Archive for July, 2016

Why Trump Will Win

Thursday, July 7th, 2016

Trump will beat Hillary–not so much based upon their policies or (lack of) popularity, but primarily because this is how American politics works.  Since we’ve just completed eight years of a Democrat administration, it’s time for the people to revert back and choose a Republican this time.  That’s the way our two-party system works.  We move to the left for eight years until the pendulum swings too far.  Then we move back to the right for eight years and get tired of that as well.

Over the last 150 years since the two major parties have been Democrat and Republican, this trend has been broken only a handful of times (and only once by a Democrat), and it was always following a very popular and very strong president.  Furthermore this has only happened once during the last 60 years.  Reagan was so strong and popular that he won 49 of 50 states in 1984, so his vice president (Bush 41) was able to squeeze in on Reagan’s coattails.  However, Bush was then unable to get re-elected on his own.

Before that, Vice President Truman became president following the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and he won one additional term.  These two presidents kept Democrats in the White House for an unprecedented 20 years.  Again, this was due to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s popularity during the Great Depression and World War II.

The Republicans held the White House for 12 years from 1920 to 1932 when Hoover rode Coolidge’s coattails and got elected for a single term.  Like Bush, he was unable to get re-elected.  The same was true for the Republicans when Taft was able to get a single term based upon Teddy Roosevelt’s popularity.  The longest the Republicans ever held the White House was 16 years, with President’s Grant, Hayes, Garfield, and Arthur.  All of this was really due to carryover of Lincoln’s popularity after Johnson’s failed succession to Lincoln.

This means that even the effects of well-liked presidents such as Eisenhower and Kennedy weren’t able to keep their party in the White House for over eight years.

History tells us that only the strongest and most popular presidents can keep their party’s administrations going for over eight years.  So, Trump will win because Obama has been weak and unpopular, leaving no coattails for Hillary to cling to.  President Obama, we’ve read history, and you’re no Reagan, Roosevelt, Coolidge, or Lincoln; or, even an Eisenhower or Kennedy.

How Will He Do It?

Here’s the breakdown of registered voters by gender and race:


Of course this won’t happen, but if all women & minorities voted for Hillary, and all white men voted for Trump (and all registered voters really voted), then Hillary would defeat Trump by some 65 million votes.

Now, here’s what the polls would have us believe:  That about 90% of minorities & women will vote for Hillary, and about 90% of white men will vote for Trump.  Here’s what that would look like:


Hillary would still beat Trump by some 52 million votes.

However, suppose that the Trump voters are indeed more motivated to vote.  Let’s say that 50% of the women & minorities actually vote, but 90% of the white men actually vote.  Here’s what that would look like:


Trump would edge out Hillary by some 1,000,000 votes.  This total of 134,500,000 is, in fact, about the number of votes that will be cast.  It will take about 67,250,00 to win, and in the above scenario, Trump gets 67,750,000.

Is Abortion Wrong?

Thursday, July 7th, 2016

As Featured On EzineArticles

What are the definitive arguments on Abortion? We must consider it from all of the various points of view, including morality, science, women, government, civil rights, viability, and compassion. Which arguments make sense? Should we consider the arguments of violence from the right, or Planned Parenthood from the left? What’s the most compassionate thing to do?


The Bible forbids taking another person’s life in Exodus 20:13. Although some would argue that this somehow excludes the life of the unborn, the Bible doesn’t exclude any life. Exodus 21:22-25 specifically addresses the unborn where it tells us how we should handle the situation where a man injures “a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely.” The punishment is to be in accordance with the injury done to the child, to the extent of “life for life.” In other words, if he kills the unborn child, then by Old Testament law the man should suffer capital punishment. In today’s society, this would not only outlaw abortion, but it would also implicate the mother and the doctor in the crime.

Isaiah 49:1 is a supporting text: “Before I was born the LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name.” God called Isaiah before he was born, implying that his life began before his birth. Based upon the above scriptures, it’s obvious that life begins at conception, and unjustly taking any life is forbidden.


Life inside the womb should be at least as clear to the scientific community as the “clear evidence” of the fossil record. Ultrasound technology, photographic-like 3D / 4D images, and (more recently) DNA evidence make it impossible to deny the reality of the life of children inside the womb. Just ask any doctor who has performed complex fetal (prenatal) surgery on children as young as 18 weeks of gestation.


What about the argument that a mother should have the right to do whatever she wants with her own body? Well, there are limitations upon our liberties, and we’re all glad that there are. A person is free to do as they choose only until their behavior hurts someone else. A person has the freedom to get drunk, but not to drive drunk because that endangers others. A pregnant mother is not at liberty to hurt her unborn baby, for example, by taking drugs that will harm the baby. Likewise she is not free to ask a doctor to kill her unborn baby, any more than she is free to ask him to kill her infant or toddler.


Some argue that our Constitution protects all “citizens” but not all living people, and that a child doesn’t become a citizen until he is born. If they want to split hairs on this, then we should redefine citizenship. If an 18-week-old fetus has the right to have surgery (during the first half of the pregnancy), then it seems obvious that both life and citizenship begin at conception. If children of illegal aliens, who are not U. S. citizens, have the right to a free public education, surely an unborn child has the right not to be killed. Aren’t we a bit inconsistent when our governments often charge killers of a double homicide when a pregnant mother and her baby are killed, yet it’s OK if the mother asks her doctor to kill her unborn baby?

Civil Rights

Abortion may be the last civil rights issue, especially when considering its effect on the African-American community. Although African-Americans make up only about 13% of the U.S. population, Black mothers account for over 35% of all abortions. Some 16 million African-American babies have been legally aborted since 1973–about 1,876 each day. We have murdered 30% of our African-American population through legal abortion–a black baby genocide.


Although death by abortion is a grossly violent act, that’s not what makes abortion wrong. Abortion is wrong because it unjustly ends a person’s life, regardless of the degree of pain and suffering inflicted upon the victim.

Planned Parenthood

Of course Planned Parenthood should not sell the body parts of aborted babies, but that’s just a consequence of abortion. Abortion is wrong because it’s murder, and the selling of body parts is a separate crime.


The question of viability should not enter into the discussion of abortion. Viability refers to the ability of a person to maintain himself, and it is used as a vague notion for when a baby is able to live outside of the womb; i.e., without prenatal help. All babies are human beings, regardless of age, and destined to walk this earth the same as you and I, and we all need help in one way or another. Whether we kill a 10-week-old baby or an 18-week old baby that has already survived surgery, we have killed a human being either way. We can’t set some man-made cutoff based upon somebody’s opinion of when a baby is viable. The next step would be to establish viability as the point where the baby needs no help to survive–maybe two years old, or five years old. After all, can a two-year-old maintain himself without help? Likewise an unborn baby needs our “help” not to kill him.


How can we pretend to have compassion for children who are starving, homeless, or in poverty when we don’t care about children in the womb? Isn’t it even more compassionate to refuse to kill a completely innocent child than to feed a starving one? Of course, abortion is wrong.