to the glory of God.

One way to show divine love is by forgiving people who do wrong (MT 5:39). Another way is by teaching people not to do wrong (HB 12:5-6&11). And a third way is by imposing just consequences for doing wrong. For those who hurt people, confinement may be necessary, and for murderers execution is deserved (RM 13:4), although a society may decide that circumstances warrant extended confinement instead or even efforts to reform them.

The problem is deciding which type of love to apply to various situations, because we should have learned from the attempts by European nations to appease Hitler in the 1930s that war may become necessary, so resisting evil sooner may be less tragic and destructive of life than waiting until it becomes more widespread. By the grace of God the United States was able to acquire the atom bomb before Germany and Japan, but it may not have been necessary to lose so many lives in the invasion of Normandy and in the bombing of Japan if Europe had stopped Hitler before he became powerful and allied with Japan.

The lesson of Hitler’s Holocaust against the Jews and Christians is that evil is real, and that we all have the potential to be as horrible as Hitler, although we may battle the tendency toward hatred and selfishness in our own souls (RM 7:22-23). The death of relatively innocent people who are killed by terrorists continues to remind us of our mortality and our need for God’s goodness and resurrection power as well as of the vital responsibility that comes with our human moral capacity and free will. Paul wrote that we should “make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (RM 14:19, cf. EPH 4:29). Edification means constructing moral character in those who want to be servants of God (“Muslims”). Thus, we should embrace rather than reject the opportunity of nation building.

 

[OMC]

Not sure what that means, but here is my understanding of just war:

War and Capital Punishment

We are saved by faith (EPH 2:8-9), but God’s grace is not cheap, so genuine saving faith IS followed by good works (EPH 2:10, cf. JM 2:17). By cooperating with God’s Word = Holy Spirit (PHP 2:13) and rejecting evil desires (2TM 2:22), we can be a “good soldier of Christ Jesus” (2TM 2:3), spiritually trained and “equipped for every good work” (2TM 3:17). Speaking of being a soldier and good works leads us to address the following question: Is military soldiering a good work? Can we be both a good soldier of Christ and a military soldier?

The Bible does not condemn any occupation other than prostitution, and notice that Paul here (and Jesus in MT 8:5-13) spoke of soldiering without condemning it, and such silence speaks volumes! This silence leaves us with the freedom and consequent responsibility to evaluate vocations including soldiering. The most relevant scriptural references are RM 13:1-5 and 1PT 2:13-14. Pacifists cite Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek (in MT 5:39) and Paul’s instruction to overcome evil with good rather than seek revenge (in RM 12:17-21) as implying that policing and soldiering are wrong, but these passages refer to personal relationships rather than to governmental enforcement of criminal laws.

Your entire “just war” framework merges categories the NT keeps separate —
Romans 13 describes magistrates, not disciples, and Paul never tells Christians to imitate the sword‑bearing role of civil authority; instead he commands believers, in the very preceding paragraph, to “never repay evil for evil,” “never avenge yourselves,” and “overcome evil with good” (Rom 12:17–21), meaning Christian ethics and government authority are distinct lanes, not interchangeable vocations.
Jesus forbids retaliatory violence for His followers (Matt 5:39), rebukes Peter for using the sword (Matt 26:52), and says His kingdom is not advanced by fighting (John 18:36), while Peter tells persecuted believers to endure unjust suffering rather than strike back (1 Pet 2:21–23).
None of these texts ever authorize disciples to kill enemies, wage geopolitical war, or act as “agents of wrath” — that phrase belongs to unbelieving rulers, not Christians.
Your argument repeatedly imports modern war logic, national righteousness, and historical examples (Hitler, Stalin, Normandy, atom bombs) into apostolic ethics, but Scripture never commands the church to wage war, never calls nations “more righteous,” never tells believers to execute tyrants, and never defines love as lethal force; the NT defines love as forgiveness, patience, endurance, blessing persecutors, and suffering wrong (Rom 12; Eph 4; 1 Pet 2), not as killing enemies.
By collapsing government authority into Christian vocation, you create a system the apostles never taught and Jesus never modeled.
The creed you say you follow differs from your “just war” essay at the foundation:
your creed says Christian good works flow from salvation (Eph 2:10),
imitate Christ’s humility (Phil 2:5–8),
obey the law of love (Rom 13:8–10), and
follow Jesus’ pattern of suffering rather than retaliating (1 Pet 2:21–23),
but your war‑ethic redefines those same good works as killing enemies, even though Jesus forbids retaliatory violence for His disciples (Matt 5:39),
rebukes the sword (Matt 26:52), and
says His kingdom is not advanced by fighting (John 18:36);
your creed says Christians imitate Christ’s cross, yet your war‑model asks Christians to imitate magistrates who “bear the sword” (Rom 13:4), even though Paul assigns that role to unbelieving rulers, not believers;
your creed says love fulfills the law (Rom 13:10), but your war‑system treats lethal force as love, which the NT never teaches; meaning your creed builds Christian ethics from Christ’s self‑giving, while your war‑system builds Christian ethics from civil authority — two incompatible definitions of righteousness, two incompatible models of obedience, and two incompatible readings of the same Scriptures.

 

[GWH]

Your entire “just war” framework merges categories the NT keeps separate —
Romans 13 describes magistrates, not disciples, and Paul never tells Christians to imitate the sword‑bearing role of civil authority; instead he commands believers, in the very preceding paragraph, to “never repay evil for evil,” “never avenge yourselves,” and “overcome evil with good” (Rom 12:17–21), meaning Christian ethics and government authority are distinct lanes, not interchangeable vocations.
Jesus forbids retaliatory violence for His followers (Matt 5:39), rebukes Peter for using the sword (Matt 26:52), and says His kingdom is not advanced by fighting (John 18:36), while Peter tells persecuted believers to endure unjust suffering rather than strike back (1 Pet 2:21–23).
None of these texts ever authorize disciples to kill enemies, wage geopolitical war, or act as “agents of wrath” — that phrase belongs to unbelieving rulers, not Christians.
Your argument repeatedly imports modern war logic, national righteousness, and historical examples (Hitler, Stalin, Normandy, atom bombs) into apostolic ethics, but Scripture never commands the church to wage war, never calls nations “more righteous,” never tells believers to execute tyrants, and never defines love as lethal force; the NT defines love as forgiveness, patience, endurance, blessing persecutors, and suffering wrong (Rom 12; Eph 4; 1 Pet 2), not as killing enemies.
By collapsing government authority into Christian vocation, you create a system the apostles never taught and Jesus never modeled.
The creed you say you follow differs from your “just war” essay at the foundation:
your creed says Christian good works flow from salvation (Eph 2:10),
imitate Christ’s humility (Phil 2:5–8),
obey the law of love (Rom 13:8–10), and
follow Jesus’ pattern of suffering rather than retaliating (1 Pet 2:21–23),
but your war‑ethic redefines those same good works as killing enemies, even though Jesus forbids retaliatory violence for His disciples (Matt 5:39),
rebukes the sword (Matt 26:52), and
says His kingdom is not advanced by fighting (John 18:36);
your creed says Christians imitate Christ’s cross, yet your war‑model asks Christians to imitate magistrates who “bear the sword” (Rom 13:4), even though Paul assigns that role to unbelieving rulers, not believers;
your creed says love fulfills the law (Rom 13:10), but your war‑system treats lethal force as love, which the NT never teaches; meaning your creed builds Christian ethics from Christ’s self‑giving, while your war‑system builds Christian ethics from civil authority — two incompatible definitions of righteousness, two incompatible models of obedience, and two incompatible readings of the same Scriptures.

Yes, Jesus came the first time to die for sin, but the second time will be to execute justice.

Yes, Jesus taught not to take personal revenge, but He did NOT condemn either just punishment of crime
by godly administrators or defensive war against attacks by evil regimes.

 

[OMC]

Yes, Jesus came the first time to die for sin, but the second time will be to execute justice.

Yes, Jesus taught not to take personal revenge, but He did NOT condemn either just punishment of crime
by godly administrators or defensive war against attacks by evil regimes.

Nothing in the NT ever assigns the magistrate’s sword to the church, and nothing ever treats killing as a form of Christian love (Rom 13:8–10).
Christ’s future judgment (2 Thess 1:7–10) is His prerogative, not a model for His people’s present behavior.
So your appeal to “godly administrators” and “defensive war” simply re‑labels the magistrate category and then hands it to believers, which the text never does.

 

[GWH]

Nothing in the NT ever assigns the magistrate’s sword to the church, and nothing ever treats killing as a form of Christian love (Rom 13:8–10).
Christ’s future judgment (2 Thess 1:7–10) is His prerogative, not a model for His people’s present behavior.
So your appeal to “godly administrators” and “defensive war” simply re‑labels the magistrate category and then hands it to believers, which the text never does.

Nothing in Scripture prevents Christian from being in the "magistrate", and Rom. 13:1-5 does indeed indicate just punishment is a form of God's love.

Christ's future judgment should indeed be considered when discussing just war in the present as well as in history/Joshua.
So your view kicks against the goad of truth rather than shares a better/constructive understanding of the issue.

 

[OMC]

Nothing in Scripture prevents Christian from being in the "magistrate", and Rom. 13:1-5 does indeed indicate just punishment is a form of God's love.

Christ's future judgment should indeed be considered when discussing just war in the present as well as in history/Joshua.
So your view kicks against the goad of truth rather than shares a better/constructive understanding of the issue.

A Christian in office may lawfully wield the state’s sword as a magistrate, but he may not call that sword Christian love, because love “worketh no ill to his neighbour” (Rom 13:10); his civil authority is legitimate, but it is not the church’s vocation, and if he tries to baptize killing as a Christian act, he collapses the categories God kept distinct — magistrate_sword for rulers, disciple_nonretaliation for the church. Joshua’s conquest was a unique covenant act, not a church pattern.

 

[rewriter]

The economy is booming with gas prices temporarily high because of Iran, which was working on developing nuclear weapons despite the "agreement" before the facilities were bombed. Learn not to repeat the mistake made of not stopping Hitler before he gained power.

The Dems are for murdering babies in the womb, and they fined and jailed those who opposed them. The fraud is mostly in Democrat cities. The need for various government services is debatable, but the blame for inaction must mainly be put on
the do-nothing Senate, which does nothing because of the Dems and RINOs.

Tariffs are for the purpose of on-shoring critical industry so we will not be dependent on China. They have not caused inflation, because of Trump's pro-growth policies, including the large tax reduction bill.

The Supreme Court needs to reign in the activist DAs put in power thanks to Soros. Trump's polices would benefit the public more and sooner if not blocked by the Dems.

Crime rates were high and still are mostly in Democrat led cities that are sanctuaries for criminals.

I agree that government spending needs to balance the budget and reduce the debt, because interest on the debt can cause a depression.

The astute among us will realize that communism does not align with God's Word, and all communists in the USA are Dems.

In 2018, before the then POTUS pulled the USA out of the Iran deal regarding nuclear weapons development, Iran was in compliance and not building any nuclear weapons. Once that deal was null and void, Iran might have moved towards development, whether they actually did is debatable, but they clearly enriched uranium more than had been allowed under the deal. So, who was the brilliant POTUS who opened the door for Iran's actions?

Tariffs are a tax on the American people they are ultimately paid by the consumer. Further, applying tariffs almost universally has led, predictably to counter tariffs, which is actually strengthening China's economic power by driving other nations to seek better deals with China in response to the USA's tariff actions

The Democrats are not for murdering babies in the womb, rather they are for allowing the parents to decide whether or not to have an abortion based on their personal religious beliefs, it is called Freedom of Religion and is a right guaranteed under the Constitution. We do not know when human life begins, nor do we have a legally set recognition of life existing prior to birth, so the charge of murder is an opinion, not a fact.

And crime has been falling for years, the decline began before Trump took office either time, how do you justify that a continuing pattern is the result of Trump's specific decisions. Also, the rates of specific crimes might be higher in Democratically led cities, but the overall crime rates are very similar regardless of what party runs a city.

Are you aware of some study that indicates that all communists in the USA are Democrats? Such an approach would actually be very bad for the communists if they wish to gain control. Rather dividing their supporters between the two parties and actively using that official separation to sow dissension would be a much more practical approach, and personally I suspect the communists would be aware of it.

As for tax cuts, you do realize don't you that the historic record indicates that the economy does better with higher tax rates, especially on the wealthiest, than it does with lower tax rates. The tax cuts under Reagan, some 40 years ago, were supposed to stimulate the economy and benefit all groups, but to date have only greatly increased the wealth differences between the wealthiest 10% and the bottom 90%, and even between the top 1% and the next 9%. More tax cuts are not changing that trend.

 

[JaumeJ]

Our Blessed Lord and Savior did declare that His Kingdom is not of this world, so what in the world is the question here?
It does not serve the Lord.

No one seems to care to apply God's Word to othe previous post. I guess they would rather continue in fantasy.