Calling Senator Ted Cruz is a waste of time

Letter: Calling Ted Cruz: "Now, if I were a gun lobbyist giving Ted over $400,000 in contributions, Ted would be more receptive...."

Opinion letter echo published in the Longview News-Journal, a newspaper published in Longview, Texas.

Rafael Edward Cruz was born on December 22, 1970, at Foothills Medical Centre in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, to Eleanor Elizabeth (née Darragh) Wilson and Rafael Cruz. Rafael Bienvenido Cruz y Díaz (born March 22, 1939) is a Cuban-American Protestant preacher and the father of Texas U.S. Senator Ted Cruz. Donald Trump referred to Cruz as a “Canadian anchor baby”, at a town hall rally in New Hampshire.

When I have called Ted Cruz’s D.C. office to leave a comment, this is what I experienced over several months.

The Ted Cruz Goldman Sachs Loan, Explained

First you hear Senator Cruz in his most smarmiest voice saying what an honor and privilege it was to serve the great state of Texas, and he looked forward to hearing thoughts and concerns about issues.

Then press 1 to leave a comment. After listening to Ted again, the message goes to a box that can’t accept any more messages. If it happened once, I would chalk it up to a temporary anomaly, but it occurred over several months. So it occurred to me that maybe Sen. Cruz is not interested so much in my thoughts and concerns.

Now, of course, if I were a gun lobbyist, giving Ted over $400,000 in contributions, Ted would be more receptive, I assume. (National Rifle Association- NRA, and gun rights groups. are best friends with Ted Cruz!)

Actually, Sen. Cruz received that much, which was the largest amount for any Congress person from the gun lobby. 

Sadly, the Cruz fake solution to the school shooting in Uvalde Texas was to hire more police.

It seems 19 officers weren’t enough. 

And Sen. Cruz seems equally receptive to the military industrial complex lobby, with support for a continuous increase in Pentagon spending. 

But about my concerns, Cruz is obviously not so much interested. 

Will Rogers: “Politics has got so expensive that it takes lots of money to even get beat with nowadays.” DT #1538, June 28, 1931.

—From Jerry King, in Longview, Texas 

Former intelligence officer Matt Castelli is a formidable Democrat in NY21

An echo report in North Country Public Radio by Emily Russell

Aug 23, 2022 — Former CIA officer Matt Castelli has won the Democratic primary for New York's 21st House District. Castelli will face Republican Elise Stefanik for her seat in Congress in November.

Over nearly 15 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, he hunted down terrorists in one way or another.

Castelli kept a consistent lead over his Democratic opponent, Whitehall lawyer Matt Putorti, as unofficial election results trickled in on Tuesday night.

“It’s been pretty exciting," said Castelli from his election night party in Glens Falls. "I’m just grateful for all of the support that folks have placed in this campaign, the trust and confidence that they’ve placed in it, not just from the voters but all of our volunteers.”

Matt Putorti issued a press release Tuesday night congratulating Castelli on his win. "We are united in the mission to defeat Elise Stefanik. Matt Castelli has my support, and I ask that you give him yours too."

Castelli said on Tuesday night that he sees a path forward for his campaign, despite New York's 21st House District becoming even more Republican after redistricting earlier this year.

“The combination of my ability to build a coalition plus [Stefanik] changing and disappointing folks puts us in a strong position to actually do something really special here and deliver the win in November.”

Castelli is running to unseat Representative Elise Stefanik

Tuesday's primary election appears to have had a low turnout. In Saranac Lake, just seven people per hour were trickling into the town hall to vote Tuesday morning. One of those people was Paul Herrmann, a retired lawyer from Saranac Lake.

“I’ve voted every time I’ve gotten a chance and I just hope I get to keep voting," said Herrmann. "It’s the hallmark of a democracy.”

Herrmann cast his ballot on Tuesday for Matt Putorti. He said he liked that Putorti grew up in the district.

Beatrice Beguin also showed up early to vote on Tuesday. She cast her ballot for Matt Castelli, but didn’t seem super excited about her vote, so I asked her why that was.

“Well, you know, I’m not really feeling connected to a political party. I choose it because it makes it possible for me to vote in the primary.”

Beguin said her values don’t line up completely with Castelli’s but she thinks he’s got the best shot against Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik. Stefanik has won by an increasingly wide margin in recent years. She defeated Democrat Tedra Cobb in 2020 by nearly 18%.

Beguin said she hopes Castelli can do better than that. “I think in this climate someone with a law enforcement background is probably competitive.”

Castelli served in the CIA for years and worked as the Director for Counterterrorism under Obama and for a year under Trump. He’s campaigned more as a moderate, touting his support for the second amendment and not committing to an assault rifle ban. He’ll also be on the moderate party line in November.

It’s an attempt to appeal to more conservative voters. Dwight Stevenson, who teaches government and economics at Saranac Lake High School, says Democrat voters in the North Country shouldn’t be too picky.

“You’re not going to get everything that you want in a candidate, so being able to compromise and know what is that you’re willing to compromise on is a really important thing as a voter.”

Stevenson said he's met Castelli a couple of times and appreciates that Castelli has been campaigning across the district. He doesn’t see Stefanik engaging in that way.

“She’s not really listening to the voters around here," said Stevenson. "Matt Castelli is a fresh face and a fresh change and an opportunity to have someone listening to the people in the district, not looking to further their own political aspirations.” ❗

Stefanik has the highest profile she’s ever had since she was first elected in 2014. She is now the third-ranking Republican in the House and has raised more than $7 million this election cycle, according to federal campaign finance data.

Castelli’s campaign has raised about $1.1 million. He’s never held public office and just recently moved to the North Country, so doesn’t have deep roots in the district.

Paul Herrmann, the retired lawyer from Saranac Lake, says it’s a long shot for any Democrat in this district. “It doesn’t look great at the moment, but between now and November is an eternity.”

“Look like th'innocent flower, But be the serpent under't” 

Maine Writer Post Script- Are voters in NYDistict21 asking Stefanik about her position for legalized abortion?  I have "nicknamed" Ms. Stefanik the "Lady MacBeth" of the Congress, precisely because of her mean spirited and insatiable ambition. 

Lauren Boebert is an embarrassment to Colorado: Opinion Echo

Echo opinion published in the Summit Daily, newspaper in Summit County, Colorado: How dumb is she?

As a Coloradan, were you as embarrassed as I was when (ugly!)

 Rep. Lauren Boebert attempted to interrupt President Joe Biden’s State of the Union speech? I thought to myself, “Has this woman no couth?” 

Lauren Boebert redux!

Obviously, she does not understand anything about common manners. She lacks a critical level of decency. But like an unruly child, she knows that her antics will demand and receive attention. 

Ugh! That’s too bad because her outburst only encourages more bad behavior from discourteous, egotistical people like her. What a terrible example she has set for our children and grandchildren as well as every citizen of our state and country! What a black mark she sets for politics and for politicians like her.

I have sat in the chambers of the U.S. Supreme Court. There, no outburst is ever tolerated. One sits charged with the utmost of respect for the proceedings and for the justices themselves. 

In fact, even gum chewing is prohibited. If only the sergeant at arms of the House of Representatives had acted to remove Boebert when she acted out. That would have been fitting.

Admittedly, I know little about how Boebert serves her constituency (❓) (Here's Maine Writer's hint: "she doesn't" because she is a cult follower). I doubt that she is very effective (❗) because of her alienating, self-absorbed style. 

"As a human being, I would want nothing to do with her."

I, for one, am glad that she is not my representative. I would not want myself associated with her in any way. Anyone who cannot muster respect for the office of the presidency and for the mores of Congress truly does not deserve to hold office. As a Coloradan, I was ashamed by her behavior. 

As a human being, I would want nothing to do with her.

From  Rabbi Joel R. Schwartzman in Dillon Colorado

The reason why I "handle" "Quack-Quack" to Rep. Ronny Jackson

 #Quack Quack! 🦆 #SIASDJackson

I am a registered nurse that has the credentials to say that this criticism about the (#QuackQuack) Dr. Ronny Jackson is entirely justified.  Shame on Rep. Jackson for leaping to the unprofessional and unethical action of making a health judgement on a person that he has never treated.

(CNN) echo report by Daniella Diaz:

Former President Barack Obama sent an email to Ronny Jackson, a former White House physician, who went on to become a (right wing) GOP congressman representing Amarillo, Texas , expressing his "disappointment" over Jackson's criticism of Joe Biden's cognitive health in 2020, according to a copy of the email obtained by CNN.

Obama sent the email, which Fox News first reported, when Biden was running for president and Jackson was running for Congress in Texas. Jackson retweeted a video of Biden with the message: "Remember the cognitive test that I gave @realDonaldTrump? The one he aced! Sounds like somebody else might need some testing done!! Scary!!"  (HELLO?  Ronny Jackson asked the former defeated guy to identify a camel  🐫on a grid with squares containing the pictures of animals!)

Jackson received an email from Obama shortly after. The email is included in Jackson's yet-to-be-released memoir titled "Holding the Line: A Lifetime of Defending Democracy and American Values.

"I have made a point of not commenting on your service in my successor's administration and have always spoken highly of you both in public and in private. You always served me and my family well, and I have considered you not only a fine doctor and service member but also a friend," Obama said in the email.

Obama added: "That's why I have to express my disappointment at the cheap shot you took at Joe Biden via Twitter. It was unprofessional and beneath the office that you once held. It was also disrespectful to me and the many friends you had in our administration. You were the personal physician to the President of the United States as well as an admiral in the U.S. Navy. I expect better, and I hope upon reflection that you will expect more of yourself in the future."

First do no harm

Jackson served as a physician for Obama as well as Presidents Donald Trump and George W. Bush. 

He retired from the Navy in 2019 before launching his congressional bid.

Jackson's office did not immediately respond to a CNN request for comment. Obama's office declined to comment.

CNN's Jeff Zeleny contributed to this report.

President Joe Biden Inaugural Address January 20, 2021

THE PRESIDENT Joseph Biden inauguration: 

"The work and prayers of centuries have brought us to this day"

Echo from the White House:

Chief Justice Roberts, Vice President Harris, Speaker Pelosi, Leader Schumer, Leader McConnell, Vice President Pence, distinguished guests, and my fellow Americans.

This is America’s day. This is democracy’s day. A day of history and hope. Of renewal and resolve.

Through a crucible for the ages America has been tested anew and America has risen to the challenge.

Today, we celebrate the triumph not of a candidate, but of a cause, the cause of democracy.

The will of the people has been heard and the will of the people has been heeded.

We have learned again that democracy is precious.

Democracy is fragile.  And, at this hour, my friends, (our) democracy prevailed.

So now, on this hallowed ground where just days ago violence sought to shake this Capitol’s very foundation, we come together as one nation, under God, indivisible, to carry out the peaceful transfer of power as we have for more than two centuries.

We look ahead in our uniquely American way – restless, bold, optimistic – and set our sights on the nation we know we can be and we must be.

I thank my predecessors of both parties for their presence here.

I thank them from the bottom of my heart.

You know the resilience of our Constitution and the strength of our nation.

As does President Carter, who I spoke to last night but who cannot be with us today, but whom we salute for his lifetime of service.

I have just taken the sacred oath each of these patriots took — an oath first sworn by George Washington.

But the American story depends not on any one of us, not on some of us, but on all of us.

On “We the People” who seek a more perfect Union.

This is a great nation and we are a good people.

Over the centuries through storm and strife, in peace and in war, we have come so far. But we still have far to go.

We will press forward with speed and urgency, for we have much to do in this winter of peril and possibility.

Much to repair. Much to restore. Much to heal. Much to build.

And much to gain.

Few periods in our nation’s history have been more challenging or difficult than the one we’re in now.

A once-in-a-century virus silently stalks the country.

It’s taken as many lives in one year as America lost in all of World War II.

Millions of jobs have been lost.

Hundreds of thousands of businesses closed.

A cry for racial justice some 400 years in the making moves us. The dream of justice for all will be deferred no longer.

A cry for survival comes from the planet itself. A cry that can’t be any more desperate or any more clear.

And now, a rise in political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism that we must confront and we will defeat.

To overcome these challenges – to restore the soul and to secure the future of America – requires more than words.

It requires that most elusive of things in a democracy:

Unity.

Unity.

In another January in Washington, on New Year’s Day 1863, Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

When he put pen to paper, the President said, “If my name ever goes down into history it will be for this act and my whole soul is in it.”

My whole soul is in it.

Today, on this January day, my whole soul is in this:

Bringing America together.

Uniting our people.

And uniting our nation.

I ask every American to join me in this cause.

Uniting to fight the common foes we face:

Anger, resentment, hatred.

Extremism, lawlessness, violence.

Disease, joblessness, hopelessness.

With unity we can do great things. Important things.

We can right wrongs. We can put people to work in good jobs.

We can teach our children in safe schools.
We can overcome this deadly virus.
We can reward work, rebuild the middle class, and make health care
secure for all.
We can deliver racial justice.

We can make America, once again, the leading force for good in the world.

I know speaking of unity can sound to some like a foolish fantasy.

I know the forces that divide us are deep and they are real.

But I also know they are not new.

Our history has been a constant struggle between the American ideal that we are all created equal and the harsh, ugly reality that racism, nativism, fear, and demonization have long torn us apart.

The battle is perennial.  Victory is never assured.

Through the Civil War, the Great Depression, World War, 9/11, through struggle, sacrifice, and setbacks, our “better angels” have always prevailed.

In each of these moments, enough of us came together to carry all of us forward.

And, we can do so now.
History, faith, and reason show the way, the way of unity.

We can see each other not as adversaries but as neighbors.

We can treat each other with dignity and respect.

We can join forces, stop the shouting, and lower the temperature.

For without unity, there is no peace, only bitterness and fury.

No progress, only exhausting outrage. No nation, only a state of chaos.

This is our historic moment of crisis and challenge, and unity is the path forward.

Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor 

And, we must meet this moment as the United States of America.

If we do that, I guarantee you, we will not fail.

We have never, ever, ever failed in America when we have acted together.

And so today, at this time and in this place, let us start afresh.

All of us.  Let us listen to one another.

Hear one another. See one another. Show respect to one another.

Politics need not be a raging fire destroying everything in its path.

Every disagreement doesn’t have to be a cause for total war.

And, we must reject a culture in which facts themselves are manipulated and even manufactured.

My fellow Americans, we have to be different than this.

America has to be better than this.

And, I believe America is better than this.

Just look around.

Here we stand, in the shadow of a Capitol dome that was completed amid the Civil War, when the Union itself hung in the balance.

Yet we endured and we prevailed.

Here we stand looking out to the great Mall where Dr. King spoke of his dream.

Here we stand, where 108 years ago at another inaugural, thousands of protestors tried to block brave women from marching for the right to vote.

Today, we mark the swearing-in of the first woman in American history elected to national office – Vice President Kamala Harris.

Don’t tell me things can’t change.

Here we stand across the Potomac from Arlington National Cemetery, where heroes who gave the last full measure of devotion rest in eternal peace.

And here we stand, just days after a riotous mob thought they could use violence to silence the will of the people, to stop the work of our democracy, and to drive us from this sacred ground.

That did not happen.

It will never happen. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not ever.

To all those who supported our campaign I am humbled by the faith you have placed in us.

To all those who did not support us, let me say this: Hear me out as we move forward. Take a measure of me and my heart.

And if you still disagree, so be it.

That’s democracy. That’s America. The right to dissent peaceably, within the guardrails of our Republic, is perhaps our nation’s greatest strength.

Yet hear me clearly: Disagreement must not lead to disunion.

And I pledge this to you: I will be a President for all Americans.

I will fight as hard for those who did not support me as for those who did.

Many centuries ago, Saint Augustine, a saint of my church, wrote that a people was a multitude defined by the common objects of their love.

What are the common objects we love that define us as Americans?

I think I know. Opportunity. Security. Liberty. Dignity. Respect.

Honor!

And, yes, the truth.

Recent weeks and months have taught us a painful lesson.

There is truth and there are lies.

Lies told for power and for profit.

And each of us has a duty and responsibility, as citizens, as Americans, and especially as leaders – leaders who have pledged to honor our Constitution and protect our nation — to defend the truth and to defeat the lies.

I understand that many Americans view the future with some fear and trepidation.

I understand they worry about their jobs, about taking care of their families, about what comes next.

I get it.

But the answer is not to turn inward, to retreat into competing factions, distrusting those who don’t look like you do, or worship the way you do, or don’t get their news from the same sources you do.

We must end this uncivil war that pits red against blue, rural versus urban, conservative versus liberal.

We can do this if we open our souls instead of hardening our hearts.

If we show a little tolerance and humility.

If we’re willing to stand in the other person’s shoes just for a moment.  Because, here is the thing about life: There is no accounting for what fate will deal you. 

There are some days when we need a hand.

There are other days when we’re called on to lend one.

That is how we must be with one another.

And, if we are this way, our country will be stronger, more prosperous, more ready for the future.

My fellow Americans, in the work ahead of us, we will need each other.

We will need all our strength to persevere through this dark winter.

We are entering what may well be the toughest and deadliest period of the virus.

We must set aside the politics and finally face this pandemic as one nation.

I promise you this: as the Bible says weeping may endure for a night but joy cometh in the morning.

We will get through this, together

The world is watching today.

So here is my message to those beyond our borders: America has been tested and we have come out stronger for it.

We will repair our alliances and engage with the world once again.

Not to meet yesterday’s challenges, but today’s and tomorrow’s.

We will lead not merely by the example of our power but by the power of our example.

We will be a strong and trusted partner for peace, progress, and security.

We have been through so much in this nation.

And, in my first act as President, I would like to ask you to join me in a moment of silent prayer to remember all those we lost this past year to the pandemic.

To those 400,000 fellow Americans – mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, sons and daughters, friends, neighbors, and co-workers.

We will honor them by becoming the people and nation we know we can and should be.

Let us say a silent prayer for those who lost their lives, for those they left behind, and for our country.

Amen.

This is time for testing. We face an attack on democracy and truth.

A raging virus. Growing inequity. The sting of systemic racism.

A climate in crisis.

America’s role in the world.

Any one of these would be enough to challenge us in profound ways.

But the fact is we face them all at once, presenting this nation with the gravest of responsibilities.

Now we must step up.  All of us!

It is a time for boldness, for there is so much to do.

And, this is certain.

We will be judged, you and I, for how we resolve the cascading crises of our era.

Will we rise to the occasion?

Will we master this rare and difficult hour?

Will we meet our obligations and pass along a new and better world for our children?

I believe we must and I believe we will.

And when we do, we will write the next chapter in the American story.

It’s a story that might sound something like a song that means a lot to me.

It’s called “American Anthem” and there is one verse stands out for me:

“The work and prayers
of centuries have brought us to this day
What shall be our legacy?
What will our children say?…
Let me know in my heart
When my days are through
America
America
I gave my best to you.”

Let us add our own work and prayers to the unfolding story of our nation.

If we do this then when our days are through our children and our children’s children will say of us they gave their best.

They did their duty.

They healed a broken land.

My fellow Americans, I close today where I began, with a sacred oath.

Before God and all of you I give you my word.

I will always level with you.

I will defend the Constitution.

I will defend our democracy.

I will defend America.

I will give my all in your service thinking not of power, but of possibilities.

Not of personal interest, but of the public good.

And together, we shall write an American story of hope, not fear.

Of unity, not division.  Of light, not darkness.

An American story of decency and dignity.

Of love and of healing.  Of greatness and of goodness.

May this be the story that guides us.

The story that inspires us.

The story that tells ages yet to come that we answered the call of history.

We met the moment.

That democracy and hope, truth and justice, did not die on our watch but thrived.

That our America secured liberty at home and stood once again as a beacon to the world.

That is what we owe our forebearers, one another, and generations to follow.

So, with purpose and resolve we turn to the tasks of our time.

Sustained by faith.  Driven by conviction.

And, devoted to one another and to this country we love with all our hearts.

May God bless America and may God protect our troops.

Thank you, America.

On January 6th the Oath Keepers wanted to protect Rep. Ronny Jackson Republican from Texas

Texas Tribune echo report by Abby Livingston

Oath Keepers involved in the January 6 attack sought to protect U.S. Rep. Ronny Jackson of Texas, texts show.

In my Maine Writer opinion, it was the former defeated guy Donald Trump that sent salient messages (probably thru a clandestine surrogate) to protect from vigilante harm his right wing physician while he lived in the White House. 

U.S. Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Amarillo, Texas, speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Orlando on Feb. 28, 2021. Credit: REUTERS/Joe Skipper

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In the most violent hour of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, alleged conspirators in the attack who were aligned with the far-right group the Oath Keepers discussed providing security for U.S. Rep. Ronny Jackson, an Amarillo Republican, according to text messages made public in newly released court documents.

“Ronnie Jackson (TX- Amarillo-Republican) office inside Capitol - he needs OK help. Anyone inside?” texted an unidentified person at 3 p.m., presumably referring to the Oath Keepers as “OK.”

“Hopefully they can help. Dr. Jackson,” another person wrote at 3:03 p.m.

A few minutes later, there was another call to provide help for the Texas congressman.

“Dr. Ronnie Jackson - on the move. Needs protection. If anyone inside cover him,” a person texted at 3:08 p.m. and included a photo that could not be seen from the court documents.

“He has critical data to protect,” the person added. (❓)

At 3:10, Stewart Rhodes, the founder and leader of the Oath Keepers, responded to the text citing Jackson and instructed a person to “Give him my cell.”

Rhodes was arrested earlier this year in Little Elm, accused of conspiring with members of his organization and others to oppose the transfer of presidential power by force. ​​

A spokesperson for Jackson said in a statement that the congressman did not know the people texting about him. ("Quack Quack❗"  🦆)

So let me get this right? We have Republicans and then "White Christian nationalism"?

Some on the right have grown comfortable being labeled “Christian nationalists.”

Echo reported in The Bulwark by Annika Brockschmidt and Thomas Lecaque

Why Christian Nationalism Is So ! Dangerous - is the #MTG_WCNDiva: The prevalence of Christian nationalism as an ideology makes it the greatest threat to democracy in America today, writes Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove. (MTG is soooo stupid!)

There was a time, not very long ago, when far-right figures wanted to avoid being called “Christian nationalists”—denying or deflecting or pleading ignorance. Even now, some reject the label. “Reporters frequently ask me,” Robert Jeffress, the megachurch pastor, said last month, “‘Are you a Christian nationalist?’ . . . And I respond emphatically, ‘No, not in any way.’” In May, Doug Mastriano, the Republican nominee in the race for Pennsylvania governor, wrote a reporter, “Is this a term you fabricated? What does it mean and where have I indicated that I am a Christian Nationalist?” Franklin Graham told the same reporter that “Christian nationalism doesn’t exist.”

Despite the protestations, the term Christian nationalism is well suited for much of the far right. Think of (defeated) Georgia gubernatorial candidate Kandiss Taylor’s slogan “Jesus, Guns, Babies.” Or the extensive Christian symbolism in the crowd that attacked the Capitol on January 6th. Or the Republicans, such as Rep. Lauren Boebert and Doug Mastriano, who have pointedly said they believe in collapsing the separation of church and state.

We may be entering a new phase, however—one in which at least some people are claiming, proudly, to be Christian nationalists, and writing apologetics explicitly in defense of the label and its attendant ideology. Witness Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who openly proclaims herself a Christian nationalist on Twitter and in interviews and on t-shirts. Or the Federalist, which on August 11 published an article entitled “Christian Nationalism Is Biblical And America-First, But It’s Not White.” The author, Carina Benton, is a regular contributor to the Trump-loving right-wing outlet and not someone with apparent expertise in theology or political philosophy—but the article is a useful indicator of how the debate is shifting, and because similar arguments have popped up elsewhere, it is worth at least a quick dissection.

Benton asserts that the criticism of Christian nationalism relies on “straw man arguments that misrepresent both Christianity and nationalism, and phony attempts to depict the movement as white,” before going on to prove Godwin’s Law * halfway through.

Perhaps the two most pernicious paragraphs in Benton’s article deal with the idea of what a Christian nation is. 

First, she says that the United States chose God, chose Christianity, within a very specific doctrinal image:

The United States isn’t special because it’s a nation chosen by God; it’s special because it’s a nation that chose God. The implications are entirely biblical. Holy Scripture invites individuals from every race, tribe, nation, and language to freely enter into a personal relationship with the Savior, to live by His commandments, and worship Him as King.

Everyone is invited to “freely enter into a personal relationship with the Savior,” fine, but the mechanism described here is neither free nor personal: It is a state-imposed Christendom over the nation and its inhabitants. Don’t take our word for it, Benton is very clear:

[Holy Scripture] also envisages, from Genesis to Isaiah, from the Gospels to the Book of Revelation, the conversion of whole nations or peoples, and warns of the inevitable harm of instead embracing a culture of idolatry, depravity, and deceit. Hence, we read in Proverbs that “a nation without God’s guidance is a nation without order.”

This is the model being advocated. It is very clearly Christian nationalism—a label Benton welcomes. And while she objects to calling it “white Christian nationalism,” she certainly seems to be advocating a cultural and religious conversion to a dominant strand of Christian thought in this country, one that has—justifiably, given the politics of those who have tended to espouse it—been called “white Christian nationalism.” (More on this in a moment.)

Benton’s article is not the first case of apologetics for Christian nationalism in the Federalist. In 2019, it published “We Need Christian Nationalism Because Religious Neutrality Has Failed,” which argues that religious neutrality should be rejected in favor of “a conviction that a Christian understanding of the world should predominate over other worldviews in American civic life.” 

Marjorie Taylor Greene's version of Christianity is a massive betrayal of the teachings of Jesus:  Greene and other Christian nationalists are spreading fear, deception and hate — but not the teachings of Jesus

And a 2021, article called “Stop Smearing Christians As ‘Christian Nationalists’ Just Because They Value Both Faith And Freedom” includes this line apparently intended as a defense of January 6th insurrectionists: “You think Big Tech and bureaucrats rigged an election that will result in your rights being infringed, so you fly to D.C. with your family and your flags? You’re a Christian nationalist.” We tend to agree with this sentence, if not the author’s analysis—she views the label “Christian nationalist” as an unjust smear on both the insurrectionists and on “Christian Trump supporters.” (OMG! Danger! 💥!)

“When I said that I’m a Christian nationalist, I have nothing to be ashamed of,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene remarked at CPAC earlier this month. “Because that’s what most Americans are.” (Maine Writer! OMG.  MTG_isSOOOOStupid!)

Is that true—are most Americans Christian nationalists? Let’s look at the numbers: Sociologists Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry, in their 2020 book Taking America Back for God, show that a little more than half of American adults, 51.9 percent, are either strongly supportive of (19.8 percent) or at least somewhat positively inclined toward (32.1 percent) Christian nationalism. Whitehead and Perry based their analysis on questions in the 2017 Baylor Religion Survey asking respondents how much they agreed or disagreed with six propositions about religion, government, and the United States:

Greene seems to want to seize the moment, laundering Christian nationalism as something both harmless and patriotic: “We’re proud of our faith and we love our country,” she said at CPAC. “And that will make America great again. When we lean into biblical principles, you know, is there anything wrong with loving God and loving others? No.” And in an interview late last month, she argued that Christian nationalism should be a central tenet of the Republican party: “We need to be the party of nationalism. And I’m a Christian. I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists.”

Again, it’s not that Christian nationalism is new—it is not. Nor is it that Greene is an especially powerful national figure—she is not. Nor that the Federalist is a particularly influential publication beyond the far right—it is not. But Donald Trump’s own open nationalism and his cynical embrace of the Christian right have clearly led some Republicans to conclude that it’s time to talk more openly about Christian nationalism.

To understand why a more open embrace of Christian nationalism on the right today is so insidious, we have to understand what Christian nationalism is. It arises from a warped version of American history, one that holds that the United States was supposed to be an explicitly Christian country, founded by and for Christian people—often understood explicitly to mean white Christian people. This bad history has been disproved time and time again, but it is central to the self-appointed legitimacy of Christian nationalists.

The pseudo-history is one pillar of white Christian nationalism. A second pillar is that society and its laws should be dictated by white Christians, that there should be no separation of church and state. 

A third pillar: the belief that only Christians—white, conservative Christians—are “true” Americans.

Yale professor of sociology Philip Gorski refers to “freedom, order, and violence” as the “holy trinity” of white Christian nationalism:

Which means a kind of libertarian freedom for people like us—“us” being, above all, straight, white, native-born Christian men—order for everybody else, which means racial and gender order above all else, and that kind of righteous violence directed against anybody who violates that order.

While Benton, in her Federalist article, attempted to downplay the white-supremacy aspect of Christian nationalism, the data makes clear that the “white” part is integral to the violent Christian nationalism increasingly openly permeating today’s Republican party. Here’s how sociologist Sam Perry sums it up:

Just from an empirical standpoint, . . . [the] quantitative indicators of Christian-nationalist ideology seem to operate differently for white Americans than for, say, African Americans. When white Americans take our surveys and answer questions about whether the United States is a Christian nation or we don’t need a separation of church and state or we should advocate Christian values in the government, for them, it is powerfully associated with things like nostalgia and authoritarianism and a certain vision of America’s history as this kind of mythic story: that we have a special relationship with God and that there is this kind of place that we are going—this deep story.

Perry and Whitehead have compiled the evidence, from white Christian nationalists’ attitudes towards racial boundaries (e.g., when it comes to interracial marriage) to studies that show that “Christian nationalism was a significant and consistent predictor of anti-immigrant stereotypes, prejudice, dehumanization, and support for anti-immigrant policies.”

And what about the classic narrative that the more openly racist Christian nationalists are somehow “not real Christians”? 

Religion scholar Robert P. Johns, the founder and CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute, rejects that notion:

Separation of church and state? Let's get real — that's over. So what do we do now? Jefferson's "wall of separation" is history. There are other, better ways to fight the Christian right's onslaught

Statistical models refute the assertion that attending church makes white Christians less racist. Among white evangelicals, in fact, the opposite is true: The relationship between holding racist views and white Christian identity is actually stronger among more frequent church attenders than among less frequent church attenders.

Attempts, like Benton’s, to obscure or gloss over the racist core of white Christian nationalism ignore the substantial data collected by sociologists, and show either open lying or blatant ignorance about the still highly segregated American church landscape. 

Black Evangelical Christians leave the white churches.

Also, they ignore the experiences of black Christians, like Jemar Tisby, who describe having to leave white evangelical churches, since they felt that they either had to conform to these white theological spaces or leave—there was no debate to be had. Benton’s Federalist article instead employs classic “colorblindness” rhetoric, obscuring the white supremacy that runs through the veins of white Christian nationalism.

Describing a June conference of Christian conservatives, reporter Katherine Stewart explained the three trends she saw that suggested Christian nationalism was on the rise:

First, the rhetoric of violence among movement leaders appeared to have increased significantly from the already alarming levels I had observed in previous years. 

Second, the theology of dominionism—that is, the belief that “right-thinking” Christians have a biblically derived mandate to take control of all aspects of government and society—is now explicitly embraced. 

And third, (unfortunately IMO) the movement’s key strategists were giddy about the legal arsenal that the Supreme Court had laid at their feet as they anticipated the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

White Christian nationalism knows no nuance—it advocates for a society in which minority rule by white, conservative Christians is enshrined, democracy be damned. And when you listen closely enough, sooner or later, its defenders will reveal their true colors, as Benton does in her Federalist article, when she writes “It’s this love of God, country, and freedom trifecta that has the enemy screeching like there’s no tomorrow” (emphasis added). “The enemy”—an odd way to talk about your political opponent in a democracy. 

But par for the course in white Christian nationalism, which yearns for a white, Christian, authoritarian state that puts everybody else where they belong—under the “biblical” rule of white, right-wing Christians.

There was a time, not very long ago, when far-right figures wanted to avoid being called “Christian nationalists”—denying or deflecting or pleading ignorance. Even now, some reject the label. “Reporters frequently ask me,” Robert Jeffress, the megachurch pastor, said last month, “‘Are you a Christian nationalist?’ . . . And I respond emphatically, ‘No, not in any way.’” In May, Doug Mastriano, the Republican nominee in the race for Pennsylvania governor, wrote a reporter, “Is this a term you fabricated? What does it mean and where have I indicated that I am a Christian Nationalist?” Franklin Graham told the same reporter that “Christian nationalism doesn’t exist.”

Despite the protestations, the term Christian nationalism is well suited for much of the far right. Think of (defeated) Georgia gubernatorial candidate Kandiss Taylor’s slogan “Jesus, Guns, Babies.” Or the extensive Christian symbolism in the crowd that attacked the Capitol on January 6th. Or, the Republicans, such as Rep. Lauren Boebert and Doug Mastriano, who have pointedly said they believe in collapsing the separation of church and state.

We may be entering a new phase, however—one in which at least some people are claiming, proudly, to be Christian nationalists, and writing apologetics explicitly in defense of the label and its attendant ideology. 

Witness (the stupid!) Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who openly proclaims herself a Christian nationalist on Twitter and in interviews and on t-shirts. 

Or the Federalist, which on August 11, published an article entitled “Christian Nationalism Is Biblical And America-First, But It’s Not White.”  In fact, the author, Carina Benton, is a regular contributor to the Trump-loving right-wing outlet and not someone with apparent expertise in theology or political philosophy—but the article is a useful indicator of how the debate is shifting, and because similar arguments have popped up elsewhere, it is worth at least a quick dissection.

Benton asserts that the criticism of Christian nationalism relies on “straw man arguments that misrepresent both Christianity and nationalism, and phony attempts to depict the movement as white,” before going on to prove Godwin’s Law halfway through.

Perhaps the two most pernicious paragraphs in Benton’s article deal with the idea of what a Christian nation is. First, she says that the United States chose God, chose Christianity, within a very specific doctrinal image:

The United States isn’t special because it’s a nation chosen by God; it’s special because it’s a nation that chose God. The implications are entirely biblical. Holy Scripture invites individuals from every race, tribe, nation, and language to freely enter into a personal relationship with the Savior, to live by His commandments, and worship Him as King.

Everyone is invited to “freely enter into a personal relationship with the Savior,” fine, but the mechanism described here is neither free nor personal: It is a state-imposed Christendom over the nation and its inhabitants. Don’t take our word for it, Benton is very clear:

[Holy Scripture] also envisages, from Genesis to Isaiah, from the Gospels to the Book of Revelation, the conversion of whole nations or peoples, and warns of the inevitable harm of instead embracing a culture of idolatry, depravity, and deceit. Hence, we read in Proverbs that “a nation without God’s guidance is a nation without order.”

This is the model being advocated. It is very clearly Christian nationalism—a label Benton welcomes. And while she objects to calling it “white Christian nationalism,” she certainly seems to be advocating a cultural and religious conversion to a dominant strand of Christian thought in this country, one that has—justifiably, given the politics of those who have tended to espouse it—been called “white Christian nationalism.” (More on this in a moment.)

Benton’s article is not the first case of apologetics for Christian nationalism in the Federalist. 

In 2019, it published “We Need Christian Nationalism Because Religious Neutrality Has Failed,” which argues that religious neutrality should be rejected in favor of “a conviction that a Christian understanding of the world should predominate over other worldviews in American civic life.” And a 2021 article called “Stop Smearing Christians As ‘Christian Nationalists’ Just Because They Value Both Faith And Freedom” includes this line apparently intended as a defense of January 6th insurrectionists: “You think Big Tech and bureaucrats rigged an election that will result in your rights being infringed, so you fly to D.C. with your family and your flags? You’re a Christian nationalist.” We tend to agree with this sentence, if not the author’s analysis—she views the label “Christian nationalist” as an unjust smear on both the insurrectionists and on “Christian Trump supporters.”

“When I said that I’m a Christian nationalist, I have nothing to be ashamed of,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene remarked at CPAC earlier this month. “Because that’s what most Americans are.”

Is that true—are most Americans Christian nationalists? Let’s look at the numbers: Sociologists Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry, in their 2020 book Taking America Back for God, show that a little more than half of American adults, 51.9 percent, are either strongly supportive of (19.8 percent) or at least somewhat positively inclined toward (32.1 percent) Christian nationalism. Whitehead and Perry based their analysis on questions in the 2017 Baylor Religion Survey asking respondents how much they agreed or disagreed with six propositions about religion, government, and the United States:From Taking America Back for God by Andrew L. Whitehead and Samuel L. Perry.

Greene seems to want to seize the moment, laundering Christian nationalism as something both harmless and patriotic: “We’re proud of our faith and we love our country,” she said at CPAC. “And that will make America great again. When we lean into biblical principles, you know, is there anything wrong with loving God and loving others? No.” And in an interview late last month, she argued that Christian nationalism should be a central tenet of the Republican party: “We need to be the party of nationalism. And I’m a Christian. I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists.”

Again, it’s not that Christian nationalism is new—it is not. Nor is it that Greene is an especially powerful national figure—she is not. Nor that the Federalist is a particularly influential publication beyond the far right—it is not. But Donald Trump’s own open nationalism and his cynical embrace of the Christian right have clearly led some Republicans to conclude that it’s time to talk more openly about Christian nationalism.

To understand why a more open embrace of Christian nationalism on the right today is so insidious, we have to understand what Christian nationalism is. It arises from a warped version of American history, one that holds that the United States was supposed to be an explicitly Christian country, founded by and for Christian people—often understood explicitly to mean white Christian people. This bad history has been disproved time and time again, but it is central to the self-appointed legitimacy of Christian nationalists.

The pseudo-history is one pillar of white Christian nationalism. A second pillar is that society and its laws should be dictated by white Christians, that there should be no separation of church and state. A third pillar: the belief that only Christians—white, conservative Christians—are “true” Americans.

Yale professor of sociology Philip Gorski refers to “freedom, order, and violence” as the “holy trinity” of white Christian nationalism:

Which means a kind of libertarian freedom for people like us—“us” being, above all, straight, white, native-born Christian men—order for everybody else, which means racial and gender order above all else, and that kind of righteous violence directed against anybody who violates that order.

While Benton, in her Federalist article, attempted to downplay the white-supremacy aspect of Christian nationalism, the data makes clear that the “white” part is integral to the violent Christian nationalism increasingly openly permeating today’s Republican party. Here’s how sociologist Sam Perry sums it up:

Just from an empirical standpoint, . . . [the] quantitative indicators of Christian-nationalist ideology seem to operate differently for white Americans than for, say, African Americans. When white Americans take our surveys and answer questions about whether the United States is a Christian nation or we don’t need a separation of church and state or we should advocate Christian values in the government, for them, it is powerfully associated with things like nostalgia and authoritarianism and a certain vision of America’s history as this kind of mythic story: that we have a special relationship with God and that there is this kind of place that we are going—this deep story.

Perry and Whitehead have compiled the evidence, from white Christian nationalists’ attitudes towards racial boundaries (e.g., when it comes to interracial marriage) to studies that show that “Christian nationalism was a significant and consistent predictor of anti-immigrant stereotypes, prejudice, dehumanization, and support for anti-immigrant policies.”

And what about the classic narrative that the more openly racist Christian nationalists are somehow “not real Christians”? Religion scholar Robert P. Johns, the founder and CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute, rejects that notion:

Statistical models refute the assertion that attending church makes white Christians less racist. Among white evangelicals, in fact, the opposite is true: The relationship between holding racist views and white Christian identity is actually stronger among more frequent church attenders than among less frequent church attenders.

Attempts, like Benton’s, to obscure or gloss over the racist core of white Christian nationalism ignore the substantial data collected by sociologists, and show either open lying or blatant ignorance about the still highly segregated American church landscape. They also ignore the experiences of black Christians, like Jemar Tisby, who describe having to leave white evangelical churches, since they felt that they either had to conform to these white theological spaces or leave—there was no debate to be had. Benton’s Federalist article instead employs classic “colorblindness” rhetoric, obscuring the white supremacy that runs through the veins of white Christian nationalism.

Describing a June conference of Christian conservatives, reporter Katherine Stewart explained the three trends she saw that suggested Christian nationalism was on the rise:

First, the rhetoric of violence among movement leaders appeared to have increased significantly from the already alarming levels I had observed in previous years. Second, the theology of dominionism—that is, the belief that “right-thinking” Christians have a biblically derived mandate to take control of all aspects of government and society—is now explicitly embraced. And third, the movement’s key strategists were giddy about the legal arsenal that the Supreme Court had laid at their feet as they anticipated the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

White Christian nationalism knows no nuance—it advocates for a society in which minority rule by white, conservative Christians is enshrined, democracy be damned. And when you listen closely enough, sooner or later, its defenders will reveal their true colors, as Benton does in her Federalist article, when she writes “It’s this love of God, country, and freedom trifecta that has the enemy screeching like there’s no tomorrow” (emphasis added). “The enemy”—an odd way to talk about your political opponent in a democracy. 

But par for the course in white Christian nationalism, which yearns for a white, Christian, authoritarian state that puts everybody else where they belong—under the “biblical” rule of white, right-wing Christians.

Annika Brockschmidt and Thomas Lecaque
Annika Brockschmidt (@ardenthistorian) is the author of Amerikas Gotteskrieger: Wie die Religiöse Rechte die Demokratie gefährdet (America’s Holy Warriors: How the Religious Right Endangers Democracy). Thomas Lecaque (@tlecaque) is an associate professor of history at Grand View University (Grand View University is a private liberal arts university in Des Moines, Iowa. Founded in 1896 and affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.)

*In December 2015, Godwin commented on comparisons to Nazism and fascism being made by several articles between Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, saying: "If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump...."