Donald Trump is an Antichrist

I’ve been saying, “What the heck, Republicans”, and more to the point, “What the heck, Christians”, since 2015 – ever since Donald Trump put on his red hat and descended the escalator to launch his presidential campaign. I’ve been saying it a bit less lately – not because I feel the sentiment any less, but partly because I’ve gotten tired of saying it, and I’m trying to not be judgmental of people who have different political ideas than me. Accept it and move on, right.

But I still have to repeat it, every so often, when I see the kind of things Trump does and says – the things he says about himself, the things he says about others, and most confusingly, the things his supporters who profess to be Christians say about him. That’s especially true during these Republican primaries, when GOP voters – including the “evangelical” base in Iowa – have other conservative Republican alternatives to vote for. This isn’t the general election, where (the argument goes) they have to vote for him because it’s a binary choice between him and the pro-choice Democrat. They actually have choices. And in Iowa, they chose Trump in overwhelming numbers.

What the ever-loving heck, Republicans?

On January 5th, Trump shared a video titled “God Made Trump” on his Truth Social platform. The 2-minute 45-second video wasn’t made by his campaign, but by some of his supporters. But by sharing it on his social media and playing it at his campaign events, he has endorsed its message and amplified it to his supporters. Other Trump supporters, such as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Rev. Paula White Cain, a televangelist who promotes the prosperity gospel, have shared it on their social media platforms.

Here is the video.

Congratulations to the Dilley Meme Team!

President Trump just shared this meme on his Truth Social account!

"So God made Trump"https://t.co/OJ27ElQr5V

— Brenden Dilley (@WarlordDilley) January 5, 2024

The AI narrator – whose voice is supposed to sound like the late Paul Harvey – begins by saying, “And on June 14, 1946, God looked down on his planned paradise, and said, ‘I need a caretaker.’ So God gave us Trump.”

He goes on to list all the things that God supposedly wanted, leading to his creation of Trump, repeatedly ending with, “So God made Trump.” He lists things that Trump supposedly did, such as “get up before dawn,” “ruffle the feathers,” “rustle the deep state,” “shape an ax but wield a sword,” “turn liquid to gold,” and so on.

Up to this point, the video has shamelessly used God’s name to promote Trump and his political agenda. That is a violation of the 3rd commandment (“thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain”), and a reason to warn professing believers who share or promote the video. But the problem of conflating a political agenda with the kingdom of God is a relatively old one in American evangelicalism, and so here it’s merely a bit more egregious than normal in that regard.

But at minute 1:42 in the video, the narrator anoints Trump as “a man who cares for the flock, a shepherd to mankind who won’t ever leave nor forsake them.”

As every Christian should know, there is only one Shepherd who will never leave nor forsake the flock, and that is Jesus Christ. This language is taken directly from Scripture. Trump is comparing himself to Jesus – to God Himself. This is blasphemy!

He has played this at his campaign events. He has called his opponents vipers and wolves; he says undocumented immigrants are poisoning the blood of the country.

And yet, his vicious rhetoric and blasphemous self-promotion has his supporters – many of them professing Christians – nodding along.

What. The. Heck.

Antichrist, the Boastful Deceiver

Mark 13:21-22 says this:

Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe him. ²² For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, the elect.

According to these verses, false messiahs – false christs – will arise and attempt to deceive the elect. 1 and 2 John speak of the Antichrist as a deceiver, and warn about many deceivers and antichrists who have already gone out into the world.

Paul in 2 Thessalonians speaks of the Antichrist (the “man of lawlessness”) thus:

He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

The Antichrist is not just “anti”, as in opposed, to Christ; he will be a leader who sets himself up as a god – whether literally or in a more subtle, spiritual sense, ultimately the outcome in men’s hearts is the same. Usurping God’s place is essential to his mission in the world. He wants to take the place in men’s hearts that belongs to Christ alone, and in fact, he wants to deceive believers and lead them away from Christ. In fact, all antichrists want to do so, as Jesus and John warned. Christians are not immune to the deceptions of the antichrists.

Daniel 7 speaks of the “little horn” who will arise from the kingdom of the fourth beast. and speaks boastful things (this matches the beast in Revelation 13:5 who speaks proud words and blasphemies). This little horn arise before the courts sit in the judgement, his power is taken away and destroyed, and the Son of Man is given power and authority. All nations and rulers worship Him, and his kingdom lasts forever.

I don’t believe Donald Trump is the final Antichrist of the end times. There are certain things about the Antichrist that he doesn’t quite fit (for example, he deceives the whole world; most of the world doesn’t seem to like Trump, by contrast. He also seems to be someone connected to Italy or the Roman Empire by ancestry, and is probably a European leader). However, I did discover this Youtube video, which was made while Trump was President, with a Bible-based argument that Trump IS the Antichrist. I have to say, that’s a better argument than I anticipated it would be. I wonder what he would say now, since Trump is out of office. I suppose if Trump wins election to a second term, all bets are off and it might be time to reconsider the argument.

But think about it how Trump fits the general descriptions of the Antichrist – things that any of the antichrists during history would share. That video lists some of them. Even if Trump is not *the* Antichrist, I’m confident saying he is *an* antichrist.

He is well-known for speaking boastfully and proudly – he is quite over-the-top with it. He sets himself up as a leader who will supposedly make everything right, if you just vote for him. And he lies constantly. His lies are so numerous that it’s tedious to try and keep up with them all. But he lies about things that can be easily fact-checked – and trivial things, for no apparent reason. He lies about things that make him uncomfortable; he lies to get out of scandals. He lies to make a decent accomplishment seem bigger than it actually is. This article lists 15 lies, but there are many more.

Jesus said, “ I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him.” Trump does not claim to come in God’s name. He comes in his own name; he has placed his name on many properties and products, such as Trump Tower, Trump International Hotel, and Trump Steaks.

Trump has said he has not asked God for forgiveness of his sins. His campaign is marked by rage and vindictiveness – in fact, that is the main feature of his campaign. He tells supporters, “I am your retribution.” At his events, he has pastors who pray and speak to his supporters; one compared his campaign to the second coming of Christ, and another said it was the best thing that had happened in the church – “other than you giving your life to the Lord.” Then Trump comes on, praises evil rulers of this world like Xi Jinping of China, insults his opponents, uses crude language and curses from the stage, and promises to bring retribution to those who have supposedly harmed him.

Jesus preached honesty, forgiveness, humility, kindness, unselfishness, and helping those in need. He taught that the greatest commandment was to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and to love others as ourselves. He gave his life for the world, “while we were yet sinners”, as Paul says. In all of these areas, Donald Trump stands for the exact opposite – and he is deceiving the elect. This marks him as an antichrist. Christians should beware, and not give him their loyalty, or their votes in November.

On Refugees: A Plea for Compassion

(I wrote this a few months ago on another site. Re-producing for this site).

Reading discussions of various political issues, I am occasionally reminded that an American-centered worldview is not synonymous with a Christian worldview – nor is even a “conservative” worldview, necessarily. Not every position that might be considered “conservative” – or that is based on the mantra of “America First” – is compatible with a truly Christian worldview, which I consider essential to being right.

There is an enormous, unprecedented refugee crisis in the world today, affecting over 60 million people. In Syria alone, over 11 million out of a population of 22 million have been displaced or killed.

And yet, many professing Christians here in America would rather prioritize their own material comfort and safety, putting up literal and metaphorical walls to keep out these people who are fleeing terrorism. They are seen as a threat and a burden.

This should not be so. Instead, this is an opportunity. An opportunity to carry out Christ’s commands to love our neighbors, especially “the least of these,” and as James said, to minister to widows and orphans, which is essential to true religion. (I am a passionate pro-lifer and we conservatives do a great job on compassionately opposing abortion, but we should also consider how the same principles of compassion, the sanctity of life and the value of every human being, also apply to the refugee crisis). An opportunity to witness to lost souls (many of whom were trapped in repressive regimes with little opportunity to hear the Gospel), and to show the love of Christ to rest of the watching world – how the love of Christ transcends borders and cultures, and casts out fear.

The command to “be not afraid” is one of the most repeated instructions in the Bible. It is certainly legitimate to have concerns and to expect the government to practice prudence. But many of the concerns that have been raised (economic, legal, religious, and security-related) are based on misconceptions, and the fears are overstated.

First, the fact is that the U.S. screening process is one of the strongest in the world – thorough and very strenuous. The likelihood of being killed by a terrorist attack from a refugee in the United States has been calculated at 1 in 3.6 billion.

No refugee, of the three million admitted through the resettlement program since the late 1970s, has committed an act of terrorism within our borders.

Of the domestic terrorist attacks inspired by extremist Islam since 2001, 70% of them were committed by U.S. citizens. In the same time period, about as many people were killed by white supremacist terror attacks as by radical Islamist attacks, and more were killed by dog attacks.

And even if the concerns and fears weren’t overstated or based on misconceptions, the command would still apply. “Be not afraid”, not because there is nothing to fear, but because God says, “I am with you.”

Putting America first over being disciples of Christ is great folly for Christians. To me, it’s astonishing and sad to see so many putting their own fears ahead of helping those who are desperately in need. Please, open your hearts and have compassion for the strangers.

In the Chronicles of Narnia, Mr. Beaver was asked if the lion Aslan – the Christ-figure of the stories – is safe. He replied, “Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good.” What’s true of Christ is also true of the Christian life. Safety is fine, and reasonable actions can be taken for protection; but safety can never be the main concern if we are following Christ.

This thought-provoking blogpost by an acquaintance of mine really hits hard:

If we truly loved, as Christ loved us, we wouldn’t be arguing about whether or not we should let refugees into our nation. People’s lives are at stake, and we could do something about it. Many of these people aren’t walking in relationship with the Father, and we could show them how.

Instead, we are afraid of losing our freedoms or being blown up in our own land. As “disciples of Christ,” we are arguing over statistic numbers while thousands are ending up dead.

Can you really call yourself a follower of Christ and refuse refugees?

Roy, Douthat, McArdle on GOP healthcare plan

Avik Roy and Ross Douthat were the first two guys I thought to check in order to learn more about the GOP health care plan. (Roy is, of course, well known as a health care wonk, and Douthat is my favorite columnist). Like many others, their reaction is negative.

Here is Avik Roy’s article at Forbes. He mentions that the best part of the bill is its overhaul of Medicaid, but criticizes other parts, such as its failure to repeal most of Obamacare’s insurance regulations because Republicans decided to pass the bill using reconciliation, which can only be used for taxes and spending; the flat tax credit, which creates a disincentive that traps people below the poverty line; the high threshold for phasing out the tax credit, etc. Best quote is at the end:

Expanding subsidies for high earners, and cutting health coverage off from the working poor: it sounds like a left-wing caricature of mustache-twirling, top-hatted Republican fat cats. But not today.

Ross Douthat had a series of tweets that I feel are worth mentioning. First, this:

Re-up: The Case for Cassidy-Collins:https://t.co/xCBColFimL

— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) March 7, 2017

Then, this series:

My own crude take is that the Republican Party hasn't come to terms with two key points on HC.

— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) March 7, 2017

First, off Laszewski's point about Dem vs. GOP constituencies, that they are no longer mainly a party of the middle class and up …

— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) March 7, 2017

… and 2nd that they need to choose *between* spending & regulation in the short term if they want a stable market for lower middle class.

— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) March 7, 2017

That is: If you want a more deregulated market (by all means!), you have to allocate *more* $ to take care of the sick. Alternatively …

— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) March 7, 2017

… if you *don't* want to spend more $ directly, you need regulation to stabilize the markets. You can't go for both at once.

— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) March 7, 2017

You want a flat credit? There's a case for that. But then you need to pre-fill HSAs and spend more on high risk pools.

— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) March 7, 2017

He also re-tweeted a decently fair-minded explanation of what Paul Ryan might be thinking – almost, but not quite, a defense – from a surprising source, Matthew Yglesias at Vox.

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/839158746853097472

Finally, Megan McArdle at Bloomberg takes apart the plan – it’s basically Obamacare lite, among other problems – and provides a rather funny line, if you’re in the mood for snark:

I must point out that it’s actually quite clear what problem this bill solves: the problem of Republican legislators who want to tell their base that they repealed Obamacare, just like they promised. Tada!

She also points out that, since it’s not likely to work, the GOP would own any ensuing failures; no longer could they point to Obama and the Democrats as the problem.

As it stands, I’m inclined to doubt it should be passed. Something should be done, but not anything. It needs to be something good; something with enough bipartisan support to pass both the House and Senate. Something that won’t simply get repealed when the Democrats inevitably win an election and return to power. We can’t just keep passing the health care yo-yo back and forth every four or eight years. And it needs to be something that won’t let the Democrats credibly declare the “conservative” plan a failure and therefore show the need for single payer health care.

If I were the GOP leaders, I would seriously consider dropping the philosophical opposition to a mandate as a sort of litmus test for any reform, and begin to tout a plan like Switzerland’s. Republicans get to lower government health care spending, and transform the system from an employer-based system to a private, individual, consumer-driven market, while the mandate, regulations on insurers, and goal of universal coverage could be what entices enough Democrats to support it. That might be a way to get 60 votes in the Senate and change the system for the long term (and avoid single payer).

If that’s not possible, perhaps just go with Cassidy-Collins for the “federalist compromise.”

Here’s a post about politics.

We all know who Sarah Palin is, after this last election cycle. The Republicans nominated her for Vice President. She’s an evangelical Christian and the governor of Alaska. Personally, I think she’s great.  

Many liberals seem to hate her. If you look around the internet at liberal blogs and at comments made by liberals under news stories at places like Fox News and CNN, you can see that. They basically seem to think that she’s an extremist, she’s dangerous, she’s a hypocrite, she has no “intellectual curiosity”, she’s stupid, blah, blah, blah. None of this is fact-based, by the way. It’s all based on inaccurate, biased reporting by the mainstream media, and on their own preconceptions about conservative Christians.

So, this is about an article that appeared in the online Wall Street Journal not long after the election. (Not sure if it appeared in the print edition or not). Here’s the link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122610558004810243.html  It was written by Mark Lilla, and titled “The Perils of Populist Chic.” Basically it said that the conservative intellectual tradition is dead, implying that Palin and her supporters are dumb. I thought it was a pretty stupid article. I felt like I’d stumbled onto some liberal blog.

Then I read the comments, a lot of which disagreed with the article. They were much better. There’s one that I want to copy and show on this site. Here it is:

As a pro-Palin ‘intellectual’, I would have to seriously disagree. ‘Intellectualism’ on both the left and the right has become an end in itself, an arrogant competition in who can spin the most complex webs. The end result of that is already visible in the market; look up what the Nobel Prize winners of Long Term Capital Management wrought a decade ago, or the the current disaster of ot he GSE’s aided and abetted in large part by Harvard Law grads Frank and Dodd. Go through the list of failed investment banks; most were led by people with advanced degrees in that softest of sciences, economics, while advanced degrees in mathematical sciences were a prerequisite for the geniuses that created toxic debt instruments.

Intellectualism to be useful needs to be grounded in reality – that somewhat forgotten notion of common sense. This is especially true in any field that has to do directly with assessing risk, because risk itself is not quantifiable, it is subjective. The Wall Street brain trust forgot that; people like Palin, or Joe the Plumber, have to live with it every day. Unlike the professorial class, there’s no job tenure for for your average person. Palin was able to articulate it very well, but unfortunately that message – through a rather dark MSM filter – was seen as ignorant, provincial, demogogic.

But just how true is caricature? I would suggest, not very, and in fact I would suggest that those who subscribe to that belief ask themselves on just what real evidence they do so. There’s very little to support their claims; if you sit down and trace the most egregious complaints about her -particularly with respect to abortion, or drugs, or education, to her actual political stands, and her accomplishments in office and in her family, you’ll find more often than not that what the public is being shown is what the media has chosen to project upon her. This is just bad partisan reporting, and in itself is not unusual. Reporters are not paid to think. Her actions in office indicate a person that – while strongly committed to her own view – are both open and tolerant to others, and flexible enough to generate real, political consensus. The failure of the self-annointed intelligensia to use that fundamental tool – doubt – supported by independent research to clarify issues for themselves and others stands in far greater condemnation of academia than of those they oppose.

It’s a very dangerous precedent for the US, where, on the whole, history has been more balanced. There have been slips (like Kennedy’s ‘Best and Brightest’, who brought the US into Vietnam, or FDR’s economic revolution, that kept unemployment well above 10% until the advent of WWII). But on the whole, the US professoriat stayed away from the hard partisanship one found, say, in 1931 Germany, in which academics led suport for National Socialism by a two-to-one margin relative to the working classes. It should be worrisome to anybody that they seem to be slipping back into that mode now, particularly with regards to the manner in which they are doing so.

So, there it is. Hope you weren’t too bored with it.

Here are some more pictures of her, followed by a couple videos.