The president who threatens the culture of liberal entitlement

Paul Bayes, Bishop of Liverpool, is displeased by American Christians who support Donald Trump. He says, “Some of the things that have been said by religious leaders seem to collude with a system that marginalises the poor, a system which builds walls instead of bridges, a system which says people on the margins of society should be excluded, a system which says we’re not welcoming people any more into our country.”

Well, before I get started on the – no doubt impossible – task of educating a bishop whose vocabulary is a mixture of jargon – “marginalises” (twice in one sentence)…”system” (twice in the same sentence)… “Builds walls not bridges,” let me state my own disappointment, but of course no surprise, with a senior churchman who does not understand Christian instincts and motivations.

Let me try to explain these things to Bishop Bayes. Christians are likely, are they not, to approve of a President who has a good word to say about Christianity? Donald Trump delivered a Christmas message to the nation in which he spoke plainly about the redeeming work of Jesus Christ. You never heard such a speech from Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton. Clinton actually offered an anti-Christian message and said, “In 2018 Christians are going to have to make some adjustments in line with secular society.” She reminded me of Rowan Williams’ last sermon as Archbishop of Canterbury when he said, “Christians have a lot of catching up to do with secular values.” I suppose Bayes would agree because he and all the bishops are secularists at heart – “inclusivity, diversity, equality” – and their Christian faith is mainly ornamental

Donald Trump has survived his first year in the presidency, and that is no mean achievement when you recall the forces that were ranged against him before he even set foot in the Oval Office: CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times; and in Britain just about every news and opinion medium – led of course by the BBC .

I reckon we should judge a man’s doings by the measure of his opponents, so, when all the left wing political, social and economic consensus is against his every act, then it follows he must be doing something right. And actually, Trump is doing a lot of things right. No matter that the Clintons and their wealthy backers tell us every day that he can’t last, Trump is supported by tens of millions of Americans who are sick to death of the Washington-East Coast in crowd run by Bill and Hillary and then by the worse than talkative and utterly spineless Barak Obama. To the many who voted for Trump in 2016, many more are being added as a result of his policies.

Let’s start with the money. Against the most daunting odds, he has got through Congress the biggest programme of tax cuts since those of Ronald Reagan. Corporation tax is reduced from 35% to 21%. He has doubled the standard deduction and also doubled the child tax credit. He has cut to the point of abolition the iniquitous inheritance tax and I only wish we had a government in this country which would do the same. He has even cut the tax on booze. There is near full employment and the US stock market is at an all time high. Naturally, Trump’s critics claim that his tax cuts will benefit only the very rich. This is economic balderdash. For if the rich become better off, they will invest their money to try to grow even richer and this investment will create more jobs. The wealthy will have more to spend on goods and services and this will benefit everyone.

In the face of fierce accusations of racism and xenophobia, under Trump there is a closer watch on immigration – especially from those states which have a record of promoting terrorism.

Moreover, Trump started the presidential game having been dealt a very bad hand. For decades irresponsible presidents have done nothing to curtail the two most potent threats to American security: the first from the Iranian mullahs and the second from the psychopathic leadership in North Korea. Clinton, Bush and Obama all operated a policy of appeasement. Negotiate and give ground in exchange for much-trumpeted “peace agreements.” But these agreements were always phoney. And what has been the result? North Korea has been able to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching American territory, and there is little doubt that within a very short time – perhaps months – North Korea will be able to arm these missiles with nuclear warheads. Yet the media accuse Trump of sabre-rattling because – unlike his fatuous presidential predecessors – he has declared this threat intolerable and vowed to do something about it.

Perhaps the most treacherous – and certainly the most foolish – act in international relations since the Second World War was Obama’s deal with Iran which has allowed them to continue their progress towards acquiring nuclear weapons. This, like the Korean problem, is most urgent. Again, Trump has insisted that he will not allow his country’s security to be put in jeopardy by this tangible threat.

And of course Trump was right to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. The whole parliamentary, legal and financial business of Israel is conducted there. Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel-Judah since King David’s days, 900 years BC. Solomon’s temple stood on Temple Mount 1400 years before there was such a thing as Islam. But the lefties say Trump’s move will “damage the peace process.” Actually, there has been no peace process since 1998 when the treacherous Yasser Arafat signed up on the Washington lawns to a two-states solution – only to return to Ramallah and announce the second intifada.

In the end It’s not going to matter what the hostile media or lefty English bishops say about Trump: they can howl, bluster and scream calumnies day and night. It doesn’t matter what the liberal elite say either, the chattering classes on the other side of the Atlantic. It is the American people who will decide their president’s future. And the American people will welcome both his domestic policies – including all those tax cuts – and his determination to stand up firmly against the aggression threatened by the North Korean and Iranian dictators. The people know him for a patriot and a man with the interests of non-politicos – that is the great majority – at heart.

Bishop Bayes is a representative of what is sometimes called “the liberal elite” – though there are more accurate, if less polite, descriptions of them. This elite hates Trump because he threatens the culture of entitlement.

Donald Trump has voiced and begun to enact policies which are both sensible and virtuous. I can understand why Bayes and his episcopal colleagues – fully paid-up members of the liberal elite and that culture of entitlement – don’t like Trump: they don’t like him for the same reasons believing Christians enthusiastically approve of him. © Salisbury Review.[pullquote]

The Salisbury Review is looking for interns. Write to the Editor.


 Subscriber ? Buy our special offer for a friend of a year’s subscription to the paper magazine at half price.






Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


12 Comments on The president who threatens the culture of liberal entitlement

  1. Obama, and many “Christian” clerics may say that they support Christianity. But such statements are systematically and continuously contradicted by their non-Christian actions and positions, and by their waffling when asked to explain the contradictions.

    Trump’s approach to the media is based on a realization of the media’s ingrained leftist bias. The media’s equivocation and selective bias in favor of their ideology is unrelenting, and its toxicity makes it exhausting to read. Whether the BBC leads or not, it fully participates. This bias is of such long standing (at least since the early 70’s; e.g., the blackout on Solzhenitsyn when he was exiled is typical) that one wonders if the media are even aware of it.

    No one is saying the right wing literally equates to God’s view. But that the left equates to evil is undeniable. As it says in the Gospel, by their fruits you shall know them. What leftist regime has ever brought justice ?

    Inheritance tax is bad; it is theft, taxing what has already been taxed. It would seem to be a kind of opposite of the Jubilee: take from the original owner and give it to the state. Alcohol is for the most part fine, if used appropriately, that is, “usque ad hilaritatem”. Tax the abuser instead. Where does the article argue for “trickle down” economics, that is the imposition of unjust tax laws that favor the very wealthy to the disadvantage of the rest ? It argues for reasonable corporate taxation that will help commerce flourish. Taxation addresses economic justice when it is based on and is proportionate to the surplus of the one taxed. However, it is not primarily taxes but rather laws that address just working conditions, just wages and just prices that is specifically what is needed. With its state based monopolistic capitalism, the left in this is “not even wrong” (as the physicists say). Do thou rather go read the social encyclicals of Leo XIII. The article does suggest the richer rich will invest and spend some of their extra extra to the benefit of the rest of society. This is certainly true. And, even tax sheltered money needs to be circulated. It is undeniable that love and unbounded pursuit of excess wealth is bad and corrupting. But when was the love of excess ever curtailed by taxation ? Love (of excess) will find a way. For Volpone, conversion is what is needed.

    The article provides some historical points which bolster Israelis in thinking Jerusalem is their appropriate capitol. Trump is just recognizing their current view. He is not making an independent determination. It’s basically irrelevant to him why the Israelis prefer this. There is no peace process to be affected by the decision, only a temporization process, by Islam. For them, what is once under Islam may never be allowed to revert, and where there is a mosque there is conquest. Europe and elsewhere might wish to take note.

    There is nothing Trump has done that would seriously impede Christianity. Perhaps he has not done enough that would aid it. But the Bishop-approved Obama and Clinton support policies that do impede and never aided it at all. Where is the outrage ? Still, put not your trust in princes, or presidents for that matter.

  2. These arguments never cease. President Trump is not perfect, but just consider the real choice for American voters – Trump or Clinton(s)! Sufficient American Christian voters worked out who was the less bad of the two, one of which they saw as evil. Trump is is at least trying, against the attacks and sabotage from the whole establishment system, to bring the USA back to its Constitutional foundations, and to save it from subversion by its enemies. What his personal religious convictions are we may never know, but he is also trying to highlight Christian traditions and values, including Christmas. The English bishops should be giving credit where it is due.

    Let us go back to when the anti-Biblical (actually effectively atheist) Jenkins was appointed Bishop of Durham; none of the other bishops proved to be Bible-believing Christians openly opposing Jenkins’ blatant heresies; instead, they accepted him. This Bishop of Liverpool is evidently following the same tradition; not looking for glimmers of recovery in the USA, but opposing them; certainly not helping a recovery in the C of E, but evidently helping the rot to go deeper (happy with the hat next to him, worn by an un-Biblical “female bishop”). Peter Mullen’s strictures on the Liverpool Bishop are basically correct. Let’s start to get realistic. The C of E and the other main denominations have abandoned Biblical Christianity and, instead of leading the nation God-wards, are helping the slide to oblivion. Check 2 Chronicles 7:14 AV/KJV.

    In regard to Jerusalem, Ian Chisnall wants to disregard history, presumably because it doesn’t suit his agenda. Nobody in Britain, so far as I am aware, thinks the capital should be elsewhere than London (for all its faults). But the Jews / Israel have always regarded Jerusalem as the capital; it is only the relatively Johnny-come-lately Islam that wants to dispute it.

  3. Mullen’s criticism of Bayes for the use of jargon is a bit hypocritical when you read his article, his ignorance of Obamas own statements supporting Christianity shows he has a limited view of what went on between 2008 and 2016. The media attacks on Trump are a primarily in reaction to Trumps own approach towards the media and to argue that our media has followed the BBC is complete nonsense. Mullen claims “I reckon we should judge a man’s doings by the measure of his opponents” how in the name of Jesus does this relate to Gospel principles. He goes on to suggest that gaining the opposition of ‘the left wing’ means that Trump must be doing something right, whilst this magazine and Mullen may believe that right wing = God’s view, such a view is pure heresy. On matters of policy, Mullen argues that Inheritance Tax is bad, even though it is based on the Biblical Year of Jubilee, that alcohol tax is bad despite the toxic elements that the drug offers society and finally he argues in favour of trickle-down economics. Not only is this counter to all of the Bible stories, it is also a form of economics that has been disproven many decades ago, although not surprisingly it is supported by the richest 1% of our societies. Peter Mullan spent the latter years of his ministry reaching out to this 1% and so his support for trickle down may make sense on a human level, however it nevertheless broken and corrupt.

    The second policy area relates to Israel. It is clearly true that Israel as a nation has focused on Jerusalem since the days of the Exodus, however Peters argument if played out beyond this limited geography would lead to the American Embassy being moved to Winchester or even Colchester. Simply resorting to historical data and ignoring the period in between is not a good basis for decision making. In 1947 things changed in that land thanks to the Balfour Declaration. There are still a number of loose ends that need dealing with from the time of the declaration before external agencies start to referring to the Old Testament for their decision making.
    Mullens final comments that the Bishops don’t like Trump for the same reasons believing Christians enthusiastically approve of him completely ignores the extent to which many Christians on both sides of the Atlantic reject Trump for his failure to embrace the true nature of the Gospel of Jesus. There are Christians who both support and opposed Trump as well a great deal more who are disconnected from Politics altogether. To ignore this is deeply concerning and shows that Mullen is out of touch with the real situation.

    • @johnhenry, on seeing the photo for this article my first impression was that they had re-instated the Feast of Fools…alas I was mistaken, although not entirely.

  4. Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton, whom the Bishop would have warmly welcomed, proposed :
    abortion into the late term; uncontrolled mass immigration; bigger government and higher taxes; Obamacare; affirmative action for all except white working people; closing down industry “to save the planet”;
    children having books about their two Daddies; Nuns being forced by law to provide contraception to staff; and trangendered bathrooms for schools.
    No problems for a Christian Priest there then.

    81% of white Christians voted for Trumpo and 60% of white Catholics, largely because the Democrats have become a tribal party for blacks, Hispanics, LGBTQXers, global warmists, students and other minorities set against white working people. Hence Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and other erstwhile Democratic fiefdoms.

    A personal note. Our Vicar, who is an avid watcher of BBC News and Current Affairs, was astonished, whilst on holiday in Spain, to meet Americans who told him in no uncertain terms, about the immorality and the corruption of the Clintons. He was astonished because not a hint of these accounts had he heard from the BBC.

    Perhaps the Bishop should read more widely.

  5. Not a huge Trump fan myself, but I’m more turned off by how these Marxist, LGBT Bishops react to him. Almost makes me wish I had voted for him.

  6. I am not sold on Trump but I had to giggle at your description of the difficulties inherent in ‘educating’ a liberal bishop of the CofE. For my own part this is something I would not attempt as I consider the liberal wing of the church to be behind economic repair.

    Your point about the lack of what many of us see as a lack of Christian leadership within the church is well made as is the ‘ornamental’ nature of much Christianity today. At times I experince terrible guilt feeling the way I do about Archbishop OilWelby and his distasteful friends. Your articles are a great help. Thank you and a happy New Year to you.

    • We have to ask how such people get into these positions of influence within the church. Is it because they can drive around doubled up parishes, charm a few old ladies and feign “church mission and growth”, due to their driving, their ingratiations?
      Or is it because they are pliable liberal sock puppets of Welbys, who`ll get brownie points for enraging the loyal dying old foot soldiers with their latest Guardian/TFTD tropes and tripes?
      Management fast tracks, but with absolutely NO biblical knowledge or sense of history-contemporary or otherwise. Just a wish to get some column inches and some cheap gallery show pony trots for the BBC or the MCB.
      No-Bayes is exactly why the church dies a little every day, why it`s average age is 63 or so and why nobody asks its opinion, just wants its foodbank and battery recycling possibilities. And-of course-why so many of us have to seek giants like Peter and Gavin, Nazir and Sir Roger out in the fringes on sites like this one. The Church sure as hell(can we dare call it that?) wants them out of the church, but this church is now online.