Billionaires don’t want you to learn this simple trick: Turn $500 million into $327 trillion!

This past Thursday, MSNBC’s Brian Williams and his guest, Mara Gay of the New York Times, discussed this tweet by writer Mekita Rivas:

Wow.

“It’s an incredible way of putting it,” Williams says.

Yeah, incredible in the true sense of the word.

“It’s true. It’s disturbing,” Gay agrees.

When I first saw this, I asked my seventh grade son, “Hey, Corban, if you had 500 million dollars, and there are 330 million people in America, how much money could you give to each person?” He thought for about six seconds before coming up with pretty close to the correct answer: “About a dollar and a third.”

Yes, if you divide $500 million evenly among 327 million Americans, each of us would get $1.53.

As Corban pointed out once I read him the tweet, everybody could get a million dollars only if there were a total of 500 Americans.

Yet this obvious fact was completely missed, not only by the original tweeter (who writes professionally for well-known publications), but by a New York Times editorial board member, an MSNBC host, and who knows how many others at MSNBC this segment had to get through: graphic designers, writers, producers, etc.

And they weren’t just a little wrong. They were off by 6 orders of magnitude.

(To their credit, all three have admitted their mistake, and the two women have made self-deprecating jokes on Twitter, laughing at themselves.)

But how was a screwup this colossal ever possible in the first place? I know some people are just bad at math—I’m one of them. But even my twelve-year-old kid (who hates math) could manage this one. And these aren’t stupid people. They didn’t get to where they are in their careers by being stupid.

I submit it’s because there’s something deeper than math at work here. It’s their political worldview: that billionaires control bottomless wells of money that could fix everything for everyone if we would just elect politicians with the guts to tax and redistribute it. We could fund all the social welfare programs they desire if billionaires were only forced to pay their fair share. They honestly believe this. And why shouldn’t they? Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and AOC tell them it’s true.

Let me explain how breathtakingly wrong they are.

First, as David French points out, for Michael Bloomberg (or anyone) to give every American a million dollars, they’d need $327 trillion (in cash, not net worth.) That’s about 16 times the entire gross domestic product of the United States. There’s no one that rich in the entire world. In fact, if you combine the current net worth of every billionaire on the planet, you’d still have to multiply that total 37.6 times in order to give every American a million bucks. Heck, $327 trillion is almost 4 times more than the gross world product of the entire planet.

“But wait,” I hear you Bernie and Liz supporters protesting, “nobody is actually talking about giving everybody a million dollars. We just want common sense reforms like single-payer healthcare and student debt forgiveness.”

Okay. Fair enough. Medicare for All has a price tag of $35 trillion over ten years. Before she dropped out of the race, Elizabeth Warren proposed a 6% wealth tax on billionaires to pay for her M4A plan. (Now, a wealth tax would be new to the US, very complex, controversial, and probably unconstitutional. But for the sake of this argument let’s keep things really simple and assume she could tax the net worth of billionaires at 6%.) Her plan would have raised somewhere between $2.3 and $2.7 trillion over ten years. (It would also shrink the economy somewhere between .9 and 2.1%, but that’s beside the point.) Congratulations President Warren, you’ve now paid for, at best, 8 percent of Medicare for All.

My more revolutionary-minded readers may wish to forgo progressive tax systems altogether. Let’s just take it all now. Eat the rich, amirite? Very well, comrades, let’s liquidate every penny those greedy billionaihs have and use it to provide healthcare for all, like the modern-day Robin Hoods we are.

Except…oh. That would pay for 8 and a half percent of Medicare for All. And then it’s gone. No more billionaires left to pay for student loan forgiveness or free college or free child care or the Green New Deal.

Shoot. Well, maybe we can convince all the world’s billionaires to relocate to the US, then we confiscate all their money. Then we could…pay for one quarter of Medicare for All.

What so many on the left today seem not to understand is that while billionaires individually do hold vast wealth, it’s a drop in the ocean compared to the spending machine that is the United States federal government. In 2019, the US took in $3.46 trillion in total tax revenue—that includes income, payroll, and corporate taxes. In other words, even if you doubled all projected individual and corporate federal taxes, it wouldn’t be enough to finance Medicare for All. You can’t come up with that kind of money only by raising taxes on the richest of the rich. It’s impossible. They don’t have enough money. (In Bernie’s defense, at least he is admitting his plan would raise taxes on income over $29,000 for families of four.)

Bernie’s student loan forgiveness plan alone would cost $1.6 trillion—a tiny fraction of the price of M4A, but still over half the net worth of all America’s billionaires combined.

If Americans want to expand social services to include things like universal healthcare, free child care, free college, and the Green New Deal, we can certainly have those conversations. But let’s be honest about the cost. There are 327 million of us. We will all have to pay.

No more of this fantasy about the billionaires paying for it all. Believing that’s possible is making us dumb and jealous, and really, really bad at math.

Democrats shouldn’t feel the Bern

It’s primary season in America. The challenging party is eager to win back the White House. Their frontrunner has no meaningful membership in their party. His candidacy has the support of around 30% of the party’s voters: the populist fringe. The remaining 70% are split among more moderate candidates. The incumbent’s party is going to gift him with a historically unpopular opponent.

So, am I talking about 2020? Or 2016?

Trick question. It’s both.

The similarities between the Trump and Sanders candidacies are obvious, and they ought to make everybody nervous to some extent. If you don’t want Bernie Sanders to be President, remember how Donald Trump won the enthusiastic, almost religious support of a fired-up base, and how the rest of the party, however reluctantly, coalesced around him (and against his uniquely unpopular opponent.) Be afraid. And if you don’t want to see Trump win a second term, remember how he only won his first by the razor thinnest of margins: 78,000 votes in three counties. Think how Bernie’s race so far mirrors Trump’s, and be afraid.

Republicans in some states have been purposefully voting for Bernie in the Democratic primaries because they believe he’ll be the easiest candidate for Trump to beat. I have to agree with their assessment, but not their strategy. Everyone knew Hillary would beat Trump. I knew it. The polls proved it. Until they didn’t.

It’s possible that Bernie could win. We can’t rule it out.

But now I’m going to tell you why it’s very, very unlikely.

Challenging the incumbent during a strong economy and low unemployment is always a difficult endeavor, and one that usually fails. Beating the incumbent during a strong economy and record low unemployment while insisting that the economy is actually bad? And promising radical, untested changes to that economy? That’s an extremely risky strategy.

Gallup’s Mood of the Nation poll found last month that a record high 90% of Americans are satisfied with their personal lives—the highest rate since the poll began in 1979. The poll also found that Americans’ confidence in the US economy is at a 20-year high. These numbers do not bode well for a candidate who is promising to fundamentally change our economy.

Another liability that will absolutely be hammered by Republicans if Bernie is the nominee: his age and health. If elected, Sanders would be the oldest president in our history. He is 78 years old and suffered a heart attack just last year. After age 80, one in six people suffer from some form of dementia, and the numbers get worse with each additional year. Despite originally saying he’d release his full medical records, after the heart attack he changed his mind. Just like Trump with his tax returns, Bernie has determined that whatever is in those records is worse than the backlash he’ll suffer for hiding them.

Any Democratic nominee will have to flip states that Trump won. There are six states generally considered to be tossups—all of which Trump won in 2016: Arizona, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida. The two with the largest share of electoral votes are Pennsylvania and Florida: states which Sanders is already busy alienating. Bernie wants to ban fracking, which is going to hurt him, possibly fatally, in Pennsylvania. And his past and recent compliments of the Castro regime won’t gain him many supporters among Florida’s large Cuban expat community. Democrats can’t afford to so blithely torpedo their chances in these crucial states.

But his biggest liability is one he’s worn proudly as a label for decades: socialist. I’m not going to debate in this article whether socialism is a good or bad thing, whether democratic socialism has any meaningful differences from the real thing, or whether anyone even knows what they mean anymore when they say “socialism.” That topic needs an article or two of its own—and believe me, they’re coming.

The point is that socialism is a dirty word in America. NPR reported a recent poll that found 58% of Americans have an unfavorable view of socialism. Even among the younger demographic (18-38) which is more tolerant of socialism than any other age bracket, only 38% view it favorably. Another poll from July found that a whopping 76% of Americans say they would not vote for a socialist politician. Of the Democratic respondents, 64% said they wouldn’t vote for a socialist.

In an election in which the challenger needs a united party and absolutely must win over swing voters to have a chance, this label will be an albatross the size of the Soviet Union around his neck.

A lot of NeverTrump conservatives, who want Trumpism to be soundly defeated and rooted out of the GOP, have been hoping for a Democrat they can stomach voting for. They’re watching Bernie rack up delegates, and despairing.

Among Republicans who are realistic about the President’s many flaws and political downsides, there’s a saying that’s been around on social media since 2016: “All Democrats have to do is not be insane. And they can’t do it.”

Democrats, don’t be insane. Don’t nominate Bernie Sanders.

Mitt Romney: from Monster to Messiah

We witnessed something extraordinary yesterday in this age of blind, fevered partisanship. Mitt Romney, once the presidential nominee of the Republican party, voted to convict his party’s leader for abusing his power. He stood alone.

He knew he’d face severe backlash for his decision. “I am aware that there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision, and in some quarters, I will be vehemently denounced. I am sure to hear abuse from the President and his supporters. Does anyone seriously believe I would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded it of me?”

He was proved right almost immediately, of course. The President made sure to lash out at him while speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning. Donald Trump, Jr. took to Twitter to demand Romney be expelled from the GOP. (Republican Senators quickly dismissed that notion, because it is ridiculous, and not how things work.) Thwarted, Junior then posted an old photo of Mitt Romney in high-waisted jeans, with the caption, “Mom Jeans Because you’re a p****.”

But Romney’s decision has earned him fans as well. Congressional Democrats thanked him for his patriotism and integrity. While Fox News anchors bashed him, celebrities praised him. Stephen Colbert said, “Hearing Mitt Romney take his oath to God seriously was like finding water in the desert.”

Mitt Romney 2020: Man of courage. Man of honor. Worthy of our respect and gratitude.

Now is the time for my Democrat readers to buckle up. We’re going to take a little trip back in time, to 2012.

Back then, Mitt Romney was evil incarnate. The DNC Chairwoman (among many, many other Democrats and willing mouthpieces in the media) called him a racist. Nancy Pelosi cast him as a sexist. Harry Reid, then the Democrat Senate Majority Leader, falsely accused him of not having paid his taxes for almost a decade. He repeated the accusation every time he got the chance, including from the Senate floor. It was a lie; Reid knew it was a lie, but he didn’t care, and he never apologized. In fact, he seemed proud of it. In a CNN interview after the election, when asked about his comments, Reid responded, “Romney didn’t win, did he?” A pro-Obama PAC ran a television ad that accused Mitt Romney of causing a woman’s premature death. The ad earned a “False” rating from Politifact, and four Pinocchios from the Washington Post factchecker. But the damage was done.

And let’s not forget what an irredeemable misogynist he was. The man made sure to vet highly skilled, competent women ahead of time so he could promptly appoint them to positions in his Cabinet were he to be elected. The gall. “Binders full of women.” What a monster.

And foreign policy! Who can forget the zinger President Obama delivered during that debate? “When you were asked, what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said ‘Russia.’ Not Al-Qaeda; you said Russia. And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” Ho ho! Good one! What a dummy, thinking Russia would mess with us. What a fool. Everybody had a great laugh at that. Republicans remember.

Mitt Romney was a sexist, misogynist, bigoted rich guy who only cared about the 1% and didn’t pay his taxes and was a feckless idiot on foreign policy. And he probably killed some poor woman with cancer.

Guess what? Mitt Romney hasn’t changed since 2012. He’s the same guy. The same decent man who is doing what he believes is best for this country. The only thing that has changed is which party hates his guts now.

Guess what else? Democrats, you have yourselves to blame for Trump. Because when you take a man as obviously good and honorable as Mitt Romney, and you crucify him as a racist, sexist monster, then no one believes you when a real racist, sexist monster comes along. You’re the Party Who Cried Bigot.

You should feel ashamed of yourselves for how you treated him then. You should apologize. It is right for you to honor him now.

But more importantly: learn from this. Not everyone who disagrees with you on policy is evil. Both parties need to learn this, certainly, but Democrats, there has never been a better time for you to learn it than right now.

Remember Mitt next time. Be better.

Preaching from the Moral Low Ground

Conservative Christians and their leaders took to the internet in droves this week to protest the Super Bowl halftime show put on by Shakira and JLo. Millions of families, they argued, should not have been subjected to crotch shots of an extremely scantily-clad woman, nor to her provocative dancing on a stripper pole. This sexual objectification of women is the antithesis of the message we should be sending our sons and daughters, they said. We should be teaching men to respect women, and women to respect themselves.

Franklin Graham weighed in on Twitter with two tweets: “I don’t expect the world to act like the church, but our country has had a sense of moral decency on prime time TV in order to protect children. We see that disappearing before our eyes. It was demonstrated in tonight‘s @Pepsi#SuperBowl Halftime Show—w/millions of kids watching. This exhibition was Pepsi showing young girls that sexual exploitation of women is okay. With the exploitation of women on the rise worldwide, instead of lowering the standard, we as a society should be raising it. I’m disappointed in @Pepsi and the @NFL.”

Graham, who has been an outspoken supporter of Donald Trump, was inundated with over 20,000 replies and images. Trump on the cover of Playboy. Trump with Stormy Daniels. Melania wearing only a vest that barely covers her breasts. Trump with Jeffrey Epstein. The full, uncensored text from the infamous Access Hollywood tape. Melania topless in bed, smoking a cigarette. Trump’s “You have to treat them like s***” quote, referring to women. Trump with Jeffrey Epstein again. Melania completely naked in bed, being held by another completely naked woman. “You can grab ’em by the p****.” Trump with Epstein yet again. Melania naked, again. And again.

Honestly, what did he expect?

You can’t support a man with a long history of objectifying women and then moralize about the objectification of women. You can’t excuse a man who has sexualized his own daughters and then rail against the sexualization of women by the masses. You can’t defend a man who bragged about walking in on naked teenage girls and then bemoan the exploitation of girls in our nation. You can’t call a woman classy who has repeatedly posed entirely nude and then scold another woman who performs in a far more modest manner.

Well, I suppose you can, but you should be prepared to be called out as a hypocrite.

Middle America has no patience for lectures from Harvey Weinstein-enabling, jetsetting Hollywood multimillionaires about sexism and inequality and carbon footprints. And people who have opposed Donald Trump will not put up with lectures about morality and modesty and honoring women from people who support him.

Another blogger didn’t hold back after seeing reactions to the show on social media: “Franklin Graham and all the Christian Trump supporters who expressed outrage over the halftime show, your outrage means NOTHING, except for the fact that it once again exposes your hypocritical nature and reveals just how much politics has taken a stranglehold on your faith-based world view.”

You may argue that the circumstances are different, that you don’t support his sinful actions, just his policies…It won’t matter. To the world, that just sounds like splitting hairs. Like making excuses. Like a double standard.

Unfortunately, any Christian who has publicly supported this President had better get used to having every vile, immoral thing Donald Trump has done or said thrown back in their faces every time they weigh in on morality, from now until pretty much forever. Fair or not, that’s what’s going to happen. It’s already happening.

If principles can be set aside in pursuit of power, then they weren’t principles to begin with.

Like it or not, that’s how the world sees it.

Senate Republicans finally admit he did it (but it still doesn’t matter)

It feels like we’ve been divided for so long. But earlier this week I was heartened to learn that there is something that 73% of Americans agree on. Can you believe it? I decided to make a list: What can you get 73% of Americans to agree on these days?

  • Hating the Patriots
  • Whitney Houston’s Superbowl XXV National Anthem is the official version of the National Anthem
  • Rose could have made room for Jack
  • Going to any expense, at any degree of personal risk, to save Matt Damon
  • Wanting the Senate to call witnesses

Yes, believe it or not, that many Americans believe witnesses should testify in the Senate impeachment trial. (For those who don’t trust me, the 73% figure is an average of six different national polls. For those who still don’t trust me and want sources: Quinnipiac, 75; Monmouth, 80; Reuters, 72; CNN, 69; AP/NORC, 68; WaPo, 71.)

Yet as I write this, the Senate is preparing to vote on this very issue, and it’s looking like 73% of us are going to be disappointed. It would take four—just four—Republicans voting against the party and with the majority of Americans for us to hear from witnesses with firsthand evidence about the President’s intentions in the Ukraine scandal. You remember, the witnesses whom the President forbade to testify in the House hearings.

Let me note here that the Democrats really blew it in rushing the impeachment process. They should have dug in their heels and fought him all the way through the courts until they got to question every relevant witness. Yes, they proved their case without them, but it would have been easier for the average American to understand and harder for Republicans to muddy the waters if we’d all heard from those witnesses. (I hear you out there. Still don’t believe me that the House proved its case? Keep reading.)

But with potential swing voter Lamar Alexander (R, TN) announcing this morning that he will vote against hearing from witnesses, it’s all but assured that the motion will fail.

Why doesn’t the Senator want to hear from witnesses with firsthand testimony? His reason actually makes sense: He says it’s because the House has already proved its case. Trump did what he was accused of.

No, really.

In his own words, straight from Twitter: “I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven… the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine.

There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’

It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law… The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did.”

I’m sure you’ve guessed by now, Senator Alexander’s admission that the President is guilty of the charges against him was followed by a big but: “But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.”

“Inappropriate” is how he categorizes withholding vital aid from an ally whose soldiers are fighting and dying due to aggression from Russia, in opposition to the official policy of his own administration, using shady criminal goons to shake down that ally’s president and smear our own ambassador, all to harm a fellow American citizen and help himself politically.

“Inappropriate” is telling an off-color joke at work. What Trump did was not in the same hemisphere as “inappropriate.”

Senator Marco Rubio, whom I admit at one time I badly wanted to become President, also weighed in today. He writes that in deciding whether or not to convict Trump, he worked from the assumption that he is guilty of Abuse of Power, and that he rejects White House counsel’s claim that Abuse of Power is not an impeachable offense. Yet he concluded, “Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office.”

Amazing. Just amazing.

Take a walk with me down memory lane, will you?

There was no quid pro quo! The President did absolutely nothing wrong.

If you could prove there was a quid pro quo, that would be very disturbing.

Okay, maybe there was a quid pro quo, but there was no corrupt intent.

You know what, quid pro quos are fine; they’re actually great; we use them all the time. It never mattered at all and the President is innocent.

You may not like it, but the President has the right to investigate corruption.

Okay, if he held up aid to get an investigation into a political rival, that was inappropriate.

Okay, he did it. But Abuse of Power isn’t impeachable.

Well, it actually is, but it’s not worth convicting over.

My question for Senator Alexander, and for every Republican Senator and Representative is this: Were you lying when you told us he didn’t do it, or are you lying now? Now that we’re through pretending that the President did nothing wrong; now that you’re finished insisting that this whole thing was a Democrat sham; now that it’s clear you’ve been lying to us about everything from the beginning, why should we believe you now, when you tell us that he doesn’t deserve to be removed from the office he abused?

My question for my fellow voters is more important, because there’s at least a chance I might get an honest answer. Take another look at the above evolution of Republicans’ defenses. Which do you think is the more plausible explanation—not the explanation you want to be true, but the one that is most believable:

  1. They really believed everything they’ve said all along, and they really believe it’s the right thing to do to let him get away with this.
  2. There was never the slightest chance of them voting against Trump, and from the beginning they have said anything to justify that foregone decision.

I have compassion for them. I really do. They find themselves in an impossible position; especially those in swing states and districts. They can vote against corruption and abuse of power and infuriate the President’s base—about 25% of their electorate, which they virtually cannot win without. Or they can vote to protect him, and infuriate almost everyone else.

But my compassion has limits.

I’ve never voted for a Democrat. Not once. I’ve voted straight-ticket Republican in every election except 2016, when I wrote in a candidate for President. If you had told me four years ago that today I would feel more visceral anger and disgust toward the GOP than the Democrats, I would have told you you were lying like a Presidential candidate. But I do.

This party needs to be burned to the ground. The rot is so deep at the national level that I don’t see an alternative. Gut it. Excise the cancer. Pick a metaphor. Just vote them all out. Start over fresh with people who won’t sell their souls to stay in Congress.

I’m sure that 73% of us don’t agree on that conclusion. But don’t make the mistake of thinking I’m alone. Quite a few folks have reached out to me privately, sharing that they feel the same as I do about Trump, but can’t or won’t go public about it due to relationships or jobs that could suffer. I know that “quite a few folks” don’t amount to much, but I am just a nobody with a handful of readers. Extrapolate that handful across a country of 330 million people, and Republicans should begin to be very worried. #ILeftTheGOP was a trending topic on Twitter earlier this week. And it’s difficult to see how voting directly against the wishes of 73% of Americans won’t hurt Republicans come November.

If you’re tired of being lied to, if you’re sick of voting for people who think you’re stupid, if you’re feeling lost and homeless, come on over. I’ve saved you a spot by the campfire. Pull up a sleeping bag. We don’t bite, and the skies are so, so clear.

It’s getting less and less lonely here in the wilderness.

The President’s spiritual advisor is a perfect fit

Paula White, prosperity gospel televangelist, millionaire, and former megachurch pastor, is perhaps Donald Trump’s closest and most trusted spiritual advisor. She’s also an official member of the administration, serving as Advisor to the Faith & Opportunity Initiative, an office that coordinates outreach to religious communities. I’d never heard of her before she emerged as part of Donald Trump’s inner circle, and I was curious to learn more about the woman who, according to rumors James Dobson heard, personally led Trump to faith in Christ.

The more I learned, the more she and the President seemed to have in common. They’re both very comfortable in front of crowds and on camera. They’re both very rich. They’re both on their third marriages. Their respective organizations have both been investigated for misuse of funds. Mrs. White was not charged with any tax offenses, though the investigation did find that her church paid $2.755 million to her relatives over the course of four years, and that she and her husband drew a salary of $5 million each year. The President didn’t fare so well in his investigation: in November of 2019 the Donald J. Trump Foundation was ordered to pay $2 million in damages after he illegally used the charity’s funds to buy portraits of himself, help his 2016 campaign, and pay off legal obligations for his businesses. The Trump Foundation was then dissolved, and Mr. Trump will be subject to special supervision if he ever wants to run a charity in the state of New York again.

Mrs. White also seems to have mastered the art of feeding the President’s insatiable ego with a Christianese flavor all her own. “To say no to President Trump would be saying no to God,” she says.

In 2017, on The Jim Bakker Show—

Let’s stop there for a second. The Jim Bakker Show. Jim Bakker has a show. Again. I was stunned to learn this.

For those unfamiliar, Jim Bakker was a well-known televangelist in the 1980s. He is better known, though, for his lavish lifestyle, for using his show’s funds to pay hush money to a church secretary (whom he either had consensual sex with or drugged and raped, depending on which of them you believe), for covering it up, stealing millions of donated dollars, being convicted of 24 felony counts, and spending nearly 5 years in prison. He was released early, partly due to the efforts of his celebrity attorney, Alan Dershowitz—who, as it happens, is currently representing Donald Trump in his impeachment trial.

Now that I think about it, starring in a TV show, paying hush money to cover up adultery while claiming to be a Christian, stealing donors’ money for one’s own benefit, hiring Dershowitz afterward: no wonder The Jim Bakker Show is all in for Trump. They’re practically the same person.

But I digress. Paula White explained on The Jim Bakker show that God raises up kings (rulers) and sets them down (Daniel 2:21), so resisting Trump is “fighting against the hand of God.” On another occasion, while praying for the President, she declared that “any tongue that rises against him will be condemned, according to the Word of God.”

So, according to Mrs. White, saying no to this human man is equivalent to saying no to Almighty God. Resisting him for any reason is resisting the hand of God. And God’s word says that anyone who speaks out against Trump will be condemned.

There’s a word for this kind of “teaching.” Heresy.

But she’s not only heretical. She’s bonkers. In this clip from January 5th of this month, Mrs. White makes some statements that I can’t say necessarily qualify as heresy, but I’ve spent my entire life in church and among believers, and this woman sounds insane to me.

“We come against the marine kingdom. We come against the animal kingdom. Any—the woman that rides upon the waters. We break the power in the name of Jesus.” The marine kingdom? The animal kingdom? I’ve racked my brain, trying to think of any Scripture, any theology I’ve ever heard that might make sense of this, but I’ve got nothing. She goes on to pray against any “strange winds” that might be sent against the President or herself, then shouts “Let pride fall!” four times in a row.

The part that’s really got people up in arms is this at the end: “We command all satanic pregnancies to miscarry right now. We declare that anything that’s been conceived in satanic wombs that it’ll miscarry.” Now, I concede (and hope) that she’s probably speaking metaphorically here. But even if she is, this is so bizarre, not to mention hurtful and insensitive to women who have suffered miscarriages.

Dr. Russell Moore, evangelical author and preacher, and president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, had this to say about Mrs. White:

“Why so harsh, Dr. Moore?” some of you may be wondering. I’ll tell you.

On her website right now, there is a page for donations, her “First Fruits” program. Part of the text reads, “…through your first fruits offering, [emphasis hers] He gives you the power to acquire wealth…”

This is neither new nor unusual for Paula White. For her 2019 First Fruits drive, she wrote, “I Prophetically Decree and Declare Deliverance & Prosperity are Yours in 2019. This is the Year YOU Inherit YOUR Promised Land!” (Again with the random capitalization. I am convinced it’s contagious.)

For Passover in 2019, her website used out-of-context verses to promise her followers that if they donate money to her, God will make them rich, heal their sicknesses, grant them long life, assign an angel to them, and go after their enemies.

On Easter Sunday of 2016, she said, “There’s someone that God is speaking to, to click on that donation button by minimizing the screen. And when you do to sow $1,144. It’s not often I ask very specifically but God has instructed me and I want you to hear. This isn’t for everyone but this is for someone. When you sow that $1,144 based on John 11:44, I believe for resurrection life.” She seems to be promising salvation to the person who donates that sum.

In October 2019, she told viewers that they were “mandated by God” to give thousands of dollars (by far the smallest amount she recommended was $1000) to Jim Bakker to build a new TV studio. Also on The Jim Bakker Show, she said, “You need to send in $3,500. You need to send in $35,000. You need to send in that $100,000 check…If you do not write that P.O. Box, and you do not call that toll-free number, and you do not become a ministry of sustainer, you will never see sustainment in your life. And your dream’ll die. Your call will die.”

She’s a false teacher. She’s a heretic. She’s a swindler and a charlatan. And she has the ear of the most powerful man in the world.

He seems happy with her performance.

“Thank you Paula,” he said. “What a great job you do. The evangelicals. I hear we’re more popular than ever with the evangelicals.”

The first sitting President attended the March For Life today. I wish that were a good thing.

It’s hard to blame pro-lifers for being excited: today, for the first time in its 45-year history, a sitting President attended the March For Life in person. Other Republican Presidents have addressed the March via video, but none have actually shown up until now. This is not an insignificant moment for a movement that has long fought an uphill battle against the popular conception—aided by (naturally) the media—that they are few in number and therefore ought to be discounted.

In truth, the nation remains nearly equally divided on the issue of abortion. Gallup found just this past June that 49% of Americans self-identify as pro-life, compared to 46% who self-identify as pro-choice. And momentum is on the side of the pro-lifers: in 1995 those percentages were 33-56.

“Let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life,” the President said in his speech. I can’t argue with that.

But I hope my fellow pro-lifers won’t blame me for being skeptical of his motives. Donald Trump was pro-choice for 64 years. He once co-hosted a pro-choice fundraiser. He gave an interview to Meet the Press in which he declared, “I am pro-choice in every respect.” He remained a supporter of abortion right up until 2011, when he was toying with the idea of a 2012 Presidential run. In other words, he started calling himself pro-life when it became politically expedient for him to do so.

He is hardly the first politician to pivot on a significant issue at the very instant it works in their favor. Socially conservative and liberal voters alike may be vexed to realize that Donald Trump was the first President ever to begin his term while openly supporting gay marriage. President Obama’s eventual public support for it was entirely driven by political considerations, and ultimately happened because Joe Biden forced his hand. Hillary was against same-sex marriage while that was the safe position to hold. In 2004 she believed that marriage was “a sacred bond between a man and a woman.” But every politician knows that nothing is as sacred as getting votes.

Trump’s late-in-life conversion to the cause, his pro-life rhetoric, his appearance at March For Life: these are all calculated moves. They’re transactional. He knows he needs those voters. He knows how to get them. “They are coming after me because I am fighting for you,” he told the crowd. (Yes, on the day commemorating 60 million dead babies, he was still the victim.)

I hear you, friends. “Who cares about his motives as long as his policies are helping curb abortion?” It’s a valid argument (though not one I’ve seen often; most seem to almost worshipfully believe that he truly cares about the unborn.)

The tender, compassionate man we’ve all come to know and love

And yes, I am glad whenever abortions decrease. We (and by “we” I mean the left) have come so far from “safe, legal, and rare.” Now it’s #ShoutYourAbortion and Michele Wolf dressed in red white and blue hosting her “Salute to Abortion” and actress Martha Plimpton posing in a “heart abortion” tunic. At least we’re not pretending anymore. And I understand why some in the pro-life movement believe any support is good, and why we would want a fighter on our side.

But the only thing that can ever truly change the realities of abortion in this country is its electorate. Changing the hearts and minds of fellow Americans, persuading them that science and ethics and morality and basic human decency are all on the side of life: that is how we turn the tide. Not through politics. Not through laws. Because politicians can be replaced. Laws can be changed.

That is why it’s a mistake for March For Life and the pro-life movement as a whole to unrestrainedly embrace the most divisive figure in modern American politics. Sure, the 25% or so of Americans who enthusiastically support him are thrilled about his connection to the movement. And I’m sure his involvement has helped solidify his support among those who may have been put off by his other antics.

What about the rest? What about the 51% who find his actions so abhorrent they believe he ought to be removed from office by the Senate? What about the ones who may have been warming to the idea that unborn babies deserve protection, but then they see the pro-life movement championing a man whose words and behavior utterly repel them? We are all susceptible to this sort of prejudice. I’d be willing to bet you know or are even related to someone who won’t even watch a movie starring an actor whose politics they fervently disagree with. Or perhaps one who started boycotting the NFL because of Colin Kaepernick. Personally, I would have my kid flipping burgers before sending them to Liberty University as long as any trace of Jerry Falwell, Jr’s influence remains there.

Short-term gains are good, but not at the expense of a long-term sea change in Americans’ views toward abortion. I fear that’s the myopic trade we’re making, when instead, we could be trying to find and elect leaders who will deliver on the pro-life reforms we want without all the baggage that drives away potential allies.

But who knows? I could be wrong. Maybe the stain will wash out sooner than I believe. Maybe people’s memories will be shorter than I fear. It’s good to hedge sometimes, to leave room in the future for reality to assert itself. Good politicians know this.

For example, during the primaries in 2016, Maureen Dowd asked Donald Trump if, back when he was a Manhattan bachelor, he was ever involved with a woman who’d ended up getting an abortion.

“Such an interesting question,” he said. “So what’s your next question?”

Newly released documents devastate Trump’s defense. (Not that it will matter.)

Tuesday, January 14th, the House Intelligence Committee released new documents received from Lev Parnas. Parnas is a Ukrainian-born American citizen and an associate of Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. Parnas was arrested in October while trying to leave the country, and indicted on federal charges. (So weird how Trump associates keep getting arrested and indicted, right?) He’s now cooperating with investigators, and just received permission from a judge to hand over his records to the House Intelligence Committee.

In case you’ve wondered why the President—who insists he did nothing wrong; he made a perfect call; he’s a victim of a Democrat hoax—has fought every step of the way to keep witnesses from testifying and evidence from being released, well, this is why.

Once Trump and Republicans could no longer plausibly claim there was no quid-pro-quo, they shifted to explaining that the President was simply genuinely concerned with rooting out corruption in Ukraine. That’s why he wanted an investigation into Burisma and Hunter (read: Joe) Biden. For truth, justice, and the American People.

Yeah, about that. Parnas turned over this letter from Rudy Giuliani to the newly-elected president of Ukraine.

“Just to be precise,” Giuliani writes, “I represent him as a private citizen, not as President of the United States. He goes on: “In my capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent, I request a meeting with you…”

It’s hard to overstate how crippling this letter is to the President’s defense. Giuliani wasn’t going to Ukraine to represent the President of the United States in his noble quest for truth and justice. He was representing the President, with his knowledge and consent, as a private citizen. A private citizen circumventing the State Department and all legitimate channels of foreign policy in order to leverage the power of his office to gain the upper hand against the biggest domestic threat to his reelection: Joe Biden.

Abuse of power. Obstruction of justice. The House got it right.

But that’s not all. Parnas also turned over a few handwritten notes of his own. Here is the most damning:

“get Zalensky [sic] to Announce that the Biden case will Be Investigated.” (Apparently random, erratic capitalization is contagious? Everyone around the President seems to succumb to it sooner or later.)

Note the specific goal here. Not to get an investigation. To get an announcement of an investigation. Odd goal, considering that investigations are usually more successful if their target isn’t tipped off right at the beginning. Odd way to go about a perfectly legitimate investigation of corruption when you have the entire State Department at your disposal.

Not an odd goal if what you really want is to drag the name “Biden” through the mud, and the people who know the law and care about their obligations to the Constitution won’t do it for you. Then it makes perfect sense.

It’s not complicated. We already had enough evidence; this just adds to the pile. The President sent his unelected, unvetted minions to use the power of his office to pressure a foreign government to make an announcement that would hurt his number one political opponent and weaken the biggest threat to his reelection. Then when he got caught, he refused to comply with Congressional subpoenas, and blocked witnesses from testifying.

Abuse of power. Obstruction of justice. He’s already been impeached for them.

But it won’t matter. Senate Republicans have seen these smoking guns. But they’ve already made clear they’re closing ranks. They don’t want to hear from witnesses; they don’t want to look at additional evidence. Multiple Senators have already publicly said they’ll vote to acquit the President, before the trial has even begun. Before they’ve taken their oath to be impartial jurors.

When Nixon broke the law, Republican members of Congress did what was right. It didn’t matter that he was the leader of their party, or that he had won his election in a massive landslide victory. Because he had broken the law and lied to Americans, and he needed to be removed from office. They made it clear that if he wouldn’t resign, they’d remove him.

Now this President, after spending three years under investigation for suspicion of inviting foreign meddling in our elections, actually sent his motley crew of criminal goons to solicit foreign meddling in our election, lied about it, obstructed Congress, blocked witnesses, and will be acquitted by the Senate. Not because he’s innocent, but because they want to remain Senators more than they want to do what’s right.

We don’t have to make it easy for them, though. Contact your Senator. Tell him or her that you want a full and fair trial. Tell them you want to see all the evidence and hear from every relevant witness. Tell them your vote is riding on it. Then follow through.

I’m on my knees, begging you to stop watching Fox News

The hubby and I always like to have a show to watch together in the evenings after the kids go to bed. Currently, it’s The Americans. (We’re late; we know.) It’s a great show, set in the 80s, about a couple of Soviet spies living disguised as ordinary Americans. You know it’s a great show, because it has made me care about these two murderous commies who stand against everything I believe in.

Anyway, back in season three, there was a scene with FBI Agent Stan Beeman that has stuck with me. When I first saw it, I gasped, rewound it, and watched it again, because it was so spot-on. Another FBI agent asks Stan about his previous assignment, during which he lived undercover with a dangerous group of white supremacists, posing as one of them.

“What did it take to fool them?” the agent wants to know.

“Tell them what they want to hear, over and over and over again,” Stan tells him.

“That’s it?”

“People love hearing how right they are.”

Ouch.

If anyone—person, pastor, news outlet, website—always tells you what you want to hear, you can bet it’s not the truth. They’re fooling you.

The truth isn’t partisan. It doesn’t bend and shape itself to our ideological preferences, or our pet notions about a politician or political party. The truth is often hard to hear. It’s uncomfortable. If it makes you feel all warm and cozy, or completely righteous, chances are it’s not the truth. Or not the whole truth. Not always, but often.

A dear friend recently urged me to listen to Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity, which was funny because at that same time, I was thinking about urging her to stop listening to them. We had never spoken about the topic before; she’d never told me that she was a regular Fox viewer—but I knew. She might be surprised to learn that I do keep tabs on Ingraham, Limbaugh, Hannity, Carlson, et al. I just have a very different interpretation of their version of the news, and of their motives. She told me they really care about America. I believe what they really care about is the millions and millions of dollars they earn by telling people like my friend what they want to hear, over and over. They care about getting friendly retweets from their most important, most faithful viewer: the President. They care about keeping him and his fans happy and watching. And it’s working.

Fox knows its demographic. Fox knows what its audience wants to hear. So it tells them what they want to hear. Over and over and over. People love hearing how right they are.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Juliet Huddy was a Fox News host who worked for them for nearly twenty years. She calls Fox News an “agenda-driven network” that is hiding “damning evidence” against the President. She calls Sean Hannity, “the king of lying by omission.” She says “…they’ve done a good job of convincing us, the rest of the world, and their viewers, that the media is lying, that critics of Donald Trump are liars and are the enemy of the state.”

This is all blindingly obvious to anyone who doesn’t primarily get their news from Fox. I say this as someone who used to watch Fox News. I watched them until I realized they were going to support Donald Trump no matter what he did or said. They are not truth-tellers. They are a cheerleading squad. They are virtually state-run propaganda. With the occasional exceptions of Chris Wallace and Neil Cavuto, they are Trump’s personal Pravda.

It’s impossible to have a logical debate with someone who dismisses any facts that don’t fit their narrative. This happens on a regular basis now. I saw someone on Facebook who, when confronted with evidence of Trump’s immorality, the infamous audio of him bragging about “grab[bing] them by the p****,” and trying to sleep with a married woman (“I moved on her like a b***”), this person said she believed the audio was faked. This is such an outlandish conspiracy theory, with no evidence, no basis in fact, that any reasonable adult ought to be too embarrassed to float it on a public forum like Facebook. But she wasn’t. Which I suppose shouldn’t actually be surprising, since the man she’s defending is the king of conspiracy theorists. After all, the impeachment mess he’s in is partially due to his belief in a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukraine, and he first made waves in politics by pushing the debunked conspiracy theory about President Obama not being born in the US.

But facts matter. Truth matters. Even when—especially when—it conflicts with what we have previously believed. I had to write this blog, because this issue right here is the source of so much of our division and confusion. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve had versions of this conversation with myself in my head:

“Now he’s praising the vicious socialist dictator who tortured an American to death during his presidency. How can they still support him?!”

“Jaclyn, it’s because they get all their news from Fox, and Fox says it’s great to make nice with vicious socialist dictators as long as Trump is the one doing it.”

“If Obama had done this, they’d be apoplectic. They’d be rioting in the streets. How can they still support him?”

“Jaclyn, Laura Ingraham is telling them it’s good that he did this.”

“Now the budget deficit is a trillion dollars. ONE TRILLION DOLLARS. How can they still support him?!”

“Jaclyn, they get their headlines from Breitbart.”

“He illegally withheld Congressionally approved aid to a foreign government that’s under attack from Russia to pressure them to hurt the campaign of his political rival. He violated his oath and betrayed his office. It’s so simple and obvious. Nothing could be clearer. How can they still support him?!”

“Jaclyn, it’s because Sean Hannity is telling them it’s all lies.”

“Good lord, look at this tweet. He’s insane. This is humiliating. How in God’s name—literally—can Christians still support him?!

“Jaclyn. Fox News.”

As long as half the country lives in an alternate reality where the only facts allowed are ones that show Trump in a flattering light, and all others are memory-holed or invented whole cloth, no wonder we can’t agree on what’s true.

Yes, mainstream media is biased toward the left. But my friends, they’ve got nothing on Fox News. It does no good, and is in fact hypocritical, to complain about biased news sources, and then only watch the one news source that is more biased than any of them.

We all love hearing how right we are. I’m no exception. (Feel free to leave a comment telling me how very, very right I am, anytime.) But you know what? Please also tell me when I’m wrong. Tell me if there’s something I’m missing. Because more than I want to be right, I want to know the truth. I want to change my opinions, my beliefs, so that they align with the truth. Not the other way around. Even when it’s hard. Even when it’s uncomfortable.

If they’re always telling you what you want to hear, if you love them because they always tell you how right you are, they are lying to you.

The Trump GOP is Embracing Socialism

The defense I hear most often from Republicans who aren’t necessarily big Trump fans but believe he’s better than the alternative is this: “It’s Trump or socialism.” Unfortunately, they’re wrong. Trump is already introducing socialism to the US.

It started with his trade war. The President promised to correct our “unfair” trade relationship with China by imposing tariffs on Chinese goods. To this day, he believes those tariffs are paid by China, proving he does not understand how tariffs work, and won’t listen to anyone who does. Tariffs are taxes on imported goods, meaning Americans are paying the Chinese tariffs.

But the Chinese know the tariffs are meant to discourage us from buying their goods, so they, predictably, retaliated. Chinese purchases of American products, especially farm products like pork, beef, and soybeans, have plummeted. Trump’s trade war has been a disaster for American farmers.

So, to make it up to them, Trump has spent $28 billion (so far) bailing them out. That’s more than double Obama’s auto bailout that so angered Republicans. The main difference, besides the cost, is the fact that the auto companies had to pay it back. Taxpayers won’t see Trump’s $28 billion again. It’s gone.

As a side note, another point I often hear in support of the President is the tax cuts (which had little to do with the President; tax reform was always Paul Ryan’s baby.) And yes, Americans have benefitted from tax cuts. I’m a big fan of tax cuts. But guess what? The increased costs Americans are paying due to Trump’s trade war have already wiped out the savings we’ve seen from the tax cuts. More tariffs are scheduled to begin late this year, and he’s already threatened to impose more in the future.

So, what do his trade war and bailout for farmers have to do with socialism? It’s simple: direct state intervention in the economy.

The Mises Institute, an organization which “seeks a free-market capitalist economy,” explains in their article Trump’s Road to Socialism:

“…Trump’s tariffs are not only a new tax for Americans, but a policy of directly picking winners and losers in the economy…Government interventionism doesn’t simply stop there. The natural result of these new government barriers is for businesses to seek ways around them, such as Harley’s decision to move some manufacturing to Europe. This, of course, sparked backlash from President Trump, threatening further retaliation for such a move. As we’ve seen time and time again, the more Trump digs in to his support for protectionism, the more he will seek to interfere with the actions of individual companies.”

As indeed, he seems to think he has the right to do. In a tweet on August 23 of this year, he said, “Our great American companies are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China…” American companies are hereby ordered? And for anyone who thinks he was just mindlessly mouthing off again, he doubled down later that day: “For all of the Fake News Reporters that don’t have a clue as to what the law is relative to Presidential powers, China, etc., try looking at the Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. Case closed!” So yes, that’s the President of the United States, claiming he has the power to force American companies out of China, one of our biggest trading partners.

His authoritarian streak is no surprise; we’ve all seen it from the beginning. But Republican complacency in the face of outrageous threats like these is shocking. Crippling free trade, making threats and issuing demands to private companies, using taxpayer money to band-aid the fallout of his own lousy decisions: These are all actions that any self-respecting free-market Republican would have loudly denounced a short time ago.

The Institute goes on: “The result is an economy that increasingly replaces the market with state control. This is precisely why Mises wrote extensively about how escalating economic interventionism led to socialism.”

Economist Ludwig von Mises wrote of state interference in markets: “…one must go farther and farther until the market economy has been entirely destroyed and socialism has been substituted for it.”

In his announcements about the farm bailouts, Trump even keeps referring to American farmers as “our Great Patriot Farmers.” Those tweets could have been written by Chairman Mao.

President Trump has different motives and goals than the Democrats and Democratic Socialists running against him. But socialism isn’t defined by motives.

Conservatives have always believed in free markets and limited government. Republicans used to believe in them. But now, being a Republican means supporting everything this President does, even when his actions are antithetical to everything you ever believed about the economy.

I am fundamentally opposed to socialism, and that is one of the many reasons I’m not a Republican anymore.