The Trump Chronicles, Volume 168: No, You Can’t Nationalize The Elections

It’s no secret that President Trump obsesses over elections and vote counts, and for good reason. He lost the popular vote in the 2016 election and lost both the electoral and popular votes in 2020. Like any bully he refuses to admit defeat and continues to claim he really won but was cheated. In the last few days he’s floated the idea of the federal government take over running elections. He has claimed, all along without any evidence, that “everyone knows” these elections were corrupt. So what’s the problem with this? Why doesn’t the federal government run elections?

Well, there are a few problems. Let’s start with the Constitution: Article 1, Section 4 states that the “Times, places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state.” It doesn’t get much clearer. States run the elections and this can only be changed by amending the Constitution. Not by Congress passing a law. Not by the President issuing an order. And because the states run elections it’s much more difficult to cheat. No one person, no one group, no one state controls all the ballots and no one group can create or eliminate enough ballots to change the result of an election.

This matters more than ever because it’s clear that that’s exactly what Trump wants to do. In 2020 when Georgia voters chose Joe Biden, Trump famously called Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on January 2, 2021 to demand that he find 11,000 votes and give Georgia to Trump. Had Trump been in charge the election he certainly could have done that. Only the Constitution prevented this by having the states run elections.

Joseph Stalin famously said that the people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything (I found that quote here). I hope nobody misses the irony that Trump claims the only way to avoid election corruption is to give him all the power.

We will go to the polls in 9 months to choose our legislators and Trump knows his only path to keeping the House (and perhaps the Senate) is to cheat and we cannot allow him to do that.

Does Speaker Johnson Really Believe He Can Lecture Pope Leo XIV On Christian Teaching?

Pope Leo XIV, and Pope Francis before him, have clearly emphasized the Catholic Church’s teaching on how we are to treat immigrants. Scripture brims with examples, but let me just give one, Leviticus 19:34: “You shall treat the alien who resides with you no differently than the natives born among you; have the same love for him as for yourself; for you too were once aliens in the land of Egypt.”

Unfortunately, many among us, including political leaders who identify as Christian, attempt to use Scripture to defend their xenophobia. Current House Speaker Mike Johnson recently said this (and I’m getting this from an article in The Christian Post):

“Borders and walls are biblical,” Johnson, a Southern Baptist, responded. “From the Old Testament to the New, God has allowed us to set up our civil societies and have separate nations.”

“Immigration is not something that’s frowned upon in Scripture,” he added. “We’re to welcome the sojourner and love our neighbor as ourself.”

The speaker continued: “What’s also important in the Bible is that assimilation is expected and anticipated and proper.”

“When someone comes into your country, comes into your nation, they do not have the right to change its laws or to change its society,” Johnson said. “They are expected to assimilate.”

“We haven’t had a lot of that going on,” he insisted.

He further states that when the Bible calls us to care for “the sojourner and the neighbor” it is “an admonition to individuals, not the civil authorities.”

Wow, it’s hard to know where to start, but let me give it a try:

  • Borders and walls are not biblical, they were (and are) reality. Borders and walls have been around as long as humanity and the fact that they are found in the Bible doesn’t mean we invented them. Likewise with separate nations. God did not make a map for us to follow.
  • There is nothing (NOTHING) in the Bible that demands assimilation. Much of Jesus’ ministry in the Gospels describes the difficulty in maintaining Jewish identity during Roman occupation and at no time does Jesus command us to become Romans.
  • Here in the United States we live in a democracy. Civil authorities govern only with the consent of individuals and there is no “us vs. them.” We are all “us.” Because of that any admonition that binds individuals must also bind civil authorities. How dare he lecture the Pope on the Bible when he misunderstands even the basics of democracy.

Finally, Speaker Johnson uses something called proof texting. Rather than explore a Biblical passage to understand its meaning, a proof texter will begin with his own opinion and scour the Bible to find a passage that appears to back him up with no regard for original meaning or context.

Speaker Johnson, if you’re going to claim authority on either the Bible or democracy, get better at it.

The Trump Chronicles, Volume 167: Our Racist In Chief

We’ve known for along time that Trump is racist, despite his continual denials. Well, he’s done it again. February is Black History Month and we take this month to reflect not only on the history of slaver and Jim Crow (in the hopes that we’ve learned and won’t keep doing it) but also contributions the black population has given us. Think Katherine Johnson’s work with calculating trajectories in the early space program and George Washington Carver’s work as an agricultural chemist.

But Trump, who famously referred to Haiti and African countries as shithole countries whose people should not be allowed to come to the United States, is at it again. Yesterday he posted on his social media account a video that depicted former President Obama and his wife Michelle as apes. No, I’m not going to post a link and I hope you don’t either.

As you can imagine the reaction was swift. Even Republican Senator Tim Scott, who is black, condemned it and hoped it was fake. At first Trump’s press secretary Karoline Leavitt tried to ridicule the outrage calling it “fake outrage.” The post was eventually taken down and Trump blamed a staffer for posting it, even though it was posted in the middle of the night when Trump often posts and most people who work for him are asleep.

He just doesn’t get it. But then neither do his supporters who don’t believe he’s racist.

The Trump Chronicles, Volume 166: Must It Always Be About You Don?

This week many of us have followed the horrific news that Nancy Guthrie, mother of NBC journalist Savannah Guthrie, has gone missing and has likely been kidnapped. When asked, President Trump offered his support and said: “It’s a terrible thing. I always get along well with Savannah. Very unusual situation, but we’re going to find out.”

Even in his words of support he still has to make it about himself. It reminded me of his words when NPR journalist Cokie Roberts died in 2019. Cokie was a pioneering journalist and inspired countless girls and women to follow in her footsteps. Trumps response: “I never met her. She never treated me nicely.” Nothing about her work or her place.

I’m guessing I’m not the only one who tires of Trump making everything about himself.

I’m Back (Hopefully For Good)

Nearly two years ago, in April of 2024, I finally threw in the towel on updating this blog. To be honest, at that time President Joe Biden was limping toward re-election and Donald Trump was running for a nonconsecutive 2nd term. It was getting harder and harder to watch this process and I just ran out of gas.

But since then Trump has once again become President and many of my worst fears have come true. Again and again I’ve asked myself what I can do as a member of the resistance and I’ve decided to start writing again. I tried to write at least one article per month and that just isn’t enough. I fell into the trap known as “the perfect is the enemy of the good.” I pressured myself into thinking each entry had to be stunning and they ended up just being time consuming.

My hope now is to write shorter, less ambitious articles. I’ll be frank that I think Trump is an existential threat to our democracy and if he succeeds in becoming a stand alone dictator it will only partially be the result of his supporters. To quote Dr. Martin Luther King, “In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” I have limited belief in my ability to convert true Trump supporters but I do hope to awaken those who oppose Trump but haven’t spoken up.

Stay Tuned.

We Have A House Speaker. Now What?

After three weeks it appears Congress has finally chosen a House Speaker: Mike Johnson of Louisiana. If you’ve never heard of him, don’t despair. Almost nobody has. He’s only 51 years old and first arrived in Congress in the 2016 election.

So why him? Well, a couple of reasons. First, Trump likes him; that’s pretty important. The last few weeks have shown that Trump can’t anoint a speaker (Jim Jordan) but he can shoot one down (Tom Emmer). Also, and equally important, he hasn’t done anything to piss off his fellow Republicans. The last few weeks have shown House Republicans sometimes act like rivals at a 3rd grade lunch table with all the petty grudges and silly hurt feelings.

I have to confess I’m a little troubled by this selection. It’s true that Congress can now get back to work on support for Ukraine, Israel and keeping the government running. But Mike, like Kevin McCarthy before him, sits under a sword of Damocles because any one member of the House can call for a “motion to vacate,” essentially call for a vote of no confidence. Again he can afford to lose only four votes before we do this all again.

Essentially, other than a new person in the speaker’s seat, nothing has changed. Several Republicans have voiced opposition to ongoing support for Ukraine and the Republicans who opposed McCarthy were (among other things) unhappy that he worked with Democrats to vote on September 30th to keep the government running until November 17th.

So what does Mike bring to the table? Good question.

The role of Speaker of the House requires a great deal of knowledge. There are countless rules and customs around how legislation passes, how committee assignments are made, et. There is a steep learning curve and it’s not a job for legislative novices.

Frankly I fear Speaker Johnson will enjoy a short honeymoon and once the far right Republicans who drove out McCarthy start resharpening their claws, well…

Stay tuned.

More Thoughts On The House Speaker

It’s been eight days since my last post and it hasn’t gotten any better. Last week I wrote that House Republicans ousted Rep. Kevin McCarthy because eight ulta conservative members didn’t like the job he was doing. They didn’t feel his promises could be trusted and they didn’t like the fact that he worked with President Biden and House Democrats to keep the government open.

Since then two things have happened: Hamas (the governing authority in Gaza) opened fire and stormed into Israel. There they killed and kidnapped Israeli citizens; the number keeps changing. The United States has always seen Israel as a longtime ally and ordinarily we’d help them. But without a functioning House of Representatives we can’t send them any aid.

Also the Republicans don’t appear any closer to find a Speaker candidate they can all support. As I said last week they removed Kevin McCarthy without having a clear successor. Within a few days two Representatives announced their candidacy: Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Jim Jordan of Ohio. They both hoped they would garner the support of enough members to win a floor vote of all 433 members; there are normally 435 members but 2 seats are vacant. Since all 212 Democrats will almost certainly vote for the House Minority Leader Hakeen Jeffries of New York, any Republican candidate must get 213 votes out of the 221 members, leaving only a 4 vote margin. When Republicans voted on a secret ballot 113 members voted for Scalise and 99 for Jordan. Scalise hoped that after this he could convince 100 members to then coalesce behind him. When it didn’t happen he pulled his name from contention.

Still with me? Good. When Steve Scalise pulled out, Representative Austin Scott of Georgia announced he would run. Again on a secret ballot 124 members voted for Jordan and 81 for Scott; Jordan asked for another secret ballot and he gained a few votes but not nearly enough. This vote was 152 to 55.

Now let’s make this more complicated. These votes among Republicans were secret ballots but when they actually cast votes for Speaker they vote in public. Former President Trump backs Jim Jordan and has always made it clear that he has zero tolerance for disloyalty. It’s generally assumed that several members will vote for Jordan just to avoid angering Trump. But again, if more than 4 of them don’t vote for a candidate he won’t win.

Democrats are, as you would expect, taking a back seat and are seeing this as a Republican problem. But a “do nothing” Congress has real consequences. As I said earlier the government is set to run out of money on November 17th. With no Speaker the House cannot pass any legislation. That means no laws can be passed and no money can be directed to Ukraine or Israel.

For me the largest problem is this: there does not appear any Republican who can gain enough support. It was McCarthy, then Scalise, now Jordan and Scott. A small group of conservative Republicans don’t appear to be aware of the chaos they are causing and the damage they are doing. They appear to enjoy the limelight and crave job security above all else. They claim to demand that government do fewer things and do them better but their actions belie a different agenda. I pray that good sense begin to take over and they get back to their jobs.

Thoughts On the House Speaker

We all knew this was going to happen but it doesn’t make it better: the House of Representatives has no Speaker. With our two party system the selection of the House Speaker has been little more than a formality: every two years we swear in a new Congress and the leader is chosen by the Representatives. It’s almost always a straight party vote. But this past January we elected 221 Republicans and 212 Democrats (two seats are currently vacant). Representative Kevin McCarthy expected to be elected easily but a small group of ultra conservative members refused to support him at first. After fifteen ballots these Representatives agreed to support him with one condition: any one person can call for a “motion to vacate.” That means any representatives can call for a vote to see if they still want him.

When Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida called for such a motion. As expected no Democrats voted to support him, but 8 Republicans did the same. McCarthy was stripped of his role as Speaker (though not as a Representative) by a vote of 216 to 210.

So what’s next? Clearly the Republicans need to meet and choose someone they can all agree on. But that’s not going to be easy. The eight Republicans who refused to support McCarthy have not (as of yet) coalesced around one person that all the other Republicans can agree to. It may become a difficult fight.

I have two primary concerns about this:

The government is only funded until November 17; both houses of Congress and President Biden will need to agree on funding the government. If they don’t most government employees will not be paid and will not be allowed to work. Some of those deemed essential workers (e.g. TSA and the military) will be required to work but will not be paid. I’ve always felt that public service is a noble vocation but it’s hard to imagine why anyone would want to work for the government given this level of nonsense. Unlike most members of Congress many government employees don’t have the luxury of missing paychecks. Last week I met an Air Force Reservist who was headed to Poland for several months while his family stays here. We’re asking enough of him without demanding that he do this for free.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in February of 2022 we pledged monetary support to Ukraine. We’ve never seriously considered sending troops there but we found it important that Ukraine remain free and Russia be defeated. Some of the most conservative Republicans now believe we should end that support which would almost certainly lead to a Russian victory over Ukraine. I worry that these Republicans will not support a speaker without a pledge to abandon Ukraine. Even if you don’t think Ukraine is worthy of our support I believe it’s naive to think that a Russian win would satisfy Putin. Ukraine isn’t a member of NATO and we’re not obligated to support them. But if Russia then decides to invade Poland or one of the Baltic nations (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) they are NATO members and we are obligated to come to their aid. Article 5 of the treaty states that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. If we abandon Ukraine now it will require a larger support somewhere else.

As for now, fasten your seatbelts. Congress is going to be a bumpy ride.

The War In Iraq, Twenty Years Later

The date March 20, 2003 doesn’t sound important and most of us don’t remember where we were, but it is an important date. On that day President George Bush announced that American troops began an invasion of Iraq. It’s a good time to ask why we invaded, what happened, and where we are now.

No understanding of the invasion can be understood outside the attacks of September 11, 2001. On that morning we watched in horror as passenger planes crashed into the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania (that was likely headed toward the White House). It didn’t take long before we learned that the mastermind behind these attacks was Osama bin Laden; he was in Afghanistan being protected by their government.

But not long after these events President Bush and his administration began to push the idea that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to the attacks. There wasn’t any evidence of this and the Bush administration stopped pushing it but never completely disavowed it. Instead they pushed the idea that Saddam Hussein had both the ability to and intention of attacking us. He possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, we knew where they were, and we could confiscate them. Further, they claimed that the conquest of Iraq would be a cakewalk. Ordinary Iraqis would see us as liberators. Six weeks later, on May 1st, President Bush announced Mission Accomplished on the USS Abraham Lincoln.

In the years since then we’ve learned that none of this was true. It wasn’t a cakewalk, we weren’t seen as liberators and we didn’t accomplish the mission in six weeks. So what happened?

Today I heard an excellent podcast on this. The podcast is called On The Media and the link to this episode is here. It’s true that members of the administration “cherry picked” information that made their case and they gave too much credibility to sources who made unsubstantiated claims.

But the podcast shows that those behind this campaign felt that the only path to peace for the United States lay in “liberating” nations like Iraq and that the Iraqis suffered so much under Saddam that they would welcome us. President Bush also talked about the “axis of evil,” countries that included Iran and North Korea.

War is horrible and should be used only as a last resort. Saddam Hussein was never a threat and all we did was lose thousands of lives and leave a country that is broken to this day.

We need to remember this next time there is a call to war.

Christian Nationalism Is Neither

I’ve been hearing a phrase in the last few years called “Christian Nationalism” and the more I hear the more I’m concerned. Don’t get me wrong: I’m proud to be both American and Christian but along with our Founders I believe that both institutions function best when they are separate.

Christian Nationalists believe that the United States was founded on specific Christian values, that we have drifted away from these values, and the only hope for our future is to reclaim and recapture them. Problem is, they tend to be pretty selective in which Christian values they embrace. So, in no particular order, here are my objections to this movement:

  • Several of our Founders practiced a Christianity we would barely recognize. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and our 3rd President. He was a Deist in the sense that he believed in God but he didn’t believe parts of the Bible that spoke of Jesus’ miracles or Jesus’ resurrection. He took a razor and edited out those parts of the Gospels he believed and pasted them together in a book called The Jefferson Bible. It ends with the crucifixion of Jesus but stops there.
  • The Founders did hold strong beliefs that a person need not be a believer. The 1st Amendment of the Constitution not only allows Americans to believe what they wanted, that included having no beliefs at all. I used to work with someone who grew up in Germany. When she started working she was told that part of her salary would be paid to either the Lutheran or Catholic Church and she was asked to choose one. She didn’t want her government to give anything to support religion but was told that wasn’t an option. As an American I recoiled at this. Because of our 1st Amendment nobody is required to support any faith. Christian Nationalists would make it more and more difficult not to hold Christian beliefs.
  • They are selective in which Christian beliefs they support. They are strong in their opposition to marriage equality or other LGBT rights but they say little or nothing about Christian values about welcoming the stranger or feeding the hungry. They clearly use the Bible to back up their beliefs that exclude others.
  • They don’t know as much as they claim to know. There was movement to place the 10 Commandments in public places, arguing that this should be the basis of American values. But ask one of them to recite the 10 Commandments. In 2006 Stephen Colbert hosted a show on Comedy Central and he would interview politicians. You can read about this here and it’s good for a laugh. Stephen was interviewing Georgia Congressman Lynn Westmoreland who proposed that the 10 Commandments be displayed in Congress. Mr. Westmoreland argued that this was something we all needed to know. But when asked to recite them, he could only name 3 of them.

At the end of the day my problem with Christian Nationalism is this: it’s not about Christianity or Nationalism. It’s about fascism. A small group of entitled people who want to ensure that their feelings aren’t hurt, who don’t want their prejudices challenged, and want to make sure “those people” know their place. I don’t believe Jesus would have any place for Christian Nationalism.