Trump vs. Clinton (series)

Trump vs. Clinton: A Deliberate Decision

By Jim DeCamp, 9/19/2016

I am late to the fight, though have no apology for coming nor regret for the delay. The Primary season and the Convention in Cleveland revealed serious matters that, hopefully, will be resolved in due time. But now there is time only to focus on November 8, 2016. As I see it, it’s not a matter of which party wins; it’s about whether our Republic survives.

This is the first of a number of posts in which I will lay out my reasons for voting––and campaigning––for Donald Trump. It’s been a very deliberate process, which I’ll explain in this initial post. But first….


I was born and raised in Seoul, South Korea, by missionary parents. My father, who had been imprisoned by the Japanese and served as a U. S. Army chaplain in World War II, led me to love freedom. The proudest moment of my life (up to that point) was the day I turned 18; I went with my father to the United States Embassy in Seoul and registered for the draft. I knew there was now the possibility of wearing the uniform of my country, and I was so proud I could hardly contain myself.

Today, having retired from nine years in the Infantry and 22 years as an Army chaplain, nothing has dimmed this passion for freedom, though I have seen the cost of preserving it. Now, what is left of freedom in America must be defended still, then fully restored!


I have no illusion that the case I make for Donald Trump is an easy sell. My candidate throughout the Primary (who was not Donald Trump) was lied about and attacked by individuals, the media, and his own party. His wife and father were the subjects of salacious and fallacious accusations. While his opponent received hundreds of millions of dollars in free airtime, by contrast he was the object of a media blackout. His principled, Constitutional stands have been answered with vitriol and threats from his party. Yes, I am angered by all of this, myself.

America must have a Constitutionally-committed, serious-minded––and united––major political party. Some of my friends have given up on this vision for the Republican party. Time will tell. I trust that the conflict will be resolved as soon as possible, but that will not happen before November 8.


My purpose here is to encourage support for the one candidate who carries a ray of hope, who provides a foothold––who, if nothing else, may at least buy time––for the recovery of the land we love.

Time is very short––not just till the election but, in my view, for our nation, itself. Laying down past grievances till November 9 will be painful; the other side may mock or seek advantage for the future. But this election is about the future of our Republic, our children…our sweet freedom. The side with the most Constitutional and compelling arguments will win if the people have a voice. And only one of the two remaining candidates has been willing to listen to the people.

1. Trump vs. Clinton: Beyond the Lesser of Two Evils

by Jim DeCamp, 9/23/2016

Photo: Nodigio, Creative Commons

BLUF (BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT): Hillary Clinton is so corrupt, and her policies so destructive for America, that I am compelled to vote for Donald Trump who, I am persuaded, loves and wants the best for this country.

Given his opponent, I also believe it is a morally good choice to vote for Donald Trump.


In subsequent posts, we will contrast in some detail Donald Trump with Hillary Clinton in terms of their policy commitments. In this post, we will touch briefly on a number of issues, the outcome of which, I contend, will determine the trajectory of our country for the foreseeable future.

The dilemma in which some voters find themselves this election must be faced, and the decision made. America is on the launch pad, and the clock is ticking.


Some voters are undecided between Trump and Clinton. My wrestling has led me to conclude that––YES––a vote for Trump IS a morally good choice. These points contributed to my conclusion:

* Consider the office being sought. Trump’s style is rough (to be kind), and he has acknowledged unfaithfulness in his personal life. He has hurled insults and accusations, and found it difficult to acknowledge mistakes. Yet I am voting for Trump because I am voting for an office holder, not my pastor. The future of America must override personal distaste.

* The greater good. Both candidates are flawed, but because Donald Trump will do far more good than his opponent, it is a morally good decision to vote for him. The future of America is at stake.

* Quality advisors. Trump has begun to assemble a very able team of advisors––most notably, his running mate, Indian Governor Mike Pence, who describes himself as “A Christian, a Conservative, and a Republican…in that order.” The recovery of America requires leaders who stand for all that made her great.

* My obligation to vote. Just like I ministered in the mud and the blood, I must enter into this “stinky political mess.” There is little that attracts me to politics, besides freedom and what made America great (about which, actually, many volumes have been written!). It’s what politics has become that I dislike––indeed, detest. So will I escape moral responsibility by not voting? I don’t think so. Professor of Christian Ethics, Wayne Grudem: “The prophet Obadiah rebuked the people of Edom for standing by and doing nothing to help when the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem: ‘On the day that you stood aloof, on the day that . . . foreigners entered his gates and cast lots for Jerusalem, you were like one of them.’” (Obadiah 1:11). Seldom has America needed us more; we will give an account for our political stewardship. 

* My duty as an “exile” calls me (as 1 Peter 1:1 describes Christians in this world). God spoke through His Prophet, Jeremiah, to His chosen people whom He had sent off to far-away Babylon: “But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.” (Jeremiah 29:7—ESV) Professor Grudem: “By way of modern application, I think Christians today have a similar obligation to vote in such a way that will ‘seek the welfare’ of the United States.” I am certain that America will be in far better hands under Trump than Clinton.

* Vote for a third party, “write-in” a candidate, or sit it out? Any of these three scenarios will deny a vote for Trump in his match-up against Clinton. I fully understand “writing in” a better candidate––believe me––but such an action in 2016, while making an impressive statement, could throw the election to Clinton. Freedom in America, as we cherish it, could not survive a Clinton administration. I am already studying candidates to support in 2018; we will absolutely fight another day! But for all that is holy, and for the sake of our country, please do not “write in” this year.

* So very much hangs in the balance between a Supreme Court of Trump appointees vs. those appointed by Clinton. I plan to go into much more detail in subsequent posts, but pick a subject that is near and dear to your heart––the preciousness of every weak and helpless person, the impact of gender-confusion, sweet religious liberty, the very existence of the traditional family, inter-generational debt, national defense, Israel, terrorism, the Second Amendment, public decency laws, big-government tyranny––the next President will in all likelihood determine the composition of the Supreme Court for 30 years to come. I have laid down a passionate Primary defeat…for the sake of all the above.

Hillary Clinton will be elected––not over my dead body, but––over my exhausted body. I will campaign and vote for Donald Trump in order to defeat Hillary. I ask you to do the same.  


For a more thorough discussion of moral reasons to vote for Donald Trump, I recommend this column by Dr. Wayne Grudem, Professor of Christian Ethics, that appeared in TownHall on July 28, 2016, titled “Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice.

2. Trump vs. Clinton: The Constitution–Power to the People

By Jim DeCamp, 9/27/2016

Vote for Trump…for the sake of the Constitution.

(On September 19, I wrote an introduction to this series explaining why I’m voting for Donald Trump. The first post followed on Sep. 23. This is the second of nine scheduled posts.)

BLUF (BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT): The United States Constitution is the watershed political document of our Republic. Considering the stark contrast between Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s regard for the Constitution and the American people, I will most certainly vote for Trump.

/// thinking cap alert ///


Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850), a French economist, statesman and author, lived and wrote at the time of the Revolution of February, 1848, in France. He lamented increased government control over the French people. In his book, The Law, Bastiat wrote, “This [control] will remain the case as long as human beings with feelings continue to remain passive; so long as they consider themselves incapable of bettering their prosperity and happiness by their own intelligence and their own energy…in short, so long as they imagine that their relationship to the state is the same as that of the sheep and the shepherd.”

Another Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville, was a contemporary of Bastiat’s. DeTocqueville traveled to the U. S. in 1831 to satisfy his curiosity about this new nation. In 1835 he wrote Democracy in America––his attempt to explain the greatness of this fledgling republic. He reflected, “As I see it, only God can be all-powerful without danger, because his wisdom and justice are always equal to his power. Thus there is no authority on earth so inherently worthy of respect, or invested with a right so sacred, that I would want to let it act without oversight or rule without impediment” (p. 290). Speaking of America, de Tocqueville also referred to “her matchless Constitution.”

I will vote for the candidate who fosters a spirit of independence and achievement, and who cherishes the Constitutional principles of limited government and individual rights.


Edwin Meese III explains the relationship of our founding documents: “Part of the reason for the Constitution’s enduring strength is that it is the complement of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration provided the philosophical basis for a government that exercises legitimate power by ‘the consent of the governed,’ and it defined the conditions of a free people, whose rights and liberty are derived from their Creator. The Constitution delineated the structure of government and the rules for its operation, consistent with the creed of human liberty proclaimed in the Declaration.” (!/introessays/1) There is unity in our founding documents, and they are not outdated. (We will discuss it later in this post.)

I will vote for the candidate who better accepts and affirms “the consent of the governed.”


“Asked in a 2012 interview [on foreign soil, on Al Hayat television in Cairo] whether Egypt’s new government should look to other constitutions for guidance, [U. S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader] Ginsburg replied, ‘I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the Constitution of South Africa.’” (, 2016/09/15) Justice Ginsberg has also said that she weighs foreign law as well as U. S. law when forming a legal opinion. (, 2012/02/06)

Until five years ago, my connection to the Constitution was largely the Oath I had sworn: to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic….SO HELP ME GOD.” Since retiring, I have studied and pondered what I vowed to “support and defend” all those years.

I have great respect for Justice Ginsberg’s accomplishments and the office she holds. She and I obviously have different training and experience, but what separates us most in this conversation is our reverence––or lack of it––for this founding document of our Republic. Ironically, we both took the Oath; look how far we have come, or gone.

I will vote for the candidate more likely to cherish the Oath that will be assumed on Friday, January 20, 2017.


John York at the Heritage Foundation writes, “Some scientific and technological changes do require that we think carefully about the Founders’ intent when they were writing the Constitution. For instance, new technologies allow police to peer into homes without physically entering them, intercept an email or a text message, or track your car from their computer back at the precinct. Whether these things constitute a search or seizure of citizens’ ‘houses, papers, and effects’ under the Fourth Amendment is an important question the Founders do not answer for us directly.

“But by no means are we merely left to guess how the Constitution speaks to these modern conditions. Through the Founders’ own writings contained in the Federalist Papers, notes on the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention and correspondence, thoughtful judges and legal scholars get a clear sense of the spirit behind the words on the page.

“Given the Founders’ concern that government would use warrantless searches to harass and condemn political dissidents, it is hard to imagine James Madison or Alexander Hamilton would approve of warrantless wiretaps, drone flyovers, and email dragnets conducted by federal agencies.”

I will vote for the candidate who respects the Constitution as originally written, and who understands how to apply its timeless principles.

/// You’re almost home! ///

….Our Constitution recognizes individual rights from our Creator, and places government in a subservient position to the people.

Bastiat and de Tocqueville recognized that people should be free––not just from foreign domination, but from a government that rules and overrules its people. This, for them, was only a dream. Yet it is precisely this that is the genius of our “matchless Constitution.” It lifts up the freedom of the individual as endowed by our Creator, while it instructs the government what the government may do. Under our Constitution, the voting public––not the government––has the last word.

I will vote for the candidate who defends the people’s Constitutional rights, instead of seeking to curtail them. SO…


This election is not about two imperfect candidates; it is about the future of America. One course in 2016 is to cherish and defend our Constitution, with its guarantees of individual liberty, limited government, and the opportunity to change and improve our national life. The other direction is to exchange our freedom for government control and the dole, aspiring one day to be like every other country ruled by tyrants.

Hillary Clinton relishes government assistance (read subjugation) for the population. Able-bodied people are sapped of their initiative, denying them the fruit of their labor, weakening the fabric of society. In 1982, Economics Professor Walter Williams wrote in his book, The State Against Blacks, “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, and that is to destroy the black family.” This is one of many examples of Clinton’s vision for ever-bigger government at the expense of the people’s well-being and their Constitutional right to breathe free.

Donald Trump offers the hope of economic and personal freedom, and has spoken many times of his commitment to the Second Amendment, to religious freedom, the right to life, and other God-given rights enshrined in our Constitution.


Given the stark contrast and for the future direction of our country, I will vote for Donald Trump and I ask you to join me.

3. Trump vs. Clinton: Religious Liberty and Life

By Jim DeCamp, 10/1/2016

Vote for Donald Trump for the sake of religious liberty and life.

BLUF (BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT): Donald Trump has promised to protect the right to religious practice for all Americans. Those who have regard for religious freedom––whether they cherish a faith of their own or simply respect the Constitutional right of others to do so––must defeat Hillary Clinton.


Out of the crucible of religious persecution this nation was born. The Pilgrims arrived on the Mayflower in 1620, then Protestants, Anabaptists, Quakers, Amish––they came. Fleeing the sword and torture chamber, seeking a future in peace for themselves and their posterity, intent on living in obedience to the teachings of Christ––they came. Many never reached these shores alive, and life in this new land ended in a multitude of early graves. Yet they came. The yearning to worship and live out one’s faith freely proving more powerful than any threat to life, itself––they came. Buoyed by the promises of the God of Holy Scripture, and drawn by the prospect of life eternal with Him––they came.

A century-and-a-half after the Pilgrims, a new generation would declare: “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Religious liberty had taken root and, while God had bestowed it, government was to be its guarantor:

> The first words of the First Amendment of the new Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”

> And here in Indiana, our Constitution is even more explicit on conscience protection. Article I, Section 3: “No law shall, in any case whatever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.”

The cry to be free had been heard.


When religious people live out their faith, everyone benefits. Might there be, among them, some criminals and frauds? To my knowledge it has always been that way. But sincere believers will always live out their faith.

My parents were missionaries to Korea. One day at supper, my father said, “I met with someone at the U. S. Embassy today. This diplomat said, ‘Look, it’s OK for you missionaries to run orphanages, hospitals and schools. Just lay off the religion.’” (In fact, there were lots of other good things going on: widows’ homes, leprosariums, prostheses for war amputees, rescue missions of all kinds, agricultural training etc.)

My dad reflected, “He wants the fruit without the root.”


Today, from shore to shore, God’s people are sharing His love and following Christ’s call to “love your neighbor as yourself.” Right here in Indianapolis…food banks, woodworking training, rescue missions, parenting skills coaching, help with home ownership, free legal advice, medical clinics, home companions, pregnancy help centers, tutors in the Brookside Neighborhood…everywhere one looks God’s people are pouring out their lives for others.

In his book, Deicide: How Eliminating the Deity Is Destroying America, Curt Smith shows how the balanced three-part structure of Family/Government/Church feeds the Life/Liberty/Pursuit of Happiness vision of our Founders. Religious liberty is integral to all that has made America great.

The weak and vulnerable are hurt when citizens are prohibited from living out their sincerely held religious beliefs. Yet that is precisely what some are seeking to accomplish.


There is a rising tide of anti-religious zealotry. Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council: “The weight of government is being used to quarantine faith within the four walls of the church, and that is not religious freedom.” It is with much disappointment that I have seen elected officials in my own party betray First Amendment religious liberty protections.

The left has trained its hostile gaze on sincerely religious people, which is why November 8 is so decisive. I heard Donald Trump speak at the Values Voter Summit in DC on September 9. He repeatedly pledged to protect the Constitutional right of religious freedom for all Americans. Hillary Clinton has made no such claim.


I believe that God’s true followers––whose faith is rooted in His truth––are secure, come what may. Enemies of religious faith cannot touch the root, but they are in a position to sever fruit, thereby inflicting untold suffering upon the needy.

Today persecution takes the form of a $135,000 fine on a small family-owned business, forcing the owners with their five children to close their doors. (There are scores of other examples I could cite.) When religious faith and action is punished, the faithful will survive, strengthened by the promise that God will be with them, and inspired by the example of the faithful from generations past. It is the weakest of the weak who will be most brutalized.


Nowhere are lives more hanging in the balance than by the greatest killer in America today: induced abortion. Yet it is precisely here that believers everyday are offering hope in crisis and––yes––God’s forgiveness and healing for those who have abortion in their history. God offers comprehensive solutions: guidance for living in the context of a personal relationship with Jesus, forgiveness for ANYTHING we may have done, and restoration of a broken life. Oh, to be free….

Not only would personal religious liberty be threatened if Hillary were elected; bringing hope in despair and healing for the wounds of life would be suppressed, as would 240-year-old Constitutional guarantees.


Donald Trump has condemned in no uncertain terms the ghoulish, barbaric practices of Planned Parenthood: selling baby parts for profit; Hillary Clinton continues staunchly to support Planned Parenthood. Donald Trump has promised to appoint Supreme Court Justices in the mold of Justice Scalia; Hillary Clinton, no such respect for the Constitution nor for human life.

November 8 may well make history, friends. Please join me in voting for religious liberty, for human life…for Donald Trump.

4. Trump vs. Clinton: As the Family, So Goes the Nation

By Jim DeCamp, 10/7/2016

For the sake of the American family, and therefore our nation’s future, I am voting for the Trump-Pence ticket, and I hope you will, as well.


(On September 19, I posted an introduction to this series explaining why I’m voting for Donald Trump. The first three of nine planned posts were made on Sep. 23, 27 and Oct. 1. This is the fourth.)

BLUF (BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT): Americans are born, study, live, work, and die in the context of their family. The traditional American family is the only societal structure that will adequately provide for parenting responsibilities; support the educational challenges; statistically minimize poverty, drug problems, run-ins with the law, and youth suicides; sustain work demands; transfer the moral foundation; and confirm the national identity––all of which are necessary for our country to survive. Only the Trump-Pence ticket will defend and protect the beleaguered American family.


The year before retiring, I was influenced by someone who said, “Those of you who are now, or soon will be retired: If you can possibly do so, please invest in the lives of your children and grandchildren. The future of our nation depends on it.”

I decided to do just that, full time. As I studied my new mission, I learned how the American family is being threatened by a corrosive culture, and besieged by Big Money, Big Media, and Big Government.


This post is not about what to do with adult attractions and pleasures; it is about the future of the American family and, therefore, of our country. Ryan T. Anderson, in his book Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom, reflected on the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges: “…[I]t has shut down debate just as we were starting to hear new voices––gay people who agree that children need their mother and their father, and children of same-sex couples who wish they knew both their mom and dad.”

Other voices missing in this debate are those of many churches. (But––alas––this self-imposed silence by churches is grist for another post and another day.)


One of the reasons, traditionally, that guests are invited to a wedding is to share in the joy. Yet in some sense, those guests also represent the community, which has a stake in the success of that marriage and family. Anderson writes, “Society as a whole, not merely any given set of spouses, benefits from marriage. This is because marriage helps to channel procreative love into a stable institution that provides for the orderly bearing and rearing of the next generations.”

The next generations….
We are talking about the future of the American family and, therefore, of our country, friends. There was a day when virtually all children grew up in a home with Mom and Dad; today in America that number is under 50%. The statistics of additional challenges for children living without the benefit of Mom and Dad in the home are sobering for each family, and alarming for the nation’s future. Dr. James Dobson said at the Values Voter Summit in September that if Hillary were elected, he did not think it likely that the American family would survive.

There is something very practical AND very near-term that can be done, and it’s happening on November 8. Party Platforms express a vision for America, and the difference could not be more stark.


This is part of the statement on marriage and family adopted by the GOP in July, 2016, and which a Republican House and Senate will support Donald Trump in pursuing:

“Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values.” The platform affirms the numerous benefits of natural marriage to human flourishing, and supported by overwhelming evidence from social science, concludes that “every child deserves a married mom and dad.”


The Democratic Party Platform, also adopted in July, 2016, expresses Hillary Clinton’s it-takes-a-village vision for raising children.

The Democrats look to government and “social support services,” not marriage and family as the foundation of American society. Without mentioning the family or natural marriage, Democrats “are committed to creating a society where children … can thrive physically, emotionally, educationally, and spiritually … [through] civil structures that are essential to creating this for every child.”


One party lifts up the role of marriage and family, Mom and Dad, and rearing children with cultural values. The other party promotes government programs and support services in lieu of the traditional family structure.

I’m not known as an alarmist; I eschew all such talk. An alarmist is someone who stirs people up needlessly. The danger to the American family is real and it is close.

In the Army when calling in artillery that would land nearby, one always ended the call with “DANGER CLOSE!”––a reminder to the gunners that the fate of friendly lives is in their hands. As I ponder how close we are to losing the American family, that artillery warning rings loud and clear.


Four weeks from Tuesday, voters will decide whether to give the American family the opportunity for a comeback. I say “opportunity” because government can only create conditions for restoring healthy families. Moral values, inspired by faith and instilled by moms and dads, are essential if the family is to survive. It is here, fellow believers, that the church must resume its witness in society, or it will share in the fate of the family…as will its children’s children. We defend what we love.

Government cannot and ought not provide guidance in this area. But government must defend the Constitutional freedom of Americans to live their conscience, and government must protect the only time-proven institution that will carry the future of our nation on its back: the traditional family.

At the human level, the only hope for the American family is a Trump-Pence Administration. I will vote for it on November 8, and I sincerely hope you will, too.

What Timing!

By Jim DeCamp, October 8, 2016

In answer to a vulgar tape of Donald Trump speaking 15 years earlier, which had just been released, I wrote this piece. (It was not part of the already-planned series, but was inserted at this point.)



“What timing!” I say to self. “The very day (yesterday) I post an affirmative piece on Donald Trump’s candidacy, this revelation comes out. And what else may still be revealed?”


I received this question from a FB friend (and have permission to share it): “Should the risk of Hillary as president and the hope of a more conservative supreme court overrule my revulsion of Trump?” My answer, in a word: Yes.

I have read parts of a transcript, and may not listen to the tape for the same reason I don’t go to a lot of movies nor watch a lot of TV. I have no need to fall all over myself creating distance from those comments.

Much of the best counseling takes place in private, and I believe Donald is availing himself of the best moral and spiritual advice. My guess is that this has included subjects such as sin, repentance, forgiveness, grace, and upright living going forward. There is mercy at the foot of the Cross. (I claim that Good News every day!)

I do not dismiss such comments because they occurred 11 years ago, nor am I quick to point to hypocrisy of others. In the first case, sin is sin, and it must be dealt with. In the second, the double standard in today’s world is what it is, and it will all come out in the wash. Just as Donald must face his wrongdoing, so will we all––today, or on that Day. Our choice.


On Sep. 23, I posted, “Consider the office being sought. Trump’s style is rough (to be kind), and he has acknowledged unfaithfulness in his personal life. He has hurled insults and accusations, and found it difficult to acknowledge mistakes. Yet I am voting for Trump because I am voting for an office holder, not my pastor. The future of America must override personal distaste.”

I have no quarrel, in principle, with those who say, “I just cannot abide a president who would say such things.” (I hope never to hear words like that from anyone, let alone my president.)

So does it come down to a choice between a candidate who says and does terrible things vs. a candidate who says and does terrible things? 

Not to be flippant; this is hard for those of us who wrestle over the ethical implications of our vote.


On Sep. 19, I began a series of posts explaining why I’m voting for Trump on Nov. 8––considering the dire alternative: “As I see it, it’s not a matter of which party wins; it’s about whether our Republic survives…My purpose here is to encourage support for the one candidate who carries a ray of hope, who provides a foothold––who, if nothing else, may at least buy time––for the recovery of the land we love.”


In the last 18 hours, my thinking has taken these steps: distaste, mourning, prayer for someone who needs grace, prayer for a nation where freedom is on the wane, reaffirmation of my decision to vote…and I’m back to prayer.

I make no predictions and do not know what God’s timeline is for this country. Each of us must vote our conscience. And may God’s will be done.

5. Trump vs. Clinton: Health Care and Mercy

By Jim DeCamp, October 15, 2016

Creative Commons

Health care is another reason I’m voting for the Trump-Pence ticket, and I ask you to join me.


BLUF (BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT): The only thing centralized medicine guarantees is a place in the queue. Only Trump offers the hope of outstanding patient-centric and sustainable health care for all Americans.


Here is the fundamental difference between Trump’s plan and that of Clinton’s:

TRUMP allows the patient, the doctor, the 50 States, and the free market to provide care.

CLINTON makes promises which, while appealing, are utterly dependent upon government to fulfill.

Donald Trump will repeal Obamacare, then rebuild high-quality health care through competition and market forces. Hillary Clinton would seek more centralized control, culminating in a completely government run medical system. When money runs low, the only thing a centralized health system can do is constrict care.


What concerns me most about Obamacare is not the erosion of health care––though that, alone, is enough to oppose it! What concerns me most is the loss of freedom, and the implications it carries to the rest of life.

What could be more freedom-threatening than the private, patient-doctor relationship being replaced by top-down rules and rationed health care? Instead of people deciding with their doctors what treatment is best, people’s care would be determined by bureaucrats, with cost-control mandates delaying and eventually denying the very care that has been promised. Death Panels.

When we are in the Emergency Room, we just want care NOW, and questions of funding, quality, and sustainability take a back seat, understandably. But eventually, those questions must be addressed, and on November 8, 2016, Americans will make a serious about the future of our health care system.


Donald Trump’s plan:

> Repeal and replace Obamacare with Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).

> Work with Congress to create a patient-centered health care system that promotes choice, quality, and affordability.

> Work with states to establish high-risk pools to ensure access to coverage for individuals who have not maintained continuous coverage.

> Allow people to purchase insurance across state lines, in all 50 states, creating a dynamic market.

> Maximize flexibility for states via block grants so that local leaders can design innovative Medicaid programs that will better serve their low-income citizens.

For more information, see

Hillary Clinton’s plan:

> Defend and expand the Affordable Care Act, which covers 20 million people.

> Bring down out-of-pocket costs like copays and deductibles.

> Reduce the cost of prescription drugs.

> Protect consumers from unjustified prescription drug price increases from companies that market long-standing, life-saving treatments and face little or no competition.

> Fight for health insurance for the lowest-income Americans in every state by incentivizing states to expand Medicaid

For more information, see

Contrast a creative and substantive cost-cutting measure––Trump’s “Allow people to purchase insurance across state lines, in all 50 states, creating a dynamic market” [as we already do with auto insurance]––with Hillary’s vague “Bring down out-of-pocket costs like copays and deductibles.” Trump’s plan contains solutions, with a private sector way to reduce cost; Hillary offers intentions, imposed by government power.


Obamacare is costing massively more than originally promised; it’s future is not private providers serving the people at government’s behest. Barack Obama’s vision is a “single payer” system, where government controls all. Some medical insurance companies––early supporters of Obamacare––are suffering, along with their customers…by design. Just yesterday (Oct. 14), headlined, “More Than 1 Million to Lose Obamacare Plans as Insurers Quit.” See…/more-than-1-million-in…

“While it’s not clear what all the consequences of the departing insurers will be,” Bloomberg Reported, “interviews with regulators and insurance customers suggest that plans will be fewer and more expensive, and may not include the same doctors and hospitals.”

Which leads us to the lie that deceived so many in 2008: “If you like your doctor/hospital/health plan, you can keep them.” Many times this falsehood was repeated by the President. Government control is the goal, and government cannot take enough money away from the people to provide their medical needs.


There is something about human need that calls for compassion, self-sacrifice. My maternal grandparents sailed to China as missionaries in the 1890s. My grandfather was a doctor, and built a hospital near Shanghai––aptly named Love and Mercy Hospital. The realities of financing the hospital were a constant challenge, of course, yet God supplied what was needed in that austere setting.

Like Obama before her, Hillary is not proposing a private-sector solution that relies on market principles and on the generosity of wealthy Americans. Early on, the Obama administration reduced the deduction for charitable contributions. This was hailed as putting the squeeze on the rich; in reality, it was the beginning of a subtle movement to replace private charities with government programs. I see no mercy in that.

As I pointed to in Post #3, “Religious Liberty and Life” (on Oct. 1), there is considerable overlap between religious freedom and service ministries in our country. Today, government is obstructing the free-flow of mercy; this does not bode well for the sick under government-controlled care.


Freedom/Sustainability and Control/Decline are on the ballot November 8. I am voting for Trump-Pence, and I invite you to join me.

6. Trump vs. Clinton: Military Readiness and Foreign Policy

By Jim DeCamp, 10/19/2016

The Trump-Pence team will rebuild national security. Join me in voting for them on or before November 8!

BLUF (BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT): Our nation is in peril, our military depleted, and we have lost the respect of friend and foe. Only the Trump-Pence team will rebuild our military might and restore our standing in the world.


There are all kinds of motivations for wearing the uniform, yet at the deepest level military people do what they do out of love––love for freedom, for their country, for their family, their neighbor and their neighbor’s family. There are other strong motivators in life––fear, guilt, bitterness––but LOVE is the healthiest, the most enduring. And we need THIS motivator because we will be fighting terrorists for the rest of our lives.

I begin this way because America does not have the option of living in denial nor growing weary in the fight. For the sake of generations yet unborn, we must fortify those who defend us, even as we strive to shape a better world.


In Obama’s eight years, the United State military has been decimated, treated with contempt by this administration, and used by the left for social experimentation. Political correctness classes have crowded out combat training and Code of Conduct instruction. Now, forcing females into units whose mission is direct contact with the enemy is lowering physical standards and eroding combat capability––not to mention damaging the health of the women involved.

The first responsibility of government is to secure the nation. Hillary Clinton will continue Obama’s disastrous and disgraceful use of our military. Donald Trump will rebuild it.

In 1991, our car broke down in Montana. Towed into Anaconda, the good people there replaced the differential and had us back on the road the same day. Today our military is in serious disrepair. Restoring readiness requires the equivalent of millions of differentials. There is hope, yet it will take years.

It’s a daunting task, but we can do it. We must. Under Trump-Pence, we will!


Rebuilding our military and restoring our standing in the world will be Job One for the next president. Donald Trump will secure this nation by regaining respect for our military abroad, rebuilding our capabilities at home, and repairing the damage to our ranks inflicted by leftist radicals.

Without security, the land we love cannot survive. Trump’s campaign says, “The American people will come first once again. Donald Trump’s plan will begin with safety at home––which means safe neighborhoods, secure borders, and protection from terrorism.”


The military has unique missions and capabilities, yet it is by no means the only way of promoting our national interests around the world. The Department of State is to interpret and implement our foreign policy through relationships and negotiations with foreign governments.

America has given a fortune to other countries for economic development and to alleviate suffering. Too often, however, these funds have been scammed by corrupt governments and criminal cartels, or wasted through inadequate oversight or end-of-fiscal-year spending sprees.

America is a generous nation, but love is not for sale in the world of diplomacy. It is more important that America be respected for keeping her word: trusted by allies and feared by enemies. Donald Trump loves and wants the best for this country, and will put her interests first.


In 2008, Barack Obama created the expectation that, under his leadership, the world would love America again. Today, with an incoherent foreign policy and a thinly veiled contempt for this country, Obama and his former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, watch as North Korea thumbs its nose at us, the Russian threat grows, and our allies scurry to defend themselves––alone.

Instead of promoting our national interests, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used their high offices to weaken our country around the world. They spotlighted America’s domestic tensions before the United Nations General Assembly, undercut our allies such as Israel, and emboldened––even enabled––a mortal enemy like Iran.

Hillary Clinton utterly failed her leadership exam. She disgraced herself by dereliction that led to four dead Americans in Benghazi––including the U.S. ambassador, the personal representative of the President! Subsequent lies about a video tape, illegal use and/or destruction of classified emails, leveraging the power of her office to enrich her own fortunes––and too many other breaches of integrity to name here––leave the alert American voter…

… with one option––and a good one at that: the Trump-Pence ticket.


Is it any wonder that Donald Trump and Mike Pence are speaking to overflow crowds? Lampooned as American triumphalism, this campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” has struck a chord with the American people. Americans want to be defended against radical Islamic terrorism. They want to live their lives in peace and with opportunity. They have had it with corruption that passes as politics. Many have tuned out those who traditionally brought them the “news.”

Often, when studying a complex or contentious issue, I have thought “…the answer to this is an informed electorate.” Increasingly, Americans are not intimidated nor dissuaded by insults and attempts to marginalize their concerns; they are too busy looking after their families and their jobs. They sense that their country may be running out of time, and they have a candidate in whom they are willing to entrust their lives and their future.

His name is Donald Trump, and I’m voting for him. I hope you will, too

7. Trump vs. Clinton: The Courts and Justice

By Jim DeCamp, 10/21/2016

Creative Commons

Only Donald Trump will appoint justices to the Supreme Court who respect the Constitution and will preserve its protections for our children’s children. I am voting for the Trump-Pence team, and I ask you to join me.

BLUF (BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT): Virtually every Constitutional right Americans enjoy will be either undergirded or undercut, come Nov. 8. Trump will defend our rights; Hillary will wipe them away like the hard drive on her server. Impending Supreme Court justices will do more to determine the trajectory of this country than any other issue in this race.


This one issue––the face and future of the U. S. Supreme Court––is uniting 2nd Amendment patriots, pro-life activists, religious liberty proponents, free speech defenders, individual liberty champions, limited government advocates, libertarians of all stripes…you name it…this is the dividing line in the 2016 presidential race.


Oliver Roeder at FiveThirtyEight wrote on August 1 of this year:

“One of the most enduring legacies of the next president will flow from a few words in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution: the power to nominate justices to the Supreme Court. With the court still shorthanded after the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, and with two of its sitting justices older than 80, the next president will shape the court, and through it the law of the land, for decades to come.” (…/clinton-and-trump-are…/)

The three oldest justices––Ginsberg (83), Kennedy (80), and Breyer (78)––are on the liberal side, while “the oldest of the three sitting conservative stalwarts — John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas — is only 68,” wrote Roeder.

The next two to three nominees will determine the Court––and the future of liberty and justice––for a very long time.


From religious liberty to life, from every basic Constitutional right to the rule of law for decades to come, our vote on Nov. 8 may well impact our descendants more than any other vote we cast.


For anyone who cares about ethics, political calls can be difficult. Evangelicals, and I number myself among them, are well aware of our sinful nature. We do not like to be close to the boundaries of evil. Even distasteful words, or others’ actions, can at times send us fleeing.

Many of us more easily entertain theological mystery––the sovereignty of God and the free will of man, for example, or why a holy God would deign to die for a sinful race––than we embrace the tension of an important political decision. God knew this when He called us to be salt and light, “to build bridges of grace to bear the weight of truth,” to put others before ourselves.

We, of all people, should be advocate for the helpless. The hungry and poor have no determined foes; it is babies waiting to be born who must be protected….and their mothers cared for.

The blood of the innocent will be spared or spilled by the outcome of Nov. 8. God’s people have often risked––and at times given––their lives for others. Our task is not hard. Politics can be smelly and sweaty and scary, but we have the opportunity to be instruments of peace and righteousness. On our way into the polling place, we will ponder that only Trump-Pence will uphold the right to life for the most helpless among us…for decades to come.


There is a wide and committed coalition of Americans that will vote on Nov. 8. Each of the issues mentioned at the beginning, and more, is at stake. I will vote for Trump-Pence, and I ask you to join me.

8. Trump vs. Clinton: Taxation, Energy and Regulations

By Jim DeCamp, 10/26/2016

Donald Trump understands the obstacles to success that government erects, and he will remove them! I am voting for the Trump-Pence ticket. Join me.

PHOTO: Creative Commons

BLUF (BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT): This post contrasts the Trump and Clinton campaigns in three areas:

1) TAXATION. Promote prosperity through free enterprise, or punish success by increased taxation.
2) ENERGY. Stimulate job creation through plentiful energy, or stifle the economy by strangling energy supplies.
3) REGULATIONS. Enable the free market, or suffocate business by overregulation.

The Trump-Pence Team will promote, stimulate and enable; Clinton will punish, stifle and suffocate.


In order to execute its Constitutionally mandated responsibilities, Congress has a Constitutionally authorized means of raising funds. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U. S. Constitution enables Congress to “collect taxes, duties, imposts [tariffs] and excises.” See…


This post is not primarily about money. At its core it’s about an attitude, and about the Oath of Allegiance to the U. S. Constitution that every elected official assumes.

The military is sometimes involved in “mission creep”––the expansion it its duties beyond the original order. The federal government has been feeding its own mission creep for well over a century (including getting its hands on the people’s paychecks with passage of the Amendment XVI, ratified in 1913, authorizing the federal income tax).

[I’m interested in the backstory behind passage of the XVI Amendment. What was the driving force? What growing attitude did it reveal? Who made a limited-government case against it?]


A voracious appetite for money and power infects government attitudes as well as those of individuals. So where do the 2016 candidates and parties stand on taxes?

“Republicans consider the establishment of a pro-growth tax code a moral imperative” (from the Preamble to the 2016 Republican Party Platform). This reflects the belief that people actually own the money they earn; it is not on loan from the government, which demands more of it back every year.

“Making the Wealthy Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes” (A section heading in the 2016 Democratic Party Platform). This belies an attitude that people’s money represents not hard work, but their greed––from which government must deliver them!


Republicans promote prosperity through free enterprise, and accept individual responsibility. Democrats punish success by increased taxation, then spread the money around. As a successful businessman, Donald Trump knows how to reinvest profits to build jobs and generate wealth. Hillary Clinton, who has lived off the government for 30 years, understands that before government can give, it must first take away.



The 2008 election of Barack Obama introduced Americans to strange–sounding words, like Solyndra and Ener1.

Solyndra, touted as a solar energy panacea, famously filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection, after blowing through $535M of the people’s money, given by Obama. Electric car manufacturer, Ener1, crashed, leaving taxpayers with a $118M obligation, again arranged by the Obama administration. See…/26/gIQAA5T3TQ_story.html

Hillary Clinton has doubled down on these failed policies, and stonewalled the production of reliable, clean and proven energy sources. The Keystone Pipeline was to bring vast quantities of oil and gas from Canada to the U. S. Gulf Coast, creating jobs at home and more independence from foreign oil. Hillary’s State Department, which had to sign off on this project, steadfastly refused to do so.

The Keystone Pipeline still holds great potential––just waiting for someone to come along and put America’s workers and security first.


“Together, the people of America’s energy sector…can guarantee the nation’s energy security for centuries to come if, instead of erecting roadblocks, government facilitates the creation of an all-of-the-above energy strategy” (2016 Republican Party Platform).

Republicans stimulate jobs and grow wealth through plentiful, clean, economical and reliable energy. Democrat policies stifle the economy by strangling energy supplies.

Donald Trump lifts up “An America First Energy Plan.” He will “Unleash America’s $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, plus hundreds of years in clean coal reserves.”


“Perhaps the biggest concern about modern America expressed by Larry Arnn, President of Hillsdale College in southern Michigan, is the unbounded growth of Big Government.” (…/when…/)

And it’s not just life-long politicians in Washington who have long since stopped going home. It’s the massive federal bureaucracy––now mirrored in every state––that thrives, not to fix problems, but to apply the rules. Many of these rules are never passed by Congress; they are imposed on the people by nameless, faceless bureaucrats. As Dr. Arnn has written, “Laws are understandable, passed by accountable officials, and apply to everyone. Regulations meet none of these criteria.” (My memory/paraphrase of something he wrote in 2012.)

And so, the Preamble to the 2016 Republican Party Platform declares, “That is why the many sections of this platform affirm our trust in the people, our faith in their judgment, and our determination to help them take back their country. This means removing the power from unelected, unaccountable government. This means relieving the burden and expense of punishing government regulations.”

The most egregious examples of regulatory abuse (although it would take a long time to list them) emanate from the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Trump-Pence ticket will lower taxes, stimulate energy production, and rein in an unruly federal bureaucracy. I urge you to join me in voting for Trump-Pence!

9: Trump vs. Clinton: Immigration, and Law and Order

By Jim DeCamp, 10/28/2016

PHOTO: Creative Commons

Donald Trump will restore legal immigration, and protect Americans from terrorists, criminals, and those who illegally supplant them in the job market. I have voted for Trump-Pence, and I urge you to join me.

BLUF (BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT): The issue that ignited Donald Trump’s campaign in the summer of 2015––illegal immigration and its impact on the American people––continues to build support for his candidacy. Hillary’s advocacy of open borders, non-enforcement of the law, and subsidies for sanctuary cites paints a stark contrast between herself and Donald Trump.


Facing reality can be painful and sometimes scary, but it’s healthy. And on this subject of immigration, America’s willingness to face reality may prove to be lifesaving.

In a post on Oct. 17, I quoted Pamela Geller, “The west has lost the will to live.” This was the title of a column she wrote 11 months ago on; it was about the European nations’ inability to secure their borders. Unvetted migrants were flooding their countries by the hundreds of thousands, swamping communities, overrunning public safety and health resources, and outnumbering law enforcement personnel. The surge in crime––including mass rapes––was unthinkable.

On this side of the Atlantic, one thing is certain: rank and file Americans are extremely concerned about the flood of illegal migrants; they are already facing reality. All they want is a president who will lead on this subject!


There are many legal residents who commit violent crimes, of course; this is a national problem already. Yet to allow masses of people to cross our borders illegally, then commit vicious crimes, then shield them from arrest, prosecution and/or deportation––this is national suicide.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform believes “our immigration laws must be reformed to better serve the needs of current and future generations.” Go to to see short videos of what happened to these three beautiful young women:

Tessa Tranchant, Virginia Beach––3 min. 27 sec.
Sarah Root, Omaha, Nebraska––3 min. 27 sec.
Shayley Estes, Phoenix, Arizona––2 min. 33 sec.

Forty-five U. S. Border Patrol Agents have given their lives for our country through hostile action. See


According to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, more than 19,000 illegal immigrants were released from custody in 2015. The Center for Immigration Studies reports, “…the 19,723 criminal releases had a total of 64,197 convictions among them. More than 200 of those were homicide convictions.” More than 200 homicide convictions. Even if most of the 19,000 releases were for traffic offenders, our systems is clogged with these cases, delaying or denying justice to legal residents. (For a more detailed discussion of this problem, see

For in-depth immigration articles ranging from border security to human trafficking to violent crimes, see the Federation for American Immigration Reform website:


> Current immigration policy costs taxpayers $300 billion a year [National Review, Sept. 22, 2016]

> 62 percent of households headed by illegal immigrants used some form of cash or non-cash welfare programs, like food stamps or housing assistance. [Center for Immigration Studies, Sept. 2015]

> Since 2013 alone, the Obama Administration has allowed 300,000 criminal aliens to return back into U.S. communities.

> Illegal immigrants and other non-citizens in our prisons and jails together had around 25,000 homicide arrests to their names. [United States Government Accountability Office, March 2011]

> There are at least 2 million convicted criminal aliens now inside the country. [Center for Immigration Studies, Oct. 2013]

> Nearly 1 million illegal immigrants, including nearly 200,000 with criminal convictions, had been ordered deported but remain at large. [Washington Examiner, July 1, 2015]


Republican Platform:

“Illegal immigration endangers everyone, exploits the taxpayers, and insults all who aspire to enter America legally…Our highest priority, therefore, must be to secure our borders and all ports of entry and to enforce our immigration laws…We oppose any form of amnesty for those who, by breaking the law, have disadvantaged those who have obeyed it.”

Democratic Platform:

While the Democratic Platform does not use the word “amnesty” anywhere, the following quotations illustrate how Democrats seek to cast the issue in any light except the rule of law: “…the enduring scourge of systemic racism to our deeply broken immigration system…The current quota system discriminates against certain immigrants, including immigrants of color…and there are real questions about our detention and deportation policies that must be addressed…we will defend and implement President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans executive action…We will work to ensure that all Americans—regardless of immigration status—have access to quality health care. That means expanding community health centers…” One would note that U. S. law takes a back seat to building a future political base for the Democratic Party.

The Republican Platform takes a strategic, not personal, approach, mentioning Hillary Clinton’s name only once. By contrast, thirty-two times the Democratic Platform invokes the name of Donald Trump.


1. Begin working on an impenetrable physical wall on the southern border, on day one. Mexico will pay for the wall.

2. End catch-and-release. Under a Trump administration, anyone who illegally crosses the border will be detained until they are removed out of our country.

3. Move criminal aliens out day one, in joint operations with local, state, and federal law enforcement. We will terminate the Obama administration’s deadly, non-enforcement policies that allow thousands of criminal aliens to freely roam our streets.

4. End sanctuary cities.

5. Immediately terminate President Obama’s two illegal executive amnesties. All immigration laws will be enforced – we will triple the number of ICE agents. Anyone who enters the U.S. illegally is subject to deportation. That is what it means to have laws and to have a country.

6. Suspend the issuance of visas to any place where adequate screening cannot occur, until proven and effective vetting mechanisms can be put into place.

7. Ensure that other countries take their people back when we order them deported.

8. Ensure that a biometric entry-exit visa tracking system is fully implemented at all land, air, and sea ports.

9. Turn off the jobs and benefits magnet. Many immigrants come to the U.S. illegally in search of jobs, even though federal law prohibits the employment of illegal immigrants.

10. Reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers, keeping immigration levels within historic norms.


On September 26, the union representing 5,000 immigration officers endorsed Donald Trump for president (the first time they had ever endorsed a candidate for president).


Addressing the unthinkable is scary, but healthy. And, now, it may prove to be lifesaving for America.

Only Donald Trump promises to enforce the law, maintain security on our borders and in our streets, lift the unbearable social and economic burden of illegal immigration, end sanctuary cities, and honor all those who are waiting to enter our country honorably.

This week I voted for the Trump-Pence ticket, and I urge you to do the same.