It's Time to Pack the Supreme Court

The political nature of the Supreme Court is telling us that the time has come for the Democrats in the Senate to pack the court with justices who are committed to the rule of law.   Impeachment and removal of corrupt and incompetent justices like Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Neal Gorsuch is the best way to go, but with the sharp partisan wall that now exists in Congress, getting a two thirds majority would require Republicans voting with integrity instead of by their politically driven opinion, and there aren't enough Republicans with integrity left, if any at all, for that to happen.  

So, packing the court with more justices, by amending the Judiciary act, is the only recourse.  

Democrats Must Have the Political Stamina and Strength

It may take some pressure from constituents to get it done, and it will take some boldness on the part of Senate Democrats but it must happen.  To get the act amended will take using the very narrow senate majority to break the filibuster and then to appoint the judges who will change the course of the court.  It must be done.  Where the weak links are located, and we pretty much know who those people are, pressure needs to be applied to make sure they get on board and vote with the rest of the Democratic party.  

Everyone in Congress clearly has a price.  Find out what it is for those who are needed to move this forward and make it happen.  This is one of those times when the President and the Vice-President can use their bully pulpit and make something happen.  I don't know that they will, both have been in the Senate and both seem reluctant to change its outdated way of doing business.  But those old majority plus rules are just a disadvantage for Democrats now.  Republicans, if they were in charge and wanted this, would do it in a heartbeat.  So why not?  

This is also a place where the President can make some strides in gaining support among progressives in his own party.  There's not a better way to ensure progressive influence for a generation to come than to nominate judges for the federal bench committed to that particular perspective.

Can It Be Done?

Yes.  

The Senate must break the filibuster first, which will allow for majority votes to pass legislation, not two thirds.  Then, it must amend the Judiciary Act to increase the number of seats provided for on the court.  Once the filibuster is broken, it only needs a majority vote to do so.  This means that Sinema or Manchin must be convinced to get on board, so that the VP can cast the deciding vote.  

Once amended, the President can appoint judges to fill the vacant seats.  We hope those would be liberal, left leaning, progressive and young.  The Supreme Court cannot stop the process.  

The key is for Democrats to gain, and keep a majority in both houses of Congress in order to keep a future Republican congress from doing the same thing.  So the other question that must be asked is whether the risk is worth it.  And whether the current Democratic leadership, including President Biden, is willing to see this move forward and push it.    

Is It Worth the Risk Taken to do This?

The only requirement, after the legislation is amended, is for the President to make the appointments, at least, that's all the Constitution requires.  The hearings in Congress are just to campaign for their vote.  But if we know the outcome of this in advance, we can dispense with the debate and move right on to the appointment.  We need enough judges to over-ride a conservative majority and neutralize their shenanigans, ruling on the law instead of with political bias.  They need to be young enough to be around for a while.  And they need to have a record indicating that they are willing to make bold rulings that benefit the American people over narrow, self-interests.  

The risk is that down the road, inevitably, there will be another President who wants to buttress his political perspective with the court's power, so another political court made up of a majority of Republicans could come along.  And the fact that taking this risk is now part of the discussion may be an indication that public opinion is beginning to think the Supreme Court cannot be reformed and cannot ever again be an objective body.  On the other hand, this could be a dash through the flames, something necessary to stop a fascist oligarchy from taking hold, and once the country comes back to its senses, it won't be necessary.  

Will we ever come back to our senses?  You tell me.

In a legal system, justice system and government that is committed to cumbersome procedures which make it difficult to do anything quickly, this can be done fast enough to stop the current chaos and confusion of the Roberts court, and save the rule of law before this court destroys it.  With the vote of Vice-President Harris there if necessary, this could be done in a matter of a month or so.  Whether it will be, or whether it would even be considered, is uncertain.  I'm just adding this voice to those who are now calling for it to happen.  

Visionary leadership requires taking bold, courageous steps to make things happen which sometimes result in saving the country from disaster.  And this is one of those steps.  

A Values-Focused Faith Produces a Plan for Israeli-Palestinian Peace

Quakers Propose Israeli-Palestinian Peace Plan 

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God.  Matthew 5:9

The biggest difference between Quakers and conservative Evangelicals is in how they live by their faith.  Evangelicals tend to be doctrinal purists, and, in spite of vehement denial, focus their belief in Christian conversion on getting all the details of a convoluted, twisted set of doctrinal standards and theological beliefs right.  Then that leads to God's acceptance and forgiveness.  

The Quakers, on the other hand, leave doctrine and theology up to the individual Christian.  They believe conversion is the spiritual connection that occurs when "that of God within," that part of human existence that is created in God's image, connects with the spirit of God, uniting the believer with both God, and with others who believe.  And that leads to a faith that is focused, not on "getting it right," but on living by a visible set of values, found in the Christian gospel, which define one's life, and which give it mission, purpose that includes valuing, caring about and loving all other people as fellow human beings created in the image of God, and making human existence better.  

The core values defined by Quakers are derived from the same biblical text Evangelicals claim to believe.  These values, which, when lived out, define one as Christian according to Quaker doctrine, and include simplicity, peace, integrity, community, equality and stewardship.  It's easy enough to find several Quaker sources that will define and explain those values.  But I want to focus on the values Quakers are bringing into this particular discussion of resolving the long, ongoing conflict in the Middle East, caused by opening up Palestine to Jewish immigration following World War 2 and the Holocaust.  Personally, I think what they have to offer here is not only worth considering and implementing, but I think it has the potential to work, provided a similar set of values is instilled within, and observed by those who are directly involved.  

It's Time to Set Aside Those Whose Rhetoric Ends in Violent Failure, and Listen to Those Who Have Experience and Success in the Application of Peace, Equality and Justice

"For centuries, Quakers have worked for peace," according to the April 12th article by the American Friends Service Committee.  "This mission is a practical expression of the nonviolent message of the gospels, 'Love your neighbor as yourself''."

It's not like this is some outside group making a political statement on the Israel-Gaza war.  The Quakers are there, starting refugee work in Gaza in 1949, and are still there, along with the West Bank and in Israel.  They've operated a school in Ramallah for 150 years, which, according to the AFSC, was one of the first educational institutions to provide education for Palestinian women, and have a meeting house in Ramallah as well.  So, the AFSC, as a Quaker voice, have first-hand knowledge of of the entrenched inequality, violence and injustice that has persisted in Palestine for decades.  According to the committee, they have known that violence would eventually result from desperation, and have been there every time it has, with relief, and with the application of the values of equality, peace and justice.  

You could say that, when it comes to the Middle East, Quakers are "woke."  And that's a good thing, because the hatred and violence that is advocated by those who are critical of, and opposed to this kind of societal wokeness only makes the problems worse.  Being woke is the only hope there is to resolving them and to bringing peace.  

So the Quakers are speaking with first hand knowledge, from a position that has a foundation undergirded by real values that are actually practiced, and not just talked about, and from the experience of having actually helped to bring about peace, equality and justice in those places where they've been able to minister and apply the resources available to them.  They speak with authority.  And instead of listening to those whose vision for both Israel and the Palestinian people always end in violence and have failed over and over, maybe it is time to listen to those who actually value peace, equality, and justice, and have the integrity to be consistent in their application.  

The Quaker Peace Plan Will Work, But it Will Take Commitment, Time, Resources and Integrity

So what's different about what the Quakers are proposing that gives this the potential for success? 

First of all, there is recognition and acknowledgement that the situation which has been created has produced violence from both sides of the conflict.  It's not just the immediate situation, prompted by the October 7th attack on Israel, that is at the core of the violence which is taking place.  Problems caused in a place where three different religions have a focus on the "sacredness" and importance of the geographic location go back to even before the time when the restrictions on Jewish immigration were set aside and the state of Israel was established.  This solution addresses the root causes, and it is based on a very honest assessment of those causes, rather than on the typical finger pointing and the political and religious bias that contributes to the violence and hatred.  

Second, this plan includes neutralizing the religious and political bias that is at the heart of Middle Eastern terrorism and violence.  It will take the empowerment of leadership committed to doing this to make it work.  There is a clear recognition in the plan that identifies those who have the power to make this plan work, and what they must do in order to achieve this, including the Israeli government, Hamas and other armed Palestinian groups, and the governments of the Western Allies.  Rather than attempts to de-legitimize each other, blame each other or get some kind of advantage, this plan assigns equal responsibility for using the power they have to make things happen.  The research they've done on how possible it is for each of those groups to do what they are required to do is remarkable.  

A Lot to Ask

This plan is not advocating for a cheap, easy peace.  There is a recognition of sacrifice required from all parties.  Hamas, and other Palestinian militant groups born out of the tangle of Middle Eastern politics, must deny their own nature, and hold those who have committed human rights violations, or who broke the law, accountable.  This means they must take responsibility for the October 7th attack by bringing those responsible to justice.  That's a gigantic ask, but a necessary one if peace is to be achieved.  

Likewise, Israel must release Palestinian political prisoners, and it must recognize independent, autonomous Palestinian territory, which means giving up settlements in the West Bank and extending full civil rights to all Palestinians who are in its own territory.  The Western Allies, specifically the United States and the United Kingdom, must assume responsibility for backing these policies, treating Palestinians and Israelis equally, supporting and helping enforce the ICJ restrictions on Israel and basically guaranteeing the original two-state solution.  

I would add to this that it means a full denial of mistaken, errant Evangelical eschatology which basically states the belief that Israel is entitled to all the land and the Palestinians should be run off, because they're not entitled to it, even though they've lived there for thousands of years. This belief is based on some convoluted, false connections between the Old Testament covenant, the book of Daniel in the Old Testament and the book of Revelation.  It's pretty clear that this misinterpretation of biblical prophecy is neither accurate, nor is it "infallible," because it has helped produce violence and hatred, and has contributed to a problem rather than resolving it.  That's clear evidence, from any Evangelical perspective, that it's not God's will. 

Eliminating the Profiteering on War and Destruction 

One of the points made by the AFSC, as part of the direct and immediate action taken by the Quakers themselves is to "Divest from corporations profiting from militarism, including the occupation of Palestine."  

By including this particular statement in their overall plan, the Quakers have identified one of the root causes of war in the world today.  Someone benefits from this, through the sale of arms and equipment required to wage war.  They have a vested interest in keeping this war going and they have placed a lower value on the life of some human beings than they have placed on the dollar amount in their bank account.  To get to that point in one's thinking requires the complete abandonment of any values, and shutting down the cash flow is not only an action advocating for peace, but one of the quickest ways to get there.  If the warring parties only have enough weapons to defend themselves, and not enough to wage an aggressive war, the fighting would end long before anyone has to come around to a more peaceful way of thinking.

Protesting United States aid to Israel is not equal to undermining the existence of Israel.  As surely as Iran and Russia have helped provide weapons for aggression to Hamas, what the United States provides for Israel has enabled this extensive invasion of, and destruction of Gaza.  If either group only had enough weapons for their own defense, and not enough for an invasion or all out war, this would be over by now, and we'd be at least one step closer to peace.  

This Plan is Not Perfect

The plan is based on a belief in the equality of human life, on the exercise of free will, and in a dependence on something, whether it is a higher power, or just human intellect finally figuring out the futility of injustice which only leads to violence, destruction and death.  It also involves the use of existing international law, which has worked to resolve the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the years, and which has proposed solutions which the major western powers have either not enforced, or modified to suit their own politics.  

There are Jewish and Palestinian voices calling for peace and expressing a willingness to have it.  Those voices need to be supported and strengthened by those who have power and influence and can support their initiatives and their desires for peace.  

I think one huge part of this involves the United States getting hold of itself, and figuring a path out of the confusion and chaos we are now experiencing as one of our political parties has lost itself and its American patriotism, and is contributing to the chaos and instability that causes these violent flare-ups for the purpose of advancing their own political causes.  We currently have a Supreme Court that is willing to let the rule of law fall into ruin, and politicians who favor a Russian autocracy because it has the potential of taking away power from their political enemies.  This same kind of autocratic fascism plunged the world into disaster in the 20th century and that's where it is headed now, if we don't do something to stop it.  

Thank you to the Quakers for having the virtue to allow values to speak truth to power.  I hope power is listening and willing to make the commitment. 

 

I Don't Get It, Either

 Christians Object to Alan Ritchson Calling Trump a "Rapist and a Con Man"

If you've never heard of Alan Ritchson, you're not alone.  Ritchson is an actor who plays an ex-military police officer turned vigilante in an Amazon Prime series.  That's not really my kind of entertainment, though I've seen advertising and video clips for the series.  But I picked up really quickly on the article, linked above, in the Huff Post.  It was who Ritchson is, and what he said that got my attention, mainly because he said what I've been saying for years now, and the reaction, predictable and typical of the kind of behavior exhibited by many American Christians who can't tolerate disagreement or dissent with their perspective.  

Ritchson, a Christian, in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, expressed confusion over Christians who support the former President.  

"Christians today have become the most vitriolic tribe," said Ritchson in the interview.  "It is so antithetical to what Jesus was calling us to be and to do."  

If he'd made that statement from the pulpit of a church, and I was in the congregation, I'd have given him a hearty "AMEN!", applause, and a standing ovation.  Contrary to popular perception, I think there would be quite a few other members of the congregation who would join in and support that position.  

"Trump is a rapist and a con man," he said, "And yet the entire Christian church seems to treat him like he's their poster child and it's unreal.  I don't understand it."  

Neither do I.  

"The Most Vitriolic Tribe" 

Christians, especially those who identify as conservative, fundamentalist, charismatic or Pentecostal under the broader banner of "Evangelical," have always had a tendency to be vitriolic. The divisiveness that has always existed among the various sects that have developed in the Christian church, especially since it became absorbed into the political system and produced "divine right" monarchies that set the world on fire and had it in perpetual warfare for centuries is part of the culture of American Christianity too.  

This has become particularly evident through the development of what I call a "populist" form of Christianity, based on doctrine and theology developed by literal renderings of King James translations of the Bible, rather than with any context or idea of the intentions of the Bible's original authors.  Protecting their turf and attempting to expand the capacity of the collection place has led to all kinds of pronouncements from the various preacher personalities who encouraged their followers to condemn anyone whose "jot or tittle" didn't hit the same spot on the paper, and most conservative and fundamentalist Christians know exactly what that means.  

And yet, for all of the claims of belief that the biblical text is inerrant and infallible in its "original autographs," (none of which exist now) this vitriolic divisiveness and system of denominations and sects along lines of doctrinal and theological interpretation, and church practice, is not a model of the Christian church that is found, authorized, or otherwise instructed anywhere in the Biblical text.  In fact, the conduct, language and treatment of each other, especially among the more conservative sects of American Christianity, runs contrary to every single virtue and characteristic of Christian followers of the gospel of Jesus Christ taught and modeled by Jesus and his apostles.  

So it is not surprising that a man who promotes a personal image of ungodly worldliness, including openly denying any personal need for a conversion experience has found a following among people from which his fascist politics can carve out a pseudo-religious base and separate itself from true followers of the Christian gospel in such a distinctive, characteristic way. 

One of the Christian church's pre-eminent apostles, Paul, characterized the marks of true Christians in his epistle to the church at Rome, of all places, the first Christians who really faced direct opposition and persecution from the emperor.  Considered as a group, the Trump-supporting, far right wing, political Evangelicals do not exhibit these characteristics, and can be characterized as both pseudo-Christian, and apostate. 

"Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor.  Do not lag in zeal, be ardent in spirit, serve the Lord.  Rejoice in hope, be patient in suffering persevere in prayer.  Contribute to the needs of the saints; extend hospitality to strangers."  Romans 12:9-13, NRSV

Treating Trump Like Their "Poster Child" 

In grasping at straws to try and justify their support for an evil man who denies the very core principle of Christian conversion, I've heard some pretty outlandish statements that require twisting Bible passages and examples well beyond recognition, or original author's intention.  One is to point to the Old Testament example of King David, claim that David wasn't perfect but God still used him as a mighty leader of Israel.  

According to the Biblical account, that is true as far as it goes.  But the problem is comparing Trump to David.  There is no legitimate comparison here.  There are two huge differences that pose insurmountable obstacles making the comparison bogus.  First, every time David messed up, God brought him to conviction and to justice.  He didn't get away with anything.  Ultimately, his ability to be the leader God wanted him to be was impaired by his imperfection, and he had to settle for less than what God had planned as a result.  Whenever Trump is approached by a Christian leader, for a "softball" explanation of his conversion experience, he denies that he has ever done anything requiring God's forgiveness, and claims that his own idea of who God is doesn't require that kind of repentance.  

Second, David was repentant when confronted with his sinful actions.  His acknowledgement of his sin, which, in some cases, wasn't always immediately forthcoming, was always followed by repentance and by obedience to whatever act of restitution was required by God.  That's what made him a great leader.  Trump never acknowledges mistakes, never demonstrates repentance, always proclaims that whatever he does is right, lies to cover up what he has done, and that's what makes him a terrible choice for President, and the exact opposite of the kind of leader Christians, given the opportunity to choose their nation's political leadership, should cast their votes to support and elect.

The more conservative groups among Evangelicals have become doctrinal and theological "turf protectors."  They've set finite boundaries for the purpose of judging the veracity and sincerity of other Christian and evaluating their eternal worthiness by whether or not they "preach it like we preach it."  Trump has invaded their space with a similar attitude, and has figured out that they are only interested in political power to advance their own causes, and are specifically focused on abortion rights and restrictions on persons of LGBTQ orientation.  They completely miss the point of the grace provided in the gospel, which is its whole foundation.  

It's inconsistent to make abortion rights, under the banner of "the sanctity of human life," as one of just a few top political issues, but stand behind the politics of Trump and his embrace of Christian nationalism, which advocates war and murder of people opposed to their particular worldview.  Trump does not believe in the sanctity of human life, and it's not that hard to come to that conclusion.  It happens every time he opens his mouth. 

Calling it Out 

There are Christians, even within the conservative, Evangelical community, who see all of this for what it is.  Like Alan Ritchson, they are calling it out.  They do not see how someone could be familiar with the Christian gospel, and the Bible, and not see the inconsistency of supporting someone who deliberately chooses to live and set his political agenda outside of the boundaries of acceptable practice when it comes to the Christian gospel.  Growing up in church, taught in Sunday school, listening to the preaching, the contrast between the practice of the Christian gospel and support for Trump should be obvious and easy to discern.  But when people make Christianity what they want it to be, rather than letting it be what it was intended to be, this is what happens.  

A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: Election Denying Former Congressman Leads Family Research Council's "Election Integrity" Effort

 Election Denier in Charge of Christian Organization's "Election Integrity" Effort

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.  Exodus 20:7

Election deniers are liars.  It's as simple as that.  

In all of the wailing, hollering, gnashing of teeth and whining about the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election, the one thing that was missing from all of the claims of "massive election fraud", ballot tampering, and improperly programmed counting machines was credible evidence.  Multiple audits, including "forensic audits," investigations, even a laughable episode with a group known as the "Cyber Ninjas," who wasted about $6 million, including a significant amount of taxpayer dollars, found nothing irregular or out of place, to indicate that the few minor errors here and there, which are part of every election, were part of some nationwide conspiracy to cause Trump to lose. 

Lies told by one well known national network wound up costing them hundreds of millions of dollars in a legal settlement they lost when their false accusations against the company that manufactures the ballot counting machines turned out to be lies.  And make no mistake about it, every word about a fraudulent election in 2020 is a lie, and needs to be called that.  

What Would You Do If You Caught Your Pastor in a Lie? 

I learned, the hard way, what trusting someone just because they are the pastor of a conservative church that brands itself as "Bible-believing" can cost.  I grew up in a Southern Baptist church, and I know that in a culture where one's true self cannot be revealed out of fear of persecution or rejection, or loss of reputation, lying is commonplace.  I also know that it is possible that the man who preaches from the pulpit every Sunday, imparting what he claims to be the "inerrant, infallible, written word of God," can be prone to telling lies, either because of ego, or for self-preservation, or to use the power of the pulpit to rally support for a cause that otherwise goes unheeded.  

The kind of support that a pathological liar, like Trump, gets from conservative Christians tells us all we need to know about the value that some churches, and their pastors, place on integrity and honesty, and it's not much.  They will make all kinds of excuses, trying to sound Biblical, to try and justify lying by claiming that the results of electing a pathological liar as President of the United States was somehow a good thing, in spite of his many very bad character flaws.  

So, while some people might find it surprising that the Family Research Council has chosen an insurrectionist, election-denying former Georgia congressman as the leader of their "election integrity" effort, I'm not surprised.  It's this kind of phony posturing that is characteristic of Republican, and Christian hypocrisy when it comes to far right wing politics.  

Jody Hice is a former Georgia Congressman, a former pastor of Southern Baptist churches, one of the members of congress bent on overturning the will of the people by voting against accepting the results of the 2020 election, and objecting to accepting Georgia's 2020 electoral votes.  He nullified any claims he has to being a man of integrity when he accepted Trump's endorsement in his 2022 failed effort to "primary" Georgia Secretary of State against Brad Raffensperger.  Apparently, Georgia voters recognized this, because Hice lost by double digit margins to Raffensperger.  

Even if it is secular politics, for an ordained minister of the Christian gospel to accept the endorsement of a man who openly denies his own acceptance of, and need for that same gospel, is a denial in and of itself of the spiritual power and the truthfulness of that gospel.  To put this same man in charge of "election integrity" for a far right wing political lobby is like putting a wolf in charge of the sheep, or a fox in charge of the henhouse.  

"These are grumblers and malcontents," says the Apostle Jude, in his short, but powerful epistle. "They indulge their lusts, their mouths utter bombastic nonsense, flattering people to their own advantage."  

And in reality, the book of Jude does provide some insights, from its first century prospective, into exactly what a Christian church looks like when it has been infiltrated by the ungodly, who "pervert the grace of God into debauchery and deny our only Lord and Master Jesus Christ."  

How Can an Election Denier be In Charge of "Election Integrity"? 

There's no denying that there was an attempt to subvert the results of the 2020 election, but it was not done by miscounting votes or stealing ballots.  It was done by people like Hice, who used their elected position as an attempted wedge against the will of the people, believed and acted on "the big lie" claimed by Trump, of "massive voter fraud" that he was unable to prove without a stitch of evidence.  So it is laughable that this former Republican Congressman and former Southern Baptist pastor is the Family Resource Council's choice to head up its effort on election integrity.  

That's a job where being a liar would be an asset.

Advice From a Former Reagan-Bush Assistant Policy Writer: "There's "One Problem" Which is Why Democrats Must Replace Biden at the Convention"

Douglas MacKinnon in the Hill: "This One Problem is Why Democrats Must Replace Biden at the Convention" 

First of all, let me point out that the opinion writer of this piece, Douglas MacKinnon, was a writer in the White House for Presidents Reagan and H. W. Bush, and a former special policy and communications assistant at the Pentagon during the last three years of the Bush administration.  So that puts a clear context on how he's reading the "signs" that are telling him Democrats have a problem that will require replacing Biden on the ticket in order to win the election in 2024.  

This is more of the same theme of "younger, more progressive voters are abandoning Biden," and "his age is a problem," and "RFK Jr.'s challenge is a big problem," and "even though he won by 7 million votes in 2020, it was actually less than 50,000 when you count what he won in the swing states," and "the uncommitted vote is a sign of a bigger problem," that we've seen from Republican commentators for a while now.  I've included it here because it can give us a look at what the other side is thinking, in terms of how they see the election shaping up, or because putting out this kind of deliberately misleading information that runs along some of the theme lines that we've seen in the media up to this point might affect some election campaign strategy.  

My guess is that The Hill included this for a few laughs, or for a few talking points, given the rest of the content that appears there daily.  I think it's just worth looking at how MacKinnon labels "one problem" by breaking it down into three problems, and tackles each one with misinformation and incorrect assumptions. 

What should we expect, from an old fashioned, outdated Republican commentator from five Presidential administrations back?  And if the sign of an uncommitted vote in Democratic primaries is a problem that should require Biden to step down, then shouldn't the sign of a much larger percentage of Republican primary votes going to candidates besides Trump require him to step down? 

A "New, Improved, Highly Focused Trump Campaign" 

Yes, the author seriously used these words to describe the current state of the Trump campaign, which is obviously in disarray (yes, I did use that media term on purpose!), suffering financial deprivation and which bears no resemblance in any wa to any of the terms used to describe it, except, perhaps, highly focused.  Trump's theme is not new, nor is it improved.  He harps, for hours on end, about the big lie, the proven falsehood that the election of 2020 was "stolen from him."  That's where most of his rally speeches go, in their rambling, infused with moments of confusion and dementia, such as confusing Nikki Haley for Nancy Pelosi, sounding like he is running against Obama instead of Biden, and a new one that I noticed in the media a couple of weeks ago, seemingly forgetting his geographic location when he makes his rally speech.  

This week, more confusion on an issue that is predictably going to cost the GOP seats in the House and Senate, and very likely all of the electoral votes of the battleground states they need to win, along with those of several other red states.  We got a rambling, incoherent version of his perspective on abortion, that contradicts the position the GOP has taken since Roe v. Wade was issued by the Supreme Court.  If that's "highly focused," then the GOP is in an incredible amount of trouble on this issue.  

And in fact, they are.  

I hope a lot of Republicans who are involved in their party's campaign strategy are satisfied that what they are seeing from Trump is "new, improved, and highly focused."  I strongly encourage them to keep this up, and continue to run their campaigns this way, especially the Trump presidential campaign.  Don't change a thing, please continue this strategy right up until the convention, and then really come out with more improvements and high focus along these exact same lines.  

"The Populist, Independent Campaign of Robert F. Kennedy Jr."  

So far, aside from an initial sort of "flash in the pan," RFK Jr., and I'm going to call him that, hasn't picked up much in the way of traction.  In fact, his campaign is having difficulty meeting the minimum requirements to get on state ballots, having landed on seven, at this point, well behind their goal of being on all 50 by now.  This has been a gaffe-fest from the very beginning, and it doesn't appear that will get under control any time soon.  Apparently, he does not have anyone helping him avoid putting his foot in his mouth.  

Openly stating that the purpose of his campaign is to try and stop Biden from getting re-elected, which is admitting he's not in it to win it, is not exactly the way to excite potential voters and move them to the polls in November.  And indeed, voter enthusiasm is not one of the higher numbers some of our more illustrious and confused pollsters are finding in data that is all over the place when it comes to RFK Jr.  What they have found is that he's not really taking very many voters, if any, away from Biden, but looking at both primary election turnout, and vote totals on the GOP side, he does seem to be cutting into Trump's support.  

Let's use Wisconsin as an example.  As MacKinnon points out, Wisconsin is a very important swing state, and one which Biden only narrowly won by just over 20,000 votes in 2020.  So, of course, if RFK Jr. can cut into that margin, it potentially could swing the state to Trump.  But, let's look at the numbers and see what they tell us.  

Biden got 87% of the Democratic vote, with 8% going to "uninstructed" and just 3% going to Dean Phillips from next door, the other "officially announced" Democratic candidate.  MacKinnon says that the 12%, which adds up to about 60,000 Democratic votes, could be fatal to Biden's hopes of getting the state's electoral votes if he loses those voters in November.  

But keep looking.  Biden got 511,845 votes, quite a turnout from a party in which there was no contested race.  Trump, in the Wisconsin primary, got 476,355 votes, from Republican voters, about 35,000 fewer than Biden got, an improvement, if you want to make a rought comparison, of 15,000 votes over the 2020 general election.  A full 21% of Republican voters in Wisconsin cast a ballot for someone other than Trump.  Clearly, Democrats in Wisconsin are more enthusiastic about supporting Biden than Republicans in Wisconsin are about supporting Trump, and there's a much larger pool of potential Republican voters for RFK Jr. to draw from than Democrats. 

But RFK Jr. has one big problem MacKinnon doesn't mention here, and that is in order to continue his campaign, he must actually open his mouth, do interviews with reporters and make speeches and campaign appearances.  And that, for him, appears to be a huge problem, since his support has done nothing but dwindle since reaching it's high point right after he announced he was running.  By the time the nominating conventions roll around, at the rate he's been losing support, it will be zero percent.  

"Biden is Seen as Yesterday's News to Far Left and Liberal Young Voters"

It is clear that the Biden campaign has expressed some concern about its progressive, liberal, young voter constituency.  This is not a group that has ever turned out in high numbers for elections, especially mid-terms, though they sure did break their records during the 2022 mid-terms, on behalf of Democratic candidates.  And there is some work to do to convince a larger number of these voters to turn out, get used to the political reality that candidates, even of the same party, don't always line right up with every single issue, and understand the danger that a second Trump presidency would pose to the United States, as well as to every single political position they value and consider essential.  

There is no evidence provided anywhere by MacKinnon to support his claim that 10% of young, liberal, progressive voters have "turned their backs on Biden."  And if that's the case, then I can conclude, and suppport with evidence, that far more conservatives, at least 25% if the exit polling is credible, have indeed turned their backs on Trump and will not vote for him in November, according to what they say.  There is nothing anywhere close to that number among the young, liberal progressive constituency of the Democratic party.  What these voters are doing, by casting an "uncommitted" or "uninstructed" ballot is giving the Biden campaign the issues it needs to adjust in order to win their vote.  

I will also point out that neither Trump nor RFK Jr. have anything at all to attract these young, liberal progressive voters to their campaign.  And in order to win, that's what they'd have to do.  The two biggest issues for young, liberal progressives are reproductive rights and freedom for women, and a cease-fire and resolution of the Israel-Gaza war that involves freedom and self-determination for the Palestinians.  They're not saying, "I disagree with Biden on these issues so I'm not voting for him," they're saying "Listen to us!"  For a young liberal voter who believes reproductive freedom is a right, or who supports a peaceful, just, two-state solution for Palestinians and a cease-fire and end to the Gaza War, Trump offers absolutely nothing to earn their vote.  Biden is able to offer everything.

Irrelevant Political Rhetoric From a Different Time and Place

Viewing the current political situation from the perspective of Republican politics of the Reagan-Bush era provides some amusing nostalgia, but it's not realistic, and it ignores the real issues of the politics of this time.  If there's a candidate who should step down for the sake of his party's ability to get back in the White House in November, it's the one who is facing over 80 criminal indictments, most of them felonies, most of them identifying him as anti-democratic, anti-constitution and outright anti-American.  

And if the leadership of the Republican party was genuinely interested in preserving American idealism, democracy and freedom, and conscientious when it comes to our reputation as the world's leading superpower, they would take the necessary steps to make sure that Donald J. Trump was removed from campaigning for election to the highest office in the land.  If they cared about the future and prosperity of this country, and about average Americans who get up, and go to work each day to make sure that the freedom we have is preserved and kept for eternity, they would find another candidate, and prevent a single state from entering Trump's name on the ballot.  They would become vocal in their apology to the American people for this criminal mistake they have perpetrated on all of us.  

And because they are not doing this, we, the American people, will take this matter into our own hands.  We will make sure Donald J. Trump never becomes President of the United States, or holds any elected office, ever again.  

A Colossal Waste of Time and Money

When indictments were handed down against Trump, in the documents case and as a result of the insurrection on January 6, 2021, I had a change of heart about the prospects of actually seeing justice be served with regard to the most corrupt, most criminal Presidency in the history of this country.  We failed, because of a politically motivated pardon by Gerald Ford, to prosecute and bring to justice the first criminal President in American history.  But, in spite of the failure of the two impeachments of Trump to gain convictions, both of which failed because of political manipulation and the abandonment of American patriotic values by most Republican members of the US Congress, when these indicments were handed down, I started to believe that maybe justice would actually prevail.  

Unfortunately, we do not have a justice system that can function in a world of big money, spent on armies of lawyers for the sole purpose of piling on delays in order to clog the court calendar, shut down the system and, in the case of a former President and presidential candidate, gain just enough time for him to take a shot on winning the election and then, using the power of office and his choice for attorney general, and judges on the federal bench, to shut it all down and avoid being tried altogether.  Those in this country who cannot afford grossly overpriced attorneys to buy time must face the consequences of their actions.  Those who have money can buy lawyers to set justice aside, and if that doesn't work, to influence judges to make it work.  

Our nation and its government is failing a basic test proving we are a nation of laws, and that we are all equal under the impartial rule of law.  It is becoming apparent that we are not a nation of equal justice under the law, and for some people, with enough money and influence, there is no law at all.  

The Media is Overly Excited About the Upcoming Hush Money Trial 

Trump is going to face a trial over the illegal hush money he paid to Stormy Daniels to cover up the fact that he committed adultery with her just two months after his youngest son was born.  The cover-up was to keep this fact from coming out before the 2016 election, and costing him votes.  This, frankly, is a nothingburger.  The judge has been either unwilling, or afraid, to hold him accountable for threats and defamatory statements made against just about everyone involved in the prosecution.  

The media is giving a lot of coverage to this and is trying to drum up excitement as a means of distracting from the fact that the really important trials, the ones involving attempted overturning of a legitimate election and the compromise of our national security, aren't going anywhere anytime soon.  

If that were me, and I had allowed my mouth to run off like that, I would be waiting for trial in an orange jump suit among the general population of the local jail.  That's where Trump should be now.  The fact that he isn't doesn't leave me with much hope that any form of justice will be the result of this trial.  Frankly, whether or not he bribed a porn star with hush money is far less important, as far as I am concerned, than compromising national security by stealing and deliberately hiding classified documents from the FBI, or organizing an insurrection to try and overturn the Constitution's provision of the peaceful transfer of power and overturn the results of a legitimate election.  But apparently, our justice system doesn't think those things are that important.  If they did, we'd see evidence of it, and dates being set for trial long before the upcoming election.  

Don't count on that happening.  

A Staggering Investment of Time and Money is Being Wasted

I've run out of patience for the sighs, the shrugs, the resigned acceptance of delays, obfuscation and endless legal maneuvering of the federal courts where the documents trial and the insurrection trial are to be held, which can only happen when a client has massive amounts of cash to spend to buy that influence, of those involved, claiming "there's nothing we can really do about it."  What that tells me is that there's not much belief in the cause they are involved in carrying out, or we'd see a lot more pushing, shoving, and fighting to stop delaying and get on with it.  

And yes, I'm aware that there's a wait for the Supreme Court to eventually come up with a ruling on Presidential immunity, something that one of their appeals courts took on like it was a first year law school assignment, and thorougly and completely covered the case so well that if the Supreme Court rules differently, they might as well confess to gross incompetence.  The one hope for justice that I hold, if the Supreme Court makes a horrifically ill-advised ruling against what the appeals court already ruled, is that it will guarantee President Biden's re-election in a landslide, and a Democratic majority Congress that will quickly pack the court and neutralize the incompetent justices.    

The way I see this, those who are the prosecution against Trump are representing me, and the rest of us as "we the people of the United States vs Donald J. Trump, the insurrectionist anti-patriot."  And I'm just not satisfied that they are representing us in the manner in which we want to be represented.  They are spending massive fortunes of our tax dollars on what appears to be heading to a place where justice will never see the light of day.  I do not see any fight at all, what I see is shrugs of shoulders and acceptance of the fact that delays can be purchased with enough money to get enough lawyers to work the system and slow everything down.  

And on top of that, throw in a couple of judges who are not impartial, but who are moving heaven and earth, in their lifetime-appointed career where incompetence cannot get them fired, to tilt the balance toward the criminal defendant.  No one who is getting paid massive amounts of our tax dollars, either for ridiculous salaries for lifetime-appointed jobs, or for representing the criminal defendant or prosecuting on behalf of the people, will have their career evaluated on their job performance, like the rest of us do.  

The Point of No Return

We appear to have reached several of these points as a result of long delays in taking action against the crimes that have been committed against the United States.  After a Congressional committee laid out a massive mountain of evidence, nothing happened.  Months went by, as the justice department went about the appearance of doing something, while it was actually conducting business as usual, and wasn't doing much of anything.  Public pressure finally reached a point to force appointment of a special prosecutor, another delayed action since the one who was appointed wasn't immediately available.  

Crime would be rampant everywhere if it took more than three years to start building a case against a criminal who had committed over 90 serious felonies and if that criminal could buy time to avoid a trial for years after the crimes had been committeed.  Once the court proceedings have been delayed beyond a certain point, prosecution becomes more difficult.  In this case, there's an expiration date on the effective ability to prosecute these charges, and that's January 20, 2025.  After that, if the criminal is successfully elected to the Presidency, the prisons will open their gates, and the crime of insurrection against the United States will become null and void.  

And if Trump is not tried, and convicted, before the upcoming election, then that is a point of no return.  We will have reached that point, theoretical up until now, where the effectiveness of the American Constitution and equal justice under law, will have ended.  Chaos will ensue.  And we will only have ourselves to blame, for sitting idly by, putting up with the obfuscations, delays and the corruption of our justice system while everyone involved got their money and all they cared about.

Younger Voters Don't Seem to be Getting It and Here's Why

USA Today's Young Voters Aren't Warming up to Biden, They Know it Means Trump Could Win Again 

My first problem with this piece is that it comes from USA Today, which is not really a high quality piece of journalistic achievement.  Like much of the rest of the mainstream media these days, it doesn't have some of the characteristics good newspaper journalism once had.  Like most other sources of news that have become electronic, it's bland, frequently inaccurate and the articles and research appear to be done by students who got through college with a journalism major or minor and a C+ GPA.  Nor is USA Today as unbiased and neutral when it comes to politics as they should be as a national news source.  

But after reading this, I am genuinely troubled by the content.  It almost seems to me that the subjects of the article are not real people, they are made up media images who seem to be incredibly uninformed, for the typical political category they self-describe, and for what has appeared to be typical for their age and educational level.  My first question goes to the issue of believability.  Are these people really representative of their whole demographic, or are they just a few exceptions the reporter found to fit his narrative?  

Where They're Getting The News

I can't believe that anyone who has observed American politics since 2016, and particularly over the course of the last year, does not know the danger Trump poses to American democracy.  And yet the members of the younger generation who are the subject of this particular piece do not have a realistic, factual picture of all of the politics involved and are not getting reliable, credible news from accurate sources.  And that's one of the reasons they have come up with some of the perceptions they have, and why their answers to questions seem to be so uninformed.  What information they have is not from a source following journalistic standards and including all the information, it's short sound bytes from video clips made by people who have become content creators in order to make money.  Misinformation by these sources is rampant, because there is literally no one checking the facts, and they are more concerned with the presentation and the number of hits it will get than they are with any actual interest in the subject matter. 

This should tell Democrats who are in charge of the 2024 campaigns not only where they should be targeting their narrative, but how they should be doing it.  We have a "younger" audience who has reacted strongly to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, who is highly sympathetic to the Palestinians and Gaza and has no idea about the history of that conflict, but knows little about the Ukrainians and their struggle to save their democracy, who realizes they are spending more at the gas pump and grocery store but have no idea why, but think the President somehow has complete control over that.  

This younger generation doesn't do a lot of reading.  Most of the information they receive comes to them in 60 to 90 second segments via video.  They do not have a lot of the background information they need to process an event and determine what it means and how it affects them.  And, though I hate to say this, as an educator it is something I have observed over the 35 years of my career, our schools no longer teach critical thinking skills, and our focus on technical skills in mathematics and science has gutted social studies instruction, to the point where students cannot explain the difference between democracy and autocracy, or between a constitutional democracy and a fascist dictatorship.  

And there are few sources of information from which they get their information that abide by any kind of journalistic standards.  The qualifications for the presenters are that they are good looking, photogenic, entertaining and flashy dressers, not that they value accuracy, integrity or avoiding bias. And whatever they have to say needs to be done in 90 seconds or less, or they lose the attention of the audience.   

Tic Toc and Instagram are not the Washington Post, The New York Times, The Atlantic, or the NBC Evening News.  And they're not even close to being MSNBC.  But they're the sources of information for a lot of Americans under 35 who always have their phone out looking at the screen.  Use them!  

Communicating the Important Issues and the Significance of Participating in an Election

The most important issue in this coming election is the preservation of American Constitutional Democracy.  President Biden has a long, long list of outstanding achievements and accomplishments during his first term in office, impressive by any political standard, and particularly impressive in the politically polarized atmosphere that now exists.  

Rush Limbaugh is dead, but he left a lasting mark on American politics by his insistence that the conservative right should always demand its way and make it impossible for liberals to get anything by simply refusing to negotiate and make deals.  It means they must deprive themselves of achieving some of their own agenda, but those things are no longer as important to them as preventing liberals from having freedom.  The only way that conservatives can achieve their goal is if moderate to liberal voters decide to stay home on election day.  

I agree with those political strategists who are advising the Biden campaign to hit hard on what will happen if Trump is elected.  Keep the big issues, the ones that are helping Democrats win elections at all levels, right up there at the top, and let voters, especially younger voters know, that if Trump wins, they lose big on the one or two things on which they have focused their interest.  It's not the time to provide a civics lesson to try and help people catch up to what they missed about government and the constitution in school.  It is time to point out the disaster they would be facing, when it comes to things that are important to them, if Trump wins.  

Everything that black voters have fought for since the civil rights movement began goes away if Trump wins.  There is no reason for any Black voter to stay home and not vote, to vote third party, or expecially to vote for Trump.  For Trump and his MAGA base, there is no room for Latinos in their vision of America's future.  They believe all Latinos, even those who were born and raised in this country, are part of their ridiculous "replacement theory".  A Latino voter who votes for Trump, or for a third party candidate, is voting against their own interest and their own freedom.  The same goes for Asian voters, as well as any other racial or ethnic minority in America.  Voting for Trump is voting against your own freedom.  

That also applies to younger voters.  Voting third party is voting for Trump and voting for Trump is voting against all of those interests that they put at the top of their list, particularly the anti-war, anti-violence stand that most of them take.  It is voting against a woman's right to control her own health care and her own body.  It is voting against every known higher educational opportunity and career advancement ladder available.  It is voting against protecting free and fair elections.  

If conservatives want to play on the field with a "winner take all" attitude, then Democrats have to be the winners, and we have to be committed to take it all when we win.  This election has to send a clear message, which means that Biden needs a second term and the Democrats need a big enough majority in Congress to put things in place that eliminate the possibility of our rights being taken away by a right wing, conservative, Christian nationalist dictatorship.  And if that's not what the younger voters in this country want, then they need to be told, in no uncertain terms, that's what they're going to get if they don't show up in November, and support President Biden.  

Failing to vote, voting third party, or voting for Trump is voting against America and the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.