Jeffress Says He Backs Trump Because It's 'Biblical' To Support A 'Strongman'

[KamaAina]

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/jeffress-says-he-backs-trump-because-its-biblical-support-strongman

Yesterday, conservative talk radio host Mike Gallagher invited Jeffress and Wehner to debate Trump’s candidacy on his program, where Jeffress defended his support for the presumptive GOP nominee by saying that it’s “biblical” to support a “strongman” in government.

Jeffress said that he supported Trump in the primary “because I believed that he was the only one who was electable and could beat Hillary Clinton,” adding that “our country has moved so far to the left” that “I just didn’t think that Ted Cruz was electable.”

“But as far as his worldview, Trump’s worldview,” he continued, “you know, I was debating an evangelical professor on NPR and this professor said, ‘Pastor, don’t you want a candidate who embodies the teaching of Jesus and would govern this country according to the principles found in the Sermon on the Mount?’ I said, ‘Heck no.’ I would run from that candidate as far as possible, because the Sermon on the Mount was not given as a governing principle for this nation.

“Nowhere is government told to forgive those who wrong it, nowhere is government told to turn the other cheek. Government is to be a strongman to protect its citizens against evildoers. When I’m looking for somebody who’s going to deal with ISIS and exterminate ISIS, I don’t care about that candidate’s tone or vocabulary, I want the meanest, toughest, son of a you-know-what I can find, and I believe that’s biblical.”

[gratuitous]

1. Well that certainly worked out well with the anointing of King Saul

Despite Samuel's warnings. 1 Sam 8:10-22.

But here I thought conservatives just hate, hate, hated it when the President overstepped his authority and issued executive orders, and sent nominees for judgeships to the Senate, and acted like he was the commander-in-chief or something. At least since 2009. Now they want a strongman? Since when?

[world wide wally]

2. Mean?... Yes

Tough?... Hardly
Asshole?.... Definitely

[sarae]

3. +1

asshole man-baby of the highest order

[treestar]

4. There are so many morons out there

loud mouthed ignorant morons. It's not the First Century AD.

[LuvNewcastle]

5. Jesus!

What else can I say?

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. So he's saying Herod was a Good King?

The historical Herod does seem to be the kind of leader he's looking for.

Herod (/ˈhɛrəd/; Hebrew: הוֹרְדוֹס, Hordos, Greek: Ἡ?ῴ???, Hērōdēs; 74/73 BCE – 4 BCE),[1][2][3][4][5] also known as Herod the Great and Herod I, was a Roman client king of Judea,[6][7][8] referred to as the Herodian kingdom. The history of his legacy has polarized opinion, as he is known for his colossal building projects throughout Judea, including his expansion of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (Herod's Temple), the construction of the port at Caesarea Maritima, the fortress at Masada and Herodium. Vital details of his life are recorded in the works of the 1st century CE Roman–Jewish historian Josephus. Herod also appears in the Christian New Testament as the ruler of Judea who orders the Massacre of the Innocents at the time of the birth of Jesus. Despite his successes, including singlehandedly forging a new aristocracy from practically nothing,[9] he still garnered criticism from various historians. His reign polarizes opinion amongst scholars and historians, some viewing his legacy as evidence of success, or a reminder of his tyrannical rule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

[HughBeaumont]

7. "President Trump" will be biblical, all right . . .

. . . a biblical cock-up.

[Initech]

8. You're not supporting a strongman with Trumpenfuror. You're supporting a strawman.

[world wide wally]

9. Caligula '20

[cagefreesoylentgreen]

10. A strongman?

Like one in the mold of what Moses did to the Midianites?

[struggle4progress]

11. It's luck I'm not in charge -- cuz somebody needs a good smiting