Mediaboss Marketing

In the 2020 campaign, President Donald Trump has used religion to attack his Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.

During an August speech at an Ohio manufacturing plant, Trump suggested that Biden would harm religious interests. Linking religion to several conservative interests, the president claimed his opponent would take away your guns, take away your Second Amendment and hurt the Bible. Hurt God.

In comments the following week, Trump again invoked Bidens religion as he criticized recommendations on climate and health policy made by the joint policy task force of Biden and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. I dont think a man of deep religion would be agreeing to the Bernie Sanders plan, Trump said at a news conference.

As a historian who studies religion in the early 20th century United States, I am reminded by Trumps attacks of a similar earlier episode.

In the 1908 presidential campaign, the religious beliefs of the Republican Party nominee, William Howard Taft, came under attack. In response, another prominent Republican the outgoing President Theodore Roosevelt sounded the alarm about such attacks.

In that years election, Theodore Roosevelt declined to seek another term as president. Republicans nominated Secretary of War William Howard Taft to succeed him.

As the historian Edgar Albert Hornig chronicled, no sooner had Taft secured the nomination than various elements of the Democratic campaign organization attempted to exploit the religious issue for political gain.

Unlike in other instances the politicization of John F. Kennedys Catholicism in 1960, for example this was not a case of a candidates being criticized for one aspect of his faith. Taft was attacked on religious grounds, but for two very different reasons.

Some observers suggested that his wife and brother were both Roman Catholics and accused Taft himself of secretly practicing Catholicism. Given the anti-Catholic attitudes of the day, one voter privately expressed anxiety to Theodore Roosevelt that this would be objectionable to a sufficient number of voters to defeat Taft.

But there was another, more serious line of attack against Taft: He was a Unitarian. Taft refused to publicly discuss his own views. His opponents nevertheless emphasized that Unitarians typically rejected the divinity of Jesus and did not believe in such phenomena as miracles. Thus, these critics suggested, he was an unbeliever and would be actively hostile to Christianity as most Protestants understood it.

One voter insisted in a letter to Theodore Roosevelt that being a Unitarian was akin to being an infidel. Throughout U.S. history, being seen as an unbeliever has proved disqualifying for politicians.

In pamphlets published during the 1908 campaign, W.A. Cuddy, a Protestant minister, insisted that the religion of Jesus Christ was at stake in the coming election.

In the same pamphlet, which was reported on in local and national publications, Cuddy further suggested that the United States insults God by electing Taft.

Tafts specific beliefs mattered little. Perceived religious difference was enough to prompt partisan attacks. Roosevelt lamented this fact, noting, it is claimed almost universally that religion should not enter into politics, yet there is no denying that it does.

Pronounced as these attacks were, they did not cost Taft the election. With the help of religious Republicans who defended his faith convictions, Taft defeated William Jennings Bryan, his Democratic opponent, by a comfortable margin.

Late in 1908, after the election, President Roosevelt published a letter in newspapers nationwide responding to the attacks made on Taft. Though he had long defended religious freedom and diversity, Roosevelt justified not speaking out during the campaign.

As he noted, he considered it an outrage even to agitate such a question as a mans religious convictions for the purpose of influencing a political election.

Yet Roosevelt had come to recognize the need to respond. In doing so, he offered two critical assessments.

First, he denounced discussions of a candidates religious views as an invasion of privacy. According to Roosevelt, Tafts beliefs were his own private concern between him and his Maker. Opening a candidates religion to public debate, he wrote, was a rejection of the first principles of our government, which guarantee complete religious liberty and the right to each man to act in religious affairs as his own conscience dictates.

Beyond this appeal to religious liberty, Roosevelt offered a dire warning about the effect of these attacks on civic life. He feared that discrimination against the holder of one faith means retaliatory discrimination against men of other faiths. Attacks on a candidates religion would only inspire more such attacks.

Roosevelts greatest fear was that this cycle of attack would poison civic life. Once attacks on a candidates beliefs became a normal part of campaigning, he warned, there is absolutely no limit at which you can legitimately stop.

In this election campaign, Joe Biden has been the victim of political attacks marked by vague questions of his own faith and suggestions that his policies would hurt Christians. While such rhetoric could be seen as meaningless, it could also have real consequences. As Theodore Roosevelt recognized over a century ago, it could poison the political discourse.

See the rest here:
Why Teddy Roosevelt's warning to lay off a candidate's religious beliefs is still relevant today - The Conversation US

Theresa Greenfield, who has yet to debate U.S. Senator Joni Ernst in Iowas U.S. Senate race, spent time discussing gun control measures withGiffords PAC.

Giffords PAC, the political action committee started by former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., a victim of gun violence,held a virtual rallyfor universal background checks with Greenfield.

Giffords PAC executive director Peter Ambler asked Greenfield what message she gives to Iowans about gun control when she travels the state. Greenfield has not traveled the state and has not held a public, in-person event since the COVID-19 pandemic began. Evenher announced, virtual public campaign events are rare.

I have done over 250 events now around the state and were going to keep traveling the state as we work our way to victory on November 3, Greenfield stated.

Again, virtual events are not traveling the state.

Look, Iowans theyre a bunch of responsible gun owners, they really are. And I grew up on a farm. Thats where I learned to be responsible gun handler, eventually a gun owner, she said. Thats where I learned to shoot because Ill tell you what, filling up the freezer in the fall, thats a big deal. And it is with a lot of pride that you take your venison sausage to a winter card game or something. But I also had the responsibility as a teenager for protecting our livestock and making sure that you know the varmints didnt get our baby pigs.

They must have had quite a problem having Greenfield stand guard in the middle of the night, keeping coyotes out of their pig pens.

She also mentioned how she loved to shoot skeet with her dad, which Im sure is a great memory of her childhood.

She told Giffords PAC that she supports bipartisan background checks, closing the gun show loophole, and funding gun violence research. These are points she brought up duringa rare, in-person public event back before the primary.

Look, there is no gun show loophole. Licensed gun dealers at gun shows must do background checks just like they would if someone came to their store.

The loophole actually talks about private sales and transfers. In fact, those are the only gun sales where background checks are not required. In reality, I dont know how background checks of private gun sales and transfers would be implemented or enforced. I believe this is a trojan horse for banning private sales, something House Democratsvoted to do last year.

Its also a step toward a federal gun registry, something I vehemently oppose.

We have to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. We have to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and suspected terrorists. Absolutely. And but we have to make sure that responsible gun owners have that ability to hunt and to enjoy skeet with their children to like I grew up, Greenfield said.

So, she wants to make sure that responsible gun owners can continue to hunt and to enjoy skeet with their children.

Thats pretty telling. The Second Amendment is not about hunting and shooting skeet; its about the right to self-defense.

Giffords PAC has worked to repeal stand your ground legislation, so I think it is fair to ask, where does Greenfield stand on that?

Watch:

Read the rest here:
Vander Hart: Greenfield Doesn't Understand What Second Amendment Is About - Caffeinated Thoughts

One of President Donald Trump's sons headed to New England to campaign on his behalf on Thursday. Eric Trump spoke to an enthusiastic crowd at the Trump campaign field office in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, before heading to the Camp Ellis Pier in Saco for an event entitled, "Fighting for Maine Lobster with Eric Trump." In Maine, Eric Trump, who was joined by former Maine Gov. Paul LePage, talked about how the Trump administration is now helping fishermen, some hurt by China's cutting imports of lobster in response to Trump trade tariffs. But Trump was quick to attack Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and the Democrats. "These are people who've never accomplished anything in their lives. You have Biden, who has been a politician for 47 years, the guy has never once signed a paycheck, he's never created a job," Trump said. The president's 36-year-old son criticized certain protesters and appealed to the crowd's support of Second Amendment rights. "It's not just the war on enforcement right now from the radical left, it's a war on Christianity, it's the war on religion, it's a war on family values," Trump said. "The same people that want to get rid of all law enforcement also want to take away your guns." Eric Trump was in Georgia earlier in the week before making the trek to New England. On Friday, he'll be appearing on his dad's behalf in Pennsylvania.

One of President Donald Trump's sons headed to New England to campaign on his behalf on Thursday.

Eric Trump spoke to an enthusiastic crowd at the Trump campaign field office in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, before heading to the Camp Ellis Pier in Saco for an event entitled, "Fighting for Maine Lobster with Eric Trump."

In Maine, Eric Trump, who was joined by former Maine Gov. Paul LePage, talked about how the Trump administration is now helping fishermen, some hurt by China's cutting imports of lobster in response to Trump trade tariffs. But Trump was quick to attack Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and the Democrats.

"These are people who've never accomplished anything in their lives. You have Biden, who has been a politician for 47 years, the guy has never once signed a paycheck, he's never created a job," Trump said.

The president's 36-year-old son criticized certain protesters and appealed to the crowd's support of Second Amendment rights.

"It's not just the war on enforcement right now from the radical left, it's a war on Christianity, it's the war on religion, it's a war on family values," Trump said. "The same people that want to get rid of all law enforcement also want to take away your guns."

Eric Trump was in Georgia earlier in the week before making the trek to New England. On Friday, he'll be appearing on his dad's behalf in Pennsylvania.

This content is imported from Twitter.You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

Visit link:
Eric Trump makes appearances in NH, Maine on father's behalf - WMUR Manchester

Johnson County Commissioner Mike Brown urged constituents to buy firearms and prepare for a coming war" in a Facebook post that described a chaotic end to law and order. Brown, a Republican, used the hashtags All Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter as he described violence, burning churches" and looting stores in the weekend post. I hear the war drum off in the distance from a not far away place foreshadowing in whispers the haunting cadence of the coming war," he wrote, urging people to buy a firearm and ammunition and take a class now to learn how to safely use it to defend yourself and your property, know what's happening around you at all times."The post is no longer public, but Brown said on Tuesday its the Left thats beating the war drum.And they know exactly what they're doing, Brown said.Brown said the post is a message to elected officials. He blames Democratic leaders, including Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas, for not stopping violence and supporting local protesters.Lucas, a Democrat, retweeted images of it Monday and described the message as racist and reckless. Brown said the post is not a call to violence on his part.You have a Second Amendment right that guarantees your First Amendment right, Brown said. Your Second Amendment right, you should exercise that just like you exercise your First Amendment right. It is most certainly not a call to violence.Johnson County Commission chairman Ed Eilert noted that Brown was up for election in November.The voters in his district do have a decision to make," he said in an interview Tuesday with The Associated Press. We want our community safe. We want law enforcement to operate in a safe environment. The feedback I read, and I hear, is people looked at that post and saw indications that there was a violent note to it. We understand free speech and Second Amendment rights, but it left the opportunity for many, many people to come away with the idea that it promoted violence.Brown's commentary comes after President Donald Trump said while laying out his case for re-election that a Joe Biden presidency would give free rein to violent anarchists, a contention that Biden has disputed.Brown wrote the post following the shooting of two sheriffs deputies in California.Brown said hes received lots of positive comments from people who read his full post. He thinks people criticizing have not read the whole thing.During his term, Brown has come under fire multiple times for his Facebook posts, including in March when he wrote that the COVID-19 pandemic is a political stunt and told constituents to get a grip. In recent months, Brown has sparred with other commissioners and public health officials over COVID-19 restrictions and the mask mandate.The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Johnson County Commissioner Mike Brown urged constituents to buy firearms and prepare for a coming war" in a Facebook post that described a chaotic end to law and order.

Brown, a Republican, used the hashtags All Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter as he described violence, burning churches" and looting stores in the weekend post.

I hear the war drum off in the distance from a not far away place foreshadowing in whispers the haunting cadence of the coming war," he wrote, urging people to buy a firearm and ammunition and take a class now to learn how to safely use it to defend yourself and your property, know what's happening around you at all times."

The post is no longer public, but Brown said on Tuesday its the Left thats beating the war drum.

And they know exactly what they're doing, Brown said.

Brown said the post is a message to elected officials. He blames Democratic leaders, including Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas, for not stopping violence and supporting local protesters.

Lucas, a Democrat, retweeted images of it Monday and described the message as racist and reckless.

This content is imported from Twitter.You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

Brown said the post is not a call to violence on his part.

You have a Second Amendment right that guarantees your First Amendment right, Brown said. Your Second Amendment right, you should exercise that just like you exercise your First Amendment right.

It is most certainly not a call to violence.

Johnson County Commission chairman Ed Eilert noted that Brown was up for election in November.

The voters in his district do have a decision to make," he said in an interview Tuesday with The Associated Press. We want our community safe. We want law enforcement to operate in a safe environment. The feedback I read, and I hear, is people looked at that post and saw indications that there was a violent note to it.

We understand free speech and Second Amendment rights, but it left the opportunity for many, many people to come away with the idea that it promoted violence.

Brown's commentary comes after President Donald Trump said while laying out his case for re-election that a Joe Biden presidency would give free rein to violent anarchists, a contention that Biden has disputed.

Brown wrote the post following the shooting of two sheriffs deputies in California.

Brown said hes received lots of positive comments from people who read his full post. He thinks people criticizing have not read the whole thing.

During his term, Brown has come under fire multiple times for his Facebook posts, including in March when he wrote that the COVID-19 pandemic is a political stunt and told constituents to get a grip.

In recent months, Brown has sparred with other commissioners and public health officials over COVID-19 restrictions and the mask mandate.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

See the original post here:
Questions raised after JoCo Commissioner's post urges followers to arm themselves for 'coming war' - KMBC Kansas City

A little-noticed casualty of Democrats impeachment push against President Donald Trump last year was gun control, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., says.

In an interview for my book Abuse of Power: Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump, Massie noted that the president was ready to pull the trigger on a federal law allowing orders to disallow possession of a gun because of extreme risk, commonly known as a red flag law.

Ive told my colleagues, the one good thing to come out of impeachment is that it knocked gun control in the head, Massie said.

The impeachment was nearly certain to fail in the Senate. But, Massie said, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was up against progressives strong demand for impeaching Trump, and she faced the choice of getting a major policy achievement for her side or jeopardizing her speakership.

Red flag laws allow nonstate actorssuch as family members,teachers, or employersto request that a hearing be held on whether someone close to them should have the right to possess firearms temporarily revoked because he or she is an extreme risk of danger to self or others.

Currently, 17 states and the District of Columbia have some such law, but no federal law of this type exists.

What follows is an adapted excerpt from my book Abuse of Power.

***

In early August 2019, two mass shootings in Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas, occurred within 13 hours of one another during one weekend, murdering 31 people and wounding dozens.

President Trump expressed actual enthusiasm for red flag laws, which are extreme-risk protection orders that allow authorities to confiscate guns in specific cases, such as when a known deranged person owns a firearm.

The National Rifle Association wasnt thrilled, issuing a statement saying there needs to be real evidence of dangerand we cannot sacrifice anyones constitutional rights without due process.

The Second Amendment rights group added: It is not enough anymore to simply say that we need more background checks. Considering both suspects in El Paso and Dayton passed them, that is rhetoric for billionaire activists and campaign ralliesnot a call for constructive progress.

The NRA has a good track record of winning arguments, but Trump said he thought the organization either would come along with him on red flag laws or stay neutral.

I think my base relies very much on common sense, and they rely on me in terms of telling them whats happening, Trump told reporters outside the White House before boarding Marine One on Aug. 9, 2019. I think meaningful background checks are really positive. Politically, I dont know. Good, bad, or indifferent, I dont want crazy people having guns.

Referring to NRA Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre, Trump sounded a tad presumptuous, asserting, In the end, Wayne and the NRA will either be there or may be a little bit more neutral. That would be OK, too.

Clearly, a Democrat House would pass a measure that allowed for gun confiscation. But Trump added that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., was totally on board.

Talking to the press, Trump seemed to think this was a unique opportunity where a Republican president would sign a gun control measure.

I think with a lot of the success weve had; I think Ive got a greater influence over the Senate and over the House. I think we can get something really good done, Trump said. I think we can have some really meaningful background checks. We dont want people who are mentally ill, people who are sick, we dont want them having guns.

Trump might have been correct that the NRA and Republican leadership eventually would be on board. Perhaps the NRA was willing to have a throwdown with the president, but it risked alienating many of its members to do so, and worse, could risk damaging Trump and making an anti-Second Amendment Democrat president more likely.

Trump could have pressed the common sense angle that it was only taking guns from crazy people.

Some activist and Republican members of Congress would have opposed the measure. But McConnell and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., likely would not challenge the president on something he was committed to, and would whip enough of their caucus to vote with almost all Democrats to pass the measure.

A substantial number of progressives in Congress likely would have become born-again Second Amendment advocates, fearful that Trump was trampling on civil liberties and eager to oppose him on anything.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., werent going to walk away from a watershed gun control measure.

Trump and Pelosi would have declared victory in a bipartisan win. But for the left, it would have been a crowning achievement.

The capacityat the federal levelto confiscate guns from anyone might have allowed Democrats to get their foot in the door.

All this, of course, would have to be adjudicated in court, but thats never a certaintyparticularly if Chief Justice John Roberts is reluctant to strike down congressionally enacted laws. In this case, such reluctance would be more pronounced in striking down a bipartisan law.

So a red flag law was locked and loaded once the August recess was over and lawmakers returned in September 2019.

Then impeachment fever erupted over Trumps phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

The biggest policy impact is gun control. Trump was going to do a red flag law, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., noted in an interview for this book.

Its something Massie said he and many of his other conservative colleagues would have fought.

But the Kentucky Republican doubts they would have been successful.

Trump was under tremendous pressure to do gun control and work out a deal with Democrats, Massie said. The speaker had the choice of getting a major policy achievement for her side or jeopardizing her speakership. She chose her speakership.

Ive told my colleagues [that] the one good thing to come out of impeachment is that it knocked gun control in the head.

See original here:
How Trump Impeachment 'Knocked Gun Control in the Head' - Daily Signal