I am living in an alternate universe, or perhaps bizarre world. The President of Liberty University has endorsed an individual that is not in line with the spirit for which Liberty University stands. Rev. Falwell Jr., in my opinion, is either naive or ignorant of Mr. Trump’s behavior of the recent past regarding abortion and women. Also, his wide-ranging political theory, without regard for our Constitution, is prohibitive to the cause of liberty, freedom of religion, and the rule of law.
ON ABORTION — In the following excerpts from a Dec. 5, 2015 article for LiveActionNews, author Bethany Blanckley states the difficulty in nailing down the truth of Trump’s Pro-Life stance:
It may be hard to keep track of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s position on abortion – or even understand his logic, because of a series of messy statements that fail to paint a clear picture.
On January 25, 2015, Bloomberg News‘ Mark Halperin asked Trump to state his position on abortion. Trump answered: “I’m pro-life, with the caveats. You have to have the caveats.”
When asked if abortion was murder, Trump replied, “No … with caveats, life of the mother, incest, and rape.”
When asked if an abortion performed outside of those exceptions was murder, Trump emphasized three times, “it depends when.”
Being pro-life to Trump includes legalizing abortion, which isn’t murder, within the context of timing and the three exceptions he lists.
In 1999, Trump was “very pro-choice” and supported partial birth abortion. He reversed his position on partial birth abortion in 2000, interestingly the same year when his sister made headlines supporting it.
Judge Barry [Trump’s sister] adamantly declared that New Jersey’s law was a:
“desperate attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade.” And, was, “based on semantic machinations, irrational line-drawing, and an obvious attempt to inflame public opinion instead of logic or medical evidence.”
On the one hand, Trump argues he is “absolutely pro-life.” But he also believes his sister, who supports partial-birth abortion and opposes a Born-Alive Infant Protection law, would make a “phenomenal” Supreme Court Justice.
His various statements show a serious lack of consistency, and do not encourage my support in this crucial matter.
ON WOMEN — from an 8/6/15 MSNBC article by Irin Carmon:
[Megyn Kelly] “Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don’t use a politician’s filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women,” Kelly began. “You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals.’” The crowd roared. “Your Twitter account …” Kelly continued.
“Only Rosie O’Donnell,” interjected Trump.
Kelly wouldn’t let him off the hook. “For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O’Donnell,” she said, unamused. Her other examples: Trump once told a “Celebrity Apprentice” contestant “it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president, and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who is likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?”
“I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct,” he said. He added, “I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time either.” Then he said he was just joking, and then he turned on the moderator.
“Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry. I’ve been very nice to you, although I could probably maybe not be, based on the way you have treated me. But I wouldn’t do that.”
I must admit, God forgive me, I laughed at the Rosie O’Donnell quip. The timing was just perfect. There is no doubt that the man is well versed in showmanship, but as a candidate, Mr. Trump comports himself like a petulant child. No one running for President should expect any journalist to be “nice.” Probing questions about things said publicly are certainly fair game. Worse yet, his post-debate behavior regarding Megyn Kelly included a vulgar attack with crude references to the probable role of her menstrual cycle causing her “bad” treatment of him. In another example of his lack of tact or filter, Ruth Sherlock, in a Sept. 17, 2015 article in The Telegraph, wrote:
Mr Trump later said he was talking about her persona, not her appearance.
But when Jake Tapper, the CNN debate moderator asked Mrs Fiorina to respond she said: “I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr Trump said.”
For the first time, Mr Trump looked dumb struck, and gave a smile that was almost coy: “She has a beautiful face and is a beautiful woman,” he said.
This is far from the type of behavior I would expect from any world leader. It has no place in a Presidential campaign. When threatened, Mr. Trump employs a scorched earth assault specifically to demean and destroy anyone with the temerity to challenge his ideas. In his pursuit, lying is perfectly acceptable; the ends justify the means. Unfortunately I see the same tactic from many of his supporters. They seem to be fine with ignoring the myriad red flags that pop up almost every time he speaks. There is not a factual statement known to man that will even slow them down to take a deeper look. They are all in and the case closed. This is behavior that I’ve always ascribed to liberals. Conservatives want facts, want debate, and want to be confident in a well-informed choice. This really makes me wonder from where all of his support is coming.
We’ve just finished seven years of this same trash-and-burn protocol from our current president. Seeing these tactics from a supposed conservative fills me with anger and loathing. Mr. Trump is acting in precisely the way we’ve been categorized by the left. They think he’s proving their point. And please, I can’t take another chronic liar. I am angry, but that doesn’t mean that I will abandon my principles at the very time when I need them the most. I seek a President for our country, not for just half of the electorate. I don’t want revenge; I want a return to the principles framed within our Constitution. Frankly it’s been entirely too long since we last had a President that upheld the conservative ideals of small government, state sovereignty, free markets, and personal responsibility.
I feel confused by evangelical support for Mr. Trump, especially when I factor in his religious habits. He attends church on Christmas and Easter, and some Sunday’s. Right away, this feels suspect. When he cited “Two Corinthians,” I thought he was telling a joke along the lines of “Two Corinthians walked into a bar…” When your faith is the core of your being, when it informs everything in your life, when it is where you find and form your values and principles, why would you endorse a man to whom faith seems to be an afterthought or a barrier to get around? There is an enormous field of republican candidates from which to choose, several of whom are heavily invested in their faith and values. This just does not make any sense to me.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone with true God-fearing conviction, let alone a Baptist minister and President of a Christian university, could stand with Donald Trump, and say “This is the man who I want to be President of the United States.” To endorse a presidential candidate is to put your name and your honor along his in full support and solidarity. My impression is that Rev. Falwell’s endorsement has been given without the serious thought and respect this election cycle requires. I don’t want to think about the other possible scenarios that would induce him to act this way. I sincerely hope that I am mistaken, because the position of Leader of the Free World deserves our serious attention. I would personally find it difficult to back a man without the foundation and faith to buoy him throughout his tenure in the toughest job on the planet.
Mr. Trump has just announced that he will not take part in the next debate because Megyn Kelly will again be one of the moderators, but that is an excuse. He’s clearly a control freak. As President, will he pull out of talks with leaders who do not look on him kindly? Or is his real reason, as I suspect, that he doesn’t want to take a chance on looking bad just days before the Iowa caucuses? He is well aware of the history of award-winning debate associated with Ted Cruz. I believe he does nothing that may not work in his own favor. I do not want our leader, our representative to the world, to employ this type of behavior on our behalf.
I believe we are on the precipice of the end of America as we know it. Our next president may make the difference between whether we retreat from the edge or plunge over the side. I pray that faculty, staff, and students at Liberty University, in spite of their leader, will rise in support of one of the two most principled conservatives running in this election cycle, Ted Cruz or Ben Carson. Please think twice before hiring an entertainer to do the hard work of a true statesman.
Who are you supporting and why? I appreciate your comments. I would also be very grateful if you would share this post.