Obama loved Springsteen. So, apparently, does Joe Biden. On November 7, 2020, Biden came jogging out into the Wilmington, Delaware night to the sound of Bruce Springsteen’s “We Take Care of Our Own.” The New York Times is reporting that Springsteen will perform on January 20 at a televised event called “Celebrating America.” A taste:
Bruce Springsteen, John Legend and Foo Fighters will perform during the prime-time special that will cap the inauguration of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., and the actors Eva Longoria and Kerry Washington will also have roles to play in the program, the Presidential Inaugural Committee said on Friday.
The announcement added yet more stars to “Celebrating America,” an event scheduled for the evening of Jan. 20. This week, Mr. Biden’s inaugural committee unveiled plans for the program, saying the actor Tom Hanks would host while artists like Justin Timberlake, Jon Bon Jovi and Demi Lovato would perform.
Officials have said that the 90-minute event will also include remarks from Mr. Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris.
Yesterday a Liberty University graduate published a piece at The Bulwark that called the Falkirk Center a “slime factory.”
Apparently the Falkirk Center believes that American companies are “the left.” So much for free enterprise. Businesses can refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, but they do not have the right to silence conspiracy theorists?
Charlie Kirk forgets about the time the MyPillow guy bailed out Kyle Rittenhouse:
Lance Wallnau tells his followers that impeachment is really about the elites screwing the working class. The elites currently control the “seven mountains” (as in Seven Mountain Dominionism), but the Christian working class will overthrow them. Wallnau claims that in 2014 the late “prophet” Kim Clement prophesied the words “impeach, impeach.” The interpretation? Trump would be impeached twice by elites in both political parties and the people would rise up in a “new kind of war.” According to Wallnau, this all has something to do with China and COVID-19. It also has something to do with a Jezebel-spirited “witch” in the White House.
Court evangelical David Brody talks with “presidential historian” Doug Wead about Trump’s legacy. Wead expounded a conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton trying to get control of the Catholic Church. He also claims that Amazon is no longer selling the books of “distinguished” theologians. Wead says that “two impeachments will only get historians to notice all of Trump’s great accomplishments.” I beg to differ. I think two impeachments will get historians and millions of school children to notice that Trump was the only president to be impeached twice. 🙂 Wead calls for national unity. He says Biden doesn’t care about national unity because he called U.S. Capitol insurrections “terrorists.” Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up!:
I am not sure what is happening, but something is going on with Samuel Rodriguez and Twitter:
On Facebook, Jim Garlow calls attention to Trump’s “accomplishments” and still manages to get in a shot at the tech corporations who are persecuting him. He writes: “Never has a modern President accomplished so much (and been hated for doing so much good). If you want to see this before others (those who are re-writing history) remove it, you need to copy it now.” (He links to this article).
What happened today? 1. Highest number of Covid deaths in the US ever. Horrific. But Congress obviously had more important (and nefarious) things to do than to care about the American people. 2. And… 232 “Benedict Arnold” traitors of the US Constitution killed our precious Constitution this day, defying it’s very meaning … and – filled with hatred unlike anything we have ever seen – they are trying their best to destroy Donald Trump and the more than 74,000,000 people who voted for him. What a disgrace. Other than that, not much happened today.
On the same day, Garlow said this about the ten Republicans who voted to impeach Trump: “Remember the story of the 10 wimps who went into the Promised Land but they had no courage? “Well – they now have competition.” (He then lists their names). Here are some of his follower’s comments:
“They just flushed their career down the drain.”
“Every single one of them need to be aggressively primaried”
“Hope they enjoy their shortened career.”
“They betrayed our president”
“Just pray we have an election in 2020”
Garlow also shared this post on Facebook from a “friend”:
Today is a day that will live in infamy. One of the greatest Presidents of all time, probably top 10 and certainly the greatest since Reagan, was for the second time the victim of a purely petty, partisan, pathetic, vindicate and groundless impeachment. That Trump has endured 4 years of illegal investigations, spying, lying and corruption and then had the election stolen in the most blatant and obvious fashion and HE is attacked for the VERY things they have done for the last 5 years! It is truly breathtaking and history will show that Trump was correct and that the Left, the Media, and the pathetic spineless RINO’s are the most shameful group of corrupt cowards ever to stain the floors of our Capitol. These are the 10 Republican lawmakers who supported the move to impeach Trump for incitement of insurrection”
Again, this post drew some interesting comments, including:
“Disgraceful and utterly absurd. The evil in the hearts of men is actually beyond my comprehension in this current day.”
“Well, they are soon going to regret their act of treason. They need to repent quickly.”
“Definitely top 10 and I would say top 5!! Republicans who voted to impeach, NOTED.”
“I hope every single one of them is voted out. They are nothing better than traitors”
“Not just spineless. Traitorous.”
Robert Jeffress had a run-in with Illinois GOP congressman Adam Kinzinger. In a now deleted tweet, Kinginger wrote: “I believe there’s a huge burden now on pastors and clergy who openly spread the conspiracies of a stolen election, like @robertjeffress @beholdIsrael @FranklinGraham among many others, to admit their mistakes and lead their flocks out of darkness to truth.” Jeffress claimed he never said the election was “stolen.” (This is true. Although he came close). Jeffress, always ready to turn the other cheek, responded:
And Kinzinger’s response:
Jeffress’s exchange with the congressman seems to have re-empowered him. He was back on the Lou Dobbs show on FOX News last night to defend Trump’s legacy. Jeffress doesn’t regret a thing about his support of Trump and calls the twice-impeached, insurrection-inciting leader the greatest president in his lifetime. He talks about an “axis of evil” that tried to take Trump down and tells Dobbs to keep exposing the “darkness” and “lies” that are “sure to come” in the Biden administration.
Ralph Reed just can’t seem to let go. Trump lost. Loeffler lost. Perdue lost. This is a pretty risky thing to say in light of January 6, 2021. Does Reed really think that Biden’s inaugural will not be “marred by violent protests?”
Like Jim Garlow, Gary Bauer also turned to Facebook to call out the ten House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump. Here are some of the comments from his followers after he shared this Washington Examiner article:
“Remember that next Election Day; oh, I forgot–there will never be a fair election again.”
“They are so blind and deaf, they are Democrats in wolfs clothing, I call for them to be removed/recalled and even kicked out of the GOP”
“praying for their hearts and eyes to be lifted up to Jesus to bring healing and deliverance from deception and unbelief…”
“Satan worked on their emotions and won. Their hearts were hardened.”
“Wicked doesn’t even describe what they have done and will continue to do. The evil devils in the demonkkkrat (sic) party along with their friends the liberal activists in the media have no qualms about using and abusing some one else for power.”
A moderate Democrat and devout Roman Catholic will be inaugurated President of the United States on January 20, 2021 and James Dobson believes that “America and Western Civilization will never be the same.” Here is a taste of his monthly newsletter:
The Left has now achieved ultimate power in the White House, in the House of Representatives, and in the Senate. Consequently, as I warned in December, there will be no checks and balances within our system of government. The most radical ideas promoted by President Joe Biden and his majority party will be enacted. We can infer from what they have told us that the years ahead will bring more regulation, less freedom, more taxation, less religious liberty, more socialism, less democracy, more funds for abortion, less support for the sanctity of human life, less funding for the military, more illegal immigration, more restrictions on speech, less patriotism, more wasteful spending, less support for families, more regulations on business, more appeasement of China, Iran, Russia, and North Korea, less support for the electoral college, trillions more dollars for climate nonsense, more LGBTQ propaganda, less moral compunction, more governmental corruption, less oversight of elections, more “cancel culture,” fewer police officers, more gun control, and less government of the people, by the people and for the people. We can also anticipate quick passage of the horrendous “Equality Act.” You might want to keep track of these items as they occur. This is just the beginning.
America and Western civilization will never be the same, because it is not possible to back up on a freeway. Once radical changes are implemented, they will become ensconced in law and culture. I am most concerned about what all this means for the next generation. Children are extremely vulnerable to leftist curricula in the public schools. Specifically, I am worried about parental rights and the legality of home schooling. It is the only protection for kids.
In conclusion, I will let you interpret this Franklin Graham tweet:
As I watch cities burn, the economy tank, people die of COVID-19, and our political culture rage in an election year, my mind wonders to 2016.
On July 21, 2016, Yoni Appelbaum, an editor at The Atlantic, responded to Donald Trump’s speech in Cleveland as he accepted his party’s nomination for president. Here is a taste:
In 2016, Donald J. Trump mounted the stage, and told America that the nation is in crisis. That attacks on police and terrorism threaten the American way of life. That the United States suffers from domestic disaster, and international humiliation. That it is full of shuttered factories and crushed communities. That it is beset by “poverty and violence at home” and “war and destruction abroad.”
And he offered them a solution.
I am your voice, said Trump. I alone can fix it. I will restore law and order. He did not appeal to prayer, or to God. He did not ask Americans to measure him against their values, or to hold him responsible for living up to them. He did not ask for their help. He asked them to place their faith in him.
He broke with two centuries of American political tradition, in which candidates for office—and above all, for the nation’s highest office—acknowledge their fallibility and limitations, asking for the help of their fellow Americans, and of God, to accomplish what they cannot do on their own.
But when Trump said, “I am your voice,” the delegates on the convention floor roared their approval. When he said, “I alone can fix it,” they shouted their approbation. The crowd peppered his speech with chants of “USA!” and “Lock her up!” and “Build the wall!” and “Trump!” It booed on cue, and cheered when prompted. It seemed, in fact, to chafe—eager to turn a made-for-TV speech into an interactive rally, and frustrated by Trump’s determination to stay on script. Not every delegate cheered; some sat stiffly in their seats. But there was no question that the great bulk of the delegates on the floor were united behind Trump—and ready to trust him.
Then came Trump’s inaugural address. I wrote about it recently at USA Today. Trump promised to bring an end to the “carnage” scattered across the American landscape. In my piece I asked, “How should we think about Trump’s use of this word in the context of closed businesses and record unemployment during the pandemic?
Now we add urban race riots to the carnage and the man who claimed that he “alone can fix it” has done nothing to bring healing. Instead, he is fighting with a social media company, threatening violence with violence (he has always aid his favorite Bible verse is “eye for an eye“), and indulging in fantasies about attacking protesters with “vicious dogs” and “ominous weapons.” Is this what Trump meant by “I alone can fix it?”
He has yet to deliver a public statement to the nation, but I am not sure anyone really cares. By this point he has lost all moral authority to deal with this situation. He can only appeal to his base.
One day soon, students will read Donald Trump’s inaugural address. Good history teachers will understand the speech, as they do with all presidential rhetoric, in the larger context of the Trump presidency.
I recently revisited the speech amid this coronavirus pandemic. I imagined what kind of essay questions I would put on a future exam related to this period in American history. Here are a few:
Trump never had an approval rating over 50%. Considering this fact, how should we explain his calls for national unity? Other presidents saw their approval ratings soar in times of crisis. Why didn’t this happen to Trump?
Trump said that the “Bible tells us, how good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity.” Did this kind of spiritual harmony exist during Trump presidency? Did the church speak truth to power with a united voice? Discuss the state of American Christianity in the age of Trump.
The editors of The Christian Century see the positive and negative affects of American civil religion. Their recent editorial was prompted by the lack of civil religiosity in Donald Trump’s inaugural address last month.
Here is a taste:
Theologians have long been wary or dismissive of civil religion, noting that it often functions as a rival religion to authentic faith—it’s a brand of Christian heresy. Civil religion borrows Christian themes but celebrates the stories and martyrs of the nation rather than the church and treats the nation rather than the church as the vehicle of God’s purposes. As such, especially in times of war, American civil religion has been an invitation to hubris and self-righteousness; it can cloak mundane self-interest in religious garb.
Yet because civil religion claims a transcendent purpose for the nation, it has also offered a basis for judging the nation’s failures and spurring it to reform. Because the nation has claimed high ideals for itself, it has invited a moral critique. It was in that tradition that Martin Luther King Jr. blended biblical ethics with democratic principles to condemn racial segregation as a betrayal of the nation’s creed of equality for all. It is in that tradition that protesters took to the streets in recent weeks to insist that the United States fulfill its promise to be a beacon of freedom to refugees from all lands and religions.
Christians have no ultimate stake in the survival of American civil religion. Its demise under Trump could conceivably encourage the church to claim and assert its distinct identity apart from the rhetoric of American politics. Yet insofar as the demise of American civil religion spells the contraction of moral imagination and the loss of a horizon of moral judgment and aspiration, it is hardly a development that Christians can cheer. The collapse of a Christian heresy can lead to things that are far worse.
Look, coming into this country is still a privilege. We’re the greatest country on Earth. And being able to come to America is a privilege, not a right. And it is our duty and it is the president’s goal to make sure that everybody who comes into this country to the best of our ability is here because they want to enjoy this country and come in peacefully. And so he takes that obligation extremely seriously.
Wait a minute, I am really confused now. I thought America was a land of carnage and decay that can only be fixed by Donald Trump. If America is the “greatest country on Earth” then why do we have to make it great again?
Here is how Trump described America in his inauguration address:
But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists: Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system, flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge; and the crime and gangs and drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential.
This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.
Why would so many refugees and immigrants want to come to a dump like this?
Four days before Inauguration Day 2017 Civil Rights hero and Georgia Congressman John Lewis questioned, in light of Russian hacks that seemed to hurt the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, the legitimacy of the Trump presidency. As is his custom, Donald Trump responded via Twitter: “Congressman John Lewis should finally focus on the burning and crime infested inner-cities of the U.S….” It happened on the day before America celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. Day.
As expected, this exchange of words fueled the usual partisan politics in Washington. Some thought Lewis was out of line to say that Trump was not a legitimate president. Others were appalled that Trump would respond in the way he did to a living legend who almost gave his life in the Civil Rights Movement.
Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson tried to steer a middle course in the debate, but in the process he put his finger on a serious problem with the Trump presidency. Trump’s response to Lewis, Gerson wrote, suggested that he “seems to have no feel for, no interest in, the American history he is about to enter.” Gerson added, “He will lead a nation that accommodated a cruel exception to its founding creed; that bled and nearly died to recover it’s ideals; and that was only redeemed by the courage and moral clarity of the very people it had oppressed.”
Gerson is right about Trump’s failure to understand his presidency as part of a larger American story. His inaugural address only reinforced this point. Trump made no attempt to situate his vision for the nation in a shared past. In this sense he echoed the revolutionary Thomas Paine who told the British-American colonists in 1776 that “we have it in our power to begin the world over again.”
Pundits are calling Donald Trump’s inaugural address the “America First Speech.” Thanks to the work of historians, many Americans are now aware of the history behind this phrase. But just in case you have not had a chance to get caught up on the meaning of “America First,” I want to call your attention to Krishnadev Calamur’s recent piece at The Atlantic.
Here is a taste:
The phrase in itself might provide comfort for those of Trump’s supporters who have long railed against what they see as lawmakers in Washington catering to special interests, corporations, and other countries at the expense of, in their view, the American worker. But the phrase “America first” also has a darker recent history and, as my colleague David Graham pointed out Friday, was associated with opponents of the U.S. entering World War II.
The America First Committee (AFC), which was founded in 1940, opposed any U.S. involvement in World War II, and was harshly critical of the Roosevelt administration, which it accused of pressing the U.S. toward war. At its peak, it had 800,000 members across the country, included socialists, conservatives, and some of the most prominent Americans from some of the most prominent families. There was future President Ford; Sargent Shriver, who’d go on to lead the Peace Corps; and Potter Stewart, the future U.S. Supreme Court justice. It was funded by the families who owned Sears-Roebuck and the Chicago Tribune,but also counted among its ranks prominent anti-Semites of the day.
“It had to remove from its executive committee not only the notoriously anti-Semitic Henry Ford but also Avery Brundage, the former chairman of the U.S. Olympic Committee who had prevented two Jewish runners from the American track team in Berlin in 1936 from running in the finals of the 4×100 relay,” Susan Dunn, the historian, wrote on CNN last April.
But charges of anti-Semitism persisted, and were compounded with perhaps one of the most infamous speeches given by one of AFC’s most famous spokesmen, Charles Lindbergh. In a speech in Des Moines, Iowa, on September 11, 1941, Lindbergh expressed sympathy for the persecution Jews faced in Germany, but suggested Jews were advocating the U.S. to enter a war that was not in the national interest.
It is also worth noting that the cartoonist Theodore Geisel, aka “Dr. Seuss,” published several cartoons critical of “America First” in the pages of the left-leaning, interventionist New York newspaper PM.
Here’s a piece I wrote on Inauguration Day. It ended up never seeing the light of day at a news outlet, so I am posting it here. –JF
On Friday morning Donald Trump attended a pre-inaugural service at the historic St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington D.C.. As part of the service he heard a sermon from Robert Jeffress, the pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas. The minister was one of the first evangelical leaders to endorse Donald Trump’s candidacy for President.
Jeffress used the Old Testament story of Nehemiah to claim that God had placed Trump in the presidency for a “great eternal purpose.” He urged Trump and Vice-President Mike Pence not to let their critics distract them from that purpose.|
In an interview with Fox News host Bill O’Reilly on the evening before the service, Jeffress explained why he thought Nehemiah was appropriate for such an inaugural sermon. Nehemiah, after all, was a builder. God told him to build “a giant wall around Jerusalem to protect the citizens.” The megachurch pastor described Israel in Nehemiah’s day as a nation that “had been in bondage for years in Babylon” with an “infrastructure” in “shambles.” No one could miss the analogy.
Jeffress’s attempt to connect the Bible to contemporary political issues facing the United States—in this case immigration, infrastructure development, and national security—is nothing new. Politicians and preachers have been using the Bible to promote similar agendas since the American republic was born.
In his famous revolutionary-era pamphlet Common Sense, Thomas Paine tried to convince the colonies to declare independence from George III by invoking the devastating spiritual and political consequences that the nation of Israel suffered after God gave them a King.
Abraham Lincoln quoted from the Sermon on the Mount to bring healing to the nation in a time of Civil War. John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan turned to Matthew 5:14 (or at least the 17th-century Massachusetts Puritan John Winthrop’s use of it) to extol America’s exceptional role in world affairs. Barack Obama loved to remind Americans, using Genesis 4:9, that “we are our brother’s keeper.”
Patriotic clergymen in American history have not hesitated to mistake New Testament references to the spiritual liberty that Christians enjoy through faith with the political freedoms that all Americans enjoy as citizens.
For over two-hundred years Christian preachers have used their pulpits to argue that God’s promises to Old Testament Israel apply to the United States of America. With this context in mind, it is worth noting that Jeffress’s sermon was just the beginning.
In his inauguration address Trump quoted from Psalm 133:1: “How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity.” What was originally written as a call for the gathering of Israel to worship the Lord in Jerusalem was used by the new president as a call for Americans to put aside their differences and unite around the Trump presidency.
And it did not stop there. In her closing invocation, evangelical pastor Paula White conflated Psalm 90:17 with the Pledge of Allegiance. She prayed: “Let your favor be upon this one nation under God.”
There were few references to the Bible on Inauguration Day that did not use the sacred scriptures of Christianity to buttress either the United States of America or Trump’s particular vision for it. The closest exception came when Rev. Samuel Rodriguez read Matthew 5—a passage, known as the “Beatitudes,” that reminds Christians to be poor in spirit, humble, meek, pure in heart, peacemakers, and suffer persecution for their beliefs.
If taken seriously, the message of the Beatitudes should serve as a stinging rebuke to the new President as he enters office. Only time will tell if that is the case.
If Trump’s campaign and period of transition are any indication, I have my doubts
When you practice the same speech over and over again you get pretty good at delivering it.
Since Donald Trump announced on June 16, 2015 that he was running for President of the United States he has been giving the same stump speech around the country. Yesterday that speech became his inauguration address. In terms of delivery, force, and its appeal to his base, it was the best speech I have ever heard Donald Trump deliver.
Barack Obama called us to hope. Donald Trump basically said that there is no hope apart from his presidency. Trump made no reference to American ideals. There were few references to our better angels. There were no references to taking care of each other or working for the common good. Trump painted a picture of a nation defined by “carnage” and “decay.” The only hope of rising above it all, he seemed to suggest, is to put one’s faith in the strongman. Trump represents the worst form of populism. At times he sounded like the leader of a religious cult. At other times he reminded me of the Twilight Zone character Major French riding around in an old jeep and carrying a machine gun as he tried to solidify his power in a post-apocalyptic America.
Trump won the election because he understood the plight of white working people. Indeed, these folks have been left behind. Factories are closed. Jobs have gone overseas. Globalization is destroying local communities. People want better trade deals. The national infrastructure is in a state of decay. Trump has become their champion.
Others voted for Trump primarily because he promised to deliver the Supreme Court. These Americans worry about things like abortion and gay marriage and religious liberty. Their political decisions are often informed by nostalgia for the good old days–a time when the country was less diverse. Rather than drawing upon the resources of their faith to shape their political witness, they have turned to the political strongman for support in helping to reclaim America and make it “great” again. Trump discerned their fears and won them over in massive numbers much in the same way, as New York Times columnist Ross Douthat has suggested, Syrians turn to Assad for protection.
Let’s face it–Trump proved to be a brilliant politician. He heard the people and responded. In the process he got into the gutter with the rest of the politicians and showed them he could play politics better than they could. As Trump played fast and lose with the truth, demonized and dehumanized everyone who got in his way, and generally took the immoral nature of politics to its logical conclusion, the GOP and many evangelical Christians compromised their consciences for a big mess of political pottage. I could hardly watch Trump speak at a luncheon for GOP leadership on Thursday without thinking about the compromises that each one of those politicians had to make in order to be there.
Some might say that I am being unfair to Trump. After all, he did use his inaugural speech to appeal to national unity. “When you open your heart to patriotism,” Trump said, “there is no room for prejudice.” This is a nice turn of phrase, but what does it mean? I have no idea. I am guessing it is some kind of a call to unity since the phrase was written in the same paragraph as Trump’s reference to Psalm 133:1: “How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity.” (A verse calling Israel to unity in their worship of God in Jerusalem).
All of the lip service he paid to national unity in his speech rings hollow in the context of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and his divisive period of transition. Future historians, as long as they are still around and remain concerned with reading documents in context , will interpret the speech this way. Trump wants unity on his terms and on the terms of the minority of Americans who voted for him. If we wants to be an effective president he will need to offer Americans a vision that everyone can embrace. I doubt it will happen.
Former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum is tired of all of this talk about the “peaceful transition of power.” Here is a taste of his piece today at The Atlantic. This is going to get some folks upset, but what he says is worth considering:
Americans so insistently celebrate the peaceful transfer of power precisely because they nervously recognize the susceptibility of their polity to violence. The presidential election of 1860 triggered one of the bloodiest civil wars in human history. The presidential election of 1876 very nearly reignited that war. Since 1900, two presidents have been murdered; six more—Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan—were either wounded by a would-be assassin or else escaped by inches…
…The message will be stated and restated this day: For the 58th time, the system has worked, and power has smoothly transferred from one heir of George Washington to another. The truth is not so happy. With full advance notice, and despite the failure to gain a plurality of the nation’s vote, the United States will soon inaugurate someone who owes his office in some large part to a hostile foreign intelligence operation. Who is, above and beyond that, a person whose character that leaves him unqualified to hold the presidency, and threatens the country with an impending sequence of financial and espionage scandals—a constitutional crisis on two legs.
The real message of today is that the system has failed. The challenge of the morrow is to know what to do to save the remainder.
He preached on the Old Testament story of Nehemiah. Very interesting. As you know, Nehemiah built a wall.
Last night Jeffress talked to Bill O’Reilly about the sermon he gave this morning at St. John’s Episcopal Church. Jeffress and O’Reilly call Nehemiah a “regular guy” who God chose to “built a giant wall around Jerusalem to protect the citizens.” But Jeffress took it even further. He tells O’Reilly that in Nehemiah’s day “the country had been in bondage for years in Babylon, the infrastructure was in shambles, and then God said to Nehemiah that the first step to rebuilding the nation is to secure the nation with a border to keep the enemies out.” He also compares Nehemiah’s critics to the mainstream media.
This is the kind of thing that happens when Biblical interpretation is subordinated to politics. There is nothing unusual about what Jeffress has done here. Clergymen have used the Bible since the beginning of the republic to promote politics in this way. In fact, I was lecturing about this the other day in a series I am teaching at my church on religion and the founding.
He claims that “the other side” (Democrats) is “going absolutely crazy” because he won the election. We will see what he says later today in his inauguration address, but this statement is quite different from the one written by Thomas Jefferson in 1800. After a particularly contentious election victory over his Federalist opponent John Adams, Jefferson famously said “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.”
He says that he interviewed ten “politically-correct” people for Secretary of Agriculture before he chose Sonny Perdue. He claims he chose Perdue because he was an actual farmer, while all the other candidates did not have “any experience with farms or agriculture.” How ironic, considering Ben Carson, his nominee to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development, is a retired heart surgeon who has no experience with housing and urban development. Betsy DeVos, his pick for Secretary of Education, has no experience with public school education. Rex Tillerson, his pick for Secretary of State, has no diplomatic or political experience. Why didn’t Trump reject these candidates based on a lack of experience?
He mocks donors to his campaign who “got really generous after the election was won.”
He boasts about how he defied all the odds and proved the cable news stations wrong.
He attacks the press outlets who did not treat him “fairly.”
And on and on and on with more self-indulgent rhetoric.
Now some might say that we must consider the context. Fair enough. This is a speech to his supporters. But I am sure Trump is aware of the fact that he was speaking, via television, to a national audience. I am astounded by such divisive rhetoric on the eve of the inauguration. It is the night before he is going to be sworn into office as the 45th POTUS and he still can’t move beyond the election.
By the way, on the eve of the inauguration eight years ago this was happening:
That’s right. Obama, on the evening before he became the 44th POTUS, visited a dinner honoring McCain.
…In administering the laws of Congress I shall keep steadily in view the limitations as well as the extent of the Executive power trusting thereby to discharge the functions of my office without transcending its authority. With foreign nations it will be my study to preserve peace and to cultivate friendship on fair and honorable terms, and in the adjustment of any differences that may exist or arise to exhibit the forbearance becoming a powerful nation rather than the sensibility belonging to a gallant people.
In such measures as I may be called on to pursue in regard to the rights of the separate States I hope to be animated by a proper respect for those sovereign members of our Union, taking care not to confound the powers they have reserved to themselves with those they have granted to the Confederacy.
The management of the public revenue–that searching operation in all governments–is among the most delicate and important trusts in ours, and it will, of course, demand no inconsiderable share of my official solicitude. Under every aspect in which it can be considered it would appear that advantage must result from the observance of a strict and faithful economy. This I shall aim at the more anxiously both because it will facilitate the extinguishment of the national debt, the unnecessary duration of which is incompatible with real independence, and because it will counteract that tendency to public and private profligacy which a profuse expenditure of money by the Government is but too apt to engender. Powerful auxiliaries to the attainment of this desirable end are to be found in the regulations provided by the wisdom of Congress for the specific appropriation of public money and the prompt accountability of public officers.
With regard to a proper selection of the subjects of impost with a view to revenue, it would seem to me that the spirit of equity, caution and compromise in which the Constitution was formed requires that the great interests of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures should be equally favored, and that perhaps the only exception to this rule should consist in the peculiar encouragement of any products of either of them that may be found essential to our national independence.
Internal improvement and the diffusion of knowledge, so far as they can be promoted by the constitutional acts of the Federal Government, are of high importance.
Considering standing armies as dangerous to free governments in time of peace, I shall not seek to enlarge our present establishment, nor disregard that salutary lesson of political experience which teaches that the military should be held subordinate to the civil power. The gradual increase of our Navy, whose flag has displayed in distant climes our skill in navigation and our fame in arms; the preservation of our forts, arsenals, and dockyards, and the introduction of progressive improvements in the discipline and science of both branches of our military service are so plainly prescribed by prudence that I should be excused for omitting their mention sooner than for enlarging on their importance. But the bulwark of our defense is the national militia, which in the present state of our intelligence and population must render us invincible. As long as our Government is administered for the good of the people, and is regulated by their will; as long as it secures to us the rights of person and of property, liberty of conscience and of the press, it will be worth defending; and so long as it is worth defending a patriotic militia will cover it with an impenetrable aegis. Partial injuries and occasional mortifications we may be subjected to, but a million of armed freemen, possessed of the means of war, can never be conquered by a foreign foe. To any just system, therefore, calculated to strengthen this natural safeguard of the country I shall cheerfully lend all the aid in my power.
It will be my sincere and constant desire to observe toward the Indian tribes within our limits a just and liberal policy, and to give that humane and considerate attention to their rights and their wants which is consistent with the habits of our Government and the feelings of our people….
March 4, 1865. Might be a good time to read it again:
At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war–seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
...when I contemplate these transcendent objects, and see the honor, the happiness, and the hopes of this beloved country committed to the issue and the auspices of this day, I shrink from the contemplation, and humble myself before the magnitude of the undertaking. Utterly, indeed, should I despair did not the presence of many whom I here see remind me that in the other high authorities provided by our Constitution I shall find resources of wisdom, of virtue, and of zeal on which to rely under all difficulties. To you, then, gentlemen, who are charged with the sovereign functions of legislation, and to those associated with you, I look with encouragement for that guidance and support which may enable us to steer with safety the vessel in which we are all embarked amidst the conflicting elements of a troubled world
During the contest of opinion through which we have passed the animation of discussions and of exertions has sometimes worn an aspect which might impose on strangers unused to think freely and to speak and to write what they think; but this being now decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the Constitution, all will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good. All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us, then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. During the throes and convulsions of the ancient world, during the agonizing spasms of infuriated man, seeking through blood and slaughter his long-lost liberty, it was not wonderful that the agitation of the billows should reach even this distant and peaceful shore; that this should be more felt and feared by some and less by others, and should divide opinions as to measures of safety. But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists…
About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people…