MAGA Mike Johnson Once Warned About Dangers of Living Under Democracy

House Speaker Mike Johnson turned heads on Monday when a website hosting his podcast and church sermons suddenly vanished. Still, Johnson hasn’t been able to completely scrub his prior social media presence, with some evidence of his lectures still floating around online, including a three-hour sermon organized by his wife’s ministry that blasts the newly elected’s Christian fundamentalism.

The contents of his evangelical musings—which he apparently wants to hide—offer revealing details about the little-known congressman, including that he doesn’t really believe in democracy.

“By the way, the United States is not a democracy. Do you know what a democracy is? Two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner. You don’t want to be in a democracy. Majority rule: not always a good thing,” Johnson said at the First Baptist Church of Haughton, Louisiana, in 2019.

Johnson has also attacked the idea of social services, claiming that the only entity entitled to provide care is the church, not the government.

“I was in South America two weeks ago and they were talking about how … the Catholic Church used to provide soup kitchens and orphanages and do all this stuff and it doesn’t do it anymore and now they’re just willfully, everybody’s willfully, having the civil government take all these responsibilities over. And it’s just a sad development because that’s not how it’s supposed to work,” Johnson said.

In other comments, the Louisiana congressman claimed that the “immigration crisis” is because refugees won’t “assimilate” to the “rule of law”—as in, gaining citizenship—while failing to acknowledge the complicated, lengthy, and expensive process required to become a U.S. citizen. Ultimately, according to Johnson, the failure falls on the refugees’ lack of Christian faith.

“The reason that illegal immigration is such a crisis, such a problem is because you have a lot of God-fearing folks and rule-abiding people who are following the law,” Johnson said, going on to celebrate America’s long history of immigration.

“That’s our origin. But at some point, if the rule of law is eviscerated in that process, the whole system topples. And we’re dangerously close to that right now, because why? We ain’t following the Bible’s rules on this,” Johnson added.

Johnson earned the gavel by a unanimous vote from House Republicans on Wednesday. The resolution came after 22 days of congressional chaos and several failed votes to elect more prominent party members to the role, including Representative Jim Jordan and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, who failed to unify the party.

Ohio Republican officials purged the voter registrations of almost 27,000 residents, just weeks before the state was set to vote on whether to enshrine the right to abortion in the Constitution.

Secretary of State Frank LaRose ordered that 26,666 voter registrations be purged in late September. He did not publicly announce his decision at the time and only acknowledged it when local outlets began reporting it last week. Those who were purged cannot re-register to vote in time for the abortion ballot measure on November 7. The deadline to register for the upcoming election was October 10.

LaRose had told county boards over the summer to pause any purges ahead of an August special election, in which Republicans sought to raise the threshold for ballot initiatives to 60 percent of votes. After that attempt ended in resounding failure, LaRose charged ahead with purging voter registrations.

Democratic state Representative Bride Rose Sweeney slammed LaRose’s move as “a purge of choice.”

“Since you insist on purging voters, the very least you can do is wait until after the election to do it,” she said in an October 26 letter to the secretary of state. “You even stopped the purge before the August 2023 election, but now that our reproductive rights, our very lives, are on the November ballot, you have rushed to purge voters.”

LaRose pushed back, insisting on October 26 that they had only removed inactive registrations “after we’ve learned a voter has moved & not been active at that address for more than FOUR YEARS.”

But LaRose’s refusal to be transparent around his decision should come as no surprise. He and his fellow state Republicans have been actively working to undermine local democracy over the abortion referendum.

Abortion is currently legal in Ohio until about 22 weeks, although not for lack of GOP efforts after Roe v. Wade was overturned. Next week’s amendment would allow people to decide for themselves about all reproductive health.

Republicans initially tried to raise the threshold for constitutional amendments to a 60 percent vote, instead of a simple majority. This would have paved the way for minority rule in the state. The state GOP argued the amendment was needed to protect the state Constitution from the influence of special interest groups, but LaRose later admitted the move was “100 percent” about blocking the abortion amendment.

LaRose is running to win the Republican nomination for Senate against Democrat Sherrod Brown. His campaign has also begun to indicate it might be open to extremist stances on election integrity. LaRose endorsed Donald Trump earlier this year—a departure from his strategy in 2020.

His campaign recently appeared to issue a veiled threat to Trump, urging him to endorse LaRose back. A source close to LaRose’s campaign, speaking anonymously, hinted to HuffPost that it would behoove Trump to back LaRose.

“If you are the president and you are fighting four legal battles, most of them centered around the validity of the election—and you’re most likely going to be on the general election ballot in a state you cannot win the White House without—are you going to do anything to antagonize the guy counting the votes?” the person said.

This article has been updated.

A lawsuit to remove Donald Trump from Colorado’s 2024 presidential ballot kicked off Monday, the first of two cases arguing the former president rendered himself ineligible by engaging in insurrection.

A group of Colorado voters, all either Republican or unaffiliated, filed a petition in September to remove Trump from the Colorado ballot. They argue that his efforts to overturn the 2020 election should disqualify him under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. That section of the Constitution states that anyone who has taken an oath of office to the United States and then “engages in insurrection or rebellion” against the country is banned from holding public office again.

Opening arguments began Monday in a Denver courtroom. Judge Sarah B. Wallace gave each side 18 hours to lay out their entire arguments.

A lawyer for the petitioners, who are represented by the liberal organization Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington, or CREW, pointed to Trump’s violent and militaristic language just moments before an angry mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Trump “summoned and organized the mob,” said Eric Olson. “We are here because Trump claims, after all that, that he has the right to be president again.”

“But our Constitution, the shared charter of our nation, says he cannot do so.”

Lawyers for Trump pushed back, calling the petition “anti-democratic” and even claiming it amounted to “election interference.”

Trump’s lawyers also said that the petition was inappropriately asking the Colorado secretary of state to analyze a candidate’s conduct, instead of a more clear-cut eligibility requirement, such as age or citizenship.

Trump has been indicted twice for trying to overturn the election, once federally in Washington and again at the state level in Georgia. He has yet to be tried in either case, meaning there is no verdict that can definitively say whether or not he is guilty of engaging in insurrection or election interference.

The Colorado lawsuit is one of two that could reach the Supreme Court. A group of voters in Minnesota filed a lawsuit in September, just a week after the Colorado petition, to remove Trump from their state’s presidential ballot.

Donald Trump bragged during a campaign speech about threatening to abandon U.S. allies, even if Russia attacked one of them.

Trump appeared in Sioux City, Iowa, on Sunday. During his speech, he made a series of bizarre comments, including mistaking the city for Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and pronouncing Canada as “Canya.”

But he notably also said he had threatened to withhold U.S. military aid from NATO members unless they paid the bloc more. He said, at one point, he told member state leaders, “We’re not going to protect you any longer.”

“The head of a country stood up, said, ‘Does that mean if Russia attacks my country, you will not be there?’ That’s right, that’s what it means,” Trump said to applause. “I will not protect you.”

“And the money came!”

Trump’s refusal to step in even in the case of a Russian attack is notable considering how much he loves Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin. Trump and Putin enjoy a particularly cozy relationship, and Trump has repeatedly praised the Russian president.

Given the fact that Republican support for the war in Ukraine is on the wane, Putin must be overjoyed that the party’s presidential front-runner is actively advocating letting Russia attack whichever countries it wants.

Trump falsely claimed throughout his presidency that the other NATO members had failed to make sufficient contributions to the alliance. In 2018, he accused other countries of owing the U.S. “a tremendous amount of money from many years back, where they’re delinquent as far as I’m concerned.”

He also threatened to withdraw the U.S. from NATO over the other countries’ supposed unpaid dues. But in reality, the U.S. has never been shortchanged by NATO allies.

“There is no ledger that maintains accounts of what countries pay and owe,” Aaron O’Connell, a former Obama administration National Security Council staffer, told NPR in 2018. “NATO is not like a club with annual membership fees.”

That fact hasn’t stopped Trump from resurrecting his NATO falsehoods during his current campaign. Trump also bragged about his threat to abandon NATO allies to Russian attacks during an early October campaign stop in Waterloo, Iowa.

The United Auto Workers have officially landed big wins at the Big Three.

The union reached a tentative deal with General Motors on Monday, less than 48 hours after the autoworkers union ramped up its strike at the Spring Hill Assembly plant, the company’s largest manufacturing plant in North America.

As a result, General Motors employees will receive some of their biggest gains in decades, with a 25 percent pay bump in base wages over four and a half years, reported The Washington Post. The other terms of the deal are not yet known.

“I think it’s great,” President Joe Biden told reporters as he boarded Air Force One on Monday. The Biden administration had become increasingly involved in the negotiations as the six-week strike wore on, even grabbing a bullhorn at one GM strike in September to tell workers to “stick with it,” reported the Associated Press.

The fruits of the collective agreement are a sign that the anti-union era sparked more than 40 years ago is over. In 1981, the Reagan administration crushed a Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, or PATCO, strike, firing federal employees who refused to return to work and turning the tide against American labor relations for decades to come.

The deal is the third big win for the union in the last week. On Wednesday, UAW negotiated a historic arrangement with Ford that would increase salaries by 25 percent over five years and bring back major benefits lost during the Great Recession. Then, on Saturday, Jeep manufacturer Stellantis also gave in and offered a similar deal.

Altogether, nearly 50,000 employees out of 150,000 union members picketed the Big Three in a series of walkouts that started September 15.

UAW President Shawn Fain used an escalating bargaining strategy to achieve the contracts, keeping a reserve of employees at work while peeling some out as the weeks grew. For the first time, the union negotiated with all three auto companies simultaneously, leveraging the threat of walkouts at major auto plants to create a bidding war between the manufacturers. Then, when talks stalled, Fain expanded the strike.

As a part of the agreement, workers will return to their jobs while the union organizes ratification votes, according to Reuters. That process is expected to take a week or more, though if workers reject the arrangement the strike will go on.