by Brian Hobbs | May 4, 2016
Donald Trump’s sudden rise to the Republican presidential nomination has been as historic as it has been sensational. Claiming to attract new voters to the Republican Party, Trump also has alienated and offended enough parts of the GOP, giving rise to the movement and distinct social media hash tag, #NeverTrump.
These people, in the wake of Trump’s victory in Indiana that took out his last standing rival Ted Cruz, today are posting comments online like “It’s Mourning in America” and citing the poignant Alexander Hamilton quote, “If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible.” In other words, these Republicans will not—no matter what—support Donald Trump, even against the likes of Hillary Clinton (or a third party candidate).
This gives rise to the question, who is #NeverTrump and what impact will they have in November? I will leave it up to political experts and pundits, and time itself, to tell the answer to the second question. Though the obvious answer is if there are enough #NeverTrump people, someone else will win the presidency.
I see at least three groups, as part of #NeverTrump, who traditionally vote with the GOP:
- Social conservative Republicans who actively attend church. Southern Baptist leader Dr. Russell Moore along with other social conservatives have been vocal critics of Donald Trump’s character and platform. This wing of #NeverTrump cannot stomach’s Trump’s personal history of serial adultery and divorce, and his coarse language toward large groups of people in society. Above all, this wing of #NeverTrump seems unwilling to give the reins of power to Mr. Trump, largely because of character issues.
- National security Republicans & Neoconservatives. A major wing of the GOP under Ronald Reagan were people who consider national security above all issues, and parts of this group seem to populate #NeverTrump. These Republicans seem to distrust Trump’s foreign policy temperament and instincts. They “would not entrust the nuclear codes to such a loose cannon” nor do they want America to become more isolationist. The people tend to read publications like National Review or The Weekly Standard.
- Business/Chamber of Commerce Republicans. These people, who read publications like Fortune magazine or The Wall Street Journal, have been part of the GOP for a long time (think of Mitt Romney). This election cycle, many from this “camp” seem unimpressed by Trump’s business talk and background. I think they look at Mr. Trump as that crass, new money person who has crashed their cocktail party.
The #NeverTrump people within the GOP may be few in ranks and less influential than some might have thought, seeing as they were not able to stop Trump from getting where he is today. That being said, there may be enough of them who, though they cannot stomach the thought of President Hillary Clinton, will find another option somehow, some way.
As an Evangelical Christian with socially-conservative views, I am most interested in group number one of #NeverTrump. Time will tell if they change their tune or stick to the #NeverTrump pledge.
One thing is for sure. This presidential race is by no means over. To borrow a Churchill phrase, we are not at the end. We are not even at the beginning of the end. We may, however, be at the end of the beginning.
Whether you are #NeverTrump or not, I would encourage you to pray for our country. Let’s ask God to give us the leader we need, not the leader we deserve. As Christians, whether we are part of #NeverTrump or not, we need to be seen as #AlwaysForJesus!
by Brian Hobbs | Apr 21, 2016
When North Carolina lawmakers passed the “Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, in schools and government buildings people must use the bathroom that corresponds with their ‘biological sex,’” proponents and critics of the law have been involved in a public debate.
Often talking past one another, the stakes of the debate were just raised this week, as popular retail giant Target issued a statement saying people who self-identify as transgendered persons could use whatever restroom or fitting room they wish.
Target’s statement (read the full version here) said in part, “Inclusivity is a core belief at Target. … In our stores, we demonstrate our commitment to an inclusive experience in many ways. Most relevant for the conversations currently underway, we welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity.”
People I know, who do not want a biological male to be in the same dressing room or bathroom as women and girls, are cutting up their Target credit cards and swearing not to shop there again. Other people and individuals are applauding Target, and other corporations are sure to follow.
This public debate is getting ugly. People who support Target’s stance are accusing supporters of the “bathroom laws” as paranoid, discriminatory or worse.
Yet let’s look at some facts. Just last year, the University of Toronto had to walk back its policy of open gender-neutral bathrooms, after more than one voyeurism incident.
In the Christian worldview, we know that sex matters. God created men, and God created women (Genesis 1), and after sin came into the world, we have a fallen nature. The sexual drive is a powerful reality, and it must be checked and kept in proper boundaries.
For the better part of history, every civilization has known that bathing and dressing quarters must be separated by sex, because the sexual temptation to do wrong is so great.
In our age of political correctness and moral relativism, though, we are catering to a very small group of people and an ever-adapting worldview. Today, it’s bathrooms. Tomorrow, it could be dorm rooms. Where does it end?
Target’s policy is wrong and misguided, and there is a significant chance it will backfire in a way that even its supporters recognize, just as it has in Toronto and other places.
Until this grand social experiment with sexual identity ends, Christians will be in the minority view. Let’s pray that we can uphold the truth and decency, but in a way that when the experiment is over and the promises of the sexual revolution do not come fulfilled, that the church will be waiting to welcome them into the fold.
As Christians, we must be careful in our zeal for propriety and decency that we do not unnecessarily offend our neighbors who self-identify as transgendered. Just as God made male and female, He made us in His image and loves every sinner, every person in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Let’s not let Target’s tragic mistake get us off target from reaching our neighbors for Christ.
by Brian Hobbs | Feb 9, 2016
In the recent New Hampshire Republican debate, the question was asked, “should women be required to sign up for selected service systems” in the United States military, meaning conscription or the draft. The question comes on the heels of two leading generals saying they should and after the U.S. military approved women-in-combat roles.
Why some people say ‘yes’
The supporting arguments appear to be: 1) Now that women can do all military roles, the right should come with the responsibility; and 2) Men and women are equal therefore everyone should be required to sign up for the draft.
Before I say my reasons against requiring women in the draft, let me address these. The cement is still drying on what women-in-combat roles will look like, and we need to give it time to develop before making another change. For example, if there are, heaven forbid, women prisoners of war, will they be exposed to the harms and dangers even more pronounced than men? Also, just because a new right comes into being doesn’t mean a much larger responsibility comes with it. Just because everyone of a certain age is able to apply for a driver’s license doesn’t mean everyone is required to get one. I realize conscription is a different matter altogether legally, but I am only referring to the logic.
As for the entire equality argument, we cannot buy into the claims of an egalitarian view of men and women. Men and women are of equal worth but are not the same. Men cannot, for example, carry babies in the womb. It is okay for there to be differences.
Moreover, women are now allowed to serve in any capacity they wish in the military, so we have equality of opportunity now. To keep that equality of opportunity, we do not need to add equality of obligation.
Why we should say ‘no’
There are at least three reasons that I see to say “no” to this policy.
1. Unnecessary
Since the War for Independence to the Vietnam War to today, the draft has had a changing role in American society. Sometimes it was a major factor, while others, it was not needed. Before the present debate, the most recent major revisions to conscription policies came under the Carter Administration.
President Carter, who reinstated the draft, specifically wanted women to be drafted but for non-combat roles (though history shows a draft comes into play only when more combat soldiers are needed).
An all-volunteer and professional military currently meets our needs. If ever a day came that we needed more people than volunteer and existing draft standards could supply, then we could revisit this conversation. Currently, it is unnecessary.
2. Unprecedented
Historically speaking, there is virtually no precedent for conscripting women into military service. Women have played a vital role in each civilization, but almost without exception, other nations and generations have chosen to respect women’s right not to be drafted.
You will sometimes hear people point out that Israel drafts women for service. While they do have a draft, it does not appear their women are put into combat roles, like what is being proposed here. Also, America’s needs are vastly different than Israel’s.
3. Unwise
From the book of Genesis forward, the Bible recognizes that men and women are different. The most noticeable difference is that women, not men, carry children in the womb and give birth to every child that comes into being. Pregnancy and childbirth is a huge factor. To ask all women, ages 18-25, who might become mothers, potentially to serve in the military is asking too much and is unfair to women as a whole.
Next, the more you integrate women into military service, the more you must take into account the consequence of a co-ed military. We already must account for changing rooms, quarters, bathroom facilities and showers for military members of the opposite sex. To influx millions of men and women together will complicate matters further in ways we are not thinking about now.
Also there is a strong anti-draft sentiment in American history as it is already. Why would we expand a practice that is already compulsory to men and controversial in other ways? While I personally believe the draft is necessary and just, to expand it only compounds the societal disagreement we have now. For these reasons and more, it is unwise to pursue this course.
In summary, if women want to serve in the military, it is their choice, and they should be applauded and supported in every way. To force it upon them anew, however, is unfair, unwise and unnecessary at this time.
Let’s hope our president, the Congress and our military leaders heed the voices of caution, before the possibility of another draft turns into the reality of one.
by Brian Hobbs | Dec 29, 2015
Various news publications, inspired by TIME magazine, announce a “Person of the Year.” This has not been a tradition at the Baptist Messenger or Word Slingers to join in. But 2015 was such a banner news year, that it calls for someone to weigh in.
In a year that featured news headlines on “Cecil the Lion” to the mandate of same-sex “marriage” in all 50 states, what would the criteria be? There are no doubt politicians who made a big splash in 2015. There are unsung heroes of the faith who, through prayer and deeds done in the Name of Christ, have made an eternal impact beyond measure.
David Daleiden
For this blog post, my main criteria is cultural impact in public. Therefore, for 2015, my person of the year is David Deleiden, a 26-year-old Catholic pro-life activist who filmed and released undercover videos exposing Planned Parenthood for the practice of harvesting and trafficking body parts from aborted babies. Here are three reasons:
1. Created a cultural conversation. Using social media alone, David Deleiden’s serially-released videos from the Center for Medical Progress garnered millions of views. Even those who refused to watch the videos had to talk about them. While there is not 100 percent agreement, even within the pro-life movement, about what these videos mean, policy wise, the videos have undoubtedly created a very important conversation.
2. Led to investigation of Planned Parenthood. In the days and weeks that followed the first video’s debut, Planned Parenthood apologized for the “tone” of its workers in the videos. Their harsh, calloused attitudes fueled the controversy and ultimately led to a Congressional investigation of Planned Parenthood. In spite of President Obama’s promises to veto any legislation, the American people were reminded that PPFA does receive hundreds of millions of tax dollars each year, money they do not deserve.
3. Changed hearts and minds. Even if the polling data does not reflect a permanent shift toward life, the Planned Parenthood videos clearly brought now proponents for life to the conversation. Look no further than USA Today columnist Kirsten Powers, whose July 22 editorial that went so far to say, “When abortion doctors are elevated to gods who may not be questioned or held accountable, society has officially gone off the rails.”
I certainly understand that there will be those, Christians included, who question the motives or methods of Deleiden. There will be others who will dismiss the videos as mere propaganda. Sadly, there will even be those who blame Deleiden and his videos for acts of violence directed at abortionists.
Yet no one can rightly argue against the fact that in 2015, with virtually no money and no help from mainstream media or people in power, this particular David took on the “Goliath” of the abortion industry and scored a big win for the conversation to protect unborn life. This makes him my choice for 2015 person of the year.
by Chris Doyle | Aug 4, 2015
Monday, Aug. 3, 2015 was a monumental day for the process of changing the course of abortion in America. The U.S. Senate took significant time to discuss one of the most important social issues in our country for the past century.
Keep in mind, this process gained significant traction within a month’s time. Nobody was talking about Planned Parenthood on Independence Day. Center for Medical Progress (CMP) did not release its first undercover video until two weeks later.
The Senate did not approve the procedure to advance the Defund Planned Parenthood bill, but much was revealed in that afternoon session. Here are four takeaways from the deliberations.
- James Lankford was magnificent
If you have followed me for any amount of time, you know I’m a big fan of Sen. Lankford. He was masterful in his time on the floor. He asked for a time of discussion and respectfully allowed opponents to participate, and Sen. Barbara Boxer accepted his offer.
Lankford’s candor was pleasant to the gentlelady of California. Though Boxer spoke in direct opposition and gave aspects to support her view, Lankford professionally gave answers that debunked her points about Planned Parenthood and community healthcare centers.
Many others were champions for the sanctity of life, including Sen. (Ky.) Rand Paul, Sen. (Ind.) Dan Coats, Sen. (Iowa) Joni Erntz and Sen. (La.) Bill Cassady. Lankford definitely was a leader that day. He had answers for his opponents’ scripted remarks, and though they would not admit it, Lankford’s points could not be refuted.
- Opponents are not discussing the issues
I listened to a few senators give their support of Planned Parenthood. Basically they all said the same thing. Some would give a story of an individual woman who received medial help from Planned Parenthood, but I didn’t hear anything that signified such women would not receive similar care from another healthcare center that did not perform abortions.
Taking away women’s healthcare, not offering alternative solutions, claiming it’s a political attack and similar misnomers were read from scripts. A few mentioned the CMP videos were “edited.” But nobody discussed what the problem is. Nobody would address what everyone else is finding disturbing. The senators were so bent on supporting Planned Parenthood at all costs, even the cost of unborn babies who are dismembered and have their body parts sold.
Speaking of CMP videos, another one has been released as I am writing this piece. The content of the fifth video gives more horrifying evidence of the inhumane practices done by Planned Parenthood. Try to disregard however you wish, Senators, more and more people are watching and understanding this disheartening data that is mounting, and your empty speeches are hurting your position.
- Importance of showing up
The outcome of the cloture (Senate voting procedure to advance the bill in discussion and ultimately to a direct vote) was 53-46, but 60 votes were needed to advance. To find out how every senator voted, go to this site.
Remember how these senators voted, even the one from South Carolina who abstained. Lindsey Graham is running for president. I don’t see how he thinks not voting on this very important issue would benefit him in the presidential race.
This is not an isolated moment. This is not a bill that election voters will easily forget. Sen. Graham, you made a major mistake. Not willing to advance this bill definitely hindered your advancement.
- What’s next?
Though the Senate did not pass the Defund PP bill this time, the House is set up to favor a similar bill proposal. This means chances are good the Senate will address it again.
There are those with Pro-Life leanings who disagree with making the Defund PP a legislative issue right now. Threats of government shutdown and the expected veto by the President are reasons many find this unfavorable.
But this action is helpful for the long haul. As I said before, Planned Parenthood’s exposed practice of harvesting and selling baby parts has only been a hot topic for less than month, and keep in mind, this is gaining traction in spite of limited (almost nonexistent) coverage from the mainstream media.
Don’t throw in the towel. Remember the heroic efforts of William Wilberforce who was instrumental in ending slavery in England in the 18th century. His fight to end that inhumane practice took years, even decades to accomplish.
Consider his words from 1791 to be relevant for today:
“This is the first fruits of our efforts; let us persevere and our triumph will be complete. Never, never will we desist till we have wiped away this scandal from the Christian name, released ourselves from the load of guilt, under which we at present labour, and extinguished every trace of this bloody traffic, of which our posterity, looking back to the history of these enlightened times, will scarce believe that it has been suffered to exist so long a disgrace and dishonour to this country.”
by Chris Doyle | Jul 15, 2015
More than a year ago, a secretly-recorded conversation went viral of former Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling expressing offensively-wrong racist remarks. Following a massive social media outcry, this incident was all that was needed to cause the NBA to remove Sterling from his ownership position of more than 30 years and to sentence him “banned for life” from the association.
This week, another undisclosed recording has been shared throughout the social media world of Planned Parenthood senior medical services director Deborah Nucatola speaking matter-of-factly about different fetal organs, including heart, lung, liver, being sold for $30 to $100 a piece after such body parts were obtained from partial birth abortions of unborn children.
Like with Sterling, a public outcry was heard on social media. Unlike the NBA, when confronted with this issue, Planned Parenthood defended Nucatola and justified themselves, sadly, with many rushing to their side.
So in one case, we have Sterling speaking some truly horrible words that nearly everyone today recognizes as wrong, and he is dismissed for good. Nucatola, meanwhile, described actual involvement in “harvesting” and selling of human “fetal tissue” (body parts of unborn children), which according to the Center for Medical Progress, the group who produced the video, “is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000, according to Title 42 of the U.S. Code” – but no immediate action was taken.
Many, including Planned Parenthood, instead are focusing their wrath on the group that recorded the conversation and say they are the ones to be condemned. So what we have here is a double standard developing in which much of the same society that jumped on Sterling for his words during the undisclosed recording, and rightly so, now seems partly hesitant to hold Planned Parenthood accountable.
The days and weeks ahead will be very telling, as to what will happen to Planned Parenthood. Will there be any repercussions? Will the organization lose its federal funding or get a pass?
Will Planned Parenthood supporters distract from the real issue at hand with more “war on women” rhetoric? Will they instead focus their wrath on those who recorded Nucatola’s lunch chat which revealed, in between bites of her meal, she admits her practice involves crushing baby parts above and below valuable organs?
I certainly pray that is not the case because what is at stake is the future, not of women’s health – that is a misnomer. What is at stake is the self-preservation of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider that receives hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars each year to perform their dubious services.
Planned Parenthood has been exposed. For any good they have claimed to do, it is now more apparent than ever that this so-called healthcare provider is guilty of cashing in on their abortion carnage.
It’s time to stop looking away or making excuses for Planned Parenthood. It’s time to face the facts.
Whether or not you consider yourself pro-life, it is time to admit what is really going on through these barbaric practices performed by Planned Parenthood. It’s time to turn away from the culture of death and look toward a day in which all life – born and unborn – is respected and protected.
That’s a standard of which we can all be proud.
