Let's Set the Record Straight: Voting in the United States is Secure, and All Voters Are Identified

 Having lived, and voted, in six different states, I can't address how the others make sure that those who cast ballots at the polls are the same people who are on the voter registration roll.  In every state where I registered, I had to sign the voter registration roll and provide proof of address to make sure my ballot reflected the correct precinct.  When I showed up at the polls, I had a voter registration card that had been mailed to me, which matched the numbers and information on the roll.  I think a couple of the states where I registered used a bar code that was unique to the voter card they sent, and one state had the signature on the card.  

The problem comes if the signatures don't match.  And there are inherent risks in someone making an attempt to vote with someone elses credentials.  First of all, what would be accomplished?  The likelihood of getting caught is high, the penalties are not fun, and what would be gained by doing something like that.  I always hear the argument that "signatures can be faked."  Yes, but not as easily as photo ID's. 

There are, in fact, so few instances of attempted voter fraud, or instances where more than a small fraction of individuals, a fraction of a percent of the total number of voters, have attempted fraud and succeeded.  

This is the point where those who can't see the facts start complaining about how much voter fraud there is.  But the fact is that states which require photo id's do not  have any more or less voting irregularities than those who don't.  

The fact of the matter is that every voter who casts a ballot in an American election can be identified and their vote can be verified.  What's being pushed is not simple voter ID, it is some kind of proof of citizenship, an accusation made based on another baseless rumor that people here illegally are getting to vote.  That is faactually inaccurate.  It's not happening.  It sounds sinister, ooh, bad government look at how they are winning elections, but the fact of the matter is that there's not enough statisticaal data in this area to bother with changing a system that is working so well.  

See, here's the problem.  Trump sweated out election night in 2020, because ballots were still being counted in some swing states.  That's because one of them, the one that would make the difference, did not start counting mail-in ballots until after the polls closed, and it took a week to count, verify signatures and make sure vote totals were correct.  Trump couldn's comprehend that, because he had a lead in the same day ballots and he just wanted to stop counting at some point during the night and declare  victory.  

But almost half the population had voted by mail, and while it made Trump mad that those votes narrowed his lead significantly as every day passed, and the last 150,000 or so, all legitimately cast and mailed before the election put Biden over the top and in the White House.  He ignorantly and stupidly tried to convince people that these ballots were fraudulent, added in after it was clear he won, when that was not the case at all.  

So now, his attempts to put forth voting reform, sieze ballots and all of that other rhetoric is simply his frustration over the fact that he lost, and he's using the claim that reform is needed to support his lie about those Pennsylvania mail in ballots.  He thinks that if he simply asserts some populist lie that his followers believe,  then it's true.  All that shows is the gullible stupidity of his MAGA base.  

There is not now nor has there been massive voter fraud in the United States, the system we have now works, non-citizens do not vote in elections and when that vote count comes in, it can be trusted. 

American Evangelicalism's Faulty Interpretation of the Bible Produces the White Christian Nationalism Heresy

For certain men whose condemnation was aritten abut long ago have secretly slipped in among you.  They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and ddeny Jesus Christ, our only sovereign and Lord.  Jude, v. 4, NIV

Even in the first few years of its existence, the Christian church faced the danger of false apostles and teachers infiltrating the membership for the purpose of exploiting the membership for their own purposes and benefit.  Jude is writing a warning to be distributed among Christians who were facing persecution.  It was easier to lead people astray during such times, so Jude writes with apostolic authority to warn Christians aboutt the fact that this was happening, and to set the primary focus of the Christian gospel back in place so that genuine Christian faith was defined and could be identified.  

Though the issues about which Jude writes took place in the first century church, history is full of similar kinds of intrusions into the Christian church, intent on gaining trust in order to introduce apostasy and use the church, its people and resourses for their own purposes.  

This is, in fact, happening right now, as a good sized segment of American Christianity, known as Evangelicalism, has been invaded by intruders for their own purposes, mainly political and financial gain, and has been hijacked and separated from the Christian gospel.  The glaring inconsistencies that are showing up time and time again from what is an unholy blend of legalistic fundamentalist Christian practice with extremist right wing politics with what has been considered authentic Christian practice, rooted in an in-depth, historical, contextual and intellectual study of the Bible make it seem like the two things are not even the same faith.  

The Christian Nationalism that has almost completely infiltrated conservative, white Evangelicalism bears no resemblance at all to the words penned in the New Testament, quoting Jesus as he laid out the Christian gospel and revealed God to humanity.  As they have been historically, evangelistic outreach and the spread of the Evangelical version of Christian faith has never been about winning converts, it's always been about acquiring political power to use against perceived enemies.  

The Fundamentalist Doctrinal Foundation of Conservative Evangelicalism

There's a reason right wing Evangelicals fear and disdain education.  Their doctrinal and theological system is based on ignorance, not on a thorough study of the Bible using its original languages, as much of its historical and cultural context as can be discovered and incorporated, and on understanding the unique situations it addressed as instructional and inspirational, not as a set of rules or commandments applied universally.  

What we now refer to as Evangelicalism in the United States started in the 19th century, among people who had no access to educated ministers and preachers, and who depended on a word for word, verse by verse rendering of the King James translation.  King James himself changed the text of scripture, by pulling out somewhere around 16 books that had been part of the original canon.  And his translators were careful to include his personal bias in their work.  

So what emerged from nineteenth century America was a branch of the Christian church that has a nasty disrespect for education, especially in the clergy, and a fundamentally distorted perspective of Christian faith. It's belief in what they call the "plenary, verbal" inspiration of the Bible--that every word of the Bible is inspired by God, and that every part of the Bible is equally inspired contradicts the revelation brought by Jesus/ The Bible's writers themselves do not support this idea, nor is there any indication from them at all that what they were writing includes any kind of prophetic prediction about anything that will happen in the future.  

The theology of "dispensationalism," which is not found anywhere in the Bible, is the idea that different eras of history are marked by events dividing them into "dispenstations."  And the manner in which the teachings of scripture are applied in one dispensation are different in another.  Without going into a long, complicated explanation of how that works, what it does is allow for setting aside the entire Christian gospel and the basic core principles of Christian practice taught by Christ, in favor of a war-mongering, murder-justifying apocalypse to usher in Jesus' second coming.  

This perspective did not show up anywhere in centuries upon centuries of Christian theological study of the scripture.  It is, in fact, an aberration that did not emerge until the nineteenth century, out of an age when Great Britain was building an empire to economically exploit the undeveloped world, seeing themselves as "God's chosen," and when the manifest destiny enthusiasm of Americans, combined with the revivals of the Second Great Awakening, led to the push for military conquest of our weaker neighbors, most notably Mexico, cloaked and justified as an evangelistic effort.  

This Isn't Christianity, It's a Cult

The Bible is difficult enough to interpret.  It's easy to discern that the single affirmation which defines what it means to be Christian is the acknowledgement that Jesus was the Son of God, fully human and fully divine, the fulfillment of messianic prophecy, whose purpose was to reveal the person of God to his human creation, and to provide a path to reconciliation and redemption with Him.  

That doctrine comes from several places in the Bible, including Matthew, Mark, John, Paul and Peter, among the Apostles.  If that is the case, and the written record of what Jesus did and taught is accurate, and in fact there is no way to prove anything more than the accuracy of the transmitted text, then there is no possible way to even consider that other parts of the Bible are equally inspired.  The words of Jesus, who was Christ, are the interpretive filter for everything else in scripture.  

If that's the case, while it is difficult to try and figure out all of the contexts and historical background that influenced the writing of the Bible, most of which no longer exists and is actually unknown to us now, that is how systematic Christian theology is developed.  I doubt if there is one Evangelical in a thousand who has any idea of the history or inspiration of the Bible, and who sees it as anything more than a collection of sixty six books divided into chapters and verses, one of which could be their "life verse."  Nor are they aware that the sixty-six book Protestant Bible that we use isn't the full text of everything that the church, over its history, has accepted as canonical.  

People who are livid over things they see being 'added to" or "taken from" the text in Bible translations they don't like would be horrified to know the changes to the text made by King James alone, not to mention the things that church councils after the first century did.  The only remaining complete, preserved actual text, protected by its isolation in Ethiopia, is the 80 book  Ethiopian Bible.  Any full study of Christian theology requires looking at all of this history, which American Evangelicals won't do.  

The Apocalyptic Focus Which Doesn't Exist in the Bible 

Evangelicals are overly obsessed with end times scenarios and the violent judgment of the enemies of God.  They are waiting for a time when their preaching and evangelistic outreach is justified--a better term is avenged--and those who have refused to listen to them and their preaching are sent to hell.  That is preached and taught and put in the context of how it is done in most Evangelical churches, especially in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles where it is used to generate applause like a pep rally.  

And yes, as a former Evangelical myself, I've sat in church services where pastors generated rounds of applause by painting some picture in which godless liberals meet their maker and it's too late for redemption.  That's the "dispensation" they believe is coming, which will usher in the return of Christ.  And they get this all by simply ignoring the historical context of a couple of New Testament books, specifically Revelation.  In order to arrive at this particular futuristic, interpretation of the Bible, the accepted standards of interpretation must be changed because the intention of the original author is not to prophetically predict an apocalypse at the end of the world,  but to bring encouragement to the persecuted church in the first century.  

If you want a good example of just how far out of the realm of orthodox Christianity this kind of theology and doctrine goes, and what it looks like, listen to the rantings and shriekings of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.  It's characterized in the prayer of his pastor to bring death down on a politician with whom he disagrees, especially one who has a much clearer and accurate perspective of Christianity, Texas Senate Candidate James Talarico.  

Here's a clear, Christian theological and doctrinal point.  Neither the pastor, nor Hegseth, are demonstrating any belief or behavior that can be identified in any way as Christian.  That's not a judgement, that's just simple observation. 

There are encouraging signs that the Evangelical movement, I'm not going to call it Christian because it's not, is falling apart.  Among white Evangelicals, there are organizational connections building that help people separate their faith frorm Trumpism.  There's been a slow decline in membership and attendance among Evangelicals in the United States that shifted into high gear in 2016, resulting in declines that far exceed what the liberal mainline denominations have ever experienced.  And while white Evangelicals increased their support for Trump in 2024, up to 82%, the actual number of self-identified white evangelicals who voted was down a full 20% from 2016.  The largest Evangelical denomination in the United States, the Southern Baptist Convention, has lost almost 3 million members since 2016, a 20% decrease.  

If they want to survive after Trump falls, and he will fall hard, they'll have to educate themselves and their congregants in a truth that they do not know now, when it comes to the nature of Christ. 

Saturday, More than 3,000 "No Kings" Rallies Will Draw Out the Largest Protest in American History

And what will be accomplished?  

I certainly don't think this is a waste of time and effort, since I'll be joining in myself.  I think it is important to show support by showing up, one more of millions of Americans who see that Trump is trying to destroy this country's long standing democratic republic by subverting its constitution with his own will, while a do-nothing Congress lets him.  

The question in the opening paragraph is not merely rhetorical.  We've had fifteen months of a President ignoring the Constitution, doing as he pleases and a Congress that isn't exercising the balance of power they have to hold him in check.  We also have had a Supreme Court that, with a totally unconstitutional immunity ruling, perpetuated this insanity.  These marches and rallies need to do more than just get big turnouts, and give prominent and entitled politicians a speaking platform.  They need to make themselves felt among Republican members of Congress and the conservative members of the Supreme Court, in a way that robs them of their political security and puts them on edge as the mid-term elections approach. 

Oh, and About the Mid-Terms

The Republicans already know, they are going to lose big.  And so they are working as hard as they can on ways to prevent votes being counted for Democratic candidates.  We know this.  It happened in 2024, when they deliberately targeted the swing states and there is massive evidence they cheated to cost Harris an election she would have won otherwise.  It wasn't just voter suppression, there were multiple precincts in which voting machines were programmed to reduce her vote total.  We know this because those seven states were the only places where down ballot Democrats outperformed Harris.  

There were plenty of warnings and plenty of pleas to challenge the results, but all of the "no mass voter fraud" rhetoric spin by Democrsts had  them backed into a corner.  So no one did anything about it.  

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they are going to try and steal this election in every way they can.  Anyone who follows this knows that's a fact.  They are even telling us how they are going to do it.  The response I see is, "Tsk, Tsk, Tsk, they're going to cheat."  And no one doing anything to prepare, prevent or put a stop to it.  If we lose, it will be our fault for letting it happen.  

We can turn out millions for a march or protest, but we can't find enough people willing to make sure the Republicans can't cheat?  And maybe there are people keepng an eye on this, and if so, and it appears to be something effective, please let me know because I need reassurance and I am not seeing anything reassuring.  

What Will Change After Saturday? 

Nothing.  

We are 0 for seven or eight now in terms of success versus the number of rallies and marches and protests that have been held.  I'm sure Trump notices, as do those around him, but it has no effect at all.  In fact, I think he gets mad and plans to do something outrageous as a result, just to get back in the face of the protesters.  

I'm not sure that the political principle of percentate of the population it takes to engage in protest to bring about change works in this case.  When the founding fathers, and succeeding government leaders, put the means in the Constitution to remove ineffective, corrupt demagogues from office, they depended on everyone having common sense and they couldn't imagine the amount of money used to bribe members of Congress to do nothing about it.  

What we need is to put enough serious public pressure on a minority of Republican members of Congress to see this for what it is and impeach and remove Trump from office.  They need to see that if they don't, they are going to lose their perky job.  They need to know that the American people mean business.  The rhetoric needs to go beyond lauding the virtues of Democracy to what's going to happen electorially in November to Republicans in marginal districts who are going to be fired.  

When looking at what kind of turnouts it takes to make political change occur, I think action speaks louder than words.  These rallies need to show up at the doorsteps of Congressional offices everywhere, conduct impromptu town halls and they need to focus on registering every eligible voter in some of these districts where Republicans get less than 25% of the support, but win because of apathy.  

I go because I want to see change, and I'm involved because I believe my voice counts.  So collectively, let's find the most effective way to apply the necessary pressure to make the necessary changes.

In the Middle of Chaos, America Needs Sensible Leaders, and the Democratic Party has Several

One of the biggest personal disappointments I am experiencing as the primaries unfold for the 2026 midterms is that my party, the Democratic party, does not seem to be departing from the "politics as usual" approach to the issues at hand that has cost them the White House and control of Congress more than once in recent years.  The emails and texts I get appealing for contributions are taking on a tone and appearance of self-interest, not focused on the danger at hand.  It makes me want to ask these people, "Do you really believe that Trump is an existential threat to American Democracy, or is this just a game you play to acquire money and keep your seat?"  

Of course, I want to do everything one person, one voter, can do to help the chances of Democrats in the mid-term elections.  My contribution is a sacrificial one for me, so I want it to go where it will count the most.  

Election season is when eyes focus on flashy candidates, those who have elevated themselves to the higher level of recognition in party politics mainly because they have excellent PR people who get the media to cover their every move.  I look past the flash, and I look at the words and actions of those who are fighting against this Presidential administration in real ways that are cutting deep and having an effect, and are, in every way possible, defeating Trump at every turn.  I've lached on to several leaders in our party who are speaking the truth, fighting and resisting in effective ways, and whose words resonate with me regarding what is at the very core of what's wrong, and how to fix it.  

Arizona Senator Mark Kelly

Attacked directly by this incompetent President, Senator Kelly was given a platform and he fought back, and won.  He did not look to PACs or big donors to finance his legal battle, he let his campaign fund raisers do that for him.  He was on solid ground, both with regard to military regulations and the Constitution, he knew it, and he used it to get the win.  Beyond the issue of his warning to miitary personnel not to follow illegal orders, he has provided insights and plans as to how to keep protecting American Democracy, and to stop Trump. 

Listen to this man.  He knows, and desires to protect, the Constitution, and is an advocate for the people who elected him.  I'm amazed that my home state that has been politically backward for so long was finally able to put two Senators in office who are provding intelligent, effective leadership like Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly, but they've finally got enough support to get it done.  They are both the kind of leaders we need, and at this particular point, following his victory, Senator Kelly is speaking out, speaking the truth and providing leadership out of the miasma of chaos that we are experiencing.  There is no conciliation here, no compromise, no backing down.  

Hs wife, former Representative Gabby Giffords, was one of the first outspoken, intelligent, effective elected officials ever to represent Arizona in the House, which is why there was an assassination attempt on her.  And her support is another reason why Senator Kelly is so effective.  We really need to consider ussing party resources to put this man in position to run for President, because he needs to be in elective office, not some cabinet position.  And he would ignore standard protocol and push past the cumbersome delays and dawdles of political movement to get things done.  

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders

Senator Sanders tells the truth about why America  is in the fix that it is now in.  And the reason why some Democrats turn him off or dismiss him is because they are wealthy, and he is a threat to their personal financial status which is why they are weak concilators when it comes to their politics.  

We really made a mistake when we failed to nominate him for President in 2016.  Hindsight has showed us clearly that America wasn't ready for a woman President, and that the equally high disapproval that Hillary shared with Trump wasn't going to be overcome enough to put her in the White House.  Bernie doesn't deviate from his theme, because it rests on facts that the middle class in this country is being bankrupted by the accumulation of wealth among the one percenters.  His solutions are workable and would be highly effective.  His understanding of basic human rights enumerated in the Constitution can't be challenged.  

I can't help but think how different things would be now if Senator Bernie Sanders had been the Democratic party's Senate leaader during most of the time Schumer has occupied that position.  We would have ended a lot of the nonsense we now must endure.

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg 

We need to take advantage of this man's leadership and put him in position to serve in elected office, and I wouldn't mind seeing him in the Presidency.  Set aside his personal life, including his sexuality, like the whole Evangelical right does with Trump, and pay attention to this man's words and his plans.  He's probably one of the best spokespersons for the left that we have.  

He's the kind of guy who brings people with divergent opinions together and gets them to understand how to work with each other instead of against each other.  He's the kind of person who can see the flaws in bad plans and can find solutions to make things work.  Check out the stats about the effectiveness of his direction of the Department of Transportation, though his articulate manner of laying out the facts is the biggest favor he is doing for the opposition to Trump right now.  

Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear

A left-leaning governor in a deep red state is a statement.  Mainly it's a statement about how to use voter turnout to win elections.  And it's also a statement about the difference between those who are conservative politically, and those who are Trumpers.  

Being a governor involves serving the people and that's why Beshear has been so successful.  He has accomplished something more Democrats need to learn how to accomplish, and that is how to stay in power and get things done on  their behalf that the other party wouldn't do.  The bottom line is that Beshear has managed to put in place a lot of programs and services that a Republican run state would never do because there's been a connection with a majority of the population that transcends the political labels.  And he uses his high profile popularity to pressure Republicans who are afraid of losing their own seats if they cross him.  

I would be very comfortable with Beshear moving into a bigger role in the national spotlight of the Democratic party, perhaps even as a Pesidential or Vice-Presidential candidate. 

Illinois Governor J. B. Pritzker

Illinois has resisted so many attempts by this administration to vent the President's anger over the fact that he is not only not popular here, but that he is ignored and the state does exactly the opposite of what he wants.  His ICE brigade was ousted, defeated, and sent packing, along with the national guard he tried to call out based on a lie about crime rates in Chicago.  He's been called out as a liar and exposed time after time by a governor who calls his bluff because he knows when Trump is confronted, he backs down.   

It may be quite a contest to see, between Governors Pritzker and Newsom, who gets Trump to back down more often, but these two definitely need to get together and do some coordination of effort.  This is a governor who listens to advice from experts and works for the benefit of the people.  His opponents keep bringing up the tax rates in Illinois and claim Pritzker has done nothing about it and they'll never listen to the facts which prove otherwise.  Taxes are down for most Illinoisans as a result of this governor's policies.  Look it up.  

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro

Pennsylvania's legislature has finally emerged from a nightmare with a Democratic majority in both houses and under the leadership of Governor Shapiro.  He is an example of the kind of courage and bold risk-taking that Democrats have sorely missed in Washington since 2016.  

When the people are served by their government, they tend to vote to keep it that way, and since 2024, it's become clear that Democrats, largely as a result of Shapiro's leadership, are moving ahead from an electoral perspective.  Pennsylvania  appears to be one of several states poised to elect a majority Democrat delegation to the House of Representatives because of Shapiro's handling of the state legislature.  

Democrats Who Don't Fold

These are the best examples right now of the kind of leadership the Democratic party will need in order to repair the damage being done to this country by Trump.  They draw lines and don't budge, there's no compromise.  I have no doubt that, if given the chance, any of these people would have taken every step possible to make sure that Trump never had a second chance at the White House.  They're the kind of politicians who would break that stupid filibuster in a second and then pack the court with judges who know, love, respect and are willing to enforce the Constitution.  

Any one of these individuals is capable of serving as an effective President of the United States.  

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.