Pope Francis Weighs in on the U.S. Presidential Election: One Principle, Several Issues

A week ago, Pope Francis wrapped up an eleven-day pastoral visit to Southeast Asia and Oceania. On the plane trip home to the Vatican, he held a press conference for the reporters who accompanied him on the plane. One reporter asked the Pontiff for his opinion on the presidential election in the United States. Although he did not mention Donald Trump or Kamala Harris by name, it was obvious who he was referring to. “Sending migrants away, not allowing them to grow, not letting them have life is something wrong; it is cruelty. Sending a child away from the womb of the mother is murder because there is life. And we must speak clearly about things.”

After denouncing the sinful policies of both Trump and Harris, he stilled affirmed that it is a Christian’s responsibility to vote. He was asked whether it would be morally admissible to vote for someone who favored the right to abortion, he responded: “One must vote. And one must choose the lesser evil. Which is the lesser evil? That lady or that gentleman? I don’t know. Each person must think and decide according to his or her own conscience.”

Although I strive to follow Christ, I am not a Roman Catholic. I do not agree with Pope Francis on every issue, but I acknowledge him as a fellow traveler who advocates for the most vulnerable in our society (according to the Bible, the orphan, the widow, and the stranger). His ethical principle is fairly simple and echoes the teaching of Jesus. All of our actions, including voting and other political acts, should seek to enhance the lives of our neighbors, to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. He urges us to apply this Golden Rule to all aspects of human life, what Catholic ethicists call the “Seamless Garment”. Therefore, all government policies should be evaluated according to how they enhance humanity’s wellbeing: policies regarding marriage and family, healthcare, education, employment, care of creation, abortion, immigration and other issues. He does not think that people should evaluate political candidates by only one issue. People are fallen creatures and political policies exemplify their flaws. That should not lead us to political apathy. We should evaluate these options and vote for the “lesser of the evils”, that is, those that achieve the greatest good in the world.

This papal advice might affect the U.S. election in unexpected ways. Not all people of faith agree with the Pope that human life should be legally protected from the moment of conception. Many place that point at the moment of the viability of the fetus outside the womb, while others believe it should begin at birth. Many of these people will vote for Harris. Even those pro-lifers who agree with the Pope’s position on abortion might vote for Harris, because Trump’s immigration policy is equally evil.

May people in the U.S. seek the truth, evaluate the options and vote as their conscience leads them.

What to Watch for in the Great Debate: Trump and Harris on the Economy

The great debate takes place tonight. What should we look for? Among the many important issues, I suggest we pay close attention to the economy.

Trump, of course, has a record to run on. How successful was our economy during his four-year administration as president (2017-2021)? Although he claims it was the “greatest the world has ever seen”, the facts tell a different story. During his presidency, the national debt increased by $7.8 trillion dollars (U.S. Treasury Department). This was the largest debt increase in a four-year presidential term in our country’s history! (Caveat: The debt rose $9.1 trillion under Obama, but that occurred over his eight years as president, in contrast with Trump’s four years.) Trump’s large deficit was mostly due to his huge tax cuts for the benefit of the wealthy citizens in our midst. He claimed that tax revenue would show an amazing growth due to a boom in the economy. Of course, he was wrong. The debt increase was similar to indulgent parents who buy their children expensive gifts…and buy them with a credit card. Sooner or later, someone has to pay. In this case, it is the U.S. taxpayer.

If this truth is acknowledged, it is difficult to understand why sane voters would trust Trump on the economy. Let’s look at tariffs. Trump has promised, “We will become a tariff nation”. Tariffs are usually applied on products from foreign nations in order to financially punish those countries, by raising prices and, therefore, reducing sales of those products. Trump has claimed that these tariffs will not increase inflation for U.S. consumers. This is illogical! If retail companies in the United States import products that have higher prices due to tariffs, they will pass on that increase to consumers. Even the editorial board of the conservative Wall Street Journal acknowledges this truth: Higher tariffs, by definition, lead to higher inflation.

Where does Vice-President Harris stand on the economy? Usually sitting vice-presidents are not held accountable for the successes and/or failures of the president. A question arises. Tonight will she “own” the Biden-Harris economy? On the one hand, coming out of the Covid pandemic, the U.S. economy is the “envy” of all the major capitalist nations when evaluated on criteria of jobs, inflation, GDP, etc. On the other hand, many middle-class people don’t “feel” good about their family finances. Housing costs are up. Gasoline prices are up. Grocery prices are up around 22% over the last couple of years. Harris needs to enact policies that will offer relief for the middle class. She has promised that first-time home buyers will be able to obtain up to a $25,000 tax credit for that purchase. This is a very popular policy, especially with undecided younger voters. But how will she pay for this policy? Will she, like Trump, increase the national debt? She says that she will pay for her policies, by increasing taxes on the wealthy. Most middle-class people won’t pay even a penny more in income taxes. I would like to see some clear figures tonight to back up her promises.

In a previous presidential race, the phrase “It’s the economy, stupid” became popular. Economic issues determine elections. Who do I trust with our economy? It is not Trump.

Dear Donald and Kamala, You can Run (for President), but You cannot Hide (from Our Questions)

Dear Donald and Kamala,

The conventions are over and you are your respective party’s nominee for president. Nevertheless, many important questions remain unanswered. I am not a member of the “press”, but I will press each of you with a significant question that my fellow citizens and I want answered.

Donald, what are your positions regarding the issues raised in Project 2025? (Project 2025 is a 922 page strategy document published by the Heritage Foundation and includes many conservative authors who served in your previous administration.) On the one hand, I believe you when you admit that you have not read such a lengthy volume. On the other hand, you are familiar enough with its contents to acknowledge that you think some of its positions are too “extreme” and that you do not agree with them. It would help voters to know your positions on the following recommendations:

Project 2025 recommends cutting Medicare and Medicaid. Do you agree?
It suggests eliminating the Department of Education. If elected, would you eliminate this Department?
It supports enforcing the Comstock Act which prosecutes those who send or receive contraception products. Are you in favor of the Comstock Act?

Kamala, you have made economic promises that would benefit the middle class. For example, you want to make home ownership more affordable, which is a lofty goal. To achieve this, you propose offering a credit of up to $25,000 for first-time home buyers. You also promise to increase the child tax credit (which enjoys broad bipartisan support). Nevertheless, these economic benefits must be paid for. You claim that you can raise enough revenue to pay for these programs by raising taxes on the very rich, those who have an annual income of over $400,000. The wealthy citizens in our country are infamous for being able to avoid paying their tax obligations. They hire expert lawyers who find numerous “loopholes” in our tax system. In fact, they pay a lower percentage of their income than the majority of middle-class citizens. So, Kamala, what would you do, if tax revenues do not meet expectations? Would you renege on your economic promises, or would you increase the national debt? (Trump increased the national debt more in his four-year presidency than any previous four-year administration). Why should we believe that you would not increase the debt?

Donald and Kamala, earn our votes by answering these questions.

Trump’s Recent Comments are Confusing: Is He Following in Biden’s Footsteps?

Those who know me acknowledge that I call them as I see them. I strive to apply the same ethical principles across the board. If we are going to be fair, we need to apply the same standards to the political candidates that we prefer as well as to the candidates we don’t like. Two months ago, I suggested that Biden would not be mentally “fit” to be re-elected. Today I explore Trump’s mental/emotional “fitness” to be elected.

Trump’s feud with Georgia Governor Brian Kemp

Georgia is now a swing state that Trump must win if he wants to return to the White House. Earlier this month, Trump campaigned there to appeal to voters in the Peach state. When he stayed on script, he was somewhat coherent. But then he strayed from his teleprompter. He blasted Georgia’s popular conservative Republic governor, Brian Kemp. “He is a bad guy. He’s a disloyal guy. And he’s a very average governor.” Then he described him with an adjective that he has used against other rivals: “Little Brian Kemp”. Feuding with a popular Republican does not help Trump at all. It is not that Trump has a poor memory. It is that he emotionally just can’t let go of the past.

Trump’s Claim that Replacing Biden with Harris is “Unconstitutional”

For the last four years, Trump has prepared to run against Joe Biden. Up until a month ago, the polls showed Trump with a lead against the current president. But then, Biden stepped aside, and Harris appeared at the top of the Democrat ticket. This knocked Trump off his plan. He hasn’t seemed to know how to attack Harris. Therefore, he has claimed that this change of candidates is “unconstitutional”. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Constitution does not indicate how political parties should select their candidates. Trump is lobbing complaints against the wall to see if any might stick.

Trump’s Claim that More than 100% of New Created Jobs have gone to Immigrants

Last Thursday, Trump held a “press event” in New Jersey. He tried to bring together two of his favorite criticisms of the Biden administration: the economy and immigration. He affirmed, “Virtually 100% of the net job creation in the last year has gone to migrants. You know that? Most of the job creation has gone to migrants. In fact, I’ve heard that substantially more than — beyond, actually beyond that number 100%. It’s a much higher number than that, but the government has not caught up with that yet.” Although Trump claims to have been a good businessman, he is not good with numbers. His job creation statement is a mathematical impossibility! You can’t have more jobs going to immigrants than the total jobs created! It is ridiculously impossible.

Two months ago, I wrote that Biden did not have the “mental acuity” to serve four more years as president. Today I write that Trump does not have the “emotional stability” to return to the presidency. As we approach the election in November, in addition to their policies, we need to evaluate the emotional and mental “fitness” of the candidates.

The Evangelical Pro-Life Movement: Its early history, its Biblical basis?, and its role in the upcoming election (Part 3)

The Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision back in 1973 essentially legalized abortions across the country, especially during the first two trimesters of a woman’s pregnancy. In the 1960s and 1970s, there was not much difference on abortion in the Republican and Democrat parties. There were many pro-choice and pro-life advocates in both parties. That changed in the 1980s beginning with the Reagan presidency. Republican presidential candidates promised, that if elected, they would appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe. Pro-lifers, especially evangelicals, became a major constituency of the Republican Party. In contrast, the Democrats became staunchly pro-choice. For over four decades abortion has been one of the most important political issues. Many people are “single-issue” voters and are, therefore, a “safe, solid voting block” for their respective parties. These “single-issue” voters seldom criticize their own party on other issues, even when criticism is warranted. In my opinion, these voters are naively allowing failed policies and character flaws to go unchecked.

During his presidency, Trump appointed three judges to the Supreme Court (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett). In their Senate hearings, they affirmed that they would accept Roe as settled legal precedent and, as a result, hardly anyone across the political landscape thought Roe would be overturned. Nevertheless, these judges broke their promises, and joined the other conservative justices in overturning Roe through the Dobbs decision in 2022. This action returned the abortion issue to every state. Since then, seven states have put abortion on the ballot. In each of these states, the pro-choice position has won, including in conservative “red” states like Kansas and Ohio. (Democrats affirm that their pro-choice position turned the expected Republican “red wave” into a “trickle” in the 2022 midterm elections.) In other places, state legislatures enacted laws regarding abortion access and/or restrictions (for example, no abortions after six weeks, or exceptions like rape, incest, or the life of the mother).

These actions have spurred political activism by Democrats and Republicans. Some politicians, from both sides, have made campaign promises that they would bring federal legislation to Congress (either abortion access or abortion restriction, respectively). There are so many hoops to go through, that a nationwide access or restriction bill is quite unlikely to be implemented. For example, it would need 60 votes in the Senate, and there are neither 60 pro-choice nor 60 pro-life senators.

Abortion will be voted on at the state level. In the upcoming elections in November, at least five states (including Nevada and Florida) have constitutional amendment proposals on the ballot. If passed, they would enshrine abortion rights into their state constitutions. In at least five additional states, including Arizona, similar proposals are in the pipeline and will probably make the ballot. It is likely that the pro-choice position will win in most of these states. Nevertheless, it is an open question to what extent this will help the Democrat presidential, senate, and congressional candidates in their particular races. This depends on the number of Republicans who are, in fact, pro-choice voters.

I encourage all my readers to be alert during this election season. Lies will be flying all around. Let’s use our best discerning skills. Vote well…vote wisely.

The Evangelical Pro-life Movement: Its early history, Its Biblical basis?, and its role in the upcoming election (Part 2)

Evangelicals claim that their main convictions on all issues are (and should be) shaped by the Bible. It is appropriate, therefore, to explore the most relevant Biblical passages regarding the value of humanity and in particular, abortion. These texts come from the Hebrew Scriptures which are shared by the three largest monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).

Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree that “Every human being is created in the image of God, and therefore, has immense value” (Genesis 1:26-27). Being created in God’s image is precisely the reason why people’s lives are to be protected from the threat of murder (Genesis 9:6). This foundational truth is repeated and emphasized in the Ten Commandments: “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13) and in numerous additional passages in the Hebrew, Christian, and Islamic Scriptures. Nevertheless, they are not limited to their religious communities. They have influenced contemporary legislation prohibiting murder in every country in the world.

Today, there is an almost universal consensus regarding basic human rights and against murder. There is no such agreement regarding abortion. When does a fetus acquire the basic legal right to life? Theologians and ethicists generally land at three possible moments: at conception, at viability (about the beginning of the third trimester), or at birth. Sadly, the Bible does not directly address the topic of the human rights of a fetus. Nevertheless, here are two Biblical texts that provide some insights: Psalm 139:13-15 and Exodus 21:22-23.

Psalm 139:13-15

¹³For you created my inmost being;
    you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
¹⁴I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    your works are wonderful,
    I know that full well.
¹⁵My frame was not hidden from you
    when I was made in the secret place,
    when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. (NIV=New International Version of the Bible)

This passage is the most cited by the Christian pro-life movement. The entire psalm emphasizes that God knows us very well. God is all knowing and omnipresent. God knew the psalmist (and us, by implication) when we were in our mother’s womb (verse 13). Pro-lifers conclude that the fetus, who is known by God, must have full legal rights. It is not quite so simple. Every verse needs to be interpreted in its context. This passage utilizes Hebrew parallelism, where a second phrase repeats and clarifies a first phrase. In the passage before us, “in the depths of the earth” (verse 15) clarifies that God knows us not merely when we were fetuses, but God also knows us from the creation of the world. This cannot mean that my individual human rights began at creation. The psalmist’s purpose was not to address the legal status of the fetus, but he wrote to emphasize the foreknowledge of God. We should respect his purpose and not force his words to mean something the psalmist did not intend.

Exodus 21:22-23

²²When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shallbe fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. ²³If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life. (RSV=Revised Standard Version of the Bible)

There are some diverse meanings of these two verses. The more accepted scenario is that there is fight between a couple of men. A bystanding pregnant woman is accidentally hurt. The result is that she miscarriages and her fetus dies, but there is no additional harm caused to her. The punishment is a fine to be determined by judges in discussion with the husband. If the woman were to die (verse 23), then capital punishment could be considered. In this scenario, the woman has full human legal rights, but the fetus does not.

A second scenario describes a situation where the woman gives birth prematurely, but the baby and the mother are both ok. Punishment would be a monetary fine. If there were additional harm to the woman (or to her baby), the penalty could be greater (a life for a life).

I wish there wasn’t so much ambiguity on this passage. The first scenario suggests that a fetus does not have the same legal status as a born person. In the second scenario, the fetus does not die, so little light is shed on the abortion debate. Where Scripture is not dogmatic, we should not be dogmatic. A bit of humility would be most welcome for this vital debate. I hope that pro-lifers would be more compassionate and that pro-choice advocates would be less flippant about abortions. We need respectful discussion on such a serious topic.

The Evangelical Pro-Life Movement: Its early history, its Biblical basis?, and its role in the upcoming election (Part 1)

In my posts this week, I will address the Evangelical Pro-Life Movement. Today I will look at its early history. In Part 2, I will analyze some pertinent Biblical passages and in Part 3 I will explore the role abortion politics might play in the upcoming election.

History – We all know that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision took place in 1973 and essentially legalized abortions during the first two trimesters all across the country. Prior to that, states had their own policies. In my state of Ohio which prohibited abortions, those women who wanted an abortion would usually go to New York. Although most evangelicals are today in the pro-life camp, that was not the situation in the 1960s and 1970s.

In 1968 the evangelical flagship magazine Christianity Today (CT) co-sponsored a conference with the Christian Medical Society to analyze the ethical aspects regarding abortion. The final resolution illustrates a lack of consensus. “Whether the performance of an induced abortion is sinful we are not agreed, but about the necessity of it and permissibility for it under certain circumstances we are in accord.”

Carl Henry, the founder and first editor of Christianity Today (and one of my professors at Trinity) stated, “a woman’s body is not the domain and property of others”. The second editor of CT was Harold Lindsell. He also took a somewhat pro-choice position. He affirmed, “if there are compelling psychiatric reasons from a Christian point of view, mercy and prudence may favor a therapeutic abortion.”

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is not only the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, it is also one of the most conservative. Therefore, a look at the history of its stance on abortion reveals some surprises. At their 1971 Convention, the SBC delegates passed a resolution calling for the national legalization of abortion. They reaffirmed this pro-choice position in their 1974 and 1976 conventions.

W.A. Criswell was the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas (the largest SBC congregation). Shortly after the Roe decision was announced, Criswell issued the following statement. “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person, and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family who later became a staunch anti-abortionist, admitted in 1973 that the Holy Scriptures did not address the issue of abortion and therefore it was acceptable for a sincere evangelical Christian to believe that “a developing embryo or fetus was not regarded as a full human being.”

Francis Schaeffer and other leaders of the Religious Right, tried to enlist Billy Graham in their antiabortion crusade in the late 1970s, but Graham, the most famous evangelical of the last century, turned them down. Graham affirmed, “I’m for morality, but morality goes beyond sex to human freedom and social justice…. Evangelists cannot be closely identified with any particular party or person. We have to stand in the middle to preach to all people, right and left.” (I believe that his son, Franklin Graham, should have listened to his father’s words of wisdom).

The quotes mentioned above should not be interpreted as necessarily justifying either a pro-choice or a pro-life position. Here they illustrate that followers of Jesus can and do disagree on important issues, including abortion. In Part 2, we will explore the most pertinent Biblical passages.

Trump is Unbelievable! (Part 5) On abortion, choose which Trump you want to believe.

Former president Donald Trump has not had a consistent position regarding abortion. So, what is his position? It depends on the year and the context. In his earlier years as a real estate mogul, he had adopted a pro-choice position on abortion, although as a salesman, he didn’t want to turn off potential clients who might have a pro-life posture. Therefore, he waffled. Here is what he said back in October 1996 in an interview with Meet the Press

Quote #1 – “I’m very pro-choice. I hate the concept of abortion. But still—I just believe in choice.”

As Trump began to become a politician, especially within the Republican Party, he was forced to work on his abortion stance. Since Reagan, every Republican presidential candidate has promised to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade. For four decades, the Republican National Platform contained a plank advocating for a national ban on abortion. Trump, therefore, “evolved” and became pro-life (apparently for political reasons more than moral convictions). He alternated between a pro-life hardline position (including criminal punishment for a woman who had an abortion) and trying to appease both sides in this statement about Planned Parenthood in 2016.

Quote #2 – “Planned Parenthood has done very good work for millions of women, but we’re not going to allow and we’re not going to fund, as long as you have abortions going on at Planned Parenthood. We understand that, and I’ve said it loud and clear.”

During his presidency, Trump appointed three conservative justices (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett) to the Supreme Court. In June 2022, they joined the other three conservative justices and overturned Roe with their Dobbs decision. Trump took credit for this change. Some state legislatures have enacted strict restrictions on abortions. In several states (Kansas, Ohio, etc.) abortion has been on the ballot, and in every election, the pro-choice position has won. Noting that his stance which worked in his favor in 2016 but contributed to Republican losses in the 2022 midterms, Trump blamed others.

Quote #3 – “It wasn’t my fault that the Republicans didn’t live up to expectations in the midterms. It was the ‘abortion issue,’ poorly handled by many Republicans, especially those that firmly insisted on no exceptions, even in the case of rape, incest, or life of the mother, that lost large numbers of voters.”

Given that it has now become an electoral liability, Trump has moved away from a national abortion ban. Most recently, he has maneuvered the Republicans to change their platform from a national abortion ban to a position of letting the states decide. Many pro-lifers are not very happy with this change, but will probably still vote for Republicans or not vote at all.

Trump has not been known as a person with strong ethical convictions. What will be his position on abortion tomorrow? He will probably stick a figure in the air and see how the political winds are blowing.

Harris is the Democrat nominee for president. Who will be her running mate?

I interrupt my series on “the Unbelievable Trump” to take a first glance at Kamala Harris’ next important decision. On Sunday afternoon, Biden announced that he was no longer running for the presidency in the November elections. He then announced he was endorsing his Vice-President, Kamala Harris, to run for president. Somewhat surprisingly, all her potential rivals (Newsome, Whitmer, Buttigieg) also endorsed her and she has had a quite smooth beginning to her campaign. Harris raised over 84 million dollars in the first twenty-four hours, with 62% from new donors. She has recruited over 74,000 new volunteers for her campaign. She has obtained the support of well over half of the delegates to the Democratic Convention in Chicago next month, so for all practical purposes, she is the nominee.

Her next important decision is to choose a running mate. The selection process itself could be a valuable opportunity for Harris to (re) introduce herself to the electorate. Usually, a Vice-President is selected to bring “balance” to the ticket: perhaps regional or ideological balance, someone with strengths that neutralize the weaknesses of the presidential candidate, or perhaps someone from a battleground state. Legally, this person cannot be from the same state as the presidential nominee, thus excluding Newsome. I don’t think the U.S. is ready to have two women on the ticket, so Whitmer or another capable woman will probably not be selected. Here are the top four candidates….in my not so humble opinion.

Josh Shapiro is the popular governor of Pennsylvania. He defeated a Trump endorsed candidate in the governor race two years ago in a landslide. He is considered “centrist-left” for his support of both abortion and school vouchers. He would probably enable the Democratic ticket to counter the GOP arguments that Harris is too liberal. Shapiro’s appeal would probably be enough to keep “must-win” Pennsylvania in the Democrat column.

Mark Kelly is a popular senator from Arizona. He is a former NASA astronaut and a Navy veteran. Given that Republicans attack Democrats on immigration policies, Kelly would be helpful on this issue. He has also criticized Biden’s immigration policies, but he has offered strong, wise suggestions for immigration reform. His wife, Gabby Giffords, was a Representative in the U.S. Congress and then became a gun-control activist after she survived being shot in 2011. She would be a strong asset in the campaign. Mark Kelly on the ticket would probably keep battleground Arizona on the Democrat side.

Probably the candidate that Harris knows best is Roy Cooper, the Democrat governor of the red state of North Carolina. Their paths frequently crossed when they served as their state’s Attorney General. He is appreciated for his pragmatism. If he were her running mate, it is an open question whether North Carolina and its electors would come into the Democrat column in November.

Kentucky’s governor, Andy Beshear, is an interesting option. In 2020, Trump won Kentucky by 26 percentage points. Nevertheless, Beshear has been elected governor of the “Blue Grass” state… twice! He is a deacon in his church and Is well regarded for his compassion and for his skill in handling Covid and other natural disasters. In his previous races, he won a considerable portion of the evangelical vote, and perhaps earn votes from one of Trump’s main constituencies.

Who will Harris select? Watch and see!

Trump is Unbelievable! (Part 4) The facts don’t support his claims about the 2020 election being stolen

For the last four years, former president Trump has repeatedly claimed that the 2020 election was stolen. He claimed that he actually won the election, but irregularities in key battleground states cheated him out of his victory. In addition, he has required that Republicans who want his endorsement in state elections must agree with him, that is, they must also become “election deniers”. The official results revealed that Biden won the electoral college 306 to Trump’s 232 electors. Biden won the crucial battleground states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Arizona.

Fact #1 – As was his legal right, Trump appealed the election results in courts across the country. Frequently, these courts were headed up by judges that Trump himself had appointed. Trump lost every appeal!

Fact #2 – When he was president, Trump picked William Barr to be his Attorney General. Throughout his presidency Barr consistently favored Trump in every legal decision. Nevertheless, Barr did not agree with Trump about the 2020 election results. After investigating the results in the key states, Barr concluded, “We have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”

Fact #3 – The most important example comes from the state of Georgia. Although usually a Republican state, elections have been more competitive in the last decade. The Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, the official in charge of overseeing the election, (and a conservative Republican with an impeccable reputation) announced that Biden won the election in Georgia. Republicans demanded a recount. Raffensperger implemented a hand recount/audit of the 5 million votes that were cast, and the recount confirmed that Biden had won. On January 2, 2021, Trump telephoned Raffensperger and pressured him to overturn the election. Trump begged, “I just want to find 11,780 votes.” Not only did Raffensperger refused to become complicit in Trump’s crime, he had taped the phone call as evidence. The transcript of the phone call as well as the tape itself are available online for everyone to see and hear.

The 2020 election was not stolen by the Democrats. Trump’s phone call demonstrates that, in fact, Trump tried to steal the election, but was caught red-handed.

Dear MAGA readers, if you value the truth, do not spread Trump’s lie about a stolen election. Have the courage and integrity to face the facts. Trump lost.