Archives for category: Education Reform

Rudy Guiliani and Trump have recently contended that “collusion is not a crime” but real lawyers know that “collusion” is a straw man, not the issue. A friend sent me a post that explains why the word “collusion”is actually shorthand for very serious crimes.


The term “collusion” may be useful shorthand for describing an illicit political alliance between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, but it has been far less productive as a framework for understanding possible illegal conduct committed as a result of that association. Alan Dershowitz has seized on the point there is no election law “crime” of collusion and thinks that settles matters: no crime, and therefore no grounds for impeachment. Now Rudy Giuliani has embraced this theory of the case, apparently motivated by the renewed attention to the Trump campaign meeting with a Kremlin delegation in 2016 and the reports that Michael Cohen is ready to testify that Donald Trump knew in advance of and approved the meeting. President Trump, meanwhile, keeps pounding away on this claim that the legal issue is “collusion”—and that there is no such thing.

This defense is vintage “straw person” reasoning. It is correct that federal campaign finance laws, which prohibit activity undertaken by foreign nationals to influence elections, do not refer to collusion. That does not mean, of course, that they do not directly address activities of the kind in which the Trump campaign reportedly engaged in encouraging and supporting the Russian electoral intervention of 2016. It is perhaps precisely because of the sweep of the ban on foreign national campaign activity—and American collaboration with it—that Trump and his lawyers are eager to direct attention elsewhere.

When Giuliani states “I have been sitting here looking in the federal code trying to find collusion as a crime,” the disingenuousness of his position is plain. He is looking for what does not exist to enable him to skip over what he is eager to ignore and avoid discussing.

The untenable position Giuliani is staking out is well illustrated by the following questions: Did the Trump campaign ever consult lawyers on the legal implications of planned or proposed Russian contacts? If not, why not? And had the campaign done so, what would a lawyer have advised about the legal risks? Any reasonably experienced, competent campaign counsel would say that he or she would never have advised the campaign management that it was legal to take up the Russian offer and hold the meeting. Nor would any such lawyer have given a green light to other points of contacts between the campaign and Russia, or to dodgy maneuvers like the president’s public appeal to the Russians to locate deleted Clinton emails.

A presidential campaign normally talks to lawyers about complex, unusual or obviously sensitive plans or projects. The campaign’s goal is typically to seek counsel’s blessing or advice on how to work ingeniously around legal obstacles to safely accomplish the desired objective. In the best of all worlds, the campaign management identifies a course of action that it can pursue with the confidence that, if challenged, its lawyers can provide a defense.

What hope did the Trump campaign have of help from its lawyers in maximizing political support from a foreign government? In the case of the Russian travel to New York in the summer of 2016 to provide derogatory information about Secretary Clinton, the issue would have been clear and the legal path closed.

The ban on foreign national involvement in federal elections is exceptionally broad. It applies to any spending to affect an election: The prohibition applies to “contributions,” “expenditures,” “donations,” and “disbursements.” A “contribution” for this purpose includes any “thing of value.” The rules reach “promises” of such spending whether express or “implied,” and to campaign spending provided either directly or “indirectly.”

This basic prohibition extends even to foreign national “participation” in the decisions that a U.S. national makes about election-related spending. It is stringent enough that it has shaped the legal requirements that the American subsidiary of a foreign corporation must satisfy in setting up a political action committee. The American management of the subsidiary can establish a political-action committee to make contributions to U.S. candidates, but only with U.S. national funding—and without any involvement from the foreign nationals a the parent company. A foreign national cannot so much as advise on how the PAC money would be spent. For foreign management to suggest that the U.S. PAC consider a contribution for candidate X is a violation of the law. A U.S. national who solicits this guidance is providing illegal substantial assistance to unlawful foreign national activity.

The Federal Election Commission for some time even equivocated on the question of whether a foreign national could volunteer personal services to a campaign. It eventually held that because the law exempts volunteer personal services from the scope of regulated contributions, foreign nationals could provide them. The standard example is the foreign national entertainer performing at a fundraising event: He or she cannot spend any money to support the event, including funding the transportation of equipment, travel or lodging expenses for personal staff or other band members.

Congress has enacted and reenacted the foreign-national prohibition in 1966, 1974 and 2002, seeking on each occasion to strengthen it. So the lawyer reviewing a contact between the campaign and a foreign national—particularly a foreign national with apparent ties to a foreign government—would understand that the rules in question are not among the backwater provisions of the law, under-enforced relics of the aged and discredited regulations. The lawyer would also be familiar with the congressional investigations and criminal investigations that arose out of allegations that China developed and implemented a plan to influence the course of the 1996 presidential election. And, finally, he or she would keep in mind that the Supreme Court recently affirmed in Bluman v. Federal Election Commission the constitutionality of these draconian legal controls.

Federal election law pairs the these prohibitions on foreign national electoral activity with restrictions on the behavior of the would-be U.S. beneficiaries. U.S. nationals, including campaigns, cannot “substantially assist” a foreign national in any of these activities, and Americans cannot solicit, accept or receive any such illegal foreign-national support. Viewed together, these prohibited activities— assistance, solicitation, acceptance, or receipt—certainly capture the essence of what some might understand by references to “collusion.”

From the standpoint of a competent lawyer, the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Kremlin emissaries directly implicates these rules. The Russians did not merely offer information, plucked from the sky: In the first place, they had to have procured it. To have done so would normally require the expenditure of funds “in connection with” a federal election: opposition material assembled on a U.S. presidential candidate. Certainly the Russian traveling party spent money to travel to the United States for the meeting. Both the material they proposed to provide and the expenses associated with creating and arranging to deliver it raise the serious question of in-kind contributions to the campaign. Moreover, the hypothetical campaign lawyer would have to be concerned that urging the campaign to invest its own resources in a specific line of attack on Hillary Clinton would constitute illegal “participation” in the campaign’s decision-making on its own spending.

In addition, the lawyer would consider that any meeting with a foreign government to discuss mutual goals in winning an election could constitute an illegal “solicitation” of unlawful foreign national spending.. The “acceptance” of the meeting could be such a solicitation if the foreign national dangled the possibility of a benefit and the U. S. campaign, in pursuing the discussion, made clear that it was in the market and open for business. The willingness to discuss Russian government support on this one occasion could be an additional ground for exposure under the solicitation ban. By taking the meeting, the campaign would be signaling an interest in whatever the foreign government might have to offer in the future. How much exposure the campaign incurred on this score could depend in part on what was said at the meeting. But it is yet another issue the lawyer would identify in the Russian offer and the American openness to entertaining it.

The campaign counsel would know well that in this area, there is little room for maneuver, and for the standard exploration of “loopholes.” Foreign nationals have no constitutional rights to influence U.S. elections, and so the U.S. national supporting an illegal Russian national scheme would have limited First Amendment rights to claim in its own defense. To take one example, it would not help the American manager of a PAC to appeal to “freedom of speech” in defending a conversation with a foreign national colleague about the choice of candidates for PAC support. It is highly unlikely that a lawyer would conclude that, after all this effort over the years, Congress had designed a statute somehow reasonably interpreted to prevent an individual foreign national from giving a $25 contribution to a campaign but failing, despite all these detailed legal restrictions, prohibit a relationship like the one that the Trump campaign seems to have fashioned with the Putin regime.

All these questions would compel the lawyer to advise in strongest terms against campaign representatives agreeing to meet with a Russian government delegation to hear the “dirt” it claimed to have. And this is the outcome even without bringing into the discussion the lawyer’s option under Rule 2.1 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct to advise on the “political” or “moral” implications of agreeing to the meeting. It is the legal judgment that the lawyer would be virtually required to reach and convey to the client. What does or does not constitute “collusion” would have nothing to do with the legal analysis.

These are only the campaign finance law issues raised by the Trump Tower meeting. There are others presented by the campaign’s course of conduct with the Russians, such as the signaling to the Russians through WikiLeaks—or directly from the candidate—that their hacking and carefully timed distribution of stolen material was welcome and valuable to the Trump candidacy. Evidence of this encouragement and guidance could support a case of illegal “substantial assistance” to the Russian electoral intervention. This assistance was, by any measure, substantial: The Russians were operating with the advantage of direct discussion with the campaign, such as the one at Trump Tower, and other channels of communication that could have guided their understanding of how the campaign might benefit from Russia’s use of online political messaging and the release of stolen materials. A lawyer consulted on actions like these would not have to strain to spot the campaign finance issues in this political alliance.

Of course, the campaign counsel lawyers could know only what the campaign understood of the extent of the Russian electoral activity. They would not have had the benefit of the detailed picture that the Mueller indictments have drawn of the wide-ranging political program directed from the Kremlin and managed by Russian intelligence agencies. But what they would have known would have been more than enough to detect the serious legal issues under federal campaign finance law. Some lawyers in that position might even have responsibly advised that the campaign report the Russian offer to U.S. legal authorities. Even those who rejected that option would have appreciated that the campaign needed to reject the overture from Moscow and create at least an internal record that it had done so.

But then again, Trump and his senior campaign team may not have asked the lawyers for their opinion. They could well have had their reasons: The most obvious and troubling of the possible explanations is that, anticipating a negative response, they may have chosen to proceed without the advice of counsel to pursue victory with Russian help. Then the lawyers would have been consulted only after the fact, to come up with whatever public defense they could devise. This is the road that may have brought the Trump team to this moment—that is, to Rudy Giuliani and the absurd “collusion is not a crime” theory of the president’s case.

Palm Beach County is struggling to close down a floundering charter school called Eagle Arts Academy.

Frustrated so far in their attempts to close Eagle Arts Academy, Palm Beach County public school leaders are going for the nuclear option: an immediate shutdown of the troubled Wellington charter school.

Schools Superintendent Donald Fennoy is proposing to close the school this week, arguing that its financial woes and evident lack of a campus or teaching staff make it unsafe for students.

The school’s “fiscal mismanagement and deteriorating financial condition have reached such a critical point that there now exists an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety and welfare of (Eagle Arts’) students,” Fennoy wrote in a letter to school board members.

Board members are expected to vote Wednesday on the proposal for an “immediate termination” of the school’s charter.

Monday afternoon, the school’s executive director, Gregory Blount, told the school parents via email that it would be “difficult” to reopen the school next month and recommended that they enroll their children in other area charter schools.

The move to close Eagle Arts comes after a series of delays thwarted the district’s first attempt to shut it down before the school year begins Aug. 13. As a charter school, Eagle Arts is publicly financed but operated by a private board of directors.

RELATED: Eagle Arts charter school may reopen despite vote to close it

In March, the school district initiated a gradual shutdown process, one that requires 90 days’ notice and allows the school to remain open if it chooses to appeal.

Eagle Arts appealed the decision and then convinced an administrative judge to twice postpone a hearing in the case. The delays ensured that the school would be able to reopen next month before the case is decided.

This month the school district tried instead to end its monthly payments to the school, but the judge in the case last week ordered that the payments continue.

But the school district had another tool in its belt: an immediate shutdown of the school.

Under state law, the district can immediately close a charter school only if it determines that an “immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the charter school’s students exists.”

Eagle Arts can appeal, but under the law it wouldn’t get to stay open while it does so. The school district could take control of the school, but Fennoy recommends shutting it down instead while any appeal process plays out.

If the school board votes Wednesday to immediately close the school, it’s not clear what becomes of a $255,000 payment that the school district withheld from it this month.

An administrative judge ordered the school district to pay the money by the end of last week, but by Monday the district had not released the money, a school official with knowledge of the case told The Palm Beach Post.

It’s also unclear whether the decision to immediately close the school would override the ongoing appeal, or if the administrative judge overseeing the appeal would attempt to block the board’s new move to close it.

Neither Blount nor a school district spokeswoman responded to requests for comment on the case.

Eagle Arts has been in trouble for a long while, and the law protects the charter, even though it is in financial trouble and has no campus. Why close it down just because it is failing?

For years, Blount has faced criticism for his combative management style and for steering hundreds of thousands of dollars in school funding into his personal businesses.

Once one of the county’s largest charter schools, Eagle Arts’ enrollment plummeted in recent years after a series of scandals and frequent staff turnover. By the end of the last school year, enrollment had fallen to about 273 students.

The district has argued that the school must be closed because it is in “deteriorating financial condition,” has not paid rent for its 13-acre campus since September and is spending “excessive” amounts on administrative salaries while its student enrollment falls.

In making its case to immediately close the school, the school district is citing its latest woes as evidence that it is an unsafe environment for children. The owner of the school’s campus filed an eviction action in June, saying that the school owed it more than $700,000 in unpaid rent.

Okay, so the director puts the school’s money into his personal business. Is that a problem? So it hasn’t paid rent? No problem. The director explained that the test scores are low because the students are visual learners, you know, artistic types.

It must not be a “no excuses” school. It has so many excuses. Open the article for lots of links.

Eagle Arts Academy has been a problem for Palm Beach County for a long while. Last April, the school was struggling to pay its staff, yet paying the executive director for the right to use the name of the school and its logo.

Since June, the financially struggling Wellington charter school has paid at least $42,000 to director Gregory Blount’s company for the right to call itself Eagle Arts Academy and use an eagle logo, website and data-processing system that the company owns, school records reviewed by The Palm Beach Post show.

This charade (joke) has been going on for about two years.

Here are the most recent reports, which include the two above.

July 30 – https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/local-education/pbc-schools-chief-calls-for-immediate-shutdown-eagle-arts-academy/imcd7DdXPVTIYITRpgRblL/

July 17 – https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/local-education/did-eagle-arts-director-steal-church-camera-feud-leads-theft-probe/JVK24WXtdIAoDCmTqUtsEK/

July 10 – https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/local-education/the-school-board-can-close-eagle-arts-cutting-off-its-money/fjXxdbwjURYqMHwPQinQXM/

June 6 – https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/local-education/eagle-arts-charter-school-may-reopen-despite-vote-close/m2VLePcn8kIMqVWMmA0DfM/

May 1 – https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/local-education/eagle-arts-academy-withholds-teachers-pay-for-second-time-month/ts6tgRDgjvCcNev7kpvALO/

April 13 – https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/local-education/despites-worries-eagle-arts-teachers-report-receiving-full-paychecks/tFJU8OOfXsWVIO0gcIyEAK/

April 13 – https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/local-education/while-struggling-pay-staff-eagle-arts-pays-its-leader-for-its-own-name/09EWrdHvSG9QJCxTjfl2nO/

Mercedes Schneider reports that the state of Louisiana has recalibrated letter grades for the state’s schools, which will lead to a dramatic increase in the number of “failing schools.”

The number of A rated schools will decrease by 38%.

The number of F rated schools will increase by 57%.

Ominously, this means that more districts will be eligible for charter schools.

She notes:

“Of course, the great irony here is that most charter schools in Louisiana are concentrated in New Orleans, and 40 percent of those scored D or F in 2017— prior to the anticipated, 57 percent increase in F-graded schools. But in the view of market-based ed reform, it is okay for charter schools have Fs because theoretically, these can be replaced by new charter schools ad infinitum with charter-closure churn being branded as a success.

“In 2010, Louisiana state ed board (BESE) president, Penny Dastugue, commented that “people can relate to letter grades,” implying that letter grades are simple.

“The shifting criteria behind them is not “simple”; it is simplistic, and as such, it is destructive and feeds a joyless, authoritarian, fear-centered atmosphere in schools and systems unfortunate enough to not have access to hefty doses of wealth, privilege, or the capacity for selective admission.”

Dropping grades across the board is a hasty maneuver to drop more schools into the F category so they can be handed off to private corporations.

Please note that, as I have written here on many occasions in the past, giving a letter grade to a school is a very stupid idea. It was pioneered by Jeb Bush in Florida as a way to label schools for state takeover and privatization. Imagine if your child came home with a single letter grade. You would go to the school the next day and raise the roof. What a dumb idea to think that all the facets of your child’s knowledge, skills, interests, activities, and performance could be reduced to a single letter.

Then think of doing the same to a school with 500 students and staff. This is madness. No, it is sheer malevolent stupidity.

Roland G. Fryer and Will Dobbie are economists who study charter schools, among other topics. Fryer’s research has been subsidized heavily by Eli Broad. For several years, he studied the value of incentives in getting students to post higher test scores or read more books.

Most recently Fryer of Harvard and Dobbie of Princeton posted a working paper about the outcomes of charter schools in Texas, which they originally posted in 206. The results are sobering for those who are selling charters as a replacement for public schools, overpromising the benefits of entrepreneurship.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/fryer/publications/charter-schools-and-labor-market-outcomes

The abstract summarizes their findings:

“We estimate the impact of charter schools on early-life labor market outcomes using administrative data from Texas. We find that, at the mean, charter schools have no impact on test scores and a negative impact on earnings. No Excuses charter schools increase test scores and four-year college enrollment, but have a small and statistically insignificant impact on earnings, while other types of charter schools decrease test scores, four-year college enrollment, and earnings. Moving to school-level estimates, we find that charter schools that decrease test scores
also tend to decrease earnings, while charter schools that increase test scores have no discernible impact on earnings. In contrast, high school graduation effects are predictive of earnings effects throughout the distribution of school quality. The paper concludes with a speculative discussion of what might explain our set of facts.”

Stephen Miller’s uncle wrote the story of the family’s arrival in the U.S. in the early 20th century and their success as Americans.

The author is the brother of Stephen’s mother. What he does not explain is how this grandson of immigrants, this child of privilege, became so hateful and bigoted. As a Jew, he embarrasses me. I just did 23&Me. Thank God I’m not related to this vile little man.

The story begins in 1903:

“Let me tell you a story about Stephen Miller and chain migration.

“It begins at the turn of the 20th century in a dirt-floor shack in the village of Antopol, a shtetl of subsistence farmers in what is now Belarus. Beset by violent anti-Jewish pogroms and forced childhood conscription in the Czar’s army, the patriarch of the shack, Wolf-Leib Glosser, fled a village where his forebears had lived for centuries and took his chances in America.

“He set foot on Ellis Island on January 7, 1903, with $8 to his name. Though fluent in Polish, Russian, and Yiddish he understood no English. An elder son, Nathan, soon followed. By street corner peddling and sweat-shop toil Wolf-Leib and Nathan sent enough money home to pay off debts and buy the immediate family’s passage to America in 1906. That group included young Sam Glosser, who with his family settled in the western Pennsylvania city of Johnstown, a booming coal and steel town that was a magnet for other hard-working immigrants. The Glosser family quickly progressed from selling goods from a horse and wagon to owning a haberdashery in Johnstown run by Nathan and Wolf-Leib to a chain of supermarkets and discount department stores run by my grandfather, Sam, and the next generation of Glossers, including my dad, Izzy. It was big enough to be listed on the AMEX stock exchange and employed thousands of people over time. In the span of some 80 years and five decades, this family emerged from poverty in a hostile country to become a prosperous, educated clan of merchants, scholars, professionals, and, most important, American citizens.

“What does this classically American tale have to do with Stephen Miller? Well, Izzy Glosser is his maternal grandfather, and Stephen’s mother, Miriam, is my sister.

“I have watched with dismay and increasing horror as my nephew, who is an educated man and well aware of his heritage, has become the architect of immigration policies that repudiate the very foundation of our family’s life in this country.

“I shudder at the thought of what would have become of the Glossers had the same policies Stephen so coolly espouses— the travel ban, the radical decrease in refugees, the separation of children from their parents, and even talk of limiting citizenship for legal immigrants— been in effect when Wolf-Leib made his desperate bid for freedom. The Glossers came to the U.S. just a few years before the fear and prejudice of the “America First” nativists of the day closed U.S. borders to Jewish refugees. Had Wolf-Leib waited, his family would likely have been murdered by the Nazis along with all but seven of the 2,000 Jews who remained in Antopol. I would encourage Stephen to ask himself if the chanting, torch-bearing Nazis of Charlottesville, whose support his boss seems to court so cavalierly, do not envision a similar fate for him.”

Read the rest of the story.

I recall that Miller wants to admit only those immigrants with skills the country needs and English language. That would have excluded his forebears.

What a terrible man.

Recently we learned that the principal of the Bay Tech Charter School in Oakland gave himself a generous severance package of $450,000, then left for Australia.

Bay Tech is a Gulen School, connected to the reclusive Imam Fethullah Gulen, who lives in seclusion in Pennsylvania while overseeing one of the largest charter chains in the U.S. You can tell a Gulen school by the disproportionate number of Tirkish people on its board and teaching staff. The repressive autocrat Erdogan in Turkey wants to extradite Gulen, claiming j
He fomented a failed rebellion against the government. Critics of Gulen believe he uses the money he extracts from his charter chain to subsidize his movement. I don’t know much about Turkish politics, but I wonder why Turkish citizens are taking control of American public schools, whose first obligation is to teach the duties of American citizenship.

California taxpayers are very generous indeed to those who work in the charter sector.

Now it turns out that the school has been forcing students to pay for their graduation gowns, which is illlegal, and requiring parents to buy tickets for the graduation ceremonies, which is also illegal.

You see, it’s simple. In California, laws are written to regulate public schools, not charter schools. The most powerful lobby in the state is the California Charter Schools Association, and it fights any regulation or accountability or even prohibition of conflicts of interest. And to top it off, Governor Jerry Brown vetoes any legislation that might hold charters accountable or block conflicts of interest. So charters are free not to hold open meetings, free to keep their records secret, free to give contracts to relatives, because Governor Brown protects them from transparency.

What a sad stain on an otherwise great legacy.

Valerie Strauss read Arne Duncan’s book. There is nothing Duncan did or said during his seven years as Secretary of Education that moved us beyond the stale and failed ideas in George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind. In education, W. got another two terms for policies that were wrong from the beginning, based on the erroneous belief that schools and teachers needed to be published if scores don’t go up.

Valerie Strauss has a long memory. She recounts just a few of the times Duncan accused educators or parents of “lying” to students, telling them they were doing better in school than they were. He has a low opinion of our students and their teachers. She notes that he continues to believe that standardized testing is the very best way to gauge how students are faring and whether their teachers are any good.

Duncan seems to believe that calling people “liars” is a successful tactic.

He wasted billions on his “School Improvement Grants” and discounts his own department’s judgement that his ideas failed. His campaign for school choice paved the way for Betsy DeVos and her even bigger campaign for school choice.

She writes:

“Duncan still thinks, apparently, his biggest mistake involved poor communication rather than the substance of the policies. If only the Education Department had better communicators, the states could have convinced everyone that standardized testing is valuable in holding schools and teachers accountable — even though there’s no evidence of that in the testing era that began with the 2002 No Child Left Behind law.

“Let’s be clear: Ample evidence exists that Duncan’s push for annual standardized testing for high-stakes decisions on teachers, students and schools was destructive and in some cases nonsensical. In some places, teachers were evaluated on students they didn’t have and subjects they didn’t teach simply because test scores had to be used as an evaluation metric.

“He still insists the problem was lousy communication.

“Duncan is now focused on gun control and says he has long been concerned about the subject, but he didn’t make it a priority when he was education secretary.

“Back then, he talked about the importance of kids being in class every weekday and supported expanding the school day, but now he is trying to build support for a nationwide strike of public schools until Congress passes comprehensive gun-control legislation. (Given the importance of education to him, it is unclear why he didn’t call for a general strike of workers, while kids and teachers continued to show up at school, but never mind.) He’s been to Parkland, Fla., where 17 people died in a high school shooting, seeking the community’s help with the boycott idea.

“In his book, he wrote that if he could do the education-secretary stint over again, he would push even harder for his policies. It is reminiscent of the insistence by Margaret Spellings, the education secretary under President George W. Bush when No Child Left Behind was passed, that the federal law was great long after its fatal flaws had been revealed to most everyone else.

“Arne Duncan never seems to learn.”

Philip Bump had an article today in the Washington Post explaining that when Trump condemns “all forms of racism,” what he actually means is that hecondemns anti-white racism, which is a peculiar fixation of his base. A graph in the article shows that Trump supporters are more likely to e press concern about anti-white racism than other groups.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/08/12/how-to-understand-trumps-condemnation-of-all-types-of-racism/?utm_term=.f996a49e15d0&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

The article is probably behind a pay wall.

Here are some excerpts.

President Trump on Saturday condemned “all types of racism and acts of violence” on the first anniversary of the deadly white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, calling for the nation to “come together” after a week in which he stoked racial divisions with attacks on black athletes and other minorities….

“I condemn all types of racism and acts of violence,” Trump wrote. “Peace to ALL Americans!”

The remarks stood in stark contrast to Trump’s reaction a year ago — when he declared that “both sides” were to blame for the violence in Charlottesville — and followed a week of racially incendiary statements by the president and allies. Trump insulted the intelligence of NBA star LeBron James and CNN anchor Don Lemon, both of whom are black, reignited his crusade against black football players protesting police brutality and told a group of business leaders that Chinese students studying in the United States were spies….

On his attacks on black athletes, cable news personalities or members of Congress, Trump allies argue that he is merely swinging back at opponents when provoked. White House aides also say Trump loves the attack on National Football League players kneeling for the national anthem and seeks out reasons and stories to tweet about it…

Trump’s political base is overwhelmingly white and older, and he won the 2016 presidential election in part by rallying white voters who do not have college degrees. The perceived erosion of former cultural and economic touchstones — the American flag, the steel and mining industries — were mainstays of his campaign. Immigration, which Trump has called a “disaster,” and the wall he wants to build on the Mexican border are among his most consistent themes. He counts few minorities among his top advisers or friends.

Christopher Malone, a political-science professor and dean of the School of Arts and Sciences at Molloy College, said Trump’s racially charged outbursts are part of a calculated effort to appeal to whites, especially those with a sense of cultural grievance, and is best expressed through his campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again.”

“These are intentional acts, even though people may not see the rhyme or reason to it,” Malone said.

Race is a frequent subtext of Trump’s most prominent crusades, including his long-running feud with black NFL players and his anger at James, who told Lemon in a recent interview that Trump uses sports “to divide us.”

“Lebron James was just interviewed by the dumbest man on television, Don Lemon. He made Lebron look smart, which isn’t easy to do,” Trump wrote on Twitter at 11:37 p.m. on Aug. 3, his first full day here at his New Jersey golf resort.

In a private dinner at his Bedminster club with business executives a few days later, Trump asserted that “almost every student” from China studying in the United States is a spy. And in a pair of tweets on Friday, Trump revived his periodic criticism of NFL players who kneel during the national anthem to protest racial profiling and police brutality.

“Stand proudly for your National Anthem or be Suspended Without Pay!” he tweeted….

Trump has stayed quiet about this weekend’s planned demonstration by potentially hundreds of white nationalists at Lafayette Square, across the street from the White House. He will remain in New Jersey on Sunday.

Trump, several current and former aides said, does not use racial slurs in private or make comments that demean minorities among his aides. Instead, they said, he brags about the record-low African American unemployment rate and talks about what he is doing for black Americans.

But, aides say, he often talks about what his supporters will think of racially tinged issues. After The Washington Post reported that Trump had questioned why the United States was admitting people from “shithole countries” in Africa and Latin America, he decided not to push back against the story because he was not convinced it was a political negative for him, according to aides who spoke with him at the time.

One of Trump’s frequent targets for attack is Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), a black congresswoman whom Trump singled out again during a campaign rally last weekend to boost an Ohio House candidate.

“Maxine, she’s a real beauty, Maxine,” Trump said in Lewis Center, Ohio, during his only out-of-town foray from his Bedminster retreat. “A seriously low I.Q. person. Seriously.”

On Friday, Trump gave a nod to one prominent black supporter, the rapper Kanye West, tweeting that he is “willing to tell the TRUTH.”

“One new and great FACT — African American unemployment is the lowest ever recorded in the history of our Country,” Trump tweeted. “So honored by this. Thank you Kanye for your support. It is making a big difference!”

But Trump’s racially charged statements continued to draw backlash.

Is Betsy DeVos the meanest woman in America?

She has just taken the steps needed to remove protections from students defrauded by predatory for-profit “colleges.”

Like others in the despicable Trump maladministration, DeVos thinks that consumers should fend for themselves. If they get defrauded, it’s their own fault for making a bad choice.

You can see where this is going. Government protects the marketplace, not the consumers. If you happened to get suckered by slick advertising, that’s your fault. Don’t expect the government to police the marketplace. Caveat emptor is your job.

DeVos previously rolled back regulations that allowed students who were defrauded to get a refund.

“Education Secretary Betsy DeVos formally moved Friday to scrap a regulation that would have forced for-profit colleges to prove that the students they enroll are able to attain decent-paying jobs, the most drastic in a series of policy shifts that will free the scandal-scarred, for-profit sector from safeguards put in effect during the Obama era.

“In a written announcement posted on its website, the Education Department laid out its plans to eliminate the so-called gainful employment rule, which sought to hold for-profit and career college programs accountable for graduating students with poor job prospects and overwhelming debt. The Obama-era rule would have revoked federal funding and access to financial aid for poor-performing schools.

“After a 30-day comment period, the rule is expected to be eliminated July 1, 2019. Instead Ms. DeVos would provide students with more data about all of the nation’s higher education institutions — not just career and for-profit college programs — including debt, expected earnings after graduation, completion rates, program cost, accreditation and other measures.

“Students deserve useful and relevant data when making important decisions about their education post-high school,” Ms. DeVos said in a statement. “That’s why instead of targeting schools simply by their tax status, this administration is working to ensure students have transparent, meaningful information about all colleges and all programs. Our new approach will aid students across all sectors of higher education and improve accountability.”

“But in rescinding the rule, the department is eradicating the most fearsome accountability measures — the loss of federal aid — for schools that promise to prepare students for specific careers but fail to prepare them for the job market, leaving taxpayers on the hook to pay back their taxpayer-backed loans.

“The DeVos approach is reversing nearly a decade of efforts to create a tough accountability system for the largely unregulated for-profit sector of higher education. In recent years, large for-profit chains, which offer training for everything from automotive mechanics to cosmetology to cybersecurity, have collapsed under mountains of complaints and lawsuits for employing misleading and deceptive practices.

“The implosions of ITT Technical Institute and Corinthian Colleges generated tens of thousands of complaints from student borrowers who said they were left with worthless degrees. The Obama administration encouraged the expansion of public community colleges as it forgave at least $450 million in taxpayer-funded student debt for for-profit graduates who could not find decent jobs with the degrees or certificates they had earned.

“The regulations passed in the wake of those scandals remade the industry. Since 2010, when the Obama administration began deliberating the rules, more than 2,000 for-profit and career programs — nearly half — have closed, and the industry’s student population has dropped by more than 1.6 million, said Steve Gunderson, the president of Career Education Colleges and Universities, the for-profit industry’s trade association.”

There is a simple principle that every student should think about: Avoid for-profit “Colleges”and “universities.”

Don’t be scammed by the next fake “Trump University.”

This article appeared in the Washington Post on July 21.

LUVERNE, Ala.

Clay Crum opened his Bible to Exodus Chapter 20 and read verse 14 one more time.

“Thou shalt not commit adultery,” it said.

He prayed about what he was going to do. He was the pastor of First Baptist Church in the town of Luverne, Ala., which meant he was the moral leader of a congregation that overwhelmingly supported a president who was an alleged adulterer. For the past six weeks, Crum had been preaching a series of sermons on the Ten Commandments, and now it was time for number seven.

It was summer, and all over the Bible Belt, support for President Trump was rising among voters who had traditionally proclaimed the importance of Christian character in leaders and warned of the slippery slope of moral compromise. In Crenshaw County, where Luverne is located, Trump had won 72 percent of the vote. Recent national polls showed the president’s approval among white evangelical Christians at a high of 77 percent. One survey indicated that his support among Southern Baptists was even higher, surpassing 80 percent, and these were the people arriving on Sunday morning to hear what their pastor had to say.

By 10:30 a.m., the street alongside First Baptist was full of slant-parked cars, and the 80 percenters were walking across the green lawn in the sun, up the stairs, past the four freshly painted white columns and into the church.

“Good to see you this morning,” Crum said, shaking hands as the regulars took their usual places in the wooden pews, and soon, he walked up to the pulpit and opened his King James.

“Today we’re going to be looking at the Seventh Commandment,” Crum began. “Exodus 20:14, the Seventh Commandment, simply says, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery.’ ”

The people settled in. There was the sound of hard candy unwrapping and thin pages of Bibles turning.

***

Congregants leave the First Baptist Church in Luverne, Ala., after a Sunday service.

Clay Crum, the church’s pastor, delivers a sermon. He felt called to create a weekly series based on each of the Ten Commandments.

A shuttered peanut processing facility sits idle on a country road just north of Luverne, a town of 2,700 residents an hour south of Montgomery. (Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post)
The presidency of Donald Trump has created unavoidable moral dilemmas not just for the members of First Baptist in Luverne but for a distinct subset of Christians who are overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly evangelical and more uniformly pro-Trump than any other part of the American electorate.

In poll after poll, they have said that Trump has kept his promises to appoint conservative Supreme Court justices, fight for religious liberty, adopt pro-life policies and deliver on other issues that are high priorities for them.

At the same time, many have acknowledged the awkwardness of being both self-proclaimed followers of Jesus and the No. 1 champions of a president whose character has been defined not just by alleged infidelity but accusations of sexual harassment, advancing conspiracy theories popular with white supremacists, using language that swaths of Americans find racist, routinely spreading falsehoods and an array of casual cruelties and immoderate behaviors that amount to a roll call of the seven deadly sins.

The predicament has led to all kinds of reactions within the evangelical community, from a gathering of pastors in Illinois described as a “call to self-reflection,” to prayer meetings with Trump in Washington, to hours of cable news reckoning in which Southern Baptists have taken the lead.

The megachurch pastor Robert Jeffress has declared that Trump is “on the right side of God” and that “evangelicals know they are not compromising their beliefs in order to support this great president.” Franklin Graham, son of the evangelist Billy Graham, said the only explanation for Trump being in the White House was that “God put him there.”

What you need to know about evangelicals in the Trump era

The label “evangelical Christian” gets thrown around in politics. Here’s a look at how it has evolved and this group’s religious beliefs and political leanings. (Claritza Jimenez, Sarah Pulliam Bailey/The Washington Post)

A few leaders have publicly dissented from such views, aware of the Southern Baptist history of whiffing on the big moral questions of the day — such as during the civil rights era, when most pastors either defended segregation or remained silent. The president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s ethics commission, Russell Moore, asked whether Christians were “really ready to trade unity with our black and brown brothers and sisters for this angry politician?” One prominent black pastor, Lawrence Ware, left the denomination altogether, writing that the widespread reluctance to criticize Trump on racial issues revealed a “deep commitment to white supremacy.” The new president of the Southern Baptist Convention, J.D. Greear, said church culture had “grown too comfortable with power and the dangers that power brings.”

But all those discussions were taking place far from the rank-and-file. The Southern Baptists who filled the pews every Sunday were making their own moral calculations about Trump in the privacy of a thousand church sanctuaries in cities and towns such as Luverne, population 2,700, an hour south of the state capital of Montgomery.

It was a place where it was hard to drive a mile in any direction without passing some church or sign about the wages of sin, where conversations about politics happened in nodding circles before Sunday school, or at the Chicken Shack after, and few people paid attention to some national Southern Baptist leader.

What mattered in Luverne was the redbrick church with the tall white steeple that hovered over the tidy green lawns and gardens of town. First Baptist was situated along Luverne’s main street, next to the post office and across from the county courthouse, a civic position that had always conferred on its pastors a moral authority now vested in Clay Crum.

“A fine Christian man,” was how the mayor referred to him.

“He just makes everybody feel like he loves ’em,” said a member of First Baptist.

And the members of First Baptist loved their pastor back. They had hired him in July 2015, a month after Trump began campaigning for president and courting evangelicals by declaring that Christianity is “under siege” and “the Bible is the best.” A church committee had sifted through dozens of résumés from Florida and Missouri and as far away as Michigan and out of all of them they had picked Crum, a former truck driver from right down the road in Georgiana.

“As Southern Baptists in this small town, we want our leader to believe like we do,” said Terry Drew, who had chaired the search committee, and three years later, Crum was meeting their highest expectations of what a good Southern Baptist pastor should be.

He kept up with the prayer list. He did all his visits, the nursing homes and the shut-ins. He wore a lapel pin in the shape of two tiny baby feet as a reminder of what he saw as the pure evil of abortion. And when Sunday morning came, he delivered his sermons straight out of an open Bible, no notes, and it wasn’t unusual for him to cry.

“He is just really sincere,” said Jewell Killough, who had been a member of First Baptist for four decades, and as Crum stood at the front of the congregation now and looked out, hers was one of the faces looking back.

***

After a service, children unleash their exuberance while Crum acknowledges a member of his church.

Terry Drew, a deacon at the church, has struggled with his assessment of President Trump’s morality. “We don’t like it,” he said, “but we look at the alternative, and think it could be worse than this.”

She always sat in the center row, fifth pew from the front, right in line with the pulpit. Jewell Killough was 82, and as Crum had gone through the first six commandments Sunday after Sunday, she had not yet heard anything to dissuade her from believing that Trump was being used by God to save America.

“Oh, I feel like the Lord heard our prayers and gave us a second chance before the end times,” she had said a few days before, when she was working at the food pantry of the Alabama Crenshaw Baptist Association.

It was a low-brick house where the Baptists kept stacks of pamphlets about abstaining from premarital sex, alcohol, smoking and other behaviors they felt corrupted Christian character, which was not something Jewell worried about with Trump.

“I think they are trying to frame him,” she said, referring to the unflattering stories about the president.

By “they,” she meant liberals and others she believed were not only trying to undermine Trump’s agenda, but God’s agenda for America, which she believed was engaged in a great spiritual contest between good and evil, God and Satan, the saved and the unsaved, for whom God had prepared two places.

There was Heaven: “Most say it’s gonna be 15,000 miles wide and that high,” Jewell said. “We don’t know whether when it comes down how far it will come, if it’s gonna come all the way or if there will be stairs. We don’t know that. But it’s gonna be suitable to each person. You know that old song, ‘Lord, build me a cabin in the corner of Gloryland?’ See, that’s not right. It’s not gonna be you have a cabin over here and I have one over there. It’s gonna be suitable to each person. So, whatever makes me happy. I like birds. So outside my window, there will be birds.”

And there was Hell: “Each person is gonna be on an islandlike place, and fire all around it. And they’re gonna be in complete darkness, and over time, your eyes will go. And worms’ll eat on you. It’s a terrible place, the way the Bible describes it.”

It was a binary world, not just for Jewell Killough but for everyone sitting inside the sanctuary of First Baptist Church, who prayed all the time about how to navigate it.

There were Brett and Misty Green, who sat a few rows behind Jewell, and said that besides reading the Bible or listening to Pastor Crum, prayer was the only way to sort out what was godly and what was satanic.

“Satan is the master magician,” said Misty, 32, a federal court worker.

“The father of lies,” said Brett, 33, a land surveyor, who was sitting with his wife and his Bible one evening in the church’s fellowship hall, a large beige room with accordion partitions that separated the men’s and ladies’ Sunday school classes.

“That’s why we have the Holy Spirit,” Brett said, explaining it was “like a gut feeling” that told him what to do in morally confusing situations, which had included the election, when the spirit had told him to vote for Trump, even though something the president allegedly said since then had given Brett pause. It was when Trump was discussing immigration, and reportedly asked, “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries coming here?”

“Jesus Christ was born in Nazareth, and Nazareth was a shithole at that time,” Brett said. “Someone might say, ‘How could anything good come out of a place like that?’ Well, Jesus came out of a place like that.”

Other things bothered Misty. Crum had preached a few Sundays before about the Third Commandment — “Thou shalt not take the Lord’s name in vain” — but as Misty saw it, Trump belittled God and all of God’s creation when he called people names like “loser” and “stupid.”

“A lot of his actions I don’t agree with,” Misty said. “But we are not to judge.”

What a good Christian was supposed to do was pray for God to work on Trump, who was after all pro-life, and pro-Israel, and pro-all the positions they felt a Christian nation should be taking. And if they were somehow wrong about Trump, said Misty, “in the end it doesn’t really matter.”

“A true Christian doesn’t have to worry about that,” said Brett, explaining what any good Southern Baptist heard at church every Sunday, which was that Jesus had died on the cross to wash away their sins, defeat death and provide them with eternal life in heaven.

“I think about it all the time, what it’s gonna be like,” she said.

“I know we’ll have new bodies,” said Brett. “We’ll be like Christ, it says.”

There was Jack Jones, who sat behind the pulpit in the choir, and was chairman of the deacons, the church leaders who tried to set a Christian example by mowing lawns for the homebound, building front door ramps for the elderly and maintaining standards in their own ranks.

“We stick strictly to the Bible that a divorced man is not able to be a deacon,” said Jack, who said it was uncomfortable being such a Bible stickler and supporting a president alleged to have committed adultery with a porn star.

“It’s difficult, that’s for sure,” he said, sitting with his wife in the church basement.

The way he and Linda had come to think of it, Trump was no worse than a long list of other American presidents from the Founding Fathers on.

“George Washington had a mistress,” Linda said. “Thomas Jefferson did, too. Roosevelt had a mistress with him when he died. Eisenhower. Kennedy.”

“None of ’em are lily white,” said Jack.

What was important was not the character of the president but his positions, they said, and one mattered more than all the others.

“Abortion,” said Linda, whose eyes teared up when she talked about it.

Trump was against it. It didn’t matter that two decades ago he had declared himself to be “very pro-choice.” He was now saying “every life totally matters,” appointing antiabortion judges and adopting so many antiabortion policies that one group called him “the most pro-life president in history.”

It was the one political issue on which First Baptist had taken a stand, a sin one member described as “straight from the pits of Hell,” and which Crum had called out when he preached on “Thou shalt not kill” the Sunday before, reminding the congregation about the meaning of his tiny lapel pin. “It’s the size of a baby’s feet at ten weeks,” he had said.

There was Terry Drew, who sat in the seventh pew on the left side, who knew and agreed with Trump’s position, and knew that supporting him involved a blatant moral compromise.

“I hate it,” he said. “My wife and I talk about it all the time. We rationalize the immoral things away. We don’t like it, but we look at the alternative, and think it could be worse than this.”

The only way to understand how a Christian like him could support a man who boasted about grabbing women’s crotches, Terry said, was to understand how he felt about the person Trump was still constantly bringing up in his speeches and who loomed large in Terry’s thoughts: Hillary Clinton, whom Terry saw as “sinister” and “evil” and “I’d say, of Satan.”

“She hates me,” Terry said, sitting in Crum’s office one day. “She has contempt for people like me, and Clay, and people who love God and believe in the Second Amendment. I think if she had her way it would be a dangerous country for the likes of me.”

As he saw it, there was the issue of Trump’s character, and there was the issue of Terry’s own extinction, and the choice was clear.

“He’s going to stick to me,” Terry said.

So many members of First Baptist saw it that way.

There was Jan Carter, who sat in the 10th pew center, who said that supporting Trump was the only moral thing to do.

“You can say righteously I do not support him because of his moral character but you are washing your hands of what is happening in this country,” she said, explaining that in her view America was slipping toward “a civil war on our shores.”

There was her friend Suzette, who sat in the fifth pew on the right side, and who said Trump might be abrasive “but we need abrasive right now.”

And there was Sheila Butler, who sat on the sixth pew on the right side, who said “we’re moving toward the annihilation of Christians.”

She was 67, a Sunday school teacher who said this was the only way to understand how Christians like her supported Trump.

“Obama was acting at the behest of the Islamic nation,” she began one afternoon when she was getting her nails done with her friend Linda. She was referring to allegations that President Barack Obama is a Muslim, not a Christian — allegations that are false. “He carried a Koran and it was not for literary purposes. If you look at it, the number of Christians is decreasing, the number of Muslims has grown. We allowed them to come in.”

“Obama woke a sleeping nation,” said Linda.

“He woke a sleeping Christian nation,” Sheila corrected.

Linda nodded. It wasn’t just Muslims that posed a threat, she said, but all kinds of immigrants coming into the country.

“Unpapered people,” Sheila said, adding that she had seen them in the county emergency room and they got treated before her. “And then the Americans are not served.”

Love thy neighbor, she said, meant “love thy American neighbor.”

Welcome the stranger, she said, meant the “legal immigrant stranger.”

“The Bible says, ‘If you do this to the least of these, you do it to me,’ ” Sheila said, quoting Jesus. “But the least of these are Americans, not the ones crossing the border.”

Sheila Butler teaches a Sunday school class at the church. “I believe God put him there,” she said of the president. “He put a sinner in there.” She also fears the “annihilation of Christians.”

To her, this was a moral threat far greater than any character flaw Trump might have, as was what she called “the racial divide,” which she believed was getting worse. The evidence was all the black people protesting about the police, and all the talk about the legacy of slavery, which Sheila never believed was as bad as people said it was. “Slaves were valued,” she said. “They got housing. They got fed. They got medical care.”

She was suspicious of what she saw as the constant agitation of blacks against whites, the taking down of Confederate memorials and the raising of others, such as the new memorial to the victims of lynching, just up the highway in Montgomery.

“I think they are promoting violence,” Sheila said, thinking about the 800 weathered, steel monoliths hanging from a roof to evoke the lynchings, one for each American county where the violence was carried out, including Crenshaw County, where a man named Jesse Thornton was lynched in 1940 in downtown Luverne.

“How do you think a young black man would feel looking at that?” Linda asked. “Wouldn’t you feel a sickness in your stomach?”

“I think it would only make you have more violent feelings — feelings of revenge,” said Sheila.

It reminded her of a time when she was a girl in Montgomery, when the now-famous civil rights march from Selma was heading to town and her parents, fearing violence, had sent her to the country to stay with relatives.

“It’s almost like we’re going to live that Rosa Parks time again,” she said, referring to the civil rights activist. “It was just a scary time, having lived through it.”

She thought an all-out race war was now in the realm of possibility. And that was where she had feared things were heading, right up until election night, when she and Linda and everyone they knew were praying for God to save them. And God sent them Donald Trump.

“I believe God put him there,” Sheila said. “He put a sinner in there.”

God was using Trump just like he had used the Apostle Paul, she said.

“Paul had murdered Christians and he went on to minister to many, many people,” Sheila said. “I think he’s being molded by God for the role. I think he’s the right man for the right time. It’s about the survival of the Christian nation.”

“We are in mortal danger,” Linda said.

“We are in a religious war,” Sheila said.

Linda nodded.

“We may have to fight and die for our faith,” Sheila said. “I hope it doesn’t come to that, but if it does, we will.”

She rubbed her sore knee, which was caked with an analgesic.

“In heaven, I won’t have any pain,” Sheila said.

“No tears,” said Linda.

“I think it’ll be beautiful — I love plants, and I think it’ll be like walking in a beautiful garden,” said Sheila.

“Have you ever been out at night and looked at the stars?” said Linda. “That’s the floor of heaven, and heaven is going to be so much more beautiful than the floor.”

“I’m going to be in my kitchen,” Sheila said, imagining heaven would have one. “I think it’s going to be beautiful to see all the appliances.”

It was hard to know what a good Christian should do in the meantime, Sheila said, and that was why Clay Crum was so important. He had been inspiring her with sermons all summer, including the Sunday before Memorial Day, when he had everybody stand up and not only pledge allegiance to the American flag but to the Christian flag and the Bible.

“I see Clay as my leader,” Sheila said. “Clay just knows what we need on any given day.”

***

Arthur Getz’s 1942 mural “Cotton Field,” commissioned by the U.S. government, is installed at the Luverne post office. (Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post)
He had gotten through “Thou shalt not kill” the Sunday before. It was not easy. There were veterans in the congregation. Crum had to explain how God could command people not to kill in one part of the Bible, yet demand a massacre in another.

“God does not want you to kill on your terms, he wants you to kill on his terms,” he had concluded in his sermon. “So let’s promote Jesus in life. Let’s not kill. Unless it’s absolutely necessary.”

Now he sat in his office, where there was a metal cross on the wall and three Bibles on his desk and prayed about what the Lord wanted him to say.

“Thou shalt not commit adultery,” he read again.

“How can I get people to see the whole picture?” he asked himself.

What was the whole picture?

There had been a time before he became a pastor when Crum saw things differently. He saw the pastor of his childhood church stealing money, and as he got older, he saw deacons having affairs, Christians behaving in hateful ways and finally he came to see it all as a big sham.

“I thought it was very hypocritical,” he said. “That they pretend. That it’s all a show.”

He gave up on church. He started drinking some and went a little wild, dabbling in world religions and having his own thoughts about the meaning of life until one day when he was listening to Christian radio on a truck haul. He remembered the preacher talking about salvation and suddenly feeling unsure of his own.

“So I just prayed to the Lord while I was driving,” he said. “I want to be sure.”

The next Sunday, he began attending a Southern Baptist church near Luverne, where he was asked one Wednesday night to step in for the absent pastor and deliver a prayer.

He had just gotten off work. His back hurt. His feet hurt. He was exhausted and as he began to pray, something came over him. He started crying and begging God to forgive him for his rebellion, and by the end of it, Clay Crum had found a new profession. He felt God was telling him to go into the ministry, and 10 years later, here he was, the pastor of First Baptist church who had gotten to where he could discern the voice of God all the time.

“It’s not an audible voice,” Crum said. “We all have a million thoughts that come in our head every day. You got to know which are from God.”

He was sure that it had been the voice of God that told him to preach on the Ten Commandments. It would be a series on “the seriousness of morality,” Crum decided, because to him, the biggest problem in society was that “people do not want to own the wrong they do.”

“They want to excuse their actions by explaining them away,” he said. “They want to talk generally: ‘I know I’m a sinner.’ Well, what is the sin?”

And it was the same voice of God that had led Crum to vote the same way most of his congregation had voted in one of the most morally confusing elections of his lifetime.

“A crossroads time,” Crum called it.

He did not feel great about voting for Trump, who had called the holy communion wafer “my little cracker,” who had said his “favorite book” was the Bible, that his favorite biblical teaching was “an eye for an eye,” and who had courted evangelical Christians by saying, “I love them. They love me.”

“It’s a hard thing to reconcile,” Crum said. “I really do struggle with it.”

He knew what the Bible had to say about Trump’s behavior.

“You’re committing adultery, that’s sinful. You’re being sexually abusive to women, that’s wrong. Any of those things. You can go on and on,” Crum said. “All those things are immoral.”

He thought about whether Trump could do anything that might require the moral leader of Luverne to abandon his support, or criticize the president publicly.

“There are times when Christians have to stand up,” said Crum.

The dilemma was that Trump was an immoral person doing what Crum considered to be moral things. The conservative judges. The antiabortion policies. And something else even more important to a small Southern Baptist congregation worried about their own annihilation.

“It encouraged them that we do still have some political power in this country,” said Crum.

When he prayed about it, that was what the voice of God had told him. The voice reminded Crum that God always had a hand in elections. The voice told him that God used all kinds of people to do his will.

“Nebuchadnezzar,” Crum said, citing the pagan king of Babylon who was advised by godly men to tear down an old corrupt order. “Even sometimes bad leaders are used by God.”

He had wondered at times about the idea that God had chosen Trump, and the opposite, the possibility that God had nothing to do with Trump at all. He wondered about it again now, his Bible bookmarked to the 14th verse of Exodus Chapter 20 for the sermon.

“It’s a hard thing to reconcile,” he said. “I think ultimately God allowed him to become president for reasons we don’t fully know yet.”

***

Jacob Smiley, 10, picks up his pace to make a green light as he approaches a crosswalk in downtown Luverne. (Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post)
Sunday came, and the followers of Donald Trump took their usual seats in the sanctuary.

“Hey, sugarfoot,” Sheila Butler said to one of her Sunday school ladies.

“Morning,” Crum said, welcoming the regulars.

They settled into the seafoam-green cushions along the wooden pews, some of which also had back cushions to make them more comfortable. They opened old Bibles bookmarked with birthday cards and photos of grandchildren, and after they all sang “I was sinking deep into sin, far from the peaceful shore,” Crum walked up to the podium to deliver the sermon God had told him to deliver.

“What is adultery?” Crum began.

Jewell Killough was listening.

“Adultery, simply stated, is a breach of commitment,” Crum said. “When one person turns their back on a commitment that they made and seeks out something else to fulfill themselves.”

He talked about the dangers of temporary satisfaction, of looking at “anything unclean,” and in the choir behind him, Jack Jones nodded. He talked about other kinds of adultery, such as “hardheartedness” and avoiding personal responsibility.

“See, we don’t want to look at ourselves,” Crum said. “We don’t want to say, ‘I’m part of the problem.’”

Someone in the congregation coughed. Someone unwrapped a caramel candy.

“The purpose of the commandment is so we can see the sin, so we can repent of the sin and then fully experience the complete grace of god,” he said. “But only when we admit it. Only when we repent of it. And only when we return to him by faith.”

He was at the end of his sermon. If he was going to say anything about Trump, or presidents, or politicians, or how having a Christian character was important for the leader of the United States, now was the time. His Bible was open. He was preaching without notes.

He looked out at all the faces of people who felt threatened and despised in a changing America, who thought Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were sent by Satan to destroy them, and that Donald Trump was sent by God to protect them, and who could always count on Clay Crum to remind them of what they all believed to be the true meaning of Jesus Christ — that he died to forgive all of their sins, to save them from death and secure their salvation in a place that was 15,000 miles wide, full of gardens, appliances, and a floor of stars.

Not now, he decided. Not yet. He closed his Bible. He had one last thing to say to them before the sermon was over.

“Let us pray.”

“Amen,” someone in the congregation said.