A NEWSLETTER FROM DAVID CORN |
A NEWSLETTER FROM DAVID CORN |
|
|
Is It Anti-Christian to Criticize Speaker Mike Johnson? |
By David Corn November 18, 2023 |
House Speaker Mike Johnson speaking at a press conference at the US Capitol on November 14, 2023. Michael Brochstein/Sipa via AP |
|
|
Regular readers of Our Land know that I’ve broken several stories on House Speaker Mike Johnson. I’ve pointed out that he’s declared that a Christian belief in the Bible as literal truth is the only legitimate “worldview,” that he considers the United States an “amoral society,” that he and his wife have presented a seminar premised on the assertion that the United States is a “Christian nation,” and that he has told his fellow parishioners that they should only support political candidates who hold his worldview and see the United States as a “Christian nation.” All of this is part of the fundamentalist belief system that animates his opinions: homosexuality is comparable to bestiality and ought to be criminalized; environmentalists use the same tactics as Satan; the causes of gun violence include no-fault divorce and the teaching of evolution; there ought to be a national abortion ban; and the country should return to “18th-century values.”
For my reporting on Johnson, I’ve been branded a Christian hater. That’s the word from Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League. For decades Donohue has run this outfit, decrying whatever he considers to be anti-Catholic bigotry. He is also a social conservative firebrand, denouncing gay marriage and the so-called war on Christmas. In 2005, he complained that President George W. Bush had sent out Christmas cards that didn’t use the word “Christmas” and, instead, referred to the “holiday season.” Though his professed mission is to denounce hatred, he has trafficked in it. In 2004, he observed, “Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it.” Yes, it’s courageous to be antisemitic.
Given his dissemination of such animus, Donohue may not be the best arbiter of reasonable discourse. But he persists. And he claims there is a conspiracy underlying the criticism Johnson has drawn for being a fundamentalist who says all his policy positions are derived from biblical verses. In a recent article, Donohue asserted that critiques of Johnson are propelled by an anti-Christianity plot:
The all-out assault on Rep. Mike Johnson, the newly elected Speaker of the House, is about much more than his evangelical roots: the unrelenting attacks are meant to discourage younger Christian conservatives from running for office; they are also meant to discredit the Founders and our Judeo-Christian heritage.
It's hard to see how scrutiny of Johnson’s views tars Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, or Benjamin Franklin. But Donohue has the guts to name names, and he listed the Johnson antagonists who are part of this ungodly conspiracy. It’s a long roster of reporters and pundits at left-of-center outlets, such as Michael Tomasky of the New Republic, Jennifer Bendery at HuffPost, Brian Karem at Salon, and David Rothkopf at the Daily Beast. Others who are part of this crusade: Joy Reid of MSNBC, Bill Maher, the Washington Post’s Kate Cohen, the New York Times’ Thomas Edsall, billionaire George Soros, the Advocate (a publication that focuses on gay issues), and yours truly.
Donohue identified Reid and me as “left-wing extremists.” That will come as a surprise to my left-wing extremist friends who consider me a liberal sellout.
This self-proclaimed defender of the faith maintained that some of the folks on his list “have a long record of anti-Catholic bigotry...others are known for trying to normalize pedophilia.” (How’s that for smearing?) He adds, “Why the hysteria over Johnson? He is opposed to the LGBT agenda and is proud of our nation’s Christian legacy.” And Donohue stated that the “people behind these vicious assaults against the Speaker not only hate the religious principles upon which this nation was founded, they hate those evangelicals, practicing Catholics and observant Jews who love them.” He singled me out on this front: “When Corn objects to Christians who say there is but one truth, and it is Jesus, he is expressing a deep hatred of Christians.”
Donohue and I have never met. He may not have a good read on what I hate. But he reveals a lot about himself with such loose and accusatory rhetoric. I believe—and have written—that Johnson is entitled to his fundamentalism and his belief that every human on the planet except those who accept his theological reality are wrong, hold illegitimate worldviews, and will spend eternity in fiery pits of hell. I tend to think this is nonsense. But different strokes. What I find disturbing, and perhaps dangerous, is a person who cannot accept the notion that his way just might not be the only way. (Hey, maybe the Earth wasn’t created in six days 6,000 years ago!) That is, someone who cannot respect other views (or science). What’s worse is when a fundamentalist claims that only people who agree with his narrow perspective are fit to govern.
Not every Christian hews to such dogma. Plenty of Christians are open-minded and honor the beliefs of others. They have their truth but do not insist it is the “one truth.” They reject fundamentalism. Many Christians support gay rights, accept evolution, call for climate change action, and believe women—not the state—should control their own reproductive destinies. I hold no hatred for these Christians. But here’s a confession for Donohue: I do recoil at fundamentalists in all religions—Christian, Islam, Judaism, etc.
Donahue’s conflation of anti-fundamentalism with anti-Christianity is a sleight of hand. But it’s not surprising. Fundamentalists do not accept the diversity of spiritual opinion. And some fundamentalists believe that those who do not accept their truth are literally in league with the devil. For them, it must be easy to see nonbelievers as an enemy. That can certainly bring out the worst in a person and even cause one to bear false witness. Donohue’s vilification of Johnson’s critics is itself an act of hatred. But I forgive him.
Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com. |
We Won’t Have George Santos to Kick Around Anymore |
I’ve spent a lot of this past year digging into the personal and campaign finances of George Santos, the Republican New York congressman and champion liar (who would make Joe Isuzu and Tommy Flanagan blush). Santos’ fake-donor scheme that my colleague Noah Lanard and I exposed ended up in the multi-count indictment filed against him by federal prosecutors. That’s to say I’m quite familiar with Santos’ sleazy shenanigans and nonstop prevarication. Still, my head was spinning when I read the report on Santos released this week by the House Ethics Committee. It details multitudes of lies and an unending series of criminal schemes in which he transferred hundreds of thousands of dollars in political funds to his own private accounts and used the money to pay rent and bankroll shopping sprees at Hermes and Ferragamo, as well as a trip to a casino, botox injections, and visits to OnlyFans (a website that mostly features videos made by sex workers). He falsely claimed he loaned more than $80,000 to his congressional campaign, when the actual amount was about $3,000—and then he had the campaign repay him $30,000.
Though they pored over 170,000 pages of documents, congressional investigators remained mystified about his finances and couldn’t figure out where hundreds of thousands of dollars had come from or went. The investigators also uncovered potential crimes for which Santos has not yet been indicted and referred that information to the Justice Department. By the way, Santos repeatedly lied to them. The report is a stunning account of the relentless misdeeds of a tireless grifter. I wonder how he had time to sleep.
After the report came out, Santos declared he would not seek reelection next year. I’m not sure he has much choice. His trial starts in a few months, and it seems a good bet that will land him in a much different federal facility than the House of Representatives. Moreover, this report could well lead to a second vote on his expulsion long before the trial—and it’s likely this one won’t fail. Santos’ time as an investigative target may be limited. But I highly encourage you to read this eye-popping report. Or if you want the Cliffs Notes version, check out the article Noah and I posted.
|
From Russia—to a GOP Lobbyist—With Love? |
Five years ago, my colleagues Dan Friedman and Hannah Levintova and I published one of the most bizarre stories I have ever investigated. Here’s the bottom line: A mysterious Scotland-based shell company had paid at least $150,000 to a GOP-linked American lobbyist to help a center-right party leader in Albania win support from the Trump administration—and the money was apparently tied to Russia. You might want to read that sentence again. The point was that Moscow appeared to be covertly bolstering this Albanian party, hoping it would oust the prime minister, who was looking to move the nation toward NATO and challenging Russian influence in the Balkans. This caper involved shell companies in Belize and elsewhere. It was a fine example of how dark money flows around the globe through offshore shell companies cloaked in secrecy. I was quite proud of our work, which generated front-page headlines in Albania. Check out the piece.
I bring this up now because after all these years, there’s been a new development in the case. While we were able to show that Scotland-based shell company had corporate links that stretched back to Russia, we couldn’t say precisely who owned it. Now a consortium of reporters in the United Kingdom and the Seychelles have figured that out. They pored over the Pandora Papers, a massive trove of leaked files from more than a dozen corporate services firms (companies that create and administer offshore firms that help high-wealth clients move and hide money), and they discovered documents showing that this mysterious shell company was owned by a Muscovite who described himself as a sales director at a Russian company that sells Italian helicopters to clients, including an unnamed Russian government agency, for carrying out “special security missions.” This confirms that Russia used this front company in Scotland to finance a Republican consultant in Washington, DC, who was lobbying the Trump administration to support Moscow’s preferred prime minister candidate in Albania. I know this sounds a tad convoluted. But it’s a helluva story. You can read our update here.
|
|
|
Dumbass Comment of the Week |
Sparks flew on Capitol Hill this week when Teamsters president Sean O’Brien appeared before a Senate committee. He and Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) had previously exchanged mean-spirited posts on X (nee Twitter). And now the two got into it. After reading some of the critical tweets O’Brien had posted about him, the senator exclaimed, “If you want to run your mouth, we can be two consenting adults. We can finish it here.” O’Brien shot back, “I’d love to do it right now.” Mullin replied: “Well, stand your butt up then.” O’Brien retorted, “You stand your butt up.” And Mullin did. He stood, as if he was readying to engage in fisticuffs. At that point Sen. Bernie Sanders, the committee chair, shouted at Mullin, “Sit down. You’re a United States senator.” No fight ensued.
|
Of course, this was an idiotic exchange. Toxic masculinity, and all that. But the judges nominated Mullin this week for what he said about this display of immaturity afterward. During an appearance on Fox, host Sean Hannity commented, “I think any other response kind of would’ve been a little gutless.” Mullin then remarked, “I would agree with that. I mean, what did people want me to do? If I didn’t do that, people in Oklahoma would be pretty upset at me. I’m supposed to represent Oklahoma values.”
|
Oklahoma values? A brawl in a Senate hearing room would convey Oklahoma values? That’s hardly a compliment for the state.
The judges wonder if we should create a special category for Fox host Jesse Watters. He could pick up a nomination every week. This time they noticed a comment he made regarding a series of crimes he was citing as evidence America is going down the tubes:
A Home Depot got hit in Oakland, criminals plundering power tools, even using Home Depot's box cutters to crack into cases. No one's stopping them. That would be discriminatory and against company policy. You see if you walk out of the store with stolen merchandise, you're arrested. But if you run out with a mask on, they write it off. Allowing Americans to loot, allowing Americans to shop lift up to $900, not prosecuting street level threat, is this the establishment's way of paying reparations without admitting it?
More racism from Watters. But his jokey suggestion that a white elite is paying reparations to Black Americans by allowing them to commit crimes was not quite enough for him to claim the trophy.
Watters’ racism lost out to Elon Musk’s antisemitism. The judges usually don’t like to award top honors to a comment that has made a lot of news. They prefer to recognize remarks that deserve more attention than they have received. But this week they made an exception.
This much-commented-on episode began with a tweet from an X-user with a measly 2,714 followers who was upset with a public service ad that denounced antisemitism. His beef: It featured a white teenager as an antisemite. This Xer wrote: Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them. I'm deeply disinterested in giving the tiniest shit now about western Jewish populations coming to the disturbing realization that those hordes of minorities that support flooding their country don't exactly like them too much. You want truth said to your face, there it is.
His point was that Jews are anti-white and encourage “hatred against whites.” Thus, white folks shouldn’t care about Jews and antisemitism. Responding to this foul sentiment, Elon Musk tweeted, “You have said the actual truth.” He added: “The ADL unjustly attacks the majority of the West, despite the majority of the West supporting the Jewish people and Israel. This is because they cannot, by their own tenets, criticize the minority groups who are their primary threat. It is not right and needs to stop.”
|
Musk’s opinion was clear: The Anti-Defamation League unfairly criticizes white antisemites and ignores “minority groups,” which supposedly present the greatest danger to Jews. This was quite a combo of racism and antisemitism. By the way, the ad that triggered all this was not from the ADL but a group called the Foundation to Combat Antisemitism. Musk was exploiting the moment to continue his long-running crusade against the ADL.
Musk’s remarks were roundly criticized for being antisemitic. (Antisemites cheered Musk.) The next day, IBM pulled its ads off X, after Media Matters released a report noting that IBM advertisements had appeared on X alongside pro-Nazi tweets. Apple soon followed. Other advertisers contacted Musk’s company asking why its owner was amplifying antisemitic notions and why their ads were also next to Nazi material. In the midst of this brouhaha, Linda Yaccarino, the CEO of X, tweeted, “X’s point of view has always been very clear that discrimination by everyone should stop across the board...When it comes to this platform – X has always been extremely clear about our efforts to combat antisemitism.” This was absurd. Does she not read the boss’s tweets?
The judges considered handing the prize to Yaccarino. But they decided to stick with Musk.
There’s a coda. After Musk accused Jews of pushing anti-white hatred, Tucker Carlson on his X show echoed this idea. He assailed pro-Israel donors to elite universities (a.k.a. Jews) for underwriting “white genocide,” presumably by supporting schools that offer classes that examine racism. Referring to these unnamed Jewish funders, Carlson exclaimed, “I found myself really hating those people...You were paying for it. You were calling my children immoral for their skin color. You paid for that, so why shouldn’t I be mad at you?”
Here was more Twitter content spreading the idea that Jews are anti-white. Yaccarino really should check out the site she runs. |
Once again, mail poured in regarding a recent issue on the Hamas-Israel war, and we see that there are serious differences of opinion among Our Land readers.
Yvonne Scott Madsen wrote:
I have been horrified by the atrocities committed on both sides of this war, but as of late I have come to see Netanyahu as a madman, along with his supporters, bent on retaliation by repeatedly invoking the horrors of the Holocaust. This disproportionate response to the Hamas attack, along with Israel’s history of decades of disruption to Palestinian life may ultimately serve to diminish Israel’s reputation, and severely, even among Americans who have long been friends and supporters.
Michael Scanlon shared this sentiment:
All roads lead to war crimes. It was a military and political tactic by Hamas, to hide amongst civilians. They know if the IDF attacks, it is considered “collective punishment,” a war crime in the Geneva Convention. Israel could not restrain itself for its lust for revenge and fell for the trap. The IDF bombed medical facilities, schools, mosques, bakeries, economic institutions, residential areas, etc. One cannot fight “terrorism” with terrorist acts and not expect legal consequences. Now, the world is a witness, Israel is a war criminal and should be charged as such.
Peter Greenwald had a different view:
I disagree with your statement that Hillary Clinton was “tone deaf” when she said a cease-fire would only serve Hamas and its ability to re-arm. I am generally not a Hillary supporter. I wish we would never hear again from any of the Clintons. However, this time she’s right. Do you think Hamas would change its fundamental position on the destruction of Israel if there were a cease-fire? Of course, it would not. The Palestinian governments have since Israel’s inception rejected Israel’s right to exist. Unless Hamas agrees to recognize Israel as a sovereign state there should be no cease-fire.
Yes, Netanyahu is horrible, and his West Bank policy has been a disaster for Israel as well as the Palestinians living there. But that is not relevant to eliminating Hamas, and unless Hamas changes its official position on Israel, all possible efforts should be made to eliminate it. Do you think Hitler would have stopped his murderous romp through Europe if he had been offered a cease-fire? England under Chamberlain tried something akin to that, and we know how that worked out.
The Palestinian Authority does not call for the elimination of Israel. It recognizes its right to exist—though it does not recognize it as a “Jewish state.” And it remains unclear how Israel or anyone else will determine when Hamas is eliminated. Will the bombing—and civilian deaths— continue until the very last Hamas terrorist is killed? How will you know when that has happened? All this aside, Clinton was tone-deaf in the way she dismissed a ceasefire that has become the rallying cry for a large slice of the Democratic base—people who don’t believe that the killing of thousands of civilians in response to Hamas’ horrific massacre is justified or will lead to a resolution of the Palestinian-Israel conflict that affords Israelis and Palestinians security and dignity. And every time someone raises Neville Chamberlain, I encourage them to read this Slate article: “Neville Chamberlain Was Right.”
Charlotte Comito observed:
Just have to say that you are correct in that this is tearing the left apart. As a 67-year-old lifelong Democrat, I am absolutely disgusted at the far left attacks on Israel. I could not agree with Hillary and Nancy Pelosi more regarding a cease-fire. And the images from college campuses where Jewish kids are attacked and unsafe is disgusting and Nazi-like. I hate Trump more than you can imagine, but I’m hoping a centrist Democrat can get this shit together. Stop placating the far-left lunatics. This only helps the extreme right religious ideologues who we know could care less about Jews. Never again is now.
Sandi Meyer wrote:
How in the world can anyone condone the murders in Gaza? Hamas is not Palestine, and Israelis should figure out how to get Hamas without killing the whole region! One solution: give the Palestinians freedom in their land! I have never understood why, after having their land taken for Israel, the Palestinians are still supposed to let them take more, little by little, forever...all the while imprisoning them and denying them statehood. What Israel is doing is simply assuring that there will never be peace, as I'm sure half the children who survive will want revenge. Hamas may seem like a smaller problem then!
PS: I'm a Biden cheerleader, so if I'm upset about the dead babies, I can't imagine how people who are on the fence or don't like him might feel. Gail Breakey had the same concern:
As a strong Biden supporter and desperate to be sure that Trump is defeated and in prison where he belongs, I have been very upset over Biden's seeming lack of understanding of what Netanyahu has done and his administration's callous attitude toward Palestinian deaths. I know I will vote for Biden, but less experienced progressives may be so upset by this that they may not vote.
Rick Follet made this point:
Not enough blame for the current strife in Gaza/Palestine/Israel is going onto the former administration. Why haven't more commentators talked about this? The “treaty” pushed through by Jared Kushner, I think, had a lot to do with the Hamas terror attack. His arrangement specifically excluded the Palestinians. The Palestinians felt shut out. Suddenly, as a result of Kushner's efforts, they must have felt "dissed.” How would we expect them to react? They probably felt they needed to make a clear statement that they were still in the game. Still in play on the stage of the Middle East. Everyone seems to be blaming Biden, when, once again, Democrats are being forced to "handle" the policy "ideas" of the former Republican administration. I wish we in the media would take the broader picture here and lay blame where, I think, it probably really lies.
Rick, that’s an astute observation. In fact, I wrote about this a few weeks ago. Kushner thought he could cut out the Palestinians with his Abraham Accords that arranged for diplomatic ties between Israel and several Arab states. These treaties did nothing to address the Palestinian-Israel conflict, and outraged Palestinians held protests in response. None of this justifies the vile Hamas massacre. But it shows that the Trump-Kushner approach ignored the central matter to achieve a faux peace.
|
“Are you enjoying fall, Moxie?” “Always. But why do they call it ‘fall’?”
“Because that’s when the leaves fall off the trees.” “Really? Can it be that simple?” “Yes, sometimes life is that simple.” |
Read Recent Issues of Our Land |
November 14, 2023: The Money Kings and Zionism, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories; the GOP’s minority rule; Oisin Leech’s “October Sun”; and more.
November 11, 2023: Donald Trump and revenge: a love atory; the GOP and minority rule on abortion; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more. November 7, 2023: Can we doomscroll to peace in the Middle East; Mike Johnson in the Holy Land; “Now and Then” more Lennon than Beatles; the meta rock world of Daisy Jones & the Six; and more.
November 4, 2023: How the Hamas-Israel war threatens American democracy; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Jared Kushner); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.
October 31, 2023: Scoop: Mike Johnson urged a religious test for politicians; Michael J. Fox can’t sit still in his new documentary; U2 goes atomic; and more.
October 28, 2023: Leonard Leo and the Deep State on the right; recent news about Mitt Romney and Mike Johnson; Dumbass Comment of the Week (House Republicans); the Mailbag; and more. October 24, 2023: Imagine Trump in charge during the Hamas-Israel war; Steve Bannon and Alex Jones conspiracy-mongering together; a Jim Jordan tale; George Santos speaks; and more.
October 21, 2023: Biden and Netanyahu’s delicate dance; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Ari Fleischer); the Mailbag: MoxieCam™; and more.
October 18, 2023: No blank check for Bibi; the strange trip of Asteroid City; Devon Gilfillian gives us a closer with “Love You Anyway”; and more.
October 14, 2023: Jim Jordan’s threat to democracy; from George Santos scoop to indictment; the day the GOP died; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Nancy Mace); the Mailbag: MoxieCam™; and more. |
|
|
Got suggestions, comments, complaints, tips related to any of the above, or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com. |
|
|
|