Special Day of Prayer for the Enemies of the President

commentary

Franklin Graham is holding a “special day of prayer” for Donald Trump on June 2nd. Graham says the president needs prayer because he has been attacked more than any other president in history. Trump needs prayer, Graham proclaimed, because the entire nation will suffer if his enemies prevail.

I think Graham is going about this in the wrong way. If he really believes Trump is being attacked and persecuted, he should pray also for those he sees as the enemy.

Matthew 5:45 tells us:

 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

However, since he and his group of court evangelicals have chosen sides and decided their course of action, I will cover the part of the prayer territory Graham is leaving uncovered and encourage others to do the same.

Enemies Prayer List

We can pray for the House of Representatives investigators. They are having a devil of a time getting people at the White House to abide by the rule of law. They issue subpoenas and legitimate requests for information only to have them ignored. We should pray for them to have better results and that the rule of law will be followed.

We can also pray that judges quickly rule according to law and not political loyalties. So far, the results look promising.

We could pray for our allies. Often Trump seems to consider them enemies. He often has been nicer to Russia and North Korea than leaders of our traditional allies. The Graham group can pray for Trump, Russia and North Korea; we can take England, France, and Canada.

Let’s add the press to our prayer list. They have a hard job but are maligned on a daily basis simply for reporting what Mr. Trump says and does. Some are bad actors but they are on the left and right. We can pray extra for them.

Apparently, Trump thinks poor Central American refugees are his enemies. I will gladly set aside more time to pray for them. Surely, they need it. They also qualify as being members of the “least of these” Jesus told us to pray for. They should get a double portion.

Who is with me?

If you have other suggestions for our prayer list, please leave them in the comments.

Whatever you pray about, I urge you not to turn Sunday worship into a political pep rally for or against Trump. Whatever you do, do it on your own.

170 thoughts on “Special Day of Prayer for the Enemies of the President”

  1. Trump’s enemies Clapper, Brennan, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Throckmorton, …

  2. “Apparently, Trump thinks poor Central American refugees are his enemies.
    I will gladly set aside more time to pray for them. Surely, they need
    it. They also qualify as being members of the “least of these” Jesus
    told us to pray for. They should get a double portion.”

    The poor and vulnerable are especially dear to God, as Scripture, the (true) Tradition of the Church and the still, small voice of our consciences tell us …

    1. You do have to pick your battles though. It’s not healthy if a billion poor suddenly arrived here – not for them either. There’s a capacity for charity and it is not infinite.

      On the other hand these are our near neighbors. We have a higher duty to take them in than we do refugees from the far side of the planet. Furthermore the entire hemisphere is in a centuries-old pact with us where we are supposed to be helping their development and in exchange, they remain neutral.

      If it were up to me I would gradually create a free trade zone with freedom of movement across the entire Western Hemisphere. But that has to be coordinated – it can’t be done by simply refusing to enforce our own border.

      Every country needs to be in on it or it causes massive labor and capital flow issues (labor moves out of poor nations en masse, damaging their cultures, while capital stays in the capital-rich nation rather than flowing out to where the labor is, keeping those nations poor).

      What we are doing now is not working for the benefit of anyone. It’s also creating a second class society of demi-slaves.

      The greatest strategic mistake the US is making in the world today is not creating a freer and less centralized version of the EU here – an American Union from the north to south pole – to over time obliterate inequality in the hemisphere, permanently stabilize it, and forever end the threat of interference from the East leading to an invasion of our home. Every dollar spent on that would be worth a thousand spent on military adventures in the Old World.

      1. “It’s not healthy if a billion poor suddenly arrived here – not for them
        either. There’s a capacity for charity and it is not infinite.”

        I agree …

      2. I have much sympathy with your other ideas here, by the way.

        There does need to be a paradigmatic shift in our thinking, in both Britain and the USA. :Less backward tribalism and a greater understanding of our individual and national responsibility in respect of our stewardship of resources. Such a shift would help to underpin the kind of political and economic reforms needed to address truly issues around co-operation in general and migration in particular.

    1. Did you read the part where John Oliver literally did the Lord’s work by getting a televangelist’s mark to stop giving, through a skit that ripped on televangelists?

      He should do mainstream church corporations next.

  3. Attacked more than his predecessors, if you don’t count Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, or Kennedy. Or, the attempted assassination of Jackson, Roosevelt, Roosevelt, Truman, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagaon, Bush, Clinton, Bush and the threats against Obama. Of course, none of them was the New Messiah.

  4. Graham is a bozo to be sure, but there is no doubt that Trump has been attacked more than any of his predecessors. Some think that’s bad. Some think that’s good. There is significant legal questions as to whether the subpoenas and oversight are legitimate and it is likely that at least some of the victories here are temporary. In the end, I imagine that the separation of powers and executive privilege will be maintained by the courts. It is clear that the Democrats main (probably only) objective is a continued attempt to overthrow the election of Trump and to defeat him in 2020.

    But speaking of prayer, we should pray for the prosecutors who are continuing their work. Michael Horowitz as the IG in and John Durham who is currently investigating to what degree the DOJ, FBI, and CIA were involved in investigating a political opponent. We already know that it happened. We don’t know how much–who knew what and when did they know it. We don’t know the extent of the coverup from at least mid 2016.

    What threatens the future of our country is the possibility that the DOJ, FBI, and CIA can be used as weapons against political opponents or against other citizens. Trump will be gone soon. But the precedents currently being set are bad news for all of us.

    1. “….there is no doubt that Trump has been attacked more than any of his predecessors.”

      Oh, pulleez. Turn off Faux “News” and come up for a breath of fresh air.

      1. What president has been attacked more? (Remember, I don’t like Trump, have never liked Trump, don’t support Trump, and think he is a bad president. And I haven’t watched Fox News, which I presume is what you meant, in more than 15 years since I cut cable. I don’t even read the Fox News website.)

        But what president has been attacked more than Trump? Provide evidence in the form of listing investigations, subpoenas, news stories, etc.

        1. As an Obama opponent (read my blog during those years), I would say Obama was attacked as much if not more. He was probably attacked more on policy but also on stupid stuff like his place of birth and evil stuff like race. Trump is “attacked” because he lies when he speaks and he is incompetent. Clinton, Bush II, Reagan, all were attacked relentlessly by their opponents. A big difference I see is that Trump deserves nearly every thing he gets.

          1. How many subpoenas, Congressional investigations, special prosecutors, and the like did Obama faced in his first two years (or the whole eight for that matter)?

          2. You are apparently assuming there is no reason for the investigations. I believe Trump’s corruption has brought on every one of those investigations. It isn’t an attack when your own DOJ investigates you.When there is evidence of a crime, it isn’t an attack to be investigated.

          3. It is remarkable that even the most elementary of facts have to be explained to those following/supporting/defending/excusing Trump.

          4. Yes, correct. And they also have to explained to those attacking Trump. I do not follow/support, defend/excuse Trump. I never have and won’t start now. But I also can see the truth and that is something that what is apparently blind hatred cannot see. People who are heavily invested–either for Trump or against Trump–are going to see what they already saw. Everything is confirmation bias. The Mueller report proved whatever one thought it was going to prove.

            It is interesting how no one (aside from Lex Lata) has even tried to give evidence for a president who has been attacked more. No one, no matter how you define “attack” can make a legitimate argument that any president has been attacked more than Trump. And I say that as one who thinks Trump is a clown and should not be president. But let’s call this what it is. It is an attempt to overthrow the election. I hate that no Republicans are running against Trump. That makes it extremely likely that we will have four more years of Trump and that’s sad. But what is sadder is this whole process. Now, “We can’t prove he didn’t do it” is the bar for political opponents. What a shame.

          5. But even granting he’s been “attacked more”, what other president even remotely attacking every single perceived slight and presumed enemy as relentlessly as Trump? What other president ever openly invited a foreign power to interfere with an American election? What other president has ever so relentlessly bashed every ally and sucked up to every dictator he’s met? What other president has appointed so many cronies and incompetents to staff up his government? What other president has ever attacked the free press and even the freedom of the press as much? What other president has so completely hidden his finances and business dealings, or has refused to separate himself from them.

            None. Hence the attacks.

            As for “We can’t prove he didn’t do it”, Mueller pretty much stated that but for the precedent of not indicting a sitting president, he would have brought charges of obstruction against Trump. He’s left that up to Congress to pursue, but of course, impeachment likely comes with a serious political cost.

            Nobody is saying you love Trump, but you sure are bending backwards to see him and his actions in the best possible light, even if that’s just to say he’s as bad as any other president.

          6. It is an attempt to overthrow the election.

            This accusation could be lobbed at any investigation and/or impeachment of the Executive. Since such oversight and action is a constitutional mandate for congress, your statement is meaningless. You said it yourself, he should not be president. There are good reasons for this, and he has earned every bit of consternation he has experienced.

            If we are not going to impeach this president, then we may as well concede that we will never do so again. He is the epitome of one who is unfit for that office. Such action is probably not politically wise, but it is the right thing to do – constitutionally and morally.

          7. No, it can’t be. No one suggested that the Clinton investigations were attempts to overthrow the election. There are good reasons he should not be president, but they were not included in this investigation or in anything that is currently being investigated. This thing, from day one, was “We don’t want this guy to be president.” It is likely that this was the insurance policy. Remember the scandal when Limbaugh said of Obama, “I hope he fails”? This is that 1000 times worse because it is not just legislative scheming over political differences. It is an outright attempt to remove him.

            Impeachment requires “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” None of those things have been alleged here. The closest was an accusation of colluding or conspiring with Russia, but the investigation said that didn’t happen. Remember when the Left said Trump must accept the Mueller report? As it turns out, it is the Left who isn’t accepting the Mueller report.

            Mueller yesterday confirmed that there was no conspiracy, as if the report wasn’t clear enough. And he confirmed that there was not sufficient evidence to charge obstruction. He violated policy and probably constitutionality by saying as much as he said in the report. The government cannot allege crimes unless they are going to charge them. That is why Grand Jury testimony is sealed. It is most likely a violation of due process. For Mueller to say all this publicly and not give Trump a chance before a jury of his peers to defend himself is wrong. You charge it or you keep your mouth shut. (Same thing with Clinton and the emails, BTW. Comey was wrong to do what he did.)

          8. No one suggested that the Clinton investigations were attempts to overthrow the election.

            Actually, they did.

            One rhetorical device that has recently been employed by some who oppose the impeachment of President Clinton is that impeachment of the President will “overturn the election.” The suggestion is that the congressional majority is using impeachment for political reasons–to undo a presidential election in which their party did not succeed.

            The success of this rhetorical strategy rests wholly on the expectation that those to be persuaded by it will not read the Constitution. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified on February 10, 1967, states: “In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.” Since the vice presidential and presidential candidates run for office on the same ticket, impeachment of the President could not possibly result in a change of political party control in the Executive. Any assertion to the contrary is patently false.

            REPORT of the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1998

            Impeachment requires “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” None of those things have been alleged here.

            “In fact, ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ is not defined in the Constitution and does not require corresponding statutory charges. The context implies conduct that violates the public trust—and that view is echoed by the Framers of the Constitution and early American scholars.” — Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan

            “A high crime is an affront to the state, to the people, the body politic. A president, or any leader really, need not break any statute in order to break the public’s trust.”

            — Jeffrey A. Engel, director of the Southern Methodist University Center for Presidential History

            https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/may/29/justin-amash/what-counts-high-crime-or-misdemeanor-impeachment-/

            And he confirmed that there was not sufficient evidence to charge obstruction.

            A sitting president can not be indicted. Impeachment is the only method by which he can be held accountable for crimes. Mueller made it clear that he could not rule out obstruction and gave 10 possible instances of it. The rest is up to Congress.

            I would submit that Trump’s obstruction is ongoing, enabled by views such as you have presented here. As much as I disagree with him on a range of issues, I seriously doubt we would be discussing impeachment if, say, John Kasich had been elected. This is not about which side won an election. It is about the actions of the man who currently holds the office.

          9. Well done, David – I don’t know what kind of blinders one must have on to think the word “coup” hasn’t been screamed from the rooftops from the beginning. To an unkind eye it was like the wailing of a stuck pig.

          10. With an impeachment the accusation is true though. It is an attempt to overthrow the election result – generally for political reasons. There’s nothing wrong with this, it happens by a simple majority vote in most countries, and fairly often. It’s frankly weird that it’s never happened in the world’s oldest democracy (bullets and resignations are historically the only way out for US presidents – disclaimer please don’t shoot anyone).

          11. No, impeachment is NOT an “attempt to overthrow an election result.” Impeachment is the 1st step in removing someone who is unfit for office.

          12. But even granting he’s been “attacked more”, what other president even remotely attacking every single perceived slight and presumed enemy as relentlessly as Trump? What other president ever openly invited a foreign power to interfere with an American election? What other president has ever so relentlessly bashed every ally and sucked up to every dictator he’s met? What other president has appointed so many cronies and incompetents to staff up his government? What other president has ever attacked the free press and even the freedom of the press as much? What other president has so completely hidden his finances and business dealings, or has refused to separate himself from them.

            None. Hence the attacks.

            As for “We can’t prove he didn’t do it”, Mueller pretty much stated that but for the precedent of not indicting a sitting president, he would have brought charges of obstruction against Trump. He’s left that up to Congress to pursue, but of course, impeachment likely comes with a serious political cost.

            Nobody is saying you love Trump, but you sure are bending backwards to see him and his actions in the best possible light, even if that’s just to say he’s as bad as any other president.

          13. Trump’s an idiot to be sure, and your recent history is somewhat distorted. But Mueller did not say that. He said that prevented them from doing, but he did not say whether the absence of such a guideline meant they would have. What is interesting is this line that is overlooked: “Among other things, that evidence [from the obstruction investigation] could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.” In other words, the investigation could now charge people other than Trump for obstruction if it occurred. And they did not do it. Why didn’t they charge people they could have charged? Doesn’t it seem that should answer the question? They didn’t do it because there wasn’t enough evidence to do it. It may be a Clinton type refusal: What was done was bad and technically illegal, but there was no corrupt intent and no reasonable prosecutor would bring the charge. It may be a refusal based on the arguments in Section 2, arguments that required a certain stringing together of evidence that must be evaluated in a certain light; were that evidence viewed differently, it would not be sufficient to charge. It seems that the bulk of obstruction charges were things that were completely within the president’s purview to do.

            I am not seeing Trumps’ actions in the best possible light. There is no good light for many of them. What I am seeing is what many refuse to see–that the federal government used its power against a political opponent following nonstandard and even illegal procedures. And people roll over on it because it was used against their enemy. The same people who spent the 2012-2016 complaining about GOP investigations into Clinton, Holder, Lerner, Lynch are now performing investigations with less of a basis.

            If Bush in 2008 had done this type of stuff against Obama, people would have been outraged, and rightly so. But because it’s Trump, it’s okay. I think that’s wrong and I think you think that’s wrong.

            Trump is not the biggest danger. He will not be president forever. It is the abuse of power that is a far bigger danger. When government power can investigate political opponents we are headed towards a totalitarian state. We are not there yet. I think the Durham and Horowitz investigations will be very interesting, which gets us back to my original point: If you are going to pray for people, pray for them, no matter which side you are on.

            How did Clinton take $145 million from Russia and the DNC engage Russian help to defeat Trump and no one bats an eye? How did that not get investigated in an investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election? The DNC asking for Russian help is undisputed.

          14. Trump is not the biggest danger. He will not be president forever.

            The way he’s setting himself up as an autocrat, I wouldn’t be so sure of that.

          15. He is not setting himself up as an autocrat. A federal government that uses its power to investigate political opponents is the real danger.

          16. So Congress is prevented from exercising oversight if the subject happens to be in the opposition? Where is that in the Constitution?

          17. Seems the only time congress exercises oversight is if the subject is in the opposition. 🙁

          18. True, though at least with Nixon the party in power did follow suit eventually. I don’t see that happening today.

          19. So Congress is prevented from exercising oversight if the subject happens to be in the opposition? Where is that in the Constitution?

          20. “Not setting himself up as an autocrat”? Right. He’s just painting the free press as the enemy of the American people, and trying to do end runs around the other two branches of government to get what he wants. Y’know, the kind of things that dictators do.

          21. How did Clinton take $145 million from Russia

            Good grief, now you’re buying into unfounded conspiracy theories about the Uranium One deal?

            But even if you don’t take either Clinton or Fernandez at their word, the reality is that the State Department was just one of nine government agencies that signed off on the transaction.

            Second, while we concluded that nine people related to the company did at some point donate to the Clinton Foundation, we found that the bulk of the $145 million came from Giustra. Guistra said he sold all of his stakes in Uranium One in the fall of 2007, “at least 18 months before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state” and three years before the Russian deal.

            We’re done here.

          22. No, it’s not unfounded. It was signed off on. That wasn’t the issue, but again, you appear not to know what the issues actually are. It’s okay. But be careful spouting this kind of stuff. It reveals a lack of awareness

          23. Are you forgetting that Clinton didn’t make the Uranium One decision? Are you aware that if she voted against it that the deal would still have been approved. Sheesh. Are you getting your “news” from Hannity or crazy RWNJs? See Shep Smith’s Report on the Uranium One deal. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8vCjyWlpmEY

          24. That’s just slightly dehumanizing. Though if I were to spend the next ten minutes on breitbart I might be screaming similar. And LT…. yeah.

          25. No, I asked a question. How many subpoenas, Congressional investigations, special prosecutors, and the like did Obama face?

          26. Let me see. Benghazi wasn’t during the Obama years, was it? Fast and Furious?

            You probably think those investigations were warranted, but not Trump’s.

            Am I right?

          27. They were actually warranted though Benghazi was overdone. Fast and Furious and the IRS were scandals that deserved attention and in which the Obama administration acted very similarly to the Trump administration. But the number of those and the effect of them pales in comparison to what is going on now.

          28. No such assumption at all. But you know as well as I do that no president has been attacked like Trump. If we take all the legal investigations out of it and just watch the news, it is clear that Trump has been attacked more than any other. The only one that may come close was probably Clinton. Bush was attacked more than Obama, but that was mostly in the press rather than through legal channels. Obama was mostly given a free pass though there were a number of scandals in his administration below him.

            The corruption of Trump is far from proven. There’s a reason why these investigations have turned out as they have.

            Are you comfortable with an administration using the power of law enforcement to investigate political opponents? Are you aware of how out of the ordinary this whole process has been?

            So yes, Trump has been attacked more than others. Some think that’s good. Some think it’s bad. But there’s no reasonable way to dispute that.

          29. The corruption of Trump is far from proven.

            I suspect that’s largely because he refuses to publicize his tax returns. Can’t help but wonder what skeletons are hidden in that closet.

          30. That’s why even I rip on him any time it’s funny, even though I voted for the guy. He totally brings it upon himself. He does it to appeal to the two-digit portion of the electorate. I saw him doing it when he announced at Trump tower in 2015 and knew from that moment unflinchingly that he would win.

          1. We don’t have to ask. We can look at the evidence, and when we do, it is clear that he was not attacked more than Trump in his first two years, and perhaps not more than Trump’s first two years compared to Obama’s eight years.

            But we have to get past the emotions and look at data. So go ahead and list the subpoenas, the Congressional investigations, the special prosecutors, etc. The actual data supports the idea that no one has been attacked more than Trump.

          2. The burned effigies of Obama were attacks, yes? When Trump verbally attacks people who didn’t *attack him* but merely said something he didn’t like, their response isn’t an *attack*. Obama haters (I didn’t vote for him) even made and shared a false dubbed in video where he supposedly said he wanted to take over the US, end elections. When a Christian sharing it was apprised of its inauthenticity, her response was that it sounded like something he would say. How on Gods green earth could someone think that sounds like something he would say? The only way I can think of is that they been listening to RW nut jobs and liars. The attacks by Christians and right wing media against Obama were obscene and rampant. They were lies. The continued lies by right wing media were daily attacks.

          3. Yes, but not to the degree that Trump has been attacked. What was done to and said about Obama is wrong. But again, you can’t see it that way. The attacks on Trump by Christians and non-Christians and media (not just left wing but also center and right wing) are obscene and rampant. Some of it is lies. It is daily and all throughout the day.

            If you are against this kind of stuff, then you should be against it now. If you are’t against it, you can’t be against it. In other words, you can’t say it was wrong for Obama but okay for Trump. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong.

          4. Those sneaky Kenyans think they’re getting away with it, using the “natural born citizen” loophole to run for President by being born in ‘Murica.

            I did an honest legal analysis of this and tried to find any way that Obama wasn’t eligible to be President, but the only way, boiling away all the jargon, was if women aren’t legally people, and even then it’s still iffy.

            Like Ted Cruz. He wasn’t born in America (unless we annex Alberta, Canada….). So if we go with the “women aren’t people” joke interpretation of the Constitution, Ted Cruz actually can’t be President because only his mother was a US citizen when he was born.

            This is essentially the argument that “Obama is illegitimate” makes – that women aren’t people.

            SNL points out that Canada won the 2013 government shut down because Ted Cruz is Canadian:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4T779nmXK8

        2. Remember, I don’t like Trump, have never liked Trump, don’t support Trump, and think he is a bad president.

          You can stop repeating that over an over, as your comments rob you of any credibility in that particular area.

          1. Why are you wasting time responding, you know exactly where the discussion is headed.

          2. I know. Sometimes hubris and ignorance must be challenged, even if it is hopeless. The important thing is to avoid going down the long rabbit holes with him.

          3. Ok, it’s time for me to write “I will not feed the trolls” 1000 times on the chalkboard. He sure is a passive-aggressive son-of-a-gun.

          4. Not at all. It actually should give me more credibility because I am not defending Trump. My concern is the bigger picture and the truth. Others are concerned only with politics and the immediate. I would love for Trump not to be president. But this is not the way to bring that about.

        3. Two of them were murdered in the line of duty; does that count? One of them might’ve considered himself to have been attacked far worse than Trump given that a third of the country seceded before he even took office, merely because he was elected.

          1. We were actually talking about the modern era, but who pays attention to context anymore. But the two who were murdered was completely different since they were not widespread attacks by political enemies. And Lincoln wasn’t attacked by secession. That was in the works long before.

      2. Actually Reagan was the most attacked president. He got shot at more than any of them.

        Good thing he was made of Teflon.

      3. Actually Reagan was the most attacked president. He got shot at more than any of them.

        Good thing he was made of Teflon.

  5. My monkish mentor taught me that all factionalism and even patriotism is bad, because it divides people and severs the love connection that should exist. It also turns people into puppets, or puppet masters, neither of which is healthy.

  6. Once again Dr T you are very correct! Praying for your enemies is probably the hardest thing for most Christians to do. Your point is one of the reasons I love my liturgical church. When we have the ‘Prayers of the People” we touch on many causes and concerns in a systematic way, including praying for our President, state governor, senators, and our local congressional representative. We pray for them year in and year out, regardless of whether we voted for them.

    On a different topic, I am a conservative Republican but not necessarily head of Trump’s fan club. May I ask the Trump haters (and I’m fine with you hating him) not to call conservatives and/or Republicans racists, homophobes, or Nazis. That’s like calling Democrats baby killers. I have many like-minded, conservative Republican friends (I also have a number of liberal friends too!) and none of them are racists etc or they would no longer be my friend.

    1. Good luck with that. But if you look around here, you’ll see that attaching such labels towards conservatives/Republicans and/or Evangelical Christians is a pattern and seems to be the norm among commenters. Nothing appears to be changing so you gotta like it or leave it.

      1. I voted for Trump but I’m not loyal to any party or faction. I would’ve voted for Sanders too. They both had policies likely to pass that would somehow help the little guy. Sanders would’ve strengthened unions directly, for instance, while Trump strengthened them on the supply side with some protectionism (which is why he won the blue wall of the rust belt).

          1. You are sounding like a reincarnation of Sam80 in your comments. If you just started commenting how do you know the commenters who you believe will sack her?

          2. I have seen other post about Court evangelicals, where these three have been very antagonistic towards Trump supporters, especially if they are Evangelical Christians:
            /2019/05/27/what-will-court-evangelicals-pray-on-trumps-special-day-of-prayer/

            Franklin Graham is one of the most humanitarian people in the world, and his organisation Samaritan’s Purse did a lot of good work in LDC’s countries, and it is devastating that he would get such treatment here from people who claim to be Christians.

            Besides, I’ve seen ortotierra’s comments on sojo.net, interestingly with exactly the same avatar picture, where he/she has been badmouthing conservative Evangelicals who voted for Trump pretty heavily. The same can be said about ken by looking at his profile at disqus; he is zealously anti-Trump/pro-choice/hostile towards evangelicals.

            Look, it is very upsetting that you would go through so much dirt-digging on good conservative and/or Christian men and women, like Candace Owens, just because they have exercised their constitutionally given right to vote for Donald Trump, based on their deeply held conscious convictions. I was referred here by DoctorDJ to this post:
            /2019/04/11/the-source-of-candace-owens-ahistorical-claims-about-hitler-and-german-nationalism/

            Over there, I have seen evidence how another commenter named Basement Berean has refuted hers and your assumption that Candace was supporting Hitler, and one of his ardent attackers for defending Candace’s character was the aforementioned ken. You have invested so much energy by pointing how much bad influence she got in order to simply discredit her. That didn’t make any sense to me because regardless of who we follow and what we read, we are still capable to make our own judgments about things. I watched the video that Basement Berean provided and it was very educational to me after hearing what she said.

            It looks like your whole blog is dedicated to shaming all kinds of people just because they are conservative and if anybody who is trying to offer you a different perspective, or point out to you that you might be making mistakes, it will not be not welcome here. So, it’s possibly pointless to comment here if you are politically leaning right of the centre.

            Where is your grace, unless you assume that they always make mistakes but you never?

          3. Franklin Graham is one of the most humanitarian people in the world…

            I think Naghmeh Abedini would beg to differ.

            https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2016/02/15/saeed-abedini-and-franklin-graham-promote-couples-counseling-to-reconcile-the-abedinis-because-of-saeeds-abuse-is-this-counterproductive/

            and his organisation Samaritan’s Purse did a lot of good work in LDC’s countries…

            Are you sure?

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/12/20/filling-millions-of-shoe-boxes-of-toys-for-poor-kids-seems-like-a-great-idea-heres-why-its-not/?utm_term=.06627b83dffc

            In any case, to my knowledge Franklin Graham has never walked on water, and he is by no means above criticism. Especially if he’s pushing politics under the guise of proclaiming the gospel.

          4. Criticizing Franklin Graham’s activities is one thing, intentional mischaracterization of what he actually does and public shaming of people who consider him, and others like him, a good man, is another.

          5. Actually, this article from Christian Post says, by quoting the words of Franklin Graham, that he admits that Trump has made mistakes but there is still a need for him to pray for someone in authority, where Trump happens to be. In his interview, Graham is not endorsing Trump either, and he is praising some members of the Democratic party. In other words, this article gives a very balanced perspective on Graham, which strongly contradicts the way Warren is portraying him here and here:
            https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wthrockmorton.com%2F2019%2F05%2F27%2Fwhat-will-court-evangelicals-pray-on-trumps-special-day-of-prayer%2F%3ALPi86KxJQ3sR7LdW0Ft05j5xg_s&cuid=5511795

            I’m afraid it wouldn’t be liked here because of that, just so you know.

          6. …he admits that Trump has made mistakes…

            And also says that it’s “demonic” for Trump’s political opponents to try and hold him accountable for those mistakes, if they happen to be illegal.

            In his interview, Graham is not endorsing Trump either…

            So he claims. In the next breath, he crows that Trump is probably “one of the great presidents of our country”. (Where’s my barf bucket?)

            …and he is praising some members of the Democratic party.

            How? By calling their actions “demonic”? You have a funny concept of the word “praise”, Jason.

            And anyway, Graham’s melodramatic claim that Trump’s impeachment “could lead to civil war” is simply ludicrous. If the U.S.A. is so fragile that it can’t withstand the political downfall of a racist, foul-mouthed, overgrown baby, then perhaps it’s not worth preserving.

          7. The CP article, as a whloe, does not make the claim that Graham believes that Trump is doing anything illegal. Further, it demonstrates that Graham is only considering the actions of only those who attack Trump as demonic, but not of all Democrats. For example, he said positive things about Tulsi Gabbard. Overall, this article’s main point is that only God can fix the mess we are in that has occurred because of Trump, that’s why Graham is encouraging people to pray about it, without endorsing either Republican or Democrat politicians.

          8. Further, it demonstrates that Graham is only considering the actions of only those who attack Trump as demonic, but not of all Democrats. For example, he said positive things about Tulsi Gabbard.

            Exactly. Those who agree with Graham — that Trump did nothing wrong, and we should all just “move on” — get his praise. Those who disagree with him are labelled as “demonic”. Graham seems to offer no possibility that he might be wrong about Trump, or that Democrats calling for impeachment hearings are doing their jobs, by trying to find out the truth and hold him accountable.

            …that’s why Graham is encouraging people to pray about it, without endorsing either Republican or Democrat politicians.

            Except that Graham did endorse Trump, by saying he’s “one of the great presidents of our country” (*retch*) and by calling his opponents “demonic”. After all, if demons are opposing a guy, then he must be God’s man, right?

          9. Graham believes that when people pray, God is giving them answers, so it looks like he wants to hear an answer from God whether Trump should be impeached or not.

          10. From where I sit, Graham has already decided on his own that Trump should never, ever be impeached. Otherwise, why would he denounce as “demonic” those who are trying to do so?

            Honestly, whenever anyone labels others as demons simply for having a different opinion, it’s hard to me to give him much credibility. I’ve seen this done too many times, to too many compassionate and conscientious people. I think Graham has lost whatever respect I had left for him — which wasn’t much.

          11. Actually, based on what I’ve seen from And I’m Cute, Too, I learned that Graham is not perfect because he has made honest mistakes like dealing with that Iranian minister. There were also some issues with Samaritan’s Purse on financial front, but overall this organization has helped a lot of poor and sick people all over the world. Here:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan%27s_Purse#Controversy
            Although his actions deserve constructive criticism and I appreciate that from Cute, Graham always meant well. However, that CP article on him, demonstrates that he is not what most commenters here see about him.

          12. I’m a very balanced person, and I have friends who are both socio-politically conservative and liberal because I found their values to be both helpful. Who I can’t stand are the extremists, both on the right and the left. Obviously ken, DoctorDJ, and otrotierra are of the latter, but I’m guessing what they do here is considered the norm, so I ain’t planning on arguing about that. It’s a waste of time.

          13. Their view of Trump is quite different than mine. Where I see a mixed bag with a net positive for the little guy, they acknowledge no positives and that makes him a monster that must be destroyed. If I didn’t see any positives I might agree with them.

            For one example, with the wall. It’s almost like they heard Trump’s first speech about the wall and only heard the wall part, they didn’t hear the part about the big beautiful door, about us “loving Mexicans” and only wanting them to come in legally. One reasonable cause for discounting the latter statement is that his speaking style lacks anything like nuance and so his “criminals and rapists” comments could reasonably be interpreted to cast doubt on it.

            On the other hand, he’d basically be the only racist in New York if that interpretation were true. Reasonable minds can thus disagree.

            Most of the worst Trump negatives are like that. Reasonable minds can disagree about them. I say “most” because Stormy Daniels and Trump University are inexcusable (instead, reasonable minds disagree about whether it matters).

            I would only say that if you always resolve these issues in the same direction (for or against Trump, or splitting the difference) that you are probably being unfair.

            I think a fair-minded view of Trump usually reveals itself by being somewhat dispassionate compared to average, whether it is positive or negative.

          14. “loving Mexicans”

            Oh, gimme a break. That’s about as convincing as his hesitant statement of love for the LGBTQ community during the Republican Convention, before he started dismantling their protections left, right, and center.

            There is nothing in his immigration policy, stated or unstated, that would remotely back up his claim to love Mexicans (other than loving the low wages of the dozens of undocumented Mexican workers employed by his properties, of course).

          15. Yes, I pointed out that there are reasons to reasonably doubt that claim.

            He did negotiate for a minimum wage for Mexican auto workers, though that is not immigration policy.

            It was an extreme shock to me when he kicked transgenders out of the military. That’s a fair point and it’s one I’ll have to wrestle with before I can vote for him again. The school bathroom stuff I would leave to local standards so we can experiment nationally and find what’s best. I think innovation is called for because the issue is new.

            Who knows, maybe we’ll all find a new, cool and more socially constructive way to pee. That would actually be neat.

          16. “loving Mexicans”

            Oh, gimme a break. That’s about as convincing as his hesitant statement of love for the LGBTQ community during the Republican Convention, before he started dismantling their protections left, right, and center.

            There is nothing in his immigration policy, stated or unstated, that would remotely back up his claim to love Mexicans (other than loving the low wages of the dozens of undocumented Mexican workers employed by his properties, of course).

          17. I see a mixed bag with a net positive for the little guy…

            Pardon my asking, but what “net positive” do you see, and for which “little guys”, exactly? The only ones I see winning with Trump in office are major corporations and the Trump family.

  7. Add scientists to the list of Trump’s enemies to be prayed for. Particularly those who study the effects of human endeavors on climate and the environment. Maybe particularly for those scientists who actually work for the government (EPA, NOAA, etc.) who are being muzzled under this Administration.

  8. Psalms 109:8 might be appropriate prayers for both President and VP.

    That is, if you ignore Nietzsche’s warning. “Those who fight monsters must beware that they too don’t become monsters thereby”.

    I prefer not to ignore it. I’ve seen too many good people fall into that trap. I have to try really hard not to be one of them.

    And I’m atheist, so don’t pray anyway. I vote. I give money to those less fortunate. As for sins, I have too many of my own to deal with to give much thought to others’ errors. Selfish of me, I know.

    1. May his days as leader be few. Of course, I would be delighted if he were to have a long spell as a jolly old grandpa, caring for his family (for a change), rather than foisting his (and their) dysfunction on the rest of us.

    2. When Messiah Yeshua mused about people like you He considered you to be the same as His most faithful servants. Doing good for goodness’s sake, showing compassion to the poor and needy for compassion’s sake – there is no truer religion. Indeed, people who did this without any religious compulsion or knowledge of Him were praised by God as if they knew Him as well as anyone.

      Your path doesn’t generate revenue for the clergy or new members for the factions though, so they won’t love you for it. But I do.

      1. Indeed, people who did this without any religious compulsion or knowledge of Him were praised by God as if they knew Him as well as anyone.

        Out of curiosity, what is the scripture reference on this?

        1. Matthew 7 generally shows Jesus’s attitude towards words like professions of loyalty versus deeds, and the value of non-judgmentalism shown by Zoe.

          Paul finishes my point starting at Romans 2:13:

          13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

          Also remember Jesus’s parable about the two sons the father gives a task. One says he will do it, and does not, while the other says he will not do the task, but he does it anyway.

          Which one honored his father?

          Then remember the Roman Centurion who begged healing for his beloved male slave. The dude was literally a pagan and possibly sleeping with the slave, and Jesus said he had never seen such faith in all of Israel.

          This stuff is how I know Yeshua is the real deal Supreme Being and Creator of the Multiverse and not just another religious quack founding an empire. Samaritans, Jews, Pagans, these labels are of no significance to Him or what faith in Him really means. Which is to Love God (which you can do by truly Loving Love, or Goodness, for these are Him), above all and your neighbor as your self.

          I am confident that those who live for others for these motives store up treasures in heaven and Jesus doesn’t care who you are or what you believe, when you act like Him, you’re His body and His truest church.

          1. Love God (which you can do by truly Loving Love, or Goodness, for these are Him)

            Don’t you think it’s the other way around? Love isn’t God; God is love (e.g. He embodies, defines, acts out of love.) If you worship “love” you will almost inevitably worship your own definition of love and by proxy, a false god, as opposed to the true character and nature of the great “I AM” – the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob revealed in the Bible.

          2. “Your own definition of love.” Excuse me, but everyone worships their own definition of whatever they worship. They can’t have any other concept but the one that they have. They acquire this concept through learning.

            A person who seeks to improve their understanding and practice of Love towards all mankind because they love love for its goodness, and another who seeks to improve their understanding of the God of Love and service to Him, are on the same path. You can’t walk the same path and reach different destinations.

            God is bigger than a name or personal entity, He is beyond a force of nature, and He is the source of every good and pure concept is His very being. That is why the only commandments Jesus gave were to Love. He said if you did that, you have fulfilled the law. Whoever fulfills the law is not condemned.

            Remember, that when He healed the pagan Roman Centurion’s pais, that He said He had never seen more faith in all of Israel. That would seem to include all His disciples and His own revered mother.

      1. You might also read verse 6 preceding it: appoint someone evil to oppose my enemy. Since in your case it’s Trump and possibly Franklin Graham, Michael Tait, and Candace Owens, are seriously desiring someone doing evil to replace Trump?

      2. You might also read verse 6 preceding it: appoint someone evil to oppose my enemy. Since in your case it’s Trump and possibly Franklin Graham, Michael Tait, and Candace Owens, are you seriously desiring someone doing evil to replace Trump?

  9. I’ll add all people of color who are being stressed by the daily displays of overt and covert racism from the governing republicans.

    1. This is the most ignorantly immature comment about Republicans in government I have ever heard by suggesting that they are all racist and oppress people of color. I’m sure Candace Owens would have a word or two with you.

      1. Candace Owens who doesn’t quite understand Hitler or the position of people of color in Hitler’s Germany? That Candace Owens? The one who said the Southern Strategy didn’t happen? That Candace Owens?

          1. So this Fox “News” segment is supposed to win us over to Owen’s pro-Trump position? The segment in which Candace doubles down on Trump’s name-calling of Maxine Waters as “Low IQ.” Wow, talk about ignorantly immature comments!

            And “I don’t get the whole thing about Hitler’s Germany. Why is it relevant?” Seriously? Good Gravy, crawl out from under your rock and pay attention. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwRMXkb-WjY

            And of course, on this blog: /2019/04/11/the-source-of-candace-owens-ahistorical-claims-about-hitler-and-german-nationalism/

            Sorry, but your Ms. Owens is an embarrassment. She’s just a modern Stepn Fetchit, doing the white man’s bidding for The Donald’s attention and white GOP praise.

          2. All television news is cancer. The only heady stuff I ever consume in mass media these days comes from The Atlantic.

          3. Yet Candace Owens is still responsible for her own words and actions, and does not get to hide behind “all television news is cancer” claims.

          4. Does anyone know what Owen’s actual credentials are (ex. degrees, experience etc)?

            So far the only things I’ve been able to find is she is a black conservative who supports Trump.

          5. Combine “she” and “black” and she’s an instant hit to the Trump crowd.

          6. Does anyone know what Owen’s actual credentials are (ex. degrees, experience etc)?

            So far the only things I’ve been able to find is she is a black conservative who supports Trump.

      2. I see racism all the time on the right. You can’t swing a dead cat in the most popular right-wing internet comment sections without hitting a racist statement or attitude. Since that’s the right-wing electorate, suspicions are kept high, and that’s not the left’s fault.

        And keep in mind, that’s just racism. The misogyny and homophobia are even crazier.

        No one ever calls them out for it either.

        1. There is also a lot of racism on the left. You can’t swing a dead cat in the most popular left-wing internet comment sections without hitting a racist statement or attitude. They too have mysogyny. Charges of “homophobia” are silly. We need to get past that fear of disagreement and stop calling people names because you don’t feel like making an argument.

          1. So when someone in an ultra-popular right wing comment section tells me I should kill myself because I’m not straight, that’s not homophobia.

            Good to know.

          2. I have no idea, but on it’s face, no it isn’t homophobia. It is wicked and evil, but not homophobia.

        2. I guess I’ve been reading the wrong right-wing internet comment sections. Of course, bigoted dumbasses were around well before Trump ran for office

      3. King and Trump are not politically correct. That does not make them racist. As for Candace, I said above that I checked a thread dedicated to her and even commented there. Basement Berean provided a video showing her in a positive light, but quite a few people did not like it.

    2. Trump won more of the black and Hispanic vote than Romney. And Romney is part Mexican IIRC.

      1. “Part Mexican” in the sense that his father was born to Mormon couple from Utah who were part of a colony of Mormons in Mexico, you mean? Hardly relevant, which is why it never came up in the election.

        Yes, Trump eked out a whole extra 2% of Hispanic and black voters with his populist message, but if you believe that’s going to happen again in 2020…

          1. So, not surprisingly, down 6% since the election with Hispanics. The 18% black support seems to be an outlier — it’s been in or close to single digits for the rest of his presidency. Only time will tell if it’s a trend (which I doubt).

    1. Religion businesses gross me out when they aren’t used for political control. This is just sick.

  10. Graham’s ‘Trump-the-Victim’ thesis could perhaps be countered with the last sentence of Luke 6 : 38.

    (Matthew says something very similar, of course.)

  11. You’re on a roll, Warren!

    England could certainly use your prayers at the moment, by the way …

        1. The first few hundred pages are just “China” scrawled over and over in ink, blood, and feces.

          1. That figures …

            Incidentally, I wonder what would happen if China suddenly decided to buy less US debt (which, despite the current lack of banking crises, appears to be rising faster than ever), perhaps from January 2020? An interesting (to put it mildly) thought …

          2. I’ve worked in capital markets, especially fixed income like bonds, for 8 years.

            US treasuries are top quality. Not only are they considered to have no credit risk at all (the Constitution forbids not paying them first out of all revenues), but they can be converted directly into dollars and through that anything money can buy.

            This gives them a certain idealized position in capital markets that makes a trillion dollars of dumping a fraction of the total that are exchanged in the bond markets in a single day. It would either cause a week long ripple effect that was minor, or, much worse for China, a sixty second blip if they did it by surprise on a payroll Friday.

            China can dump our trillion dollars of treasuries. They’re still going to need dollars though, that need doesn’t stop just because they decided they don’t want to collect interest anymore. It’s the official currency of far more than just the United States and the unofficial currency of the world. Since treasuries are exchangeable for dollars, the effect of this transaction is approximately the same as if they just burned all their interest payments in a fire.

            A final issue is lack of alternatives. There isn’t that much debt available to buy in the world. Outside buying from the U.S., large investors have to create a basket because they can’t buy it all in one place. Canada, the UK, and Germany between them do not have enough debt to satisfy the needs of global investors.

            What all this means is that the debt China dumps will be lapped up faster than a jar of honey dropped in a den of starving bears. In fact it’ll happen electronically with MIFID2 in Europe so there is a tiny chance nobody would even know it happened until they wondered why they made so much money.

            Just one trader at my one firm trades the full value of Chinese treasury holdings every year. That’s the volume.

          3. Thank you for that commentary!

            I am not well-versed in these matters, I have to admit.

            My question is: if what you say it true (and I have no reason to contest it!), why is Trump so frightened of China?

      1. You realize that if the prayer is answered, the Big Guy ends up on the list too.

        South Park actually did a multipart episode on Bush wanting to nuke heaven. (To be fair Saddam Hussein went there when he died and was building weapons of mass destruction).

      2. You realize that if the prayer is answered, the Big Guy ends up on the list too.

        South Park actually did a multipart episode on Bush wanting to nuke heaven. (To be fair Saddam Hussein went there when he died and was building weapons of mass destruction).

Comments are closed.