Author: jxindivisible

An accident of upbringing?

The Book of Revelation, the final book of the Christian Bible, has been the subject of study and speculation for centuries of believers. Revelation is the source of scores of cultural references, including The Beast, 666, the Antichrist, the Battle of Armageddon, the Apocalypse, and The Seven Seals. I encourage you to read, or at least skim, the Book in one of its paper versions or here online, where you can choose to read it in any one of more than sixty english language translations. (I recommend either the Revised Standard Version [1952] or the King James Version [1611].) A passing familiarity with the actual text of Revelation is an important basis for evaluating its many consequential modern-day spin-offs.

I first read the Book of Revelation as a teenager leading up to my confirmation as a full member of the Methodist Church. I read it from a standpoint of reverence for Biblical text, but I possessed only a sketchy grasp of the history of western civilization, of the process of assembling the Bible, and of the Christian church(s). As ill-prepared as I was by my lack of perspective, I was fascinated by the imagery and captivated by the idea that Revelation contained clues from which one could predict the future. After all, I was taught that the Bible was in some sense the Word of God for us to interpret. 

In the 1960s exactly what future was predicted by the words of Revelation was mostly the subject of elaborate, illustrated pamphlets affixed to doorknobs with rubber bands—and whispered insinuations that this or that public personage was, for example, “the Beast”. In my upbringing, Biblical verses and stories were read, taught, and discussed seriously, but the idea that every word in the Bible was the inerrant word of God and therefore requiring of explanation was a foreign concept. In that context I felt the allure of the looming and elaborate End Times predictions spun out of the Book of Revelation, but there remained a yawning gap between the actual words and the story certain preachers had been made of them.

Awareness of the Book of Revelation is important because it is the one book in the New Testament on which all Christian eschatology, the study and prediction of the End Times, is based—a study that features prominently in the minds of many Evangelical Christians of today. Take, for example, the immense popularity among Evangelical Christians of the Revelation-based “Left Behind” books and movies that popularized the idea of “The Rapture”. The author, Timothy LaHaye, was an American Baptist evangelical Christian minister based in San Diego. (For more detail see CMR’s Worldview.) Famed politico-religionist pastor Jerry Falwell Sr. said of the “Left Behind” series, “In terms of its impact on Christianity, it’s probably greater than that of any other book in modern times, outside the Bible.” Remember that nearly all of this is a spin-off from the words of the Book of Revelation.

I find it disturbing to realize that if, by a quirk of fate, I had been brought up on fundamentalist Biblical interpretation I might still be studying the Book of Revelation for clues to the future—or at least seriously following the fanciful interpretations of Revelation concocted by others. Instead, I consider adherence to Biblical fundamentalism a block to critical thinking and an open door to the acceptance of all manner of fringe interpretations. 

In September of 2022 (can that be just over a year ago?) General Michael Flynn’s and Clay Clark’s Christian Nationalist “Reawaken America Tour” attracted a crowd at the Stateline Speedway in Post Falls. Its poster featured many political personalities including Mike Lindell (the “MyPillow Guy”), “Pastor” Sean Feucht (who has appeared twice in Spokane, most recently with Nadine Woodward), Josh Hawley, Lindsey Graham (?), and Roger Stone, among a sea of others, some of whom I recognize but cannot name. (For more detail click Flynn’s Reawaken America Tour Comes to the Inland Northwest.)

In my efforts to understand and write about “Reawaken America” as came here to the Inland Northwest I must have disclosed my cell number. Since October I have received period texts from “Reawaken”. Following a link in one of these texts led me down a rathole where I fear I stood shoulder to shoulder with folks who shared my youthful fascination with Revelation, but never escaped from it—a sobering thought. 

The first way station in cesspool of misinformation and conspiracy theories was this link to the Reawaken America website itself. From there you can lose yourself (and your mind) in dramatic videos posted on Rumble, like “Mike Lindell | Lindell & Clay Clark Share Their 3-Year Journey Together On Quest to Save America from The Great Reset: Being De-Banked, Being Canceled By Media, Having Countless Venues & Vendors Cancel Them, Law-Fare & More”. (Not recommended unless you have an idle hour and quarter). But the link that really caught my eye was a six minute video that starts with the image of the Bible opened to the Book of Revelation Chapter 16 and a deep male voice reading verses 12-14. The caption reads: “Revelation 16: 12-14 | Did the Bible Prophesy That China & Russia Would Team Up & the False Prophet Would Show Up When the Euphrates River Dried Up? Understanding: Yuval Noah Harari, China & Russia, the Euphrates, AI & the Gilgamesh Projec”. Whoa! What? Each of those two videos claims to have “265K followers”, suggesting to the viewer than they are not alone in their fascination.

The Revelation video is a disturbingly far cry from the illustrated pamphlets hung on the doorknobs of my youth by various true believers. Rumble is a social media video hosting platform popular with the far right. Scanning the video titles reminds one of the headlines in the National Enquirer magazine—except that while you had to buy the Enquirer, Rumble is free to visit (presumably under expectation that the gullible visitor will be conned by the advertising). Moreover, the content on Rumble is presented as video—no need to spend any effort actually reading. It should surprise no one that Rumble’s cloud services business hosts Trump’s Truth Social.

Faith in Biblical inerrancy, a devotion that encompasses much of modern-day Evangelicalism, is fertile ground for the Sean Feuchts, Matt Sheas, Mike Lindells, Alex Joneses, and General Flynns to seed their cultish, religion-laced, End Times-inspired politics. The temptation is to think of these people as clever grifters deceiving the gullible for monetary and political gain. Sadly, it now seems to me more likely they believe the insanity they spread, buoyed in their confidence that they are divinely guided to their interpretations.

I present all of this as a window on a worrisome mindset that underpins the politics and religious beliefs of a significant share of modern-day Evangelical Christians, many of whom are otherwise delightful, well-meaning people, like my former neighbor (whose story I told here). Arm yourself with at least a passing familiarity with the actual words of the Book of Revelation—and marvel at the fantastic stories spun off from those words. If you wonder at the opinions expressed by some at your holiday tables, remember that some guests might be coming up from a Rumble video rathole for a bit of holiday cheer. Decline to argue. Ask questions, and listen to the answers in quiet amazement. 

Keep to the high ground,
Jerry

Her response: Drill, dig up, and burn more fossil fuels!

Last Thursday, December 14th, members of the U.S. House left for a three week holiday recess. Meanwhile, Ukrainian troops are running out of ammoand the U.S. Senate remains in overtime session. The Senate is trying to iron out a compromise to pass legislation to provide the desperately needed military aid. Why is this so hard, when there supposedly exists bipartisan support in both houses of the U.S. Congress to pass this funding? Republicans in Congress are holding the aid package hostage to an unrelated demand to return to the Trumpian version of border security. The demand is embodied in H.R.2, passed by the House on May 11, 2023. H.R.2’s first requirement is an immediate restart of border wall construction. H.R.2 passed with all but two Republican and zero Democratic votes. Of course, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-CD5, eastern Washington) voted Yea. H.R.2 never had a chance of passing the Senate, but it remains as the price House Republicans demand to authorize money for Ukrainian soldiers to continue to hold off Vladimir Putin’s territorial ambitions. The Republicans, including McMorris Rodgers, left for recess as the Ukrainian military fights on in the cold and dark. These Republicans celebrate the holiday in their warm homes with their families while Putin crows that the West is losing interest.

Last week, hopping mad, I messaged McMorris Rodgers over her and her House Republican compatriots’ complicity in this tragedy. A number of my readers did the same—and I imagine that those who did received the same email reply that I pasted below. It did nothing to assuage my anger and frustration. In fact, it made it worse. Not only does she claim to support Ukraine against Putin—but she switches topics to her sponsored bill, H.R. 6858, deceptively dubbed “The American Energy Independence from Russia Act”. She writes, “This is how we crush Putin’s war chest, restore our energy dominance, stand by Ukraine and our allies, and create jobs here at home.” Horse manure. H.R. 6858 is nothing more than a gift to her fossil fuel supporters and a nod to her climate denial and Dominianist theology. The only good news here is that McMorris Rodgers introduced H.R. 6858 a year and a half ago (02/28/2022) and it has gone nowhere. And this is her excuse for going out on recess while Ukrainians freeze as she claims to support them?

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

Hi JERRY,

Thank you for contacting me about the the war in Ukraine. I appreciate you taking the time to reach out to my office.

I believe the United States has a responsibility to hold Vladimir Putin accountable for his unlawful invasion of Ukraine. The United States can and should do more to help the people of Ukraine in their fight with more sanctions, more security assistance, and more defense equipment.

We promised freedom-loving Ukrainians we would help them defend against aggression nearly 30 years ago when they voluntarily shut down their nuclear arsenal. Putin will not stop in Ukraine, so our commitment to freedom and self-determination cannot and should not waver. If America is not strong in this moment, we risk facing catastrophic consequences around the world.

I also understand the concerns about the amount of money Congress has authorized in support of Ukraine’s defense. I have always believed every penny of taxpayer money should be subject to the scrutiny of the American people, which is why I have – and will continue to – closely evaluate any legislation that sends money to Ukraine. Law recently enacted in May 2022 requires the Secretaries of State and Defense to report descriptions of U.S. security assistance provided to Ukraine on a monthly basis. These reports are traditionally delivered to the committees in the House and Senate that have jurisdiction over defense and foreign affairs issues. If you’re interested, you can read more about the assistance the U.S. has provided to Ukraine inthis report from the Congressional Research Service.  

As Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I am focused on the impact that the Biden administration’s energy policies are having on the conflict in Ukraine and geopolitical stability. For America to be a diplomatic power, we must be a military power. To be a military power, we must be an economic power. Energy is foundational to it all. It’s clearer now than ever what is at stake when a rush-to-green agenda and anti-American energy policies make the world more dependent on Russian oil and natural gas.

My goal is to flip the switch on American energy and bolster our energy security with my bill, the American Energy Independence from Russia Act (H.R. 6858). This is how we crush Putin’s war chest, restore our energy dominance, stand by Ukraine and our allies, and create jobs here at home.

Please know as your advocate in Congress, my top priority is to listen to you and lead on solutions you can count on. Please stay in touch. I send out a regular update that gives you an inside look at my week ahead. You can subscribe by clicking here. 

Sincerely,

Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Member of Congress

Don’t let them fool you

Every statewide initiative you might be asked to sign before January 1st—as you scurry about doing your Christmas shopping (or your returns)—every one of them is a cynical attempt to breathe life into the state’s Republican Party for the 2024 election. Don’t be fooled. The initiative signature gathering is funded almost solely by one very rich man, Brian Heywood, who moved to the State of Washington from California in 2010 “to make money”. 

That these initiatives are being foisted upon us by paid signature gatherers is undisputed fact. Brian Heywood is nearly the sole contributor to Let’s Go Washington, a political committee which, as of yesterday, reported “Voter signature/petition gathering” expenditures of $5,441,115.35.

I first wrote of Mr. Heywood’s gambit in a post published November 29 entitled The Perversion of the Initiative Process (click to read). I was not convinced that the paid signature gatherers would make it to this side of the state, but on Monday I received reports from friends who had been approached in local shopping malls by signature gatherers presenting dubious information to encourage hurried passersby to sign. 

On November 30, the day after my post (probably coincidence), in Sue Lani Madsen’s opinion column published in the Spokesman, she tried to point the finger in the opposite direction. Ignoring (or ignorant of?) the millions of Brian Heywood’s dollars spent on signature gathering, Ms. Madsen insinuated, without evidence, that some imagined group associated with Democrats was paying “disruptors” [the bold is mine]: “The usual modus operandi is to send paid signature disruptors to make it unpleasant enough for customers that retail businesses ask signature-gatherers to leave.” Then came the insinuated connection, “…there was no response to repeated attempts to contact Shasti Conrad, chairman of the Washington state Democrats”. It’s a classic turn-around: try to paint the opposition as purely monetarily motivated, that is, lacking in sincerity. It’s the same game plan as Fox News’ and the Republican Party’s bogus BS about George Soros busing and paying protestors. 

Totally ignoring the decades-long, CPAC-lauded, Republican anti-tax ballot measures visited upon our ballot measure system by the now-disgraced Republican/Libertarian Tim Eyman, Ms. Madsen stretches to retrieve obscure examples of Democrats playing the same game. 

Then she comes up with this imagined zinger:

Democrats are probably not planning to send thank you notes to citizens for exercising their democratic right to petition their government. Or to congratulate businesses for allowing petitioners to gather on their property.

Of course, she fails to mention that the money and the spearhead behind the current bevy of initiatives is from Just. One. Wealthy. Man. 

Bottom line: Be on the alert for pesky signature gatherers—and pointedly Decline to Sign. According to Ms. Madsen one of the six measures is already over the top for signatures—which should surprise no one, I suppose, considering the documented money invested. We’ll learn of the final tally in January from Washington State’s Secretary of State. 

Keep the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. Right on cue, the Washington Policy Center’s Republican blare machine lurched into action in the December 13 WPC reserved space on the Opinion page of the Spokesman Review. In his article Todd Myers, employed by the WPC, drummed on idea that Governor Inslee’s climate efforts have egregiously driven up the price of gas, the subject of Initiative 2117, the Heywood initiative that Ms. Madsen claims has gathered sufficient signatures to get it on the 2024 ballot. Mr. Myers provided a blur of numbers, but the real thrust of his piece was an accusation that Governor Inslee lied—playing on anger as the most effective means of riling one’s followers. Expect a lot more of this sort of thing—and understand it for what it is.

Plus: McMorris Rodgers and Ukraine

Early each week (Sunday or Monday) RANGE Media publishes a preview of and links to meetings to be held by local government entities during the following week. It is a great service that is worth your learning about and signing up for. For example, at 12:40PM last Monday an email popped into my in box entitled “You can apply to be the next Spokane District 2 City Council Member” with the teaser “CIVICS | Plus, talks on the future of TRAC, no more regular council meetings for 2023, and budget decisions for Mead School Board” and a link to the entire post. I encourage you to click that link and enter your email in the pop up window so you, too, will receive email notifications, and, if you’re financially able, sign up for a paid subscription. 

Here’s the beginning of this week’s RANGE roundup:

Welcome to CIVICS, where we break down the week’s municipal meetings throughout the Inland Northwest, so you can get involved and speak out about the issues you care about.  

Some things that stick out to us this week include: 

• Apply to be the next city council member for District 2 in Spokane
• Discussions on the future of TRAC 
• Big budget decisions for the Mead School Board
• New board members for Central Valley School Board
• A Logan Neighborhood transit-oriented development project is holding a public hearing

Important meetings this week:

• Spokane Valley City Council 
• Mead School District Board of Directors
• Central Valley School District Board of Directors
• Board of County Commissioners
• Spokane Plan Commission
• Spokane Park Board
• Spokane City Council Study Session
• Spokane Regional Transportation Council

If you click any of these underlined items it will take you to the part of the CIVICS post that summarizes what’s going on this week with that particular council, commission, or committee. 

Check it out! Sign up. Tell your friends. 

McMorris Rodgers and Ukraine

The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to adjourn for the holiday season the end of this week without voting to fund Ukraine. The prospect that Rep. McMorris Rodgers might return to Spokane (or go wherever) for the holidays without voting in this crucial funding makes me profoundly ill. I’m angry with her, with the man she so enthusiastically nominated (in Caucus), Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, and with the entire Republican Party. And I told her so (politely, of course). I encourage you to do the same: click this link and lodge a message with her concerning how you feel about the profound and lasting consequences of her and her party’s inaction on this matter. Ordinarily I consider trying to influence her with such missives a waste of time but, maybe, just maybe, she’ll take some note. Below I have pasted an opinion piece from The Atlantic written by David Frum which lays out what is at risk and why.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

Why the GOP Doesn’t Really Want a Deal on Ukraine and the Border

The congressional opposition to the president’s funding request explained—as far as it can be

We’re not going to negotiate in the pages of The Atlantic.”

That was the response I got from a congressional staffer when I pressed for some details, any details, on what really separated Democrats from Republicans on aid to Ukraine.

For two years, the Ukrainians have fought heroically to defend their country against Russia’s invasion. The United States and other allies have funded that defense. But Russia has not given up, and past rounds of U.S. aid are nearly exhausted. For Ukraine to keep fighting, it urgently needs more aid.

The Biden administration has sent Congress a request for $61 billion in new funds for Ukraine and $14 billion to help Israel defend itself against Hamas and Hezbollah. The package also includes humanitarian assistance to people displaced by the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as assistance to Indo-Pacific allies, and $14 billion for border security (for a total of $111 billion).

Republicans in the House and Senate are resisting this request. The ostensible reason is that they want more radical action on the border than the Biden administration has offered. The whole aid package is now stalled, with potentially catastrophic consequences for Ukraine. Ukrainian units are literally running out of ammunition. If supplies of military equipment are interrupted, restarting them will take a while, which means that Ukraine could be left unaided over the winter unless Congress acts in time. And with both the House and the Senate scheduled to go into recess at the end of this week for their Christmas break, very little time remains in which to act.

How is any of this happening? On past evidence, a clear majority of Senate Republicans sincerely want to help Ukraine. Probably about half of House Republicans do too. In a pair of procedural test votes in September, measures to cut or block aid to Ukraine drew, respectively, 104 and 117 Republican votes of the 221 then in the caucus.

The offer that President Joe Biden is making regarding the border represents a meaningful opening bid. The fundamental reason for America’s present border crisis is that would-be immigrants are trying to game the asylum system. The system is overwhelmed by the numbers claiming asylum. Even though the great majority of those claims will ultimately be rejected, their processing takes years, sometimes decades. In the meantime, most asylum seekers will be released into the United States. This makes claiming asylum a rational bet for would-be immigrants to try their luck, and millions of people are doing just that. The $14 billion of proposed additional funding would pay for some 1,600 new staff in the asylum system. New hires can speed up the process, reducing the incentive of de facto U.S. residency pending a claim’s hearing that attracts so many to seek asylum here.

Maybe the Biden administration’s budget proposal on immigration enforcement is not high enough. Asylum abuse might be checked by rejecting asylum seekers who passed through other safe countries on their way to the United States. (Such a policy has been in force in the European Union since 2013.) But in the multilateral negotiations among the White House and Republicans in both houses of Congress, the normal process of offer and counteroffer seems to have broken down altogether. I stress the word seems because getting clarity on the state of play is very difficult—as the response I received from the congressional staffer suggests.

On december 6, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer issued the following invitation to Republicans: Write an amendment detailing everything you want, and the Democratic Senate majority will let you bring it to the floor for a clean vote. That offer was rejected by Senate Republicans. How do you get to “yes” when the other side refuses to state its terms?

In a letter to Biden dated December 5, House Speaker Mike Johnson insisted that nothing less than “transformative” border policies would do. The House Republican vision is contained in a bill known as H.R. 2.

H.R. 2 is certainly transformative. It would rewrite the asylum system from top to bottom; it passed the House in May by the narrow margin of 219–213. All Democrats present plus two Republicans voted no. H.R. 2 is obviously going nowhere in the Senate. For that matter, it’s not at all clear that H.R. 2 would have commanded a majority in the House if there were any prospect of its becoming law. H.R. 2 was an easy vote to please the Fox News audience without any need to weigh potential negative consequences.

So how did this unpopular item become the absolutely indispensable precondition for a Ukraine aid deal?

As well as anyone not in the negotiating room can figure, the impasse on the Republican side is powered by four main impulses:

Playing to the gallery

A lot of House Republicans do not much care about enacting laws and solving problems. They are in Congress to strike poses and score television hits. They do not want to make deals. They want to position themselves as the one true conservative too pure for dealmaking. The only things they’re willing to say they want are the things they know to be impossible.

The politics of domination

On December 4, Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas told reporters: “There’s a misunderstanding on the part of Senator Schumer and some of our Democratic friends. This is not a traditional negotiation, where we expect to come up with a bipartisan compromise on the border. This is a price that has to be paid in order to get the supplemental.” For many Republicans, what mattered was not what they got but how they got it: We demand, you comply; we win, you lose.

A deal, no matter how juicy, is less interesting to them than a ritual of submission. If they cannot enforce that ritual, they are not interested in any deal.

Intentional failure

The border is Biden’s single greatest political vulnerability. A recent NBC poll puts the Republican advantage on immigration at 18 points and border security at 30 points. Suppose Republicans did extract a big border concession in 2023; suppose they got everything they wanted. Then suppose their policy worked, and the flow of asylum seekers really did taper off dramatically in 2024. Would not the result of that success be only to strengthen Biden’s reelection chances and hurt Donald Trump’s? Maybe the reason Democrats are having so much difficulty getting to “yes” with Republicans is that many Republicans are committed to “no,” regardless of what the offer is.

Animosity toward Ukraine

The premise of much of the reporting about the negotiation is that Republicans sincerely care about the border and are using Ukraine and Israel as leverage in order to get their way on their higher priority. But for some Republicans, at least, stopping aid to Ukraine seems a priority in itself. A few actively subscribe to the pro-Putin politics of the far right. Others—including Speaker Johnson himself—started as supporters of Ukraine but have bent their view under the influence of anti-Ukraine party spirit. (Johnson supported the initial tranche of Ukraine aid in March 2022 but had defected to the anti-Ukraine side by May of that year.) Whatever each member’s motives and story are, the result has delivered them to the point where immigration-for-Ukraine no longer looks to them like a win-win deal.

The story’s not over yet. A last-minute reprieve for Ukraine and for the national honor of the United States may come through. Majorities in both the House and the Senate want this deal to happen. Significant counteroffers for immigration control are on the table, and agreement can surely be found. But the malign forces are strong, and they will not vanish on their own.

David Frum: Yes, the U.S. can afford to help its allies

We’re headed to a “no” that will doom Ukraine and disgrace the U.S., while doing nothing to remedy the crisis at the border. A “yes” on both Ukraine and the border is still within reach, if only pro-Ukraine Republicans will press their colleagues to grasp it. If leadership was ever needed, it’s needed now.

David Frum is a staff writer at The Atlantic.

Things to watch and consider

Liberty Lake Library/Liberty Lake City Council

Late last Monday evening (December 4) the temporary supermajority on the Liberty Lake City Council rammed through their controversial ordinance giving them direct oversight over the policies of the Liberty Lake Library Board. Phil Folyer (a lame duck who will be replaced in January), Chris Cargill, Jed Spencer, Wendy Van Orman, and Mike Kennedy (who just now replaced the appointed Tom Sahlberg) voted in favor. Council Members Annie Kurtz and Dan Dunne voted against.

A earlier, similar ordinance said that the council or mayor “will not initiate any book ban” and the council will “confirm or deny any books banned” by the board. That ordinance was vetoed by Mayor Kris Kaminskas (the first veto by a mayor in the twenty-plus year history of the City of Liberty Lake), a veto which the council at the time did not have the votes to override. When that original ordinance was passed by the council, Council Member Chris Cargill, one of the two CMs who earlier had voted to ban the book “Gender Queer” said, “To me, if you are opposed to banning books, you should be in favor of this ordinance because it says very specifically that the council cannot do it,” as reported by Garrett Cabeza of the Spokesman.

Tellingly, last Monday the ordinance passed by the temporary supermajority did not include that language. Moreover, that night the same 5-2 supermajority rejected an amendment that “would have prevented censorship from the council, mayor or board, and required policy to follow the law.” Cargill called the amendment “unnecessary”. 

Of course, it remains to be seen if this council, or a later one, will actually try to use the ordinance to ban books it doesn’t like. It also remains to be seen if the council will go through with proposed budgetary machinations that would significantly cut library funding, a move that one would have to interpret as retribution. Message: the actions of the City of Liberty Lake City Council henceforth should be subjected to careful scrutiny.

A Couple of National Notes:

The man nominated in glowing terms by our own U.S. Rep. McMorris Rodgers (R-CD5, eastern Washington) in a closed-door session of the House Republican Caucus, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, recently spoke to the National Association of Christian Lawmakers — a group that seeks to enact its anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ “biblical worldview” into law. In his speech Mr. Johnson claimed that God had counseled him to step forward for the position of Speaker of the House. From an article on the event covered in Rolling Stone, this was:

…just the latest evidence that the politician [Johnson] who is now second in line for the presidency views himself as on a divine mission. Rolling Stone previously reported on Johnson’s exhortations to save a “depraved” America from God’s wrath and vengeance. 

No one should be surprised that Johnson believes that the voice in his head is the voice of God or that the voice guides his timing and his particular agenda to “save” America. Fundamentalists and cult leaders have claimed divine justification for each of their particular belief systems since time immemorial. Nor should it surprise anyone that Rep. McMorris Rodgers, former leader of the House Republican Caucus, nominated such a man on a mission to lead House Republicans.

Tuberville Caves. Was he trying to copy McConnell?

On December 5th, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) finally relinquished his blockade of Senate approval of all military appointments and promotions. (Details here.) Tuberville, who sailed to his Senate seat in 2020 on his name recognition as a famous retired college football coach, claimed he was taking a principled stand against abortion. He opposed military policy to provide support for women in the service to seek health care across state lines from states that have criminalized the medical standard of care. 

Tuberville finally relented. Most of the media coverage suggested that he gave up his blockade thanks to pressure from fellow senators worried about the political optics of a Republican holding up military promotions. But what was he really up to?

We don’t want to give this man who apparently thinks that Guatemala shares a border with the United States too much credit for intelligence, but one must ask what his real motivation was for this hold. Tuberville is a staunch supporter of Donald Trump and the narrative that the 2020 election was stolen. 

Immediately upon taking office in January of 2021 Tuberville joined the group of U.S. Senators who announced their opposition to the counting of the electoral votes for Joe Biden, winner of the 2020 election. The evening after the attack on the Capitol on January 6 Tuberville, despite his position as a freshman senator, joined five other Republican senators to vote to object to Arizona’s electors and the other six who objected to Pennsylvania’s electors. 

Donald Trump has declared his intention to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807. This would empower him “to deploy U.S. military and federalized National Guard troops within the United States in particular circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection, or rebellion.” Having Trump’s hand-picked loyalists in positions of power within the military (as proposed for the civil service by the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025) would greatly reduce the likelihood of pushback from military leaders to Trump’s invocation of the Insurrection Act. 

Moreover, as you will recall, there is precedent for Republicans holding positions open so they can fill them later. Infamously, Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell stonewalled President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court for nearly eight months on the flimsy and duplicitous excuse of “letting the people decide” based on the the 2016 election. Never forget that McConnell quickly reversed his excuse for holding a seat open for months when he rammed through Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination less than two weeks before the 2020 general election. We are still—and will be for some time—reaping the consequences of McConnell’s work.

McConnell broke with any Republican pretense of decency with his holds on approving judicial nominations. Was Tuberville hoping for his own historic power play—but lost his nerve over objections to torturing the military, objections from people in his own party? Here’s Liz Cheney’s comment tucked away on an NPR interview (start at 8:30, but the whole 11 minute video is worth your time):

“Why is Tommy Tuberville doing that?” she said. “It’s causing great damage to this nation’s military readiness. Is he holding those positions open so that Donald Trump can fill them? What’s he doing? It’s certainly not serving the purposes of the United States of America.” 

After McConnell’s hold on judicial appointments and the events of January 6, we have every reason to be suspicious of the motives of any Republican loyal to Donald Trump who tries to hold up government appointments.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. Ms. Cheney’s NPR interview was sampled on Fox and Friends (see embedded Fox video), but, not surprisingly, it was immediately and fervently discounted by commentator Joe Concha suggesting that Liz Cheney would say anything to sell her new book “Oath and Honor”—as if anyone in the Cheney family needed money from book sales. Ms. Cheney’s comment about Tuberville wasn’t mentioned—and Concha veered off into condemning transgender surgery—a Fox staple.

Civil vs. Criminal and its application to extremism

We have two systems of justice in this country, the civil and the criminal, two systems that—importantly—operate under somewhat different rules of which most of us (including me until recently) are only dimly aware. 

The distinctions between civil and criminal law were recently brought to mind by an easy-to-miss article in the Spokesman noting that Ammon Bundy, recent candidate for governor of Idaho, was “in hiding” following a civil court judgment. (See extensive P.S. below)

Richard Girnt Butler, leader of the Aryan Nations and the Church of Jesus Christ–Christian whose center of national activity was a compound north of Hayden Lake, Idaho, finally had his wings clipped and his compound bulldozed as a result of a civil lawsuit that concluded in 2000.

Both Ammon Bundy and Richard Butler had (or perhaps we should say have) a considerable regional following. (Bundy, running for Idaho governor as a third party candidate in the 2022 general election, pulled 101,835 votes, 17.2% of the total.) In both cases several underlings had been successfully criminally prosecuted, but, as leaders, Bundy and Butler managed to escape criminal liability. (Admittedly, we don’t yet know if Bundy’s national prominence as an armed anti-federal government agitator is over—but we can hope.)

Bringing and winning a criminal legal case requires that a federal, state, or local government prosecutor recognizes that a crime has been committed and believes there is enough evidence to convict the perpetrator. (Locally, think of the Spokane County Prosecutor’s office managed under elected Spokane County Prosecutor Larry Haskell, a man whose wife Leslie is infamous for her white supremacist views. Contemplate what that could mean in willingness to pursue criminal prosecution.) 

In a civil case no discretion by a government-employed prosecutor is involved. Instead, civil cases are brought by individuals or groups arguing injury and asking for just compensation. In the case of Ammon Bundy the civil suit was filed by a medical facility in Idaho, St. Luke’s, for financial damages as a result Bundy’s actions at St. Luke’s Meridian Medical Center. 

In the Richard Butler case Victoria and Jason Keenan, a Native American mother and son, who were harassed at gunpoint by Aryan Nations’ members, brought a civil suit against Butler to court with the support of the Southern Poverty Law Center. 

There is a key difference in the judgment criteria between criminal and civil cases: To win a civil lawsuit requires proving the plaintiff’s case by “a preponderance of the evidence”. In a criminal case the evidential requirement is “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a much higher bar, particularly if the case goes before a jury, where one determined doubtful juror can prevent a conviction. (Note, though, that only a tiny fraction of all civil and criminal cases ever get to a jury trial (e.g. less than 2% of (federal) criminal cases do)—our popular impressions based on Perry Mason and other dramatic courtroom TV shows notwithstanding.)

Another important difference between criminal and civil suits: In a criminal trial a defendant may refuse to answer a question on the grounds that the answer may be self-incriminating, i.e. “plead the Fifth”, and the fact of refusing cannot be used to infer guilt. In contrast, in a civil trial a defendant may “plead the Fifth” but doing so does not forbid adverse inferences against the pleader based on the fact of refusal. I cannot say whether that issue came up in either of the civil cases discussed in this post, but it is nonetheless a potentially important distinction between the rules of evidence in criminal and civil cases. 

Defendants proven guilty in a criminal case may be subject to a variety of punishments and deterrents, including prison time, fines, and probation. The focus is to discourage continued criminal behavior. In contrast, in a civil case the court may award monetary compensation (damages) or issue an injunction to stop a certain behavior. The focus civil justice is to make the injured party whole or to prevent further harm.

In the two civil cases we’re discussing here, Bundy’s and Butler’s, the civil judgment was monetary. St. Luke’s won a judgment of $52.5 million in damages against Bundy and associates. When Bundy refused to begin to make payments, St. Luke’s was able to legally take over ownership of his Emmett house and property valued at $1 million. Bundy and his family decamped with their furniture to parts unknown. Whether he will turn up to make trouble elsewhere (as has been his pattern) remains to be seen, but this judgment will likely continue to plague his efforts.

The civil case against Butler and associates were judged liable for $6.3 million, bankrupting Butler and his Aryan Nations and resulting in the bulldozing of the Hayden Lake compound. Butler, at 86, died four years later of congestive heart failure in the Hayden Lake home provided to him by Sandpoint, Idaho, millionaire Vincent Bertollini. Absent Butler’s leadership and the focal point of the Aryan Nation’s compound, the national prominence of the white supremacist movement in the inland Northwest receded somewhat. Even so, it would be dangerously foolish to imagine that Butler’s ideology and those attracted to the region by Butler’s message don’t remain here as fertile soil for the next demagogue.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

More Detail:

P.S. Buried in the Northwest Section below the TV schedule in the December 2 (digital only) Spokesman was an article that caught my eye: “Bundy ‘in hiding’ after losing home, websites in legal battle with St. Luke’s”. Ammon Bundy, darling of the militant far right, leader of the 2016 occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, and participant in his father Cliven Bundy’s 2014 Bundy standoff in Nevada, lost a civil lawsuit and now pulled up stakes and, at least for now, had disappeared. 

The last two paragraphs of the article read:

Bundy and Rodriguez began making defamatory statements about St. Luke’s, its CEO and some medical professionals after leading protests at hospitals in Meridian and Boise in March 2022 over a child welfare case involving Rodriguez’s 10-month-old grandchild.

The defendants were found to have posted multiple lies about why the baby was taken into custody. They posted videos and blogs saying the hospital was working with the Idaho government to take children away from Christian families to be sexually abused and given to gay couples, according to court documents.

This episode of bizarre, conspiracy-fueled activism was just the most recent act with which Ammon Bundy and his extended family have gained national attention. They first appeared in the news with the standoff at the 160 acre Bundy farm near Bunkerville in southeastern Nevada in 2014. Under the leadership of Ammon’s father, Cliven Bundy, the family and supporters called up by the family, some of whom were armed, held a standoff with officials over a court-ordered seizure of Bundy cattle. The court order resulted from decades of the family grazing cattle on BLM land while refusing to pay grazing fees. “According to Bundy, the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to own vast tracts of lands, an argument repeatedly rejected by federal courts.” The 2014 standoff was defused when Bundy’s cattle were released. No shots were fired—and the whole mess gradually dropped out of the national news. That is a shame, since this whole anti-federal government movement continues to percolate. Cliven Bundy, Ammon’s father, despite multiple criminal indictments and trials, remains free to preach and gather followers for his bogus conviction of the illegitimacy of the federal government. (See the sub-heading “Prosecutions of some standoff participants” at this Wikipedia page.)

To better understand the religious extremist, conspiracy theory-riddled worldview of the Bundy family and their extensive network of would be revolutionaries—including links to local Inland Northwest figures like former Washington State Rep. Matt Shea, current Idaho State Rep. Heather Scott, and others, I recommend the investigative reporting of Leah Sottile as presented in her podcast series Bundyville and Bundyville the Remnant. (There are two seasons. Be sure to start with Episode 1 “The Battle”. “The Explosion”, listed in some places also as “Episode 1”, is the beginning of the second season.) 

Ammon Bundy, Cliven’s son and the original spur for this post, is better known for leading the February-March 2016 occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (in which Matt Shea and Heather Scott played cameo roles). The occupation, which lasted 40 days and made national news, resulted in one fatality, that of LaVoy Finicum, a man who, unsurprisingly, has become a martyr figure for the anti-federal government crowd led by Bundy and fellow travelers. Ammon and his band of armed followers seized the Malheur Refuge as an opportunity to continue to press their claim that ownership of land by the federal government was illegitimate. Some participants hoped to ignite a widespread armed revolt. Twenty-eight of the occupiers were ultimately both arrested and criminally charged, including Ammon Bundy. Rather unbelievably, “On October 27, 2016, Ammon Bundy and six other defendants were found not guilty of conspiracy to impede federal officers and possession of firearms in a federal facility by a jury.” The trial played out “like a three ring circus” according to the Washington Post. Ammon went free, newly invigorated in his anti-federal government agitation, and eventually moved to Emmet, Idaho, about 30 miles from Boise. 

In the early days of the Covid 19 pandemic in March, 2020, Bundy created the far-right “People’s Rights network”. During the pandemic, Bundy was arrested more than five times for protests and disruptions against COVID-19 mitigation efforts by the Idaho government. The arrests and subsequent trespassing convictions didn’t begin to slow him down. 

A year later, Ammon was still agitating through his People’s Rights Network, stirring up multiple conspiracy-theory-motivated protests. On March 11, 2022, Idaho State Health and Welfare with full legal authority took into custody the 10 month old baby of an associate of Bundy’s. Health authorities determined the child’s recent weight loss could threaten his life. The People’s Rights Network under Ammon’s leadership focused on the custody issue. At the time Bundy was running as an independent to become governor of the State of Idaho (in the 2022 general election he garnered 17.2% of the vote!). He was allied with Janice McGeachin, a far right pistol-kissing Republican who lost a primary challenge to Governor Brad Little the same year. From the Idaho Statesman as published in the Spokesman in March 2022:

In the past few days, protesters have posted names, photographs and addresses of people allegedly involved in the custody case online. They have gathered at private homes, Health and Welfare’s building, the Ada County Courthouse and St. Luke’s Boise Medical Center, where the baby was treated for a time.

Bundy posted a video on Friday calling on protesters to go to the home of a judge on Saturday. Later in the day, after the child was returned to his parents, Bundy posted another YouTube video to call off the Saturday protest. The child was returned to his parents around noon, according to a news release by Meridian police.

It was finally this over-the-top action by Bundy, Rodriquez, and their People’s Rights Network that sparked the civil lawsuit discussed in the body of this post. Sadly, Ammon Bundy and his followers almost certainly believe that their agitation and defamation was not only necessary to get the baby released by the evil, conspiring “State”, but also that the release wouldn’t have happened otherwise.

The book that riled the Liberty Lake City Council

By the time you read this the Liberty Lake City Council Members, Phil Folyer (who is a lame duck that will be replaced in January), Chris Cargill, Jed Spencer, Wendy Van Orman, and Mike Kennedy (who just now replaced the appointed Tom Sahlberg) may have exercised their transient supermajority to take over control of the Liberty Lake Library Board. 

For an excellent, detailed (and lengthy) analysis of the controversy I highly recommend that you click on Aaron Hedge’s and Erin Sellers’ RANGEMedia.co article published yesterday entitled “What is obscene? Who gets to decide?”. While you’re there signup to receive email notification of publication of RANGEMedia’s article and, if you can possibly afford it, sign up for a paid subscription. These reporters deserve our support.

As detailed in the RANGE article this whole controversy started over a challenge to the book “Gender Queer” lodged by Erin Zasada in December of 2021. Ms. Zasada did not read the whole graphic (meaning illustrated, not explicit) novel before she decided that she wanted to make the book unavailable to everyone else who visited the library. 

Remembering from my young adulthood the quip that the surest way to increase the circulation of a book was to get it “banned in Boston”, I bought a copy, read it in a couple of hours (I’m a slow reader), and shared it with others. The subject matter, the author trying to understand their innate sexual orientation, is a bit jarring—but, for anyone undergoing the same internal struggle as the author, it is clear to me that this book could be a life-saver. A gay friend of an age similar to mine who read “Gender Queer” quickly declared that there should be a copy of it available in every high school library. As the RANGEMedia article points out, the book clearly is not obscene based the three-pronged “Miller test” for obscenity. One of the three qualifying questions is “Whether a reasonable person finds that the matter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” “Gender Queer” lacks none of those attributes and I take pride in thinking of myself as a “reasonable person”. 

Underlying the Liberty Lake book banning controversy is a profound difference in worldview. For some, sexuality and sexual identity are strictly binary and, moreover, any deviation from that binary requirement is a choice that a person makes rather than part of one’s inborn makeup. In this worldview one fears that one’s supposedly perfectly normal teenager can be enticed into aberrant, “sinful” sexual behavior, i.e. “groomed”, simply by understanding that such things are possible. In this worldview, sexual identity is malleable and “conversion therapy” works. (It doesn’t, in spite of Speaker of the House Mike Johnson’s endorsement.) This first worldview almost always comes bound up with Fundamentalist religious convictions. 

The second viewpoint, a viewpoint shared by most biologists and physicians, notes that sex is profoundly NOT binary—an observable biological fact manifest in babies born with complicated variations of internal and external sex organs and variations in physiological responses to sex hormones. I recommend the documentary “Every Body” as a very human look at this complicated reality. (It’s available to watch on YouTube for a fee.) These people’s lived experience strongly suggest that one’s gender identity is formed biologically as well. In this view, having access to a book that confirms for such a person that they are not a hopeless freak damned to a life contemplating suicide or—worse—damned by God as a sinner—access to such a book is life saving. In this second worldview all of these people are just that, people just as worthy of a rewarding life as the rest of us. 

I’m happy to live in a society that includes people with the former worldview, but it really raises my hackles when these people want to dictate what folks of the latter worldview have available to read. It is even worse when they wish to make and enforce laws that govern love and sexual expression between consenting adults. 

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. The Science of Biological Sex provides a more in depth discussion of biological sexual and gender variations that the binary-only folks have to ignore to maintain their fear-filled views.