Subscribe to the IHARE Blog

State of American History, Civics, and Politics

The Wicked Bible: To Testify or NOT to Testify, That Is the Question

Title page of Barker and Lucas's 1631 Holy Bible, known as the "Wicked Bible"

The Wicked Bible was NOT published with the intention of becoming the Wicked Bible. When it was published by the royal printers in 1631, it simply was as another edition of the recently authorized King James Bible. And so it was except for one small omission – the word NOT did not appear in the printed version of the Book of Exodus, chapter 20, verse 14. As a result the commandment shifted in meaning from:

Thou shalt NOT commit adultery


Thou shalt commit adultery.

Actually, as we now know, these supposed commandments of the Lord were not direct orders to the Israelite people. They were only expressions of opinion by a deity partaking of his right to freedom of speech. One of the great fallacies of the religions of the book is the interpretation of these words as commandments rather than personal opinions.

Be that as it may, once the error of omission in the printing of the Bible was discovered, the trump hit the fan. The religious authorities were NOT pleased with this publication. They acted with great vigor to confiscate all the printed copies and to destroy them.

As a result very few copies have survived. There are only two such copies in the United States. One belongs to a family in Arkansas and the other to a family in Queens. By coincidence both families produced presidents of the United States. What are the odds? It’s a miracle!

When the histories of the baby-boomer presidencies are written, it will be noted that the era was bracketed by presidents who subscribed to the tenets of the Wicked Bible in contrast to the Bush-Bama presidents in-between who owned traditional bibles.

Understanding the error in the use or absence of the word NOT helps in understanding our president. For example

I am a very stable genius


I am not a very stable genius.

I am the smartest person in the room = I am not the smartest person in the room.
My IQ is higher = My IQ is not higher

And so on.

The key usage occurred in the taking the oath of office as president to defend, protect, and secure the United States from foreign enemies. In that situation as with his fidelity vow to his trophy wife, “I do” means “I do not” and he has been faithful to the corrected version in both instances.

Following up on the previous post on critical thinking skills, consider the following example a teacher could present in the classroom in an American History class.

Russia did interfere in the election of 2016.
Russia did NOT interfere in the election of 2016.

The teacher would then ask the students, how many people made these two statements? The students versed in the debates of Hamilton/Jefferson, Clay/Calhoun/Webster, and Lincoln/Douglas, naturally would be inclined to answer “two people.” The more perceptive students might realize that the teacher has asked a trick question and even without being able to identify the speaker answer “one person.”

At this point it is well-known that our president can NOT tell the truth except by accident. The Washington Post has carved out an identify for itself by tracking the number of trumps he has told as president – over 3000 and counting now at a rate 7.5/day.

While it is fun to make fun of our president who can NOT tell the truth, that action misses the point. Let’s NOT confuse ignorance with dishonesty. The more important consideration is that he is quite capable to taking opposite points of view on the same issue. For example:

The Attorney General should shut down the rigged witch hunt of angry Democrats led by a Republican with a grudge against me


The Special Counsel should investigate the real collusion with Russia by Crooked Hillary and the Democrats.

Exactly how both statements simultaneously could be true or false is a conundrum NOT easily resolved.

Actually, it is, once you realize that you are dealing with a child and that he is NOT an adult. The Wicked Bible and the correct versions, all have a story set in the Garden of Eden. One of the props in the story is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Less well-known is the biblical age at which a person is expected to have the mental necessities to differentiate between good and evil. In other words, the ancient Israelites recognized that one should NOT judge a child by adult standards. It is not fair to apply adult rules to someone incapable of understanding them as an adult. The cutoff point for ancient Israel was 20 years, at that point a person could be held accountable under adult standards.

Everybody knows our president is a(n immature) child. We have seen baby blimp Donny. We have read his hissy fit tweets. We have heard his incoherent baby talk speeches and interviews (maybe the playmate and the adult film start were giving him speech lessons on how to sound adult and he did NOT have sex with them). Despite this knowledge, people, including those who open and read these posts, continue to evaluate his actions and decisions as if he were an adult.

Now think of him as an immature child. He does NOT understand adult concepts like oath of office, separation of duties, checks and balances, management, or fascism. He manages by chaos NOT because of his education at the Wharton School of Business but because his mind only functions at that level. When he is confronted by a situation he needs to escape, honesty and dishonesty are irrelevant. His only consideration is the exact same as a child caught doing something he should NOT do. What do I need to do right now to get of out this situation? If it feels good at the moment to say, “Oh, yeah, oh, yeah, what about investigating Democratic collusion” by the very person he wants to fire but can NOT, he will say that. He is not conflicted by such opposite and contrary expressions the way an adult would be conflicted. That’s the advantage of being an immature child living for the moment.

The question asked at a press conference, “Is the President a liar” goes to the heart of the problem of the current press coverage. It is a perfectly valid question for an adult but it is NOT a valid question for an immature child. Remember when he referred everything to Michael Cohen and what Michael Cohen had done on his own. Remember how Michael Cohen was a good guy. Why did he go on record with words that would come back to haunt him? He could NOT think ahead to the consequences. Why did he tweet that the Attorney General should shut down the Special Counsel at the exact moment that the Special Counsel is investigating his tweets for obstruction on shutting down the Special Counsel? He did NOT think of the consequences. Is NOT that what teenagers always say when confronted with the consequences of an action taken for the moment: I did NOT think of that. Of course you did NOT think about consequences, you are a teenager. You are in the time of life when you will make more bad decisions than at any other time of your life. How would you like to be president now?

Stop pretending he is an adult. He is NOT. If you have to ask questions at the press conference, then ask a two-part one:

Is NOT it true that the President said this….?
Is NOT it true that the President said the opposite of this….?

and leave it at that.

Strangely enough, all this means he is not even old enough to realize why he should NOT talk to the Special Counsel. The immature child genuinely thinks he can talk his way out any mess just as he has been doing his whole life. He does NOT understand what it means to face well-researched, well-organized, disciplined adults instead of Fox and Friends or a professional wrestling arena audience. His lawyers do but they can no more control him than John Kelly could. Here’s where his failure to learn from his fiascoes with Kim Jong-un and Putin can hurt him.

2 thoughts on “The Wicked Bible: To Testify or NOT to Testify, That Is the Question

  1. Every day is Opposite Day in “kind of a double negative” land. (Who gave him the English lesson?) “Not” is optional and available whenever needed. Imagine Trump testifying; he would answer every question with a rant about Hillary, or by attacking Mueller personally. Could he not be led off in chains?

    1. It depends on how he would testify. If he testifies alone without his lawyers present, there is no telling what he might say. Even he wouldn’t know until he blurted something out in response to a question. If his lawyers are present, they would make a point of interrupting him before he perjured himself too much. As for his English, remember as a seventh-grade smart-aleck-dumb-aleck, he would NOT have been paying attention in class anyway. His attention span is very limited. I suspect if he were in school today he would be considered “special.”

Comments are closed.