Fixing What's Broken Will Take Time, Political Risks, Bold and Courageous Politicians and Popular Support

The best opportunity we had to make sure that a demagogue like Trump couldn't get to the White House and cause all of the havoc we are seeing now was frittered away by the Justice Department between 2020 and 2024, and by a Democratic controlled Congress between 2021 and 2023.  It does no good to soft-pedal crititicm of those who did not do what they could have done during that period of time.  It needs to be acknowledged, or we are kidding ourselves and we won't save American Democracy from the danger that it is in.  

I've been listening to the rhetoric for years now, telling me that Trump is the greatest threat to American Democracy that we have ever seen.  He proved that to be true every single day.  But the words of those who say this do not match their actions.  And that's not a "right wing talking point," because there is nothing right wing about me at all.  It's a simple observation.  They had four years, four years, to prosecute the crimes Trump committed while President, especially the insurrection and the theft of classified documents, and I'm not one who buys the bunk about the process being slowed down by all of the legal maneuvers Trump's attorneys made.  

Democrats controlled the Justice Department.  And some of the most respected and knowledgeable attorneys we have in this country have outlined exactly how the DOJ could have cut through all of that nonsense and expidited the trials.  Frankly, knowing how the legal system works in this country on behalf of the wealthy, and against the rest of us, I was shocked that they even got indictments.  The only explanation for why this did not happen is either incompetence of the attorney general--and I buy that one right away--combined with the fact that President Biden, fearing that this might look "political" never put the weight of the Presidency behind it.  

Well, in hindsight, that's a black mark on his administration.  I saw the men he surrounded himself with, and whose advice he sought, and the relationships he valued and they were not among those Democrats who saw this as a genuine threat to Democracy.  They looked at it like politics as usual, and so did the President.  Look at what they did, and it's abvious.  They slow walked it, allowing the cumbersome delays and interminable motion filings to go unchallenged, failing to use the power they had to expidite the process.  They criticized those who pointed out that a threat like Trump deserved pulling out all of the stops and using the power they had to stop him, and the end result was exactly what we are dealing with now.  

What Could They Have Done? 

I consider myself a progressive Democrat, and I was listening to progressive Democrats who have had a solid handle on the Trump threat from even before he took his ride down the escalator to announce his candidacy.  They've known, and pointed out, his intellectual inadequacy, moral bankruptcy, lack of integrity, the fact that every word that comes out of his mouth is a lie, his cheating in business, lawbreaking and insanity for decades.  

These Democrats, without whom President Biden could not have been elected, laid it out.  Launch the investigation with a special counsel on day one.  Start a Congressional investigation, which happened, not really in a timely manner.  Break the Senate filibuster in order to pack the Supreme Court and nullify the conservative majority to start the process of overturning their ridiculous rulings, including Citizens United and Presidential immunity.  Have the DOJ expidite the trials by putting a judge in charge of the cases who would have handled nothing else, and made quick rulings on the objections.  

Watergate was resolved in lesss than two years.  The fact that these much worse, and much more dangerous scandals did not get resolved in four years is a political failure, and there's nothing else to say.  

Even without a packed Supreme Court, legal experts from Jill Wine-Banks to Barbara McQuade, to Joyce Vance to Eric Holder all say that the DOJ could have pushed this through to verdicts long before Trump had a chance to officially announce for 2024, and even if he had, they could still continue to prosecute.  There are already multiple books out on the market about it, including The Jack Smith Report that supports these claims.  

Had this been done, Trump would be in prison, not the White House. So I'll leave the question open, then.  Why wasn't it done, if those involved believed that Trump really was an existential threat to American Democracy? 

If American Democracy is to be Saved, Then There Can Be No More Old School Politics, Also Known as Backing Down

Most of what needs to be done will have to wait until Democrats win the 2028 Presidential election.  I think that may be in the cards, as long as the Democrats nominate someone who is a progressive with some distance from the old school.  We need smart moves, not conciliation or compromise, if and when we get a Congressional majority.  The filibuster must go, and the first move that a Democratic President needs to make in 2029, on DAY ONE is to be given the ability to pack that damn Supreme Court.  

And as a progressive court overturns every ruling the conservative court made, Congress needs to pass legislation replacing all of those things.  First on the list is campaign finance reform, and the elimination of PACs, going back to strict limits on dollar amounts that can be made by individuals, and eliminating business contributions altogether.  Nothing less than that will solve the problem.  

No more Citizens United.  In fact, I'd cap campaign contributions at $5,000 per individual taxpayer, and restrict candidates to that same limit on contributing to their own campaign.  That's it.  No corporate or business contributions, no PACs, every candidate including the President must campaign on grass roots contributions of $5,000 or less.  

We need to change the qualifications for those who run for public office or serve in the cabinet, which would require amending the Constitution.  It needs to be done.  Along with this, legislation needs to be passed which strengthens the enforcement of the rights of states to conduct their own elections as they see fit.  This is already a constitutional requirement, but sometimes people need to be reminded of what the Constitution says.  And politicians sometimes have to be forced to follow the law.

And I think, at the top of the list would be the requirement that members of congress, the cabinet, and the President cannot be convicted felons and serve in office.  

An educated electorate is essential for the preservation of Democracy, according to Thomas Jefferson.  This Jeffersonian principle must be carried out in a nationalized public education system.  Local control of schools means that local ignorance prevents education.  And that's the observation of a veteran educator with 40 years of experience in the business.  Education must take place in this country in an environment in which the government supports and provides what a country as prosperous as the United States should provide, and it must be on the state's side of the wall that separates it from the church. 

A free press is also essential to the preservation of Democracy.  What that means is that corporate ownership of media outlets, including all radio, television, internet and newspaper sources should be ended.  We used to have regulations limiting the ownership of multiple newspapers, radio stations and television stations in any specific market.  We need a free press and the government must facilitate that with regulation that evens the playing field and removes the corporate media bias.  

There are a whole lot of other laws we must consider as well, such as expanding affordable health care into a nationalized healthcare and removal of profit making finance systems, or putting in a $20 per hour federal minimum wage, and taxing windfall profits.  But that's a different agenda.  We need this in order to stop the potential of a bought and paid for dictator running the US from the Presidency.  It's time to reign the orange headed monster in, and put a stop to this clown show.    

  

Oh, But For the Wisdom of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson on the Separation of Church and State

The United States would not have survived as a nation, had it not been for the wisdom of these two founding fathers when it came to understanding the need for the complete separation of church and state, and for the absolute necessity of making it a constitutional principle directly related to the freedom of conscience and of placing religious practice in a separate category from politics where, even though Christianity would excercise considerable influence, it would not have the power to drag the nation into disaster.  

This is one of the reasons why America is a great nation, and does not need to be made great "again."  

Christianity, when it was accorded the political power of the state under Constantine, became the cause around which some of the bloodiest and deadly events in human history was centered.  Most instruction in world history in the United States is too biased to acknowledge this fact, or teach the truth about it.  It is soft-peddaled, passed over, ignored and in many cases, what is taught is an outright lie.  It is, in  fact, almost impossinle to name a war or a season of war that did not have Christianity as the catalyst behind it.  

Ignorance ravaged the European continent, ignorance caused by the church's perpetuation of a society based on an aristocratic order of human beings, an anti-Biblical philosophy that denies one of the core truths claimed by Christians found in Genesis 1:27.  It's difficult to compare the damage done to human existence by religion, it is by far the main cause of the violence and war that the culture has witnessed over the 2,000 years since Jesus introduced the gospel.  But compared to other world religions, Christianity is certainly no less violent, cruel, misguided or contrary to its own principles that Islam or Hunduism or Buddhism.  

People Came to America to Escape Religious Persecution, and Then, They Persecuted Each Other on the Basis of Religion

Jefferson, Madison and the other founding fathers had a front seat from which to observe religious persecution in America, perpetrated by those who belonged to the dominant religious majority on the minority.  The Puritans in Massachusetts did not tolerate any divergent beliefs, eliminating their perceived enemies by controlling the magistrates and making doctrinal differences and preaching without the state's permission a crime.  As a result, dissenters were driven out of the colony, the most notable being the Baptists who established Rhode Island for their own religious liberty.   

Catholics persecuted in Protestant England came to Maryland to escape the torment, only to be subject to Protestants who were just as cruel as those in England had been.  And it was Madison's observation of the treatment of Baptists in Virginia at the hands of the state Anglican church, that prompted him to write the establishment clause into the first amerndment.  Even with these things written into the law, Baptists were concerned that the denominations and churches with the biggest influence would dominate and control the government.  In his Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut,Thomas Jefferson used the phrase "wall of separation" to assure the Baptists that their religious consciences were protected by the first amendment establishment clause. 

The history of Christianity in America is also rife with violence, conflict and hatred.  The walls between denominations and churches in this country are based on everything from which Bible translation in English is the "preserved word of God in English" to whether sprinkling, dunking or pouring is the right way to baptize someone.  Baptists and Catholics experienced persecution.  So did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, some of whose leadership was martyred defending the beliefs of their conscience.  

And when given the opportunity to do so, those peaceful, pioneering Latter Day Saints, or Mormons, turned on the United States and rebelled against the authority of the federal government, dressing as Native Americans and attacking wagon trains travelling across Utah to California.  One particularly brutal massacre involve the murder, by axe, of over 125 settlers in a wagon train, known as the Mountain Meadow Massacre.  

The Christian nationalist country envisioned by the Heritage Foundation and conservative Evangelicalism would be as violent and deadly as the Hundred Years War.  Their interpretation of the Bible is skewed beyond recognition when it comes to the practice of the values of the Christian gospel.  They prefer an Old Testament perspective where a vengeful god orders the murder of his enemies.  That's anti-Christian, demonic and evil, but it's the doctrine in which they have wrapped themselves.  And even with church-state separation that most Americans do not understand, or of which they are just ignorant, it's hard enough to hold the line.  How bad would it be if we didn't have that very clear Constitutional principle they can do nothing about.  

It's not hard to see at all where we would be if we did not have this constitutional protection.  Just listen to the rherotic spewed from conservative Evangelical pulpits.  They seethe with hate.  Everyone is their enemy.  They would justify not only murder, but cruel, painful, violent murder, claiming it was done on God's instruction.  

Hopefully we can outlast this push to nullify the Constition and bow down to an idol.  

Eye-Rolling Rhetoric From the Pseudo-Christian Evangelical Cult on the Iran War

Salon: The Ancient Prophecy About the Iran War is a Modern Invention 

Let's make one thing crystal clear at the beginning of this discussion.  Trump is not God's chosen instrument for anything.  He is the Antichrist, the epitome of evil, doing the work of Satan.  That is the only Biblically supported conclusion that can be discerned from the scripture that is consistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Even for those who don't really express a belief in the spiritual side of Christianity, an academic study of the Bible would lead to this conclusion.  There are no parallels that can be drawn, becausee the culture of the times in which the Old Testament was written no longer exists, and cannot be made applicable in a culture that is four thousand years distant.  

Trump is not just an unrepentant sinner, or a "baby Christian" as some call him.  He's not a Christian at all, having publicly denied any accepted  Christian conversion experience in favor of believing in his own god, according to his own words.  His narcissism, at any rate, would never allow him to submit to  the Holy Spirit in the way that Christians teach conversion, and he has happily and openly denied any such submission, or, even that he has committed sin.  

If one accepts that the Biblical record is accurate in its representation and revelation of the nature of God, then  it is not possible to make the claim that "God sometimes uses fallen people to achieve his will" in the way that it is applied by those who try to make it fit Trump.  The culture and society in which the Old Testament was written, and to which it applied, is long, long gone, and under the new covenant, established under Jesus the Christ, faith is an influence likened to salt and light, not to the power wielded by a single leader.  That was only for the protection of Ancient Israel, which no longer exists.  It's a theocratic rule that God hasn't offered to anyone else since then.  

So in spite of claims to the contrary, there is no Biblical evidence or  reason for Trump to bear a title of "God's annointed."  He doesn't qualify anyway, since repentance is a requirement, and he openly denies ever having felt the need to do that.  The only god he believes in is the idol he's made out of himself, and his worship of money.  

Christian Dispensational Pre-Millenialism is False Doctrine

One of the first differences I discovered between the academic study of the Bible in a Christian Doctrines class in college, and what I had been taught in the church in which I grew up was that the "end times," as described by my Sunday School teachers and pastor was not consistent with what the gospel writers in the New Testament, or the Book of Revelation for that matter, said about "the end of the age."  Other than a few general allusions, there is no specific "Armageddon calendar" that can be discerned from anywhere in the New Testament, or the book of Daniel, which often accompanies this kind of pretend prophecy.  

It takes changing the standards for interpreting the Bible to come to a dispensationalist interpretation that includes end times calendars and events that are "signs of the times."  None of the events pointed to as signs by dispensationalists fits the specific circumstances written in the New Testament.  It's all sheer projection.  The prophetic predictions of the New Testament come to an abrupt end in 70 CE, with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem.  In fact, it really ends with John's writing of Revelation prior to that time, because the evidence is clear that he wrote it before then.  

If Revelation had been written after 70 CE, by John the Apostle, then he would not have failed to include a narrative of the destroyed Temple, which Jesus predicted, in his presence, just thirty years before.  I do not think John would have missed recording the evidence of the accuracy of Jesus' prophecy.  We do not have the complete historical record of events that occurred between Jesus' resurrection and the destruction of the Temple, so there is no way to confirm or deny that all of those events leading up to 70 CE didn't happen.  My guess is that they did. 

Most conservative Evangelicals will tell you that the "rapture," which is an event in which Christians are supposed to be physically lifted into heaven, is recorded as prophecy in the book of Revelation.  The word doesn't apprear anywhere in the Bible,  and it would be extremely difficult to draw the conclusion that this is some kind of future event from what few references there are to anything similar, because the verses that are used, in Thessalonians, are a historical reference, not a prophecy.  This is actually a doctrine that did not appear in Christianity until the 1800's, and its proclaimer, James Darby, has no credibility, nor any accurate Biblical interpretation to use as evidence to support his claim.  

But American Christians seem to be prone to believing false prophets when it comes to "end times" doctrine.  There'a a long history of believing frauds when it comes to the "rapture" and the second coming and the end times.  And the whole modern doctrine of premillenial dispensationalism is a colossal fraud perpetrated mostly on conservative Evangelicals who don't know how to interpret the Bible or understand its history and context.  

So Let's Set the Record Straight 

You will not find anything in the Bible that is prophetic, or which indicates in any way the inevitability of the current war in Iran, or that it has anything to do at all with the return of Christ or anyone's end times Armageddon calendar.  The last Biblical prophecy, which is found in the book of Revelation, was fulfilled in history shortly after the establishment of the Christian church in Jerusalem.  There are no future events left to be fulfilled, and what we have in the Bible is a historical reference to the founding of the Christian church, and the principles of theology and doctrine which define its practice.  

Even for those who take the Bible seriously as an inspired, self-revelation give by God's inspiration, there can't be any literal application of a text that was not written to be more than inspiration, information and a word of caution to those who were its original audience.  Yes, it does define Christian doctrine, reveals the core teaching of the Christian gospel and establishes the parameters for the existence and ministry of the Christian church.  But it does not provide a list of events leading up to the end of the world, or the second coming of Christ.  Jesus himself declared that such was not available. 

More than anything else I could say, this is an absolute proof of why the separation of Church and statte is an absolute necessity in a democratic constitutional republic.  And that is to protect the American people and their nation from the destruction its enemies, including these pseudo-Christian cults of conservative Evangelicals, are trying to achieve.   

It's Primary Season, and Candidates Are Asking Me For My Money, and My Vote. Here's How to Get Both.

When it comes to both voting, and contributing, as an American citizen, lifelong Democrat, and a college history and secondary education major, with a minor in English to teach, and a Master's that includes plenty of what was called "Civics" and Constitutional principles coursework, I'm an easy mark. I've voted in every Presidential election, midterm, and off-year election since 1976, when I became eligible to vote exactly two days before the registration deadline.  

I probably made some people mad by taking my sweet time in the voting booth on election day.  No computers back then, the "machine" was a small blue table with a place to insert the ballot and mark with the pencil provided, which was a standard #2 lead on the same kind of scantron form schools use for tests.  I made sure I voted for everything on the ballot.  I'd have voted "straight ticket Democrat" if that had been provided but rules in that state at the time didn't allow it.  

I can't tell you how much I have contributed to campaigns, a lot of it on the local level, or to the party itself, over the years.  It's not a large amount, about a fourth of what I give to charitable causes.  But I take satisfaction in the fact that all of those contributions added together--well, you know how that works.  

Well, that's who I am.  I'm still a Democrat, and I still contribute, though after 2024, I stopped the party contribution, and I am being far more selective about the candidates to whose campaigns I contribute.  Having a [D] next to the name, even in a general election does not always mean I will mark the ballot on that line, like I once felt obligated to do, but I may choose to leave it blank for various reasons.  In fact, I did this during the last general election in which I voted, and felt good about it.  Keep that in mind. 

So, A Candidate Wants My Vote, Huh?  Let Me Provide Some Insights

The most disappointing election, for me, in terms of what I thought I got out of it from the Democrats I supported, was 2020.  We got rid of Trump, though it wasn't easy, and his attempts to subvert the Constitution, which should have triggered an immediate response and instantaneous work by Congress, with a sitting Democratic President, to not only undo the damage, but to put safeguards and precautions in place that the pervious four years, and the few months between the election and the inauguration, proved to be absolutely necessary.  

And I'll answer the inevitable question, "So what could we have done?"  

A bold, forward looking Senate Majority Leader would have begun taking steps to change the Senate rules, including destruction of the undemocratic, archaic, idiotic filibuster, to pave the way for amending the Judiciary act to create five, six,, seven, new seats on the Supreme Court.  This is what a majority of Democrats clearly wanted, there had been plenty of conversation  about it and five new Biden-appointed judges could have made quick work of any future Trump problems. 

They could have overturned Citizens United and the stupid Presidential Immuity rules they created specifically for Trump.  They could have expidited his trials for all of the indictments that were eventually handed down and they could have simply swept corrupt federal judges like Aileen Cannon out of the way, taking the cases themselves and nullifying the delaying tactics.  Once Jack Smith finished his investigation, a quick trial and boom, Trump is in prison and ineligible to run.  

The objection to that, from the old liner, old school, old heads was, "But that would look too political!"

And take a poll and find out who cares.  I don't. 

The good ole boys love their filibuster and the objection to ending it, the one that mattered most, came from President Biden himself.  That does not diminish his record or reputation, as far as I am concerned, but it's old line, old fashioned thinking.  And old line politics has proven disastrously inadequate in protecting American Democracy.  

So my vote, and my money, will not support a candidate who can't see the future, and is more interested in preserving some kind of non-existent status quo in government than in taking steps by which they might risk their ability to be re-elected in some cases.  If getting re-elected takes priority over doing what's right, or over bold moves to keep up with the changes in politics, then do not expect my vote, or my campaign contribution.  

When it became clear that nothing was going to be done beyond the painstakingly slow, cumbersome way that our juestice and legal system has developed, and that the incompetent and inept attorney general we had at the time was just going to sit and collect salary while doing less than zero about it, I began making changes in my support and where my vote was going.  I narrowed my priorities, atopped every monthly contribution, including what I had been giving for decades to the DNC, and narrowed my focus.  

Endorsements That I Value

If Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez put their label of approval on someone in my state or district, they get my vote.  They are consistent, realistic, and their politics hits at the very heart of what has gone wrong with American Democracy.  If either one of them says something that doesn't sound like it's in the ballpark, at least in my perception, I check it out and discover why, and there's always a good reason, or something that I didn't consider.  The fact that neither of them just blanket endorses anything gives them credibility.  They get it.  

My former monthly DNC gift now goes to Leaders We Deserve.  This is the organization led by David Hogg, and he is impressive.  I can't say enough about his leadership, his bold risk-taking, because he says things that are true and doesn't hold back when it comes to whom it may offend, including Democratic Party leaders.  He's going to get a nice, strong slate of young leaders elected in November, and they may very well be the people who are the bold risk takers we've needed for a couple of generations now.

Right now, I'm contributing to one political candidate for office, and he's not running in my state, so sadly, I can't vote for him.  Zach Shrewsbury is the best choice to replace long time do-nothing, ineffective, inept Shelly Moore-Capito, in West Virginia, if she manages to get re-nominated, since there appears to be opposition to that.  No wonder.  She's never represented or taken any interest in the people of West Virginia, beyond what she and her husband can get out of them.  This one may not be as much of a long shot as some people might think.  In all the time she has spent in the Senate, Capito-Moore is a zero when it comes to putting forth legislation, period, much less to help the people of her state.  She is not one of those people.  She lives there, off of them, not in any kind of helpful way.  

He, on the other hand, is a real West Virginian who understands he is running to represent a state where economic hard times have gotten more desperate than ever, because of the Republicans who have represented it.  The last time anyone from West Virginia in Congress did anything for their state, it was a cooperative effort between President Biden and Senator Manchin to save the only emergency room and hospital in one of the poorer, coal-minisg counties.  Shrewsbury is from deep in the heart of coal country, a Marine Veteran who has made providing flood and poverty relief his career.  

My governor, J. D. Pritzker, uses his endorsements sparingly, to help team-build effective political service, and he is the best in the nation at doing so.  Fund raising appeals from him are virtually non existent, though he does ask for my vote, and he's getting it, along with anyone else he thinks would do a good job in Congress.  Governor Pritzker is the kind of person who gets things done.  Some Democrats seem to be kind of timid about moiving forward without bipartisan support, and perhaps there was a day and time when that was necessary, or politically prudent, but I'm of the opinion now that if the GOP just dissolved, it would not be missed.  

So It's Not Hard to Get my Vote and My Contribution

As a teacher and school administrator, I appreciate people who use their education, not who set it aside and chase conspiracy theories.  And I do not see the endless cycle of running for congress, raising money, running for congress, raising money as being productive.  Some of the most successful members of Congress, the cabinet, the Presidency, in this country's history chose to serve a single term and did not consider their office as personal family property or an entitlement, because it belongs to we, the people, not to the office holder.  Career politicians don't impress me.  A career politician couldn't ever do what I do and succeed at it.. 

I must confess to a little bit of religious bigotry.  Having been raised in a conservative, Evangelical church and denomination, and seeing where the influence of most of these people have led us, I have trouble casting a ballot for a conservative Evangelical, or a Mormon or a Catholic who doesn't move in progressive Democratic party circles.  Generally, this is not a problem because even the Democrats who are Evangelical--and there are some--are genuinely Christian, not the pseudo-Christian variety like the Heritage Foundation clowns who run the GOP.   

I'm open to campaign persuasion.  Let the election season come and may it produce a Democratuc majority.  

No One Is Really Going to Try and Stop This

At this point in my life, I need to start putting some real thought and energy into what these last years will look like, and into how to try and get through the days and survive what's coming.  It doesn't appear that anyone has either the ability, the knowledge of how, or the willingness to try and stop Trump from destroying the American Democracy.  

There's certainly an awareness of what's going on and how he's doing it, and there are plenty of Americans who, drowining in their own ignorance and prejudice, support what Trump does.  The opposition has marched, held rallies, "No Kings" parades, with increasing fervor and participation and there are some politicians, a few in Congress, mostly in the states, who are speaking out and keeping it in front of the people as best they can in the face of a controlled, bought and paid for press that is no longer free.  A few have offered suggestions as to what can be done, with excuses of why there's not much that can be done.  

But no one is making a real effort to put a stop to it, even with the power that is at hand.  

I really hate sounding cynical, but I've resigned myself to the fact that, just a few years short of my 70th birthday, I will probably never see America be the Democracy that it was when I was growing up, and into my adult years.  Those who control 99% of the wealth in this country have been enabled to slowly but surely suffocate "we, the people," with their money and the influence it has bought them, and it doesn't really seem like there is a way back.  There is a lot of talk, but there is no real action at all.  

If there is, please point it out.  

Every mention I see or hear from Democrats who are once again hollering about the threat that Trump poses to "our democracy" is wrapped up in a fundraising appeal.  That''s the real focus, convincing voters that they have to get back in power, not on actually doing something themselves.  I gave what was to me a small fortune prior to 2020 and 2024, and I'm not sure what I got for it.  We had a huge opportunity when the Democratic party controlled both Houses of Congress and the Presidency from 2021 to 2023, and  business as usual and the old status quo shut down whatever chance we had.  And now here we are, and it's too late.  

We've had some pretty savvy, intelligent, expert individuals outline exactly how Trump plans to interfere in the mid-term elections.  He's announcing his plans publicly, which says something about what he thinks of his opposition in Congress.  He knows how bad the numbers are, and he knows that if the elections go on as usual, his side loses in a landslide, including in deep red states where public opinion has shifted, or at least where it appears that the couch sitters from 2024 are going to actually vote.  Everything he has said he will do is unconstitutional and illegal, and so far, that's all I'm hearing and seeing.  

Are people so blatantly and inexcusably ignorant of the Constitution that they do not know elections are under the control of the state and there is nothing Trump can do to change that without completely altering the Constitution?  But what it looks like is the same excuse we've been hearing for over a year now, "Give money, help us get elected, because he's a threat to our Democracy."  

Why not take the necessary steps to make sure the law is enforced and he can't interfere in the business of any state when it comes to running elections?  

And for those who may need to find some inspiration for standing up to the bully and actually doing something more than march or protest, let Senator Mark Kelly be an example for you.  He can't do it alone, but he took on Trump and his crony Hegseth, and he beat them.  

And so at this point, the question, "Well, what do you suggest?" is inevitable.  Well, suggestion one is to find the weak spots among Republicans in Congress and go on the attack, relentlessly, until there are enough to commit to getting Mike Johnson out of the Speaker's chair.  The Republicans have frequently used various forms of chaos around the rules and stonewalled things to death when they were the minority.  Surely there's enough money lying around in the hands of Democrats to create havoc and keep it going in order to put a stop to this madness.  

Here's the bottom line for me.  I've spent a lot of time in my life teaching civics and history to students who are increasingly lacking in critical thinking skills because the education they are receiving doesn't seem to be teaching those any more.  A free press, which has been bought out from under us by billionaries, and a strong educational system existing to provide an educated and informed electorate in this country were once the cornerstones of our Democracy, and we don't have either of those things in place any more.  That's why an amoral, unethical demagogue like Trump got elected, that and the votes he stole in swing states in both 2016 and 2024, a fact that went completely unchallenged in the face of massive evidence.  We need both of those things to sustain it once we get our Democracy back.  And we don't have them.  

We can talk on message boards and write blog poists and wear ourselves out doing it.  Nothing is going to change unlesss those who can change it are willing to do so.  

 

Some Conclusions Following the State of the Union

I didn't watch it.  The clips that have been played today have provided conformation to me that I made the right choice.  A rambling, hour and fifty minute pointless and boring speech that means nothing except the man has lost his mind wasn't worth the waste of time it took to watch it.  

But there are some conclusions that can be drawn after that absolute disaster.  

If you did watch it, you have patience and endurance beyond human expectations.  Most of Trump's speeches can be used for the purpose of torturing people and this was no exception.  

If, today, you are still a Trump supporter, then you are an idiot.  There's no getting around that, because he is an idiot which he made clear, and there you are.  

Those who are still supporters of Trump are anti-American in every way.  Consider yourselves lucky that this country is generous, kind, and at this particular point, doesn't really enforce laws like that, or you'd be headed to prison.  It is impossible to support Trump and call yourself a patriot.  That's not patriotism, that's stupidity.  

The man is destroying the democratic republic established by the constitution.  If you can't see that, then you are bottomlessly naive and hopelessly stupid.  

You are also lacking in any sense of decent, human morality.  The evidence certainly points to this man having participated in behavior that is as bad as anything in which a human being can participate.  The disrespect for the sanctity of life fills the air anywhere near this guy with its stench.  Support him and you cannot have a conscience of any kind as a result.  And if you can't see it, then you are genuinely hopeless.  

It's also clear evidence that those who support Trump are not Christian.  The Christian gospel and its theology, doctrine and practice are incompatible in every way with Trump support for everything.  The two ideologies are mutually excusive.  The speech confirmed two things.  One, that Trump is a publicly self-declared non-believer, and two, that there is nothing Trump supporters have in common with Christians.  

Democrats are going to owe Mr. Trump a debt of gratitide for all of the support he is pushing to help Democrats win elections.   

Silence, Collusion and Support Condemn Conservative Evangelical Trump Supporters

Well, here we are.  

Though the Epstein files haven't been completely released, they are full of redactions which the Justice department inserted to make sure there is no transparency, and we are  just beginning to discover the scope of what they reveal, the current sitting President has not only not been exonerated, he has been implicated as one of the worst participants in a crime of unfathomable immorality, something most Americans consider to be a sign of the worst possible corruption of the human spirit, and that is the sexual violation and molestation of children.  

Oh, yes, I understand innocent until proven guilty and all of that.  This President is already under indictment for causing an insurrection, and for stealing classified documents.  He's an adjudicated rapist.  He admitted to some of his worst immorality, short of what's been uncovered in the Epstein files, long before he descended the golden escalator and ran for President in 2016.  So the only explanation, really, for the support he has received from conservative Evangelicals is that they are a cult, in the truest sense of the term, which has completely abandoned the core principles of the Christian gospel they claim to proclaim.  

They are pseudo-Christian, using familiar terms and practices, but they are empty of conviction, as the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, "holding to the outward form of godliness but denying it's power." [2 Timothy 3:5.]  What is preached from their pulpits is hypocritical, for the most part, especially if they can continue to separate their own conscience from their support for Trump and claim that they are two different and separate things.  But, they're not.  

I was raised in an Evangelical church, and I can tell you that the methods of indoctrination into a particular political perspective are much more refined and developed than their methods of teaching the children and youth in Biblical principles.  These churches are now finding it next to impossible to keep the youth raised in them faithful by the time they graduate from college, or reach a level of adulthood where they are able to identify the blatant inconsistencies between the political support they provide, and their faithfulness to the Christian gospel which their actions indicate that they despise.  

Evangelicals, as a matter of principal, avoided politics altogetther, even as late as the 1960's, while their Mainline Protestant counterparts considered political involvement as a way to be a Christian influence.  But that all changed when the megachurch began to develop, and megachurch leaders became intoxicated by the political power that they received as politicians saw them as a way to deliver votes.  Not all Evangelicals believe their pastors and church leaders speak directly for God, but there are some who are convinced that they do, and they don't have the discernment or the education to know they are being duped.  

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, among others, have made political power the engine behind obtaining what they are after, which was never the gospel of Jesus.   They've found that they can make and preserve their fortunes with political power, since spiritual power didn't really provide the worldly influence they wanted.  And most of the rest of Evangelicalism followed their example.  

And while everyone they criticize and claim to be faithless condemns everything and everyone involved with Jeffrey Epstein, including Donald Trump, they are silent.  And that lets us see them for exactly who they are, and it has nothing to do with Jesus, the Christian gospel or the Christian faith.