In this special edition of The Causes of Things, Michael O’Fallon shares his perspective on the article from Christianity Today regarding the Impeachment of President Donald Trump.  We hope this message will prepare you for what is ahead in Evangelical politics in the coming election year.

Subscribe to this podcast on SoundCloud, Apple Podcasts, Google Play, or Spotify.

Previous episodes of The Causes of Things can be found here.

Michael O'Fallon
Michael O’Fallon is the Founder of Sovereign Nations, a media site dedicated to the preservation of national sovereignty.

3 Comments to: The Coming Political Revolution: A Response to ‘Christianity Today’

  1. Avatar

    TellTheTruth-2

    December 22nd, 2019

    Christianity Today has NEVER been a main line Christian publication. President Trump is right, the commentator at Christianity Today would like to see the USA integrated into a Communist NWO.

    Reply
  2. Avatar

    Denise Sipsy

    December 22nd, 2019

    I recieved this post from a previous pastor who moved to another city. I love your podcasts and would love your feed back from the verbage used below. It’s like he has another dictionary he is working from.

    Just a short comment on the Dobson post responding to CT. What bothers me is Dobson’s reductionist view of Christianity. We are not a “single issue” faith. When we boil down our faith like that we become nothing more that another Washington lobby group. Nor is our faith simply about social justice. While I also don’t think CT should be making recommendations I get where they are coming from. Evangelicals who support Trump have exchanged our public witness for political clout. Trump’s moral lifestyle cannot be envisioned as Christ like or we should get a whole lot of pastors back in the pulpit with moral failure. Jesus said to follow him. The Church should be prophetic and able to speak across the political spectrum if we are going to change hearts.

    Reply
  3. Avatar

    Thomas Gunn

    December 26th, 2019

    Mark Galli recently called for President Trump’s removal from office on the ground the President behaved unconstitutionally and immorally by attempting “to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents.” Michael O’Fallon made a number of important observations in response. To Mr. O’Fallon’s observations, I would add the following:

    It is important to remember Mr. Galli’s allegations of wrongdoing are just that – allegations. He bears the burden of proving they are supported by reason and fact. In order to satisfy his burden, he must demonstrate the validity of two propositions: (1) the President violated either a Constitutional provision or an independent ethical norm and (2) the violation damaged the American polity.

    Mr. Galli does not cite any Constitutional provision that bars the President from asking the leader of a foreign country to investigate the acts of an American official that occurred in the leader’s country and that appear to be improper. The absence of a citation is a red flag. If Mr. Galli has a good-faith basis for alleging the President violated the Constitution, then it is incumbent upon him to explain the legal theory upon which he is relying so his readers may assess its soundness.

    What about Mr. Galli’s allegation the President behaved immorally? As noted above, Galli claims it is unethical for an American president to ask a foreign leader to investigate the apparently improper acts of one of the president’s political rivals. Mr. Galli assumes his argument is self-evidently correct, but it is not. As numerous commentators have noted, “An investigation would serve to discredit a political rival only if the rival has done something improper. But if he has done something improper, why should he escape accountability simply because he is running for office?”

    If Mr. Galli wants to persuade fair-minded observers, he must begin by identifying a specific ethical norm that governs the President’s behavior and then demonstrate the President violated that norm. For example, is Mr. Galli relying upon a principle that is derived from the Bible? From Anglo-American common law? From natural law? Mr. Galli doesn’t explain, and a fair-minded observer will not excuse his failure to do so.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

  • (not be published)