My children go to a small Christian private school. One of the most popular teachers has been called up to go to Afghanistan for another tour. He will leave behind his wife, children and school. My kids are distraught. My oldest asked me a question for which I have no answer: Why are we sending soldiers to Afghanistan?
Nineteen years ago, before my children were born, terrorists who trained in Afghanistan and coordinated with the Taliban government plotted and carried out the 9/11 attacks that killed over 2,000 Americans. President George W. Bush rallied the nation and launched an invasion of Afghanistan to root out the terrorist masterminds and end the Taliban&#8217;s rule. The situation proved more difficult that our military leaders assured us. Undoubtedly, part of the problem was American pride wanting to show the Russians that we could tame a country that Russians still call their Vietnam.
Even a decade ago, I could have rationally explained to my kids why we went into Afghanistan and why, nearly a decade later, we were still there. The government struggled. We had not exterminated the Taliban. We needed to help the government get on its feet. We needed to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a terrorist safe haven.
But now, nearly 20 years removed, the situation has not changed. In fact, in a breathtaking report from The Washington Post with a treasure trove of documents from the Pentagon, it turns out our military leaders do not know why we are in Afghanistan either. The government continues to be corrupt. In fact, corruption is systemic and endemic to the various tribes and political classes inside Afghanistan.
The American government failed at the core task of taking out the Taliban. The American government further failed to establish a sound government capable of taking out the Taliban after we left. We are now failing by propping up a kleptocracy that has no desire to change.
Both Presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama have wanted to leave Afghanistan, but we are still there. We have an understandable reason for remaining in Iraq, but I cannot fathom an explanation for why our soldiers are still getting killed in Afghanistan. The only plausible explanation at this point seems to be the pride of our military leaders. But our young men and women should not die for the pride of others who cannot admit failure. It is a failure.
Trump should begin winding down our operations in Afghanistan now. If he doesn&#8217;t, he should provide some reasonable expectations and goals. It is clear from the military documents uncovered by The Washington Post that our military leaders do not really know why we are in Afghanistan anymore, and those under them have no idea what they are doing. This is not good stewardship of our military or resources, and it is terrible for morale.
More importantly, we are raising a new generation of Americans to be cynical about the use of American power. When our children see their teachers, parents, older siblings and family friends head off to a country on the far side of the world, unable to explain why they are going, we risk undermining our kids&#8217; faith in institutions and willingness to serve a cause greater than themselves.
Afghanistan was once a cause greater than any one person. Afghanistan did give a safe haven to terrorists and help them plan attacks against the United States. Afghanistan was run by a rogue government of Islamic fundamentalists. But now, Afghanistan is run by a corrupt regime that makes some of its people wistful for the days of the Taliban.
Someone needs to tell us why we are still going there. Someone needs to tell us when or under what conditions we will leave. Someone needs to tell us what our soldiers are actually doing there. Someone needs to provide goals and purposes. That should be the commander in chief. If he cannot do it, we should leave tomorrow.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Soldiers in Afghanistan.

ERICKSON: Why Are We Still There? When Do We Leave?

9/11

Afghanistan

Iraq War

In the modern era, it is difficult to come up with an administration that has spent as much energy trying to sabotage its successor in office. Obama administration officials have worked tirelessly to embed themselves into media outlets as supposedly objective voices.
After President Donald Trump oversaw the killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani and as missiles fell from the night sky into Iraq from Iran, those voices took to the airwaves to push the Obama line against Trump. In the American media, with help from former Obama staffers, Trump was the bad guy and Iran was the good guy. Iran deescalated tensions. Trump made things worse.
On CNN, Jim Sciutto of the Obama administration sat as an objective news anchor. CNN also now has Valerie Jarrett&#8217;s daughter, Laura, in an anchor chair, too. They tossed a co-anchor for their early morning news show to make room for the daughter of one of Barack Obama&#8217;s most ardent defenders. But we are supposed to pretend there is no bias.
They have been joined by a bevy of other Obama surrogates who now pretend to be objective analysts. Watching James Clapper, also of the Obama administration, pretend to be an unbiased national security analyst for CNN makes me long for the days of &#8220;Baghdad Bob,&#8221; Saddam Hussein&#8217;s spokesman who claimed the Americans had been defeated as American tanks rolled into Baghdad.
Newsweek reported last week that, &#8220;James Clapper, the former director of National Intelligence, has urged Americans to be skeptical of President Donald Trump&#8217;s justification for the assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani.&#8221; Meanwhile, The New York Times reported that CIA Director Gina Haspel, whose nomination Clapper supported, &#8220;had advised Mr. Trump that the threat the Iranian general presented was greater than the threat of Iran&#8217;s response if he was killed, according to current and former American officials. Indeed, Haspel had predicted the most likely response would be a missile strike from Iran to bases where American troops were deployed, the very situation that appeared to be playing out on Tuesday afternoon.&#8221;
Who do we believe? The CIA director or the people ideologically dedicated to protecting Obama&#8217;s precious Iran deal? When watching the Obama team — whether they are anchoring CNN coverage or mouthing off on MSNBC — it is striking just how invested they are in denying reality.
After Iran launched its functionally impotent attack against American positions in Iraq, Trump rightly pointed out the Obama administration helped Iran launch those missiles. The pushback from media fact checkers and Obama surrogates was fast and furious — and also more dedicated to protecting Obama than the truth.
The truth is that the United States did not give Iran money from American taxpayers. We gave them billions of dollars worth of their own money. After the Iranian revolutionaries overthrew the Shah, global powers froze Iran&#8217;s bank accounts. But Obama decided, I suspect, that Israel and Saudi Arabia were getting too big for their britches. Instead of aiming for peace in the Middle East, he decided he would prop up Iran.
In 2015, in defense of the deal, Obama&#8217;s Secretary of State John Kerry told CNBC some of Iran&#8217;s money would go to terrorist groups. &#8220;I think that some of it will end up in the hands of the (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists &#8230; You know, to some degree, I&#8217;m not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented,&#8221; Kerry said. Soleimani and the Iranians used the money Obama sent them to fund terrorists, militias, missiles and improvised explosive devices used to kill American soldiers.
Obama officials now guard what news you can and cannot hear. They anchor news desks and serve as purportedly objective analysts. When the Obama loyalist as news anchor asks the Obama loyalist as news analyst what happened, we can be sure they will blame Trump and protect Obama&#8217;s legacy. A media that continues to lecture Trump voters about truth increasingly does not know what truth is.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Barack Obama.

ERICKSON: The Obama Administration’s Guerrilla War

Barack Obama

Iran

Media Bias

Qasem Soleimani

Many people reading this will have already taken down their Christmas lights. Just a few decades ago, it was pretty normal for Christians in America to leave up their lights for all 12 days of Christmas. Now, many think Christmas Day is the 12th day instead of the first. My lights will burn bright until Jan. 5, where, by tradition, the lights must be off before sunset. On Jan. 6, which is Epiphany, Mardi Gras season starts in earnest for those of us from Louisiana.
As I get older, I love the Christmas season more and more. Easter comes as a weekend. Christmas comes as a month of Advent on the heels of Thanksgiving. It gives time for more reflection, often centered around some pretty deep theology in carols. The basic gist of the caroling is all the same. God became flesh and humbled himself by being born in a manger and giving up the trappings of royalty and then dying a criminal&#8217;s death having committed no crime.
In the United States, whether we like to admit it or not, we are already deep into political campaign season. Impeachment season is upon us as well. Everything is now political. Just two weeks ago, the author J.K. Rowling walked into a firestorm for having the audacity to be pro-science. She declared sex is immutable. Men cannot become women, and vice versa. Though she endorsed this scientific fact, woke protestors decided to burn her books. Even opinion writers in The New York Times denounced her for expressing an opinion others in The New York Times have expressed in the past.
Everything has become political. Every political cause has taken on religious fervor. It can wear a person out. In wokeness, every principled position firmly held will eventually give way to something more extreme, radical and wholly disconnected from reason. Truthfully, though, none of it matters. Too many people have separated themselves from the eternal to focus on the here and now. They have decided to seek a future utopia of some kind, aware their mortal life is limited and unaware there is an eternity. Behaviors change when one recognizes eternity.
Too many partisans have forgotten eternity. On both sides of the political spectrum, people are looking for political saviors to save them from people on the other side of that spectrum. It is sad to see secular progressives running in hamster wheels of outrage, perpetually spun up about some perceived injustice. It is hilarious to see Christian evangelicals insistent on loyalty to a politician to save them from the other side. Apparently, having the God of the universe on their side is not enough.
Americans need a recalibration on priorities. So much of what we argue about does not really matter. No Republican was ever profoundly impacted by Barack Obama except, arguably, in the area of health care. No Democrat has ever been profoundly impacted by Donald Trump except, arguably, in their take-home pay. Both sides treat Washington as more important than it is.
What is actually important is this: You have a soul, you will live forever, and there is a God who wants a relationship with you. One day you will stand before him, and he will judge you. Everything else should flow from that. For those who do not believe, one day they will, and hopefully that belief will come on this side of the grave. For everyone else, behaving in politics as if eternity does not matter might ultimately suggest one is not as truly committed to the idea of eternity as one might claim.
Protestant Christians believe we are saved by faith alone, and good works derive from our faith. Regardless of how one sees salvation, I would suggest a lot of us could stand to dwell more on it than on Washington. We find our welfare in our local communities, not in far off cities that affect us far less than we claim. As we move beyond Christmas and into a new year, I would urge you (and me) to dwell less on the here and now and more on eternity.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Church candle.

ERICKSON: The Eternal And The Here And Now

Christianity

Christmas

Democratic Party

Republican Party

There are several billion people on this planet who live in stable, highly ordered societies, where they do not have to deal with the braying of biblical donkeys in our Congress yelling at each other. Contrary to claims heard this past week in the House of Representatives, impeaching the President is not more unfair than Jesus before Pontius Pilate. It is not worse than Pearl Harbor. It is not equivalent to fighting against Jim Crow. Failing to impeach the President is not an endorsement of tyranny or a dictatorship.
The impeachment is a messy, gross affair with politicians of both sides preening before cameras. If Congress took cameras out of the House and Senate chambers, our political discourse would improve overnight because the members of Congress would be unable to posture and preen in their chambers and committees; well, it&#8217;s either that, or we just would not see it anymore.
With all of that on the record, return your attention to those billions who live in stable, highly ordered societies. Those societies are highly ordered and superficially stable because they are oppressive and repressive authoritarian regimes. The trains in China can run on time because the conductors will disappear if they delay. Politics runs smoothly because the people have no choices except the mandated choices. Elections are Potemkin villages designed to placate Western media outlets that write glowingly about the efficiencies of the regimes.
The National Basketball Association gets vocal about social progress in the United States because we have freedom, which allows the players to speak up. They get strangely silent in China, when money is on the line and censorious authoritarians are watching. In this country, progressive protestors took to the streets last week to demand President Donald Trump&#8217;s impeachment. They went home after the protests, had access to hundreds of channels of uncensored entertainment and then slept comfortably in their beds, knowing the President they hate had been impeached.
Congressional Democrats, too, could go to the floor of the House of Representatives, insult the President, decry would-be dictatorship, vote to impeach and then go home at night to sleep safely, thinking they had stood up for democracy and the Constitution. You may not like that the protestors protested or the Democrats voted to impeach. But you should love that they could do both — and you could do both, if you wanted.
There are several billion people on planet Earth who cannot vote to remove their leader. They cannot take to the streets without risk to their own lives and those of their families. In Hong Kong, protestors wear masks to protest and live in fear of their police state. They crave the chaos inherent in the freedom of our system.
I disagree with the Democrats&#8217; impeachment of President Trump. I would have voted against it. I maintain that this issue is best left to the voters in less than a year. But I love that they could do it. The process we have witnessed play out is not a bug in our constitutional system. It is the design of our system. It is messy. It is chaotic. It is often embarrassing and sometimes hard to explain. It is also the best system of government on this blue orb we all share, and millions have lost their lives trying to get to it. We should be thankful for all of it.
As I get older, one reason I think so many Americans are yelling at each other more and more is because we know each other less and less. We now have more daily interactions digitally than in person. Two thousand years ago, the God of all creation, who brings bread from heaven and water from rocks and raised all of us from the dust of the Earth, came back to live with us. He downgraded from wandering the desert in a tent with the Israelites to a food trough in Bethlehem, surrounded by real braying biblical donkeys. If he wanted a relationship with us that much, perhaps we should work on our relationship with him. Part of that involves working on our relationship with each other. There is no better time to start than at Christmas. Merry Christmas.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Impeachment sign.

ERICKSON: Impeachment And A Food Trough

Democrats

Donald Trump

Impeachment

The United States is currently embroiled in another political controversy. Next week, there will be another one. Each one will distract us. We should work hard to not be distracted from Christmas. We should not be distracted from a key miracle that started the Christian faith.
Both Matthew and Luke tell us that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Mary was, at the time, a virgin. It is a matter of theological orthodoxy to believe this, and given the parameters of Christianity, it is not a far leap to suggest if one cannot believe in a virgin birth, one will probably also lack the faith to believe in a physical resurrection of Jesus.
Early church fathers widely agreed that Jesus was both born of a virgin and physically rose from the dead. Church orthodoxy has been settled on these points for roughly 2,000 years, and no amount of holiday screeds about Mary being raped or the Bible being mistranslated can refute this. In fact, the collection of manuscripts of Scripture that we have today makes it very clear there is no mistranslation in the accounts of the birth of Jesus.
F. F. Bruce, one of the most respected scholars on the subject of biblical accuracy, notes that there are only around nine or 10 manuscripts of Julius Caesar&#8217;s &#8220;Gallic Wars,&#8221; which was composed between 58 and 50 BC. The oldest manuscript we have originates from 900 years later. Bruce writes that, &#8220;The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from eight (manuscripts), the earliest belonging to c. AD 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era. The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest (manuscripts) of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.&#8221;
Of Scripture, we have so much more. In fact, we can reproduce almost all of the New Testament from the writings of the early church fathers. Within 100 years of Christ&#8217;s death, we have almost all of the gospels and a good bit of Paul quoted. As Dr. Michael Brown has noted, there are over 20,000 handwritten manuscripts — written in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic and other ancient languages — currently known, and archeologists keep finding new copies. In fact, the Bible is perhaps the best-preserved ancient book, having more manuscripts originating from within 200 years of the primary sources than any other work in the Greco-Roman world. There are 5,700 New Testament Greek manuscripts known to exist, some written no more than 100 years after Christ&#8217;s resurrection.
We do not, to our knowledge, have the original autographs, i.e., the actual letters Paul wrote. But there is plenty of mainstream scholarship and wide acceptance that the originals were authored within 50 years of Christ&#8217;s death. Many of the eyewitnesses would have still been alive. Paul even notes that there were eyewitnesses still living who could confirm the accounts of Christ&#8217;s life.
While we do not have the original autographs, we have the copies early Christians wrote, duplicating those letters. The most amazing part of having so many copies that span hundreds of years is that they are remarkably free of errors. We know the accuracy of the Old Testament, going back more thousands of years, is beyond question. From the New Testament, there are errors in some of the manuscripts, but we have so many manuscripts we can find the consensus of what is correct, and, more importantly, none of the errors affect anything substantive.
As Bart Ehrman, a nonbelieving Biblical scholar has noted, &#8220;Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.&#8221; And one of those essential beliefs is this: &#8220;Unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.&#8221;
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Nativity.

ERICKSON: The Miraculous Beginnings Of Christmas

Bible

Jesus Christ

God organized society around a seven-day cycle that ends in a day of rest. The world has taken that seven-day cycle and added it to a solar cycle of roughly 365 days fixed on a point in space to which we arrive each year, marking a complete orbit around the sun.
In the liturgical calendar, we have arrived at a fixed point in time to celebrate the arrival of a son. As secular society drifts away from religious celebrations of Christmas and into shopping extravaganzas, even Protestant Christians might want to think about prioritizing the cycles of Christ&#8217;s birth and resurrection rather than the orbit around the sun.
But we are here, and during Advent, we all focus on the birth of Christ. It could do us some good, while focusing on his birth, to also focus on his death. As one Christmas song tells us, He was born to die. On that cross some 2,000 years ago, the divine son of God was fully God but also fully man. Christians focus on his divinity, but we could use some focus on his humanity. Gethsemane makes no sense without understanding that Jesus, an actual historical figure whose death was documented by the Roman historians, was also fully man.
That day in Jerusalem, the innocent man was tortured, beaten to within an inch of his life, forced to carry a cross after having a crown of thorns shoved into his scalp and nailed to that cross he had carried. Soldiers hoisted up the cross, and gravity then pulled down his body around the nails that fixed him there. His reaction was remarkable. Luke, the physician who interviewed the eyewitnesses to the event, tells us Jesus cried out to God, &#8220;Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.&#8221;
If you, an innocent person, were subjected to that, I doubt your dying words would involve forgiving the people killing you. Luke also chronicled the execution of the first Christian martyr, Stephen. Men stoned him to death, and with his dying breath, he asked God to forgive his murderers.
When we encounter people who insult or injure us, our natural reaction is to demand an apology, judge the sincerity of the apology and possibly give preconditions that must be fulfilled before we forgive. Between us and God, we must repent. But the human on the cross and the human martyr demanded no such thing. They forgave. There was no apology. There were no preconditions to forgiveness. There was just forgiveness.
At Christmas, nostalgia sweeps in and overwhelms us. We tend to reassess the last year, last Christmases or favorite Christmases. Often, past pain surfaces in our consciences. We have been insulted or aggrieved, and we cling to those grievances. We let the things others did to us control us. Forgiveness allows us to stop letting others control us. By forgiving without condition, we exercise the power of resetting a relationship in a way that prevents the other person from controlling us. In so doing, we also acknowledge that though we may be blameless in the transgression that happened, we have undoubtedly transgressed against others. We should therefore forgive, if only in the hope that others forgive us.
In my experience, the hardest person to forgive is oneself. We hang on to the dumb things we have done in the past and let the shame pollute our conscience. We must be willing to forgive others without condition, but we must also be willing to forgive ourselves. As the earth moves back to the starting point of a new year and we reflect on each mile of the preceding year&#8217;s orbit, we need to unshackle ourselves from our own guilt and anger at ourselves.
The only man who ever lived sin-free was tortured, beaten and executed, and in his final breaths, he chose to forgive. If we refuse to forgive ourselves or others, we suggest our consciences have been pricked more severely than his — and we know that is not so. At Christmas, give the gift of forgiveness, let go, and move on.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Baby Jesus.

ERICKSON: The Best Christmas Gift

Two weeks ago, two prominent evangelical supporters of President Donald Trump, Eric Metaxas and Franklin Graham, had a discussion about the election, the current political situation and opposition to the President.
&#8220;It&#8217;s a very bizarre situation to be living in a country where some people seem to exist to undermine the president of the United States. It&#8217;s just a bizarre time for most Americans,&#8221; said author and radio show host Eric Metaxas.
&#8220;Well, I believe it&#8217;s almost a demonic power that is trying,&#8221; Graham began before being interrupted by Metaxas who replied, &#8220;I would disagree. It&#8217;s not almost demonic. You know and I know, at the heart, it&#8217;s a spiritual battle.&#8221; They then pivoted immediately into the economy as evidence of how good people have it.
The mainstream media rushed to characterize Graham as suggesting all opposition to the President is demonic. It is naturally understandable, given the conversation, that they would go there. But then that raises the question of all the opposition to Barack Obama when he was President. Romans 13:1-2 reads, &#8220;Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.&#8221;
Both Obama and Trump were put into the presidency as part of God&#8217;s master plan. If you are a Christian, you cannot deny this. Certainly, scripture is clear that man&#8217;s law does not trump God&#8217;s law. Refusing to pay for abortions despite a government mandate is scriptural. Praying for the President and paying taxes, even if you oppose where the money is going, is also scriptural.
The problem with the conversation, as with so many conversations these days, is that too many want to characterize their political opponents as enemies, not just opponents. I would agree that something wicked is stirring right now. Scripture is clear there are things unseen, both good and bad. We should be perturbed at the rise of mass shootings, the renewed aggressiveness of abortion rights advocates, the censorious demands of LGBT activists and more. We should also be perturbed at the number of Christians who think they need a strong man in the White House to protect them when they claim to worship the God of the universe.
Americans across the political spectrum need an abundance of grace more than ever right now. We — and I use &#8220;we&#8221; intentionally — are all so quick to presume bad motives these days. We are all so quick to presume someone is bad because they have a different worldview or ideology. Our society cannot continue on if we are not willing to live and let live. Our founders embraced the idea of federalism because they knew a new nation as diverse as ours should be allowed communities of common interest.
Unfortunately, the United States Supreme Court and activists across the country have long worked to exterminate communities of interest. The values of urban, progressive areas are increasingly legally required to be the values of socially conservative areas. A decade ago, progressive activists asked, &#8220;How will my gay marriage affect you?&#8221; The answer, a decade later, is that my business may be shut down if I do not provide you goods and services. My children will be ostracized if they do not run from their parents&#8217; faith.
Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant and then it seeks to silence good. The only cure for the rise of intolerances and censoriousness is grace. We must be willing to understand that those who fundamentally disagree with us simply have a different understanding of the world. We must work to find common ground where we can and show grace where we cannot. We must be willing to let others live their lives in ways fundamentally different from our own and not feel compelled to have them conform. If we, as a nation, are to survive as one people, we must be willing to be friends in disagreement.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Hand holding.

ERICKSON: An Abundance Of Grace

Franklin Graham

Religion

Impeachment is not a coup. Republicans have seized on the stupidest talking point to come out of the stupidest age in American politics. Impeachment is a constitutional process the Democrats have every right to start. But the Senate Republicans have every right to reject this as partisan gamesmanship, too. Impeachment is not a coup. It is political. Republicans are right to treat it as such.
You will have to excuse me if I am not in favor of throwing the President out of office over a phone call that amounted to nothing. A year ago, I would have taken this more seriously. But the nation is less than a year from the election. Democrats are not making an effort to persuade. They are making a political show, coordinated with a whistleblower and egged on by an American media that has been demanding impeachment since the President&#8217;s inauguration.
I have a hard time trusting the media to give fair analysis on this subject. As a nation, we have collectively watched respected journalists lose their minds over the past three years because President Donald Trump broke them. Firing James Comey would end him. Robert Mueller would end him. The Cabinet would exercise the 25th amendment. The GOP would stand up to him. Joe Walsh would beat him. Every wet spaghetti noodle of an accusation has been hurled at the White House wall to see what might stick to take out Orange Man Bad.
Democrat holdovers from the Obama administration have ruthlessly leaked to try to undermine the President&#8217;s agenda. The Supreme Court has continually had to stop federal judges appointed by Barack Obama from overstepping their authority to undermine the President&#8217;s agenda. Democrats have convinced themselves Russia stole the election and the President is illegitimate; therefore, anything to stop him is fair game.
Why should anyone take an impeachment process seriously when it is led by these people and pontificated on by the press, both of whom have had a multiyear agenda of ending this presidency?
Concurrently, why should anyone have faith in the President to not do what he is doing? Any president asking any foreign government to investigate a political rival is a devastating thing for the integrity of our republican processes. The President only cared about Hunter Biden and Burisma Holdings Ltd. after Joe Biden became a candidate. What would a second term of this President look like when he no longer has voter accountability to contend with? However, it is worth noting that no investigation happened, and Ukraine did get its money. According to Trump, there was a good bit of time Ukraine did not even know the money was being withheld.
Of all the behavior about which Democrats could have probed the President — including the issue of steering business to his properties — the Democrats chose to build their entire impeachment inquiry around a single phone call that got the President nothing. The media nods along. Everyone who is smart, sophisticated and concerned about the Constitution is supposed to nod along knowingly with furrowed eyebrows. But we are going to take out a President through impeachment over a phone call that got him nothing? Even Bill Clinton was impeached for more than that — lying under oath to harm the interests of an American citizen with a claim against him in a court of law.
The President&#8217;s behavior was wrong. We should also keep in mind he has behaved in this way because Democrats have been trying to sabotage him since he got elected. The whistleblower himself is purported to be a partisan progressive activist. We know for certain he coordinated with Rep. Adam Schiff&#8217;s office. We know &#8220;Anonymous&#8221; was, or still is, in the Trump White House, working to undermine the President. We know from the Democrats&#8217; impeachment witnesses that they were not just concerned about a quid pro quo; they vehemently disagreed with the duly elected President&#8217;s changes in foreign policy.
Naturally and understandably, the President felt he had to rely on outside people to help him accomplish his agenda. No one is going to change their mind on this. Instead of this political process, we should settle this at the ballot box.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

American Flag.

ERICKSON: Let The Voters Decide

Ukraine

We should be able to objectively acknowledge the Democrats are rushing impeachment. They are. The impeachment of Richard Nixon took months just to investigate. The impeachment of Bill Clinton was based on a multiyear independent counsel investigation. This is a few weeks of Rep. Adam Schiff coordinating with a whistleblower behind closed doors, and now the spotlight is on a year-end rush to get the articles of impeachment drafted.
A trial will come at the beginning of next year. The election is less than a year away. Democrats in the Senate will be forced to miss campaign time for Iowa and New Hampshire.
Friends who really feel strongly will tell me the rule of law matters, but this is a political process. It is not a court of law process. If it were really about the rule of law, Democrats would not be in a rush to justice. They would be methodical.
In fact, we are in a funny game where Republicans say we need to hear from the original accuser: the whistleblower. The President has the right to face his accuser in a due process system. Democrats tell us that this is not a judicial process or a criminal process; it is a political process. They have plenty of other firsthand witnesses.
But then the Democrats turn around and say, with gusto, &#8220;If this isn&#8217;t impeachable, nothing is.&#8221; That&#8217;s the impeachment argument equivalent of, &#8220;A vote for a third party is a vote for the guy I want to lose.&#8221;
Only Andrew Johnson was impeached in an election year, and it is pretty clear from the history of that impeachment that it is not really apt to the present situation. Nixon and Clinton were impeached outside election years. Given the political nature of impeachment, I find it quite reasonable that something could be impeachable in 2018 or 2019 but not impeachable less than 365 days from the general election. In politics and political processes, timing matters. Let the voters decide.
Impeachment seems foolhardy and will become a more divisive issue in an already bitterly divided nation. Republicans, even the 19 who are departing the House of Representatives, are solidly with the President. Democrats are making no effort to persuade them or change other people&#8217;s minds. The Democrats seem intent on forcing impeachment through, and all the people screaming are the people who never wanted the president elected. No minds have been changed.
Democrats have, since Trump won in 2016, treated him as an illegitimate usurper. The very people who hated him then still hate him today, and they have done nothing to earn the trust of those who might be inclined to side with them on this issue. Since Election Day in 2016, it has been abundantly obvious we would get to this point if the Democrats took back the House of Representatives. The whistleblower&#8217;s lawyer, on January 30, 2017, just 10 days after the President&#8217;s inauguration, tweeted, &#8220;#coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyers&#8221;. How convenient he now represents a bureaucrat intent on bringing down the president.
This is a political issue. It is not a court of law issue. The Democrats in the House, who functionally serve as a grand jury, have been clamoring for this for years. They waited until they regained power and immediately began to act. The Senate Democrat jurors have been calling for impeachment for years. Some of these people have fundraised off the issue.
The president cannot get a fair trial because several of the Democrats have long been on record demanding his impeachment. But, you might say, this isn&#8217;t a court, and the jurors are politicians in a political process.
Exactly, I say.
Elections are a political process, too. And clearly, this issue should be decided in that political process — not one that half of America will view as the Democrats finally doing what they&#8217;ve been wanting to do for three years.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Capitol.

ERICKSON: Use The Other Political Process

2020 Election

Last week, Katherine Miller at BuzzFeed published an essay on how the 2010s &#8220;broke our sense of time.&#8221; On the same day, Georgetown University released a survey showing the average voter thinks we are &#8220;two-thirds of the way to the edge of a civil war.&#8221;
I have no idea what the &#8220;edge&#8221; of a civil war is, but I do think we are at a moment of serious discontent in the country, and I think it is directly related to the point of Miller&#8217;s essay about algorithms reordering our lives. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and the rest of the internet now show us content in a timeline designed to increase our interaction and our clicks. Their algorithms have taken us out of chronology.
With the algorithm, what is old can be new again. Things that happened a week ago appear repeatedly in our timelines as if they are fresh and new. People now visit places that they see repeatedly on Instagram because others are going there. People get mad at news because news is designed to get them mad. Hate clicks generate revenue for news sites. Outrage holds your attention.
The algorithm feeds the fire. Teen suicide rates have climbed since the introduction of the iPhone — the moment our national addiction to screens began. People used the blame the 24-hour news cycle. Now we have the algorithmic news cycle, where news from two years ago can show up like it is new to drive anxiety and outrage. Kids on Instagram and Snapchat can now, over and over again, relive the images of their friends at the parties they didn&#8217;t even know were happening, driving their depression. Their parents can see the selectively edited footage of a news event designed to drive their outrage and then continue seeing it over and over as others share it. None of it slips by unseen.
Social media companies share some of the blame for taking us out of chronology and putting us into algorithms designed not to show us new, interesting stuff but to keep us using sites and services — to keep us clicking.
Add to all of this the decreasing tolerance for Grace, and the situation is spiraling chaotically toward violence. Each of us is now defined by the worst thing we have done, which is helpfully recirculated by others on social media. There is no need to improve or grow up because we will never be credited with doing so when one person with a social media audience can tie us back to the worst thing we have done. College athletes are now routinely destroyed for things they did as teenagers. Guys raising money for charity are blackballed by decade-old tweets from when they were going through puberty. The algorithm amplifies the damage.
There is, of course, a cure for this, but it is one no one has incentive to provide when everyone and everything is now anchored in the digital. Get offline and into your community. Scripture says to seek the welfare of the city in which you are in exile, and there you will find your welfare. But too few are doing that because the city has no algorithm. It has something worse — physical human beings. We would all rather stay online in digital communities we have created, filled with usernames and faces that look and think like us and share our interests and feelings.
Unplugging, however, may be our only hope. Our Facebook friend is not going to bring us dinner when we are sick or water our flowers when we are gone. The actual human being next door just might. That requires we get to know them, appreciate them despite their differences and dare to live a chronological existence with them, where yesterday stays yesterday and tomorrow is something we can look forward to together. Tomorrow has an actual sunrise that we can appreciate with a physical smile on a physical face in a physical place unique to us — not shared by thousands in an Instagram algorithm and hashtag.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Social media.

ERICKSON: The Coming Algorithm Civil War

Facebook

Social Media

Twitter

This past week, the House of Representatives descended into parody, which is hard for it to do. Most members of Congress long ago decided to become parodies of politicians. Now the entire institution is a parody of itself.
The first extraordinary moment was the least noticed. On Oct. 23, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before the House Financial Services Committee. This is where I should make a customary disclosure that this past year, Facebook served as a sponsor for my annual Resurgent Gathering.
There to talk about Libra, a cryptocurrency Facebook intends to create with private sector partners, Zuckerberg instead received a spanking from Democrats upset with his lack of knowledge about how many gay people work for him. One member of Congress demanded to know why Zuckerberg did not know how many women, people of color and gay people worked at outside law firms that work for Facebook. Another wanted to know how many black people use Facebook and was outraged when Zuckerberg said Facebook did not track people by race. It is bad to track people by the color of their skin but also bad not to.
Things took a further bizarre turn when members of Congress asked Zuckerberg why they were allowed to lie on Facebook. Zuckerberg said they should not but he was not going to be the hall monitor stopping them. It is really extraordinary that members of Congress want Mark Zuckerberg, the billionaire CEO of a private company, to block these members of Congress from communicating with their constituents.
Zuckerberg&#8217;s position is that a great many things are subjective; what one person views as a lie, another views as truth. He does not want his company to be the arbiter of the issue. If one person believes boys can become girls — which many view as true these days — and someone else says this is not biologically possible, why should Zuckerberg step in? Likewise, if a Democrat says a Republican voted for something he or she did not vote for, why should Zuckerberg ban the ad instead of simply letting the world see the Democrat is a liar?
It is a truly remarkable turn of events that members of Congress want a private corporation to protect the American public from their own politicians. Perhaps the politicians should censor themselves and be loud and vocal about what they believe are their opponents&#8217; lies instead of having Mark Zuckerberg play teacher on the schoolhouse&#8217;s playground.
The other extraordinary scene played out the same day as a group of Republican congressmen stormed the secure room where Democrats and Republicans were meeting behind closed doors to hear testimony about the impeachment. The Republicans want the matter brought out into the public. While I agree with them, there is precedent for this to happen behind closed doors — including their own Benghazi depositions and the initial impeachment inquiry of Richard Nixon, which met behind closed doors for four months before opening up to the public in a formal process.
What was so extraordinary is that about half the Republicans who stormed the room claiming they wanted to know what was happening were Republicans already entitled to be in the room. It raises a question: If these Republicans are so willing to storm the room to disrupt the proceedings, why are they not willing to leak the supposedly exculpatory testimonies from the witnesses?
We should not presume these people are fully respectful of the process. After all, many of them leaked like sieves during the closed-door Benghazi matter. Why were they so willing to leak to damage Hillary Clinton back then but so unwilling to leak exculpatory information to protect President Donald Trump now?
Republicans are right that the process is partisan and flawed. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., is a partisan hack who should not be allowed in charge of such a serious investigation. But process arguments will not help. Either the President did demand Ukrainians investigate Joe Biden in order to get money or he did not. Making this about process suggests the Republicans have no real defense to the President&#8217;s behavior.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Mark Zuckerberg.

ERICKSON: Two Extraordinary Moments In Congress

Congress

Mark Zuckerberg

A rumor circulating around Washington is that Democrats intend to impeach President Donald Trump by Thanksgiving, with a trial in the Senate before Christmas. Based on conversations I have had with Democrats and Republicans, I suspect the timeline is slightly off.
To understand the timeline, we should understand the process. When Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998, Republicans had a special counsel report with which they could base their impeachment. According to a senior Democrat staffer I talked to, the better model for Democrats against Trump is Richard Nixon.
In February 1974, the House of Representatives passed House Resolution 803, &#8220;A Resolution providing appropriate power to the Committee on the Judiciary to conduct an investigation of whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States.&#8221; That resolution began the formal process of impeaching the president with open hearings as the House Judiciary Committee began drafting articles of impeachment. They never got that far because Nixon resigned.
Prior to passing H.R. 803, the House of Representatives had been meeting, mostly behind closed doors, interviewing witnesses and securing documents. The process was done mostly in secret. Democrats controlled everything. Republicans mostly complained.
The Democrat I talked to said the same thing is happening now. Unlike with Clinton and very much like with Nixon, there was no special prosecutor investigation and report. The Democrats had to do the work themselves with Nixon. Today&#8217;s Democrats see themselves doing the same thing. Republicans see it as both a fishing expedition and a messaging exercise designed to hurt the President&#8217;s reelection, not actually remove him from office.
Republicans say the Democrats do not have the votes for a formal process. Democrats say they have the votes, but they want to build their factual basis to pick up even more Democrats. Democrats privately say they are sure they have a majority vote but want all the Democrats on board. Republicans privately say they are worried about some of the 19 Republicans who are retiring. They think if the Democrats do drag this out, they might be able to pick up some of those Republicans when it comes to passing the articles of impeachment.
Based on all my conversations, my best guess is that the Democrats are going to drag out their fact-finding mission until Thanksgiving and then spend the period of time between Thanksgiving and Christmas building articles of impeachment. They would then refer the matter to the Senate at the end of the year, and the Senate would take it up after the first of the year.
Senate Republicans are increasingly likely to require a trial. They lack the votes to dismiss the matter outright because Democrats will filibuster. Likewise, there are some Republicans who would help the Democrats. Based on several conversations I have had with Republican senators, I believe the Democrats would head into an impeachment trial with a half-dozen Republicans willing to honestly consider impeachment. They need more than that, but an impeachment trial presided over by Chief Justice John Roberts instead of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell could get them more votes. Even if the Democrats did not get the requisite two-thirds vote, a bipartisan vote for impeachment would still hurt the President.
Conventional wisdom is that impeachment helped Bill Clinton. But Clinton had time to prepare counterarguments to the Starr Report before the House of Representatives even took up the matter. He also got a 50-50 split in the Senate, not a majority against him. He was also not up for reelection. It affected him enough that Al Gore would not campaign with him in 2000, and it certainly cost Al Gore votes.
To get any Republican support, however, the Democrats have to be grown-up. Having House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff as the face of their effort hurts them. Dragging out the process right now does make it look like a fishing expedition. Republicans in the Senate are worried about the process. Most of them would very much like [to] support Trump. Some of them, though, are starting to tire of him and just need an excuse. That should worry the White House.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

White House Christmas.

ERICKSON: Christmastime Impeachment

Adam Schiff

The general manager of the NBA&#8217;s Houston Rockets, Daryl Morey, tweeted support for Hong Kong&#8217;s protestors. The protestors are marching against increasing governmental incursions by mainland China into Hong Kong&#8217;s affairs. When Great Britain handed Hong Kong over to China, China agreed to maintain autonomy for Hong Kong but now appears uninterested in keeping its promise.
Morey used the social media platform Twitter to voice his support for Hong Kong&#8217;s protestors. Twitter is blocked in China. There is not a man, woman or child in China — except for the communist agents censoring the internet there — who could have seen Morey&#8217;s tweet. But China demanded the NBA apologize.
The NBA is an organization unafraid to delve into &#8220;woke&#8221; American politics. The organization walked away from North Carolina merely because the state considered a ban on letting transgender people use bathrooms for the opposite sex. The organization decided to stop using the word &#8220;owner&#8221; for its teams because of woke politics. Multiple NBA team owners denounced pro-life and religious liberty legislation in the United States. Golden State Warriors coach Steve Kerr is famous for his pronouncements supporting every left-wing social justice cause imaginable.
Kerr had no comment about China. Neither did Stephen Curry, who claimed he was too ignorant of Chinese history to have an opinion on China&#8217;s wholesale slaughter of its people. Making matters worse, the NBA released a statement supporting Daryl Morey&#8217;s right to free speech, but its Chinese translation read differently. The Chinese language statement read that the NBA was &#8220;extremely disappointed&#8221; by Morey&#8217;s &#8220;inappropriate comment.&#8221; The NBA also apologized that Morey &#8220;severely hurt the feelings of Chinese fans.&#8221; Again, that was not in the English language version.
On Wednesday, Americans showed up at a Washington Wizards game holding signs in support of Hong Kong. As the American national anthem played, NBA security officials forced these Americans to leave the area — an area that sits only a mile from where the American Bill of Rights is on display, guaranteeing our freedom of speech. To the extent the NBA has taken a stance, it has stood for China. Frankly, none of us should be surprised an organization that routinely opposes religious liberty in the United States would stand with a totalitarian communist regime that routinely exterminates religious minorities.
Disney-owned ESPN covered what happened but danced around what Morey had actually said. Someone leaked an internal memo from ESPN management insisting its staff, long willing to talk about American politics, refrain from talking about Hong Kong and Chinese politics. Disney, which now owns most of Hollywood, is reliant on Chinese viewers for its billion-dollar box offices. ESPN&#8217;s actions come months after Paramount changed Tom Cruise&#8217;s famous jacket from &#8220;Top Gun&#8221; for the sequel: The patches for Taiwan and Japan disappeared. Tencent, the Chinese film company that also has ties to the NBA, helped produce the new movie.
United and American Airlines wiped Taiwan off their Chinese website maps because China demanded it. Marriott fired an Omaha, Nebraska-based employee for liking a pro-Tibet tweet after China excoriated the company. Apple Inc. has likewise bent over backwards for China. Try to find the Taiwan flag in the emoji keyboard while in Hong Kong, and you will come up empty. Apple also adhered to Chinese demands that iCloud data of people in China be stored on Chinese servers and an app used by Hong Kong protestors be removed from its app store.
Facebook has run counter to most American corporations. Though the company could undoubtedly make massive amounts of money off one billion tech-savvy Chinese citizens, the company apparently refuses to do business in China. It has allowed platform access in Hong Kong but, just the other day, blocked Hong Kong&#8217;s police force from using WhatsApp. The police were purportedly using the service to track protestors. It is rare to see an American company put freedom ahead of Chinese money. Facebook is a notable and commendable exception.
Americans need to take a strong stand against Chinese censorship and totalitarianism. The American people will have to take the lead. American companies are signaling they like communist money more than American freedom.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Hammer and Sickle.

ERICKSON: Corporate Commies

China

Disney

ESPN

Hong Kong

There are days I wish someone else were president. It is not easy to support the President. Many of my friends detest him. Many of his supporters are more uncivil toward a person like me than his opponents are. I support the President, but I have a hard time cheering. There is much not to like. But there is even more not to like on the left. To support the President and not cheer on everything he does is to be a hostage tied on top of the bull in the china shop.
Still, I do not see an impeachable offense. If I saw one, I would not support the President. What I see are a bunch of people who have long despised the President, have never come to terms with him and are still angry. I am unaware of any person on the national stage right now tweeting &#8220;I cannot believe you could support him&#8221; who was not thinking the same thing in 2016. What I see is a group of people who have interpreted every single thing the President has done in the worst possible light and are continuing to do so. What I see are the people who were wrong about Hillary Clinton winning, wrong about Russia working with Trump to steal the election and wrong about so many other things now doubling down in self-righteousness with very little humility and absolutely no charity. A lot of people outraged at evangelicals sticking with Trump are modeling a graceless hypocrisy and a sinful impatience.
What I also see is a Democratic Party and a media operation that started saying we were at a turning point in February 2017 suddenly start talking about impeachment, which they have actually been doing consistently since 2017. They have wanted this moment all along. We have reached so many turning points, breaking points, tipping points, bombshells and surprises that Washington should resemble Beirut circa 1988.
Why should anyone trust a media fixated on the President&#8217;s lies when the media has consistently lied, exaggerated and pushed Democrats&#8217; talking points? Should we forget CNN pushed out on social media the man who alleged Trump had killed more people than Hitler? Should we forget that the mainstream press that focused on Trump&#8217;s words as precursors to violence gave no similar treatment to Democrats&#8217; words after the Hodgkinson shooting? There&#8217;s neither balance nor fairness. There is a nonstop quest to deliver vengeance to Trump for daring to hurt the press corps&#8217; feelings.
The offerings from this presidency are largely normal, even if the President&#8217;s behavior is not. The media has been relentlessly amplifying chaos, division and more. We&#8217;re in a satanic feedback loop of biblical donkeys in Washington fueled by a bunch of thin-skinned people, and the President is not the cause of it. If Mike Pence were president instead of Trump, we would have the media attacking him for his wife&#8217;s career choice and pushing fake racist attacks on him. Oh, wait! They already are.
Had the American media been honest and fair over the past decade, we would not be here now. We would not have this president. We would not have this news cycle. We would not have this impeachment battle. People view Trump as chaotic and bad, but he is merely a reflection of something in society that is also reflected in the talking heads in the media and the screaming crowds on Twitter. He is nothing more and nothing less. The only difference is that this president is more honest than a press corps that cannot even admit its biases.
I take seriously that there is real truth. I think we have an obligation to find it. I will move slowly. I will pay attention to the voices of the credible. If I think the President has committed an impeachable offense, I will wrest myself off the bull in the china shop into the shards of glass and broken china. But I am not there. Even if I get there, I suspect most conservatives never will because the media has done an amazing job destroying its own trustworthiness with Americans.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

American flag.

ERICKSON: The Perpetual Crisis Machine

Media

For most of 2018, Republicans claimed Democrats would impeach the President if the Democrats took back the House. Democrats denied it. But it was always true. Democrats have relentlessly tried to discredit President Donald Trump. They have never viewed him as a legitimate president.
Democrats claimed James Comey stole the election for Trump. They believed by faith that Comey&#8217;s announcement of an FBI investigation hurt Hillary Clinton. They then believed by faith that his letter to Congress shortly before the election cost Clinton the election.
When it turned out Comey hated Trump and the President fired him, Democrats forgave Comey and turned to Russia. They believed by faith that Russia had stolen the election. They believed by faith that Trump and his campaign had collaborated with the Russians. They believed this by faith right up until the moment Robert Mueller told them it was not true.
Now the Democrats believe by faith the President is trying to steal 2020. They believe by faith that he wants Ukraine to harass Joe Biden and his son in an effort to steal the election. If Democrats really believe this, they can easily just not nominate Biden. But in searching for something to replace Christianity, Democrats have embraced politics as a religion, and they believe some things by faith. Pay no attention to Clinton&#8217;s failures as a candidate, including her failure to campaign in Wisconsin.
Not content to just beat Trump next year at the ballot box, Democrats have decided to finally do what they&#8217;ve always wanted to do, despite their denials: They are going to impeach the president. The media and Democrats want you to know that even moderate Democrats want this; but actually, many moderate Democrats are quite opposed. It has become too late for them to hit the brakes on this endeavor, and they may lose next year.
Just as Democrats have tried desperately to muddy the water about Hillary Clinton&#8217;s loss in 2016, Trump&#8217;s team is now trying to muddy the water over impeachment. They keep pointing their fingers at Biden in Ukraine. This is probably going to cost Biden the Democratic nomination, as he cannot afford muddy waters here.
The reality is Biden did nothing wrong. Biden had no authority to withhold money from Ukraine on the condition that the government fire a prosecutor. He could only do it because President Obama directed him. At the time, the Ukrainian government did not have an ongoing investigation into a company tied to Hunter Biden. Republicans claim there was one, but there was not. Had Biden not gone to Ukraine to demand the prosecutor be fired, another Obama administration appointee would have done so. There was no way Western powers were going to hand a billion dollars to Ukraine as long as that prosecutor held office.
Western allies believed that prosecutor was corrupt. They believed he would turn a blind eye to corrupt oligarchs misappropriating Western aid. The entire Western coalition wanted that prosecutor fired. Obama volunteered to do it and sent Biden as the hatchet man. There is no story here. But the Republicans will muddy the water.
Of course, there is no real story to Trump&#8217;s actions either. Trump speaks in word salads, as we saw with Ukraine&#8217;s President. In Trump&#8217;s mind, he certainly has points he wants to make. But as they come out of his mouth and are transcribed, the angels of heaven are forced to divine his intent.
As to the whistleblower&#8217;s report, it is deeply problematic for the President. The whistleblower had no direct knowledge of the President&#8217;s call with Ukraine&#8217;s president, nor did he read the transcript. But the whistleblower knew the major substantive points of the call. He says multiple officials shared the information with him. He says the President&#8217;s team moved the transcript of the call from one computer to another to hide it.
While this may not be impeachable, it provides the Democrats a path to impeachment. With the whistleblower, they have a list of potential witnesses, a list of potential documents and a central focus with an easily understandable narrative against the President. The next few months will be crazy.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Donald Trump.

ERICKSON: Let The Games Begin

Joe Biden

Russia

A young person concerned about climate change joined 16-year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg at a congressional hearing this past week. Jamie Margolin is 17 and part of a lawsuit filed by children against the federal government over climate change. Not content to work their way through democratic processes, they hope federal courts will force resolution on their behalf.
Margolin spoke out about her fears. She told Congress that she was not sure she would have a future. She said in her testimony: &#8220;I want the entirety of Congress — in fact, the whole U.S. government — to remember the fear and despair that my generation lives with every day, and I want you to hold on to it. How do I even begin to convey to you what it feels like to know that within my lifetime the destruction that we have already seen from the climate crisis will only get worse. What adds insult to injury is the fact that we keep getting promised what isn&#8217;t there. On college applications, I keep getting asked what I want to be when I grow up &#8230; Everyone who will walk up to me after this testimony saying I have such a bright future ahead of me will be lying to my face.&#8221; She went on to say the planet is collapsing. She believes there are only 18 months left to get it right — a far shorter period than most activists claim.
Some will applaud her for the painful truths she is telling the grown-ups around her. In fact, progressive activists increasingly rely on children to speak for them, believing it provides a shield to criticism. But it also provides some great dangers.
Just listen to these children and the adults around them. They believe, with the passion and faith of zealots, time is running out. They believe the democratic processes are failing them. They believe the planet is collapsing and we will all die. They believe this as a matter of faith, not science. The science does not suggest we will all die. The science does not suggest the planet is collapsing. But they believe it and will not be dissuaded from it.
In Great Britain, police arrested a group of environmental activists who planned to fly drones over Heathrow Airport to shut down air traffic. In Europe, &#8220;travel shaming&#8221; has become a trend in which people shame those who decide to get on airplanes. It has actually impacted Europe&#8217;s aviation industry.
The problem is that these zealots get massive, positive media coverage. As in other situations, media coverage tends to provoke more of the same behavior. Though the left might cheer that on, they should be cautious because of where this will likely lead.
Already, the United States has had to deal with ecoterrorists in the Northwest. It is only a matter of time before those who believe the world is going to end without radical action decide to take radical action. They will, as all zealots do, decide they are doing it for the good of everyone — even those who do not realize it. Zealots convinced of their own righteousness are dangerous people. When they conclude the courts have failed them, the democratic processes have failed them and the government itself has failed them, violence will be their only recourse. They will have plenty of supporters in the media willing to justify it. After all, they are all convinced the world will end in a decade if they sit idly by.
Listen to the environmental zealots, and hear for yourselves how salvation is obtained. It is not pretty. The United States has done more than most countries to cut its emissions, but the zealots always demand more. They do so because, as long as sinners still sin, those who should be saved cannot be. In Christianity, the unrepentant sinner will not find salvation. For the saved, however, access to heaven is not dependent on the unrepentant. In environmentalism, the penitent environmentalist will not find salvation as long as the polluters pollute. If the government won&#8217;t stop the sin, the zealots will have to.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Climate activists

ERICKSON: The Passion Of Zealots

Climate Change

Environmentalism

Writing recently in The Wall Street Journal, Iain Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute declared that free-marketeers have taken social conservatives for granted. &#8220;The free-market coalition is in urgent need of repair. If enough conservatives join progressives in seeing free trade as a threat to their values, America could end up with protectionist policies for the foreseeable future,&#8221; he noted.
I share his embrace of the free market. But I am sympathetic to right-leaning concerns about corporate America. While I think free market supporters should not cheer on &#8220;creative destruction&#8221; when local businesses collapse due to free trade, I think they do have a case to sell social conservatives on the benefits of free market creative destruction.
The chief problem, from my vantage point as someone active in evangelical circles and the social conservative movement, centers less on worries about job loss and more on progressives using corporations to censor and punish conservatives. Banks, technology companies and other major corporations seem complicit in censoring conservatives, Christians, gun manufacturers and other groups progressives hate. Conservatives routinely see, for example, Twitter use its power to punish conservatives in ways it never uses its power against progressives.
Conservatives see banks refusing to do business with gun manufacturers and intuitively understand banks should be free to do business with whichever companies they choose, and they also understand banks are doing this because of progressive concerns and would never bend so easily for conservatives. Should banks that refuse to do business with lawful enterprises be given protections by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.?
Conservatives see Fortune 500 companies threaten states such as Georgia and Texas for advancing religious liberty legislation and protections for faith-based adoption agencies. Corporations have free speech rights, too, but when they reliably advance left-wing causes, even in conservative states, it is not hard to understand why conservatives might no longer be faithfully attached to a free market that benefits those companies. If corporations are going to reliably side with the left, they can hardly expect conservatives to defend the system that enriches these corporations into powerhouses that can use their influence to steer social policy leftward.
There is the other issue for which I have no answer but think conservatives must give consideration. American antitrust law is premised on the idea that giving consumers cheaper prices is a good thing. The government loathes breaking up companies that drive down prices. But is it really a good thing that Amazon can drive down prices to such an extent that it prohibits innovation and competition? Cheapest is not always best, but Amazon&#8217;s marketplace — and its willful habit of turning a blind eye to cheap counterfeits on its website — prevents creative destruction in the free market. To the extent the average consumer benefits from cheap products delivered in 24 hours, he loses out on access to superior quality and innovation.
In the supply and demand curve of the digital age, tech companies who profit from clicks can use their leverage to create ceilings on prices because of their size. They do so by limiting innovative competitors through patent laws and keeping prices exceedingly low, as well as through venture capital and size. Consumers benefit in the digital stores in which they shop but potentially lose as employees or entrepreneurs of businesses that directly — or even tangentially — come into conflict with a digital behemoth.
Lastly, the free-marketeers need to point out creative destruction can never happen if tech giants and other corporations are allowed to draft the laws and rules. Congress, in trying to regulate Facebook, will draft laws and rules focused on Facebook. But the very laws designed to regulate Facebook necessarily consider Facebook the default. That will make it harder for competitors to even have a chance to become a default social media platform. Free-marketeers and social conservatives can find common ground opposing companies carving out exceptions for themselves in the tax code, laws and other regulations.
All that said, however, if corporations continue to embrace wokeness, then nothing else will matter. Leveraging their capital, lobbyists and access against conservative values and interests will just cause more conservatives to abandon their support of free markets in favor of legislative and regulatory revenge.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Cash.jpeg

ERICKSON: Free Market Wokeness

Conservatism

Economy

Free Trade

Last week, Jack Dorsey had his Twitter account hacked. Dorsey is the CEO of Twitter, and Donald Trump is Twitter&#8217;s most famous patron. If Dorsey can get his account hacked, presumably the President can, too. A friend rightly noted this is cause for concern. What if someone hacking the President&#8217;s account declared war?
I suggested it would be hilarious if someone hacked the President&#8217;s account and tweeted, &#8220;I prefer Satan to Jesus.&#8221; Undoubtedly, some of the President&#8217;s most faithful apologists would immediately rush to agree. Remember, in 2016, after the President defended Planned Parenthood, some of his evangelical supporters began defending the organization, too.
Earlier this summer, I had the opportunity to preach on Jonah 1. Called by God to urge Nineveh to repent, Jonah fled. Instead of going to Nineveh, Jonah went in the exact opposite direction. He boarded a ship, intending to set sail for as far away from Nineveh as he could get.
God had other plans. A great storm came up. The crew on the ship cast lots to &#8220;know on whose account this evil (had) come upon&#8221; them. Jonah 1:7. The captain of the ship ordered Jonah to call to his god as they, all pagans, called to their gods. But Jonah declared, &#8220;I am a Hebrew, and I fear the Lord, the God of heaven, who made the sea and the dry land.&#8221; Jonah 1:9. Jonah used Yahweh, the personal name of God. He demanded the pagans throw him overboard.
The pagan sailors cried out to Yahweh, using his personal name. &#8220;O Lord, let us not perish for this man&#8217;s life, and lay not on us innocent blood, for you, O Lord, have done as it pleased you.&#8221; They picked Jonah up, &#8220;hurled him into the sea, and the sea ceased from its raging. Then the men feared the Lord exceedingly, and they offered a sacrifice to the Lord and made vows.&#8221; Jonah 1:14-16. Again, they called to God as Yahweh. There&#8217;s a striking difference between these men on the boat in Jonah 1 and Nineveh in Jonah 3. In Nineveh, the people cried out to God, but not as Yahweh.
We know the story of Jonah, the fish, his flight, Nineveh&#8217;s repentance and Jonah&#8217;s anger. What we should focus on is how Jonah, in fleeing God, caused pagan sailors to embrace the God of all creation. In Jonah&#8217;s flight from God, others were saved.
There is data suggesting young evangelical Christians, appalled at their parents&#8217; political support for President Trump, are recommitting to an orthodox Christianity devoid of politics. Perhaps the silver lining in all these stories of Christians behaving badly in politics and defending indefensible behavior is that the next generation will maintain orthodoxy but refocus from transactional moral majority politics to helping the widows, the poor, the orphans and the refugees.
I genuinely cannot understand Christians who think they need to defend, excuse and serve as apologists for so much. It is possible to vote for someone and also say you think they&#8217;re wrong. Christians did this with George W. Bush. But now they get defensive. Christians still need to speak up even against their own team at times.
Spare me the &#8220;we&#8217;re at war with the left&#8221; excuse. Christians look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. &#8220;For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.&#8221; 2 Corinthians 4:18 &#8220;For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.&#8221; Ephesians 6:12.
A Christian&#8217;s fight is not with the left but with the things of the world and unseen spiritual forces. Never forget that. Be encouraged that so many Christians&#8217; turning from spiritual salvation to wage a war for political salvation is actually regenerating a zeal for orthodox Christianity among young people. These young Christians may no longer identify as evangelical, but they still follow Christ and biblical orthodoxy on social and theological issues.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

ERICKSON: Christians, Politics And Trump

We are more than a year from the 2020 presidential election. It is too soon to see much of anything. But there are some trends we should pay attention to at this point.
Last Monday, the national press corps had a moment of intense excitement because they thought they had finally succeeded in getting Elizabeth Warren the Democratic nomination. For months, the media has run reports about Joe Biden. He was either a racist or collaborated with racists. He was old and out of touch. He tried to keep Kamala Harris off a school bus as a child. The sensationalism of the stories intensified. Biden&#8217;s debate performance became a big issue. And?
Biden&#8217;s polling changed very little. Before Biden officially entered the 2020 presidential contest, his RealClearPolitics polling average had him around 28%. After all the attacks, his polling average had him around, well, 28%. But last Monday, the Monmouth University poll came out. It had Biden at 19%, with Warren and Bernie Sanders at 20%.
A basic rule of American politics these days is that you should pay no attention to individual polls. Instead, pay attention to the average of polls. The Monmouth poll got breathless attention from the press. Biden was finally vulnerable. Warren would finally dominate. But this was not true.
After the Monmouth poll, the Politico/Morning Consult poll, the USA Today/Suffolk University Poll, the Hill/HarrisX poll, the Quinnipiac University Poll, the Emerson Poll and the Economist/YouGov poll all came out. Every one of them has Biden ahead. Four of the six have Biden in double digits.
The media chose to focus on the Monmouth poll of 298 Democrats instead of the USA Today/Suffolk poll of 424 Democrats because the Monmouth poll had the media&#8217;s preferred narrative, i.e., Warren is surging, and Biden is in decline. Undoubtedly, momentum is with Warren, but Biden is holding steady at 28% in the polling average, exactly where he started in February.
What happened with the media excitement for Warren is part of a larger trend Republicans need to focus on. The economy is, at this point, undoubtedly slowing down. Between the President&#8217;s tariffs and the economic slowdown happening globally, the United States economy is starting to unravel. Presidents get credit for economic success and blame for economic decline. The trend lines look bad for the President.
And American voters are exhausted. They are tired of the drama. They are tired of the tweets. They are tired of the fighting. They are tired of the media sensationalizing everything. They want some semblance of normalcy. Americans, at this point, would love a president they do not have to think about, see or hear for weeks on end. President Donald Trump is stressing people out with his erratic nature, his constant squabbling and the press&#8217;s amplifications of his daily behavior. At this point, polls suggest Americans would be OK with a cannibal for president so long as he promised to keep his mouth full, not talk and stay off Twitter. &#8220;Eat, don&#8217;t tweet&#8221; could be his motto, and he would win.
Therein lies another trend line Biden and Republicans need to pay attention to. Trump consistently gets beaten by double-digit margins against Biden, Warren, Sanders and Harris. That will change as we get closer. But consider that only about 15% of people have not made up their minds yet. Historically, those voters break against the incumbent party. This is a real warning sign for Trump. It is also a warning for Biden. If any Democrat could beat Trump, Democrats do not need the safe option. They could have the bold option with Warren. As Trump looks more vulnerable, Biden becomes more vulnerable.
The polling was not wrong in 2016. National polling, however, failed to capture Electoral College nuances in a very close race. A 10-point lead in polling would keep the Electoral College with the popular winner. Right now, that isn&#8217;t President Trump. His team needs a plan. They have some time, which is about their only good news.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Polling Place

ERICKSON: Polls, Fake News And Trends

Elizabeth Warren

The New York Times has commissioned their 1619 Project, which apparently &#8220;aims to reframe the country&#8217;s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.&#8221;
The key word is &#8220;reframe.&#8221; The Times does not seek to tell the story of the United States. Nor does it seek to add to the story. Instead, the Times has a conclusion and is working backward to contort facts to fit the conclusion. This is activism. The Times is not reporting but rather building narratives in which they must ignore or fabricate facts.
In the very first essay, writer Nikole Hannah-Jones boldly claims that &#8220;one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery. By 1776, Britain had grown deeply conflicted over its role in the barbaric institution.&#8221; This is not true on multiple fronts.
In 1776, the British were not nearly as conflicted as Hannah-Jones claims. While the sentiment was certainly growing, it did not come to a head until 1787, when William Wilberforce took up the cause in Parliament, and even then, it took 20 more years for Parliament to pass the Slave Trade Act of 1807, which prohibited the trading of slaves. Britain did not formally abolish the slavery in its empire until 1833.
Contrast that with Massachusetts, which began serious consideration of abolishing slavery in 1767 and voted to do so in both 1771 and 1774, only to see the British governor-general veto the effort. Rhode Island forbade the importation of slaves in 1774 and in 1784 granted freedom to slaves born in Rhode Island.
Thomas Jefferson noted the Second Continental Congress intended to put a passage into the Declaration of Independence that would have condemned slavery and the slave trade, but the effort was abandoned due to Georgia&#8217;s and South Carolina&#8217;s objections. To say, however, that a primary purpose of the revolution was to preserve the slave trade directly contradicts the sentiments of most of the founders and the fact that multiple American colonies were well ahead of Britain in ending slavery.
By 1770, many of the prominent voices involved in the revolution, including Jefferson, Benjamin Rush and Patrick Henry, were all publicly and privately stating the colonies would need to end slavery. They did not at the time because they needed unity with the South and continued to kick the can down the road. But that is far different from revolting to preserve an institution they were trying to figure out how to end.
Then there is the project&#8217;s name: 1619 is the year that African slaves first landed on the North American continent in the Virginia Colony. This distorts reality. British colonists were already there setting up democratic institutions, defining the parameters of continental governance. In another essay, the Times let an author claim American capitalism developed in the fields of the South. This, too, is historically untrue. We derive the capitalist spirit and &#8220;Protestant work ethic&#8221; from the New England pilgrims who settled in Plymouth in 1620, isolated from the Virginia colony and without slavery for a decade more.
William Bradford, who came to Plymouth on the Mayflower, noted that the colony rejected collective land ownership and instead embraced private property and free enterprise after the former nearly caused mass starvation. The pilgrims deemed it better for individuals to work their own land, care for their own families and sell their excess.
Another essay falsely claimed Republicans took back the Senate in 2010 and then began systematically blocking Obama-era judges. Yes, this, too, was supposedly tied to slavery. The author got the basic facts wrong and ignored Democrats&#8217; ending the filibuster on judges.
Americans could use more knowledge about slavery, but this effort is not it. Instead, the Times has chosen to reframe American history to divide us along racial lines and exploit that division for progressive politics. The Times is behaving as its editors claim the President behaves.
To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Menu

Erick Erickson

Articles by Erick Erickson