You’ve likely already come to this piece with a preconceived notion, your mind mostly made up on the matter, neither of us having to pretend like you haven’t already heard about the attempt to remove the President of the United States. I want to start by addressing the 3 Major groups amongst believers regarding this issue, or even politics in general. The first, would say that every democratic policy prescription, is distant from the things God commands of us. Abortion, Safe Injection Zones, Theft in the form of Taxation, or even a progressive sociological view which tends to lean towards the very lifestyles God finds detestable, not only regarding the LGBT Community, but also drug addiction, alcoholism, and sex, all used to sell a product. Rightwing Christians feel as though liberalism is a direct assault against the things God tells us.
However, there’s a second group. Progressive Christians, who would suggest that the Republicans are stone cold, and heartless when it comes to the welfare system. They would argue that Jesus would be an active advocate for welfare, or that the crucifixion of our Lord was a sufficient atonement for the sins of those who are actively pursuing their desires without remorse or shame. They would argue that liberal philosophies of tolerance and acceptance, regardless of the individuals choices, reflect the very character of God.
Of course, we have our third group. The “Government is the devil, and it’s all a part of a beast system which will one day seek to enslave us, hunting us without mercy and anybody who votes supports the slaughter of Christians!”
Even with such an honest representation of the things you hear them say, I would encourage us to not disregard this group. Because while they may, at times, be overly zealous, they get a lot of things right, that Conservative Christians and Progressive Christians seem to get wrong. Yes, the Bible tells us to be vigilant, and to be on guard, but my encouragement to them, would be to recognize when “vigilance,” becomes obsessive, and when being “on guard” begins to take away from your peace in Christ.
While all these things are a complex topic of their own, all stemming from the philosophies we’ve all come to due to the natures of our worldview, this is specifically about the Impeachment of the 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump.
I am fully aware that due to my political standpoint, I’ve likely already lost my progressive audience. However, when I write to you, I always want to remove myself from the picture as much as possible. I want to ensure that my own bias doesn’t play a roll in helping others draw a conclusion, and I know that from the viewpoint of someone more objective than myself, they’ll likely find a hundred places where I couldn’t help but interject.
So let’s get to the simple answer before we dive into the meat and potatoes of what it entails.
First and foremost, the main thing we need to take away isn’t a mere “yes,” or “no,” to the question, “Should Christians Support the Impeachment of the President of the United States,” because the answer to this question doesn’t rely on which party the sitting President is associated with. The answer isn’t “yes,” or “no,” the answer is, “Christians should regard the Law, so long as that Law doesn’t contradict God’s Law.”
There are currently 2 Articles of Impeachment against President Trump.
- Abuse of Power
- Obstruction of Congress
Starting with “Abuse of Power,” this charge has 2 different implications. The first being Malfeasance in Office, which in the United States, is defined by which “the actor has no legal right to do.” However, this isn’t the grounds by which the majority of Congress intends to hold the President accountable. Abuse of Power is also defined by actions made by someone occupying an elected seat for mere personal gain. THIS, is what Congress is basing its accusations on.
I know all of our friends holding to leftist ideologies are starting to feel sick of hearing the name, “Hunter Biden,” and while political scientists are sitting at the edge of their seats trying to predict how his role in all of this will play out, I want to emphasize that the Christian’s perspective ought to be an upholding of the law, so long as the law doesn’t conflict with God’s Law.
A great place to start would be the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, where we are given a list of expectations which are to be met by the Country which receives US Aid. In the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) in Section 102, Article 4, it states, “the President shall assess the commitment and progress of countries in moving toward the objectives and purposes of this chapter by utilizing criteria,” following a list of criteria found in Sect 102. A.4, Col. A-G.
Remember that we are talking about “Abuse of Power,” with the accusation being that Trump used his position in Office for personal gain, more specifically, to damage Joe Biden’s campaign, which would have possibly ran against the President in the 2020 Election.
Section 102 of the FAA, Article 4, grants the President of the United States with the authority to oversee the progress of the receiving Nation, along with the authority to assess (& verify) whether or not the receiving Nation is moving toward the objectives listed in columns A-G. To save your time, Ukraine seems to meet about half of the criteria from a statistical standpoint. However, the primary focus seems to be an effort to not be caught up in Human Rights Violations, whilst managing the growth of the Population, stated as a criteria in Column C. Granted, I’m not the President, but I feel as though his analysis of Ukraine is that they’ve significantly failed to meet a lot of the criteria outlines by the Foreign Assistance Act.
From a statistical standpoint, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyj Assumed office in May of 2019, and Ukraine has hardly seen a drop in unemployment until leading up to his campaign. Any sociological expert will tell you that things begin to shift, for a period, when campaign promises are made, and that you begin to see an even greater decrease shortly after the election. The reason behind this anomaly can be summed up into one word, “moral.”
President Zelenskyi ran against corruption, and the people of Ukraine felt hope, which spurred the county into revival. This is made evident by the fact that between 2016 and early 2019, Ukraine bounced between an 8.8% and 10.1% Unemployment Rate, and see an immediate spike in unemployment in January 2019, following the Presidential bid of Volodymyr Zelenskyi. Here’s that “Sociological Shift,” I’m telling you to watch for. Between July 2018, and January 2019, Unemployment in Ukraine jumped 1%, from 8.3% to 9.3%.
I get that you’re probably asking about the relevance of all this, or that you’re only sticking through this article simply to gather a better understanding of Political Sciences. In short, the last few paragraphs have only been in respect to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, Sect 102. A.4, Column E. Yet there are a few factors I’m trying to get you to take into account, regarding the fact that Ukrainian Unemployment didn’t seem to take a dive until July 2018, when the current administration was about a year away from its end. The first to declare his candidacy was Roman Bezsmertnyi, in May of 2018.
While most people don’t care to realize it, some major sociological shifts begin to happen during election cycles. People begin to become more outspoken in regards to the insufficiencies of the soon-to-be previous administration, and equally they begin to take action towards the life they hope to obtain. This is the very essence of what causes sociological shifts, “hope.” Do you honestly think politicians base their campaigns off of peoples hopes by chance? Campaigns have groups of people working on electing the individual running, and they always have political scientists who are gauging the atmosphere trying to understand the social climate and where it may be headed.
The point is, peoples hopes get up when a change in power approaches through democratic elections, and political strategists are fully aware of this.
Moving forward, we have to recognize that Ukraine’s economy took some sort of hit in early 2019, which cause unemployment rates to rise from 8% to 9.3%, and while I don’t want to be one of those Christians who tries to convince you that “the illuminati is in charge of everything,” I can’t help but notice that right after an Anti-Establishment Candidate announces his run in December 2018, on top of the fact the United States formally withdrew from the INF Treaty in February 2019, we can’t help but wonder if there’s a connection. For the first 3 years of the Presidency, our ears are filed with a beaten drum concerning the Presidents allegiance with Russia, only for him to withdraw from a Nuclear Arms Treaty due to Russian non-compliance, and aid Ukraine in its emergence from the ashes of the now fallen Soviet Union.
Yet, all of this is only regarding a simple column of the FAA of 1961. The even greater connection is in respect to column G, where Sect 102, Article 4, states, “progress in combating corruption and improving transparency and accountability in the public and private sector.” Get a load of this, and this is a DIRECT quote:
“According to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the main causes of corruption in Ukraine are a weak justice system and an over-controlling non-transparent government combined with business-political ties and a weak civil society.”
The United States Agency for International Development, quite literally, solidifies everything I’ve just said to you. Not only do we see this made evident in the United States, where Unemployment amongst minority communities remained elevated due to feeling as though the Justice System was rigged against them (a lock of hope), but that corruption in Ukraine was also influenced by an overly-controlling non-transparent government, which is quite literally in violation of Sect 102, Article 4, Column G, of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Furthermore, the corruption is equally attributed to the between Business and Political Partnerships.
Eureka. Burisma Holdings.
Here we stand at a crossroad, recognizing that Ukraine fails to meet the criteria of the FAA, which gives the President of the United States the authority to assess the commitment of the country receiving aid regarding certain matters, and withhold aid if necessary, per section 503 which states, “The President is authorized to furnish military assistance, on such terms and conditions as he may determine.”
Granted, I’m not going to continue on regarding the First Article of Impeachment against the President of the United States. I understand how all of this may seem irrelevant, but the reality of it is, within the confines of the law regarding foreign aid, and the probable cause given to withhold the aid, as far as “Abuse of Power,” is concerned, the President was well within his legal rights to put a pause on financial aids to Ukraine.
Which leads us to the second Article of Impeachment, “Obstruction/ Contempt of Congress.”
First of all, this is in fact quite baseless. Now before you get upset, we need to address what the second Article of Impeachment actually says. We can’t just swing the phrase, “Obstruction of Congress,” around without stating a specific charge, and even Chairman Nadler understands this. While the second Article of Impeachment seems to be a reiteration of the first, as though the democrats are finding themselves short of buzzwords to make headlines, the specific terminology states the following:
“As part of this impeachment inquiry, the Committees undertaking the investigation served subpoenas seeking documents and testimony deemed vital to the inquiry from various Executive Branch agencies and offices, and current and former officials.
In response, without lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with those subpoenas.”
This is actually an inconceivable accusation, for a multitude of reasons. The Office of Legal Council has actually asserted that the President of the United States is protected from Contempt by Executive Privilege. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its own area of Constitutional activity. The Supreme Court further confirmed this during “The United States v. Nixon,” requiring the Legislative Branch to make a sufficient showing that Presidential/ Executive Material is essential to the Justice of the Case.
They are trying to state that the President abused his Executive Privilege even after publishing a transcript Rep. Adam Schiff publicly manipulated. They made up quid pro quo to open another investigation, and per the ruling of the Supreme Court, President Trump demonstrated that not only did Congress fail to obtain sufficient evidence to continue an investigation, but that the Presidential Material actually vindicated him of Adam Schiff’s fraudulent account of the Phone Call with the Ukrainian President.
The Democrats were caught red handed. Whether you’re a Republican or Democrat, President Trump was one step ahead of their accusation, and it just so happened to be that the case where he was one step ahead, was a scenario where the Democrats would be caught telling a blatant lie in order to bypass Executive Privilege and obtain Presidential Materials. They had lost their FISA Warrant and took a very sloppy step toward legally obtaining Executive Material, in hopes of finding something that might implicate the President on criminal charges.
Again, they’re stating that the President ordered members of the Executive Branch not to comply with Congressional Subpoenas, after they fabricated a crime to legitimize the issuing of subpoenas. Does that make sense? In America, you cannot just accuse someone of a crime, let alone hold them accountable for it, without any evidence to support the accusation. Meaning the Democrats in Congress can’t just “issue subpoenas,” for no reason. So they tried to fabricate evidence regarding an Abuse of Power, by fraudulently paraphrasing a phone call, completely unaware that the President had the actual transcript and was prepared to release it to the public.
I started this piece with the question, “should Christians support the Impeachment of the President?” I gave you the short answer in the beginning, that so long as the law doesn’t contradict God’s law, then our primary focus should be making sure that the Leader of the Free World shouldn’t break the law as it applies to him. The fact of the matter is, not only is the president lawfully cleared of any accusation in regards to the 2 Articles of Impeachment pending before him, but what the democrats have done here falls within the very definition of the word, “Sedition.”
I’m not trying to convince you to vote republican, I’m not trying to tell you to stop voting democrat, nor am I suggesting that you should cast your vote for Donald Trump in 2020. I’m saying that in ordinance of U.S. Law, and within respect to previous U.S. Supreme Court Rulings, and not to mention as aligned with the U.S Constitution, the Democrats lost. Not only did they lose, they’ve violated the law. There is no such thing as “Contempt of the Executive Branch,” like there is “Contempt of Congress,” Contempt of the Executive Branch is Sedition. Sedition is described as, “the act of inciting revolt or violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it.”
The amount of errors and poor judgment on behalf of the democrats demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt, that their actions were intentional in attempting to overthrow the democratically elected President of the United States. Whether you love him or hate him, President Trump lawfully occupies the Presidency, and what we have seen during these Impeachment Hearings, from start to finish, is a complete and total disregard of the Law on behalf of the Democrats, with no accusation of lawful wrongdoing coming from the President.
A Christian should only support impeachment if it is built upon lawful grounds. A U.S. Citizen for that matter, should only support impeachment if it is built upon lawful grounds. Republican or Democrat, Christian or Atheist, there is no reason to support, not condone, the Impeachment of President Trump based off of the 2 Articles pending against him. This has nothing to do with political leanings, and everything to do with our duty to ensure the law is being upheld in this country.