The Election is Over and It Brought Very Bad News for Trump: Is He Mature Enough to Change His Ways?

Yesterday’s off year election held relatively few major contests of national importance, but in all of them we get insights into how Americans evaluate the Trump 2.0 administration: the governor races in Virginia and New Jersey; the mayor’s race in New York City, and Proposition 50 in California. In 2024, President Trump’s main campaign issue was the economy. He promised to lower prices, which means an inflation rate of under 0%. Polls consistently show that the economy is still the main issue for most voters. Democrats ran two moderate female candidates for these two governorships: Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey and Abigail Spanberger in Virginia. Both Democrat candidates painted their Republican opponents as defenders of Trump’s economic policies. The president strongly endorsed the Republican candidate in New Jersey and mildly endorsed Winsome Earle-Sears, the GOP candidate in Virginia. Trump had lost New Jersey by only 6% in 2024 and Republicans hoped they could win the governor’s race this time. Their hopes were dashed as Mikie Sherrill won her governor’s race by 13%. A big factor was the return of Hispanic/Latino voters (by more than 15%) to the Democratic fold in Passaic County. Spanberger’s rate of victory in Virginia was even larger: 57-42% as voters expressed their disapproval of the cuts to the federal employees.

The New York City mayoral race was quite different. The Democratic candidate, Zohran Mamdani, who identifies himself as a Democrat Socialist, easily defeated his opponents Andrew Cuomo, a former Democratic Governor of the state of New York, and Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate, with rates of 50%, 41%, 8% rates respectively, Trump was so opposed to Mamdani that he endorsed Cuomo, a Democrat who ran as an Independent.

Three “Democratic” Justices on Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court were up for re-election yesterday. Alhough the GOP put in millions of dollars to defeat them, each was retained with a 60% rate.

Proposition 50 was the only item on California’s ballot. A record number of voters turned out and approved it by a wide margin. It allows for a special re-drawing of California’s districts to offset the Republican gerrymandering of House districts in Texas. Official Score: Governor Newsome 1, Trump 0.

All in all, it was a massive victory for Democrats yesterday. It turns out that Trump’s unfavorable policies and character flaws were the biggest factors in turning out the record-setting Democratic vote. How should Trump respond? While we have life and breath, we can repent and “turn away from our wicked ways”. Here are some suggestions.

Mature people assume responsibility for their mistakes and their defeats. Mr. President, be a man. Take ownership for yesterday’s big, blue wave. Don’t throw a toddler’s temper tantrum of crying out about “rigged elections” or “weak Republican candidates”. The opinion polls about you and your policies being underwater turned out to be very accurate (even Fox News polling aligns with these national polls).
Recognize that you do not have much art of the deal in economic issues (you have a track record of multiple bankrupticies). Your tariffs have not lowered inflation. Quite the contrary has happened. Perhaps the Supreme Court will rule that your tariffs are, in fact, illegal and not just ineffective.
Twelve years ago you said that a weak president is always responsible for a federal shutdown. I agree with your comments at that time. Tell your senators to approve an extension to the ACA subsidies and end the shutdown now.
Do not use SNAP funding as a political weapon. 42 million citizens and their food supplies are being seriously and negatively affected.
Stop pushing for more gerrymandering in red states.
Congress has the “power of the purse”. Since they have already approved huge construction projects in New York, New Jersey, and other blue states, do not not block them.

The list goes on and on. You might not save your presidency, but you can reduce the harm done to the American people.

The Election is Over: May God Help Us Bind Up the Wounds of our Nation

In his second inaugural address in 1865, President Abraham Lincoln encouraged the U.S. people with these words: “With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.”

Lincoln’s troops were on the verge of winning and ending the war. He knew that both sides thought they were morally right and believed that God was on their side. Nevertheless, Lincoln knew enough about God’s justice and he understood that both the North and the South had committed atrocities before and during the war (ex. massive killings, the horrors of slavery, Sherman’s devastating and decimating march to the sea, etc.). A righteous God had judged both sides and found them to be morally deficient. A multitude of women on both sides had become widows. Thousands and thousands of young men would never come home. Orphans abounded and starvation was rampant. For those who had eyes to see, the nation’s wounds were all too apparent. A few weeks after he delivered his speech, an assassin’s bullet cut the president’s life short. Lincoln was denied the opportunity to heal our country’s wounds.

Lincoln’s remarks are very relevant for us today in the wake of our divisive presidential election. Trump won a clear victory, taking all of the seven battleground states. Nevertheless, we are a deeply divided country with roughly 50% on both sides. As in Lincoln’s day, we should strive to bind up the nation’s wounds. To heal a wound, you must first understand it and clean it out. During the passion and heat of the campaign, I didn’t see much willingness on either side to listen to and feel the various painful wounds on the other side. If we are sufficiently mature and with “malice toward none”, we might be able to have courageous conversations and begin to understand each other… an essential first step towards bind up the wounds.

We might not agree that all the painful wounds are equally justifiable, but we should be able to walk in the shoes of those we disagree with and strive to feel their pain. What were our political rivals fighting for and what were they fighting against? I encourage my readers to strive first to understand the pain before you automatically respond.

Millions of our fellow citizens feel they have been economically falling further and further behind.
Our neighbors have seen food and other prices dramatically rise (eggs by over 200%) due to inflation and not fall back.
Many believe that undocumented immigrants are taking away their jobs and/or depressing their wages.
After five decades of living under Roe, millions of women have seen their right to an abortion taken away.
During the same period, millions of tiny lives in the womb have been destroyed not to save the life of their mother, but for the sake of convenience.
Many of our citizens feel that the other side is lying (a lot!) and distorting the truth.
Many feel that people on the other side are arrogant and talking down to voters.
Most people believe that big money has corrupted our political process.

Trump has won the election and will occupy the White House as of January 20. I do not believe in the validity of the maxim “to the victor belong the spoils” as if the winners can do anything they want. God (and “we the people”) demands that those in authority be responsible public servants (Romans 13:4a,6) and to act justly. Therefore, I urge Trump, his supporters, and government officials generally, to seek justice and bind up our nation’s wounds. The following are some of the painful wounds that I see (mostly wounds of those who cannot speak up for themselves, or for society at large). They are principally based upon my belief that all people are created in God’s image and, therefore, deserve to be treated with respect.

Bullying is wrong. To demean others by making fun of their handicaps, deliberately mispronouncing their names, or dismissing them with offensive nicknames (“little Marco” or “your wife is ugly”) instead of reasonably debating the issues, is not acceptable. Everyone should acknowledge that Trump is a bully. I urge him to turn from his bullying ways and set a more positive example for the younger generations.
All women are created in God’s image. Therefore, treating them as having less value than men is wrong. Trump has been found legally liable of sexual assault. The Access Hollywood tape where Trump boasted of grabbing women by their genitalia should be denounced by all people as morally abhorrent. Trump’s unrepentant womanizing is a painful wound.
It pains me to see immigrants vilified for attempting to provide a better life for their families. Of course, undocumented immigrants who have committed felonies should be in prison or deported back to their home countries. The overwhelming majority of immigrants are hardworking contributors to our society.
Trump’s plan to deport 8-15 million immigrants is painful and anti-family, because many of them have children born in the U.S. who are American citizens. As a result, families would be separated. In addition, because undocumented immigrants work hard jobs for low wages, employers will have to pay higher wages to attract new workers. If Trump follows through on his deportation plan, inflation will skyrocket…another painful wound.
Thousands of innocent Gazan civilians have died in the Israel-Hamas war. If Trump gives unconditional support to Israel, many more civilians in Gaza will pay the price with their lives. This is an open, festering wound.
Trump has affirmed that he will “solve” Russia’s war against Ukraine even before he takes office. This probably means forcing Ukraine to give up some of their territory to appease Russia. This will not stop Russia’s imperialistic goals of taking control of other neighbors. This is not an acceptable “cleaning” of the wound.,
Our national founders put “checks and balances” into our Constitution to protect our country from one branch of government amassing too much power over the other branches. The Supreme Court, including the three justices previously appointed by Trump, have given presidents “immunity” for all their presidential actions. Not having any guardrails is a dangerous wound.
Republicans used to be the “law and order” party, and they proudly proclaimed that “nobody is above the law”. That is no longer true. Trump is a convicted felon. The federal court cases against him for insurrection and mishandling of secret documents will just “disappear”. A society that permits the powerful to be above the law has a cancerous wound that needs cleaning.
The planet itself is agonizing with ever more destructive “natural” disasters like massive floods, “once in a century” hurricanes, droughts, and wildfires. Many of these are related to global warming. “Drill, baby drill” for more oil is not an acceptable cure for our planet’s illness.

The list could go on and on. I urge people of all political persuasions to acknowledge the wounds that exist, to empathize and identify with the wounded, and bind up their wounds.

Trump’s Plan to Eliminate the Federal Income Tax: Why would any Sane Person Support It?

Former president and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has recently floated the idea of eliminating the federal income tax. At first glance, this could be seen as a popular plan. I don’t know anyone who enjoys paying income taxes. Nevertheless, sensible people know that we have to pay our bills, as families and as a nation. The federal government annually receives $2.4 trillion dollars from the collection of personal income taxes, about half of the government’s budget. Common sense reminds us that if you cut your income in half, you must increase your money intake in some other way. Trump claims the funding shortfall could be made up with tariffs on imported goods (see below). Government leaders, including prominent Republicans, have repudiated Trump’s plan while others have suggested that Trump was just “kidding”. Trump responded in his recent interview with Joe Rogan on Friday that he was quite serious about his plan.

It is important for us to remember that during Trump’s presidency (2017-2021), the national debt increased by $7.8 trillion dollars, the largest increase in our country’s history! His idea of raising money by 10-20% tariffs on foreign goods is also quite flawed. Foreign companies and countries would not pay a penny to the U.S. government. The tariffs would be a “sales tax” paid for by U.S. importers who would pass on the higher costs to U.S. consumers! In addition, other countries might retaliate and impose their own tariffs on U.S. products, and thereby hurting companies in our nation.

His plan to implement massive deportation of immigrants is inhumane at a moral level. It is also economical lunacy. Many immigrants work for lower than a minimal wage. If they are deported, labor costs would dramatically increase, especially in the fields of construction, agriculture, and food services. Inflation would skyrocket.

23 winners of the Nobel prize for economics recently wrote a letter to the U.S. public in which they stated, “While each of us has different views on the particulars of various economic policies, we believe that, overall, Harris’ economic agenda will improve our nation’s health, investment, sustainability, resilience, employment opportunities, and fairness and be vastly superior to the counterproductive economic agenda of Donald Trump.”

We must also remember that many of his businesses (like Trump University) have failed. He has declared bankruptcy multiple times. He has also been found guilty of cheating on his payment of state and federal taxes.

Given this massive quantity of evidence, why would anyone of sound mind trust Trump with our nation’s economy? There might be some reasons for voting for Trump (although his lying, womanizing, felonies, racism, bullying, etc., disqualify him according to my conscience), his economic strategy is horrible,

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.

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.

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!

Dear Joe…. Thank you for your service. It is time to step aside.

Dear Joe,

First of all, thank you for your service in public office, as a Senator for 36 years, as Vice-President under Obama, and now as President. You have served well and have a strong legacy. Even when they disagree with you, in their heart of hearts, even your critics acknowledge your concern for the most vulnerable in our society. Your wisdom in international challenges has been welcomed and appreciated. You have stabilized our economy with growth and job creation, and you have lowered inflation.

Nevertheless, I think it is time for you to step aside and give the next generation their opportunity. The main reason is not your diminishing physical ability and mental acuity. (That happens to many of us.) I believe you would serve well if you had four more years in the White House. The problem is that so much attention is given to your occasional verbal gaffes, that the unethical character and flawed actions of ex-President Trump receive little attention. For example, in the “Debate”, Trump told more than 30 serious lies, but these are hardly mentioned.

I believe that Trump is very dangerous for our country (he is a convicted felon who is guilty of sexual assault, trying to steal the 2020 election, invoking a riot in our Capitol, and supporting autocrats around the world, including Putin in his invasion and war against Ukraine. The most consistent aspect of his character are his lies.) In “normal” courts he would become convicted again and again, but due to the actions of the stacked Supreme Court, Trump will not be tried again before the election. The best scenario for the country is that Trump loses the election in November. Joe, you are no longer the best candidate to beat Trump. Other Democrats (Whitmer, Harris, Newsome, and others) are now better prepared. For the good of our country and the world, step aside.

Are the January 6 Hearings a “Witch Hunt”? Does it Matter

Over the past week we have witnessed the first three televised sessions regarding the January 6^th, 2021 storming of the Capitol building in an attempt to block the certification of the election of President Biden. The congressional committee has mounted a large number of witnesses (all staunch Republicans up to this point) who have generally placed the blame for the insurrection on former president Trump.

Some of my friends (and many who support Trump) refuse to watch the hearings and claim that the evidence should be rejected because it is a “Witch Hunt”. They accuse the committee of being “never Trumpers” and, therefore, too prejudiced to be listened to. There are seven Democrats and two Republicans on the committee. I hope that the committee members are trying to be fair, but I am realistic enough to recognize they are human and come to their task with subjective biases. Nevertheless, to dismiss the hearings as a “Witch Hunt” is a misguided cop-out. It is cowardly (and ethically wrong) to reject evidence without looking at it by alleging that it comes from prejudiced people. The issue is not who the information comes from, but whether it is accurate and true… or not. It takes great courage to examine information that we might not like and evaluate it with an open mind. I invite all people in our country to sift through the evidence and answer the following questions:

Attorney General William Barr as well as Trump’s own campaign manager told him that he had lost the election, fair and square. Is Trump guilty of spreading the false message that the election had been stolen which was the principal motivation for the January 6^th protest?
After the election, Trump and his team 250 million dollars for an election defense fund. The problem is that this “fund” does not exist. It is a sham. Is Trump guilty of fraud?
It is obvious that Trump pressured Vice President Pence to not certify the results of the Electoral College on January 6, 2021. Thursday’s hearing affirmed this was a violation of the Constitution. Was the pressure applied by Trump against Pence a criminal action?

If we want the truth, we must sift through the allegations. It is worth the effort. It will set us free and help restore our democracy.

The Courage to Stop Believing a Lie

Most of us have told an occasional lie during our lives. Most of us have also been lied to on occasion. When we have been told a lie by a person that we trust (a parent, a good friend, a coach or teacher), we feel crushed, disappointed, and disillusioned. If we are repeatedly lied to by that person, we rightfully become skeptical and suspicious. We begin to change our relationship with him or her. We take what they say with a large “grain of salt”. In Reagan’s words, we “trust” but we also must “verify”. We strive to get “a second opinion” from reputable experts who have greater trustworthiness.

We are in a national dilemma regarding the presidential election results. On the one hand, we can celebrate the vitality of our democracy. Over 150 million citizens went to the polls. On the other hand, we are also a divided country with approximately 51% of our population who voted for Biden and 47% that voted for Trump. Our Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) is even more divided with almost an equal number of Democrats and Republicans being elected.

According to the results in each state, Biden is the president elect and will receive 306 votes in the Electoral College later this month (the exact same number as Trump received in 2016). Nevertheless, Trump has not admitted that he lost the election. He claims that there has been massive fraud. His lawyers have challenged the results in several contested states (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, etc.) but none of these challenges have been successful in the courts. But here is our dilemma: Over 20% of those who voted believe that Biden only won the election because of fraud. If it were only Democrats who claimed that the results were not fraudulent, then the result might be suspect. But there are dedicated Republicans who have been responsible for overseeing the election process and have called them as they see them: accurate and without fraud. These public servants have demonstrated their loyalty to our country, our constitution, and our democracy. They have decided not to enable Trump and his ridiculous claims any longer. Here is a small sample.

Christopher Krebs, a life-long Republican, was appointed by President Trump himself to be the administration´s most senior cybersecurity official responsible to secure the presidential election from foreign or domestic interference. To refute Trump´s claims that the election was stolen through fraud, Krebs announced that the 2020 election was ¨the most secure in American history¨. In retaliation, the Trump fired Krebs for daring to contradict the president.

In Georgia, Republican Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger oversaw the election and announced that Biden defeated Trump fair and square, by more than 12,000 votes. Since the race was close, the president challenged the results and demanded a hand recount. The recount again showed that Trump lost the election and Biden won. Another recount was demanded, this time by machine, and again the results were the same: a Biden victory. Raffensperger and his staff have received death threats due to their objectivity. As a result, the Secretary of State has repeatedly urged the president to admit the results and to stop fueling these death threats. On Tuesday, President Trump told Georgia Governor Brian Kemp to ¨do something¨ to overturn the election results. Kemp, a staunch Republican, rebuked the president and told him that Georgia law prohibits him from ¨interfering in the election¨.

In Wisconsin, Biden won the election by some 20,000 votes. Trump´s lawyers challenged the results and took their case to Wisconsin´s Supreme Court. The court threw out the case due to lack of evidence.

Something similar took place in Pennsylvania where the state Supreme Court unanimously rejected the case brought by Trump´s allies. Their ruling denounced it as an ¨extraordinary proposition that the court disenfranchise 6.9 million Pennsylvanians who voted in the general election.¨ Pennsylvania´s Republican senator, Pat Toomey, called on the president to concede, ¨President Trump has exhausted all plausible legal options to the challenge the result of the presidential race in Pennsylvania.¨

The most telling verdict comes from Attorney General William Barr. In my opinion, Barr has been overly subservient to President Trump, doing his bidding at every turn, but even Barr could not stomach Trump´s wild claims. On Tuesday, the Attorney General told the Associated Press that FBI agents and U.S. attorneys have followed up the specific complaints they have received, but ¨to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale the could have effected a different outcome in the election.¨ Many think that Barr will be fired for his honesty.

It is sad to see one’s friends and neighbors when they believe a blatant and obvious lie. It takes great courage to recognize when we have been duped by falsehoods. I believe that most of our neighbors can rise to the occasion and admit that there was no massive fraud. The future of our democracy depends on us recognizing and walking in the truth.