It is no secret that Evangelical Christians overwhelmingly
vote Republican.
According to the Pew
Research 78% of white Evangelical Christians voted for George Bush in 2004, 74%
voted for John McCain in 2008, and 78% voted for Mitt Romney in 2012.
But in 2016 a record 81% of Evangelicals
supported Donald Trump.
Let that sink in for a moment.
More than 8 out of 10 white born again
followers of Jesus Christ voted for the least Christ-like person who ever ran
for President!
I realize many will take
issue with me when I claim Trump is the least Christ-like Presidential
candidate ever, but I will stand by that analysis.
To explore that theory I would refer you to
my post
“A Look At The Facts” (8/20/2019).
In it I examined Trump’s behavior as it
relates to four traits and/or issues:
Immigration; Hate and insulting speech; arrogance/pride; support and
care for the poor.
I then quote 40
biblical passages that, in my opinion, reveals the 45
th President of
the United States has little if anything in common with a biblical lifestyle.
This was only a sampling of biblical texts
that could be used against Donald Trump.
Yet far and away the most revolting fact to prove Trump’s
non-Christian beliefs are his own words.
When asked if he has ever sought forgiveness from God, then-Candidate
Donald Trump said no.
He went on to
claim he never needed to seek forgiveness from God, that he had a very good
relationship with God, and he doesn’t “bring God into that picture.”
Such a bold and irreverent statement should
be met with disdain by Evangelical Christians whose fundamental belief is that
“All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. (Romans 3:23)”.
Repentance and forgiveness are the very heart
of Evangelicalism.
For someone to
identify with the Evangelical community yet claim they have never needed to ask
God for forgiveness is considered heresy.
This is why it is astounding to know that white Evangelicals voted for
this man at a historic rate.
The irony
is incomprehensible.
One could make a case that Donald Trump has captured the
Evangelical community and held it ransom.
His support within this group remains constant.
Nothing he does can jeopardize their loyalty.
Again, in his own words, he could stand on 5
th
Avenue and shoot someone and not lose any votes. Yeah, that’s really
Christ-like!
But in the end evangelicals must bear the responsibility
themselves.
Foundational to Christianity
is the understanding that each individual must choose for themselves to follow
Christ.
Being born into a Christian family
does not make one Christian.
Becoming a
member of a Christian Church does not make one Christian.
Faith is a matter of personal conviction and
as such demands a decision.
Evangelicals
are especially aware of this, placing an emphasis on the act of confession and
the acceptance of Jesus Christ as one’s Savior and Lord.
It follows, then, that the believer is responsible for their
actions and beliefs.
This is why I find
it completely incomprehensible for 81% of white evangelical voters to throw
their unfailing support behind Donald Trump.
Given the evidence of Trump’s life, his actions, his words, and the
things that are important to him (which appear to be himself, his money and his
power, in that order) it should be obvious that Donald Trump stands in direct
opposition to the things of Jesus Christ.
Still, the 81% do not care.
Their
personal values and morals have been so deeply compromised and replaced by
their loyalty to Republican politics, and since Donald Trump is the current
head of the Republican Party, their loyalty is to him.
It’s really that simple.
This is classic cultism.
A strong, charismatic, confident leader speaks authoritatively on all
kinds of issues.
He feeds the faithful
with just enough of what they want to hear in order to get their attention and
gradually win their trust.
Then a
curious thing takes place:
the more the
masses trust the leader and view him as the solution to their problems, the
more he begins to withhold the “candy” and replace it with his own ideas and
values.
When I refer to the “candy” I am
speaking of the things desired by the followers.
It can take many forms.
In the case of Trump, three things stand out
in particular.
They are:
1.
Molding the Supreme Court toward a conservative
majority in hopes of overturning Roe vs. Wade;
2.
Handing out tax cuts to supposedly increase
personal wealth, i.e. wallet theology, including lowering interest rates on
loans and lots of talk about improving the economy and increasing domestic
manufacturing even if it does not actually happen;
3.
Deregulation in general, or in other words,
freedom to do what you want without the big bad wolf of government telling you
what you need to do. This can take the
form of giving lip service to school vouchers, loosening environmental protections,
banking deregulation, and so much more.
In addition to this there is the need to identify an
enemy.
Trump is a master at this
one.
Topping the list is probably the
immigrants.
They are going to take our
jobs away from us and increase the crime in our neighborhoods, we are
told.
Therefore, they must be
stopped.
Then there are the Muslims who
supposedly have declared war on Christianity.
But it doesn’t stop there.
Trump
can find an enemy around every corner and under every bush.
·
The “liberals” who will take away your guns
·
Obamacare
·
Terrorists
·
The “Deep State”
·
The News media, aka “the enemy of the people”
·
The Democrats
·
Robert Mueller
·
The Intelligence Community (CIA, FBI, et al)
·
The Green New Deal
Once the enemy has been identified it becomes necessary to
anoint someone who can protect the masses and keep them save.
It should come as no surprise that Donald J.
Trump sees himself as the only person capable of fulfilling this role.
And he is not afraid to let you know it.
·
“I alone can fix it”, he has said numerous times
in response to various needs;
·
“I am the Law and Order Candidate”, he claimed
during the 2016 Presidential campaign. I
often think of this when I consider the record number of persons in Trump’s
administration or his campaign who are now in jail or under indictment. And then there is his relentless attacks on
the law enforcement and intelligence communities. Trump seemingly has yet to meet a law or
regulation he believes is worth upholding.
He even disparages our military leaders, claiming he knows more than all
the generals put together. This thought
is comical coming from a draft dodger!
It is eerie – and deeply disturbing - how much Donald Trump
mirrors the techniques of a religious cult leader.
I pray the 81% will come out of their trance
and face reality before the Church is completely lost.
But I must confess I doubt if they will.
I do not understand how intelligent people can look at the
facts and conclude that an impeachment inquiry is not warranted.
I am not talking about impeachment itself.
That should only be decided after the facts
have been sorted out.
Only by holding an
inquiry can we begin to look at the evidence and then decide whether or not
impeachment is in order.
It would be helpful to remember exactly what the United
States Constitution has to say about impeachment.
It is defined in Article II, Section 4, where
we find these words.
“The President, Vice President and all civil
Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
The question then becomes one of definition. What, exactly, did the founding fathers mean
by “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”?
These words were chosen very carefully and with considerable
debate. According to the website law.justia.com
it took the framers of the Constitution several tries before they settled
on these terms. But what does it
mean? Again quoting from justia:
“Treason is defined in the Constitution.862 Bribery is
not, but it had a clear common law meaning and is now well covered by statute.863 “High
crimes and misdemeanors,” however, is an undefined and indefinite phrase,
which, in England, had comprehended conduct not constituting indictable
offenses.”
It is somewhat concerning that the authors of the
Constitution could not be more precise in defining the grounds for
impeachment. To me, the phrase “high
crimes and misdemeanors” covers just about any offense. Granted, “high crimes” is a bit
ambiguous. It almost sounds like the
term “felony”. I would assume “high
crimes” would be illegal activity of a more serious nature. But the inclusion of “misdemeanors” broadens
this considerably.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines misdemeanors as “crime(s)
that is not very serious; a crime that is less serious than a felony”. It goes on to offer an example: “defacing
school property is a misdemeanor.”
I have to wonder if people who blindly defend President Trump
understand exactly what the Constitution is saying. It is amazing how many Republican Senators
and Representatives have been saying that what Trump has done, according to
what we have learned thus far from the Mueller report and Congressional
hearings, is wrong but does not meet the required standard for
impeachment. Really? Let’s take a look at what we know thus far.
1.
Emoluments.
Again turning to Article II of the Constitution: “ Clause 7. The President shall,
at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation which shall neither
be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been
elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument
from the United States, or any of them.”
In
other words, the President shall not profit from his office beyond his standard
salary. A strong case can be established
that Trump is indeed profiting from his real estate business as a result of his
being President.
According to nbcnews, as of October 22, 2019, Trump has been in office for
1,019 days. He spent 313 of those days
at properties and resorts that he owns.
That is nearly one-third of his time in office. According to the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) federal agencies spent $13.6
million on 4 trips Trump made to Mar-a-Largo in a one month period from
February 3 to March 5, 2017. That is
just 4 weeks. It has been estimated that
his trips to his Mar-a-Largo alone have cost about $64 million dollars, paid by
taxpayers, of course. Granted not all of
this is recorded as profit for Trump, but surely a good portion is. The point here is that there is no need to patronize
his own properties almost exclusively.
Clearly, Trump violates the Emoluments Clause unashamedly.
2.
Foreign Influence in Our Elections.
The federal Election Commission has made istclear that any candidate who invites
or accepts assistance in their election campaign from a foreign entity has
broken the law.
Trump has not even attempted to hide his invitation to Russia, Ukraine, and
China to aid his campaign. The Mueller
report and U. S. Intelligence agencies have identified many examples of Russia’s
interference in our elections in 2016, 2018, and their attempts for 2020. The question is whether Trump personally can
be held accountable for this interference.
There is no debating his invitation for interference as he made these
publicly. It is equally clear that many
in his campaign had direct contact with Russian operatives. Surely, the candidate must be held
accountable for such campaign abuses.
3.
Quid Pro Quo.
By now I suppose everyone knows what this term means. Synonyms include “Extorsion” or “Bribery”. That is, you do this for me and I will do
this for you. There is no doubt what so
ever that Trump employed this in the infamous phone call with the President of
Ukraine. We have the reconstructed transcript
of that conversation, along with the whistleblower report and the testimony of
several witnesses under oath. Remember,
bribery is specifically identified in the Constitution as an impeachable
offense.
4.
The Identity of the Whistleblower.
On November 4, 2019 Trump declared at yet another of his rallies that he now
knows the identity of the whistleblower.
Whether he does or not is yet to be proven, but he clearly has not
hidden the fact that he has been trying to find the identity of this person and
is encouraging many others to seek the identity as well. The problem is this is a clear violation of
Federal law, which protects such information.
I do not know if this violation is a felony or a misdemeanor but either
way it falls under the Constitutional definition for impeachment.
5.
Obstruction of Justice.
Obstruction
of justice is defined by federal statute as any "interference with the
orderly administration of law and justice". The Mueller report clearly identified ten
instances where Trump committed obstruction.
Since then, there have been multiple instances, including every time a
witness refuses to appear before a Congressional Committee because the
President ordered them not to comply.
Obstruction of justice was one of the articles of impeachment against Richard
Nixon and Bill Clinton. This should be
an open and shut case against Donald Trump.
He is not even making an effort to hide it.
6.
Perjury.
A case may be made to say that Trump committed perjury in his written
testimony to Robert Mueller. At the very
least Mueller reported that Trump’s written answers were incomplete and
indecisive. In fact, in his testimony
before Congress Mueller was asked whether he felt Trump was untruthful in his
written answers. The Special Counsel
responded by saying, “I would say generally.”
However, it may be difficult to prove that Trump committed perjury even with
this evidence.
These are the obvious offenses committed by Trump.
According to Michael Cohen, Trump’s former
personal lawyer, a close examination of Trump’s tax returns will reveal
additional offenses and illegal behavior.
And then there is the question of treason.
Treason will be difficult to prove, I
suspect.
I do believe that in time it
will be proven that Donald Trump is guilty of treason, even if it does not go
to court or faces impeachment.
His
multiple connections to Russian authorities and his abundant actions that have
benefitted them present serious questions.
Perhaps most significant is his sudden withdrawal of U. S. troops from
Syria, leaving our Kurdish allies abandoned for the slaughter.
Add to this his betrayal of journalist Jamal
Khashoggi who was brutally murdered by Saudi Arabian officials, to the silence
of Donald Trump.
Yet another concern that may one day prove to be treasonous
is Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iranian nuclear deal.
When Trump violated the terms of that
international treaty and imposed sanctions on Iran for no reason whatsoever he
opened the door for Iran to begin building nuclear weapons.
There is no doubt at all that Iran was
complying with the terms of the agreement before Trump’s betrayal.
Let it be absolutely clear – Iran did not
break the agreement.
Donald Trump
did.
In doing so, the deal was no longer
applicable.
Trump got what he wanted, namely
an Iranian government building a nuclear arsenal.
It remains to be seen what will result from
this, but from where I stand, our nation is less safe now, and that sure sounds
like treason to me.
Again, our friends
at Merriam-Webster define treason this way:
1 : the
offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to
which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the
sovereign or the sovereign's family
The Constitution clearly identifies treason as
worthy of impeachment.
We find ourselves in a horrible position. The corrupt behavior of this President stands
in direct violation of his oath of office.
I would remind the reader of the other three times this nation was
submitted to an impeachment of a president.
The first time was Andrew Johnson.
Johnson was
impeached on eleven articles.
The most
serious charge was violation of the Tenure of Office Act.
This stemmed from Johnson’s firing of
Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, who opposed Jonson’s plan for reconstruction
following the Civil War.
The second occurrence was Richard Nixon.
Three
articles of impeachment were drawn against Nixon and presented to the House of Representatives.
The three charges were obstruction of
justice, abuse of power and contempt of Congress.
All three centered on the Watergate
investigation.
Of course, Nixon resigned
rather than face impeachment.
The third occurrence was Bill Clinton.
Clinton was charged with two
articles of impeachment.
The first was perjury
based on his lying under oath.
The
second was obstruction of justice.
All three have a common theme in that they involve
domestic
violations.
While this is certainly
serious and worth pursuing one could argue that the safety and security of the
United States was not threatened by anything these three Presidents did.
Furthermore,
it is worth pointing out that none of these were convicted by the Senate.
But the case against Trump is
different.
Not only has he caused
domestic havoc, I would say that he has indeed threatened the safety and
security of this nation by extending his violations to the international
scene.
In particular, the fact that
Russia adversely interfered with the 2016 election and is continuing to do so
with Trump’s blessing is cause enough for alarm.
The violation of the Iranian nuclear deal
likewise represents a clear and present danger.
Add to this Trump’s bribery of Ukraine and the withholding of defensive
support to that nation in obvious violation of Congressional appropriations,
and one has to ask just what else needs to occur before Congress is satisfied
that this man is a national threat.
I cannot emphasize enough the contrast in severity between
Donald Trump and the three previous impeachment proceedings.
Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill
Clinton were all charged with administrative misconduct.
One could argue they simply used poor
judgment and were caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
Based only on legality, Clinton’s case is
especially personal and lacks any hint of a threat to national security.
I do not mean to minimize Clinton’s
offense.
He clearly violated his oath of
office and, in my opinion, deserved to be convicted.
But his impeachment pales in comparison with
what we are faced with today.
Clinton escaped
conviction largely due to partisan politics.
Republicans only held 55 Senate seats at the time.
67 votes for impeachment were required for a
conviction, meaning that twelve Democrats had to vote with all the Republicans
to remove Clinton from office.
In the
end, no Democrat rendered a guilty vote on either Article.
Even Republicans failed to vote unanimously
against him.
On Article I only 45 Senators
voted guilty.
On Article II 50 Senators
voted guilty.
The current Senate consists of 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats,
and 2 Independents.
Ideally, that should
not make any difference.
All Senators
are expected to look at the facts and judge impartially on the guilt or
innocence of the accused.
In reality,
however, we know a good number will remain loyal to their Party rather than to
their Country.
The question for the ages
is:
how many?
I find it astounding how many members of Congress are saying
that Donald Trump’s actions are wrong but do not rise to the level of
impeachable offenses.
History suggests
otherwise. Let us not forget that “misdemeanors” are impeachable offenses,
according to the Constitution.
Too bad
we cannot ask the Founding Fathers how they would vote in an impeachment trial
of Donald Trump.
That is the
soul-searching question that every Senator should be asking themselves in the
days to come.
G. D. Gehr
November 6, 2019
Comments encouraged