Wednesday, March 11, 2020

Rise of a ‘shadow political party’:
 How Christian nationalists worship power 
— and why they love Trump

LONG READ 



March 3, 2020 By Amanda Marcotte, Salon


It’s one of the most enduring conundrums of the Donald Trump era: How is it that the Christian right, the self-appointed monitors of American morality, have come to so enthusiastically back a thrice-married chronic adulterer who lies as easily as he breathes?

Author Katherine Stewart has the answer: Because the true god these folks worship is power. In her book, “The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism,” Stewart details how she traveled around the country, getting to know the various Christian conservative figures that are whipping support for Trump and his agenda. She deems the “Christian nationalists” and demonstrates how their supposedly Christian values always come second to their endless quest for power.




Stewart spoke with Salon about her new book. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.


In the intro of the book you write that most Americans view the Christian right as a “cultural movement centered on a set of social issues, such as abortion and same-sex marriage.” But in fact, it’s a political movement and its ultimate goal is power. What do you mean by that?

I think when we think of the religious right, we’re often thinking of a cultural movement or social movement that works from the bottom up, expressing the anxieties and reactions of a particular group in American society to change social realities, focused on issues like reproductive rights or same-sex marriage. But Christian nationalism really works from the top down. It actively shapes and manipulates its target population, and it often shifts its target.

When movement leaders are talking to the congregants or to pastors who speak to congregants, it’s all abortion all the time. The foot soldiers may even believe that they’re fighting for things like a ban on abortion or same-sex marriage, but the leaders have actually consciously reframed these issues in such a way that they can control the vote of a large subsection of the American public. They use that to solidify and maintain political power for themselves and their allies, to increase the flow of public and private money in their direction, and to enact economic policies that are favorable to their funders.

When you dig a little deeper into what the movement leaders talk about when they talk with one another, they actually advocate for a very wide range of policy issues that don’t just have to do with abortion or same-sex marriage. A lot of it has to do with economic policy. A lot of it has to do with foreign policy, social policy. It’s important to look at the movement in this broader fashion as a political movement that wants power.




Tell me more about that. How does someone argue that there’s something Christian about, say, low tax and low regulation?

They say that the Bible favors minimal government or no government. The Bible is against regulation, against the social safety net. Unless the social safety net is managed by the church.

Someone like Ralph Drollinger — who targets political leaders at the top levels of government — he’s got this Bible study group in the Capitol that’s been attended by at least 11 members of Trump’s cabinet, including Mike Pence. He also has Bible study groups targeting the Senate and House of Representatives, and they’re very well-attended. So he’s arguably one of the most politically influential pastors in America.

He argues that social welfare programs have no basis in Scripture. He says that the government should not directly fund needs for the poor. He says the responsibility to meet the needs of the poor lies first with a husband and a marriage, second with a family if the husband is absent, and third with the church. He says nowhere does God command the institutions of government or commerce to fully support those with genuine needs.

These policies are incredibly favorable to the plutocratic fortunes that are funding the movement. The movement wouldn’t be what it is without some subsection of very wealthy individuals and extended families that are supporting the movement financially. I’m thinking of like the DeVos, Prince families, the Green family, and so many others that I described in my book.

These families, in turn, benefit from a deregulation of lack of environmental control regulation, low taxation, and minimal workers’ rights. Drollinger himself derived a lot of his early funding from agribusiness kings, people who own large agribusiness conglomerates in Central Valley, California, and the San Joaquin Valley. So it’s a kind of economic policy that actually is favorable to many of the big-picture funders of the movement.

We also have to recognize that the role of public money is absolutely huge. A lot of the calls for “religious freedom” that characterize much of the activism of the movement today are often seen, rightly so, as a demand that conservative Christians should be able to discriminate against LGBT Americans, nonreligious women and members of the religious minority groups. But even more than that, activists have their eye on a vast potential flow of public funds in the future. This is one of the reasons why the calls for religious freedom are just like this ever-louder drum beat that we’re hearing in so many places.

This agenda has been made really explicit in the field of public education where activists are determined to expand access to public funds in the form of vouchers. They’ve actually placed a key voucher case before the Supreme Court, which they hope will allow a greater funnel of funds in their direction.

The United States spends something like $700 billion a year on K-12. So Christian nationalists realize that, if they can get their hands on a small portion of that in the name of religious liberty, the money will flow without end. So when you look at the larger demands of the movement, it’s not just about these culture war issues, it’s about public policy, foreign policy, and it’s about money.

You call it a Christian nationalist movement, not a white nationalist movement, not the Christian right even. Why do you call it a Christian nationalist movement?

Christian nationalism is a political ideology. It says that what makes the United States distinctive is not our democratic system of government, or our Constitution, or our history of assimilating diverse people in a pluralist society. Instead, it insists that the foundation of legitimate government is bound up inextricably with the reactionary understanding of a particular religion. It basically says that the U.S. was founded on the Bible, and can only succeed if it stays true to that foundation.

It’s also not just an ideology, but a device for mobilizing and often manipulating large segments of the population and for concentrating power in the hands of this new elite. Vladimir Putin in Russia, or Viktor Orban in Hungary, or Erdogan in Turkey tie themselves closely to religious conservatives in their countries, to consolidate an authoritarian form of power. We’re seeing this today with Trump’s alliances, with our own religious conservatives.

You write that America’s conservative churches have been converted into “loyal cells of a shadow political party.” What do you mean by that?

Leaders of the movement have figured out that pastors drive votes, and so they organize pastors into these networks, to get them on the same page politically. They give them tools through networks of conservative churches in order to do that, to help them turn out votes for hyper-conservative candidates.

Recently, I found myself at a small church in rural North Carolina, with dozens of evangelical pastors from the area. I was at an event sponsored by an organization called Watchmen on the Wall, which is an initiative of the Family Research Council, which is one of the largest and most powerful policy groups of the Christian right.

Watchmen on the Wall claims to have over 25,000 pastor members. They get all these pastors networked together, and they have these presentations where they tell them what issues matter and how to turn out the vote on these “biblical issues.” There wasn’t a slightest doubt about which way these pastors were expected to tell their congregations to vote.

They were instructed to form what they call culture impact teams within their churches. They have to figure out which members of their congregation are politically active, well-connected with other members, and motivated to get them to vote according to “biblical values.” They gave these pastors these booklets, 200 pages of material that help them form these culture impact teams.

They actually give them tools to get them out to vote. They give them tens of thousands of voter guides, and pastors were encouraged to take as many as they could use and hand out.




Your chapter on the anti-abortion movement in the book is titled “Inventing Abortion.” You write that it’s a myth that the movement was a reaction to a sincere belief in protecting fetal life. Tell me more. What is this Christian right obsession with abortion? Where does it come from? What is it actually about?

When Roe v. Wade was passed, the liberalization of abortion laws was something that many, if not most, Republican partisans supported. The early battles over abortion tended to be between Catholics and Protestants, with Protestants largely on the side of liberalization of abortion laws. Even though Catholic hierarchy is opposed to abortion, many Catholic individuals supported some form of liberalization based on sort of lived experience.

At that time that Roe v. Wade passed, the abortion law reform really conformed with the Republican party’s support for Protestant values, birth control. Billy Graham in 1968 said, “In general, I would disagree with the Catholic stance. I believe in Planned Parenthood.”

The most liberal abortion law in the country was signed in 1967 by California’s Republican governor, Ronald Reagan. Barry Goldwater, who is this great conservative hero, supported abortion law liberalization early in his career. His wife, Peggy, was a co-founder of Planned Parenthood in Arizona.

When Roe v. Wade passed, in fact, there was a wire service run by the Southern Baptist Convention. The bureau chief of the Baptist Press wrote a piece saying that religious liberty, human equality, and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court decision.

This was not an issue that united the Republican party at all, until activists from the new right got involved and were really searching for an issue that could unite the party.


At the time, they’d come together out of concern that institutions like Bob Jones University would be deprived of their lucrative tax advantage. But they knew that preserving tax advantages for racially segregated academies is not going to be an issue that could really unite the party. So they kind of looked around for an issue that could unite conservative Catholics and conservative Protestants.

Bit by bit, they settled on abortion and sort of purged the Republican party of its pro-choice representatives. They needed a single issue that they could get people to vote on, and abortion became that issue.

Let’s talk about Donald Trump. He’s obviously not a religious man. He knows little of Christian theology. He can’t even get the terminology right. He can’t really even be bothered to pretend otherwise. So how is a man like that such a hero to the Christian nationalists?

First, the movement realizes that much of their agenda is advanced through the courts and he’s delivering them everything that he promised.

I was at a Road To Majority conference, that’s Ralph Reed’s conference, right before the election. Trump held up a list of justices and he said, “I’m going to choose Supreme Court justices from this list,” and every single one of them was pro-life. Of course, the issue wasn’t just abortion, but abortion becomes code for the entire agenda.

There’s that transactional side of it. But I think that there’s another side too. Trump’s anti-democratic attributes are a vital part of his attraction for this movement.

This movement doesn’t really believe in modern representative democracy. At bottom, they sound as though they prefer autocrats. In fact, what they really want is a king. Paula White is always calling Trump a king. Ralph Drollinger is always talking about kinging and kings. Trump has been referred to as King Cyrus.

The thing about kings like Cyrus is that they don’t have to follow the rules. They are the law. Trump understands this longing for the hard hand of the despot. That is what has made him such an attractive leader to this movement.



The biblical story the Christian right uses to defend Trump


Why evangelicals are calling Trump a “modern-day Cyrus.”

The Israeli Mikdash Educational Center minted a coin showing Trump and Cyrus side by side. Mikdash Educational CenterIt’s a typical morning segment on Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network, late in 2016. The controversial Access Hollywood tapes, on which then-candidate Donald Trump can be heard boasting about grabbing women by the genitals, have just been released.
Standing on a sunny street, reporter Chris Mitchell says, “Christians are divided about what to do on Donald Trump.”
Some want to abandon him, he says. Others want to stand with him. But others, he says, are wondering: Does Trump have a “biblical mandate” to become president?
Mitchell runs swiftly through the first two options, citing both a condemnation of Trump and an endorsement by Focus on the Family’s James Dobson. But it’s the third option — that God himself has chosen Trump to be president — that Mitchell focuses on.
Evangelical thinker Lance Wallnau then gives Mitchell his take: Trump is a “modern-day Cyrus,” an ancient Persian king chosen by God to “navigate in chaos.”
Mitchell notes that some evangelicals disagree but does not name or cite them. Instead, he cites the growing threat of China, Russia, and Iran, before Wallnau concludes, “America’s going to have a challenge either way. With Trump, I believe we have a Cyrus to navigate through the storm.”
The comparison comes up frequently in the evangelical world. Many evangelical speakers and media outlets compare Trump to Cyrus, a historical Persian king who, in the sixth century BCE, conquered Babylon and ended the Babylonian captivity, a period during which Israelites had been forcibly resettled in exile. This allowed Jews to return to the area now known as Israel and build a temple in Jerusalem. Cyrus is referenced most prominently in the Old Testament book of Isaiah, in which he appears as a figure of deliverance.
That comparison has become more and more explicit in the wake of Trump’s presidency. Last week, an Israeli organization, the Mikdash Educational Center, minted a commemorative “Temple Coin” depicting Trump and Cyrus side by side, in honor of Trump’s decision to move the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. It was among the most brazen, public links between Trump and Cyrus; one that takes the years of subtext running through outlets like Christian Broadcasting Network and, quite literally, sealed the comparison.
Monday, however, an even higher-profile figure linked Trump and Cyrus. During his visit to Washington, DC, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu heavily implied Trump was Cyrus’s spiritual heir. Thanking Trump for moving the American embassy to Jerusalem, Netanyahu said, “We remember the proclamation of the great King Cyrus the Great — Persian King. Twenty-five hundred years ago, he proclaimed that the Jewish exiles in Babylon can come back and rebuild our temple in Jerusalem...And we remember how a few weeks ago, President Donald J. Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Mr. President, this will be remembered by our people throughout the ages.”
While Cyrus is not Jewish and does not worship the God of Israel, he is nevertheless portrayed in Isaiah as an instrument of God — an unwitting conduit through which God effects his divine plan for history. Cyrus is, therefore, the archetype of the unlikely “vessel”: someone God has chosen for an important historical purpose, despite not looking like — or having the religious character of — an obvious man of God.
For believers who subscribe to this account, Cyrus is a perfect historical antecedent to explain Trump’s presidency: a nonbeliever who nevertheless served as a vessel for divine interest.
For these leaders, the biblical account of Cyrus allows them to develop a “vessel theology” around Donald Trump, one that allows them to reconcile his personal history of womanizing and alleged sexual assault with what they see as his divinely ordained purpose to restore a Christian America.
“I think in some ways this is a kind of baptism of Donald Trump,” says John Fea, a professor of evangelical history at Messiah College in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. “It’s the theopolitical version of money laundering, taking Scripture to … clean [up] your candidate.”
This framing allows for the creation of Trump as a viable evangelical candidate regardless of his personal beliefs or actions. It allows evangelical leaders, and to a lesser extent ordinary evangelicals, to provide a compelling narrative for their support for him that transcends the mere pragmatic fact that he is a Republican. Instead of having to justify their views of Trump’s controversial past, including reports of sexual misconduct and adultery, the evangelical establishment can say Trump’s presidency was arranged by God, and thus legitimize their support for him — a support that has begun to divide ordinary evangelicals and create a kind of “schism.”
Trump has capitalized on this idea of “vessel theology”
Numerous evangelical leaders have used the Trump-as-Cyrus comparison to explain how a leader who, while not (originally) religious, might nevertheless figure into a divine historical plan.
In December, Christian evangelical leader Mike Evans made the comparison while praising Trump’s decision to move the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, another act with deep theological connotations. Before seeing Trump right after the announcement, Evans said, “the first word I'm going to say to him, 'Cyrus, you're Cyrus.’” He explained that Cyrus “was used as an instrument of God for deliverance in the Bible, and God has used this imperfect vessel, this flawed human being like you or I, this imperfect vessel, and he's using him in an incredible, amazing way to fulfill his plans and purposes.”
Likewise, last year, Creation Museum founder Ken Ham used the same rhetoric to explain how God had, in his view, brought Trump to power: “God is in total control,” Ham told the Deseret Daily News early last year. “He makes that very clear in the Bible where he tells us that he raises up kings and destroys kingdoms. He even calls a pagan king, Cyrus, his anointed, or his servant to do the things that he wants him to do.”
Trump himself seemed to bolster this particular comparison. He referenced a (fake) quote from Cyrus in March 2017 as part of a speech commemorating Nowruz, the Persian New Year.
Adhering the Cyrus motif to an American president — and particularly using it to justify evangelical support of the Trump presidency — is unique.

Anbara Khalidi, a former research associate at University of Oxford’s Wadham College and an expert on American evangelical apocalyptic narratives, says she has not come across the Cyrus narrative in her previous study of evangelicals and politics. “I actually have personally never heard any of the Christian evangelicals I've researched refer to any politician as Cyrus,” she said in an email.
Often, she said, the end-times-conscious evangelical communities she researched in the pre-Trump era were far more reticent to make specific associations between biblical figures and present-day ones.
Khalidi said most evangelicals tend to be “pretty cautious” about associating individuals in history with biblical figures or prophecies. Rather, she says, many evangelicals traditionally speak more generally about “signs of the times” or indicators that the end, more broadly, may be at hand, without speaking specifically about linking modern politicians to given biblical prophecies or parallels.
However, Khalidi said, the Trump-Cyrus association has gained traction in recent years, especially among those “who have recognized its political expediency.” Furthermore, Trump seems to have been encouraged to publicly embrace these associations.
Trump’s decision to move the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem late last year, for example, might have been seen as one such curated response, evoking the historical association between Cyrus and the liberation of the Jewish people as a kind of dog whistle to evangelical voters that he’s on their side.
Fea pointed out that among a certain subset of evangelicals, even innocuous details seem to be evidence of prophecy. The most famous biblical verse about Cyrus as God’s “anointed” is found in Isaiah 45 — and Trump is the 45th president. Wallnau made this connection explicit, telling the Christian Broadcasting Network that God spoke to him directly to tell him, "Isaiah 45 will be the 45th president ... Isaiah 45 is Cyrus.”
Andrew Whitehead, an assistant professor of sociology at Clemson University who focuses on the rise of Christian nationalism, agreed with Fea. “Christian nationalist rhetoric, defending America’s Christian heritage” — all these, he said, were common tropes throughout American history. “But what makes Trump interesting, a test as to the power of this Christian nationalist rhetoric, is that regardless of personal piety … his use of that rhetoric still resonated, and people still voted for him.” Trump managed to capture the evangelical imagination without being particularly evangelical — or, indeed, personally religious — himself.
The Cyrus narrative allows evangelicals to thread a difficult rhetorical needle. It allows them to see Trump as “their” candidate — a candidate who will effect God’s will that America become a truly Christian nation — without requiring Trump himself to manifest any Christian virtues. He is, like Cyrus, anointed by God and thus has divine legitimacy (Trump’s spiritual advisers, including evangelical figures Robert Jeffress and Paula White, have repeatedly hammered this point), but he has no obligation to live out Christian principles in his personal life.
According to Fea, this narrative works because it allows evangelicals to capitalize on Trump’s “strongman” persona — in practical terms, his ability to get votes — while allowing them to justify their support theologically and preserve their sense of Trump as a God-backed candidate.
Someone like Ted Cruz, Fea says, may initially have been a “purer candidate” as far as evangelicals were concerned. But when it became clear that Trump was performing better in the Republican primary, they shifted tactics. “They have to have some kind of biblical or theological or Christian reason ... for their support,” he says. But they also have to back a winner.

Fea describes evangelicals’ pivot as somewhat pragmatic. Major evangelical figures like the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins and Focus on the Family’s James Dobson endorsed Cruz before finally endorsing Trump once his nomination became an inevitability.
Trump’s rhetoric ties into and significantly expands on a robust historical tradition of language and thought about God, and a kind of “vessel theology,” in American political history.
Whitehead says the idea that God plays a divine role in politics is nothing new. When it comes to the presidency, narratives of divine intervention have been woven into American cultural discourse from the beginning of what Whitehead calls America's “civil religion,” which he describes as a fusion of political and religious imagery.
For example, after George Washington died, Whitehead said, “stories cropped up about his religiosity, about what a great man he was.”
“Great leaders [have been historically] identified with how God was using them, or that God placed them there for a purpose,” he said. For America, a relatively new nation, this Christian mythos became a foundational element of creating a national identity. “Colonials had closer ties to Britain than they had to each other. Christianity became a part of that.”
Fea concurs. Throughout the early history of America, he notes, American exceptionalism and a particular blend of Christian nationalism — seeing America as a kind of new chosen land for God’s intervention on a parallel with the Israel of the Old Testament — went hand in hand. He references the ideal of the “city on a hill,” an image from Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount, used by Puritan settler John Winthrop to describe how the new American colonies would serve as a model for Christian living.
Fea references, too, the work of early American revivalist preachers like Jonathan Edwards, who believed the second coming of Christ was imminent in Boston during the 18th century. Fea says the idealistic nature of America’s founding — as a country that believes in “liberty and freedom” — has lent itself to appropriation by Christian narratives. “It’s sort of taking these Enlightenment ideas [of freedom and liberty],” he added. “Since day one, they have been kind of ‘baptized' by evangelicals who say in a very unthoughtful way, ‘America is for freedom. God is for freedom. Therefore, God must privilege the US.’”
This sense that God has “chosen” America as a special people, or that he acts directly in American affairs, has, Fea argues, given us quintessentially American historical phenomena such as Manifest Destiny, the imperialist expansion of the United States across North America.
Therefore, at the very least, the idea that God intervenes directly in American political affairs, and uses American political figures as vessels to effect divine will, is deeply rooted in centuries of Christian nationalism.
Trump’s whole team furthers the Cyrus narrative
The continued prevalence of the Cyrus narrative throughout the campaign and the first year of Trump’s presidency speaks to its longevity and power. But it speaks, too, to the degree to which those around Trump — from his unofficial evangelical advisory council to Christian supporters on CBN — are able to signal to supporters that the evangelical agenda is receiving attention in the White House regardless of Trump’s actions, or even regardless of whether Trump is aware of what’s going on.
After all, Trump himself has mentioned Cyrus just once (and made up a quote in the process). But every time those around Trump mention Cyrus, they’re signaling to their listeners that because Trump is nothing but a vessel for God’s will, he’s also somewhat irrelevant in the scheme of things.
Pay no attention to the man in front of the curtain, they imply. The real work is being done by his evangelical influencers behind the scenes.
But Trump, too, is doing his share of influencing, dog-whistling to evangelical rhetoric of an unexpected or incongruous “divine plan.”
Within that paradigm, his somewhat incongruous anecdote during the State of the Union address about the New Mexico couple that adopted a homeless, heroin-addicted woman’s baby makes far more sense.Trump says of Ryan Holets, the New Mexico police officer who adopted the baby, that “Ryan said he felt God speak to him: ‘You will do it — because you can.’”
Within the context of a presidential address, the anecdote felt jarring, out of place. But as a theological nod, the anecdote made perfect sense. The image of an unlikely individual chosen unexpectedly by God to shoulder a difficult and divinely ordained burden is a popular narrative within Christian, and more specifically evangelical, discourse.
And it’s a narrative that Trump will continue to capitalize on to keep his evangelical voters close.
Update: this article has been updated to reflect the content of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech.

Cyrus the Great
Achaemenid-Persian king
Image result for King Cyrus.

Description

Cyrus II of Persia, commonly known as Cyrus the Great, and also called Cyrus the Elder by the Greeks, was the founder of the Achaemenid Empire, the first Persian Empire. Wikipedia
Born601 BC, Anshan, Iran
DiedDecember 4, 530 BC, Syr Darya
Full nameCyrus II of Persia

Who is King Cyrus, and why did Netanyahu compare him to Trump?
Mysterious Persian ruler is credited for helping Jews return from exile to Jerusalem 2,500 years ago, rebuild the Temple


By ANDREW SILOW-CARROLL 8 March 2018

US President Donald Trump in the White House, February 9, 2018, and an illustration of Cyrus the Great. (Getty images/Wikimedia Commons via JTA)

JTA — Before their Oval Office meeting on Monday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lavished praise on US President Donald Trump for, among other things, declaring Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and vowing to fix or scrap the Iran nuclear deal.

In doing so, the Israeli leader likened Trump to Harry Truman, Lord Balfour — and Cyrus the Great.



What gives with Cyrus?



As Netanyahu explained in his remarks:


I want to tell you that the Jewish people have a long memory, so we remember the proclamation of the great king, Cyrus the Great, the Persian king 2,500 years ago. He proclaimed that the Jewish exiles in Babylon could come back and rebuild our Temple in Jerusalem. We remember a hundred years ago, Lord Balfour, who issued the Balfour Proclamation that recognized the rights of the Jewish people in our ancestral homeland. We remember 70 years ago, President Harry S. Truman was the first leader to recognize the Jewish state. And we remember how a few weeks ago, President Donald J. Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Mr. President, this will be remembered by our people through the ages.

What is known about Cyrus is as much myth as fact, although scholars agree that during his lifetime (c. 600-530 BCE) he ruled an empire that included the ancient Near East, Southwest and Central Asia, and the Caucasus.

But Jewish tradition has been consistent in treating him as a pagan agent of God’s divine plan for Jews to return to the Land of Israel from their exile in Babylon (modern-day Iraq). Cyrus shows up in Chronicles saying, “The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Any of his people among you may go up, and may the Lord their God be with them.”

In Isaiah, God chooses Cyrus “to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor … so that you may know that I am the Lord, the God of Israel.”

The first-century historian Josephus also credits Cyrus with freeing the Jews from captivity and helping them rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.

The idea that Trump is a modern-day Cyrus is particularly popular among evangelical Christians, in part to explain the gap between Trump’s, ahem, personal behavior and his support for policies that advance their agenda.

Coins bearing the images of US President Donald Trump and King Cyrus, to honor Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, are laid out at a private minting facility in Tel Aviv on February 28, 2018. (AP Photo/Sebastian Scheiner)

In December, an evangelical leader explained this “vessel theology” in welcoming Trump’s move on Jerusalem. Mike Evans told the Christian Broadcasting Network that Cyrus “was used as an instrument of God for deliverance in the Bible, and God has used this imperfect vessel, this flawed human being like you or I, this imperfect vessel, and he’s using him in an incredible, amazing way to fulfill his plans and purposes.”

Some observers wonder if the comparison is just a convenient way for evangelicals to deal with Trump’s multiple divorces, his confessed womanizing, and the multiple accusations of sexual assault.

“I think in some ways this is a kind of baptism of Donald Trump,” John Fea, a professor of evangelical history at Messiah College in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, told Vox. “It’s the theopolitical version of money laundering, taking Scripture to … clean [up] your candidate.”

In addition to Netanyahu, at least one Jewish group has picked up on the notion of Trump as Cyrus: Last month, The Mikdash Educational Center, which promotes reverence for the temples that once stood in Jerusalem, started selling a coin with Trump’s silhouette superimposed over one of Cyrus. Its leader, Rabbi Mordechai Persoff, told The Associated Press that Trump, like Cyrus, made a “big declaration that Jerusalem is the capital of the holy people.”

Like most Israeli leaders, and maybe unlike rabbis and Christian activists, Netanyahu doesn’t need to reconcile a president’s personal behavior with his policies — he just needs a president who delivers the goods. Comparing Trump to Cyrus is another way of saying he’s just wild about Donald.'




Home|Art & Culture|History|Iran's Guide|Society


 Wednesday, March 11, 2020  


History of Iran

Cyrus The Great
Cyrus II, Kourosh in Persian, Kouros in Greek

Artistic portrait of Cyrus the Great
Cyrus (580-529 BC) was the first Achaemenid Emperor. He founded Persia by uniting the two original Iranian Tribes- the Medes and the Persians. Although he was known to be a great conqueror, who at one point controlled one of the greatest Empires ever seen, he is best remembered for his unprecedented tolerance and magnanimous attitude towards those he defeated.

Upon his victory over the Medes, he founded a government for his new kingdom, incorporating both Median and Persian nobles as civilian officials. The conquest of Asia Minor completed, he led his armies to the eastern frontiers. Hyrcania and Parthia were already part of the Median Kingdom. Further east, he conquered Drangiana, Arachosia, Margiana and Bactria. After crossing the Oxus, he reached the Jaxartes, where he built fortified towns with the object of defending the farthest frontier of his kingdom against nomadic tribes of Central Asia.

The victories to the east led him again to the west and sounded the hour for attack on Babylon and Egypt. When he conquered Babylon, he did so to cheers from the Jewish Community, who welcomed him as a liberator- he allowed the Jews to return to the promised Land. He showed great forbearance and respect towards the religious beliefs and cultural traditions of other races. These qualities earned him the respect and homage of all the people over whom he ruled.



Bas-Relief of Cyrus the Great, in Pasargad, Iran
The victory over Babylonia expressed all the facets of the policy of conciliation which Cyrus had followed until then. He presented himself not as a conqueror, but a liberator and the legitimate successor to the crown. He also declared the first Charter of Human Rights known to mankind. He took the title of "King of Babylon and King of the Land". Cyrus had no thought of forcing conquered people into a single mould, and had the wisdom to leave unchanged the institution of each kingdom he attached to the Persian Crown. In 539 BCE he allowed more than 40,000 Jews to leave Babylon and return to Palestine. This step was in line with his policy to bring peace to Mankind. A new wind was blowing from the east, carrying away the cries and humility of defeated and murdered victims, extinguishing the fires of sacked cities, and liberating nations from slavery.

Cyrus was upright, a great leader of men, generous and benelovent. The Hellenes, whom he conquered regarded him as 'Law-giver' and the Jews as 'the annointed of the Lord'.

Prior to his death, he founded a new capital city at Pasargade in Fars. and had established a government for his Empire. He appointed a governor (satrap) to represent him in each province, however the administration, legistlation, and cultural activities of each province was the responsibility of the Satraps. Accoding to Xenophon Cyrus is also reputed to have devised the first postal system, (Achaemenide achievements). His doctrines were adopted by the future emperors of the Achaemenian dynasty.




See Also Cyropaedia of Xenophon, The Life of Cyrus The Great
Xenophon (Greek mercenary & historian 430 - 355 BCE).

 Achaemenid Army
By: Professor A. Sh. Shahbazi

 Cyrus the Great: The decree of return for the Jews, 539 BCE
Edited by: Charles F. Horne

 The Cyrus the Great Cylinder
The first known Charter of Rights of Nations, 539 BCE.
Edited by: Shapour Ghasemi

 The History of Herodotus, (485 - 425 BCE)
A reference of Persian Empire's history ofAchaemenian era.

 Old Persian Cuneiform
The official script of the Achaemenid Empire



AND JUST FOR THE FUN OF IT SOME CONSPIRACY
THEORY FROM THE AMERICAN PROTESTANT EVANGEL

Donald Trump, King Cyrus And Number 7


Coins bearing the images of Donald Trump and King Cyrus are laid out at a private minting facility in Tel Aviv. Benjamin Netanyahu compares Trump to the Persian King who lived 2,500 years ago. The bible tells us God called this King by name over 100 years before he was born. The King was not a believer, but God called him his anointed (set apart for divine use) in Isaiah 45 and used him to deliver the Israelite’s from the Babylonians after 70 years of captivity! The King is quoted as saying “The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Any of his people among you may go up and may the Lord their God be with them.”
It may be worth noting, the meaning of the name Donald is; “World Ruler” and in connection with Isaiah 45, he is the 45th President. There is another remarkable parallel, a “Council” was hired (Ezra 4:4-5) to frustrate the purpose of King Cyrus, it continued until the time of Darius king of Persia. The name “Darius” in Hebrew means “Lord”.
President Trump ordered the US Embassy to be moved to Jerusalem, and celebrated it’s opening 70 years to the day of Israel being recognized as a nation. The number “7” in the Bible means completeness, it is used over 40 times in the book of Revelation alone. It is amazing how this number is associated with Donald J Trump…
The day Trump took office he was 70 years, 7 months and 7 days old, in the Hebrew year 5777; he won the election by 77 electoral votes after there were 7 defectors; he took office in the 7th year of the decade (2017); his first press conference was 77 minutes long; he requested a picture of the 7th president to be hung in his office; President Trump is the 7th President from New York; America witnessed a total Solar Eclipse in Trump’s 7th month as president, another total Solar Eclipse is scheduled 7 years after he took office, he would be 77 years old; He was named Person of the year by Time magazine on December 72016; he married the first time on April 7, 1977; his mother passed away on August 7th; Trump tower address begins with 7; (725); he banned 7 countries 7 days after taking office; he authorized a military strike against Syria on his 77th day in office; the world was fixated on his meeting with Vladimir Putin on 7/7/1(Putin was 777 months old), and again at the Helsinki summit during his 77th week in office. Trump is exactly 700 days older than Israel when they were recognized as a nation, which means when Israel was 77 days old Trump was 777 days old; Benjamin Netanyahu was serving his 7th year and 7th month as prime minister of Israel when Trump won; Trump imposed sanctions on Iran effective August 7, 2018; The Supreme Court sided with Trump for border wall funding in the 7th month of 2019; Trump is the first president to enter office with 7 billion people on the planet; Trump is listed in the 700’s in Forbes list of billionaires.
Family of 7‘s
Donald was raised in a family of 7; Frederick (Father), Mary Ann (Mother), and (Children); Donald, Maryanne, Elizabeth, Robert & Fred Jr.
There are 7 members in Trump’s immediate family; Donald, Melania, Don Jr., Ivanka, Eric, Tiffany & Barron. His first child (Don Jr.) was born in 1977.
As a matter of reference, the first time the word “trump” is used in the Bible is the 7th book of the New Testament.
What is particularly interesting are the two total Solar Eclipses that pass over the United States after his presidency began. One in 2017 during his 7th month as president and the other in 2024 in the 7th year after he became president. The second one passes over Joshua Texas, and intersects with the first one in a region called “Little Egypt“, forming a “cross” over the united states. It may be noted the Name “Joshua” and the name “Jesus” are the same Hebrew name “Yehoshua”.
If doubt still lingers about Trump being chosen by God for a specific purpose, just look at those who have tried to take him down; the FBI, the CIA, the DOJ, the House Judiciary, the News Media, his Personal Lawyer, an Elite Donor, High ranking PoliticiansHollywood, famous Athletes, and best selling Authors. There is little doubt God has kept Donald J Trump in office!
The greatest opposition to rebuilding the temple during the appointed time of King Cyrus was a group called the Cutheans. God originally sent lions to kill them (2 Kings 17: 24-28), out of fear they converted to Judaism, but they had evil intentions to sabotage the construction of the second temple. In essence they were Jews in name only!
Isn’t it interesting the Deputy Attorney General over the Mueller Probe and the Top Prosecutor of the Mueller Team were born to a Jewish family?
Isn’t it interesting the impeachment inquiry of President Trump was led by the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and joined by the Senate Minority Leader, all of whom were born to a Jewish family?
Isn’t it interesting the leader of CNN, and of Comcast who owns NBC and MSNBC, and of Walt Disney who owns ABC, and of National Amusements who owns CBS, were all born to a Jewish family?
Isn’t it interesting the Chairman of the New York Times was born to a Jewish parent?
Isn’t it interesting the founders of Alphabet Inc. who owns Google which owns YouTube, and the Chairman of Facebook and of Apple were all born to a Jewish family.
Isn’t it interesting the founders of the biggest Movie studios; Universal PicturesParamount PicturesWarner Bros. and 20th Century Fox, were all born to a Jewish family? The bible tells us the Cutheans worshiped a God known as Nergal (2 Kings 17:30), which means “Hero” in Hebrew. Isn’t it interesting the first comic book Super Hero was Superman, and yes his two creators were born to a Jewish family.

Isn’t it also interesting a Multi-Billionaire born in Hungary, known for contributing substantial amounts for Liberal causes and a staunch opponent of President Trump, was also born to a Jewish family. 
The Elite Jews in the U.S. are in name only and should not be confused with the Religious ones in Israel. The Elites are unified in their effort to stop President Trump!
Where have we heard this scheme before, hypocritical Jews coming together to persuade people against God’s anointed? Jesus called them out!
Josephus the historian also records the story about the Cutheans under the title; “How the Temple was Built While the Cutheans Endeavored in Vain to Obstruct the Work.” In the end the Temple was completed and the Cutheans stopped their obstruction effort under the reign of King Darius, which in Hebrew means “Lord”.
History records King Cyrus reigned for Eight years after he captured Babylon.
There were some Jews of high regard who sympathized with Jesus in his day, and there are some Jews of high regard today who sympathize with the man God put in office as President of the United States.
The question is, why is God using Donald J Trump? I am of the belief God is allowing current events to unfold in an effort to reveal a much greater revelation as we enter the final days. The scriptures are filled with God showing His children things in the natural realm to help us understand things in the Spiritual realm. President Trump’s disruption of the political establishment is a foretelling of the disruption that is about to happen in the religious establishment. Just as there are false Jews in the natural realm, there are false Jews ( Rev 2:9, 3:9) in the spiritual realm. This religious disruption will serve to purify the true believers and create chaos among false believers. The temple of our day is a spiritual one not a physical one. Believers will look back on how God protected President Trump against this onslaught and serve as a reminder when we find ourselves surrounded by spiritual enemies. We are very very close!
As for President Trump, God can raise whomever He wishes, to fulfill his purpose whether they believe in Him or not. We should never lift up man or place our confidence in man, we should pray for those whom God chooses whoever they may be, otherwise we may find ourselves fighting against God.
On February 7, 2019 president Trump said at the national prayer breakfast; “Let us always give thanks for the miracle of life, the majesty of creation and the grace of Almighty God”!
Dick’s to Stop Selling Firearms in Half Its Stores
Dick’s Sporting Goods said it would stop selling firearms in more than half its stores this fiscal year, the latest move by the retailer to scale back its guns business.
Published: March 10, 2020

The company’s plans to eliminate the hunting department at about 440 more Dick’s Sporting Goods locations follows the earlier removal of the department at 135 stores. The company had 850 stores at the end of the last fiscal year, most of which were Dick’s Sporting Goods locations.

In 2018, following the mass shooting at a Parkland, Fla., high school, Dick’s said it would sell guns only to people at least 21 years old, and would stop selling assault-style rifles at its 35 Field & Stream stores. The company stopped selling assault-style rifles at its flagship Dick’s stores following the 2012 deadly shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

Firearms and ammunition are a shrinking part of the company’s business but Dick’s CEO Edward Stack has taken a public stance on the issue and lobbied for more stringent restrictions on firearms sales.

Dick’s, which also reported its latest financial results Tuesday, said it expects same-store sales for this fiscal year to be between about flat to up 2%. Analysts’ consensus is within that range, according to FactSet, though the outlook is less than the company’s same-store sales increase in the previous fiscal year of 3.7%.

Dick’s also cautioned the coronavirus could affect its coming results.

“The company’s outlook balances the enthusiasm it has for its business with the rapidly evolving coronavirus situation,” Dick’s said in a press release. The company said the lower end of its current fiscal-year guidance “includes some caution related to supply chain disruption potentially impacting its results beginning in the second quarter.”

Dick’s said it expects earnings of between about $3.60 a share and $4 a share. Analysts’ consensus, according to FactSet, is for results within that range.

Shares of Dick’s rose 13%.

For the last quarter of 2019, the company reported earnings of $69.8 million, down from $102.6 million a year prior. Earnings were 81 cents a share, down from $1.07 a share a year ago.

The company said it had almost $49 million in pretax restructuring charges from deciding to remove its hunting department from more stores.

Adjusted earnings of $1.32 a share beat analysts’ consensus, according to FactSet.

Net sales were $2.61 billion, higher than Wall Street expected, and up from $2.49 billion a year ago. Same-store sales rose 5.3%. Analysts expected them to rise 3%.
Opinion: More than rate cuts: The coronavirus demands a coordinated global policy response
However the epidemic unfolds, it is likely to do much more economic damage than policy makers seem to realize

March 9, 2020By Kaushik Basu

Palestinian health staff wearing protective masks stand at the emergency entrance of Beit Jala Hospital on March 9 near the West Bank city of Bethlehem which is under lockdown due to the novel coronavirus epidemic. AFP via Getty Images

NEW YORK (Project Syndicate) — The number of daily new cases of the COVID-19 coronavirus are finally declining in China. But the number is increasing in the rest of the world, from South Korea to Iran to Italy. However the epidemic unfolds — even if it is soon brought under control globally — it is likely to do much more economic damage than policy makers seem to realize.

In the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis, central banks led the response. As the COVID-19 outbreak disrupts value chains and raises fears among investors, some seem to think that they can do so again.

A far-reaching global crisis demands a comprehensive global response. A multilateral organization such as the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund should urgently establish a task force comprising, say, 20 economists with diverse specialties, as well as experts in health and geopolitics

Already, the Federal Reserve has cut interest rates by half a percentage point – its largest single cut in over a decade. But the Fed’s move, without other supporting policies, seemed only to confuse stock markets SPX, +4.94% further; just minutes after the cut, their downward slide continued.

Such stock-market gyrations say little about the actual state of the economy – that is, the world of goods and services. Rather, they reflect beliefs: not just what you and I believe, but what you and I believe about what you and I believe. In this sense, stock-market losses often become anxiety-fueled self-fulfilling prophecies.

A far-reaching global crisis demands a comprehensive global response. I do not know exactly what such a response should look like – at this point, no one does.
But we can find out. To that end, a multilateral organization such as the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund should urgently establish a task force comprising, say, 20 economists with diverse specialties, as well as experts in health and geopolitics.

This “C20” would be charged with analyzing the crisis and designing a coordinated global policy response on a tight deadline. It would need to submit its first report – with a list of initial actions to be taken by governments and, possibly, responsible private corporations – within a month.

Each subsequent month, it would provide an updated agenda. Over time, effective policies would take root, and the group could be disbanded, possibly as soon as a year after its formation.

Nothing the C20 did would prevent the initial direct damage to some sectors, such as tourism. And that damage is likely to be substantial. For example, the International Air Transport Association estimates that the global airline sector could lose $113 billion in sales if the virus continues to spread.

Likewise, major hotel brands are reporting declining business. Hilton HLT, +4.80% , which closed 150 hotels in China, expects to lose $25 million to $50 million in full-year adjusted earnings (before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization), if the outbreak and recovery each last 3-6 months. Tourism expenditure by the Chinese alone – which amounted to $277 billion in 2018 – is, in my view, likely to decline by more than half this year.

But the C20 might be able to minimize or even offset these early shocks’ secondary and tertiary multiplier effects, which would hit a wide range of sectors, disrupting employment and prices.

For example, if demand declined in all sectors, governments could employ broad monetary and fiscal policy to revive it. Central banks could cut policy rates, while governments carried out a coordinated fiscal expansion, much like during the Great Recession.

Yet, this time around, such an approach would prove inadequate. After all, the COVID-19 crisis is different from the 2008 crisis in a crucial way: even as demand slumps in some sectors, it is spiking in others, pushing up prices and excluding regular buyers.

Health services is the most obvious example. Reports indicate that, with already-limited resources diverted to COVID-19, many in China are struggling to get their usual health-care needs met. In this context, policy interventions will have to be nuanced and sector-specific – boosting consumer-purchasing power in some sectors and curtailing demand in others.

There is another problem that is not being adequately recognized. A large number of contracts will be broken as a result of the coronavirus outbreak, which some will claim amounts to force majeure – a provision that exempts parties from their obligations. According to the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, China has issued nearly 5,000 force majeure certificates, covering contracts worth CN¥373.7 billion ($53.8 billion).

But plenty of parties to the broken contracts will contest claims of force majeure. This will place liability laws (and courts) under strain and raise tensions in economic transactions.

Simply put, the COVID-19 epidemic’s economic impact is likely to be highly complex and widely varied. Addressing them effectively will require policy makers – and, ideally, a C20 – to take a big-picture, inter-sectoral view that accounts not just for outcomes, but also for the multifarious and overlapping dynamics driving them.

To this end, policy makers would do well to recall past studies of inter-sectoral connections, which have their roots in the path-breaking work of Léon Walras in 1874, and the research of the Nobel laureate Kenneth Arrow and Gérard Debreu in the 1950s.

In particular, they should review the Nobel laureate economist Amartya Sen’s “entitlement approach,” which explains why famines can occur even when food supplies are plentiful. A shock is transmitted to the food sector from another sector through complex demand and supply channels, causing shifts in food prices and wages, and effectively cutting off a section of the population’s ability to buy adequate food.

This is depicted in “A Distant Thunder,” Satyajit Ray’s classic film about the 1943 Bengal famine, which captures the tragic phenomenon of hunger and destitution amidst plentiful food supply.

Past efforts to track and operationalize these inter-sectoral transmission channels – such as through input-output analysis – should also be considered, though none can be applied directly to the current context. Instead, such approaches should guide the efforts of research teams, working with the C20, to map how COVID-19’s first-round shocks will most likely course through the economy.

Only with such a map can policy makers develop the sector-specific interventions that are so essential to cope with the coronavirus. With the world economy already beset by risk, there is no time to waste.

This article was published with permission of Project Syndicate Epidemics and Economic Policy

Kaushik Basu, former chief Economist of the World Bank and former chief economic adviser to the Government of India, is professor of economics at Cornell University and nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution
Opinion: To save the economy from COVID-19, the only effective policy is medical, not monetary or fiscal

The priority should be detection, containment, and treatment, not tax cuts and lower interest rates

March 10, 2020 By Barry Eichengreen

A patient is screened for coronavirus on Monday at the CHU Pellegrin in Bordeaux, southwestern France. AFP via Getty Images 
PICTURE FROM FRANCE BECAUSE THIS IS NOT HAPPENING IN AMERICA

BERKELEY, Calif. (Project Syndicate) — Last week, G-7 finance ministers and central bank governors vowed to use “all appropriate policy tools” to contain the economic threat posed by the COVID-19 coronavirus. The question left unanswered is what is appropriate, and what will work.

The immediate response took the form of central bank rate cuts, with the Federal Reserve fast off the mark. Though central banks can move quickly, however, it is not clear how much they can do, given that interest rates TMUBMUSD10Y, 0.703% are already at rock-bottom levels. In any case, the Fed’s failure to coordinate its rate cut with other major central banks sent a negative signal about the coherence of the response.

Moreover, monetary policy can’t mend broken supply chains. My colleague Brad DeLong has tried to convince me that an injection of central bank liquidity can help get global container traffic moving again, as it did in 2008. (Now you know the kind of elevator conversations we have at UC Berkeley.) But the problem in 2008 was disruptions to the flow of finance, which central banks’ liquidity injections could repair.

The problem today, however, is a sudden stop in production, which monetary policy can do little to offset. Fed Chair Jerome Powell can’t reopen factories shuttered by quarantine, whatever President Donald Trump may think. Likewise, monetary policy will not get shoppers back to the malls or travelers back onto airplanes, insofar as their concerns center on safety, not cost.

Rate cuts can’t hurt, given that inflation, already subdued, is headed downward; but not much real economic stimulus should be expected of them.

The same is true, unfortunately, of fiscal policy. Tax credits won’t get production restarted when firms are preoccupied by their workers’ health and the risk of spreading disease. Payroll-tax cuts won’t boost discretionary spending when consumers are worried about the safety of their favorite fast-food chain.

The priority therefore should be detection, containment, and treatment. These tasks require fiscal resources, but their success will hinge more importantly on administrative competence. Restoring public confidence requires transparency and accuracy in reporting infections and fatalities. It requires giving public health authorities the kind of autonomy enjoyed by independent central banks. (Unfortunately, this is not something that comes naturally to leaders like Trump.)

Still, expansionary fiscal policy, like expansionary monetary policy, can’t hurt.

Here, Italy has shown the way, postponing tax and mortgage payments, extending tax credits to small firms, and ramping up other spending. The U.S. so far has shown less readiness to act, failing even to encourage people to seek testing by helping them pay their medical bills.

One obstacle to fiscal stimulus is that its effects leak abroad, because some of the additional spending is on imports. As a result, each fiscal authority hesitates to move, and governments collectively provide less stimulus than is needed. This justifies coordinating fiscal initiatives, as G-20 countries did in 2009. But, by that year’s standards, the recent G-7 communiqué promising “all appropriate action” was a nothingburger that did little to bolster confidence that governments would take the concerted steps called for by worsening global conditions.

Then there are fiscal hawks and monetary-policy scolds who claim that any official intervention will be counterproductive. They warn, for example, that financial systems will be impaired if central banks push interest rates deeper into negative territory. But while there surely exists an interest rate sufficiently below zero where this is the case, all the evidence is that current rates are still very far from this point.

In addition, we are cautioned that fiscal stimulus by governments with heavy debts will undermine confidence, rather than bolster it. Japan, it is said, is already dangerously over-indebted. This exaggerated argument ignores the fact that the Japanese government has extensive public-sector assets to offset against its debts.

Likewise, we are reminded that the U.S. has a looming entitlement burden, an argument that ignores the fact that the interest rate on the public debt is perennially below the economy’s growth rate. And while China’s state-owned enterprises may have massive debts, the tightly controlled financial system limits the risk of the kind of financial crisis that the country’s critics have been erroneously forecasting for years.

Central banks and political leaders, faced with a global crisis, should ignore these fallacious arguments and use monetary and fiscal policies to ensure market liquidity, support small firms, and encourage spending. But they must recognize that these textbook responses will have only limited effects when the problem is not a shortage of liquidity, but rather supply-chain disruptions and a contagion of fear.

Today, economic stabilization depends most importantly on the actions of public-health authorities, who should be given the resources and leeway to do their jobs, including freedom to cooperate with their foreign counterparts.

In the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, economists, economic policy makers, and bodies like the G-7 should humbly acknowledge that “all appropriate tools” imply, above all, those wielded by medical practitioners and epidemiologists. Coordination, autonomy, and transparency must be the watchwords.

Barry Eichengreen is professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former senior policy adviser at the International Monetary Fund. His latest book is “The Populist Temptation: Economic Grievance and Political Reaction in the Modern Era.”
Republican mayor and former Trump voter explains why he’s about to cast his first-ever vote for a Democrat
“I remember thinking this Trump thing is insane, I slowly talked myself into it. ‘He can’t seriously be this deranged once he gets in there,’ and he’s even more deranged now than I thought then. So, I take the blame.”

March 10, 2020 By Shawn Langlois

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden speaking in Detroit. Getty

‘How could I look at those three kids and tell them I’m proud to support Donald Trump? I can’t. I won’t.’

That’s Michael Taylor, mayor of Sterling Heights, Mich., pointing to his family in a tweet this week as reasons why he was preparing to cast his first-ever vote for a Democrat.

“I think Joe Biden is the candidate who can unify all of the Democrats,” Taylor, a Republican son of Republican parents, told the Chicago Tribune. “He’s the candidate who can appeal to moderates and Republicans like me who don’t want to see four more years of President Trump.”

His comments came before voters headed to the polls on Tuesday in Michigan, as well as in Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota and Washington. Biden currently has 664 delegates to Bernie Sanders’s 573, according to a tracker by the Wall Street Journal. It takes 1,991 to win the nomination on the first ballot at this summer’s Democratic convention.

Taylor, until now, has proven to be a devoted conservative. According to the Tribune, he tangled with liberal students in high school as the author of a right-leaning column for his campus. He later became a member of the Tea Party and ultimately cast his vote for Donald Trump in 2016.

“I think what you saw in 2016 was people saying, ‘We’re sick of these places on the coasts, New York, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. ... dictating to us what’s going to happen,” he explained. “We’ve got some political power, we’ve got some political might and we’re going to flex it,.”

Taylor, now 36, took office in 2014 at the age of 31, replacing South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg as the youngest mayor of a city with more than 100,000 people. He recalled to the Tribune why Trump earned his vote the first time around.

“I remember thinking this Trump thing is insane, but when it was down to him and Hillary, I kind of said, ‘Well, you are a Republican, and yeah he’s nuts, but maybe he’ll get better and you know he’s going to lower taxes,” he said. “I slowly talked myself into it. ‘He can’t seriously be this deranged once he gets in there,’ and he’s even more deranged now than I thought then. So, I take the blame.”
This controversial energy stance splits top Democrats — and likely the country
Shale
-rich Pennsylvania, with its fracking and its unions, reprising its role as a key election swing state
March 10, 2020 By Rachel Koning Beals
Workers with Cabot Oil and Gas work at a hydraulic fracturing site in South Montrose, Pa. The extraction method, also known as fracking, injects wells with high volumes of chemical-laced water in order to free up pockets of natural gas. Getty Images

The debate over fracking in 2020 battleground state Pennsylvania divides the last major Democrats vying for the party’s backing for president — a policy distinction that has wider implications as the U.S. tightens its clasp on energy independence against heavyweights Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont will emphasize energy-policy differences in coming weeks; Pennsylvania’s Democratic primary is set for April 28. Their pro-fracking rival on the Republican side, President Donald Trump, has been clear in his push to keep fossil fuels, especially domestic production, in the energy mix. Trump won Pennsylvania during his unexpected march to the White House four years ago, which made him the first Republican presidential candidate to carry the commonwealth since 1988.

Pennsylvania’s election role is significant certainly for the vote tally alone. But its energy-pegged economy and mix of rural and urban demographics positions the commonwealth as a test for nationwide sentiment on traditional fossil fuels. That includes relatively cleaner and cheaper natural gas, which increasingly powers electric utilities. Fracking has, in a few short years, lifted Pennsylvania to the No. 2 ranking among U.S. natural-gas producers, behind only Texas.

Biden’s energy and climate-change plan includes a ban on Arctic oil drilling, while boosting regulations on fracking, but stops short of banning the practice. When a voter in Iowa said the country should stop building pipelines and drilling, Biden, a Pennsylvania native, responded: “You have to go vote for somebody else.”

Sanders has called for a national fracking moratorium and made a plug for the aggressive and comprehensive Green New Deal framework. It’s that plan, or a variation thereon, that Sanders believes can help move oil- and coal-industry workers into higher-paying green infrastructure jobs. For sure, calls for banning fracking are widening the fault lines between Pennsylvania’s Democrats and their traditional allies in organized labor, many of whose members work in the energy industries.

“I’m not sure how anybody in their right mind thinks they might win Pennsylvania on a fracking ban,” said Frank Maisano, senior principal at Policy Resolution Group, who has a focus on energy issues. “There is a small, but vocal, group of activists [against the practice], but then there are unions, small business and just about everybody else that benefits from a shale-drilling economy.”

Maisano said, for instance, that endangered rural hospitals in some parts of the state are beneficiaries of natural-gas-linked funding. The energy sector in Pennsylvania adds $45 billion to the commonwealth’s economy and has contributed more than 300,000 jobs, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The rise of natural gas also gives new life to the accompanying debate on methane leaks during natural-gas extraction, especially their contribution to raising average global temperatures. Hydraulic fracturing uses high-pressure, chemical-laced liquid to extract oil, and secondarily, gas, at shale sites. The process increases seismic-activity risk, water contamination and other factors, say fracking’s critics.

The fracking issue currently plays out against extreme energy-market volatility. Saudi Arabia and Russia — two of the biggest U.S. energy rivals, with geopolitical strings attached — are dancing around a global price war. This uncertainty dealt the oil market its biggest one-day price drop since 1991. The tension is fueled by the U.S.’s rise to energy independence, in part because of its shale bounty. The Trump administration on Tuesday was seen as likely to push federal aid for shale companies hit by the international energy shock and the coronavirus outbreak, the Washington Post reported.

Along with new horizontal drilling techniques, fracking has unlocked new volumes of natural gas and oil from shale deposits in the U.S. over just the past decade-plus. That helped turn the U.S. from the world’s biggest oil importer into the world’s biggest oil and gas producer, which some energy analysts stress gives the U.S. an edge in curbing greenhouse-gas emissions by earning a bigger say on the international energy-policy stage.

“Up to recently, before the U.S. shale-gas revolution, Russia was the country which was dominating, alone, the gas markets,” Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency, said in a CNBC interview last year. “With the U.S. coming into the picture, there is a choice, there are options for the consumers, better for energy security, for diversification.”

At what cost
The methane that is emitted from the process has 86 times the global-warming potential of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. It is the main component of natural gas, and, when companies drill for oil, they generally also get natural gas. Methane is released in the atmosphere during the extraction and distribution of natural gas, and, while many scientists agree this is a major problem, there is little data to show exactly how much is leaking into the atmosphere.

With shale in their back yards, Pennsylvania voters remain divided, according to a statewide Morning Call/Muhlenberg College poll. It found 42% of Pennsylvanians oppose a ban on fracking and 38% support a moratorium, with 20% undecided.

A poll from the same source taken in late February, before Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts had withdrawn from the presidential race, showed Trump doing better against potential Democratic rivals than he did in a similar poll three months earlier, especially in potential matchups with Biden and Warren. Sanders maintained a slight lead over the president in hypothetical matchups at that time.

In the Philadelphia suburbs that have been trending Democratic, some voters have shown a growing opposition to the drilling and massive pipelines (sometimes right through their neighborhoods) required to move fracked material to refineries, the Associated Press has reported.

Chester and Delaware counties in the Philadelphia suburbs, for example, have more than 750,000 voters, which is roughly 9% of the voters in Pennsylvania. The two counties sit between the shale-gas fields on the western side of the state and the industrial hub of Philadelphia. To connect the two, companies are cutting through lawns and near schools to lay pipelines, E&E EnergyWire has reported. Trump won the state by fewer than 45,000 votes in 2016.

Republican U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania has framed a fracking ban as a tough choice for Americans between affordable energy and unaffordable energy. Pennsylvania’s top Democrats, including Gov. Tom Wolf and U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, have tried to discourage talk of a fracking ban, while labor leaders point to thousands of building-trades members working on gas drilling sites, laying billions of dollars in pipelines and building massive refineries, the Associated Press has reported.

”The shale revolution started in Texas, but the oil patch is no longer just Texas and Oklahoma. The Mid-Atlantic [region] and the upper Plains are producers, too, and the entire country is benefiting,” said Martin Durbin, president of the Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute.

“Now that natural gas is the largest source of electricity ... and fracking has lowered its cost, that’s what has given us the ability to lower carbon emissions [over coal use and other traditional fossil fuels],” Durbin said.

Age and other demographics, more so than party, may sway the energy vote. In November, the Pew Research Center released a national poll showing that rising percentages of millennial Republicans believe the federal government is not doing enough on climate. Other surveys have found similar trends.

Many politicians consider natural gas, even with the methane problem, a transitional fuel that helps the U.S. move away from heavier fossil fuels. But the natural-gas bridge to a carbon-free future must have a clear end date, say environmental advocates.

“It’s kind of a weird environment.”


Two epidemics combine to make for a ‘dangerous time for the stock market,’ Nobel Prize–winning economist warns

March 10, 2020 By Shawn Langlois

Robert J. Shiller, Nobel laureate for Economic Sciences AFP/Getty Images


‘What we have now is really two epidemics. We have an epidemic of the coronavirus, but we also have an epidemic of fear based around a narrative that is not necessarily keeping up with scientific reality. And, this narrative has been quite striking. It’s a dangerous time for the stock market.’

That’s Robert Shiller, Yale professor and Nobel Prize winner, explaining to CNBC during Monday’s market plunge why he believes there’s more selling to come. “This disease is contagious even before it shows obvious symptoms,” he said. “So, it’s going to be harder to quarantine people in this epidemic. That’s the narrative, and we haven’t gotten very far into it yet.”

According to the latest tally from Johns Hopkins, there are now 116,146 cases of COVID-19, with at least 4,088 deaths. In the U.S., there are 761 cases and 27 deaths.


“The potential for market disruption because of a scary narrative is quite high,” Shiller warned. “It’s highly likely now that we’ll have a recession. It’s already disrupting business. It’s already causing people to pull back. We’re not going to see creative new investments blossom in this environment.”

The stock market on Tuesday again reflected the uncertainty and volatility facing investors, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, +4.89% giving back a chunk of its early gains by midday.

“We’ll see how well the measures to reduce the coronavirus epidemic play out. But I wouldn’t put too much hope in that,” Shiller said. “It’s a dangerous epidemic and the epidemic of fear that accompanies it is dangerous also.”

This chart of the stock market’s ‘fear’ index in 2020 illustrates how unhinged markets have been over coronavirus compared to the 2008 crisis


March 10, 2020 By Mark DeCambre


The Cboe VIX boasted a nearly 300% year-to-date return at its peak on Tuesday
MarketWatch photo illustration/iStockphoto


How volatile and anxious is Wall Street amid this evolving worry about a potential global pandemic that could shake the global economy to its core?

Perhaps, the best gauge of that deep-rooted concern is one of the market’s most closely watched measures of volatility.

The Cboe Volatility Index VIX, -13.14%, or VIX, hit its highest intraday level since 2008 on Monday, amid a stock market slump that also registered as the ugliest one-day plunge for the Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, +4.89%, the S&P 500 index SPX, +4.94% an the Nasdaq Composite Index COMP, +4.95% in 12 years.

But what’s arguably more impressive than the daily move for the gauge, that uses S&P 500 options to measure trader expectations for volatility in the coming 30-day period, is its year-to-date surge so far (see attached chart).

Compared against the move for the VIX at the same point this year in 2008, the differential between the two is dizzying. The VIX so far this year is on pace for a 280% surge, compared against a 108% return for the fear index in 2008—a period marked by the global proliferation of esoteric mortgage bonds and derivatives that brought world-wide financial markets to their knees and ushered in the 2007-09 recession.



“That spread is remarkable to see what’s going on out there in the [VIX],” Mark Longo CEO of The Options Insider, an options-focused analytics firm, told MarketWatch.


The rise in the VIX usually correlates to a decline in stocks because traders and investors use it to hedge their equity positions.

The surge in the VIX was at least partially sparked by an outbreak of COVID-19, the infectious disease that was first identified in Wuhan, China in December and has sickened roughly 117,000 people and claimed more than 4,260 lives, implying that fears of the deadly pathogen to this point by far outstrip those pegged to an implosion of the global financial markets.


That may have been the inflection point, the coronavirus,” Longo said.

Longo also said the surge in VIX this year may reflect that the markets, which have enjoyed a period of quiescence, even amid a few bursts higher, may be entering a paradigm shift.

“We may be in a new volatility regime for the foreseeable future,” he said.

The options expert said it is worth noting that this period for the VIX is demonstrably different than 12 years ago because there are so many more products that are pegged to the VIX, including the VelocityShares VIX Short Term ETN VIIX, -8.30%, the iPath Series B S&P 500 VIX Mid-Term Futures ETN VXZ, -3.48%, and iPath S&P 500 Dynamic VIX ETN XVZ, -5.42% among a few.

Randy Warren, chief investment officer at Warren Financial, who focuses on VIX options, also said that on a year-to-date basis the peak for 2008 didn’t start to play out until August, September, and October as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went into conservatorship, Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, AIG required help from the government and investors wrestled with the fallout of all that. The VIX finished the full year 2008 up 130%, according to FactSet data.

The VIX hit a historical peak at 80.86 on Nov. 20, 2008 and had not again approached such a lofty level until Monday.

That said, Warren says his firm has made 10x its money on its VIX contract bets this year, but that those gains have only mitigated losses on its equity positions.

As far as where VIX is headed, Warren says it is anyone’s guess.

“It’s a really hard call at this point because [the VIX], it is really stretched. It’s like a rubber-band now,” he said, given its move from a recent low at around 13 or 14 in mid February. The VIX’s historical average usually is said to be about 19 or 20.

Longo emphasized that he thinks professionals use VIX futures to better measure volatility in the market rather than the so-called cash VIX, which is most commonly used.

He said the spread between the VIX and VIX contracts, the VIX is an index and the contracts are the tradable securities, have been stunning with unusual gaps of 12 points at some junctures in the market.

It isn’t clear to those traders what’s underpinning those odd moves. “I’ve never really seen it like that before--they are somewhat disassociated from futures. They should be in lockstep,” Longo said.

“It’s kind of a weird environment.”