SANTA CLARITA, CA - In 1975, as the Hart High Class of 1975 stepped into the world, the country itself was in upheaval. Nixon had resigned the year before in disgrace. The Vietnam draft had ended in 1973, and by April 1975, even draft registration was suspended. The Equal Rights Amendment was at the center of political debate, promising women a new era of equality. We were graduating into a nation already redefining itself.
Fifty years later, we gathered again. At the front of the hall stood a memorial table with twenty photographs, though the truth was harsher. Of our 500 classmates, at least fifty are gone—one in ten erased by cancer, heart disease, drugs, or despair. The glossy pictures reminded me of the newspaper spreads of young Marines killed in combat—faces frozen in vitality, now reduced to symbols of fragility.
The reunion itself was a microcosm of America. About 150 of us, mostly white, married suburbanites in our late sixties, gathered at Hart & Main, a once-gas station turned mid-century modern event hall. The air conditioning was nonexistent, so attendees waved cooler air on themselves using the small hand fans on the tables. The smell of beer from the bar mixed with carne asada from the taco grill. “LGBTQ-friendly” signs around the venue whispered the cultural politics of the present. Looking around, everyone seemed so tall. Or maybe I had shrunk, or worse, locked in poor posture.
Despite the nostalgia and mourning, I thought three great truths stood out: the collapse of blue-collar whites, the corrosive impact of affirmative action, and the consequences of illegal immigration.
1. The Class Divide
The missing faces told another truth. The blue-collar classmates—once destined for factories, garages, or retail—were largely gone. National data confirm it: working-class whites without college degrees have been ravaged by “deaths of despair”—alcohol, opioids, and suicide. Their absence was louder than any speech.
Meanwhile, those who thrived clustered in comfortable security. The teachers, government administrators, and aerospace retirees were easy to spot. They had pensions, second homes, and the assurance of stability. They had been preserved by unions, bureaucracies, and Cold War defense contracts.
One classmate, tooth gaps marking decades of neglect, grinned as if fresh from prison and told me every single friend he’d had in high school was already dead. His confession hung in the air as a verdict on class division.
Charles Murray described this in Coming Apart: the split of white America into two worlds—one stable, professional, educated, and the other sinking into family breakdown and despair. Our reunion was the proof. No drunken antics, no acting out. The addicts and alcoholics had already been buried. The survivors carried themselves with the quiet reserve of people who had endured, but without joy.
2. The Impact of Affirmative Action
The third truth cut deepest. Affirmative action reshaped opportunity—and erased merit. Nationally, surveys show whites increasingly see themselves as disadvantaged; one Harvard Business School study found 11% rated anti-white bias at the highest level, compared with just 2% for anti-black bias. I didn’t need surveys. I lived it.
In high school, I was the prodigy: the highest PSAT score in the school, three track records, the graduation speaker, and a newspaper columnist who learned early how to use words to gain influence—even once trying to use it to get out of a traffic ticket on prom night. (That gambit failed, but it showed how early I was experimenting with power.) I earned a Ph.D. at Cornell. My dissertation later won a national award as the best in my field. Yet the same year I was honored, Williams College stripped me from the tenure track, citing the “low quality” of that very thesis. The real reason was simpler: I was the wrong race, the wrong sex, the wrong ideology.
The white professors who wanted fewer white guys in tenure track positions never considered resigning themselves. Instead, they callously created a world in which the price of change was borne by the poor but talented white kids who should have climbed the ladder. My story was only one among millions.
3. Immigration, Crime, and Declining Results
Hart High itself has become another microcosm. In 1975, our class was overwhelmingly white. Today, the school is nearly two-thirds Hispanic and barely one-quarter white. The results are undeniable.
California’s own data consistently show that white students score far higher than Hispanic students in English and math. If Hart High were still majority white, its test scores would place it among the very best schools in Los Angeles County. Instead, overall averages are dragged downward, not because the teachers suddenly got worse, but because the demographics changed. The academic excellence that once propelled so many of my classmates into STEM careers and aerospace has been diluted.
The same is true for crime. Common sense tells us—and national crime data confirm—that violent crime rates are significantly lower for non-Hispanic whites than for Hispanics. Back when Santa Clarita was overwhelmingly white, crime was so rare we hardly locked our doors, and murder was virtually unheard of. Today, the sheriff’s blotter is busier. Santa Clarita remains safer than Los Angeles as a whole, but it is not the all-white suburb I grew up in. The “deaths of despair” among our white working-class classmates were tragic enough; adding in higher baseline crime from mass immigration has left the community doubly weakened.
Conclusion: Rescued, But Too Late
The night ended as it began, with the memorial table. My classmates remembered me as I had been at 18: funny, compassionate, ambitious, a boy with promise. They weren’t wrong. I had been that young man. But government oppression knocked him down again and again until only the scarred man stood in the room.
And yet, America has finally admitted the truth. The students who died did not live long enough to see Donald Trump and the Supreme Court push back against woke ideology and anti-white reverse discrimination. Their entire lives were lived under a system that denied them fairness. Trump proved there was always a better way. He built his rise on our pain. But for us, the Class of 1975, the rescue came too late.
I listened to their praise of my 18-year-old self with objective distance. It was as if they were describing an idealized boy who was now dead too, lying in spirit alongside the fifty classmates whose photographs glowed on the table.
The Class of 1975 was Santa Clarita’s promise. And we were betrayed.
John C. Drew, Ph.D., is a political scientist and former college professor who earned his doctorate in government from Cornell University. As a young Marxist, he met and debated Barack Obama in 1980. His firsthand account of Obama’s early ideological views has been cited in Rising Star (2017) by David Garrow and Radical-In-Chief (2010) by Stanley Kurtz and reported directly in Obama’s True Legacy (2023), edited by Jamie Glazov.
LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA - Like television serial killer Dexter Morgan in yet another
improbable reboot, Barack Obama keeps getting resurrected by the legacy
media—not as he was, but as the character they need him to be.
With their full cooperation, he has carefully crafted a
public image tailored to middle-of-the-road sensibilities—one that conceals the
more radical and uncomfortable truths about his early life. His latest
reflections on his relationship with Lawrence Goldyn, his gay college professor
at Occidental, are no exception.
According to Obama, Goldyn was a kind-hearted intellectual
who helped broaden his perspective on gay people. But I knew both men during
that era, and I can say with confidence: this is not the full story—not even
close.
When I met Barack Obama during his sophomore year at
Occidental College in December 1980, he struck me as a quiet, intensely
self-conscious young man. Unlike most of the male students I encountered, he
showed no apparent interest in women. In fact, my immediate impression was that
he was gay.
It’s no surprise to me that Obama chose Lawrence Goldyn as
his academic advisor. Goldyn, openly gay and politically active, was known on
campus as a trusted figure among gay and lesbian students. He wasn’t just a
professor—he was part of a broader network of support for students wrestling
with their sexual identity.
Unlike the other professors in young Obama’s orbit, Goldyn
was not a Marxist. Although Occidental employed him as an assistant professor
of political science, his most memorable role was that of an in-your-face
sexual revolutionary. For that very reason, I remember thinking Occidental made
the right call when it denied him tenure in 1981.
Obama’s recent comments suggest that Goldyn enlightened him
on gay identity. But this spin is merely a gentle pirouette designed to
distract us from a more substantial pattern.
Obama didn’t need anyone to explain gay culture to him—he
was already immersed in it. According to Mia Marie Pope, who claims she knew
Obama while he was a student at the exclusive Punahou School in Hawaii, he was
frequently in the company of older white gay men and seemed completely at ease
in that world.
Obama’s mentor back then, Frank Marshall Davis—a known
Communist Party member—authored a book under a pseudonym that included graphic
bisexual scenes. These were the kinds of influences Obama had before he ever
stepped foot on Occidental’s rose-covered quad.
We also have Obama’s bizarre poem “Pop,” published in 1981,
full of unsettling references to “amber stains” and “smell his smell”
connectivity—an earthy piece some have interpreted as a veiled account of
sexual intimacy with an older man.
Thanks to presidential historian David Garrow, we’ve learned
that Obama wrote letters to his then-girlfriend Alex McNear in which he openly
discussed his same-sex desires. Former classmates also recall his metrosexual
style, soft-spoken voice, and emotional distance from women. This wasn’t a guy
discovering gay identity through a class—it was someone already deep in the
experience, possibly trying to make sense of it all.
The Goldyn story is just one more example of Obama rewriting
his past to fit a more electable narrative. Just as he has airbrushed his
Marxist sympathies, blurred his religious convictions, and replaced real
individuals with fictional “composites” in Dreams from My Father, here
he repackages an advisor-student relationship to appear as a moment of
enlightened tolerance—when in fact it may have been something far more
personal.
Let me be clear: I’m not interested in shaming Obama for his
sexuality, whatever it may be. I am simply done with the absurd, unrepentant,
self-curated mythmaking.
If a conservative candidate had maintained this level of
personal obfuscation—on issues of sexuality, ideology, or even basic
biography—the press would have diced them up into nine pieces as quickly as
Dexter Morgan logs a souvenir blood sample. Meanwhile, the legacy media lets
Obama escape the truth of his past the same way the law enforcement officers do
in Dexter: Resurrection—by misreading every clue that points to guilt,
simply because the show must go on and the franchise must be protected.
The real Obama chose Lawrence Goldyn for the same reason
other gay and questioning students did—because he felt a personal connection,
not because he needed an education in tolerance. That’s not a crime. But
pretending otherwise is part of a larger deception—the effort to protect
Obama’s personal credibility and to prevent any alteration in how he is
portrayed in U.S. history—as America’s first post-racial technocrat, rather
than someone who intentionally rebranded to achieve power.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist. This article was first published in American Thinker on July 23, 2025.
LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA - I was sad to hear of the death of a beloved scholar Dr. Michael S. Heiser who died on February 20, 2023. To me, he was an intellectual mentor even though I never met him face to face and only caught on to his ideas last year.
He quickly became a hero of mine because of his total commitment to telling the truth. For example, he had a fresh take on how to interpret the Bible that explained the meaning of
various passages that were so confusing to me in the past that I would just
skip over them. (As would just about everyone else.)
For example, there are passages in the Bible where God
refers to the others in his midst, the Elohim which is a grammatically plural
noun for "gods" or "deities" or various other words in
Biblical Hebrew.
Heiser pointed out that the God of the Old Testament had an
assembly of divine beings that he presided over to help do his work, just as
the Pharaoh in Egypt had a household of officials.
The idea that God has a team of other Gods hanging out with
him is controversial because it seems to undermine the monotheism of
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
Heiser was a practicing, believing Christian who thought
that it was best for the faith that followers understand this supernatural
feature of the Bible. In his view, Christianity would be improved and the Bible would be easier to understand if theologians and other faith leaders accepted his view of the unseen realm of the Bible.
He explained questions like
How did descendants of the Nephilim survive the flood?
Who are the assembly of divine beings that God presides
over?
In what way do those beings participate in God's decisions?
Why do Peter and Jude promote belief in imprisoned spirits?
Why does Paul describe evil spirits in terms of geographical
rulership?
For me, his views also explained odd features in the Bible
including the role of giants, the famous Nephilim who are mysterious beings, or people who are large
and strong. Personally, I don't see how you really understand the Bible if you
forget about, or ignore the way, it sets up a role for giants, particularly the
giants who are believed to have died in the Great Flood.
How else do you make sense of the idea that it was okay for the followers of Joshua to slaughter the giants they encountered when they first found land for themselves in Israel?
How do you make sense of the David and Goliath story without understanding the back story about the role of the Nephilim?
Ultimately, I admired Heiser because he was honest, brave,
and fearless about being absolutely real about the Bible.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist who has taught at many of our nation's formerly prestigious schools including Williams College in MA.
LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA - I just learned about who will be replacing Rick Warren, 67, the senior pastor at Saddleback Church. The new senior pastor will be Andy Wood, 40, of Echo Church which has a three-campus and online program up in the Sunnyvale, San Jose, and Fremont, CA area.
As far as I can tell, one of Andy's chief virtues as a candidate for the lead pastor position was his wife, Stacie Wood. Stacie is a teaching pastor at Echo Church and would have the same role at Saddleback Church. She is more telegenic than her husband and is perhaps well suited to such a role. This approach would represent a further movement in the direction of ordaining female pastors which the church initiated in 2021 to the chagrin of those who hold to the tenents of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Apparently, Echo Church has similarly been in the crosshairs of SBC complementarians because of allowing women to preach.
Warren, as you may know, is leaving due to health problems. According to Christianity Today, he told the church last year that he has spinal myoclonus, which causes tremors and blurred vision, and that it has worsened in recent years.
Rick Warren was a pioneer in creating a “seeker” church that is designed to not turn off the newest visitors. In fact, the essence of the seeker concept is that the Sunday service is purely focused on attracting new people. The actual religious services of the church take place mid-week instead. This makes the Sunday services an all-hands-on-deck performance piece for the newest visitors. As such, he was part of a larger movement to take the word “Baptist” out of church names to make them more seeker-friendly.
I first got the news when one of our small group members from Saddleback Church forwarded me a copy of a video of Andy breaking the news to his existing Echo Church followers. He and his wife Stacie were quite emotional, and tearful, in delivering the news to their flock.
Ever since I moved to Laguna Niguel, I have been interested in following the story of who would succeed the charismatic mega-church pastor who built a small church into an international monolith based on the ideas in his book Purpose Driven Church (1995). This was a book that was later vastly over shined by his exceptionally successful The Purpose Driven Life (2002) book. More news about this appointment is available on the Saddleback website.
In this video, Andy mentions he was an early convert to the book in 2001 and that it inspired his own church-building, and church planting efforts. Moreover, Andy earned a master’s degree from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, as did Rick Warren.
All in all, I have to say I found them to be charming, and easy to look at the couple. His wife, Stacie, looks like she could be a Christian broadcaster. Stacie reports she was inspired by Kay Warren's book, Yes to God: A Call to Courageous Surrender (2010).
What do I make of the choice based on my understanding of charismatic leadership? First, it is almost impossible to follow another charismatic leader. No matter what, there will never be another Rick Warren, not for a century or more. Consequently, whoever follows in his footsteps will be forever labeled as less than no matter what they accomplish. Among charismatic leaders, the sustainability of their efforts is almost always shaky at best. A ministry based on a charismatic leader like Rick Warren can easily unravel in their absence due to a scandal, a schism, or a poorly implemented plan.
As George W. Bush often joked about his father George W.H. Bush, "I inherited half my father's friends and all of his enemies."
So, I start, pessimistically, by observing that Andy has a difficult task. Listening to Warren's over-the-top self-confidence and assurance is always a bracing experience. Nevertheless, it is a tough, even impossible act to follow. Even for someone like Andy who appears to be a sincere student of his approach.
Personally, my advice to him would be to bring with him as many of his current staff as he can so that he has a strong, personally loyal team around him. This too would be an homage to Rick Warren, who employed his sister's husband, Tom Holladay, as his somewhat awkward, even goofy, right-hand man since 1991. What Andy may not fully realize is that his success at Echo Church was a team effort and that it is not always so easy to retain one's charisma in a new environment with a different leadership team in place.
What else? There are a lot of ways the church, by which I mean Rick Warren himself, might have gone in picking a successor.
First, it looks like Saddleback was conservative racially. They picked a white guy with a white wife. In a sense, the Warrens have replaced themselves with a younger version of themselves.
This meant that Rick Warren probably considered and turned down the opportunity to hire an extraordinary black, Latino, or Asian pastor. Doing so would have symbolized the movement of the church into a perhaps more contemporary minority-majority direction and placed greater emphasis on its growth internationally.
For me, I was assuming that Saddleback would end up with an Asian or Hispanic lead pastor. After all, I tend to see Rick Warren as perhaps too left-wing for the good of his local church, but left-wing enough to the advantage of his international church. I remember Trish and I were particularly disillusioned when he made an early exit during a veterans day service and left the job of thanking U.S. veterans to the always cheerful Holladay instead.
Likewise, I thought Warren was wrong to go along with the recent mask mandates, lend support to the Black Lives Matter cause (thereby offending law enforcement), and - most recently - violate the tenents of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) in 2021 by ordaining three women pastors.
This, as you may know, is contrary to the Convention's confession of faith which asserts pastoral ministry is reserved for men. According to Christianity Today, Saddleback was reported to the Credentials Committee, which is charged with deciding whether or not a church is in “friendly cooperation” with the denomination. Significantly, though some churches have left the SBC after naming women as pastors, the denomination has never officially removed any church for having a female pastor.
Previously, Warren distanced himself from conservatives by focusing too much on people with AIDS, opposing the use of waterboarding, and contributing to global warming hysteria.
Second, it looks like they made a decision to go with a relative unknown rather than an existing, Christian celebrity figure. I am particularly thankful Warren did not hand over his ministry to Edward John Stetzer, 56, who would have probably brought both stature and an unpleasant aura of wokeness to a church that has already gone too far to the left for my tastes. Stetzer, as you may know, is the Billy Graham Distinguished Chair of Church, Mission, and Evangelism at Wheaton College and Executive Director of the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College.
Finally, it is clear that Rick Warren decided it was best to bring in an outsider as well. The most normal approach would have been to promote the next senior pastor from among the ranks of the existing pastors. Here, technically, I think Rick Warren made the right decision. Charismatic leaders typically surround themselves with less powerful people, in large measure, to prevent anyone from outshining them. Accordingly, I am guessing that an insider would have been someone with less boldness and less business/entrepreneurial experience. Bringing in a talented outsider may have been the only way to actually bring in new talent at all.
From the videotape above, it looks like Kay and Rick Warren believe they have found younger versions of themselves. Kay, in particular, is blown away by the things the two couples have in common and the coincidences they share.
Given Stacie's confidence in front of the camera, it looks like the Warrens wanted to leave in their wake not just a strong individual leader, but a strong couple.
After all, at Echo, Stacie is regarded as a teaching pastor. She will apparently have the same role at Saddleback.
Will that be enough of a difference, that is a useful edge, to keep Saddleback Church thriving for the next decade or so? At least it gives Andy of fighting chance of differentiating his approach from Warren's approach. Then again, it may be that the Warrens have set him up for failure already.
Is Warren betting that having Stacie serve as both a female teaching pastor and the senior pastor's wife is the wave of the future? I am completely sure that this is the case. Frankly, I think it is a mistake. To the extent that Kay influenced Warren's ministry, I think she influenced it in a negative direction. Caving into the feminist approach to mega-church leadership cannot possibly end well.
Is this part of a larger effort to bring men into the church by first bringing in their wives and children? Potentially, that is the case. Unfortunately, by feminizing the church, Warren's successor may very likely take away the conservative approach which made the church so attractive to its local followers in the first place.
Again, what is my take? I think Rick Warren has always believed the Southern Baptist Convention's prohibition on female pastors is old-fashioned and a hindrance to the growth of the mega-church movement. Nevertheless, he knows this is an unpopular stance. He was ready to implement it only after it was clear he and Kay would be handing off the church to someone else. In a sense, he made his decision and then decided to get out of Dodge.
Andy will take over full responsibilities on September 12, 2022. He will be an instant national leader in a larger experiment to see how well you can sustain a church with a strong role for female pastors. On the bright side, Echo Church in San Jose was roundly criticized for not taking masking so seriously last year. Perhaps this is a sign that Andy is not as feminist or as woke as the Warrens hope? If so, that would be good for Saddleback Church and good for all of its stakeholders too.
I do not think you will ever see a mega-church successfully led by women. I doubt Saddleback will be the first.
I don't have the time or energy to do a new article on this topic. I will add, however, that the Southern Baptist Convention reacted to the appointment of Stacie as a teaching pastor with a bold and decisive effort to kick out Saddleback Church. This was an effort that completely succeeded on June 13, 2023. I left this post as a comment on a blog site. I thought it made sense to leave it here too.
I attend Saddleback. I thought it was a mistake to ordain
female pastors. I think they tend to be more liberal than male pastors and the
last thing we need is a more woke Christian church.
I think where Rick went wrong is that he campaigned on
attacking the leadership of the SBC instead of making a Biblical case. To be
sure, his case was weak. He tossed out three Bible stories that really had
nothing to do with women serving as pastors. And that was it. He never had a
good rebuttal to all the straightforward evidence that the Bible opposes the
ordination of women.
The SBC rightfully called a stop to this and voted against
him by 88%.
What's really going on?
I suspect Rick is betting that large
female-led churches (he keeps mentioning one in Asia) are the secret sauce that
will save Christianity for the future.
I think the supposed superpower of a female-led Church is what attracts him to suggest that the Christian Church of today should model the egalitarian, out-of-control, miracle-popping house churches which developed in the immediate wake of Christ himself.
As a political scientist, it looks to me like Rick has gotten himself caught up in some sort of bizarre fantasy world where a pre-Paulinian matriarchy becomes the model for the worldwide resurgence of Christianity.
If that is the case, I just don't think that makes any sense
at all. Ultimately, I don't see how you create a larger church by ignoring its foundational
document. Or, to put it more bluntly, reconceptualize conservative Christian leadership by wrapping it around a vague feminist-friendly Great Commission
instead of the straightforward words of Paul. See,
1 Corinthians 14:33–35 (NIV) states:
"As in all the congregations of the Lord’s people. Women should remain silent in the churches, They are not allowed to speak but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
or, the equally straightforward,
1 Timothy 2: 9-15 (NASB) says:
"Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper
clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or
costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women
making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with
entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise
authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first
created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman
being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through
the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with
self-restraint."
Even worse, I suspect female-led churches will turn into
Canaanite fertility temples...staffed with the hottest priestesses on the
planet.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist who has taught at many of our nation's formerly prestigious schools including Williams College in MA.
WASHINGTON, DC - Hillary Rodham’s well-disguised family weapon — Clinton
Foundation — enjoys strategically investing and manipulating cutting edge
technology to plant powerful resources in fertile soils of medical health-science,
artificial intelligence and highly malleable neurological software.
Clinton Foundation — marred often by Hillary weak or in
defeat — suffers blistering criticism from observant critics across the globe.
Some call Clinton Foundation a slush fund or demonstrate its unscrupulous
tactics and dealmaking. Others focus on range of suspicious activity and
possibility of criminal conflict. Note also two notable challenges to integrity
of the foundation:
1) The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 2016 public
corruption probe of Clinton Foundation financial expediture; access and
donation intermingling.
2) Boston Globe’s editorial board urged the foundation to
stop accepting donations of any kind for remainder of her beaten 2016 campaign
and shut down entirely if Hillary Clinton had won a presidential election.
What is worse? Bill Clinton’s sleaze and sewage pride, but
necessarily that evisceration calls for a vivid book proposal I might explore
next year.
For time being, I will comment on Ms. Clinton’s behavior and
openly encourage writers and journalists to thoroughly interrogate Hillary
Clinton’s use and intent in using state-of-the-art technology.
Hillary is the most maligned presidential loser in American
history.
Distilling my own impression: She’s a grating woman
incapable of discovering sexual interest in her husband; this woman who, for
some reason, married a philandering man who feels nauseous at the thought of
their intercourse.
What else? Briefly, Hillary is stiff on the stump, curtly
arrogant, clueless on social cues; more obviously fake in her every attempt to
relate to people. Rodham frustrates because she feigns political adequacy and
her deficits breed self-delusion: It’s like Hillary expects applause from all
of her Black rapper friends.
I don’t know. I’ve been reading about new technology lately,
talking to family, and researching personal experience. My careful review
should aim at Hillary Clinton. Novel invisible technology can be designed and
used to control cognitive function, trigger cerebrovascular and cardiovascular
obstruction — and inflict penile and testicular pain by castration.
I want to know what Hillary Clinton thinks about these
excruciating tech capabilities. I want to know if she has access to or has
acquired these technologies.
Does she use them?
I want to know if Hillary Clinton embodies so many physical
properties of pig manure that she might ever rationalize castrating, say, a
former Clinton supporter who grew tired of her abuse and tried to expose her
ruthless cruelty.
My hope is that thoughtful scholars and journalists may
consider looking into Hillary Clinton’s history of exacting revenge on her
political enemies, and people they care about.
Finally — I will think of a woman I care about who knows
Hillary Clinton. I do consider close study of every legal means by which I and
other American citizens can pressure Ms. Rodham.
Zachary R. Wood is an assistant curator at TED, as well as a former columnist and assistant opinion editor at The Guardian, a former Robert L. Bartley Fellow at The Wall Street Journal, and a class of 2018 graduate of Williams College. He is the author of Uncensored (Random House, 2019).
WASHINGTON, DC - Two weeks ago, I decided to commence research for a large writing project on ex-president Bill Clinton. My first task: Review some thirty or so articles in popular press about Bill Clinton’s flaws and mistakes. After that, I talked to three political scientists at my
alma mater, Williams College, about his administrative hallmarks and leadership
failures. Then I interviewed Juanita Broaddrick over the phone for roughly
twenty minutes. Her testimony was detailed, thoughtful, and sounded credible.
The information she gave me about Mr. Clinton was violent, severe, vivid, even
startling.
In Ms. Broaddrick’s words, Clinton inveighed after raping
her: “Don’t worry I’m sterile. I had mumps when I was a boy. You better get some
ice on that (her bleeding upper lip).” Bill, she explained to me, is a man
callous with no conscience.
I paused before responding.
Since my conversation with Ms. Broaddrick, I have read
another dozen articles about Bill Clinton’s shame and infidelity in The
Washington Post, New York Times, The Atlantic, and Boston Globe. Tomorrow I
should revisit books by David Maraniss and John D. Gartner that explore Bill
Clinton’s difficult upbringing in Hope, Arkansas. I might also peruse some
books that parse his muck and sexual repulse for Hillary Clinton. For example,
The Case Against Hillary Clinton by Peggy Noonan.
My writing on Mr. Clinton may take as its starting place an
interesting story I heard from a former colleague at a dinner party about how
Bill Clinton found himself emailing Hillary’s campaign staff with concerns —
because Mrs. Clinton did not want to hear from Bill herself. As my friend
explained, he emailed Robby Mook about Hillary’s deficits and received no
response.
This article for ABC leads me to believe that Bill Clinton
was heavily blamed for defeating his wife in 2008, so Hillary tended to ignore pudge of his ego.
Bill’s ego is gaseous and gooey. Imagine a rich spinach dip
with jalapeño, cheese, cream, onion, tomato, and green chilies. A blob of fatty
acid screaming excess and high cholesterol. Mr. Clinton, as one political
scientist told me, was a soft populist with talent who never matured as mama’s
boy.
I look forward to more.
Zachary R. Wood is an assistant curator at TED, as well as a former columnist and assistant opinion editor
at The Guardian, a former Robert L. Bartley Fellow at The Wall Street Journal,
and a class of 2018 graduate of Williams College. He is the author of Uncensored (Random House, 2019).
I'm a political scientist, not a theologian. I've been a Democrat and a Republican. When I was a Democrat, I remember I was hostile to Christians. Accordingly, I understand the thinking of Democrats who want to make Christianity less important in our culture. I understand why the Democrats booed the very mention of God at their convention a few years ago.
When I was a Democrat I did conflate Christianity, white supremacy, and capitalism. I saw them all as expressions of the same thing. I thought that the Christian emphasis on God's presence in daily life was a superstitious idea that held back social progress and progressive public policies. If you believe there is no God, then it makes sense that government should take on the responsibilities we would assign to him. The countries that embrace atheism are also among the leaders in creating highly taxed economies that provide massive levels of public services. That makes sense to me too.
Today, I'm a follower of Christ and a Republican. Due to my previous experience as a highly active Democrat - I used to pal around with Barack Obama - it makes sense to me that as I became more spiritual I found a welcoming home in the Republican party.
As of today, I am pro-life, fearful of powerful public employee unions, and vehemently opposed to affirmative action. I see affirmative action as the equivalent of racial discrimination. I do not think it is helpful at all. It leaves its victims enraged and permanently filled with bitterness and resentment.
I am especially concerned about the increased influence and military might of the Communist Party in China. As a former academic, I am concerned about freedom of speech and cancel culture.
In my view, I just do not see how Jesus would be a member of a political party where it is okay to boo God.
I do not see how Jesus would ever vote for someone who promoted abortion.
Everything I read about him tells me he would be hostile to public officials who took advantage of their positions to get rich. He would bristle at restrictions on thought and free speech.
I do not see how Jesus would approve of racial discrimination, especially against young white and Asian boys and girls who have done nothing wrong. I don't think Jesus would be pro-China either given China has a totalitarian bent, strong anti-Christian, anti-religious policies.
As far as I am concerned, an atheistic perspective naturally leads to policies that are favored by liberals and Democrats. Following Christ, however, leads to policies that are favored by the Republican party. As I said earlier, I do not see Jesus being a member of a party that booed God at its convention. If Jesus witnessed that, I suspect he would be tearing down the state flags and flinging around the delegate's hats.
For a good book that helps explain the correlation between religious belief and conservative political orientation, I recommend Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions. His book is particularly helpful in understanding the origins of politically motivated violence and why it was tolerated by liberals and leftists and thoroughly condemned by Republicans throughout most of 2020. John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.
For an excellent book that lays out the political beliefs consistent with the teachings of the Bible, check out Jim Garlow's excellent book, Well Versed.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist who has taught at many of our nation's formerly prestigious schools including Williams College in MA.
I had a very negative experience with Home Depot - Laguna Niguel. My wife went in for hip replacement surgery on December 22. A week earlier the dishwasher stopped working. We bought that dishwasher from the same store back in June 2018. At any rate, we ordered a new dishwasher. Eventually, they told us we would receive it on January 14, 2021.
The problem is that the crew they sent over from Temco Logistics to deliver and install the new dishwasher was very negative from the start. They didn't call us ahead of time as promised. They just showed up. Then, their lead guy, David, said there was a problem because there was water in the old dishwasher. To me, this seemed like a simple fix. Scoop out the old water. The other technician from Temco Logistics, Juan, seemed nice enough.
Eventually, David asked that I give him some towels to dry it out. Problem solved. Next, he comes backs and says he cannot get the old Home Depot dishwasher out. Somehow he got it into his head that the tile floor was too high for him to remove the dishwasher. He bragged to me that he had 10 years of experience at this and that it was impossible for him to remove it. He implied that we had installed the tile floor after the old dishwasher had been installed.
This was silly. Their own records from Home Depot would show we had that dishwasher installed in June 2018. That crew managed to pull out the earlier dishwasher and put the present one in its place with no problems at all. Even worse, David was insistent that getting the old dishwasher out of there was my responsibility now.
My gut feeling is that I had some leverage over them, but only if I did not accept delivery of the dishwasher. The lady back at the Temco Logistics headquarters ' office was insistent that they wouldn't go out of their way to fix the situation. I only had two take it or leave it choices. They would deliver the dishwasher and leave it with me or they would take it back to the warehouse. I told them to take it back.
So, I called the local Home Depot store and was told to call back in the morning. I called the national office and was also told to call back in the morning because, they said, the delivery company was closed for the day.
I'm on hold right now with my second call with the national office. I'm killing time and listening to their music even as I write this. Basically, it seems to me that Home Depot owes us to fix this. If the old dishwasher is too tight to remove, then this is a problem they created for themselves back in June 2018. Even worse, there are substantial complaints online about Temco Logistics. As far as I can tell, my experience is strikingly similar to that of other folks who have dealt with Temco Logistics. The best advice I saw online was the recommendation to not sign any paperwork until they have your appliance installed, working, and the old one out the door.
At this rate, I'm done with Home Depot. I cannot believe that they would think so little of their customers that they would work with a firm like Temco Logistics. The dishwasher we bought from Home Depot in June 2018 worked for only about two and a half years. It was installed incorrectly - if I believe David at Temco Logistics. Next, we are cheated in terms of the promised delivery date. We are again cheated when the crew from Temco Logistics refused to take out the old one, carry it away, and install the new one. I'm beyond frustrated at this point.
Home Depot was a great brand at one point. As of today, however, I will be shopping elsewhere. Ironically, I got a call from someone at Temco Logistics asking if I wanted to set up another delivery time. In the message, the lady repeated the assertion that my tiles were too high. I'm not returning that call until I get better service from them and Home Depot.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.
LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA - I thought it was about time that I put out my personal ballot recommendations for the propositions in California. These are tedious and often difficult to sort through. Here you go.
Proposition 14: No
This measure would authorize the issuance of $5.5 billion of bonds to finance stem cell research. This is a function best left to private investors, not taxpayers. At a time when finite resources are more important than ever, we can think of much better uses for the $260 million of public funds a year for 30 years this measure would require to repay the bonds.
Proposition 15: No
Best known as the “split roll” measure, Prop. 15 is the most significant and direct threat to Proposition 13 in decades. The measure would split off commercial and industrial properties from Prop. 13’s protections in a misguided effort to raise billions in new taxes that will ultimately go toward papering over California’s public sector pension problem.
Proposition 16: No
Government should treat all people equally. Since Prop. 209 was passed, the state’s civil service and public colleges have increasingly reflected the diversity of the state. Prop. 16 seeks to sacrifice the principle of equality in the name of justice. That is unjust.
Proposition 17: Yes
Parolees who have done their time should have their voting rights restored.
Proposition 18: No
17-year-olds can wait until they’re 18 to vote.
Proposition 19: No
This special interest measure is the result of the California Association of Realtors basically “buying” the support of a state firefighters union in an effort to pass what they couldn’t two years ago with Prop. 5.
Proposition 20: No
The Legislature needs to do a better job overseeing criminal justice reform. But that doesn’t justify this heavy-handed measure, backed mainly by police unions and the state’s prison guard union.
Proposition 21: No
This measure would make it easier for local governments to adopt rent control policies. Amid a housing crisis, all this measure would do is make the housing crisis worse.
Proposition 22: Yes
This measure would create a middle-ground between Assembly Bill 5 and the gig economy as we knew it for app-based drivers by establishing minimum pay, portable health care benefits and other perks for those who choose to drive for companies like Lyft, DoorDash and Uber. While we’d rather see AB5 repealed, this is the next best alternative.
Proposition 23: No
This measure is a cynical effort by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West to raise costs on the dialysis industry in an effort to pressure dialysis companies into letting them unionize their workers. The measure presents as a good faith proposal to improve dialysis clinics. It’s not.
Proposition 24: No
This measure is a convoluted privacy law crafted behind closed doors that would authorize a new state agency to enforce the aforementioned convoluted data privacy laws.
Proposition 25: No
This is a referendum on Senate Bill 10, a bail reform law signed into law in 2018. A “yes” vote upholds the law, while a “no” vote rejects it. It is fundamentally unjust for anyone to commit crimes. If you don't want to be locked behind bars before you've been convicted for your crime stop stealing and hurting people.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.
The SBA Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) is a bold and timely reaction by the federal government to the present crisis. It provides $350 billion in relief to small businesses and nonprofits.
PPP will give you the resources to pay salaries and benefits even as charitable contributions continue to decline. I'm sure many charity leaders and board members are anxious to benefit from this program. They do not want to be left out of what may be a once-in-a-lifetime deal that will keep their churches, charities or schools alive.
After all, the loans that will be given out can be completely forgiven. It will be like having an ATM in the lobby of your institution spitting out money all day long.
For most of us, the problem is we are not sure where to turn for help, whether we are eligible, if we are too late, or how to prepare ourselves to secure PPP funding once the application process opens up on Friday, April 3, 2020. Even worse, we can be frustrated that only larger charities or small businesses with up to 500 employees will have the resources, connections or staff needed to be first in line to get this money.
I know what it's like. I'm applying for a PPP forgivable loan myself to protect Drew & Associates and our staff.
We are now working with a number of our non-profit clients to get them ready to apply later this week. As one of them reminded me it easy to put this off because you're afraid it is too much work, that it is a waste of time, or that it only goes to more established charities. I get it.
Frankly, it seems silly for me and my staff to work hard to win you grants when the SBA Paycheck Protection Program is coming on line. I can't think of anything more important right now that to help you participate in this program. The amounts and benefits will be amazing.
According to the SBA, your total loan amount will be equal to your annual expenses for labor - wages, salaries, benefits, and 1099s - divided by 12 and then multiplied by 2.5. We have a spreadsheet calculator that will help you figure out the exact amount you can request.
NOTE: If any of those 1099s went to people who were providing your with services, like your accountant or attorney, then you'll need to leave them out of the mix. They should be applying for this funding on behalf of their own businesses.
As long as you maintain at least 90% of your current staffing, you can spend this money anyway you want as long as you focus on payroll, utilities, rent and interest expenses. If you do that, your loan will be completely forgiven.
I have put together a new service to help you quickly, easily and reliably access these funds with the assistance of our conscientious team.
Personally, I've got years of experience in dealing with federal loan programs as a loan officer, a client of the SBA, and as a grant writing consultant. My skills will help you to get started and to secure this money. We will:
Save you time by screening your charity for eligibility.
Fill out the appropriate PPP paperwork for you.
Help you gather the necessary documentation.
If you do not have it, we will help you find it or create it for you.
Submit your application on time.
Answer any inquiries or requests for additional information.
Make sure you get paid quickly.
As far as we know, you should be getting your funding instantly after receiving your application approval from your existing bank or lender. Later, we will work with you to make sure you collect the exact receipts, records, and financial reports you need to qualify for the forgiveness of your loan.
One of the cool things about this process is that we will help you become one of the first community leaders to protect their employees and their non-profit by accessing PPP funding. You will be a hero.
On the other hand, I have to be real with you. If you do not apply for this funding it may be catastrophic for your charity.
We have no way of knowing exactly how long this crisis will last or how long this PPP funding will be available. Since this money is given on a first come, first served basis, it will eventually run out and some people will not be able to get it. Even if you manage to survive without the income needed to cover your payroll, utilities and rent, your charity will be threatened because it will emerge from this crisis damaged, living on a tighter margin and potentially even more vulnerable to continuing financial and pandemic shocks.
All it takes to get started is to pay a small deposit of $250.00 and set-up an intake phone call with me at 949-338-5921.
In that phone call, I ask you some questions about your charity, screen you for eligibility, and then make a recommendation on whether or not it makes sense to bring you on as a client for this PPP opportunity. If it is not a fit, then I will refund your money. If it looks like you are a good prospect, then we will move forward with the paperwork. I'll provide you with a list of needed documents, a loan amount calculator, urgent program updates, official SBA application w/ instructions, unlimited email and phone support.
Once we are ready to go we will charge you an additional $750.00 The total fee for our service will be a flat rate of $1,000.00
The final result will be astounding for you and your charity. Your employees will enjoy the peace of mind and security that you have wisely provided for them. You will be able to keep up your rent and utility payments. You will be able to put your people to work again doing useful things even if they are no longer meeting with your clients face-to-face.
You will also be prepared to go after a second round of funding too. This will most likely happen if stay-at-home orders, quarantines or marshal law are declared in your area. All in all, you will be appreciated for leading your charity in a crisis and protecting its capacity to complete its mission now and in the years to come. I'm excited to work with you to make this happen. To get started, use the Buy Now button below.
I've spent the last few weeks debating some of the last moderate Democrats in my life, mainly friends and acquaintances of business acquaintances and others. They are all older, white, mainly retirees with pensions from the public sector. If I have time, maybe this should be an article for American Thinker?
Some of what I'm doing is too good to lose track of completely, and might be useful in the upcoming campaign...especially if Bernie Sanders wins the next election. I'd feel sad, give what I've written, is suddenly blocked or erased. So, here's some of my best stuff, particularly my complaint about Bernie Sanders' socialist views and the naive faith of those who underestimate his dangerous views. For the sake of privacy, I'll only give you my written comments. I'll start with the simple statement that started the polemics as follows:
Round One - You Don't Know What You're Talking About
I don't think you appreciate the degree to which the programs you are defending actually leave the most vulnerable worse off. You need to read up on the concept of moral hazard.
Round Two - Well, Yes...
Moral hazard applies just as well to corporate decision makers.
Round Three - Corporations Aren't Mean
A corporation is just a way of organizing human activity. It provides investors with limited liability and separate legal existence.
There are dozens of different kinds of corporations in the U.S. and they exist in multiple forms internationally based on the laws of each country. Modern life is inconceivable without the corporate form of organization.
For a moderate Democrat like yourself, I'm wondering to what degree, if any, Bernie's success is making you anxious about your party's future.
Round Four - Let's Read Hayek
As an ex-socialist, I may be in the perfect position to help you understand why you are being naive about the dangers of socialism. The one book that did the most to help me understand why socialism has never worked was Friedrich Hayek's book Road to Serfdom. The book explains why the idealism of my youth was both appealing and doomed to failure. You should check it out.
Round Five - Others to Read
No. I'm more of a fan of J.D. Salinger. The political scientists who have had the greatest influence on my thinking - particularly my rejection of Marxism and socialism - were Theodore Lowi, James Q. Wilson, Thomas Sowell and Charles Murray. If you want to understand my take on contemporary politics, rent the film The Enemies Within by Trevor Loudon. This is a documentary which gave me my best opportunity to share my political views. One of my former students, Ann Coulter, also has some outstanding books which will help you better understand conservative thought.
Round Six - Trust Me About Bernie Sanders, I'm an Ex-Socialist Myself
When I was in graduate school at Cornell University, I took courses in the field of political economy and studied countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, England, Canada.
Two of the professors I took courses from later became presidents of the American Political Science Association.
I've taught political economy at Williams, our nation's most prestigious liberal arts college.
If I sincerely thought your take on socialism was correct, then I would tell you so.
I'm totally confident that if you had taken the same courses, hung out with the same international experts, and read the same articles and books that you would come to the same conclusions as me regarding the desirability of electing a socialist like Bernie Sanders.
One of the reasons why I recommended you read Hayek is because he explains how socialism starts with the innocent appeal of prosperity for all, but then - inevitably - drifts into a horrific system where threats of violence and persecution are the only way to obtain crucial information and to get things done.
A lot of people report that reading Hayek was a turning point for them ideologically. Part of the appeal is that Hayek was himself a former socialist.
If you are not interested in reading a book which has persuaded thousands of socialists to change their views, then I recommend you check out Trevor Loudon's movie, The Enemy Within. It is a documentary film which features my take on the attraction of socialism among young people. I understand you can rent it through Amazon Prime.
Round Seven - Can You Take Bad News? Socialism Makes People Worse Off,
Not Better...Even in Sweden.
The per capita income of the USA is $62,606. This is above Sweden at $52,984, above Denmark at $52,121, way above Canada at $49,651 and incredibly above the UK at $45,606. Most Bernie bros do not realize that a socialist economy makes people poorer while at the same time taking away personal freedom, individuality and ability to make your own choices.
You didn't get my reference to scarce resources. Capitalist economies use markets to quickly and effectively allocate scarce resources. Typically socialist economies, say like Sweden, make poorer choices regarding the allocation of scarce resources. This inevitably creates a lower standard of living as measured by per capita GDP.
I think you are being a tad naive about how socialism limits your freedom. If you read Hayek's book, you will have a better grasp about exactly why socialism is incompatible with freedom of speech. There are now steep penalties for language which violates politically correct standards in Sweden or Canada or the UK. I don't think you would like living in any of these countries if you value being able to speak your mind.
Again, please read Hayek. You may be surprised to learn that Joseph Stalin was the wealthiest man in the world during the height of his power. In a similar manner, we see how African and Latin American socialist politicians betray their followers by stealing enough to become millionaires or billionaires. They enjoy their wealth in Swiss bank accounts while their people are starving.
The bottom line is that socialism in the USA would look less like Denmark or Sweden and a lot more like Cuba or Venezuela.
Round Eight - You Are Still in the Fight? It is Time to School You with Statistics
First, per capita income is the statistic typically used to measure the standard of living by political economists. Measurement theory helps explain why this is so. For example, as you add more measurements to assess the standard of living it quickly becomes increasingly difficult to understand what, if anything, you are actually measuring. This becomes a growing weakness in what is called the validity of a measure.
For example, in the survey you have shared with us, the rating system includes measurements for crime...a variable which makes Sweden appear higher in the ranking than the USA. Since crime has causes which have nothing to do with economics, it is inappropriate to include crime rates in an evaluation of a socialist economy.
Likewise, as you add additional terms to your measure, you reduce the reliability of your measurement. This is simply the degree to which we are confident that the measurement will produce the same results after repeated trials. Think of it as being a juggler. The more balls you toss in the air, the more likely you are to drop one or find one has inadvertently gone astray. Does this help?
Next, I would think the most typical errors in the allocation of scarce resources among socialist economies like Sweden are in the field of labor resources. In virtually all socialist economies it becomes increasingly difficult to hire skilled professionals. In many cases, skilled professionals will exit the country to find higher paying positions elsewhere. If you study the socialist countries you seem to admire, you will find they have great difficulties in attracting and retaining skilled professionals in their labor forces.
Your complaint about using Stalin as an example of socialism gone astray is what we call the No True Scotsman logical fallacy. You are basically trying to protect the general idea that socialist systems are good by saying that Stalin was not a socialist. If you want, there are plenty examples of socialism enriching its leaders and their families in contemporary Cuba and Venezuela.
It is interesting to me that you are not addressing my earlier point that socialist countries are less protective of freedom of speech. You may not completely understand that socialist countries are also less protective of private property, gun ownership, rule of law, and of course personal privacy. It is difficult for me to understand how you might measure the quality of life in a country separate from its built in protections for freedom of speech or the right to bear arms.
I think you are naive in your expectation that socialism in the USA would end up leaving us like Sweden. The demographics and political culture of a socialist majority-minority USA would have far more in common with Cuba or Venezuela than it would in largely white, Protestant Sweden or the five million white folks who live in Norway. I think that the more you educate yourself on these matters, the closer you and your ideological friends will come to agreeing with me.
After all, I am a former Democrat myself. I'm a former Marxist socialist who used to see the economic and social systems of Sweden as the goal for us all. I'm just sharing with you the facts which have changed my views over time.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.
I've been a little surprised at the hostility to Trump I have seen among people I have known for a while. Their level of outrage seems out of proportion to what is actually going on. I took out some time in December to draft some detailed answers to a friend's questions. Maybe you can use my answers with your friends too?
I don’t have a lot of time. So please pardon the limits of
my response. The most important thing to state is that the U.S. Department of
Justice has determined that Trump committed no crime.
Regarding you’re
particular legal theory, I would only point out that it assumes a level of
repression which would violate the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of
speech.
Regarding you questions over Trump’s motivations, it looks
to me like you are following Democrat party talking points and may not be
familiar with the full story. I do not think that things are as bad or as black
and white as you imagine. In many cases, the assumptions behind your questions
have already been debunked. I’ll try to go through them all quickly.
Why did Trump not follow the protocols outlined in the Legal
Assistance Treaty with Ukraine?
I think you are assuming that this treaty controls a
president’s actions. This is just not true. There is nothing in the treaty
which limits a president’s Article II powers.
Why did Trump never mention corruption in either of his
phone calls with Zelensky?
I’m assuming your concern here is based on your
belief that the Biden family was not involved in corruption. As I have stated
earlier, Biden violated the Hobbs Act. Burisma was clearly a corrupt company
and Hunter Biden was on its board.
Why did he wait until Biden had become a front runner to
bring up his concerns about the former vice president?
I don’t think you have
the timeline right here. As I understand it there were concerns about the Biden
family’s corruption long before the phone call with Zelenski.
Why did he only mention the Bidens when there are other
Americans involved in potentially more nefarious activities in Ukraine (Paul
Manafort, Igor Buzyukov to mention just two)?
I double checked. I couldn’t find
anything regarding corruption and these two individuals. Manafort was a
political consultant and Buzyukov was involved in money laundering. I don’t
think this question gets you anywhere.
Why did Trump ignore the DOD report that certified that
Ukraine was adequately addressing corruption and was therefore eligible to
receive the military aid that had been funded by Congress?
Again, you seem to
assume this report was controlling. That was not the case. The report itself
asserted that more investigations into corruption in Ukraine were still needed.
Why did Trump not go through the DOJ, but instead used his
personal lawyer, and even directed Zelensky to talk to him?
My understanding is
that representatives from the government of Ukraine sought out Rudy Guliani
because they felt they were being stonewalled by U.S. and Ukrainian
bureaucrats. It is actually pretty normal for presidents to use alternative
forms of communication and investigation. Historically, there is nothing
nefarious about this element of the story.
Why did Sondland, a big Trump donor, believe that this was a
quid pro quo, and that everyone was in the loop?
Sondland’s testimony was not a
clear cut nor as decisive as you think. At best, it was one man’s opinion. In
other parts of his testimony Sondland makes it clear that Trump did not want a
quid pro quo.
Why did Mulvaney also state that this was a quid pro quo?
As
I recall, Mulvaney walked back that statement indicating it was an error on his
part.
Why ask Zelensky to make a public statement about opening an
investigation into the Bidens?
I don’t understand this either. I don’t recall
Trump asking for this. Trump released the transcripts of the conversation. At
best, this looks like a second-hand report.
Why did Trump wait until after the whistleblower was known
to him and an investigation was imminent to unfreeze the military aid?
This
question has already been debunked. It appears that the release of the funds
was caused by the passage of the budget in the Congress which made delays in
the military aid perfunctory. Trump signed that budget. The decision had
nothing to do with the whistleblower.
Why did Trump fire Ambassador Yovanovitch when she was
highly regarded in addressing corruption in Ukraine?
As I understand it, Yovanovitch
was seen as being too close to George Soros. Her values and behavior were
inconsistent with Trump administration policies. Finally, all ambassadors serve
at the pleasure of the president.
Why does Trump still refuse to release documents?
Trump’s
actions here are pretty standard. Most presidents are reluctant to do this and
seek to preserve their independence from the Congress through exercise of
executive privilege.
Why does Trump still keep people from testifying?
Again,
there is nothing nefarious here either. Defense of executive privilege is a
long-standing tradition. Normally, the Congress would appeal to the courts to
resolve this issue. Congressional Democrats declined to challenge Trump on this
in the courts, most likely because they know the Supreme Court would defend the
president’s prerogatives. For better or
worse, allowing Congress unfettered powers in this arena would undermine the
balance of power between the Congress and the president.
Once again, I am surprised to see the degree to which you
are making a mountain out of a molehill. There was no crime committed. As far
as I can tell, most of your questions are based in what is best referred to as
fake news. They have been debunked by later investigations as was your earlier assertion
that the investigation into Burisma was winding down prior to Joe Biden’s
explicit quid pro quo demand.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.
MY RESPONSE TO CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S EDITOR IN CHIEF MARK GALLI’S PATHETIC ARTICLE CALLING FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT
When the CT Editor’s Feelings Trump Facts by Dr. Jim Garlow Mark Galli has used his platform as Editor in Chief of Christianity Today magazine to demand that Donald Trump be removed from office. At one point in the article, Mark Galli compares Trump to Clinton, Strangely, Mark Galli avoided a key issue: Was a law violated? Bill Clinton actually committed a crime. Donald Trump didn't. Galli fails to make the distinction. Galli speaks of Clinton’s “immoral acts” in the context of our current President. He fails to note that the President’s acknowledged immoral conduct occurred a dozen years ago and not while he was in the White House, in contrast to Clinton’s conduct, while in the Oval Office, serving as President. Galli states that Clinton lied. Yes, but more than that, he perjured himself, which is legally serious. Trump didn’t.
Remarkably, Galli claims "the facts in this instance are unambiguous." The "facts" are "unambiguous?" Many in the House of Representatives - all 196 Republicans and two Democrats – who have access to key documents - don't see it that way. In addition, Americans who are not aligned with either party - Independents - don't view it that way.
The keys to understanding authentic facts in this case are the actual transcript of the call and the Ukrainian President’s recollection of the phone call. Galli fails to note those two critically important “witnesses” to truth. They might get in the way of his “facts.” Galli further asserts that the President's phone call was "a violation of the Constitution." It is precisely at this point that so many strongly disagree with Galli. Simply put, many contend that there was no violation of the Constitution. Again Galli chooses to state his opinion as “fact.” Even liberal Democrat Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz contends that there was no violation of the Constitution. Amazingly, the Democrats could not even get all of their own to vote for impeachment, let alone any of the Republicans.
Furthermore, those who know the President, with all his flaws, past moral failures and sins, have discerned and commented that he is a man who really wants to do what is right. This fact has been noted by many of the evangelicals who are closest to him. Godly discerning people around him see it and know it.
Galli writes "the impeachment hearings have illuminated the president’s moral deficiencies for all to see." There you have it, according to Christianity Today’s Editor in Chief. Based on Mr. Trump's failure to model sanctification, he should be impeached? Hardly.
And while we are talking about character - which is one of Galli's key issues - it is important to point out that what Mr. Trump promised as a candidate is exactly what he has delivered as an elected official. It is indeed a rare treat for a politician to fulfill his word. That is a wonderful indication of character. It's called honesty.
Condescendingly, Galli lectures evangelicals who support Trump, saying that they "brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency." To my knowledge, I know every one of the persons who have served as the President's faith advisors. (In the interest of disclosure, I have been one of them.) Not one of these faith leaders "brushes off" anyone's immorality or behavior, including the President’s. Not one. They never have. Not one of them has ever said or believed that the (using Galli’s words) "bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end.” Not one. I could speak with specificity here, but I will not. In that one sentence, Galli is participating in character assassination, a favorite tool of many these days.
Closely related to that is the fact that Galli has no grasp of the kind of healthy spiritual input that is coming from evangelicals to our president. Admittedly, this is a side issue, not Galli’s key issue, but it is still important. The CT editor apparently has no knowledge of the internal meetings which have been constructively pastoral in nature. Numerous high visibility evangelicals have had opportunity to be with the President, to counsel him and to pray with him. Some have spoken truth to leadership. Wisely, they do not discuss the content of those meetings publicly. Nor should they. They are considerably more aware of the "heart" of the President than is Mr. Galli. If he knew what they know about Mr. Trump, Galli would not have written such an article.
Offensively, Mark Galli seems to invoke the name of Billy Graham to bolster and credential his viewpoint not only in the first sentence of the article, but again in the third paragraph. The only one who can use Billy Graham's name with integrity is Billy's son Franklin or daughter Anne Graham Lotz or one of his other children or grandchildren. Interestingly, Franklin Graham is standing 100% with the President. And he even felt compelled to reveal for the first time that his famous father – who knew Donald Trump – voted for him. Franklin Graham is more qualified to speak for Billy Graham than a CT editor.
While it is admittedly not of profound significance to Galli’s article, it still might be important to note that Christianity Today has been losing influence for some time. Why is this relevant? The Left will fall all over themselves loving this article, not knowing that CT’s influence among rank and file evangelicals peaked a long time ago. Had there not been outside funds to prop CT up, the magazine would likely have folded years ago. It is not the voice it once was. How do I say this nicely? It is rather "yesterday."
It is hardly news that CT is not a fan of the President. For purposes of transparency, it might be interesting if the editor – since journalists ought to acknowledge their bias - would reveal for whom he voted for in 2016. The once-solid magazine, like the National Association of Evangelicals, has moved leftward for some time. They once reigned. They were supreme. But ask the typical evangelical churchgoer today if he or she reads CT or knows what the NAE is. They don’t. These once prestigious organizations have now been displaced in influence by other groups, organizations, magazines and news sources. But one thing is for sure: Mr. Galli will now be exalted by the Trump-haters. They now have a new hero. The Left loves CT's Trump-bashing. CNN and New York Times, for example, were two of the first to run with this story on the national scene. Other disdainers of Trump will do the same. More hated of Trump has been fueled. The self-proclaimed pious ones will be eagerly casting stones at Trump. Mr. Galli has done our nation a great disservice. Meanwhile, the President will continue saving the lives of preborn babies, helping families, supporting Israel, defending religious liberty in the US, trying to stop religious persecution globally, blessing the nation with a healthy economy - especially impacting the middle class and most notably Blacks and Hispanics with jobs, as opposed to Obama’s debilitating massive food stamps increase, reducing governmental intrusions into our everyday lives, advocating for healthy entrepreneurship-driven capitalism, rebuilding the Obama-era broken military, saving young girls from sex trafficking, appointing justices and judges that actually respect the US Constitution, leading in prison reform that is giving many incarcerated persons a new opportunity in life, defeating terrorist organizations like ISIS, stopping the transgender experiments that would destroy our military, stopping nations from taking advantage of America, arresting and removing MS13 gang members and making America truly a great nation. He will continue doing what the Bible admonishes a governmental leader to do: to protect the citizenry and to punish evil.
But to Galli, and his groupies who will Facebook post his article repeatedly, this does not matter. Why? Because according to Galli, Trump acts wrongly. He is bad. His personality is not that of St. Francis. Trump is not Mother Teresa. Trump, you see, is a bad man, and that qualifies as a “high crimes.” Trump – according to Galli – must be removed. And in case you have not noticed, those advocating impeachment are not merely after the President. They are impeaching those of you who elected him – all 63 million of you. They are impeaching the values of those who voted for him. It is interesting that Galli never once called for the removal of President Obama, who was responsible for supporting the mutilation of preborn babies more than any President in US history, who helped destroy the definition of marriage and who was the first to defend men dressed as women using women’s bathrooms. How should we respond to all this? Is there a better response? Yes. For starters, how about a call to pray for our President? (I have followed politics closely, virtually every day since I was age nine years of age. I know that is strange, but I have.) I have never seen a national leader so castigated and attacked on a continual basis. I know few if any who could handle the pressure that our President is under.
What if Galli had interviewed some of the people who are on the “inside” (I am not one of them), who are helping to spiritually guide the President, and have inquired how believers could and should pray for the President in very specific ways at this time? How much better if he would have described ways to help our nation come through the massive divide. But while Mr. Galli did not do that, you can. You and I can make a difference. We can do these things. Will you pray for your President? Right now? Will you pray for those who have the opportunity to speak and provide spiritual counsel to our national leaders? Galli condemns them. It might be better to pray for them. Will you commit to try to bring healing to our severely divided nation? Will you pray that Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler would work with our President to address the greatest challenges in our nation?
Would you pray with me that there would be a massive release of scriptural truth to those in high government positions of our nation? Would you pray that there would be a Holy Spirit release of the biblical principles of governance to all of those in governmental authority? In doing so, you would help make American great – and good – again. (Garlow, has a governmental ministry in Washington, DC, New York City and Jerusalem. You can learn more at www.WellVersedWorld.org )
