The Daily Signal first reported in September that the House Oversight and Accountability Committee opened an investigation into the potential politicization of the population count and miscounts in 14 states.

The December Oversight hearing will review the Census Bureau’s 2020 Post-Enumeration Survey, or PES. The hearing will also look at the bureau’s preparations for the 2030 Census.

“The Census Bureau’s review of the 2020 Census revealed substantial miscounts and discrepancies tending to benefit Democrat-run states,” House Oversight Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said in a statement to The Daily Signal. “Congress has a responsibility to conduct oversight of these massive errors to ensure they are not repeated in the 2030 census.”

U.S. Census Bureau Director Robert Santos, an appointee of President Joe Biden, is set to testify at the hearing.

“Additionally, current integrity issues with the Census must be addressed,” Comer said.

He continued:

The Biden-Harris administration facilitated the worst border crisis in American history, allowing millions of illegal aliens to enter and reside in our country unlawfully. To ensure only U.S. citizens are counted for the apportionment of congressional seats and Electoral College votes, Congress must pass the Equal Representation Act to add a straightforward citizenship question to the Census. We look forward to hearing Director Santos’ testimony and ensuring the Census Bureau takes the necessary steps to deliver a fair and accurate 2030 census.

The 2020 Post-Enumeration Survey found statistically significant miscounts in the 2020 Census in 14 states.

The Biden administration’s Census Bureau revealed in May 2022 that it undercounted the Republican-leaning states of Arkansas by 5%, Florida by 3.4%, Mississippi by 4.11%, Tennessee by 4.78%, and Texas by 1.92%. The Census Bureau undercounted one Democratic-leaning state, Illinois, by 1.97%.

The Census Bureau overcounted Biden’s home state of Delaware by 5.45% as well as other Democratic-leaning states: Hawaii by 6.79%, Massachusetts by 2.24%, Minnesota by 3.84%, New York by 3.44%, and Rhode Island by 5%. It also overcounted two Republican-leaning states, Ohio by 1.49% and Utah by 2.59%.

https://twitter.com/Virginia_Allen5/status/1858965579992072433

Carrell served in the Border Patrol for 24 years, retiring as a deputy patrol agent in charge of the San Diego Sector before going on to author a book on the border crisis and film two documentaries on the topic.

“I state with complete certainty that [President Joe] Biden, [Vice President Kamala] Harris, and [Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro] Mayorkas intentionally, strategically and purposely weaponized illegal immigration and use it as a tool to fundamentally transform America,” Carrell said during the joint hearing by the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement and Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability, both subcommittees of the House Homeland Security Committee.

“Inside this invasion, the unspoken evil of child trafficking and more specifically, child sex trafficking has flourished,” he said.

Where Are the Missing Migrant Children?

In August, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reported that it does not know the location or status of more than 300,000 migrant children. Between fiscal year 2019 and 2023, 32,000 illegal alien minors did not appear for their immigration court hearing, and an additional 291,000 were never given an immigration court date.

According to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, 81% of unaccompanied alien children are between the ages of 13 and 18. The average age of a trafficking victim in the U.S. is between 12 and 15, according to Anti-Trafficking International.

Under current U.S. law, after being apprehended by Border Patrol or Customs and Border Protection, unaccompanied migrant children are released into the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement, which in turn releases the child to a sponsor in the U.S.

For a decade, HHS has demonstrated a “record of losing children to sponsors who abuse, exploit, traffic, and harm children in unthinkable ways,” Tara Rodas told members of Congress during her testimony at Tuesday’s hearing, which was titled “Trafficked, Exploited, and Missing: Migrant Children Victims of the Biden-Harris Administration.”

As a government employee, Rodas was recruited in 2021 to help HHS with the growing number of unaccompanied migrant children arriving at the southern border. She soon discovered that the department’s unaccompanied migrant child program was allowing for the exploitation of children.

The names of the sponsors who take the children from the Office of Refugee Resettlement are run through the National Crime Information Center before a child is released. A sponsor can be a distant relative or have no blood relation to the child at all, opening the door for human traffickers to prey on minors, which, according to Rodas, has and continues to happen regularly.

“Migrant children are working overnight shifts in slaughterhouses and factories, and some may die today because they don’t have the knowledge or skills to do the job that their supposed to be doing, but their doing it because they need to repay debts to their smugglers and traffickers,” she said.

https://twitter.com/Virginia_Allen5/status/1858971219867078980

Rodas accused the U.S. of operating a “white glove delivery system” that is responsible for handing migrant children over to “MS-13, 18th Street Gang, Russian Balkans crime syndicates, and other unsavory characters.”

https://twitter.com/Virginia_Allen5/status/1858985085120508345

In defense of HHS, Rodas pointed out that the department is “not an investigative or law enforcement agency. HHS simply does not have the knowledge, skills, ability, or the tradecraft to protect children from traffickers.”

Furthermore, child trafficking has become a highly sophisticated operation, according to Rodas, mirroring the “tactics and operations of terrorist organization.”

https://twitter.com/Virginia_Allen5/status/1858977083806150869

Solutions

Solutions to end the exploitation of migrant children, according to Rodas, include DNA testing for sponsors who claim to be a relative of the child, and prison time for sponsors who cannot produce the child that was given into their care.

“Let’s mobilize the full power of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to dismantle these criminal networks,” Rodas said, recommending that child trafficking activity should be elevated on the National Intelligence Priorities Framework and be designated a terrorist activity.

“We cannot be a nation that looks the other way,” Rodas said. “We have a moral imperative to care for children that the government takes into custody, and the time to act is now.”

The results are in, and on Nov. 5, Americans officially rejected the high prices and spiraling costs that defined much of the Biden-Harris administration—including the least affordable housing market in U.S. history.

Rather than being chastened by the national shellacking he, his vice president, and his party received, President Joe Biden’s Justice Department is pursuing an audacious move that could throw the housing market into disarray and put homeownership even further out of reach for middle-class Americans.

In a high-profile lawsuit filed last month, the DOJ is seeking to crack down on a case of alleged home-appraisal bias in Colorado, but the lawsuit could set a worrisome new precedent for the relationship between mortgage lenders and appraisers. The consequences could be sweeping, and they may weigh most heavily on the black homeowners and aspiring homeowners who the DOJ is ironically trying to protect with this lawsuit.

The DOJ is alleging that an appraiser, Maksym Mykhailyna, undervalued a black woman’s Denver home while she was applying for a refinance. Undervaluation typically results in a higher interest rate and a lower loan amount.

The Biden administration has made cracking down on this kind of alleged discrimination a focus, and Vice President Kamala Harris has led the White House’s efforts. Yet, the DOJ’s case hardly proves the appraiser undervalued the home. Even more importantly, the DOJ fails to show that unlawful racial bias skewed the appraisal results or that this singular incident is indicative of systemic discrimination permeating the appraisal industry.

These crackdowns over an illusory problem have been repeatedly and correctly criticized. The administration is fundamentally trying to expand the federal government’s role in housing with little understanding of how meddling with the appraisal process would ultimately affect prices and homebuyers.

The DOJ lawsuit and much of the Biden administration’s efforts on this issue are misguided. In this latest effort, the Justice Department is going beyond holding an allegedly prejudiced appraiser accountable. Along with Mykhailyna, the DOJ also names Rocket Mortgage, the lender with whom the homeowner was seeking a refinancing, as a co-defendant.

The DOJ’s decision to go after the mortgage lender for the actions of an appraiser in this case not only contradicts federal law, but also risks reversing years of housing industry reforms that keep home prices in check.

Setting precedent to hold lenders accountable for the actions of independent appraisers would reintroduce the conflicts of interest that helped inflate home prices and created a housing bubble in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis. A repeat of those circumstances would make homes even more expensive and put homeownership even further out of reach for many Americans.

Passed in the wake of the 2008 crisis, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act explicitly bars mortgage lenders from influencing appraisers. The legislation established appraiser independence by mandating that lenders order appraisals through third-party companies called appraisal management companies. These companies are a critical degree of separation between lenders and appraisers that protect the housing industry from the conflicts of interest that led to the 2008 disaster. The DOJ’s efforts to punish the lender in the Colorado lawsuit threaten to erode the independence of appraisers.

Before 2008, there were no appraisal management companies, and appraisers were heavily dependent on the mortgage lenders that assigned them work. That conflict of interest led appraisers to overvalue homes in order to authorize bigger and more profitable loans for the mortgage lenders. That fueled the market bubble that eventually popped, tanking the global economy, nearly toppling the entire financial sector, and setting many American families back years.

If the Biden DOJ has its way, the U.S. could return to the pre-2008 housing industry. The potential for baseless lawsuits alleging undervaluation will incentivize both appraisers and lenders to overvalue properties—fueling yet more home price inflation and injecting more risk into the system.

Housing costs are already out of control. Minority communities across this country are disproportionately locked out of homeownership. Rather than pursuing splashy headlines for baseless lawsuits that would ultimately hurt Americans and further exacerbate prices, the government should be diminishing the footprint of the government-sponsored enterprises—namely, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—that have helped create a second housing bubble in the past 20 years.

The bottom line is that the DOJ’s misguided efforts here could wind up hurting all aspiring homeowners, including the very people of color who the Biden administration says that it is trying to stand up for.

Existing civil right laws already protect homeowners against racially biased appraisal practices. These laws should continue to be enforced. Regulators or legislators could task the appraisal management companies with keeping a more watchful eye over the appraisers and potential trends in their work. But the effort to burden the mortgage lenders with the responsibility of solving appraisal discrimination is not only misguided, it is deeply harmful to aspiring homeowners, the housing sector, and the financial industry.

The incoming Trump administration should immediately audit the Biden administration’s backward housing reforms and halt this lawsuit before it causes damage to the system. Woke, affirmative action policies are misguided and wind up hurting everyone. Voters want a return to simple, logic-driven policy, and this is one area to start with.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.

According to a number of reports, President-elect Donald Trump will be creating a commission to review leaders in the military with the assumption that many of the top brass will be fired.

Trump will be using a “warrior board” of retired officers, The Hill reported, to review our current crop of three- and four-star officers and will weed out the ones the commission disapproves of.

That’s not all.

Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth—an Army veteran who has been awarded two Bronze Stars, and who served in Iraq and Afghanistan—said in past interviews that it’s necessary to remove “woke” senior military officials who have left the U.S. armed forces in a sorry state.

“First of all, you’ve got to fire [the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] and obviously you’ve got to bring in a new secretary of defense, but any general that was involved—general, admiral, whatever—that was involved in any of the DEI woke s—, has got to go,” Hegseth said in an early November interview on “The Shawn Ryan Show” podcast. DEI is shorthand for diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Pete Hegseth is ready for day one as Defense Secretary.

'All the woke Generals must be fired immediately.'pic.twitter.com/ai9cqoImj4

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) November 13, 2024

Trump and Hegseth—the author of “The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free” and “Modern Warriors: Real Stories from Real Heroes”—clearly intend to shake up the military at the top.

The Left, however, isn’t taking it well.

Legacy media is reporting on that development as if it’s some kind of ominous sign that Trump will “politicize” the military. They are even calling it a “purge.”

One left-wing podcaster, Fred Wellman, who includes “democracy advocate” in his X bio, even posted that removing generals is “truly fascist.”

This is truly fascist. The idea is they'll review and fire generals is chilling beyond measure and will damage our military for a generation. You don't make generals overnight. It takes decades. The good ones will leave early instead of waiting to be destroyed. (gift)…

— Fred Wellman (@FPWellman) November 12, 2024

Ah, yes, civilian control of the military, so fascist.

For a quick history lesson, a president’s removal of generals and other high-ranking military leaders—especially after years of relative “peace”—has often been a significant boon, not a hindrance, to the military.

Peacetime militaries—and I only use that phrase loosely to refer to our own era of near-constant, low-level asymmetrical conflicts—frequently calcify. Leaders who successfully navigate the bureaucratic treadmill to make it to the top ranks in those times are frequently not the best wartime leaders.

Militaries need to be shaken up from time to time.

In the War of 1812, many American military officers were holdovers from the American Revolution. Many had grown old and ineffective. The crucible of war allowed junior commanders like Winfield Scott to emerge as a brilliant young general who would prove instrumental in that war and future conflicts.

In the Civil War, there was a tremendous shake-up of the senior ranks on both sides.

Marginal officers like Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, who was almost entirely overlooked at the Virginia Military Institute, proved himself to be one of the most astoundingly gifted military commanders once he had a chance to prove himself in battle.

Abraham Lincoln suffered through far too many mediocrities at the top before finding war winners like Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman. Almost none of the top commanders at the beginning of the war ended up in the same place by the war’s end.

Right now, the United States clearly needs a shake-up at the Pentagon in the worst way.

The world is in turmoil, thanks in no small part to the Biden administration, and we are closer to seeing an actual peer-to-peer conflict than perhaps at any point since World War II.

Yet, many on the Left are hyperventilating about the move. Why? It’s a pretty good sign that they know they’ve made serious inroads into military institutions that are historically traditional and conservative. They don’t want to lose their grip on the military, just as they fear losing control of any other institution they dominate.

The primary issue, beyond typical military calcification, is that our current military leadership appears to be filled with those who have floated to the top amid the general woke-ification of American society and government.

It’s not Trump who will be “politicizing” the military; it’s the military itself that has been politicized. DEI, critical race theory, and other radical ideologies have been force-fed into military institutions, and the Biden administration was only too happy to accelerate that transformation.

They justified DEI by saying that it would create a better, more cohesive military and deepen the pool of recruits. That was the same unproven, bogus argument corporate America made when it went whole hog on “diversity” to the point of climbing aboard the discrimination bandwagon.

But much like the corporate DEI push—which proved a financial liability, rather than a boon—the military DEI advocacy has failed to “succeed” by even the most basic measures.

Nearly every branch of the military now faces a historic recruitment crisis, not to mention a surge in worrisome incidents that suggest a decline in competence and warfighting capability.

To make matters worse—and this is why Trump’s shake-up is almost certainly necessary—the military has failed to hold anyone at the top accountable for notable failures on the international stage.

Those failures have significantly weakened this country’s prestige and credibility abroad.

Most notably was the shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan. After that failure, nobody at the top got fired. The Biden administration and the military moved on, as if nothing had happened.

If we can’t handle our business against the Taliban, isn’t it worth questioning our ability to counter far greater potential adversaries, such as China?

To underscore the notion that the military has lost all accountability at the top, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin disappeared for nearly a week early this year to take care of a health issue before notifying the president.

If these are the sorts of “invaluable” leaders we may lose if Trump gets his way, it’s hard not to see the president-to-be’s “warrior board” as a net positive. This country should expect a lot better of its military.

This seems like an important moment for a “democratic” correction to a military that has seen a sharp decline in public trust.

Under Biden, the buck stopped nowhere. With Trump, maybe more capable leaders will have a chance to rise to the top and get our military back to focusing on preparedness and defending the American people.

Trump’s genius—in raising his fist amid an assassination attempt, donning the apron of a McDonald’s fry cook, and riding shotgun in a trash truck—carried the day. However, the Left’s slings and arrows against the former president also helped propel him to victory by exposing how cynical and conniving his opponents were.

The Left committed at least six massive political miscalculations that also amount to transgressions against America’s political order. These moves helped Trump win, but they also exposed the forces he will face in a second term.

1. The Lawfare

Left-leaning prosecutors brought multiple civil and criminal cases against Trump, most of which revved into high gear last year after he announced in November 2022 that he would run for president again in 2024.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, campaigned on the prospect of prosecuting Trump, and her office began investigating the Trump Organization in early 2019. She sued in September 2022, alleging that Trump had violated the law by exaggerating his net worth, though none of his business partners claimed to be victimized by this alleged exaggeration.

Presiding Judge Arthur Engoron demanded Trump and his companies fork over more than $350 million to the state in February. Engoron initially ordered Trump to post $454 million bond, but an appeals court agreed to lower the amount to $175 million.

In March 2023, a Manhattan grand jury indicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to pay pornography star Stephanie Clifford, known by her stage name Stormy Daniels, “hush money” after the 2016 election. Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal attorney at the time, gave Clifford $130,000 in October 2016, and Trump reimbursed Cohen in a series of payments after Trump entered the Oval Office in January 2017.

On May 30, a jury convicted Trump on all 34 felony counts. His sentencing hearing has been scheduled for Nov. 26, though the former president has appealed the verdict in light of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, argued that Trump had interfered in the 2016 election by altering business records after the election.

Improperly appointed special counsel Jack Smith led an investigation into Trump for alleged lawbreaking regarding his challenging the 2020 presidential election results and inspiring the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

In August 2023, a grand jury approved an indictment against Trump. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan scheduled a trial to begin March 4, but Trump appealed to the Supreme Court. The high court ruled July 1 that the president has “absolute” immunity from charges stemming from “core constitutional powers” and “presumptive immunity” for all other official acts.

Smith launched another case against Trump regarding his alleged improper retention of classified documents after his presidency ended Jan. 20, 2021. Smith, whom President Joe Biden appointed in November 2022, charged Trump with 40 felonies in the case. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case in July, ruling that Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional.

Smith is reportedly wrapping up both prosecutions in the wake of Trump’s election victory.

Biden later confessed that he had improperly retained classified documents from his years as vice president and U.S. senator, yet he faced no charges. Special counsel Robert Hur investigated Biden and interviewed him, ultimately declining to bring charges in part because a jury would find Biden sympathetic as an “elderly man with a poor memory” and because his “diminished faculties” made it less likely he intentionally violated the law.

Republicans demanded that the Justice Department release the audio of Biden’s interview with Hur, since the special counsel’s report cast grave doubts on the president’s ability to carry out his duties.

Each of these legal cases arguably represented a political attack on Trump through the legal system, often on trumped-up charges. Trump became the first former president convicted of a felony, yet the partisan nature of these attacks led Americans to suspect that the Left was abusing the system to prosecute its top enemy. The lawfare almost certainly backfired, as well it should have.

2. The Ballot Challenges

In a similarly egregious political attack, activists and Democratic officials moved to strike Trump from state ballots on the claim that he had incited an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.

The Supreme Court definitively (and unanimously) ended this argument in March, ruling that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution does not disqualify Trump from appearing on ballots. (Trump had never been charged with insurrection, much less convicted of it.)

At a time when Democrats were running as the “party of democracy” and warning that Trump would end democracy, they also sought to disqualify the former president at the outset. This effort also backfired.

3. The Nazi Comparisons

Throughout this election cycle, Biden, Harris, and others on the left have suggested that Trump represented a threat to democracy. They condemned him as racist and authoritarian. They continued to do so even after he faced multiple assassination attempts.

Yet the most absurd moment arguably came toward the end of the campaign, when Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Harris’ running mate, noted that Trump would hold a rally at Madison Square Garden in New York City. On the day of that rally, Walz said, “Donald Trump’s got this big rally going at Madison Square Garden. There’s a direct parallel to a big rally that happened in the mid-1930s at Madison Square garden.”

Walz was straining to connect Trump’s rally to an American Nazi Party rally in February 1939. Not only was there a gap of more than 80 years between the two rallies, but Madison Square Garden’s location physically moved in both 1926 and 1968. The Madison Square Garden that hosted the pro-Nazi rally is not even the same building that hosted Trump.

Furthermore, Madison Square Garden hosted multiple Democratic Party events, from Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s last 1936 campaign speech to the Democratic National Convention in 1976, 1980, and 1992.

The idea that Trump echoed Nazis simply by choosing a venue—which had been twice rebuilt since the 1939 event—is ludicrous on its face.

IT'S REAL: MSNBC did indeed include the chyron "TRUMP'S MSG RALLY COMES 85 YEARS AFTER PRO-NAZI RALLY AT FAMED ARENA."

This echoes Tim Walz's attack on Trump, citing the rally. Yes, pro-Nazi Americans rallied at Madison Square Garden in February 1939. Does this taint… pic.twitter.com/rg2hIvWRQn

— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) October 28, 2024

4. Hiding Biden’s Decline

The fact that Biden was no spring chicken—even in 2019 and 2020—should not be lost on anyone, but for most of the 2024 presidential election, the White House, the legacy media, and the Democratic establishment brushed off concerns about the sitting president’s declining mental acuity.

None other than Kamala Harris repeatedly insisted that Biden was A-OK.

“Our president is in good shape, in good health, and is ready to lead in our second term,” Harris said in February. She praised him as “vibrant.”

WATCH: Over 6 minutes of Kamala Harris covering up Joe Biden's cognitive decline.

For years, she said Biden is "very bold and vibrant" and is "tireless in terms of working." Kamala claimed Biden "is gonna be fine," and said he "is in good shape, in good health."

Kamala LIED. pic.twitter.com/d2domPIUOA

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) July 7, 2024

Despite his disastrous performance in the June 27 debate with Trump, Biden repeatedly insisted he would remain in the race. Only after former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former President Barack Obama leaked that they had met with Biden, pressuring him to withdraw, did the president finally announce he would leave the race and back his vice president.

Early Wednesday morning, CNN hosts Jake Tapper and Anderson Cooper tried to bring up any counties where Harris was “outperforming Biden in 2020,” but not one county showed the vice president winning 3% or more votes than Biden did four years before.

NOT. ONE. COUNTY.

Anderson Cooper and Jake Tapper bring up CNN's interactive map showing if there was any county in the country where Kamala Harris outperformed Joe Biden by 3% or more.

Were the Democrats smart to swap out Biden at the last moment for Kamala Harris? pic.twitter.com/kJYm0gEQZp

— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) November 6, 2024

5. The Kamala Switcheroo

Speaking of Kamala Harris, who, exactly, is she? That’s not a rhetorical question.

There’s tough-on-crime prosecutor Kamala, whom she sometimes plays on TV. There’s radical-Left activist Kamala, who briefly got a voting record score to the left of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. Then there’s cackling Kamala trying to be bubbly, as she briefly was for the “joy” and “vibes” election the legacy media tried to foist on Americans when the Democratic elites propped Harris up as the savior early in her brief campaign.

Finally, there was angry, scolding, Trump-is-a-fascist Kamala, who also wiggled out of taking any policy position that would differentiate her from the sitting president while she was running a “change” election.

Is it any wonder Kamala Harris never won a primary in the 2020 Democratic contest?

That’s right—the last-minute switcheroo that was going to “save democracy” from Donald Trump involved someone who didn’t win a single Democratic primary in 2020 or 2024. It involved someone who claimed she wasn’t Joe Biden but never created any daylight between her policies and those of Joe Biden.

Worse, it involved a candidate who branded her opponent a fascist when she herself had the record of trying to prosecute pro-life journalists, demanding donor information from conservative nonprofits, and demonizing fellow Americans for disagreeing with her radical stance on abortion.

Democrats chose a nominee who had been tasked with solving the crisis over illegal immigration, even though it got worse on her watch. They chose a nominee whose answer to every question was “I grew up in a middle-class family.” They chose the garden goddess of word salads, whose grand achievement was explaining that Ukraine is a country in Europe.

KAMALA: “Ukraine is a country in Europe.

It exists next to another country called Russia.

Russia is a bigger country.”

Glad we cleared that up.

Source: Morning Hustle pic.twitter.com/IEXrjUJkgj

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) March 24, 2024

What does Harris’ duplicity have to do with her awkwardness and her lack of primary victories? Just this: Americans knew she was being foisted upon them under false pretenses, and Tuesday’s election results suggest that they really didn’t like that.

The Biden-Harris switcheroo suggested that the real power behind the administrative state wasn’t the man sitting behind the Resolute Desk but a shadowy network of elites pulling the strings behind the scenes. Perhaps someone should write a book about that. (My book on this exact subject, “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government,” is available for pre-order now and releases on Jan. 21, 2024.)

6. The Closing Argument

After all this, Harris delivered a “closing argument” packed with lies and predicated on demonizing her opponent.

Yet the legacy media seized on comedian Tony Hinchcliffe’s remark at Trump’s Madison Square Garden event that Puerto Rico was an “island of garbage,” and Biden revealed his disdain for Trump’s supporters by responding: “The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters.”

By calling Americans who oppose his chosen successor “garbage,” the sitting president of the United States sent a clear and chilling message—even if Biden attempted to clarify it later.

Trump, always the showman, defused the insult with his comedic charm. He donned the orange and yellow reflective vest of a garbageman and sat in the front of a garbage truck. He spoke about it at his rallies, remarking that the safety vest made him look thinner.

On the one hand, Americans saw a Democratic puppet who couldn’t present a genuine personality, and on the other hand, they saw a man who isn’t afraid to get his hands dirty (metaphorically, of course) by working at McDonald’s and getting into a garbage truck.

The idea that this man—who faced unprecedented criminal charges, disgusting attempts to remove him from the ballot, and assassination attempts—represented the true threat to democracy just could not stand.

Rather, the entire campaign revealed the exact opposite. Only one political party tried to disqualify its opponent from the very beginning of the race. Only one party fanned the flames of hatred despite assassination attempts against its target. Only one struggled desperately to change the playing field at the last minute after lying to the American people the whole time.

Trump won this election, despite every norm the Left broke to try to take him down.

Now, he has to make sure his victory sends the appropriate message: that the elites can’t force their way on the American people. That struggle has just begun.

Americans are tired of talking heads and the opinions of editorialists masquerading as journalists. But this should not be confused with declining interest in news or politics; viewers are simply moving to channels where they can get an unfiltered view of the candidates from personalities they trust.

If there is one clear lesson from the 2024 election cycle, it’s that candidates for public office must be prepared to engage in this new media landscape to stay competitive, especially on long-form podcasts.

The last time we had a shift this significant was 1960, when America saw the first televised presidential debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. The Kennedy-Nixon debate underscored the power of television to shape public perception.

Remember, past is prologue. Take, for example, Donald Trump’s appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience.” Already, it’s racked up about 45 million views—just on YouTube alone. Trump’s interview with Theo Von received 14 million views. For her part, Kamala Harris’ appearance on the “Call Her Daddy” podcast received 733,000 views and she received 665,000 views on the “All the Smoke” podcast.

While traditional media audiences are shrinking, these appearances have outperformed the average audiences of these podcasts oftentimes 10 to 1. Remarkably, the candidates’ episodes are even outpacing episodes featuring internationally known Hollywood celebrities.

Voters are hungry to hear from the candidates on an unfiltered, authentic platform, and podcasts are filling that need.

This shift is redefining how viable candidates will approach media going forward. Those who want to succeed in politics but are afraid, or unable, to allow the public a view into who they really are going to have a ceiling on their career if they don’t do long-form interviews.

Political campaigns are going to change in two ways due to this dynamic.

1. Candidates need to get comfortable in their own skin, open up and answer personal questions about heartache, addiction, and what makes their spouse smile. This open, honest, and unvarnished content mirrors what the public is receiving in their social media feeds already, so it makes sense that they are demanding the same transparency from their political leaders.
2. It’s going to transform the way political professionals engage with the electorate. According to GWI, a consumer research company, the “typical” internet user spends almost 2.5 hours each day using social media platforms, equating to more than one-third of their total time online. As a result, campaign resources should shift to talking to the electorate where they are spending their time, which is on their phone. That is where people are getting their news, listening to podcasts, vegging out, and forming opinions about who they will vote for.

The reason these podcasters and creators carry so much influence is because of the community and trust they build with their audience. As James Clear, author of The New York Times bestseller of “Atomic Habits,” says about changing opinions, “Facts don’t change our minds. Friendship does.”

This election year, I was part of an effort that enlisted thousands of podcasters and social media personalities to encourage unregistered and low propensity voters to engage in the political process. Content creators in coordination with Vote4America delivered billions of impressions to tens of millions of voters. The posts calling on people to engage in the election significantly overperformed the average post of the creator, much like the success of the Trump and Harris podcast appearances.

We won’t know the full effect of all this content until all the votes are counted, but we can already see that 8.5% of all early votes are being cast by previously eligible first-time voters, meaning they are of age to have voted in past elections but decided not to.

The authenticity and trust of these podcasters and content creators is clearly having an effect on voter behavior.

What Jeff Bezos got wrong was his slight at podcasts as “unresearched.” The public clearly disagrees.

Americans are choosing podcasts over Bezos’ newspaper as their trusted source of news and information. Traditional media and candidates for office now must grapple with the new expectations of the electorate: unfiltered, unedited, authentic content.

It has transferred a tremendous amount of wealth from hardworking Americans to the federal government.

The root cause of this disaster—reckless government spending and money-printing—should serve as a reminder that the federal deficit is the bank robber, the Fed is the getaway car driver, and you are the bank.

The past few years have seen consumer goods prices increase more than they had in the prior 30 years, while staggering price increases for construction materials have helped push homeownership out of reach for tens of millions of Americans.

This whirlwind of economic horrors comes from the combination of dramatically expanding government spending and a Federal Reserve willing to print enough money to paper over deficits with inflation.

Since the beginning of COVID-19, the annual level of federal spending has increased 45%, while the Fed has increased the money supply by 37%. Spending newly printed dollars in this way doesn’t magically create new goods and services. Instead, it has created the classic recipe for inflation; namely, more dollars chasing fewer goods and services.

This policy has inflated away nearly 20% of the purchasing power of the dollars in your paycheck and bank account.

Consumer goods price increases from October 1990 through January 2021 ran about the same as the increase from January 2021 through June 2022—roughly 14.3%. In other words, about 30 years of price increases thrown at households in less than a year and a half. To make matters worse, the increase in construction materials prices has been even larger, 26.4% since President Joe Biden took office.

No wonder house prices have soared over the past few years. While this does increase the equity of current homeowners, it also tends to lock people into their current homes and box young families out of owning a home altogether.

When the government runs a large deficit—as it is now with over $2 trillion in annual deficits—the Fed has a choice: It can print money to accommodate and soak up the new debt, creating a ticking time bomb of inflation, or it can leave the money supply unchanged and allow federal deficits to crowd out private access to funding, sending interest rates through the roof as money becomes scarcer.

That leaves prospective homeowners without financing to buy a home and leaves businesses without investment capital to expand operations and create more jobs and goods and services.

With inflation rapidly climbing early in 2022, the Fed chose the latter. By pushing interest rates higher, the Fed didn’t alleviate the burden of high levels of government spending. It simply shifted the pain of the burden from runaway inflation to runaway interest rates, exacerbating the worsening financial picture for American families.

Mortgage rates soared from around 2.8% in January 2021, when Biden took office, to over 7.5% by October 2023. The Fed, on its own, couldn’t remove the burden from American families, it could only choose the type of burden.

That has left homeownership less affordable than it has been for generations. In January 2021, first-year interest costs on a typical new mortgage were around $8,200, or 16% of a full-time median worker’s annual pay when President Donald Trump left office. Today, it’s around $21,900, consuming more than 36% of a full-time median worker’s annual pay.

This bludgeoning will, tragically, have lingering effects as well. Today, a new mortgage on a median home will cost $320,000 more in just interest costs over 30 years than that of a mortgage from the end of 2020—a tremendous 257% increase in total mortgage interest costs.

If a new homeowner were able to, instead, keep this money and invest it over the same 30-year period, he or she could easily have more than $1 million more saved up for retirement.

The cost of the inflation and interest rate surges have levied a truly crushing burden on the backs of hardworking American families that will likely echo through generations to come.

First came the mammoth $430 billion plan birthed before the ’22 midterms that made the student loans of 40 million borrowers eligible for cancellation.

That died the following spring at the Supreme Court only to be succeeded by the “Saving on a Valuable Education” plan, which drastically reduced the income borrowers must contribute toward repaying their loans at an estimated 10-year cost of $475 billion.

SAVE, which two Democrat-appointed judges enjoined in April, was then followed by four related rules canceling the debts of borrowers who have spent a long time in repayment without actually repaying their loans.

The latest proposal is another example of the administration’s ingrained reflex to respond to its own unpopularity with spending. Although the general objections to it are familiar, still, specific features of the latest plan are worth examining, especially because of their timing.

At this stage, the proposed rules would not be finalized until 2025. Moreover, the rules’ stated pretension is to provide an avenue for debt cancellation for “student loan borrowers for generations to come.”

The rules create two new paths for cancellation: a one-time automatic cancellation initiated by the secretary of education for loans at risk of default and an ongoing option that borrowers can access by application that “holistically” demonstrates the borrower’s hardship.

Purportedly, these address borrower needs not “sufficiently” covered in the preceding rounds of rulemaking or by readily available loan deferrals. That may be the closest the administration gets to acknowledging the redundancy of its plan that layers forgiveness atop forgiveness.

Much like the previous efforts, there’s a good deal of dissonance in how the administration presents the rule to different audiences. The Department of Education heralds the rules publicly as a courageous achievement, power procured through a righteous fight to provide “hope to millions of struggling Americans,” something no other administration has done before.

At least that last bit is true. But the rules themselves attempt to speak softly and modestly to a mostly legal audience, insisting that they are not the creation of some strange new power, but only a specification of how the secretary intends to apply the discretion that he has always had.

And though the rule is supposed to help “millions,” the secretary assures would-be critics that he will exercise his discretion only in “relatively rare” circumstances where “the costs of enforcing the full amount of the debt are not justified by the expected benefits.”

So, rest assured, dear taxpayer, these rules will save you money despite all appearances that your money is being given away.

Officious paternalism works tolerably well as a description of the rules’ tenor. The administration promises to anticipate and address borrower needs before they even arise by authorizing the Department of Education to cancel loans automatically if the department deems them at risk of defaulting.

How does the department make that determination? By consulting a “non-exhaustive” 17-factor list, of course. How else?

The borrowers the administration hopes to assist are evidently so distressed that they have not even bothered to apply for relief. Perhaps after years of COVID-19-based transfer payments and the gratuitous benefits of previous loan pauses and cancellations, borrowers are just accustomed to receiving without asking.

But then it falls to the rest of us to ask: Does any other segment of the population receive this much financial solicitude from the federal government?

The proposal’s most audacious quality is not its indulgent attitude toward borrowers, but its insouciance toward the matter of legal authority.

Since it took office, the Biden-Harris administration has combed the statutes for the few stray words they could morph into transformational debt-cancelling authority.

To date, they’re still searching for a rationale that would satisfy a judge. But the fact is, they are out of plausible alternatives, so they are recycling the same tortured reading of the Higher Education Act used to justify two of the preceding attempts.

Courts have already previewed the merits of this argument: Two Democrat-appointed judges have found that opponents of the rules are “likely to succeed on the merits” of their legal challenges. But that has in no way dissuaded the administration from this fourth attempt because the administration refuses to take the hint.

In the twilight of Biden-Harris administration, its policy approach resembles a movie studio that has misunderstood its audience and run out of ideas to keep them engaged.

These rules are sequels that appeal only to the most niche audience—the coalition of organizations dedicated to the abolition of student debt and their enablers within the Department of Education.

With the broader American audience, the approach is a liability. A poll conducted by University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy found that 40% of Americans “strongly disapprove” of the Biden-Harris administration’s repeated intrigues to transfer student debt to taxpayers. Another poll from the libertarian Cato Institute found that roughly 70% of Americans disapprove of student-loan cancellation when apprised of its effects on taxes and inflation.

Nevertheless, the administration persists in offering the same non-cure for the student-debt ailment. Despite the administration’s professed interest in addressing “root causes,” these rules, like their predecessors, barely acknowledge, let alone address, the variables that have made higher education such a debt-intensive undertaking or the variables that make the American economy one in which it is difficult for borrowers to repay the burdens they have assumed.

Instead, it cues up another installment of bourgeois socialism, a redistribution of monies to those who have spent too much money to attain fewer privileges than they would like.

The Daily Signal fact-checked many of her claims.

‘Terminate the Constitution’

Harris touted the fact that former Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., endorsed her against Trump. The vice president said Cheney backed her due to “a legitimate fear, based on Donald Trump‘s words and actions, that he will not obey an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

“He himself has said he would terminate the Constitution of the United States,” she added.

The claim traces back to a post Trump wrote on Truth Social on Dec. 3, 2022. In that post, the former president wrote of the 2020 presidential election, “A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”

He added, “Our great ‘Founder’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”

Fellow Republicans criticized his comments, and Trump later clarified that he would not terminate the Constitution.

In a follow-up post, he condemned the legacy media’s interpretation of his post.

“The Fake News is actually trying to convince the American People that I said I wanted to ‘terminate’ the Constitution,” Trump said in a Truth Social post on Dec. 5, 2022.

Kamala Harris repeats the claim that Trump would "terminate the Constitution of the United States."

That's an exaggeration. He briefly called for the "termination of rules" in order to reverse what he claimed to have been a fraudulent election, and he later clarified that… pic.twitter.com/8zaFqYZ2eo

— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) October 24, 2024

Hitler’s Generals

Harris said she believed Trump is a fascist and she repeatedly tied him to the Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler.

Harris claimed that Trump said to his generals “in essence, why can’t you be more like Hitler’s generals?”

Remember that anonymous-sources Atlantic article claiming Trump didn't want to pay for the funeral of that "f—ing Mexican"? The article that @MarkMeadows denied and @mguilen_ (the sister of the murdered Army private) condemned The Atlantic for? Kamala Harris just referenced… pic.twitter.com/s02qzMfPMD

— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) October 24, 2024

The vice president was referencing an Atlantic article by Jeffrey Goldberg citing anonymous sources, claiming Trump said, “I need the kind of generals that Hitler had.”

Trump spokesman Alex Pfeiffer said the claim is “absolutely false,” and that “President Trump never said this.”

That article claimed Trump ordered then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows not to pay for the funeral of 20-year-old Army private Vanessa Guillén, calling her a “f—ing Mexican.” Meadows denied the story and Guillén’s sister accused The Atlantic of “exploiting my sister’s death for politics.”

Wow.
I don’t appreciate how you are exploiting my sister’s death for politics- hurtful & disrespectful to the important changes she made for service members. President Donald Trump did nothing but show respect to my family & Vanessa. In fact, I voted for President Trump today. https://t.co/o8cDrKOKBV

— Mayra Guillen (@mguilen_) October 22, 2024

‘Suckers and Losers’

Harris claimed that Trump referred to members of the military as “suckers and losers,” that “he demeans people who have taken an oath to sacrifice their life for our country.”

The claim that Trump called members of the military “suckers” and “losers” originates from a 2020 article published in The Atlantic relying on anonymous sources. Trump has consistently disputed the reports.

‘Price Gouging’

Harris attributed inflation to “price gouging.” When CNN’s Cooper asked her about whether the Trump administration or the Biden administration was responsible for inflation, she suggested that her experience as attorney general in California would help her fight inflation.

“How I come to it is probably a new approach grounded in a lot of my experiences as a former attorney general, where I took on price gouging and part of my plan is to create a new approach that is the first time that we will have a national ban on price gouging, which is companies taking advantage of the desperation and need of the American consumer and jacking up prices without any consequence or accountability,” she said.

Kamala Harris suggests price gouging is responsible for inflation.

FACT CHECK: Pants on fire

The consumer price index has increased less than the producer price index, which means that companies, on a whole, are taking a loss on prices. They are tightening their belts as… pic.twitter.com/B6rISafDOw

— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) October 24, 2024

Other Democrats, such as President Joe Biden and Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., have attributed inflation to companies’ greed.

As Heritage Foundation Research Fellow EJ Antoni pointed out, there is a far more obvious culprit: government spending.

As Antoni noted, “One of the functions of money is that of a measuring tool. If a yardstick were to shrink from 36 inches down to just 30, it would take 120 of these shortened yardsticks to cover the distance of a football field, instead of 100. As the dollar has lost value, it takes more dollars to measure the value of the things we buy.”

While Americans feel the pain of inflation, so do businesses. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, “businesses have gotten the short end of the stick,” Antoni explained. “The producer price index is used to measure inflation on the products and services businesses buy—sometimes called wholesale inflation—and that index has risen 17.5% since Biden took office. Conversely, the consumer price index, the widely cited metric for inflation faced by American families, is up 17.1% over that same time.”

“Businesses have actually been sheltering consumers from some cost increases in an effort to maintain market share and not lose customers,” he wrote. “That also explains why, according to the Biden administration’s Census Bureau, total corporate profits have fallen for the last six quarters after adjusting for inflation.”

“If alleged price gouging were really the cause of inflation, did businessmen magically become greedy when Biden took office?” Antoni asked. “Were corporations never greedy in the 40 years leading up to Biden’s inflationary expansion of government? Businesses haven’t even passed all their higher costs on to consumers; if they’re trying to be greedy, they’re doing it all wrong.”

If inflation is caused by corporate "greed" then why are producer and consumer prices both up by 19% since Jan '21 w/ consumer price increases only just recently catching up to price increases faced by businesses? Asking for a friend… pic.twitter.com/EBLwxyEEwR

— E.J. Antoni, Ph.D. (@RealEJAntoni) April 15, 2024

‘Women Have Died’

When discussing state abortion laws in the wake of the Supreme Court striking down the abortion precedent Roe v. Wade (1973) in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), Harris claimed, “Women have died because of these laws.”

She has repeatedly mentioned the name Amber Nicole Thurman, suggesting that she died due to Georgia’s law restricting abortion.

Yet Thurman died after she took the abortion pill, which caused complications and left parts of her twin unborn babies inside her.

Thurman legally obtained abortion pills in North Carolina to end the lives of her unborn twins, but she could not know without an ultrasound (which the FDA had required only a few years beforehand). Five days later, she began to abort the twins, but both babies’ remains remained in her uterus. She began to develop sepsis and went to the hospital.

Doctors hospitalized her, but she died before they could perform a dilation and curettage to remove the remaining parts of her unborn babies.

Harris blamed Thurman’s death on a law restricting abortion, but the law would not prevent the removal of the babies’ remains when they were already dead. The FDA’s loosened restrictions on the abortion pill, not Georgia’s law, is arguably to blame for this tragic death.

'WOMEN HAVE DIED': Kamala Harris claimed that "women have died because of these laws," referencing state laws restricting abortion after Dobbs v. Jackson.

Yet the cases she repeatedly brings up, those of Amber Nicole Thurman and Candi Miller, actually have more to do with the… pic.twitter.com/sTKIdvYcEp

— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) October 24, 2024

Prefer to Run on the Problem

Harris repeated her claim that Trump killed a bipartisan border bill earlier this year “because he’d prefer to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem.”

Yet critics have warned that the bill would have cemented Biden’s open-border policies into law.

Cooper pressed Harris on why the Biden administration used executive orders to reverse many Trump border policies in January 2021. He noted that illegal aliens crossed the border in large numbers after those orders, and the numbers only decreased when Biden issued other executive orders. He asked her whether she regrets the weaker border policies.

Harris replied that only Congress could solve the ultimate problem. Cooper again pressed her on whether Biden should have issued the 2024 executive orders sooner, and she replied, “I think we did the right thing.”

'I THINK WE DID THE RIGHT THING': Kamala Harris tells Anderson Cooper she does not regret the Biden-Harris administration's executive orders reversing Trump's border policies, even after she acknowledged that later executive actions helped stem the border crisis. pic.twitter.com/UGdXVBIVPv

— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) October 24, 2024

As an evangelical Christian myself, I’d like to encourage my fellow believers to cast their ballots. I also ask pastors to tell their flocks to vote, without endorsing one candidate over another.

First, however, let’s explain the research.

George Barna, director of research at Arizona Christian University’s Cultural Research Center, conducted two in-depth surveys in August and September. Online and by phone, Barna surveyed 2,000 adults who self-identified as Christians and said they attended church services at least once a month. He also did an online survey of 1,000 adults in the overall U.S. population.

The surveys found that only 51% of “people of faith”—those who describe themselves as affiliated with a recognized religious faith or as “a person of religious faith”—indicate they are likely to vote in the upcoming election. The U.S. voting-age population is about 268 million, and the survey estimated that about 212 million adults qualify as being in the “people of faith” category. Since 49% of “people of faith” in the survey indicated they would not be likely to vote, that amounts to approximately 104 million Americans “of faith” who are unlikely to vote.

Barna broke down these nonvoters into a few (sometimes overlapping) groups: born-again Christians, identified by their stated beliefs regarding sin and salvation (41 million nonvoters); self-identified Christians who regularly attend church services (32 million); voting-age adults who regularly attend an evangelical church (14 million); adults who attend Protestant churches (46 million); and adults who attend Catholic churches (19 million).

Likely nonvoters gave a variety of reasons for not voting: a lack of interest in politics and elections (68%), disliking all the major candidates (57%), feeling that no candidate reflects their most important views (55%), believing that their one vote won’t make a difference (52%), and saying that the election has become too controversial for their liking (50%).

Yet Barna’s research also found that these nonvoters may reconsider their apathy if their pastors encourage them to vote.

“This research underscores the fact that simply encouraging people to vote in order to fulfill their biblical responsibility would not only be seen as doing their job while helping the community, but an estimated 5 million regular churchgoers would be likely to vote as a result of that simple exhortation,” Barna said in a press release on the findings. “That, in itself, could change the outcome of the election.”

He also noted that the results of the 2020 presidential election, which were contested, came down to a combined total of 587,000 votes in nine battleground states.

“In that context, the 32 million Christians sitting in the pews each week who refuse to vote are a game-changer,” the researcher added. “It’s low-hanging fruit for pastors as they try to motivate those congregants to carry out their civic duty and honor God through their influence for things that matter in our culture.”

So, should conservative Christians vote in the 2024 election? Whether our votes will make a difference or not, what does the Bible say?

1. Honor the Ruling Authorities

Christians look with hope for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come, when Jesus will reign and wipe away every tear. In the meantime, however, both the Bible and Christian tradition are clear: We should honor the ruling authorities.

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God,” the Apostle Paul writes in Romans 13:1. (I’m using the translation known as the English Standard Version for all Bible citations.)

Jesus proclaimed that he was the messiah at a time when the Jews expected a messiah to rise against Roman oppression, just like the Maccabees did against Greek oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Jesus repeatedly told his disciples and the Roman authorities that he didn’t come to usher in political change, for “my kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).

So, in modern America, who are the “governing authorities?” The three branches established by the Constitution—the executive under the president, the legislative under Congress, and the judicial under the Supreme Court—certainly qualify. But each derives its own authority from the people, who exercise their sovereign will through voting.

I would argue that in modern America, if you are a citizen with the right to vote, honoring the governing authorities entails educating yourself on the major issues and casting a ballot in your local, state, and federal elections.

Paul also lays out the basic function of government: The ruler, he writes, “is God’s servant for your good,” to reward the good and punish the evil. Paul adds: “He is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:3-5).

At the most basic level, following the Apostle Paul’s directive here involves casting a ballot in the way that will best help the government be a servant of God’s ultimate justice while acknowledging that human justice is limited.

2. Seek the Peace of the City

Some Christians might object that casting a ballot represents an endorsement of flawed candidates or a flawed system, and therefore they should protect their consciences by not implicating themselves in a broken political system.

To these people I would point to Jeremiah 29, the letter that the prophet Jeremiah wrote to the Jewish exiles in Babylon. Although God inspired Jeremiah to write that letter to the Jewish exiles at the time, not to modern Christians today, Christians may look to Jeremiah’s advice for inspiration and guidance—especially as Christians find themselves in what feels like a hostile and post-Christian American culture.

“Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce,” Jeremiah wrote. “But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jeremiah 29: 4-7).

Christians live in a sort of exile on earth, as citizens of heaven. As St. Augustine wrote in his magnificent book “The City of God,” Christians should work for the peace and prosperity of the earthly city in which we live, while longing for the heavenly city where our true citizenship and fulfillment reside.

This means voting in elections, sometimes for the lesser of what may seem to be two evils, because our votes will make a difference and can help the health of the earthly city where we currently dwell.

3. Instruments of God

Ultimately, God decides whether nations rise or fall, and whether he will give them prosperity or judgment.

This should come as great encouragement to American Christians who fear for our country. It is not up to us to determine whether the Constitution endures, whether the deep state will be defeated, or whether an immoral person takes the reins of the U.S. government.

Our votes can make an impact, but God determines the course of history, and he inspired Paul to write to the Romans, “We know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28).

This “good” does not always mean earthly prosperity—all things ultimately worked together for good for Stephen when he got stoned for preaching the good news about Jesus (Acts 7-8). It does mean, however, that we can put our ultimate hope in God, and look at the struggles in this world as a testing ground, a “vale of tears” before we reach the summit of everlasting joy.

“The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will,” Solomon writes in Proverbs 21.

The prophets ring with the message that God sometimes chooses judgment for his people, the Jews, and he used both the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar and the Persian King Cyrus to accomplish his will. The first served God by delivering judgment on the Jews—destroying Jerusalem and carrying the Jews off into exile. The second served God by returning the Jews to Jerusalem, paying to rebuild the temple and the walls of the holy city.

When we vote, prayerfully and wisely, we are taking our own small part in God’s ultimate governance of human affairs. We won’t always get it right, but he will.