I live a fairly even-keel emotional life. Not too many highs, not too many lows. But there are a few things that can quickly jack up my ire, and one of them is a betrayal of entrusted power.
We learned last week that the silent coup known as the Russia hoax went all the way to the top, to former president Barack Hussein Obama. The suspicion that it did had been hanging in the atmosphere surrounding the investigation into “Hurricane Crossfire,” the subversive effort by our nation’s top law enforcement officials and elected leaders in Congress to overthrow the presidency of Donald John Trump.
The question has been whether this scheme could have been launched without president Obama’s knowledge. Not to put too fine a point on it, but what we’re really asking is, could this plot have gotten traction without Obama’s approval?
It turns out that not only did he approve, but he personally guided the key players. In her devastating piece, “Obama, Biden Oval Office Meeting On January 5 Was Key To Entire Anti-Trump Operation,” Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist writes:
January 5: [Deputy Attorney General Sally] Yates, [FBI Director James] Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper briefed Obama on Russia-related matters in the Oval Office. Biden and Rice also attended. After the Obama briefing, the intelligence chiefs who would be leaving at the end of the term were dismissed and Yates and Comey, who would continue in the Trump administration, were asked to stay. Not only did Obama give his guidance about how to perpetuate the Russia collusion theory investigations, he also talked about Flynn’s conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, according to both Comey and Yates.
Take a moment to let that sink in: an outgoing American president conspired to overthrow an incoming American president. It’s astounding.
I was never a fan of president Obama for a variety of reasons, starting with his progressive ideology. By the time he left office after eight years, I was relieved that he was gone and prayed that Hillary Clinton would not follow his presidency with her own.
But my dislike of president Obama’s progressive vision pales in comparison to what we’ve now learned about his character: he broke his oath to the American people. He betrayed our trust and has severely damaged our 244-year-old republic with the actions of a third-rate dictator.
It’s dangerous and it needs to be confronted with severe consequences.
The cabal of people involved in perpetuating the Russia hoax need to pay for their treachery. We are a nation of laws and no one, as the Democrats like to sanctimoniously inform us, is above the law. Not even the president.
We agree. Now do your job, DOJ, and “let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5:24).
Happy Monday and welcome to another week of Coronacare.TM It’s sort of like Obamacare, but instead of nationalizing healthcare, we’ve nationalized house arrest so there’s no need for healthcare. Impressive!
Look, I know there are legitimate concerns about opening up the country too quickly, but I’m becoming more concerned that we’re setting precedent for future government interference under the pretext of national safety and security.
Today’s Broadside is a little longer than intended, but that’s true with almost everything that needs correcting.
Trip the Scripture Elastic As a conservative Christian living in a largely secular society, I naturally view any politician quoting scripture in support of their agenda with suspicion. More often than not, scripture serves their political purpose rather than the other way around. If politicians consistently let scripture inform their legislative agenda, they wouldn’t need to make unseemly appeals to the divine to legitimize their policy decisions.
Take, for instance, Nancy Pelosi’s comments to Joy Reid on MSNBC last Sunday.
Reid: “[…] the concern that this could be a fresh source of outbreak. And that there could actually be a disaster for incarcerated people because of this virus. Is anything being considered for the next bill to deal with that?”
Pelosi: “Well, in our caucus, we are very devoted to the Gospel of Matthew: ‘When I was hungry you fed me, when I was homeless, you sheltered me — when I was in prison, you visited me.’
“So, this, for us, is a part of our value system.”
I note that Reid did not ask the Speaker of the House to justify whatever plans she and her caucus might have since she (Reid) had already given it to Pelosi: “there could actually be a disaster for incarcerated people because of this virus.” Appealing to scripture was Pelosi’s choice. By leading with a scriptural reference, Pelosi is calculating that what she says next needs the weight of a higher moral authority in addition to her (already considerable) civic authority.
And indeed it does. But before she gets there, Pelosi further bolsters her still unspoken solution by mentioning a “real focus on this” issue by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). Without saying so directly, she manages to imply that the concern here is for black prisoners who are at risk.
We need to briefly explain why she mentions the CBC. If you were to burrow further under the surface of the concern about imprisoned blacks, you’d find that the CBC believes blacks are the victims of systemic discriminatory practices in the American justice system. So not only are blacks unjustly imprisoned, but the system is compounding the injustice by leaving these men and women exposed to a potentially fatal disease.
There are legitimate concerns over prisons being perfectly suited to spread a contagion. But Pelosi’s reference to the Black Caucus is a trap. If you oppose her solution, no matter how objectively, you will be labeled a racist. This, too, is calculated.
Having appealed to biblical authority and the cause of an immoral justice system, Pelosi believes she has effectively prepared the ground for her solution: “We will have language [in the next relief bill] to have some order and clarity so that some people can leave who really don’t need to be there.”
Translation: we’re going to release some prisoners.
Leaving aside the fact that a judge thought “some people” really did “need to be there;” and also ignoring studies that show black incarceration rates are falling, thus shrinking the disparity between blacks and whites; and further, setting aside the question of whether there are less extreme tactics to mitigate the risk of infection among incarcerated blacks—let’s look at Pelosi’s use of scripture.
She and her caucus, she says, “are very devoted to the Gospel of Matthew.” This is strange phrasing. I am not Roman Catholic like Nancy but even so, I’ve never heard someone say they were devoted to a single book of the bible unless they were a scholar who specialized in a specific book of scripture.
Stranger still is her claim that “her caucus” is devoted to the Gospel of Matthew. Her caucus is the House Democratic Caucus, which is composed of all Democratic Representatives in the United States House of Representatives.
I’m glad she told us. Maybe it’s just me, but the Democrats have never struck me as a party that is “devoted to the Gospel of Matthew.” I’ve never looked at the Democrats and said to myself, “Now that is a political party that is devoted to the Gospel of Matthew.” I’ve never said to my wife, “Honey, have you ever noticed how closely the Democrat Party’s priorities reflect the Gospel of Matthew? Maybe we should volunteer for the Bernie Sanders campaign.” I’ve never gone to my pastor and said, “If you’re looking for a group of people who embody the Gospel of Matthew, look no further than the Democrats in Congress.”
To be sure, I’ve never said that about the Republicans, either. But they aren’t making the claim.
I think that Pelosi’s use of the word “devoted” is her way of establishing credibility in citing the specific chapter and verse from Matthew she then paraphrases: “When I was hungry you fed me, when I was homeless, you sheltered me”—and here she raises a bony finger to underscore what she says next—”when I was in prison, you visited me.”
Unfortunately, her use of the scripture doesn’t enhance, but rather undermines her credibility. The passage she cites is found in Matthew 25, which includes what is known as the parable of the sheep and the goats.
The parable tells the story of how Jesus—the Son of Man—will in the future return and separate “the righteous” (the sheep) from those “who are cursed” (the goats), sending each to their eternal destination. The specific verses Pelosi refers to are 35-36 as Jesus explains why the righteous go on to eternal life:
“‘For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'”
These are acts of mercy and compassion that exemplify a heart transformed by the love of God. They address basic needs that human beings have for food and drink, for clothing and shelter, for health and for encouragement, perhaps especially so for those in prison, which Pelosi emphasizes.
In the ancient world, prisons were miserable underground dungeons that were overcrowded, devoid of sunlight, and full of disease. They served as holding cells for those awaiting trial (or execution) where prisoners suffered festering wounds, lack of sleep, lack of a healthy diet, and often died in custody from disease or starvation.
People who went to prison relied on friends from the outside to care for their needs. If you had no friends, you were without hope and full of despair. A visit meant someone was caring for you. That’s what Jesus is saying.
What these verses do not do is advocate for the release of modern-day criminals. The most she can draw from them is that we should visit the prisoners, which is impossible to do right now since visiting them is not allowed due to the epidemic.
The other problem here is that the parable refers to individuals. It is not a government that is on trial. It is individuals who are separated. It is individuals who are judged. It is individuals who are sent away to eternal life or damnation.
We must not kick matters of individual responsibility to the government to carry out. You will not be held accountable for what a government did or didn’t do. Always, always be suspicious of anyone who advocates for a government policy or program using scripture.
There may well be problems with the racial disparity in our American prisons, and there certainly is a risk to our prisoner population from the coronavirus. But rather than make a case based on the merits of the solution—cutting short the sentences of duly detained prisoners—Pelosi and the social justice advocates populating the CBC aren’t above stretching scripture with a groundless interpretation to fit their agenda.
