Michael Hudson argues that this is perhaps the single most misconstrued passage of the Gospels. As a zealot Jew, Jesus’ understood nothing of the land of Israel to belong to Caesar, and all of it to belong to Yahweh. His response is a brilliant piece of lawyerly doublespeak.

As regards Speaker Johnson, he’s a dispensationalist. So, if we put aside the agency-predestination problem, it’s a bit curious that he is putting at risk the Second Coming and Jesus’ return to Jerusalem based upon contingent support for Israel.

St. Matthew was a tax collector.

Love this post! TY, Ms. Wheeler! It shines a bright light on the hypocrisy of the so-called “religious right” in their endless pursuit of mammon. I studied the New Testament and the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) in great detail in college religion classes. The parable of the moneychangers in the temple and Jesus’ admonition to “Render unto Caesar” are instructive in many ways. Jewish law at the time allowed no graven images on their coinage. So, moneychangers were needed at Jewish synagogues to convert Roman coins containing Caesar’s image to those with none (e.g. “the widow’s mite”). When Jesus violently overturned the moneychangers tables and scourged them with lashes [violent ‘zealotry’, I would say], it ensured Jesus’s arrest and trial. Interestingly, the Synoptic Gospels has the event happening near the end of Jesus’s ministry (which makes more sense) and John has it near the beginning. Both can’t be correct, so maybe Mike Johnson can explain, since he believes the Bible is infallible. Incidentally, as someone has pointed out, one of the 13 disciples and the reputed author of the book of Matthew was a tax collector. Most scholars doubt this authorship. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is scorned for associating with tax collectors.

“The most recent annual estimate of the net tax gap on the site is over half a trillion dollars.”

It may be possible to quibble about the methodology, or other aspects of that survey. Even so, what remains after any adjustments is still a helluva tax gap. But Republicans would prefer that no-one focuses on that.

My money would have been on Haley, but she continues to hit him pretty hard about his “smart Hezbollah” comments a few weeks back. The Democrats didn’t even field a candidate against Mike Johnson last time (given he smashed through their “jungle primary” in ’20 and ’18), which makes Louisiana law weird. Mike can’t run for office under state law on the November ballot for both offices, but by that same state’s law, he wouldn’t need to if he is the only candidate or if he wins the first round primary with greater than 50% of the vote. So there’s a chance he could be “Pence clone” and still be guaranteed his seat should Trump lose.

In terms of sick-ophancy, Kari is the front runner (assuming MTG is just too frisky), and he may be that far gone, iow just looking for someone to lean on, by the time selection time roles around.

But if the fallout from the evidentiary deluge that the multiple trials will have produced by that time hasn’t already pulled him under, beyond the reach of any prospect with even marginal cognition, Johnson fits all the Pence pre-J6 checkboxes (a soulless evangelical who will worship him as a graven idol) and has almost as much charisma, which elevates him above all others at this point.

Plus he’s a lawyer so he can give Trump free legal advice as part of the job — not a small consideration in the dull mind of the slouching beast, I’m guessing.

One thing I’m fairly certain of: that he will not choose anyone who’s distanced themselves from him (like Haley or anyone who’s running against him now). He doesn’t have that historical P/VP strategic sense. It’s beyond his ability to even contemplate.

I’m curious who his vp candidate will be as well. I get the screaming night terrors as to the potential cabinet he would pick if he gets another term. Marjorie Taylor Greene makes sense as a running mate.