For the past couple weeks, the left aided by the judgmental have been preaching to the rest of us that voting for Donald Trump means that we condone his immoral past. Last week we shared how this is a deception and a trap to demoralize Christians and pragmatists into either not voting or throwing away their vote. The sad and immoral ironies of this finger-pointing are horribly rich. Allow me to point some of these out by way of a series of questions. If a vote for Trump endorses his immoral past, then doesn't a vote for Clinton endorse hers? Then doesn’t a vote for Clinton endorse her corruption? Doesn’t a vote for Clinton endorse her criminal obstruction of justice? Do you apply this same approach in the work place when you elect a CEO, hire an employee or promote an employee? Aren’t you opposed to the public judgment of other individuals, while openly judging us? Would Jesus point His finger at us as you are doing? Are you downplaying a much larger and much more immoral threat to far more people?
Let’s begin with “Judge not.” While the left and some religious people preach this partial quote of Jesus (deceivingly ignoring the whole quote), they find no hesitation in ignoring their own advice when it comes to judging those they preach to. For example, they preach that we should not judge homosexual acts as sin, but they can judge us for voting for an immoral man (when every man is immoral). Where is the integrity in that? This hypocrisy is logical rubbish. You either believe and practice what you preach or you are the type of hypocrite that you seek to condemn. That said, as we proceed in this discussion, we will refrain from the obvious hypocrisy of ignoring Hillary’s public destruction of her husband’s sexual assault victims for now so we can focus on immorality that actually relates to the political issues at hand in our country. We vote less on the past than we do on the future. But, since the leftist media establishment wants to make issue of the distant past, let’s focus also on Hillary’s past as it relates to the issues. Isn’t that fair game?
It was highly immoral and illegal for Hillary to destroy evidence while under criminal investigation. That is illegal obstruction of justice. This corruption relates to the issues at hand as the President is supposed to be the Chief Executive who executes the law of the land. That is why under Federal Law, Title 18, Section 2071, Hillary is legally disqualified from running for public office. That statute reads: “Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States … shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.” The difference between Trump’s and Clinton’s immorality is that Clinton’s truly does disqualify her while Trump’s does not.
But, that is not the worst of what you should consider if you truly believe that a vote condones a candidate’s immorality. Hillary Clinton has been very outspoken condemning Trump supporters as “deplorables.” And, she holds herself out as a champion for women and children verbally referencing her historical record. While her bought silence regarding the degradation of women in Muslim cultures discredits her self-promotion, so does her record on abortion. And, she has been found guilty of paying her male staff more than her female staff. But, that is not the worst of it, believe it or not. And, ironically, the worst of Clinton was also caught on tape.
Please pay close attention while I share a true story with you that is not getting a lot of press (for obvious reasons). The year was 1975 and Hillary Clinton was a practicing attorney who decided, as a favor, to represent Thomas Alfred Taylor as his defense counsel against his rape charge. If you did hear about this in the news or in social circles, it was probably framed to you as if she was just doing her job and all people tried for rape have a right to counsel. That is true, but that is not the whole of the story. The victim in this case was Kathy Shelton and she was 12 years old when Hillary’s client brutally raped her. She was so violently raped that she required surgery, stitches and ended up in a coma for five days due to the physical trauma she endured. As a result of the ordeal, she was robbed of her ability to birth children. As part of Hillary’s defense, she had her client submit to a polygraph test, which he passed. She also requested that the girl’s underwear be re-tested at labs of her choosing. However, before she sent it off for testing, she tampered with the evidence by cutting out the parts that contained the girl’s blood and the man’s semen. Of course, the tests came back negative. Lastly, she accused the 12 year old girl in court of having fantasies about sex with older men and even had the court order that this 12 year old girl undergo psychiatric testing against her and the family’s will. Due to Hillary’s obstruction of justice, the rapist got off on a lesser charge for time served (two months). Approximately ten years later (mid 1980s), Hillary admitted all of this on a recorded conversation mixed with her cold laughter. Hillary was recorded laughing at the fact that “I forever lost my faith in polygraph tests.” In other words, Hillary knew he was guilty, abused the evidence, destroyed the girl’s life, and helped the guilty go free. Does that sound like a familiar pattern? Even to this day, Kathy Shelton’s life is ruined. Yes, rapists are due their day in court with defense counsel. But, Hillary illegally destroyed the life of a little girl, and laughed it off. You can hear the tape of her laughing while admitting to all of the above HERE. Isn’t that relevant to a candidate who claims to be the champion for women and children? Isn’t that relevant for a candidate who insists that every rape victim be believed? Isn’t this deplorable?
So, by the finger-pointer’s logic, if voting for Trump condones his distant immoral past, a vote for Clinton condones this. While I don’t subscribe to this logic, if you do, you should be bound by it if you value integrity. However, to me what is worthy of more focus is the immorality of the platform of the candidate of those on the left pointing fingers. The reason why personal immorality is less relevant than platform immorality is because we are primarily voting for the future. And, the left wishes to distract from their corrupt platform. The immorality of Hillary's Godless platform, coupled with globalist and socialist intentions, is a far greater and immoral threat than anything Trump has said or done in his distant past. We are being duped into focusing not on the issues in order to support the one whose stance on the issues reeks with ominous immorality. Would you support an immoral figure who is advocating for the protection of you and your children over an ill-bent opponent? Would you vote for an immoral person rightly advocating for your Constitutional rights over the person opposed to your Constitutional rights? If you realize that it is likely that a candidate that stands on the most immoral platform in our country’s history is about to win, would you not support the most likely obstacle? Does Trump’s immorality exceed Clinton’s combined with her platform’s? Again, moral people can have moral reasons to vote for immoral candidates.
There has been much discussion in Christian circles this election cycle about Biblical analogies to this election and the candidates to Biblical characters. Even in this blog, we have made analogies because analogies to Biblical examples are important to Christians. For example, using the above example, Christians today are being lied to by the immoral media about what morality is and what it should look like in a candidate by virtue of slanted comparison. But, this media seems to have no clue about the Bible, morality or logic for that matter. They are only concerned with electing their felony advocate for tyranny, no matter what it takes, even if it means deceiving Christians into either not voting or throwing away their vote. I was confronted by some over my post last week as if I was making analogies between certain Biblical characters and Trump, even though I was not. But, since I was so confronted, I won’t shrink from the challenge. I will make an analogy.
The best analogy that I have seen for Trump is Sampson. Sampson was a leader of Israel in the times of the Judges. Sampson was therefore a Judge, an appointed leader by God. In fact, from birth, Sampson was the only person in the Bible who was dedicated to be a lifelong Nazirite on all three Nazirite vows by God Himself. It was God who appointed Sampson to deliver Israel from before birth in God’s complete sovereignty. And, what Sampson did with his adult life was highly immoral – far more immoral than what we are discussing today. His story is recorded in Judges 13-16. Sampson was immoral with women and with war. He violated all three of his Nazirite vows, slept with ungodly women, including prostitutes, and violently killed Philistine men over bets, if not for sport. And, yet, He was God’s choice as Israel’s judge and delivered them from the Philistines. If today’s Christians had a say in God’s choice at the time, using today's logic, we would have undoubtedly disagreed with God and protested Sampson’s appointment. And, we thereby would have missed God’s point. Sampson was addressing a greater immorality that was not eclipsed by his own. And, God used Sampson in spite of all of his public shortcomings to deliver Israel. After Sampson had been publicly humiliated at the hands of Delilah, his hair was cut, his eyes gouged out, and he was trotted out for mockery before a full arena of Philistines. Then, he prayed to God one last time. And, God, ever near, answered, restoring His Spirit to Sampson one last time, imbuing him with power such that Sampson was able to pull down the pillars of the arena and kill every Philistine inside. God used the highly immoral Sampson to bring judgement against Israel’s pagan adversary. Yes, Sampson was highly immoral, but he was God’s chosen judge none the less.
America will be judged. And, we are in need of a judge. We have killed far too many innocent babies for America not to be judged. All of the corruption that we are seeing against the will of the people is a direct correlation to how we have allowed the vilest of corruption in the wombs of our mothers and against the innocent lives that God hand-formed there. Of course we are in need of a judge. And, we need a strong judge. We need a judge that is powerful and capable of tearing down that which no other is capable of tearing down. And, we need a judge who can be humiliated, and yet tear down the corrupted pillars of our nation that need to be destroyed. We need a Sampson, just like Israel needed a Sampson, immorality and all.
In conclusion, I leave you with a challenge. If my Biblical analogies disturb you, then submit your own. But, first I challenge you to determine what Biblical character is analogous to Hillary Clinton. To whom would you compare Hillary to in the Bible? Who in the Bible compares with her disdain for God’s laws? Who in the Bible compares with her public corruption? Who in the Bible would destroy a 12 year old rape victim in order to enable the rapist to avoid punishment? Who in the Bible would claim that no person in the womb has rights? Who in the Bible would support globalism at the expense of sovereignty of the American people? I can think of a few Biblical characters that fit the bill. And, if they were sitting on the ballot so analogized, Christians would be much more urgent in opposition. Yes, you have a horrible choice this election. We all agree with that. Having to choose between an immoral, narcissistic and bombastic Sampson and a lying criminal with a Godless platform is tough. But, at this point it really only comes down to two candidates. Either way judgement will come. But, between the two, you are wise to discern which of the two God would have you choose.
You can purchase the book "Reason If You Will - How To Answer Questions Regarding Faith" by clicking HERE. Profits go to Camp Bahamas. You can also follow @ReasonIfYouWill on Twitter.