Release the Records

He has me confused. Is Eric Erickson stupid, naive, or dishonest?  Erickson says

The New York Times pushed out a story just the other day after Renee Good got killed by the ICE agent, a multi-angled camera view to insist it did not look like the ICE agent got hit.... CNN echoed The New York Times, claiming that it did not appear that he got hit.

We now have the medical records of the ICE agent. I believe his name is Jonathan Ross- internal bleeding in his hip area from the impact of the 3,000+ pound car hitting him. He was hit by Renee Good.

 

The New York Times pushed out a multi-angle camera view claiming Renee Good did not hit the ICE agent. But now we have the agent’s medical records.

She did hit him. Where is the apology? pic.twitter.com/x1nnN6pGB7

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) January 14, 2026

CBS Newson on Wednesday reported 

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent who fatally shot Renee Good last week in Minneapolis, Jonathan Ross, suffered internal bleeding to the torso following the incident, according to two U.S. officials briefed on his medical condition.

It was unclear how extensive the bleeding was. The Department of Homeland Security confirmed Ross' injury, but has not yet responded to CBS News' requests for more information. This story will be updated as we learn more.

Videos from the scene showed Ross walking away after the incident.

Ross has not returned to work, one source said, but did not say why.

Kristi Noem, the Homeland Security secretary, previously acknowledged that Ross was taken to the hospital after the shooting and was released the same day. She said he was recovering from his injuries, describing him as an experienced law enforcement officer who believed he was defending himself and fellow agents.

Not only is it unclear how extensive the bleeding was, it is unclear whether the injury was more extensive than a common, everyday household injury. As described by the Cleveland Clinic, this sounds a lot like internal bleeding:

“Ecchymosis” (pronounced “eh-chuh-mow-sis”) is the medical term for a bruise. A bruise, or contusion, is skin discoloration from damaged, leaking blood vessels underneath your skin. Even though there’s blood pooling underneath your skin, you won’t have any external bleeding unless your skin breaks open.

We don't know whether Ross was severely injured. However, we do know that "internal bleeding" can be no more serious than a bruise and that we cannot take remarks by anyone in this Administration about this incident as the gospel truth.

Soon after the shooting, Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem called Renee Good a"domestic terrorist."  She was not. 

Vice President J.D. Vance called the victim a "deranged leftist." There is no evidence that she was deranged or in any way mentally or psychologically deficient. 

President Trump almost instantly after the killing remarked that "the woman" was "very disorderly, obstructing and resisting, who then violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE officer. She did not. (Good was leaving the scene when she eviently was shot three times and clearly did not "willfully and viciously" run anyone over.)

This Administration's record on the killing of Renee Good alread has been one of division and deceit, lying profusely to justify its inhumane and destructive policy toward both immigration and protestors. Nonetheless, we'll be able to determine definitively, hopefully, the extent  of Agent Jonathan Ross' injury once his medical report is released. That may be released simultaneously with the release of the alleged shooting of presidential candidate Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania in July, 2024 or release of the full Epstein files. When pigs fly.

Share |

Rationalization Of Death

This can be complicated.. Erick Erickson, blogger, columnist, Red State founder, and former (Macon, Georgia) city councilman also is an evangelical/believing/ reformed Christian Protestant who at the outset of Holy Week this month wrote

In the Book of Amos, God declared that “I sent among you a pestilence after the manner of Egypt; I killed your young men with the sword, and carried away your horses, and I made the stench of your camp go up into your nostrils; yet you did not return to me.” Amos 4:10 (ESV). That God is the same God who, through his providence, sent the second person of the trinity to his death in Jerusalem this week 1,987 years ago.

Some will say that makes God malevolent. But those who live by faith must trust that God is on his throne. He has plan for you, for me, and for human history. We may not know what role this pandemic plays in that plan. We may not know what role we play in that plan. But we can be assured all of this will glorify him and will work for the good of those called according to his purposes. 

It was not only the people of Israel who would suffer the mighty hand of divine justice. In Isaiah 37:36 we read of the once-occupants of the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea "And the angel of the Lord went out and struck down 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians. And when people arose early in the morning, behold, these were all dead bodies." That was not a pretty picture.

Erickson concluded that God "sits on his throne in control of all things. So do not let your heart be troubled and do not be afraid. God's got this and he's got you, too." Nonetheless, he recognizes that things can sometimes go awry- or seem to:

When you say "but the flu killed 60,000," you get the benefit of ignoring we're over 22,000 deaths in two months while sheltering-in-place. It is pretty obvious to every sane person in America that if we let this run rampant, it'd be way worse than 60,000 dead.

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) April 13, 2020

When Erickson went there again later that day

Amazing. I have been a strong liberal for my entire adult life, and I am in 100% agreement with Erick Erickson here. I am also in strong agreement with @WalshFreedom. What the hell is going on?? 😀 https://t.co/27SYBCCDua

— George Green (@growlingblanket) April 17, 2020

That couldn't last. And it didn't, because

Erick Erickson back to being stupid. He had a brief few days there when he sounded almost normal.... https://t.co/K0OmHGYrOH

— Clark (@clarkdotcomstar) April 17, 2020

One of the possible explanations for this apparent flip-flop is that awkward ideological flexibility is in character.  Erickson was for candidate Trump, then anti-candidate Trump, and then reversed himself again to support the President.

That would, admittedly, be consistent with the Law of Parsimony. However, that may not have been the motive.

The first two tweets are merely observational and/or informative. It is nearly inarguable that a coronavirus is not similar to a car wreck and therefore if the nation had not taken it seriously, the number of dead probably would have reached the six figures already. Erickson then gave his opinion, that the best course is now to open the country for business.

This may not be as much a contradiction as it seems. Erickson believes that relaxing restrictions nationwide will likely lead to significantly more deaths but is advisable nonetheless. It is advisable because the Almighty "sits on his throne in control of all things. So do not let your heart be troubled and do not be afraid. God’s got this and he’s got you too."

Nonetheless, "control" is not meant in the generic sense as "the power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events." It is interpreted  as God determining the course of all events, however clearly that denies God's autonomy. Therefore, if hundreds of thousands, rather than tens of thousands, are killed by SARS-CoV-2, that is as God planned it. That does not, and should not, conflict with praying to God to intervene mercifully with health professionals and others who can reduce the death and destruction from a plague and its impact on everyone whose life it affects.

Even if Erick Erickson does not hold to this view- and there is a good chance he does- it is highly likely that in an Administration which includes the likes of Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo, this perspective is not unknown. So among the many questions asked of President Donald Trump, who touts the support of the vast majority of white evangelicals, should be one probing whether he believes that tens of thousands of American deaths may be God's will. However Trump responds probably would be revealing of at least something.

Share |

A Different Ballgame

In the wake of the accusation of Lucy Flores that she had been inappropriately touched by Joe Biden when the Vice-President was promoting her for Lieutenant Governor of Nevada, Laura McGann reminds us that Biden had

been caught on camera embracing a female reporter from behind and gripping her above her wait, just below her bust. At a swearing-in ceremony for Defense Secretary Ash Carter, Biden put his hands on the shoulders of Stephanie Carter, Carter’s wife, and then leaned in and whispered into her ear. (He’s whispered into many women's ears.) He’s also touched women’s faces and necks during other photo ops. Once at a swearing-in ceremony for a US senator, he held the upper arm of the senator’s preteen daughter, leaned down and whispered into her ear, as she became visibly uncomfortable. Then he kissed the side of her forehead, a gesture that made the girl flinch.

Nonetheless, it is odd, or hypocritical, or a combination of the two that Erick Erickson would tweet

What we’re learning today is that a lot of the media and Democrat politicians knew about Joe Biden’s propensity to make women feel uncomfortable, but they were happy to keep quiet so long as he was Barack Obama’s Vice President.

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) March 31, 2019

Far be it for me, of all people, to deny that an individual was given a pass by the media because of his loyalty to Barack Obama. However, that simply is not the reason that a blind eye was turned to the apparent creepiness of Joe Biden.

Biden was 66 years old when he became Vice-President. He would serve either eight years in that position or, if President Obama were to be defeated in 2012, he would have to wait four more years to run for President. A campaign in his '70s would have been very unlikely.

The 2012 election was assumed to be the last electoral effort by ol' Joe, especially because his two previous campaigns for the Democratic nomination for the presidency famously flamed out. And as Vice President, he wielded no power, other than that granted to him by the President to cast a vote in the Senate to break a tie, in which case he would not be exercising independent judgment,. There simply was little reason for an expose of a man who was largely irrelevant.

Enter Donald J. Trump. When he entered office, Trump was 70, the oldest individual to become President in a nation which has always valued youth, and even more so in recent decades. If he is re-elected in 2020, he will be 74 on Inauguration Day 2021. (I've always dazzled with my mathematical acumen.)

Being old had been considered an impediment to being elected President- not as much so now. Additionally, it was assumed that no one who treated women like they were the standard offering of the neighborhood butcher would be seriously considered as President. 

That assumption was eroded upon the election of a man who has been accused by 13 women of having touched them inappropriately, or worse, the man seen on tape stating

I did try and f--- her. She was married....

And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’ I took her out furniture. I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married.

Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.

That tape only briefly, and temporarily eroded Donald Trump's popularity and a few weeks later he would be elected President of the United States of America and leader of the free world.

It became evident, though little acknowledged, that unless the victim is oneself, a relative or a friend, Americans care far less about sexual harassment than previously thought. That was reinforced when a man credibly accused of sexual assault was approved for a lifetime position on the United States Supreme Court.

But now Joseph R. Biden is presumed to be a formidable candidate to win the Democratic nomination for President.  He would not be one of 100 United States senators, nor in a powerless position as vice-president.

It therefore is odd to argue that the primary reason that Joe Biden's sexually questionable record was ignored is because he served Barack Obama. Biden is simply far more relevant now than ever before because he could in two years possibly wield tremendous power, all the more for what Trump has demonstrated is possible if the office is abused.

But it's also hypocritical, because Erick Erickson should understand very well that it would have been disproportionate to delve into Biden's behavior when the President is Donald J. Trump. Clearly pleased about the Trump presidency, the once-never Trump Erickson recently wrote 

I will vote for Donald Trump and Mike Pence. And, to be clear, it will not be just because of what the other side offers, but also because of what the Trump-Pence team has done. They’ve earned my vote.

Share |

Christianity Subordinated

Proudly Never Trump in 2016, Erick Erickson- lawyer, blogger, talk show host, and intense evangelical Protestant- now promises to vote for Trump-Pence in 2020 while

Some of my concerns about President Trump remain. I still struggle on the character issue and I understand Christian friends who would rather sit it out than get involved. But I also recognize that we cannot have the Trump Administration policies without President Trump and there is much to like.

Erickson cites taxes, deregulation, the ACA, Israel, the Paris accord and the agreement with Iran, "shifting foreign policy focus to the western hemisphere, and "solid executive appointments, including to the judiciary."  As could be expected, Erickson adds

We have a party that is increasingly hostile to religion and now applies religious tests to blocking judicial nominees. We have a party that believes children can be murdered at birth.

The Democratic Party does not apply religious tests to judicial nominees.  Rather, a few of President Trump's nominees have made it clear not only that their religious views inform their judicial philosophy, but that they believe divine law trumps secular law in consideration of legal issues. Andrew L. Seidel explains

Questions of religion are fair game the moment nominees argue that their duty to their god is superior to their duty to this country. The issue is not the religious belief itself, but the ability of that nominee to honor their oath of office. If they cannot, We the People have a right to know. And the Senate has a duty to ask.

These questions cannot be blocked by a Senator, as Ted Cruz recently did, whining  about a "theological inquisition."  It would be better (or at least more transparent)  for a nominee to defend his or her judicial philosophy in light of theological precepts the candidate holds.That would require a willingness to defend her judicial approach with its philosophical underpinnings. 

Alas, under questioning they choose to hide their rationale and Christian faith. Similarly, Erick Erickson chooses not to tell us what Democratic official "believes children can be murdered at birth,." He may be referring to Virginia governor Ralph Northam, though surely the latter does not represent an entire party, especially now that he is under attack from some of its most prominent members.

A few days (not coincidentally) before the Northam blackface scandal, the Governor was asked about a hypothetical situation prompted by the mischaracterization by conservatives of an abortion bill briefly considered by the state's House of Delegates.  Although the bill pertains to second and third trimester abortions, Northam unwisely responded

If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desire. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.

Characteristically apoplectic, Republicans erupted in false outrage, contending- as it would appear Erickson is- that this is infanticide. However, it's likely the critics understand that

When an infant who might have otherwise been terminated in a third-trimester abortion is born, doctors and parents don’t then decide whether to kill the baby. They choose whether to take extreme, painful measures to try, against the odds, to keep a baby with severe congenital deformities alive.

It's unsurprising that as a forced birth advocate Erickson, though arguing in bad faith, would attack Democrats for support of abortion rights and questioning of judges about the impact of religious belief upon their judicial philosophy.

Nonetheless, when Erickson suggested in September of 2016 that he would vote for neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump, he accused the latter of "corrupting the virtuous and fostering hatred, racism and dangerous strains of nationalism." Erickson argues that the 2+ years of President Trump have been characterized by successful, conservative activity.

Erickson is elated that the policies have been very conservative and, in his opinion, successful. However, Donald Trump's presidency has been marked no more by extremist policies- which a President Cruz also would have promulgated- than it has been by lies, repeated regularly and enthusiastically; public demeaning of friend and foe alike; and boasts of the President's endless greatness.

These are not Christ-like virtues, and Erickson wrote at the time

That I see so many Christians justifying Trump’s immorality, defining deviancy down, and turning to anger and despondency about the future tells me I cannot in good faith support Trump because his victory would have lasting, damaging consequences for Christianity in America.

Now Erick Erickson supports the man whose victory appears it will have lasting, damaging consequences for Christianity in America.  That would be troubling from an atheist, far more so from someone who claims a deep Christian faith.

Share |

Ryan For The Defense

Amid reports which indicate that the President of the United States of America and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces probably is selling out his country,* Fox News has one simple message: it's the leakers, stupid. And it's quite clear they don't mean any appointees of President Trump, nor even holdovers from 44 sympathetic to 45.

Probably not coincidentally- especially given the love affair between the network and the President- the Speaker of the House is going that way, too.  Politico reports

House Speaker Paul Ryan urged lawmakers to be “sober” about swirling allegations that President Donald Trump asked FBI Director James Comey to call off an investigation into his national security adviser Mike Flynn.

“That is our job, to be sober, to be passionate … and to follow the facts wherever they may lead,” he said.






Being sober is inarguably a good thing, although some of the most passionate people I've known are quite clearly not sober. The article continues

“It is obvious – there are some people out there who want to harm the president,” he said. “We have an obligation to carry out our oversight, regardless of which party is in the White House. That means before rushing to judgment we get all the pertinent information.”

Here for Ryan is some pertinent information, albeit unconfirmed, about "some people."  Conservative blogger Erick Erickson, critical of Trump the candidate and President, evidently has a source(s) within the Administration who is skeptical of the boss' leadership style. Though fastidiously negative toward the left, Erickson on Tuesday morning wrote  "of these stories about the President"

What sets this story apart for me, at least, is that I know one of the sources. And the source is solidly supportive of President Trump, or at least has been and was during Campaign 2016. But the President will not take any internal criticism, no matter how politely it is given. He does not want advice, cannot be corrected, and is too insecure to see any constructive feedback as anything other than an attack.

So some of the sources are left with no other option but to go to the media, leak the story, and hope that the intense blowback gives the President a swift kick in the butt. Perhaps then he will recognize he screwed up. The President cares vastly more about what the press says than what his advisers say. That is a real problem and one his advisers are having to recognize and use, even if it causes messy stories to get outside the White House perimeter.

I am told that what the President did is actually far worse than what is being reported. The President does not seem to realize or appreciate that his bragging can undermine relationships with our allies and with human intelligence sources. He also does not seem to appreciate that his loose lips can get valuable assets in the field killed.

We read also in Politico that the Speaker "wants to know why the director 'didn’t take action at the time' Trump reportedly pressured him to halt the Flynn investigation."  When he's not battling the elderly and the middle class, the Speaker is an apologist for President Trump. When the story of these times is written, few people will be recognized as more villainous than Paul Davis Ryan Jr.

*in this case, not Russia.


Share |

Support Not Unanimous

Back in the old days, nearly two months ago, Donald Trump was to Ted Cruz a "pathological liar," a "narcissist," and "serial philanderer."

Today he is a supporter of Trump for President   Even before considering the “careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience," Cruz had been selling his e-mail list to the Trump campaign.

That appears to have been primarily for financial benefit, which may or may not have resulted from prayer and asking guidance from the Holy Spirit.

Coupled with the extensive support that evangelicals have given Trump, it can (or at least should) discourage anyone who has believed that Christian conservatives have thrown their allegiance to the GOP only after prayerful consideration and divine inspiration.

We- to be interpreted loosely- have been fooled in the past, and may be again. Yet, at least one activist, a devout Prtoestant, committed conservative, and ardent forced-birth advocate, may actually be sincere.

Both a Never Trump and Never Hillary devotee, Erick Erickson, former editor of Red State, former member of the Macon, Ga. City Council, talk-show host and divinity student, participated on September 16 in a fascinating debate sponsored by National Religious Broadcasters pitting pro-Trump evangelicals against anti-Trump evangelicals.

Erickson believes Mrs. Clinton's candidacy "is fundamentally anathema to and in opposition to basic, historic American values," including "individual liberty as negative liberty" in which individuals woud benefit most "if government left them alone."  He fears a President Clinton's Supreme Court appointments would effect "a devastation of our social fabric."

He is wrong on all those counts, of course, but it seems that his religious values are equally important.   Having been begged by "so many pastors" and "so many others" to reconsider his decision not to endorse Trump, he responded in a column printed last Friday in The Washington Post. He perceives in the support of fellow Christian conservatives for Trump

a level of desperation causing them to place their trust in one strong man instead of God. And, in truth, I do not concede they are right, but have concluded we are already past the point of redemption when the best either party can do is offer up Clinton or Trump. The seriousness and virtue of the voter is in the grave already and my Christian brethren for Trump yearn for an idolized past that never existed in a future that is not theirs, but God’s, to shape.

Christians looking for a strong man to protect the church instead of the strongest man who conquered death is a terrible thing to see. Many Christian leaders are engaging in a kind of syncretism, trying to blend patriotism with Christianity. They seemingly argue that if the nation falls, the church falls and for the church to rise the country must rise. But Christ has already risen so the true church is in no danger of falling. The gates of hell shall not prevail.

"I am not sure I have" ever asked God for forgiveness, Trump once admitted, "and I don't bring God into that picture" of right and wrong. Criticizing an evangelical supporter of Trump who once attacked the libertine Giuliani, Erickson notes

Even Giuliani never wrote a book bragging about his affairs with married women or boasting of taking advantage of others through strategic bankruptcy filings and shorting laborers. One can hardly escape the conclusion that had Giuliani been the nominee, Grudem would be chastising Christians for not wanting to vote for the man.

Scripture tells me (and you) that believers should have nothing to do with any person who holds himself out as a Christian and is unrepentant.

Trump strangely views communion as a plea for forgiveness and while he refuses to vote for Clinton, Erickson writes of the GOP candidate

I cannot in good conscience support anyone who bears the name of brother when he is unrepentant of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard or swindler.

Here now is a man in Trump who sees no need to be saved and has no understanding of a faith he professes. And he sees Christians cheering him on in his rebellious state, defending him when they blasted others for the very same sins.

The whole purpose of shunning the unrepentant sinner is to drive him to God. Yet, Christians in America are cheering on this rebellious sinner providing him no reason at all to repent. All Christendom should be ashamed we are putting our needs in this temporary place ahead of saving a soul bound for eternity.






Ever the reformed Christian, Erickson fears Trump's

victory would have lasting, damaging consequences for Christianity in America. We harm our witness by embracing the immoral, unrepentant strong man. We harm our American virtue by buying into the idea that one man can make America great again. Further, we risk losing Donald Trump’s soul for the sake of our selfishness.

When Samantha Bee in July asked various evangelical voters at the Western Conservative Summit about their support of the GOP nominee, one stated "As long as he's not murdering people or killing babies, I'm sure he's fine." Notwithstanding pressure from like-minded colleagues, however, one prominent evangelical has set the bar higher.

Share |