The “evangelical movement is not monolithic”

latin evangelicals

Sarah Jones, a graduate of conservative evangelical Cedarville University, has been doing a nice job covering evangelicalism at The New Republic.  Here is a taste of her latest piece: “What’s Next for Evangelicalism?“:

Evangelicals love President Donald Trump, as we all know. And every time a new poll shows evangelical support for Trump at a steady high, the commentariat wrings its hands. These Christians have fallen for a cut-rate King David, a charlatan Solomon, a false prophet. But the evangelical movement is not monolithic. America’s megachurches aren’t lined up neatly in a row, all marching to a Republican cadence. Evangelical support for Trump maps onto racial lines: He belongs to white evangelicals, who put their might behind his presidency.

However, white evangelical Protestants declined from 23 percent of the population in 2006 to 17 percent of the population in 2016. In 2017, they declined to 15 percent of the population, the Public Religion Research Institute has found. The decline can be partly attributed to the millennial generation’s relative non-religiosity, but there are other factors at work. Immigrants are changing American politics, and they’re changing American churches, too.

Janelle Wong, a professor of American studies at the University of Maryland and author of the new book Immigrants, Evangelicals, and Politics in an Era of Demographic Change, tells me that Latinos and Asian-Americans are key sources of growth for evangelical churches. And they differ from white evangelicals in certain key areas. “I think what’s surprising is that non-white evangelicals, especially Asians and Latinos, sometimes show higher rates of religiosity, like they go to church more. Or they exhibit a more fundamentalist kind of orientation,” she explained. “And even though they show higher levels of religiosity, they are much less conservative on almost every issue, except for abortion.”

On climate change, Black Lives Matter, and immigration, non-white evangelicals have little in common with their white brothers and sisters in Christ. Trump didn’t just accelerate an identity crisis in his party, which faces its own future demographic challenges—he also created the same problem for one of the party’s most loyal factions. White evangelicals are ascendent now, but is the Trump era their last hurrah?

Read the rest here.

While the Court Evangelicals Meet With Trump on June 19, Other Evangelicals Will Meet to Discuss “The Moral Collapse of Evangelicalism”

National Press

I don’t know much about this meeting, but we need to get those in attendance a copy of Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump

Here is the press release from the National Press Club:

Location: 4th Estate Room

Evangelical Leader, Rev. Rob Schenck, Joined by Ambassador Suzan Johnson Cook, and House Chaplain Patrick Conroy :

Donald Trump and the Moral Collapse of American Evangelicalism

Washington, D.C. (June 4, 2018) – Rev. Dr. Rob Schenck, President of The Dietrich Bonhoeffer Institute and author of Costly Grace: An Evangelical Minister’s Rediscovery of Faith, Hope and Love, will be joined by Ambassador Suzan Johnson Cook (International Religious Freedom appointee of President Barak Obama) and Chaplain Patrick Conroy (House of Representatives Chaplain since 2011 who was asked by Speaker Ryan to resign) for a special luncheon open to all members of the news media and writers onTuesday, June 19 at the National Press Club from 12:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. in the 4th Estate Restaurant (Limited Seating – RSVP required).

As some 1000 evangelical leaders meet with President Donald Trump at the Trump Hotel in Washington on June 19, Schenck, a dissenting evangelical, will lead a discussion, moderated by Ambassador Suzan Johnson Cook, regarding Donald Trump and the moral collapse of American evangelicalism and why this branch of Christianity needs reformation.

The Reverend Dr. Rob Schenck is the past chairman of the Evangelical Church Alliance, America’s oldest association of evangelical ministers, missionaries, and military chaplains, as well as a current executive advisor to the World Evangelical Alliance. He is the President of The Dietrich Bonhoeffer Institute, the subject of the emmy-award winning documentary, The Armor of Light, and author of the newly released HarperCollins book, Costly Grace: An Evangelical Minister’s Rediscovery of Faith, Hope and Love.

When: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 12:30 p.m.

Where: National Press Club, 4th Estate Restaurant, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor, Washington, D.C.

RSVP: To RSVP email Melinda Ronn at melinda.tdbi@gmail.com or call 917-743-7836

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS EVENT, CONTACT:

Melinda Ronn

917-743-7836 

Did Ted Cruz Forget About His *Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy* Article that Addressed Presidential Pardons?

Cruz and Trump debateRead it here.

And then watch this:

Here is Jeet Heer at The New Republic:

On Monday morning, President Donald Trump tweeted, “As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong?” Later that day, Haley Byrd of The Weekly Standard asked Senator Ted Cruz if he agreed with Trump that presidents could pardon themselves. Cruz paused for 18 excruciating seconds and then said, “That is not a constitutional issue I have studied, so I will withhold judgement at this point.”

Cruz was being forgetful. As legal scholars on Twitter pointed out, in 2015 Cruz authored an article titled “The Obama Administration’s Unprecedented Lawlessness” for The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. In that article, Cruz wrote extensively about the powers of presidential pardon, arguing for a limited view of presidential authority.

Footnote 79 is especially relevant to current debates. “The pardon power was not seen as suspension or dispensation,” Cruz argued. “The pardon power carries a scope specifically limited to crimes already committed. The pardon may not apply to acts that have not yet been committed, because it would function as a personal waiver, the impermissible dispensation of the laws.” It is hard to square these words with Trump’s expansive view of presidential power.

Are the Philadelphia Eagles Part of the 19%?

Baptism

Philadelphia sports fan are brutal.  They once booed Santa Claus.  As a Mets fan who has sat numerous times in the old Veterans Stadium to watch a Mets-Phillies game, I can testify to the ugliness.

But during the 2017-2018 Philadelphia Eagles Super Bowl season, a narrative emerged that was strikingly different from the crudeness of the typical Philadelphia sports fan.  The Eagles were a team loaded with evangelical Christians.

Head coach Doug Pederson was the head football coach at Calvary Baptist Academy in Louisiana.  Quarterback Carson Wentz owns a Bible app and runs an evangelical foundation that serves the poor around the world.  Nick Foles, the hero of the Super Bowl, has appeared in Wentz’s devotional videos and is training to become a pastor.  So has Trey Burton, Zach Ertz, and Chris Maragos.  In October 2017, Jordan Hicks, Mychal Kendricks, Kamu Grugier-Hill, Paul Turner, and David Watford were baptized in a recovery pool in the Eagles practice facility.  Tight end Trey Burton performed the baptism.  Wide receiver Marcus Johnson was baptized in a hotel pool.  Third string quarterback Chase Daniels leads a couples’ Bible study that draws 20-25 people.  According to this piece at ESPN, during the season there is “Thursday night Bible study at the facility, scripture text chains, and late-night prayer sessions at the team hotel the night before each game.”  Some members of the team–including Wentz and Foles–call themselves the “Philadelphia Gospel Group.”

So it is certainly interesting that only ten of the Eagles, and perhaps less, were going to show-up today at the White House, leading Trump to cancel the event.  (Wentz and Foles said they would attend, but only if the Eagles voted to go as a team).  Are the Eagles part of the 19%?

Another Patheos Blogger Wants to Know What is Going on at Patheos

Anxious-Bench-squarePatheos bloggers continue to ask questions after the website unceremoniously dumped Warren Throckmorton.

Here is a taste of historian Kristin Kobes Du Mez‘s latest post at The Anxious Bench:

Does Patheos in fact host the conversation on faith? Or is this a sign that it will be hosting a censored, invitation-only conversation? Are there topics we would do well to avoid? (To be clear, these questions are not meant to “disparage” the site, simply to inquire about its strategic objectives going forward).

As someone who writes on feminism, on Focus on the Family, on racism and Christian nationalism, on conservative Christians and sexual abuse, on #MeToo and the church, and, yes, on Donald Trump, this question is of particular interest to me. (To be clear, I’ve never received any editorial directives from Patheos leadership; Throckmorton’s removal, however, seems to have come without warning).

Beyond censorship, I suppose there’s also the question of whose pockets we’re padding. The revenue generated from the ubiquitous ads goes somewhere. I can’t imagine my blog posts contribute in any significant way to the net wealth of folks like President Trump’s personal lawyer—he has other more lucrative streams of income, I presume.

Read the entire post here.

Franklin Graham Calls Sanctuary Cities “just a little picture of hell”

graham_c0-220-4869-3058_s885x516

From Relevant magazine:

Evangelist Franklin Graham has made some incendiary comments about cities in California. Graham was speaking on a radio show when he was asked about the evangelical “fight to win back California,” as The New York Times called it.

Though Graham told host Todd Starnes that he isn’t working with a political party, he said, “We are staying out of the politics part of it but I do want Christians to vote and I want them to ask God before they vote, who they should vote. But, I don’t think the Christians should be silent. The Christian voice needs to be heard,” referencing his 10-city tour through California to encourage Christians to run for office, because he said “California is sinking.”

He then said this about “sanctuary cities” (cities that don’t enforce some immigration laws): “People are leaving the state. The tax base is eroding. They are turning their once beautiful cities into sanctuary cities, which are just a little picture of Hell. Just go to San Francisco and go to this once-beautiful city and see what has happened to it.”

Read the entire piece here.  Can Graham’s statement here be read in a way that is not racist or discriminatory?

As I wrote last week in the context of Graham’s tour of California:

Billy Graham believed the church needed to be “wakened” to the good news of the Gospel and the re-dedication of individual lives to that Gospel.  Franklin Graham wants the church to be “wakened” to vote.  The political captivity of evangelicalism doesn’t get any clearer than this.

Perhaps Graham’s “little picture of Hell” is better represented by his own politically-captive evangelicalism.  But don’t take my word for it.  Here is what the demon Screwtape said to his nephew Wormwood in C.S. Lewis’s The Screwtape Letters.

Let him begin by treating the Patriotism…as part of his religion. Then let him, under the influence of partisan spirit, come to regard it as the most important.  Then quietly and gradually nurse him to the state at which the religion becomes merely a part of the “cause,” in which Christianity is valued chiefly because of the excellent arguments it can produce…Once [he’s] made the world and end, and faith a means, you have almost won your man, and it makes very little difference what kind of worldly end he is pursuing.”

Let’s remember that Wormwood seeks his uncle’s advice for the purpose of leading a British man (“The Patient”) to hell.

I Keep Coming Back to this Song

I think this song is actually more relevant today than it was twelve years ago.

Here is a taste of A.O. Scott’s 2007 review:

But the night does not end there. Onstage, “Last to Die” is followed, as it is on the album, by a song called “Long Walk Home.” In the first verse, the speaker travels to some familiar hometown spots and experiences an alienation made especially haunting by the language in which he describes it: “I looked into their faces/They were all rank strangers to me.” That curious, archaic turn of phrase — rank strangers — evokes an eerie old mountain lament of the same title, recorded by the Stanley Brothers.

“In that particular song a guy comes back to his town and recognizes nothing and is recognized by nothing,” Mr. Springsteen said. “The singer in ‘Long Walk Home,’ that’s his experience. His world has changed. The things that he thought he knew, the people who he thought he knew, whose ideals he had something in common with, are like strangers. The world that he knew feels totally alien. I think that’s what’s happened in this country in the past six years.”

And so the song’s images of a vanished small town life (“The diner was shuttered and boarded/With a sign that just said ‘gone’ “) turn into metaphors, the last of which is delivered with the clarity and force that has distinguished Mr. Springsteen’s best writing:

My father said “Son, we’re

lucky in this town

It’s a beautiful place to be born.

It just wraps its arms around you

Nobody crowds you, nobody goes it alone.

You know that flag

flying over the courthouse

Means certain things are set in stone

Who we are, and what we’ll do

And what we won’t”

It’s gonna be a long walk home.

“That’s the end of the story we’re telling on a nightly basis,” Mr. Springsteen said. “Because that’s the way it’s supposed to be. And that’s not the way it is right now.”

Christian Political Engagement in the Age of Trump

university-of-regina-campus-image

University of Regina

As some of you know, I spent the last couple of days in Regina, Saskatchewan.  The Canadian Society of Church History (CSCH)  invited me to deliver the keynote address at its annual conference.  (Thanks for everything Stuart Barnard!).  The collegial historians associated with the CSCH made me feel very welcome and I thoroughly enjoyed getting to know some of them on Wednesday night at dinner.  (Thanks again for the ride to the hotel Robyn Rogers Healey!) If you get chance to join this organization or attend its annual conference, I highly recommend that you do it!  Next year’s meeting is in Vancouver.

The lecture drew a good turnout of CSCH members and other scholars who were in town for the 2018 Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences.  It was titled “Fear, Hope, and Nostalgia: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump.”  I even got to  talk about Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump on CBC radio show in Saskatchewan!

Here is a small taste of my lecture:

In the late 1970s, after a period of relative quietism in the middle of the 20th century, conservative evangelicals composed a political playbook to win back the culture from the forces of secularization.  Most of the 81% of American evangelicals who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 understand the relationship between their faith and their politics through this playbook.  The playbook, which was tweaked occasionally over the years to address whatever moral issues seemed most important at the time, never lost its focus on restoring, renewing, and reclaiming America for Christ through the pursuit of political power.  When executed properly, the playbook teaches evangelicals to elect the right President and members of Congress who will pass laws privileging evangelical Christian views of the world.  These elected officials will then appoint and confirm conservative Supreme Court Justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade, defend life in the womb, and uphold religious liberty for those who believe in traditional views of marriage. 

The power that this playbook holds among American evangelicals cannot be underestimated.  Frankly, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the rest of the leaders of the Christian Right deserve a lot more credit than they currently receive in general treatments of modern American political history.  Falwell, for example, may be the most important figure in American politics in the post-World War II era.  His playbook has been so successful that most ordinary evangelicals cannot imagine an alternative way of thinking about Christian political witness, even when other evangelicals have proposed alternative options for engagement with public life.

For example, University of Virginia sociologist and cultural critic James Davison Hunter’s has suggested that rather than trying to “change the world” through power politics, Christians might consider thinking about their cultural witness through what he calls faithful presence.  Hunter writes

I would suggest that a theology of faithful presence first calls Christians to attend to the people and places that they experience directly. It is not that believers should be disconnected from, or avoid responsibility for, people and places across the globe. Far from it…. But with that said, the call of faithful presence gives priority to what is right in front of us—the community, the neighborhood, and the city, and the people in which these are constituted. For most, this will mean a preference for stability, locality, and particularity of place and its needs. It is here, through the joys, sufferings, hopes, disappointments, ­concerns, desires, and worries of the people with whom we are in long-term and close relation—family, neighbors, coworkers, and community—where we find our authenticity as a body and as believers. It is here where we learn forgiveness and humility, practice kindness, hospitality, and charity, grow in patience and wisdom, and become clothed in compassion, gentleness, and joy. This is the crucible within which Christian holiness is forged. This is the context within which shalom is enacted…. Faithful presence… would encourage ambition, but the instrumentalities of ambition are always subservient to the requirements of humility and charity.”

Or consider Duke University theologian Stanley Hauerwas and Baylor University’s Jonathan Tran on abortion:

When Christians think that the struggle against abortion can only be pursued through voting for candidates with certain judicial philosophies, then serving at domestic abuse shelters or teaching students at local high schools or sharing wealth with expectant but under-resourced families or speaking of God’s grace in terms of “adoption” or politically organizing for improved education or rezoning municipalities for childcare or creating “Parent’s Night Out” programs at local churches or mentoring young mothers or teaching youth about chastity and dating or mobilizing religious pressure on medical service providers or apprenticing men into fatherhood or thinking of singleness as a vocation or feasting on something called “communion” or rendering to God what is God’s or participating with the saints through Marian icons or baptizing new members or tithing money, will not count as political. How much money and time spent on electing the right candidates might have been used for this kind of political witness?”

Washington Post columnist and former George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson has called for evangelicals to draw from Catholic social teaching as a means of thinking about how the Christian understanding of human dignity might influence public policy.  The National Association of Evangelicals’s recent statement on political engagement, titled  “For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility,” is deeply rooted in Catholic social teaching.

Evangelicals from the Dutch Reformed tradition, guided by the 19th-century Dutch politician Abraham Kuyper, have long advocated for a “principled or confessional pluralism” in which the various “spheres” of society—churches, families, schools, business, agencies of the arts and humanities—are free to exercise authority over their particular spheres.  As historian George Marsden writes, “The primary function of government is to promote justice and to act as a sort of referee, patrolling the boundaries among the spheres of society, protecting the sovereignty within each sphere, adjudicating conflicts, and assuring equal rights and equal protections so far as that is possible.” Marsden adds, “In this richly pluralistic view, society thrives when it promotes the health and integrity of what more recently have often been called ‘mediating institutions.’ Such institutions, likewise, should stay within their spheres of sovereignty.

John Inazu, an evangelical and Washington University-St. Louis law professor has suggested for something similar—he calls it “confident pluralism.”  Inazu writes: Confident Pluralism argues that we can and must live together peaceably in spite of deep and sometimes irresolvable differences over politics, religion, sexuality, and other important matters.  We can do so in two important ways—by insisting on constitutional commitments that honor and protect difference and by embodying tolerance, humility, and patience in our speech, our collective action (protests, strikes, and boycotts), and our relationship across difference.”  New York City megachurch pastor and evangelical author Timothy Keller has championed Inazu’s view.

It is not my intention here to advocate for any of these evangelical approaches to political engagement.  My purpose here today is to note that the Christian Right has rejected all of them, preferring instead to advance their moral, political, and cultural agenda by gaining control of the levers of power.   What is particular telling is that few of these cultural warriors seem to have thought very deeply about what they will do if they ever do gain power.  What happens when the dog catches the bus?  Will the Christian Right try to create a theocracy?  Will they imprison doctors who perform abortions?  Will they ban gay marriage?  Will they require every county seat to display a cross and a copy of the Ten Commandments?   What is their plan once America is restored, renewed, and reclaimed?

Trump: Dinesh D’Souza is a “great voice for America”

trumppardon

Will be giving a Full Pardon to Dinesh D’Souza today. He was treated very unfairly by our government!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2018

D’Souza is right-wing pundit and conspiracy theorist.  We have written about him several times here at The Way of Improvement Leads Home.  And to think this guy used to be the president of The King’s College, a Christian college in Manhattan.

In 2014, D’Souza pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution.  He was sentenced to eight months in a halfway house, five years probation, and a $30,000 fine.

I mentioned D’Souza in Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald TrumpHere is what I wrote:

Others went even further in their criticism of Obama.  Dinesh D’Souza, a conservative pundit who attended an evangelical megachurch and served as president of an evangelical Christian college, suggested that Obama was channeling his father’s “socialist” and “anticolonial ambition” in an effort to undermine the American way of life.  Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, a favorite among many conservative evangelicals and a politician who had his own presidential ambitions in 2012, said that D’Souza had had a “stunning insight.”

Trump called D’Souza last night to tell him about the pardon.  The President of the United States apparently told D’Souza that he “was a great voice for America.”

Great voice for America? Here are just a few things D’Souza has tweeted over the years:

And here it appears he went into a Sam’s Club and put all his books on the top of the piles:

At least one prominent evangelical has weighed-in:

 

We Need to Say It Over and Over Again: Donald Trump is a Serial Liar

trump

E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post says enough is enough.  Here is a taste of his recent column:

By now, we know that President Trump is a lying demagogue. Because this is not said often enough, he has been allowed to routinize lying and enshrine the vilest forms of divisiveness as a normal part of our politics.

Lies do not deserve deference just because a president tells them…

Political polarization has many sources, but the prime cause of it now is the president himself. Polarization defines Trump’s survival strategy, and it means that demagoguery — toward immigrants, toward crime, toward special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe, toward dissenting NFL players, toward anyone who takes him on — is what his presidency is all about.

What thus needs exposing is not simply Trump’s indifference to the truth but also the fact that he depends upon the kinds of lies that will tear our country to pieces.

Read the entire piece here.

“What happens when right-wing trolls grow up to run the world?”

miller

Stephen Miller is one of the Trump administration’s survivors.  We have written about him a few times here at The Way of Improvement Leads Home, but nothing close to McKay Coppins’s long-form piece at The Atlantic.  Here is a taste of “Trump’s Right-Hand Troll“:

In the campy TV drama that is Donald Trump’s Washington, Miller has carved out an enigmatic role. He lurks in the background for weeks at a time, only to emerge with crucial cameos in the most explosive episodes. The one where Trump signed a havoc-wreaking travel ban during his first week in office, unleashing global chaos and mass protests? Miller helped draft the executive order. The one where the federal government shut down over a high-stakes immigration standoff on Capitol Hill? Miller was accused of derailing the negotiations. (“As long as Stephen Miller is in charge of negotiating immigration, we’re going nowhere,” Senator Lindsey Graham grumbled.) To watch him in his most memorable scenes—theatrically hurling accusations of “cosmopolitan bias” at a reporter; getting his mic cut in the middle of a belligerent Sunday-show appearance—is to be left mesmerized, wondering, Is this guy serious?

I put that question to Miller, one way or another, repeatedly over the course of our meeting. He insists that he believes every word he says, and that he is not a fan of “provocation for its own sake.” But after some reflection, he admits that he has long found value in doing things that generate what he calls “constructive controversy—with the purpose of enlightenment.”

This is what makes Miller different from all the other Republican apparatchiks who became supervillains when they joined the Trump administration: He has been courting infamy since puberty. From Santa Monica High School to Duke University to Capitol Hill, his mission—always—has been to shock and offend the progressive sensibilities of his peers. He revels in riling them, luxuriates in their disdain.

Inside the White House, Miller has emerged as a staunch ideologue and an immigration hawk championing an agenda of right-wing nationalism. But people who have known him at different points in his life say his political worldview is also rooted in a deep-seated instinct for trolling. Miller represents a rising generation of conservatives for whom “melting the snowflakes” and “triggering the libs” are first principles. You can find them on college campuses, holding “affirmative action bake sales” or hosting rallies for alt-right figures in the name of free speech. You can see them in the new conservative media, churning out incendiary headlines for Breitbart News or picking bad-faith fights on Twitter. Raised on talk radio, radicalized on the web, they are a movement in open revolt against the dogmas of “political correctness”—and their tactics could shape the culture wars for years to come.

The story of Miller’s rise to power offers an early answer to an urgent question: What happens when right-wing trolls grow up to run the world?

Read the rest here.

Don’t Fall For Trump’s Remarks on Immigrant Children

border-control-crisis

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is taking children from their migrant parents at the U.S. border.  Donald Trump blames it on the Democrats.

Trump has no clue.  His administrative is to blame for this.

Seung Min Kim sorts it all out in this piece at The Washington Post:

President Trump’s attempt to blame Democrats for separating migrant families at the border is renewing a political uproar over immigration, an issue that has challenged Trump throughout his presidency and threatens to grow more heated as he imposes more restrictions to stem the flow of illegal immigration.

In one of several misleading tweets during the holiday weekend, Trump pushed Democrats to change a “horrible law” that the president said mandated separating children from parents who enter the country illegally. But there is no law specifically requiring the government to take such action, and it’s also the policies of his own administration that have caused the family separation that advocacy groups and Democrats say is a crisis.

In April, more than 50,000 migrants were apprehended or otherwise deemed “inadmissible,” and administration officials have made clear that children will be separated from parents who enter the country illegally and are detained. The surge in illegal border crossings is expected to continue as the economy improves and warmer weather arrives.

“I keep imagining somebody taking my kids from me. My kids are 2 and 4 years old, and that’s the age of some of the children that have been separated from their parents at the border,” said Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Tex.), who is helping to organize a Thursday rally in San Antonio to highlight the issue. “When a lot of people hear the story, they get a similar reaction. They can’t imagine why this would be a standard government practice.”

Trump’s deflection offers a familiar playbook, critics of the administration’s policies say. In their view, Trump’s most recent comments are strategically similar to tactics he used when he ended the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and then insisted on hard-line measures in a bill to permanently protect “dreamers.”

“He used DACA kids as a bargaining chip, and it didn’t work,” said Kevin Appleby, the senior director of international migration policy at the Center for Migration Studies, a nonpartisan think tank. “So now he’s using vulnerable Central American families for his nativist agenda. It’s shameless.”

Read the rest here.

Trump: “You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe you.”

Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks in Janesville

When Lesley Stahl asked Donald Trump in an off-camera meeting to explain “his barrage of insults aimed at journalists.” Trump responded:

‘You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe you…So, put that in your head for a minute.”

Read all about it here.  This guy is a tyrant.

Allen Guelzo on Why History Shows Impeachment May be a Bad Idea

Andrew_Johnson_impeachment_trial

Abraham Lincoln and Civil War scholar Allen Guelzo reminds us what happened when Andrew Johnson was impeached.  The subtitle of his recent Wall Street Journal piece is “Many members of Congress in 1868 hoped to remove a president they merely disliked.  It didn’t go well.”  Here is a taste:

If the Democrats win the House in November, they’ll come under pressure to impeach President Trump. Even if Robert Mueller fails to turn up some astounding surprise, many Democrats want to impeach Mr. Trump because they simply don’t like him. Since the Constitution specifies that a president can be impeached for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” such a move would mean Democrats consider being disliked by the House majority to be a disqualifying crime.

That is precisely what many members of Congress thought 150 years ago this week, at the conclusion of the first impeachment of a sitting president, Andrew Johnson. The 17th president’s impeachment offers the important lesson that although the mechanism for impeachment is easy, the subsequent process of trial, conviction and removal from office is not. A failure at that stage of the process covers everybody with embarrassment—impeachers and impeached alike.

 

Read the rest here.

Guelzo seems to be preparing for the Democrats to take the House.  It is definitely a possibility.

Liberty University Cinema Department is Producing a Feature Film on a Fireman Who Prophesied the Election of Donald Trump

Firefighter

Read all about it in Sam Smith’s article at The Christian Post.  Smith interviewed me for the piece:

John Fea, a professor of American history at Messiah College in Pennsylvania, who has been critical of prophetic claims pertaining to Trump, told CP that Taylor is just one of several Pentecostal “prophets” who claim to have predicted a Trump presidency.

“These so-called prophets — Mike Bickle, Lance Wallnau, Frank Amedia and the late Kim Clement come to mind — represent an ever-growing wing of American evangelicalism,” Fea wrote in an email. “Journalist Steve Strang has provided an outlet for their prophecies through his popular Christian magazine Charisma.

Fea claims that the “prophets,” have “built an entire approach to political engagement around their prophecies.”

“Not all evangelicals believe in prophecy, but even if you do believe that God speaks to individual people about politics, it is very dangerous to design public policy and choose political candidates based on such prophecies,” Fea argued. “These so-called prophets have no real religious or spiritual authority beyond themselves and the megachurch empires that they have created and over which they preside.”

“Perhaps tonight I will have a dream or a vision that Donald Trump is really the Antichrist,” Fea continued. “It seems to me that my dream has just as much prophetic validity as fireman Taylor.”

Read the entire story here.