Saturday, May 16, 2026

Something to Know - 16 May


Religious beliefs, theology, and church affiliations have been featured topics lately.   Pope Leo's public airing of responses to statements and actions by Donald Trump on the internet certainly drew much attention.   For sure, Donald Trump seemed to try and co-op the religious right of Christianity as his crass branded modus operandi for influencing his political messaging.   There is the disingenuous hypocrisy of his political messaging, and then there exists a hypocrisy of a church movement that contains a political element in its structure.   David French of the NY Times developed this story:




I Don’t Think You Can Even Call This Hypocrisy

May 14, 2026
An illustration of a man looming over a small church.
Credit...George Douglas

By David French

Opinion Columnist

I just read a remarkable article that helped me make sense of our times.

It’s by an investigative journalist named Robert Downen, and it appeared in Texas Monthly. It tells the tale of one of the most powerful American religious leaders of the 20th century.

And chances are, you’ve never heard of him.

His name was Paul Pressler. I wrote about him more than two years ago when the Southern Baptist Convention settled a sex abuse suit filed against him by Duane Rollins, who claimed that Pressler had repeatedly raped him, beginning when Rollins was 14 years old.

Pressler, who died in June 2024, was a former Texas judge, an influential lawyer and one of the leading architects of the so-called conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention, by far the nation’s largest Protestant denomination.

In evangelical America, the story of this conservative resurgence is the stuff of legend. The popular story goes like this: At the onset of the sexual revolution, Southern Baptists, like many mainline denominations, were beginning to fall under the sway of liberal theologians and potentially drifting away from biblical Christianity. While the convention was still overwhelmingly conservative, theological liberals were present in the convention, including in Southern Baptist seminaries.

But in 1967, Pressler met with a young Southern Baptist pastor and seminary student named Paige Patterson at Cafe du Monde, a famous coffeehouse in the French Quarter in New Orleans. The two men vented their frustrations about what they saw as their denomination’s liberal drift and vowed to take action.

They didn’t outline a specific plan that night, but they left with an immense amount of conviction and resolve.

They spent the next few decades waging a relentless theological and political war within the denomination. It’s been called the Battle for the Bible. Along with a considerable number of allies, they purged theological liberals from the denomination, especially from its seminaries.

Their tactics could be ruthless. For example, they encouraged seminarians to report on their liberal professors, as part of an effort to expose them and purge them. They recruited lay members of Southern Baptist congregations to put pressure on pastors and church leaders to toe the conservative line.

But the conservative resurgence wasn’t just theological. Pressler was also closely connected to the Republican Party. In 1981 he joined the Council for National Policy, a group that Downen accurately described as a “secretive network of conservative religious, political and business elites.”

By the late 1980s, Pressler was the president of the council, and in 1989, President George H.W. Bush nominated him to lead the Office of Government Ethics.

In 1990 the conservative resurgence was strong enough to deliver, in Downen’s words, a “knockout blow” against the denomination’s remaining liberals and moderates. The church elected Morris Chapman, a conservative pastor, as president of the convention, “all but ensuring that majorities of the denomination’s various trustee boards would be appointees of the conservative movement.”

(The Southern Baptist Church refers to itself as a convention rather than a denomination because its churches are largely autonomous. As The Baptist Press explains, “The Southern Baptist Convention is most technically an annual convening of messengers from invested and involved Baptist churches rather than a perpetual denominational body.”)

Conservatives would now be able to exercise “total control over the S.B.C.’s seminaries and bureaucracy.” For their victory lap, Pressler and Patterson returned to Cafe du Monde to recreate their meeting 23 years before.

This revolution, conservatives believe, didn’t just save the convention; it helped fuel extraordinary growth. While the membership of liberal denominations declined, sometimes precipitously, the Southern Baptist Convention grew, hitting a peak of more than 16.3 million people in 2006. (The denomination’s membership has declined every year since its high-water mark. As of 2025, roughly 12.3 million Americans belonged to Southern Baptist churches.)

To many evangelicals, the lessons were clear. The denomination’s religious and political conservatism were key to its growth. God was blessing the faithful, and as the more liberal denominations declined, he was turning away from the faithless.

But that’s not the full story — not by a long shot. As Downen detailed in page after painful page, there was an overwhelming amount of evidence that Pressler was a morally corrupt and abusive man.

He was, for example, a Confederate apologist, a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Reflecting on the conservative resurgence, Pressler said, “It was like Gettysburg, but this time the right side won.” And in 2016, as one of his last public interventions in Southern Baptist business, he tried to argue against a resolution that condemned the use of the Confederate flag.

But by far the most serious claims against Pressler involve allegations that he sexually abused young men and boys.

The earliest known reports of Pressler’s abuse date back to the 1970s, when he was working with young people at a Presbyterian church in Texas. According to court records, the church removed him after learning of an “alleged incident” at his home involving a young member of the church. A former youth group member later claimed that Pressler grabbed him and fondled his penis when they were alone in a country club sauna.

Rumors about Pressler might, in fact, have caused him to withdraw his name from Senate consideration for head of the Office of Government Ethics. As Downen reported, “In a 2005 letter, Patterson acknowledged that Pressler’s nomination was scuttled by a ‘charge of homosexual behavior’ made to the F.B.I. by Abner McCall, a past Baylor University president.” Pressler used this incident to turn himself, in Downen’s words, into a “victim of vengeful liberals who would do anything to destroy God-fearing men.”

But questions about Pressler persisted. In 2004 the First Baptist Church of Houston investigated claims that Pressler had tried to pressure a man in his 20s to pray with him naked and then forcibly undressed and groped the man. The church wrote a private letter to Pressler calling his conduct “morally and spiritually inappropriate.”

The most chilling part of Downen’s report described Pressler’s relationship with his law partner, a far-right Texas Republican, Jared Woodfill.

According to sworn statements by Woodfill, he knew about allegations against Pressler yet — incredibly — stood by while their firm granted Pressler extraordinary access to young men. As Downen wrote, “Instead of giving Pressler a salary, the firm paid a string of young, male personal assistants to work out of Pressler’s home, according to Woodfill’s testimony.”

This arrangement lasted, Downen wrote, until at least 2017, “when a personal assistant, in an email addressed to Pressler’s family, wrote that he had recently heard Pressler brag about being naked with young boys and saw him pressure a young, destitute man into giving him a nude massage for money while kissing him repeatedly.”

Again, it’s worth repeating that these allegations followed Pressler for decades. Yet he retained his power. He retained his influence. For all too many Baptists, the ends justified the means.

Or, as the leaders of First Baptist Church of Houston wrote to Pressler, “Given your stature and various leadership roles in our church, the Southern Baptist Convention and other Christian organizations, it is our considered opinion that this kind of behavior, if brought to light, might distort your testimony or cause others to stumble. We desire neither.”

In this context, “testimony” refers to Pressler’s public religious example. Here the church is saying that exposing Pressler’s misdeeds would “distort” his public Christian credibility.

Downen’s story is notable not just for its focus on Pressler. Patterson, Pressler’s key partner in the conservative resurgence, faced his own scandals. In 2018 the trustees of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary forced Patterson out of the presidency after a widely read open letter condemned him for horribly mistreating women who claimed that they’d been raped or abused.

In one case, he is said to have told a seminarian who stated that she’d been raped to forgive her attacker and urged her not to contact the police. In another, he wrote in an email to campus security that he wanted to meet with a woman who said she’d been raped, to “break her down.”

Patterson, Pressler and Woodfill denied all wrongdoing.

Trust me when I tell you that I’m barely scratching the surface of Downen’s report. It’s agonizing to read. But instead of diving even more deeply into the sordid details, I thought I’d try to answer a question: Why does all this matter now?

The best way to describe the Baptist reaction to Downen’s report was a giant collective yawn. Some people considered the report to be nothing more than a liberal hit piece. Others took a different approach, maintaining that the conservative resurgence was good, even if its leaders were abusive and bad.

But here’s the problem with that second line of thought: Institutions take on the character of their leaders, and political evangelicalism can look much more like Paul Pressler than Jesus Christ. Political evangelicalism is a system that is deeply influenced by depraved men, and it has exactly the features that depraved men will demand of an institution they control.

First, the depraved man will alter the very definition of virtue. He’ll place a higher premium on his thoughts than his actions, so that the goal is theological or ideological purity rather than, say, the fruit of the spirit, which includes kindness, peace, patience, gentleness and self-control.

In this formulation, the absolute worst thing you can be is a heretic, with heresy defined according to the leader’s inflexible interpretation of Scripture.

You can see this temptation across the length and breadth of American religion and politics. How many people see themselves as good because their theology or ideology is pure? How many of the same people then feel righteous even as they inflict extreme cruelty on their theological or ideological foes? To them, cruelty in the name of truth isn’t cruelty at all; it’s a form of tough love.

Second, depraved men are intensely vulnerable to scrutiny, so they hate inquiry and accountability. They’ll create secretive institutions that zealously guard their privacy and autonomy. And when accountability comes, it’s treated like martyrdom. Instead of facing justice for their misdeeds, they act as if they’re the victims of a hostile, unbelieving world.

The media becomes the enemy. So does anyone who challenges the leaders, including even sex abuse survivors. Their cries for help are viewed not as righteous pleas for justice but as malicious attacks on the church and God’s anointed leaders.

The stark reality of this depravity is hidden from millions of evangelicals, including millions of Southern Baptists. They love God and their neighbors and live lives far removed from politics. You would want them next door. You would find much to admire in the way they raise their children and serve their communities.

They almost all vote Republican, but for many, it’s as much a matter of habit as it is a matter of deeply held conviction. It’s what you do when you go to an evangelical church. It’s part of how you fit into the community you love.

As a result, many Christians, maybe most, are completely unaware of the cruelty inflicted on political dissenters in Jesus’ name. And to the extent that they read about scandals within evangelicalism, they read it in right-wing media, which constantly denies, defends and deflects. They are genuinely shocked when they finally hear the truth.

It’s to the great credit of the denomination that thousands of its messengers (the convention’s term for delegates) voted in 2021 to initiate an outside investigation of the Southern Baptist Convention executive committee’s response to sexual abuse allegations. The committee even voted to waive its attorney-client privilege so that the investigation would be thorough and complete.

In 2022, Guidepost Solutions, the outside investigator hired by the executive committee, released a searing report that said survivors and others who reported abuse “were ignored, disbelieved or met with the constant refrain that the S.B.C. could take no action due to its policy regarding church autonomy — even if it meant that convicted molesters continued in ministry with no notice or warning to their current church or congregation.”

But Pressler’s cultural impact remains far too strong. The denomination created an Abuse Reform Implementation Task Force, but it closed its doors in 2024 with its work incomplete. Sex abuse survivors have faced a storm of criticism. Many despair of ever achieving lasting change.

The modern history of political evangelicalism is riddled with the same kind of story: A powerful man gains a following by casting himself as the heroic warrior against the heretical and the godless. When he uses his power and fame to indulge his basest desires, he treats exposure as an attack and justice as persecution.

And because he’s built a following, he has an army of people ready to leap to his defense. After all, if they stay silent, then the liberals will win, and no one can let the liberals win. Ever.

Against this backdrop, President Trump wasn’t an aberration; he was an inevitability. When he asked evangelicals for their political support, little did he know that he was walking into the house that Paul Pressler built.

--
****
Juan Matute
R.B.R.
C.C.R.C.


Thursday, May 14, 2026

Andy Borowitz


The Borowitz Report borowitzreport@substack.com 

4:13 AM (4 hours ago)
to me
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more
CFOTO/Future Publishing via Getty Images

SHANGHAI (The Borowitz Report)—Donald J. Trump accomplished what he called “the main goal” of his trip to China on Thursday by inspecting the printing plant where his $60 Trump Bibles are printed.

Accompanied by Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump said he wanted “to be sure that the Chinese printed the lyrics to ‘God Bless the USA’ right, because those are Jesus’s most important words.”

President Xi praised his American counterpart, telling him, “You have created more Chinese jobs than I have.”

Trump cancelled plans to visit the factory that manufactures gold Trump Mobile phones after learning that it did not exist.


--
****
Juan Matute
R.B.R.
C.C.R.C.


Something to Know - 14 May

Here's one for you.   This could be considered a screen play for an upcoming movie.   First, let's call it "Anatomy of a Heist" or "Constitutional Con Job".   The story line follows something like this:

Between his 45th and 47th gigs, Trump decided to sue the IRS claiming $10 billion in damages for leaking some of his tax information.   When Trump 47 starts work, he appoints and installs loyal sycophants into key positions in his cabinet and appointed offices.   The lawsuit's trail lands on the desk of a federal judge who is trying to determine the merits of a case where the defendant (IRS) and a government employee (Trump).    Deliberations and opinions are flying all over the place, and one scenario results in Trump ruling on a case where he is both defendant and victim.   Trump, along with his key appointees at the IRS and the Department of Justice, may work out an out-of-court settlement that would prevent the IRS from auditing any member of the Trump family in the future while still allowing the money to flow to Trump.   The money would be the biggest grift of his presidency.  Bigger than Trump Steaks, Trump University, Trump Bibles, Trump sneakers, etc.   The money to Trump would come directly from the Treasury Department, funded by our income tax payments.   It would be the ultimate Con job.   Right now, Trump is in China making deals, bringing family members and corporate executives along to secure deals for their businesses.   It's all about money for Trump and his megadonors.   Oh, and don't forget that China holds much of our Treasury notes, which fund our government.  Effectively, those notes will finance the $10 billion payment to Trump. Financial institutions buy those notes; they are also the entities that lend money for investments, credit cards, and mortgages.   That payment comes directly out of your wallet.    

Isn't MAGA great?



Justice Dept. Officials Consider Settling Trump Suit Against I.R.S.

One of the settlement terms under review is for the I.R.S. to drop any audits of the president, his family members and businesses.


President Trump sued the Internal Revenue Service in January over the leak of his tax returns during his first term.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times



By Andrew Duehren and Alan Feuer

Andrew Duehren covers the I.R.S., and Alan Feuer writes about the Justice Department.

May 12, 2026



The Justice Department is holding internal discussions about settling President Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service in the coming days, according to three people familiar with the deliberations, a move that could involve the government’s directly providing taxpayer funds or another public benefit to the president.

Whether to settle the suit and on what terms remains up in the air. One of the settlement options the Justice Department and White House officials are reviewing is the possibility of the I.R.S. dropping any audits of Mr. Trump, his family members or businesses, according to two of the people.

In January, Mr. Trump, along with two of his sons and the Trump family business, sued the Internal Revenue Service for at least $10 billion over the leak of their tax returns during the president’s first term. The Trumps argued that the I.R.S. should have done more to prevent a former contractor from disclosing tax information to The New York Times and ProPublica.

Given that Mr. Trump oversees the I.R.S., the agency that he is suing, the judge in the case has taken a series of novel legal steps to probe whether there is a genuine controversy between the Justice Department and Mr. Trump. For a lawsuit to be valid, the two parties must actually be on opposite sides; otherwise, the judge can throw out the case. The judge has ordered Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers — along with the Justice Department, which represents the I.R.S. in federal court — to submit briefs by May 20 explaining whether they are in conflict with one another.



White House and Justice Department officials have in recent days been exploring ways to potentially settle the suit before that deadline, according to the people.

Mr. Trump has long maintained that the federal government was weaponized against him by political opponents, and he has spent much of his second term seeking retribution against, and sometimes compensation from, those he holds responsible. But depending on its terms, a settlement with the I.R.S. could be among Mr. Trump’s most brazen efforts to bend the government to his personal will — an agenda often carried out through the Justice Department.

Mr. Trump and his family have repeatedly disregarded Washington’s ethical guardrails aimed at preventing government officials from profiting from public office, including by pushing for more than $200 million in a separate administrative case with the Justice Department. But a settlement payment even a fraction of the size of Mr. Trump’s requested $10 billion could be much larger than his other attempts at private gain, potentially doubling his net worth.

The Justice Department declined to comment. The White House referred questions to Mr. Trump’s lawyers in the case, a spokesman for whom said, “President Trump continues to hold those who wrong America and Americans accountable.”

In a previous filing in the case, Mr. Trump’s lawyers said they were in discussions with unidentified Justice Department attorneys “designed to resolve this matter and to avoid protracted litigation.” A government attorney has yet to make an appearance in the case.



A settlement in the coming days would fly in the face of efforts by the federal judge overseeing the case, Kathleen Williams, an appointee of President Barack Obama in the Southern District of Florida, to try and manage the conflict of interest in the case. Not only has she requested briefings from Mr. Trump’s lawyers and the government by next week, she has appointed a group of six well-respected lawyers not otherwise involved in the case to provide her with their views on whether Mr. Trump’s lawsuit is legitimate.

If a settlement is reached before Judge Williams has a chance to make a decision about whether the underlying lawsuit is valid, it could frustrate her, though legal experts say that her authority beyond that would be limited.

She would not likely be able to prevent Mr. Trump from simply withdrawing the suit and coming to a private agreement with the federal government. Even if the judge were to ultimately find that the settlement was collusive or reached in bad faith, she would likely be hamstrung in any effort to stop money or other benefits from changing hands.

Former government lawyers and experts see a clear defense to Mr. Trump’s suit, and do not see it as one the Justice Department would typically settle on its merits. A group of former I.R.S. and Justice Department officials filed an amicus brief in the case arguing, among other things, that Mr. Trump filed the suit too late and that his request for at least $10 billion was far too large.

Charles Littlejohn, the former I.R.S. contractor sentenced to five years in prison for the leak, provided tax return information about thousands of other wealthy Americans to ProPublica. Some of those people have also sued the I.R.S., and the Justice Department has defended those suits, in part by arguing that the government can’t be held liable for the actions of a contractor.




One of those suits against the I.R.S., from hedge fund billionaire Ken Griffin, was settled in 2024, but the government did not pay Mr. Griffin any damages. Instead, the I.R.S. made a public apology for the leak.

It is unclear or how much money Mr. Trump could receive in a settlement, or if he will be paid at all.  But protection from I.R.S. audits could prove quite valuable. I.R.S. procedures call for the mandatory audit of the president’s and vice president’s annual tax returns. The series of Times articles at the center of Mr. Trump’s suit, published in 2020, showed that he had paid little or no

income tax for years. In 2024, the Times reported that a loss in an I.R.S. audit could cost Mr. Trump more than $100 million.

At the same time, federal law prohibits the president from ordering the start or conclusion of an I.R.S. audit of a specific taxpayer.



Andrew Duehren covers tax policy for The Times from Washington.

Alan Feuer covers extremism and political violence for The Times, focusing on the criminal cases involving the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and against former President Donald J. Trump.


--
****
Juan Matute
R.B.R.
C.C.R.C.


Wednesday, May 13, 2026

Something to Know - 13 May

Rather than continuing the miserable narrative of following Trump's follies and blunders, there are other things to share.   Russia and Putin are experiencing problems as well.  As Anne Applebaum of the Atlantic points out.   As we tire of his ineptness and destruction Trump is on his downward slide to extinction.   Despite his brutal authoritarian power over the Russian populace, Putin is on his downward slide.   His invasion of Ukraine is turning out to be similar to Trump's move into Iran in that Zelensky is exposing the Russian Bear as weak and insecure as well.   Small drones from Kyiv and grassroots military defense have poked the Bear.   Putin is rumored to be living in bunkers around Moscow in fear of assassination.   I may be speaking well ahead of myself, but authoritarians do not live forever.   In this age of technology and rapid change, as we worry about the future of authoritarians, the very enemy we fear is subtly decomposing before our eyes.  We need to influence the outcomes.


Putin’s War Comes Home to Moscow

He can no longer hide the consequences from the Russian public.

Photograph of Vladimir Putin surrounded by decorated military leaders
Vyacheslav Prokofyev / AFP / Getty


Four years ago, President Vladimir Putin offered Moscow and its business elite a de facto deal: Support my war in Ukraine, and in exchange you won’t have to think about it. In the past week, that deal was broken.

Not that Moscow was ever fully immune: As long ago as May 3, 2023, the first two Ukrainian drones to reach Moscow exploded over the Kremlin, doing no damage but revealing that the capital’s air defenses weren’t as stellar as advertised—and that the war wasn’t as far away as Muscovites assumed. Eventually, the Ukrainians shifted their efforts toward Moscow’s airports, using drones dozens of times to buzz the runways or circle the airports, deliberately creating travel chaos and expense.

Last week, the whining noise of unmanned flying objects could be heard in the city of Moscow once again. On the morning of May 7, the mayor of Moscow announced that the Russian air force had shot down hundreds of Ukrainian drones aimed at the city. Two days later, Moscow was due to host Russia’s annual May 9 military parade, a celebration linked very intimately with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, who had revived this Soviet-era celebration of Stalin’s victory over Nazi Germany and his conquest of Europe.

Suddenly, and very publicly, Russian officials appeared nervous, afraid that their parade would be spoiled. The Russian foreign minister issued a threat, promising “no mercy,” whatever that means, if Ukrainians struck the parade. The Kremlin’s spokesperson reassured Muscovites that security was tight because the “threat from the Kyiv regime” had already been taken into account. The Russian president even persuaded the American president to ask the Ukrainian president for a one-day cease-fire. Volodymyr Zelensky granted Putin’s wish, after Trump offered to broker an exchange of 1,000 prisoners of war. Zelensky then issued a magnanimous, droll decree, formally granting Putin permission to hold the parade.

The tone of Russia’s official communications has changed, and no wonder: Three years after the first drones exploded over the Kremlin, and more than four years into a conflict that was supposed to be nothing more than a brief “special military operation,” Muscovites have no choice but to think about the war. Alleged security measures—some think they are a form of censorship—had already rendered cellphone coverage in Moscow and across Russia unreliable, at times nonexistent. Although Russians had already lost access to most forms of Western social media, in April the state cut access even to the Russian-built app Telegram, as well as many VPNs. Without public internet, many physical systems, including ATMs, also stopped working. Ride apps don’t function either. These inconveniences come on top of high inflation and high interest rates that have weighed on even Russia’s wealthiest businesses and consumers for months.

The war, and the Kremlin’s anxiety about the war, is also finally now visible on the streets. Briefly, during the former Putin ally Yevgeny Prigozhin’s very short rebellion in 2023, Muscovites were told to stay home for fear of violence. For the past several days, they were once again put on high alert. According to a diplomat of my acquaintance, snipers were visible in and around Red Square, in advance of the parade, as well as soldiers with anti-drone weapons. Ordinary people were prevented from entering the city center. Photographs taken on the day of the parade show empty streets.

Russians watching the parade from farther away would also have noticed some differences. Fewer foreign leaders bothered to show up this year, and no tanks, missiles, or fighting vehicles were on display. The whole show was brief, lasting only 45 minutes. Putin looked gray, anxious. Solemn North Korean soldiers, marching alongside Russians, provided the only novelty. But their presence was a reminder of the thousands of North Koreans who had died helping Russia recapture its own Kursk province, which Ukrainian forces occupied for eight months in 2024–25. Also, as the only foreigners present in significant numbers, the North Koreans sent an ominous message about the current state of Russia’s alliances.

Of course, it was just a parade. But the anniversary matters because Putin thinks it matters. He revived the May 9 celebration in its current form in 2008, deliberately choosing to celebrate the moment of Moscow’s imperial victory, when Stalin controlled all of the territory between Moscow and Berlin. Perhaps not coincidentally, Russia invaded the former Soviet republic of Georgia later that year.

The carefully promoted cult of the Second World War started in Soviet times, but Putin has deepened and expanded it. The loss of the Soviet empire in 1989 and the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 created enormous nostalgia for 1945, and Putin has been promoting that nostalgia for more than two decades. During that time, he also built that nostalgia into the fabric of the city of Moscow and other cities across Russia, adding and expanding the monumental sculptures and brutalist memorials that glorify the heroic war dead.

Now, at last, the cult of the war has caught up with him. Putin knows he can’t live up to the mythology he created, and everyone else can see that too. His unnecessary, illegal, brutal war in Ukraine has already lasted longer than the Russian war against the Nazis, killing or wounding more than a million Russian soldiers and producing neither military nor political nor any other kind of success. On the contrary: He can’t even hold a parade in Moscow without fearing that the Ukrainians will disrupt it.

That doesn’t mean his Ukraine war is over, or that Putin’s reign has ended. But it does mean that Russians in general, and Muscovites in particular, can now clearly see the contrast between propaganda and reality. A vacuum has opened up, and sooner or later something else, or someone else, will fill it.

About the Author




--
****
Juan Matute
R.B.R.
C.C.R.C.