Evangelicals Faustian Bargain with Trump

“We must dissent from the poverty of vision and the absence of moral leadership. We must dissent because America can do better, because America has no choice but to do better.” - Thurgood Marshall

As someone who once considered himself a born again Christian and studied the Bible from cover to cover, I am both saddened and yet not surprised that fundamentalist evangelical Christians continue to support the presidency of Donald J. Trump, even as they acknowledge his past and current despicable behavior.

The politicizing of religious faith has always been a condition for human suffering.  Above all of their commands to make love and tolerance their primary motivation, these virtues will always be undermined by those elements within the faith that limit love and tolerance to an exclusive and rigid set of guidelines.  Anyone who does not comfortably sit within those narrow parameters is ostracized and branded as a social pariah.

It was this conflicting set of values that ultimately led to my severing with the institution of Christianity.  I was once told by a member of my Methodist congregation that I could not call myself a Democrat AND a Christian, because many Democrats supported abortion. 

I was reprimanded by my Bible study leader at one time, telling me that they would not tolerate any position that questioned the Gospels claim to Jesus’ divinity.  And when I challenged the pastor’s authority to prevent a new member’s child from going on a church ski trip because she had been associated with others who smoked pot, one of whom was the pastor’s own daughter, I was charged with allowing Satan to influence my motivations.

It didn’t matter that I had led a bible study group for those incarcerated in our local jail or that I worked several months a year for five years chairing and actively engaging community resources for a Christmas Toy Store our church had organized years ago to bring a little joy into the lives of children in low income families.

The only thing that seems to matter for many orthodox Christians today, as opposed to their earlier views, is that their political leaders do all they can to stop the abortions of unwanted pregnancies, even in cases of rape and incest.  They are engaging in a Faustian bargain to forego their higher moral code for Trump’s willingness to appoint pro-life judges as they dismiss his violation to his oath of office and his never ending unsavory character.

Though some Christians have bravely spoken out in favor of Trump’s removal from office, even believing as many Republicans claim that “Democrats have had it out for him from day one”, they none the less see his actions regarding the Ukrainian quid pro quo as a threat to our Constitution that asserts no one is above the law.

Pro-life advocate Paul D. Miller who called for Trump’s conviction and removal stated that if the GOP-controlled Senate acquits Trump, which will likely happen, it “would mean that, over time, a future president can abuse his power, obstruct justice, commit perjury, profit from office, defy Congress, ignore subpoenas, ...  and disregard truth with impunity, firm in the knowledge that he faces no accountability, no check, no balance, no consequence, and no higher law.”

In his farewell op-ed as Christianity Today’s outgoing  editor in chief, Mark Galli implored evangelicals to, “Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior.”

Their failure to do so will not only further erode Christianity’s moral foundation but will have the propensity to cancel out what many of them voted for Trump in the first place - their belief that he would “make  America great again”.

The Late Great American Republic

“The reason many are not shocked about [Trump’s abuse of power] is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration.” - Mark Galli, editor in chief of Christianity Today

Abraham Lincoln, the first President of the newly-formed Republican Party, once opined that “If a man will stand up and assert, and repeat and reassert, that two and two do not make four, I know nothing in the power of argument that can stop him.”

Through out the House Impeachment hearings - and I’m sure the same will be echoed in the Senate trial - Republicans have claimed that Democrats have always wanted to impeach Donald Trump because they don’t like him or his policies.  It’s a thinly supported narrative they keep repeating about a dissenting minority not unlike a similar number within their own ranks who sought to impeach Obama shortly after he was inaugurated.

A serious look however at events gives strong credence to another claim - that impeachment for the president was inevitable once the GOP failed to muster the backbone to prevent the nomination going to a charlatan like Trump who appealed to there baser instincts rather than there better angels.

 Republicans are now officially the character-doesn’t-count party, the personal-responsibility-just-proves-you-have-failed-to-blame-the-other-guy party, the deficit-doesn’t-matter party, the Russia-is-our-ally party, and the I’m-right-and-you-are-human-scum party. Yes, it’s President Trump’s party now, but it stands only for what he has just tweeted.   - Stuart Stevens, GOP political consultant

Republican leaders knew full well that the TV reality star had a past filled with unethical and failed business practices as well as his shameless personal behavior, yet failed to shine a spotlight on what a recent Christianity Today Op-ed piece called his “grossly immoral character”.

Trump’s history of corrupt behavior during his days as a brash, young Manhattan real estate magnate had flagged him as a potential person of interests subject to investigations into wrong doing.  This history followed him into his presidential campaign as he became linked with a Russian effort to influence the 2016 elections.

The social media echo chambers that beget most political opinions in this country glided over the debased character of a man who would use his “brand” to rob hopeful people of a higher education through his Trump University scam and use donated funds to Trump’s charity “to advance the interests of the Trump campaign.”  

Through out most of Trump’s adult life he has religiously followed the advice of his now deceased mentor Roy Cohn, a man considered as “pure evil” by some contemporaries.  Cohn’s modus operandi, as has become Trump’s, is to deny everything and “to scare potential adversaries with hollow threats and spurious lawsuits.”

The degree by which these tactics became fantastically absurd and humanely demeaning was only limited by how willing others were to propagate them.  This limitation was overcome with great success by the media attention he got, who it seemed couldn’t get enough of Trump’s theatrics, and by the enabling crowds at his numerous rallies who cheered and applauded his comments that leaped beyond the ethical lines of decency.  The prevailing attitude that evolved was that “we don’t care what he does or says, just as long as he accomplishes what we feel will make America great again”.

It’s a lowering of the bar that disregards the future implications for our way of life and our republican form of government.  It is naive to believe that you can elect the class clown who bullies everyone then pretend he has left all off that behind.

The once great Party of Lincoln has completely lost its soul and can never again point a credible finger at any wrong doing of their political rivals.  There no longer exists a viable two-party system.  A avoid has been created for thoughtful conservatives of the Eisenhower and John McCain mold that will likely remain in the foreseeable future.

And through all of this, Russia and China sit back and watch with the hope that their dreams of a weakened America will soon put them in the driver’s seat that controls world events.

A Double Standard for Sheriff Murphree?

“The most violent element in society is ignorance”  -  Emma Goldman

I find it incomprehensible why Denton County Sheriff Tracy Murphree would pursue
 “crafting a resolution that would declare Denton County a ‘Second Amendment sanctuary” in a state that already allows “any person, no matter what age, [to] possess a firearm as long as they are not a felon”.  With some of the least restrictive laws of all the states, it’s not clear how such an action serves the public interest to protect those who could be targeted under a red flag law.

Texas is a pro-NRA state with a governor and state legislature that leans heavily toward  legislation which ensures that gun industry’s sales do not diminish, even with purchasers who demonstrate a propensity to harm people.

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), first signed into law in 1994,  “provided federal funds for services offered to survivors of domestic and sexual violence [that] enhanced the training of law enforcement officers in the area of sexual and domestic violence, and strengthened penalties for certain sexual crimes ...”   This law has been reauthorized several times since 1994, often with adjustments or modifications.  The latest amendment being offered is what has the NRA apoplectic.

In April 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives introduced legislation to reauthorize the act with modifications that, among other things, lowered the criminal threshold for barring the purchase of firearms by closing the so-called “boyfriend loophole” and restricting the sale of guns to individuals convicted of stalking.  This lower threshold would seek to prevent “someone from buying a gun to include misdemeanor convictions of domestic abuse or stalking charges [where] current law applies [only] to felony convictions.” 

Current statistics show that 72% of all murder-suicides involve an intimate partner with 94% of the victims of these murder suicides are female. The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500%. 

For Sheriff Murphree to go out of his way to safeguard the 2nd amendment rights of those who’ve demonstrated the potential to inflict serious harm and death on their intimate partner is at odds with candidate Murphree back in 2016  who once said “that he’d beat the hell out of a transgender person who tried to piss in a bathroom where Murphree’s daughter was peeing.”

It was an over-zealous reaction to what was then being discussed about allowing transgender people to use the public bathroom that they identify with.  At the time, Murphree stated that “I identify as an overprotective father that loves his kids and would do anything to protect them” 

Despite this violent posturing posed by a member of law enforcement, one can share the emotion as a parent towards someone they feel might conceivably harm their child.  Why then this willingness to protect children but not adult female victims?  Would Murphree not feel similar rage if, in the future, his adult daughter became a victim of gun violence from a jealous boyfriend?

The threat of gun violence has set the U.S. apart from every other industrialized nation making it one of the most dangerous places in the world to live and raise a family. Adding any more protections for gun owners is overkill.  

Murphree needs to broaden his concern for innocent victims to include all daughters, wives and mothers.  That doesn’t happen when you empower unstable individuals under the guise of the 2nd amendment.

Burgess Needs to put Constitution & constituents before Trump

Trump and his Republicans toadies 

with Burgess just to his right

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored" - Aldous Huxley


So the plan for Michael Burgess and his Republican cohorts in the House and Senate is to attack the impeachment process while ignoring the substance of it.  No one from either Party ever relishes the extreme measures that impeachment calls for.  But to denigrate it’s Constitutional authority as “a sham” is a desperate measure by the GOP that may well relegate them to a level of infamy that mires them for generations.

How did the testimonies of eleven credible State Dept. and NSC officials, under oath, not convince Burgess that president Trump had abused the power of that office?

FACT: Trump has refused Judiciary Chairman Nadler’s invitation for the president or his attorneys to address this tribunal and forbidden pertinent White House staff to respond to House subpoenas who could conceivably speak to his defense.  What innocent person would not take advantage of these opportunities?

FACT: Trump’s own hand-picked ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, testified under oath that there was a quid prop quo, asking Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelenskyy for a favor that entailed a trip to the White House and funds for military arms in exchange for a bogus corruption investigation on Joe Biden, a contrived conspiracy charge originating in right-wing media sources that investigative reporter Jane Mayer laid out in her Oct. 14th New Yorker piece.

I also find it difficult to believe that Burgess’ reservations are based upon anything his Republican colleagues on the Intelligence Committee said or did.  Between ranking member David Nunes and congressional pit bull Jim Jordan, there was little to nothing they did or said outside of impugning the witnesses credibility and planting seeds for another right-wing conspiracy.  FACT: A conspiracy originating from Russian Security Services about Ukraine interfering with our 2016 elections rather than the Kremlin, as attested to by every U.S. intelligence agency.

Perhaps Burgess takes Trump’s word at face value when he repeats the dubious claim that he told Sondland that he “wanted nothing.  I want no quid pro quo.”

FACT: The veracity of this comment is marginalized by the reality that he did so only after a whistle blower exposed this abuse of power and “according to an administration official”, no record on White House switchboard logs exists that shows such a conversation between Trump and Sondland occurred.

The possibility that this was a fabrication of Trump’s doing is not unlikely at all, based on his on-record, prolific lies over the years.  Most recently his denial that he ever sent Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine to press the Ukraine government into opening an investigation into the Bidens.

FACT: This whopper was conveyed in a Bill O’Reilly podcast where O’Reilly point blank asked Trump, “You didn’t direct [Rudy Giuliani] to go to Ukraine on your behalf”? and the president emphatically said “NO”. 

But the READ THE TRANSCRIPT crowd knows Trump’s July 26th phone call to President Zelenskyy has him telling the Ukrainian president that he will have Giuliani call him.  “I will ask him to call you,” the president says,  “along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy.

It’s dishonest and disingenuous for Burgess and members of his Party to suggest that this impeachment hearing is illegitimate.  Would his perception be fundamentally different if similar testimonies were aimed at President Obama or even a President Biden,  Warren or Sanders?

Burgess owes his constituents an honest, objective assessment of the facts in this impeachment process, not some baseless, emotional sentiment that diminishes his own credibility and smears the democratic principles he’s sworn to uphold.