Ukraine's Freedom Has Not Perished, Nor Has Her Glory

Stand for Freedom, Democracy and the Constitution of the United States In No Uncertain Terms

The contrast between reality and facts and what the right wing media and extremist conspiracy theorists attempt to report as reality has always been visible.  It gets worse when their favored politicians are not in office, and the obfuscation, distortion of truth and outright lying has been as bad as it ever was since Biden was overwhelmingly elected, legitimately and fairly drumming Trump into the ground in November of 2020.  But Putin's threats against Ukraine, and the unprovoked and misguided attack that has been launched this week is putting an awful lot of pressure on the extremists in right wing media as people turn to more credible sources to get information, and as their reporting of unfolding events fails to match what is actually happening.  

Their theme, since well before the 2020 election, was that Joe Biden suffers from dementia because of his age.  They have a few, selective little clips of video here and there, edited and played out of context, to "prove" their claim.  I have yet to see footage that shows Biden giving a long speech, stumbling over words, mispronouncing and misusing terminology, incoherently babbling and losing his train of thought with the pinched lips and blank stares like many of Trump's rally speeches, and several of his State of the Union addresses, but those are facts, and facts never deter the extremist right from their agenda. 

The country is economically sound, unemployment is dropping like a stone in a well, trade and economic growth is up, recovery from COVID is happening on all fronts, and several major pieces of signature legislation have been passed even with resistance from a couple of Democratic senators playing the role of "maverick."  Those are not signs of a bumbling, demented, incompetent Presidency.  The US response to the Ukrainian crisis has been nothing short of remarkable in its organization, its effectiveness in unfying world opinion and in restoring the confidence of the free world in the United States and its leadership.  

We have a real President who knows what he is doing and has the experience to do it right.  Unlike his predecessor, he does not make himself the source of all authority and declare that he is "the only one" who can do something.  He finds the best advisors and associates, those with experience, education and common sense, gives them a job and lets them do it.  Gathering intelligence on what was happening, and then letting everyone know exactly what was happening was brilliant, and the fact that everything they were saying was accurate and trustworthy was a key factor in uniting NATO and the free world against an autocratic dictator's unprovoked and evil attack on an emerging democratic state.  

And I see a few signs of frustration coming out of the extremists on the right.  Even some of Trump's more dishonest advisors are trying to damp down his praise and adoration of Putin.  Is being oblivious to reality a sign of dementia?  If it is, Trump is demented because he doesn't seem to see what's been happening since Putin's attack on Ukraine.  But then, this is a guy who still thinks he won the election and keeps saying so, and that's behavior which is a clear sign of insanity.  

Some of his more obnoxious apologists have wisely decided to lay low and adopt a posture of silence being better than speaking out.  A few others now seem to be regretting their previous words and are playing a game of "how far can I walk this back until I get caught?"  Some of the establishment Republicans who obviously loathe Trump and wish he would go away and leave the party alone, like Mitch McConnell and the cringing sneak, Lindsey Graham, now wait to see which way the cat jumps before they open their pie hole.  I don't think either of them care whether the United States is a democracy or an autocracy as long as they can keep their money, luxuries and their power.  

I expect nothing to change in the extremist right wing media.  These are people without a conscience or a soul.  But I hope that some of their audience, and some of the politicians who frequently march to their drumbeat, actually do develop some sympathy for the Ukrainian people.  They followed our example in building their nation, they wanted what we have when it comes to our freedom and our opportunities.  They are having that taken away from them by a brutal dictator who doesn't want that forhis people and who is trying to destroy what they have because they happen to be right next door.  We need to get on their side and support them in every way possible and that means leaving the politics in the dust.  

One of the ways we can help others in the world who look up to our country and see the freedom we enjoy, the opportunities we have, and the rights for which we fight is to make sure we elect politicians who are committed to keeping our democracy strong.  Those who are identifying themselves by their words of admiration and praise for Putin are telling us, in no uncertain terms, that they do not support American ideals and values, that they support someone who is committed to keeping his own people from freedom and to taking it away from his neighbors who also have it.  

That is a point that needs to be driven home with clarity and resolve on election day, November 2022, in no uncertain terms.   

American Politicians and Media Supporting Putin and Bashing Biden Should Take Note of Those "Remarkable" Russian Protests

Media reports about the war in Ukraine have included information about "thousands" of Russians gathering in public, protesting their country's military advance into Ukraine.  There's a fascination with what they are calling a "remarkable" scene, since protesting against the Russian government is a crime which carries severe penalties.  People must feel pretty strongly against what is going on to risk being arrested and jailed, or worse, for protesting.  It remains to be seen what will happen if this kind of protesting continues, and what kind of effect it will have on the war, if any. 

As Russians by the thousands risk arrest and imprisonment to exercise a right that we take for granted, we have some American politicians who have foolishly opened their mouths and have gone on record as being admirers and supporters of Putin, who is standing against everything America stands for and has invaded Ukraine to keep the kind of freedom upon which our country is built away from his doorstep.  And they're doing it to gain the favor of a former President who tried to isolate the United States from its democratic, freedom-loving allies and who launched a riot on January 6, 2021 to overturn a free and fair election and subvert the Constitution.  

That's not going to turn out well for anyone who has done it.

Free speech, which is a cornerstone of American freedom, isn't permitted by the autocratic Russian government, embodied by its dictator, Vladimir Putin.  In fact, while American values are based on the belief that "all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights: That among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." the Russian dictatorship is at least partly built on the idea that the privileged class is entitled to its wealth, which brings it power and pleasure, and that the masses are there to serve wealth and power, and should be grateful for the opportunity.  There is no recognition of human equality; it is the antithesis of the core values which are the foundation of American democracy.  

America's founding fathers developed a government system which recognizes human equality, rather than aristocracy.  It relies on the belief that people are capable of governing themselves, determining the full extend and limits of their individual freedom and assuring the collective security, stability and prosperity of their society.  That belief was based on about two hundred years of experiencing it prior to having to defend it against an aristocratic monarchy before getting the chance to put it into practice. 

Putin's Russian autocracy believes that liberty is the enemy of security, stability and prosperity and that the majority of the people need authoritarian rule in order to have those things.  But in spite of Russia's long history as a people, culture and nation, it did not actually have any experience with self-government or personal liberty until the Soviet Union dissolved, and was not able to get past the immediate turmoil and problems caused by the sudden collapse of its government structure.  Putin convinced the Russian people that their problems were all caused by their attempt at democratic rule and offered his authoritarian autocracy as a solution.  It didn't resolve any of the problems, but by the time most of the Russian people realized it, the authoritarian state he had created prevented them from doing anything about it. 

Russian Autocracy is the Opposite of American Democracy

I'll put this in terms that makes it an easy concept to understand.  It is not possible to claim to be a patriotic American, believing in the principles and values that are the very philosophical foundation and core of our nation, and also support Putin and his Russian autocracy.  The two systems are incompatible and they are, point by point, polar opposites.  Ukraine has had its problems as a developing democracy.  But so did the United States.  The man who helped write the phrase "all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" owned slaves.  Women's suffrage didn't happen in this country until 1920, almost 150 years after it came into existence.  But in spite of all of the problems encountered in getting to where we are, it is not possible to be a patriotic American, and also to support Vladimir Putin's attack on Ukraine and its people, or to support Vladimir Putin's autocratic rule over the Russian people. 

Ukraine's experience is unique.  It's history is very much woven into that of Russia, with so much in common that seeing it transition from being one of the founding socialist republics that formed the Soviet Union to a much more autonomous, independent, emerging democracy is remarkable.  That's one of the reasons why it is such a threat to Putin.  It has had a rough road from where it came to where it is now, not uncommon with other countries that have slowly turned into productive democracies, but it is developing and succeeding, and because of its close historical, cultural and political ties to Russia, is proof that it can be done in a Slavic country in Eastern Europe.  

To defend Putin and take his side is to support the destruction of a nation who has adopted the same values upon which our country was founded, and is trying to build itself on them, and to take the side of a dictator who stands opposed to American values and whose ultimate goal is to eliminate American influence in favor of his own.  Taking Putin's side against Ukraine would be the equivalent of supporting Communist China's expansion into East and Southeast Asia, or supporting the Soviet Union's hold on its Eastern European satellites and its occupation of East Germany. 

Free Speech is Not an Excuse for Ignorance 

Ironically, many of those who are apparently siding with Putin because of the influence of a segment of the extremist right are also those who have been screaming that mask mandates and vaccination requirements are tyranny.  That's a laughable comparison to the kind of tyranny that is visible in Russia under Putin every day, and it's not even close to what we are about to see unfold in Ukraine under a Putin occupation.  Such ignorance is inexcusable in America.  

I recommend reading Timothy Snyder's On Tyranny:  Twenty Lessons From the Twentieth Century before using the term or discussing it publicly.  

A Clear Message

This isn't rocket science, it's political science and it's not hard to figure out what message is being sent by Americans who are expressing their sympathy and admiration for Vladimir Putin, whether that's being used as a way to bash President Biden, or whether, by conviction, they really do sympathize more with autocracy than they do with American idealism.  They are telling me not to cast my ballot for them.  Those might not be the words we see on their billboards or in their media advertising, but that's the message they are sending.  They are telling us that their politics and personal loyalty is focused on something other than what the American flag represents.  

The President and his administration have handled this crisis as well as any previous administration has ever handled such an event.  There is a measure of competence, confidence, and knowledge that comes with experience. President Biden's leadership has earned the trust of our NATO allies once again, after four years of uncertainty, and it has been his leadership over these recent months that has united most of the world against Putin's aggression.  Calling out Putin's intentions, telling the world what he was planning in spite of his denials, and being right on target with the information has been an absolutely brilliant strategy. That's the mark of real experience.  

Those who decided to use this as a political opportunity to align themselves with our recent former President 45, who has been a close ally of Putin going back before the 2016 election are going to regret speaking out too soon.  That right to free speech which we take so much for granted makes it possible for people to enclose themselves in a cocoon and live separated from truth and the real world, but they are a minority.  

Most Americans can see that we have nothing in common with Vladimir Putin's ideology and that he is the real enemy here.  Those who are now on the record supporting him and admiring him, in order to curry favor with former President 45 are standing against our country's core values and ideals.  

  

Putin Wouldn't Have Launched This Invasion if He Weren't Certain of a Divided America

As far back as his initial provocations in the Donbas and his invasion of Crimea, the Marxist, ex-KGB operative, dictator of Russia has counted on the political divide in the United States to prevent any significant consequences from coming out of the United States.  He has been laying the groundwork for softening the impact of any American reaction to his aggression for a long time.  All of this is on the record, something that can be seen with just a few clicks on a search engine.  

Russia has launched cyber attacks on infrastructure in multiple locations around the world, including in the United States, and also, specifically, in former Soviet provinces and republics, especially Ukraine.  They've been increasing their aggression incrementally, gauging both world opinion and possible United States actions opposing their expansionist plans.  

Putin's Loyal American Ally, "President Pushover" 

There's no argument that can be made against the claim that the former President of the United States was a loyal Putin ally and supporter.  Public pressure forced the former President's signing of the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) which actually contained provisions that prevented the former President from lifting sanctions already imposed.  But the administration's actions all through that entire Presidential term are a record of foot dragging, walking back and even reprimanding UN Ambassador Nicky Haley when she announced sanctions in opposition to Kremlin support of Syrian President al-Assad's use of chemical weapons.  The former President claimed Haley was "momentarily confused".  

The fact that the former President is on the record with statements that clearly demonstrate his support for, and admiration of the Marxist, ex-KGB dictator is unfathomable. With a mountain of evidence that even hard line, hard core conservatives had to agree pointed to direct interference in the 2016 election by Russia, the former President, incredibly and unbelievably sided with Putin against his own intelligence agencies in claiming that he didn't see why the obvious meddling would be Russia.  I believe that's one of many reasons why he lost his re-election bid in 2020.  The political division in the United States that prevented his removal after impeachment was Putin's confirmation that he would have plenty of political support in the United States, enough to create division and confusion, if he decided to invade Ukraine.

It was Republican Senator Bob Corker, former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who said the former President's words and actions when it came to Putin's interference in the 2016 election, and to the soft-pedaling of sanctions made the country "look like a pushover."  I think that's an apt description of the former President when it comes to anything having to do with foreign policy, period, but especially anything having to do with Putin.  His claim that he was "tougher on Russia than any other President has been" is an outright lie.  If he had been, Putin would not now be invading the Ukraine.

President Pushover's Foreign Policy Legacy

For a President who was elected with the help of a Marxist, former KGB-agent, Russian Autocrat, the former President's foreign policy ran right along with Putin's expectations.  For the first time since the NATO alliance was formed, the United States was not a reliable partner.  In fact, the former President pushed the whole alliance aside, met with the leaders fewer times than any of his predecessors, and left the European side of the alliance to conclude that, at least as long as he was in office, they were on their own.  That was probably far more than even Putin expected. 

Then there was the North Korean debacle.  With all the hype over the first meeting ever between the US President and the world's most notorious and brutal Communist dictator, nothing ever came of it except that the US withdrew from joint military exercises with another loyal ally, South Korea, while North Korea was obligated to do....nothing.  Just to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of President Pushover, they fired off another missile test just a few days after the dictator returned home from Singapore.  The US alliance with South Korea is still strained as a result of that incompetent, inexcusable move.  

Then there is Afghanistan.  In just four short years, President Pushover completely undid all of his prior fellow Republican President's  "nation-building" policies, which were widely supported by Republicans in Congress back then,  in his haste to gain favor by getting out of Afghanistan.  His record of Islamophobia didn't prevent him from directly negotiating with the Taliban.  He wanted to invite them to Camp David, but fortunately, his military advisors prevented that disaster from happening.  But the die was cast.  The failure of his administration to fully equip and maintain the Afghan army, and his undermining the legitimate government, doomed them.  Biden had to bail the US out, which he did. 

And don't forget, former President 45 was the one who was originally impeached for trying to bribe the Ukrainian government to tell lies about Joe Biden.  

Putin Has What He Wanted

Helping the former President get into the White House, and then getting away with it, was quite a coup, accomplished with little in the way of expense and no military operation required.  We still don't know for certain exactly what it was that the ex-KGB agent dangled over the former President's orange head to get his full cooperation but I'm pretty sure it involved some inside deal for property and investment opportunities in Russia.  Maybe it is some deep, dark moral secret, but the former President built his personal reputation on immorality, vice, bribery, fraud and corruption and then bragged that that's the best pathway to success.  He cares about making money, not his moral reputation.  

A Republican Political Disaster Unfolding

As if January 6th wasn't enough, Republicans and their Fox News propaganda outlet are openly siding with Putin.  That's because their savior and idol, the former President, is dictating their conscience.  Republicans haven't had much respect for either the Constitution or representative democracy as the minority party and that's becoming crystal clear as the threat of this invasion has brought to the surface.  The fact that we have anyone in Congress who is not fully supporting a free, independent, democratic Ukraine against a Marxist, autocratic Russian dictatorship is a sign of exactly how successful Putin has been in dividing this country, and how far away from American patriotism the Republican party has fallen. 

The Republicans can't seem to fathom how much political damage this will do to them.  Many of my neighbors, who emigrated here from Eastern Europe, and who have been fairly reliable Republican voters seem to have a much better perspective of who Putin is, how bad he is, and how unAmerican he is than many members of the Republican party do.  The GOP is losing this constituency.  

This is one of those times when I am absolutely grateful that an experienced leader with a real foreign policy record is in charge, and is relying on individuals like Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a real American patriot who understands what's going on better than just about anyone else.  

Ironic, isn't it, that the political party which loves to take credit for having a President in office when the Soviet Union fell apart is now supporting the Marxist dictator who wants to bring it back.

Author's Note:  It could not be any better for the United States at this moment that President Joe Biden has been providentially placed in the Presidency, and yes, I do mean thank God.  There are few people in our national government better equipped with the kind of experience and knowledge necessary for handling a situation just like this one, and the others who do have all that have been called in as advisors or were already there working on our behalf.  

And yes, it was providential.  "For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God--The Apostle Paul, Romans 13:1.  

And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?--Queen Esther, Esther 4:14

When the World Trade Center was attacked, and the United States was about to invade Iraq, there was a Republican in the White House.  Even though the invasion was directed at the wrong country, for the wrong reasons, when the Republicans asked for unity, they got it.  We are now facing a crisis, perpetrated by a dictator whose values are the polar opposite of American idealism.  Though we are not being invaded, nor are we invading another country, we still need unity.  If the Republicans really are patriots, then they'll step up and get behind the President.  If they don't then that will tell us just how far they have departed from being true American patriots.

The Subversion of American Christianity

The Seeds of Political Violence are Being Sewn in a Church Near You 

The link above will take you to a must-read piece from David French in The Dispatch.  

Using what Evangelical theologians would call correct "hermeneutics," which is nothing more than interpreting the Bible in context, it is not possible to make a case for political violence using the Bible.  In fact, the ability of the Christian church to successfully evangelize and win converts in the first three centuries of its existence was largely dependent on their response to what was, at times, cruel and brutal persecution, including their torture and murder, at the hands of governing authorities.  

In the gospel account of the life of Jesus, there is only one recorded incident when Jesus reacted with anger at something that was happening.  He got upset when he visited the Jerusalem Temple and discovered that it was being used as a flea market, with profiteering money changers and the sale of animals for the required sacrifices at high prices.  He made a whip and drove them out, apparently using some of his spiritual authority, because they left.  I've seen that narrative depicted in movies and plays, and frankly, I'm not really sure whether they get it right or not.  At any rate, he made the point.  

There's a little hint of Jesus' spiritual power in the account of his arrest in John 18.  When he asked the guards who they were looking for, and they responded, "Jesus of Nazareth," he said "I am he."  When he spoke those words, the narrative says that the guards stepped back and fell to the ground.  As they moved to take him away, Peter stepped up with a sword and and managed to slice off the ear of the High Priest's slave.  In Luke's account, Jesus' response to Peter's action was to say, "No more of this!" and he healed the ear.  

No Politics or Violence in the Teachings of Christ

One of the core doctrines among conservative, Evangelical Christians, along with belief that the Bible has "truth without any mixture of error for its matter," (Baptist Faith and Message, 2000 Article I:  The Scriptures) is that "All scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is himself the focus of divine revelation" (Baptist Faith and Message 2000, Article I:  The Scriptures).  This is a rewording of a point that was once known as the "Christ criterion" or, in the theology of Southern Baptists who make up the nation's largest Evangelical denomination, the belief that all of the Bible must be interpreted in light of the coming of Jesus, who was the Son of God, and the savior of the world from its sin.  

Much of the Bible is recorded history, and it includes a lot of war and violence in the content.  But in these two doctrinal statements, and in multiple other similar statements in the doctrinal statements of almost all Evangelical denominations, the teachings of Jesus are the filter through which all other theology is interpreted and determined.  

Even in the Old Testament, the peaceful, non-violent nature of Jesus is seen in the prophecy of Isaiah: 

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth;  like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep before his shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.  Isaiah 53:7 (emphasis mine, to be noted later) 

The fulfillment of that prophecy is found in New Testament accounts of Jesus' trials in the Jewish Sanhedrin and then before Pilate.  There was no resistance from his followers, almost all of whom had fled, and none from Jesus.  

But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed.  Matthew 27:14

Even in clearing out the Temple, he was attacking a group of individuals who had invaded a sacred space and had subverted it for their own profiteering purposes.  The money changers and the merchants selling sacrifices were the intruders, the "insurrectionists," if you will.  Jesus was just putting things back they way they belonged.  But even in that incident, there's no record of any harm that Jesus did to any individual who was there.  

In Christ's theology, violence is turned upon its head.  He calls peacemakers "the children of God."  In that same narrative, he tells his followers that they should consider themselves blessed when they are victims of violence resulting from their faith, noting that the prophets who told the truth were persecuted in the same way.  There's no instruction to commit civil disobedience, demand personal rights or freedoms, or take someone to court for violating personal rights.  

Throughout the same narrative that is launched by these words, there are instructions directly from Jesus with a whole list of non-violent expectations; 

If you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be subject to judgment

If you call someone a fool, you will be liable to the hell of fire

Before giving an offering, if you remember you have something against someone, go and make it right so that your offering will be accepted

If anyone strikes you on your right cheek, give them the left cheek also

If someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, give him your cloak as well 

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you because this will make you children of of your father in heaven

Take the log out of your own eye before trying to remove the speck in your neighbor's eye

In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you, for this is the law and the prophets.

That's just from the words of Jesus himself, without getting into the other apostolic writing in the New Testament.  If, as many Christians believe, that Christ is the focus of the divine revelation of the Bible, then violence is a sin in any theological or doctrinal context of Christian teaching.  

The Political Testimony of the Church

Followers of Jesus gathered themselves in to churches, the first one of these being in Jerusalem, forming not long after Jesus was crucified.  They created a church that was, frankly, socialist.  That's right, with today's conservative Evangelicals engaged in politics using that term like a buzzsaw, the organization of the very first Christian church in existence was pure socialist. 

Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.  Acts 4:32, NRSV.  

That's right.  The very first Christian church in the world was, from top to bottom, socialist.  In fact, the redistribution of wealth was such a major occupation of the daily operation of the church that they actually established a group of men, deacons, they were called, whose job in the church was to oversee the daily distribution of food to widows.  It was such a core principle of the church's operation that in Acts 5, there is an account of a husband and wife who sold property, kept part of the sale price back for themselves, but told the church they were giving the whole amount they received.  According to the narrative, the consequence of their lie was that they dropped dead right then and there.  

The reputation and the faith testimony of all Christians is tied to their obedience to governing authorities.  The two major apostles of the early church, Paul and Peter, both write about the significant impact this would have on the ability of Christians to evangelize and win converts to Christ.  Paul writes these instructions to one of his proteges who was serving the Christian church on the island of Crete: 

Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle and to show courtesy to everyone.  Titus 3:1-2

Observing what is going on in many segments of American Christianity with regard to politics today, especially the conservative Evangelical branch of the church that claims so high a level of biblical fidelity, does this describe what can be observed, especially as militant Christian nationalism becomes so prevalent?  

There are two other passages that are compatible with this principle, one by Paul to the church at Rome, in Romans 13:1-7, the other by Peter, also written to a specific church or group of Christians and found in I Peter 2:13-17.  Neither apostle was writing with any concept at all of what it meant to live in a country with representative democracy, where people chose their own rulers.  They were writing just before the Roman emperors began to notice the growth of Christianity, its philosophical and practical incompatibility with their belief in the emperor's divinity, and set out to persecute Christianity out of existence.  

Christians who endured over two hundred years of brutal persecution did not rebel, organize insurrections, set themselves self-righteously above the civil government and resist.  They followed the instructions given by the apostles, both of whom were eventually executed by the Roman government.  The result of their obedience was not that they were wiped out by persecution, but that the testimony of their faith in the face of persecution verified its veracity, and led to the conversion of thousands.  By the time Constantine came to the throne, and outlawed the persecution, the Christian church was the dominant religious belief in the empire and its next emperor, Theodosius, himself a convert to Christianity, would make it Rome's officially endorsed religion. 

It was a spiritual "revolution" achieved without the use of violence, rebellion, insurrection or resistance. 

Drifting into Apostacy

Political dogma has been replacing Christian theology in churches since there were churches, it's nothing new.  America, with its broad and sweeping principle of religious liberty, has not been a stranger to the complete and total perversion of Christian doctrine and theology since the founding of the country.  Books have been written about the origins of the tendencies within groups of Christians to drift away from orthodoxy.  What we're seeing now is exactly the same tendency, except that those who are using churches and church groups to build their own power base are pulling them into political "cults" rather than religious cults.  

In spite of claiming that they believe the Bible to be the "written word of God," without error and infallible in practice, "Biblical illiteracy" is extremely high among those who claim membership in conservative, Evangelical churches.  Most of the "Bible study" in which their church members are involved is taught by individuals who are themselves uneducated, who pass along their own presuppositions and prejudices, who haven't had any theological education, studied the original languages and the complicated history and context of a collection of books written over a thousand years of ancient human history.  Fewer than half of the members of any given church are involved in any kind of study of the Bible at all, beyond the Sunday sermon preached by their pastor, who may also be prone to interject his own biases, prejudices and philosophical perspective into his sermons.

But not all conservative Christians claim the Bible as their only source of authority.  In the article cited at the beginning, David French attributes much of the militant brand of Christianity to Pentecostalism, and to "Charismatics", a more recent branch of the same group.  These churches teach that "revelation" is still being given and that written scripture can be "re-interpreted" in the presence of miraculous works, most notably speaking in tongues, a very deceptive practice which convinces many people nevertheless that these people are speaking truth.  That's how manipulators and phonies like Greg Locke, in Tennessee, and Paula White, who is Trump's "spiritual advisor" are making themselves rich and powerful.  Locke uses his claims of "revelation" to isolate individuals in his own church he considers "enemies" and pushes them out.  Without a historical background, the ability to accurately translate an ancient language, and an understanding of the entire scope of these things across the time period that each book was written, the Bible can be "interpreted" to mean just about anything that the interpreter wants it to mean.  And as many critics of Christianity claim, it is used as the "magic book of manipulation."  That manipulation includes building a system by which those who preach and lead churches control those who attend them.  There are examples of this anywhere you look. 

But I think there's more to it than that.  There's a sense of power and influence that comes with church leadership, especially when the church is independent, autonomous and not connected to a denomination or to one of the branches of Christian tradition.  There's a temptation to use that kind of power and influence that is temporal, dependent on "worldly" influences.  Christ himself was tempted with that same kind of worldly influence and power, the idea that one man could rule the whole world (Matthew 4:8-11).  

That's why, when someone like Donald Trump comes along, a man who built his life, business and personal reputation on everything that the Bible labels as "debauchery" and worldly pleasure, and he says, "Hey, I love the Evangelicals.  And turning the other cheek and doing unto others are nice things, but where have they gotten you?" he still has their ear.  He can deny the very belief that is at the heart of Christian faith, claiming, "I haven't done anything that requires me to ask forgiveness from anyone," live a lifestyle that is the polar opposite of Christian submission to God, and still get the support of Christians.  It is no longer the gospel that is the focus for many, it is gaining worldly power and influence.  That takes less time and is more certain than prayer is, I guess, in their thinking anyway.

A Form of Godliness, but Denying Its Power

I don't buy into the "last days nonsense" of most Evangelicals.  Those end of the world scenarios are for the purposes of manipulation and to justify bad behavior.  But the Apostle Paul gives a good description of what I believe we are now seeing in some branches of the Christian church, and I think it gives some perspective on where these "seeds of violence" are coming from. 

For people will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, brutes, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to the outward form of godliness but denying its power.  Avoid them!  For among them are those who make their way into households and captivate silly women, overwhelmed by their sins and swayed by all kinds of desires, who are always being instructed and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth.  

The emphasis is mine, and it makes my point here perfectly.   

A Civics Lesson for a January 6th Insurrectionist

Jan. 6th Beverly Hills Insurrectionist on her Guilty Plea

"You are not going to take away our Trumpy bear.  You are not going to take away our votes."  

So cried Gina Bisignano, a cosmetologist from Beverly Hills, California, as she participated in the January 6th Trump Insurrection at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC.  

So this former U.S. History, Civics, Economics, Journalism and English teacher is going to tell you how this works.  Please pay attention.  It looks like the consequences for failing your "Applied Civics" test were far worse than just failing a test in class.  Spending time in prison is a pretty tough penalty for ignorance of the Constitution.  If you had been in my class, I'd have just given you an "F" and we'd be done with it. 

Here's How It Works 

1.  Your vote was not taken away from you.  It was cast, apparently in California, where it counted for less than a raindrop in a hurricane.  The voters in that state overwhelmingly voted for Joe Biden and he won all of its electoral votes.  That's how it works. The state's electors then cast their ballots for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, along with the other electors from states where the voters picked Biden over Trump, adding up to a total of 306.  And that was more than enough to make Joe Biden President, and Kamala Harris Vice-President.  

2. Believing that the election was "stolen" because of massive voter fraud is not the same thing as proving the election was stolen because of massive voter fraud.  You can believe whatever you want to, but your belief does not entitle you to trample on the constitutional rights of those of us who voted for Biden, nor does it entitle you to take matters into your own hands and attempt a violent overturn of a legitimate, fair election.  There's a line that protects my constitutional rights from your beliefs, and it also protects my vote and makes sure it counts just as much as yours does. 

3.  There is a constitutionally-approved procedure for handling claims of massive voter fraud and "the election was stolen."   Trump got more than his fair share of due process in multiple courts.  He had a chance to lay out all of the evidence he had proving that there was voter fraud and that the election was stolen from him.  There's a plethora of information out there which describes the whole saga of misinformation and outright lying that was presented to the courts as "evidence" of voter fraud, but no actual evidence of voter fraud.   Due process involves providing evidence. The former President launched more than 60 lawsuits in both state and federal jurisdictions, and lost every case because there was absolutely no evidence to support the claims he made of voter fraud and cheating.  

There were also more audits conducted on ballot counts in the states where the electoral votes decided the election than ever before.  There are always people who try to cheat, vote twice, vote when they're not eligible, cast fraudulent ballots, but they represent a very small fraction of the electorate, a couple hundred votes nationwide, not anywhere near enough to overturn any results.  Even the audits conducted by Trump-supported, unqualified "auditors", like the Cyber-Ninjas in Arizona, failed to uncover any massive voter fraud.  In Arizona, aside from breaking multiple laws about handling public documents, destroying expensive vote-tabulating machines, making themselves look as incompetent as they were and making a general mess, the Ninjas actually concluded that Biden's vote had been undercounted, and that Trump did indeed lose the state of Arizona by 11,000 votes. Every other audit in all six states where Trump challenged the vote upheld the reported certified count.  

In other words, Biden won.  Get over it.

There was plenty of evidence available to prove that this was one of the most closely watched, and accurately certified elections in recent history.  More eyes were watching polling places and ballot-counting venues than ever before.  The former President had been claiming that if  he lost, it could only be due to fraud, even though polling data showed him far behind from the very start, so election officials were on the alert. 

So, without any evidence to prove that the election was stolen from Trumpie-bear, and court rulings declaring that the vote totals were accurate, all fifty states certified their election results, and called their electors to the state capitols to cast their ballots.  Biden received 306 electoral votes, Trump got 232 electoral votes and Joe Biden was officially and legitimately elected President of the United States.    Each state certified and recorded the results of their electoral votes for presentation at the ceremony in Congress on January 6th. 

Attacking the Capitol in an attempt to disrupt the certification of the electoral vote was a futile attempt to subvert the constitution and take my rights and my vote away from me.  Whatever legal consequences are being faced by those who decided to abandon their American values and become seditionists are well deserved and frankly, a plea bargain is an undeserved measure of graciousness.  

How Do Patriotic, Loyal Americans Who Understand the Constitution Respond? 

The peaceful transfer of power from one administration to another is a foundational principle of representative democracy in America.  It is what makes the "American experiment" work.  Being American supercedes partisan interest, so when partisan interest attempts to subvert constitutional restrictions on government power, like this Trump Insurrection attempted to do, the participants are guilty of sedition and they become insurrectionist rebels.  They deliberately set themselves against patriotism and the basic American principles that our founding fathers wrote into the constitution.  

By definition, not a single person participating in the January 6th Trump Insurrection can call themselves a "Patriot."  

I was not happy when Trump was elected in 2016.  There was evidence which had been presented at the time which supported reasonable challenge to his election.  But the peaceful transfer of power from the Obama administration to the Trump administration took place anyway.  The evidence that was turned up in what eventually became known as the Mueller Investigation, over 400 pages of it, documented, never got to the justice department because the President's claim of immunity was upheld by the Attorney General.  Still, the response of those who were opposed to Trump's administration went about their challenges legally, in accordance with the Constitution, and as Patriotic Americans.  

The evidence that did turn up warranted two impeachments, and also warranted conviction and removal, but politics prevented that, and while that is frustrating and is a terrible unjustice, it's the procedure outlined in the constitution, and you did not see any Democrats either advocating sedition and insurrection, or attempting it.  Our ballots rectified the error, at least, they got him out of the White House, which is exactly how that's supposed to work.  

The only Patriots in the Capitol on January 6th were the Capitol and DC police, and the members of Congress who have continued to work toward justice. 

Be Grateful for your Plea Bargain Because He's Not Coming Back

To Ms. Bisignano, and all of the other seditious insurrectionists who got a plea bargain that is keeping them out of prison, or limiting the time they spend there, be grateful for the grace and mercy that has been demonstrated on behalf of the people, those of us who are true Patriots and who love our country.  Trump is a pathological liar.  Not taking that plea bargain means a trial and going to prison, long before November of 2024 rolls around.  That tantalizing promise of a pardon is just another means of manipulating those who are gullible enough to be in his shrinking "base"of supporters to lie for him.  Even if he does slip away from justice for the crimes he committed in office, there's not a chance voters will ever re-elect him to the White House.  Not.  a.  chance.  

Frankly, I think that the terms of any plea bargain should be a required course in American Constitutional government, something along the lines of what most eighth graders have to pass in order to go to high school.  A basic understanding of how an election works, the precautions and safeguards that are in place which prevent "massive voter fraud" would be one of the major objectives, along with understanding individual rights.  Some objectives involving George Washington's farewell address and his admonitions about the divisiveness of political parties would need to be part of the curriculum.  

Our current political leadership has to be smart enough to make sure this never happens again. That means making sure that justice is served to everyone, including members of Congress and everyone in the former Presidential administration involved in that insurrection, including the former President himself.  

Remember Benghazi?

Benghazi is Libya's second largest city, a seaport on the Mediterranean, once sharing capital status with Tripoli, it is a city of around 700,000 population, important to the Libyan, and North African, economies.  

It has become, in American lingo, the symbolic term representing the multiple investigations into former Secretary of State and Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.  Investigations launched by Republicans into the attack on an American consulate in the city while Clinton was Secretary of State initiated the famed "e-mail scandal" as a result of the claim, which subsequent investigations determined was unfounded and without evidence, that she sent classified information over her private email server to state department staffers.  

It was an egregious example of the use of an "investigation" rather than any evidence or results of an investigation, as part of a political campaign against a candidate.  From the beginning, with the questioned E-mail server in hand, all of the emails between Clinton and her staff that had been sent, along with the changing number of "missing emails" that Trump kept harping about, were in possession of those conducting the investigation and they knew, according to the record, fairly early in the process that no classified material had been sent over the private server.  They knew that no laws had been violated, though some nebulous state department protocols or policies may have been.  

But the continuous investigation was a political liability and as unethical as it was to keep it going knowing what the eventual outcome would be, there were Republicans who just didn't think there was a problem with that.  

My mother, raised on a farm, loved to use the expression, "The chickens are coming home to roost."  Indeed, they certainly are.  

Prior to leading his rallies in chants of "lock her up," Trump always mentioned the "missing emails."  It would be the twenty-thousand, twenty-five thousand, thirty thousand, he was never consistent in mentioning how many there were, but he always wanted to know where they were.  The investigators knew, of course, had read them, and considered them irrelevant to the case.  The question from Trump, of course, was rhetorical. 

The "Missing Emails" are Apparently No Big Deal

Now that the careless treatment of classified information has turned out to be a regular Trump habit, "lock him up" is the more appropriate choice of words.  Not only did Trump use all kinds of unauthorized and illegal means to transmit classified information, including his own cell phone and twitter account, but a lot of it made its way out of the White House through the Washington, DC sewer system.  Other bits and pieces were sent via personal email to his children and his son-in-law, and during the move out of the White House, found their way to Mar-a-Lago.  Clearly Trump was really not concerned at all about the security of Hillary's emails, beyond their usefulness in campaigning. 

That's going to be a huge problem for him, now. 

I Have No Words

The Republican silence, especially those who were responsible for those investigations and who helped keep the lies circulating around the term "investigation" is a clear demonstration of the complete and total lack of integrity among Republicans.  Integrity is no longer a respected, important value in our society anyway, and all that talk about family values, starting with Reagan, by the GOP has been sacrificed to the goal of hanging on to political power.  

Democrats have to learn how to take advantage of these wonderful gifts being handed to them on a silver platter.  If Clinton had exhibited even a small fraction of the carelessness of Trump when it comes to handling Presidential communication and classified material directly related to the security of the United States Republican heads would have exploded over it.  All that talk about who,potentially, could have had access to that material and what they would have done with it opened the door for accusing Clinton of giving state secrets away to America's enemies.  

Give that some careful thought for just a minute.  Trump is leaking classified info all over the place. This is the guy who claims a close relationship with the Communist dictator of North Korea, the ex-communist autocratic dictator of Russia, and who wanted to invite the Taliban to Camp David.  Who do you think has their hands on tons of sensitive, classified information and grabbed it from the former President?  Almost anyone in the world that wanted it. 

I'd like to see a lot of Democrats stepping up and taking advantage of this right now.  

An Election Handed to Democrats on a Silver Platter

The Republican National Committee has added a gift to the pile already accumulating from the gift that keeps on giving, the January 6th Trump Insurrection at the US Capitol.  Censuring the two Republicans who are serving on the January 6th committee, and then declaring that the Trump Insurrection was "legitimate political discourse," the RNC sealed the fate of multiple candidates from their own party.  

I'm completely convinced that there's always been a rift between Trumpies and mainstream Republicans, most of whom hated his guts, or at least resented his presence, but were afraid to do or say anything because of the support he got from a group of people who were not really much involved in party politics before he came along.  But the RNC, dominated by Trumpies, widened the rift to the size of an arroyo (sorry, western term) with its censure of Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, and its ridiculous proclamation that the insurrection was "legitimate political discourse."  

It is interesting to see mainstream, hard core Republicans like Mitch McConnell, who had what was so far the most oppositional words for the RNC, being at odds with the party structure.  I was not surprised at Mitt Romney's comment.  Mitt hasn't ever uttered a favorable word about Trump that I can recall.  It's frustrating because at times, when he should have spoken up, he's been silent.  But I think he might be biding his time.  I don't know of anyone else who can claim they've never played Trump's loyalty game, and with the speech he made prior to the 2016 Republican convention, he has more credibility than anyone else.  

Nor was I surprised at Lindsay Graham.  Graham and Cruz are birds of a feather.  They put their finger up to see which way the wind is blowing and that's where they go.  Standing on principle is foreign to them, they have no integrity and they'd sell family members into slavery if they could gain something from it.  Graham is insulated by not having to run again any time soon, and he's enough of an insider that seeing him bolt from the cult like this is a good indicator that the wind may be blowing in a different direction.  If Trump turned around and said "boo" to him, he'd shrivel like the Wicked Witch of the West in the Wizard of Oz, but ole Lindsey is good at looking out for Lindsey.  

Legitimate Political Discourse

It was Will Rogers who said, "The short memories of the American voters is what keeps our politicians in office."  It's only been a year.  The amount of recorded video from both outside the Capitol and inside after the entrances were breached, is unprecedented.  So is the complete and utter stupidity of the cattle who got inside, pooping and peeing on the floor as they went, getting out their cameras and filming their criminal activity and documenting their presence in the building.  And if that wasn't the ultimate act of stupidity, most of them posted it on social media.  

In all of the footage of the Trump Insurrection, I don't see anything that looks like political discourse taking place.  Nor does what was going on resemble any kind of "tourist" activity that I've ever seen.  People do tend to have short memories when it comes to politics, which is, as Rogers says, exactly why some of them remain in office.  Even the politicians themselves act like they've forgotten what they've said and done when there's something negative in their past behavior that has the potential to cost them votes.  But this was not a forgettable event.  So changing the terminology, calling it something other than what it was will only work on those who already have the will not to believe and are blinded by their own bias or have been brainwashed.  

It is unfortunate that the number of such people is pretty high.  But its not high enough to change the narrative.  This was Trump's Insurrection, proper noun, capital on both words, a riot he incited with the full intention of using it as a means of subverting the constitution, a failed coup attempt to overthrow the legitimately elected President.  Among the vast majority of those who are not brainwashed by the Trump loyalty cult, attempting to call this "legitimate political discourse" is laughable and ridiculous. Who wants to put people in office who lack the kind of reason and grasp on reality that it takes to call this exactly what it was?  

Censuring Cheney and Kinzinger Defines the Difference Between "Mainstream Grassroots Republicans" and "Trumpies" 

The GOP loves to bill itself as "The Party of Lincoln."  They abandoned Lincoln's values in 1876 by trading off continued support for Reconstruction, which was protecting the gains in voting rights and economic development among former African American slaves, but they still make the claim. There were some Republicans back then who wanted to hang on to the party's values and continue to protect the gains made by African Americans even though it would have meant giving up the White House for at least a term. James Blaine, who had served as a member of Congress from Maine, Speaker of the House and Secretary of State paid the price for sticking to party values and not wanting to compromise just to make a deal to hold on to the Presidency.  So there's a precedent in the GOP for what Cheney and Kinzinger have done. 

Being the daugher of one of the most recognizeable Reagan Republicans of the past 40 years puts Liz Cheney right in the very center of the GOP.  Kinzinger is a little bit to the left of that, but not much.  There's no question that they are both principled and pedigreed Republicans who, like those who founded and operate the Lincoln Project, have remained conservatives without bowing down and paying tribute to the cult.  They are Republican enough that, under different circumstances, I wouldn't consider voting for either one of them.  But in the shadow of the Trumpie cult, if I were a Wyoming Democrat, I'd consider sending Cheney back to Congress, especially if she had a better chance of winning re-election than a Democrat would have of taking the seat.  And she probably does. 

President Biden needs to fnd a place for Kinzinger to serve in his administration.  He'd still act and think like a Republican, but since the Illinois legislature eliminated his district when they had to cut out a district and draw new maps this year, and he has integrity, a rare quality in that political party, he needs a place to effectively serve.  In all honesty, he'd be a much better candidate for governor of Illinois than any of the Republicans currently running, on the integrity issue alone, but I'll still vote for J. D. Pritzker, who has done one of the more outstanding jobs handling COVID of any other goverrnor. 

The censure of these two representatives is one of the clearest indications of exactly how far off the rails the Trumpies have pushed the GOP.  If they've been censured, then the party leadership is no longer Republican, and no longer the party of either Lincoln or Reagan.  Maybe the Trumpies hold the support of a majority of Republicans, and maybe they don't, but they don't hold the support of enough to win on a nationwide basis.  Kinzinger and Cheney are mainstream and their censure will cause a lot of other mainstream Republicans to think about what they're doing. More than enough to keep the Trumpie side of the party from winning a lot of Congressional seats.  

Out on a Limb?  Hardly

There's still a lot of talk about how the party in power in the White House loses the mid-terms.  I'm predicting otherwise.  Democrats still need to be doing a lot less talking like policy wonks, and start bragging about their gains.  There are several tracks here along which trains should be running fast and hard.  January 6th and all the fallout from that is huge. Does the rift, now an arroyo, split into a canyon between Trump and GOP leaders?  It can't get much worse.  

I've been right before.

There's Not a Thing Wrong With Being "Woke"

The term "woke" or "being woke" or "wokeness" is very simply defined as having a full awareness of social injustice and being politically and culturally well informed when it comes to issues related to marginalized communities, and more recently and specifically, it is a term that generally applies to the Black Lives Matter movement.  It is a generally descriptive term applied to people who understand the roots of racial injustice, how it has permeated our culture and society without much attention or notice from people who are not part of a racial or ethnic minority, and desire to see the resources and power of government applied in a way that levels the playing field and contributes to eliminating injustice and educating people about it. 

So being "woke" instantly elevates the status of anyone who claims it, or who talks about social and racial injustice factually, to that of flaming liberal.  So be it.  

Liberal.  adjective.  1.  One who is willing to accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.  2.  relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy and free enterprise.  

noun.  1.  a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.  2.  a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy and free enterprise.  

Noting that the word originates from the Latin liberalis, meaning "free man."  Liberty or freedom, is the big picture here.  Liberals are the originators of individual rights, civil liberties, democracy and free enterprise.  Well, how about that?  So what are the characteristic terms associated with "conservative'?  I'll leave that alone because I have already made the point here.  

So being woke is, first of all, recognizing that there are indeed marginalized communities where, because of their differences from the majority community, whether that be racial, ethnic, language, culture or religious, there is a restriction on individual rights, civil liberties, on their participation in a democracy and disadvantages when it comes to free enterprise and economic opportunity.  That's a provable fact in our society.  

New Arguments Against Racial Equality 

The Evangelical right, and I'll avoid using the term "Christian" here because they've separated themselves out from most of the rest of Christian philosophy and thought on this issue, claims that being woke is contrary to biblical teaching.  They claim, based on prooftexting a few verses in the New Testament, that human identity has nothing to do with race, that race is superficial, and that attempts to right past wrongs by actions which not only reverse the discrimination, but which work to restore a level playing field, are based on "worldly" ideas.  That's one of the reasons why Critical Race Theory has become such a bugaboo for them.  

And yet, a close examination of the characteristics of Evangelicals shows that they are one of the few remaining bastions of institutional segregation left in America.  They have absolutely no standing whatsoever to claim some kind of non-existent or nebulous biblical mandate against social justice aimed at eliminating racist practices because they are among the major perpetrators of racist segregation and promoters of bigotry.  

The term "Evangelical" has, itself, come to define a segment of the Christian church that is characterized by the fact that most of its churches are overwhelmingly made up of older white, upper middle class and located in suburbs or rural areas.  Where most mainline Protestant churches have been integrated and have African American, Latino and Asian leadership in institutions, teaching in their colleges and theological schools, and in the pastorate, racial and ethnic minorities are few and far between among Evangelicals, and are segregated into their own "fellowships."  

I'd suggest before they get on their high horse about Critical Race Theory, and being woke, they demonstrate with action what they claim the Bible teaches about race.  They are certainly not doing that now.  Given what they claim to believe, and the attitude they convey that they are more righeous than other Christians because they beleive the Bible more, they should be the leaders of racial reconciliation in this country, starting in their own churches.  But not only are they not leaders, they are among the biggest detractors.  It's hard to take their gospel preaching seriously when they don't follow their own principles. 

Quitting Reconstruction for Political Expediency

The party of Lincoln, as they like to call themselves while taking credit for emancipation of the slaves and being the "abolitionist" party prior to, during and after the Civil War, was making good progress toward assimilation of nearly 5 million African American former slaves into the economic and social life of the United States.  Knowing that it would take generations to change the minds and attitudes of Americans about a race of people who were brought here forcefully, against their will, and who had been in slavery, who were largely uneducated and skilled only in manual labor, and that it would also take massive amounts of resources, they went about the job of assimilation into the economy and society in the best way they knew how.  

But not all Northern Republicans were abolitionists.  Some had opposed the expansion of slavery, but saw nothing wrong with leaving it alone where it already was.  And other than the business community who was eager to exploit the cheap labor provided by blacks moving to the North, most Americans in the union states were not so happy about the stream of former slaves headed north and into the big cities where the manufacturing jobs were located.  

The party was willing to trade all of the progress that had been made up to that point, to make a deal to preserve their control of the Presidency in the disputed election of 1876.  The restoration of elections in most of the former Southern states led to a dispute over electoral votes after the Democrat, Samuel Tilden, clearly defeated the Republican, Rutherford Hayes, in the popular vote.  It was a referendum on Reconstruction and in order to preserve their political power, the Republicans agreed to end Reconstruction in order to pick up the electoral votes that had been disputed, which gave the incompetent, inept Hayes the Presidency.  

It's hard to say where America would be today, in terms of racial and ethnic equality, had Reconstruction been the law of the land for a couple of generations following the Civil War.  But that one political deal set everything back a hundred years and relegated African Americans into a cycle of poverty and second class citizenry right up to the Civil Rights movement of the 60's and right on into the twenty-first century.  "The Party of Lincoln" failed one of its most important constituencies and was able to ignore their plight because the right to vote, which they had been given following the Civil War, was taken away from them. 

Being Woke Has a Legacy and a Future 

So it is that we are still seeing black political activism continue to organize, address grievances and work to turn out voters who identify with wokeness and see exactly what our society needs to do to change. Most of what we've tried to do to resolve these issues in the past have had only limited success, and we still have the effects of racial and ethnic discrimination and exclusion.  The fact that we've made progress, or that "it's not as bad as it used to be" doesn't mean that forward progress stops.   Black Lives Matter, and everything that goes along with being Woke, is an expected and predictable response to injustice which continues to go on.  

There are plenty of people who are educated enough, intelligent enough and who understand human nature and psychology enough to be at a point where racial differences are inconsequential.  The Canadians are way ahead of us in this regard, thougn they have not completely resolved this problem by any means.  So full assimilation and equality is possible to achieve.  

Those who claim that only God will be able to resolve this problem, and that the solution to it is obedience to Biblical principle, need to get out of his way and practice those principles instead of taking the other side out of loyalty to a political cause and resisting what they claim is God's way of resolving the problem. 

Where Republicans Lose the 2022 Mid-Term Elections

First of all let me say up front that I'm not a political scientist or a political analyst.  I studied American History and Government in college, did some additional study in political science at the graduate level, taught at both the high school and junior college level and have done my share of what most people would call "lobbying" or legislative advocacy over the past 15 years.  As a result of that work, I've been in places in Washington that tourists don't see, access given by Senators or Congressmen for meetings on policy and political issues, mostly pertaining to education.  I consider myself a well-informed American and it is from that perspective which I speak. 

The January 6th Trump Insurrection

Let's call it and label it what it is, the Trump Insurrection and coup attempt of January 6th will be a big vote-getter for Democrats.  The blocks of time that this will consume in the media and the attention that it will get as information comes in and the case is made are better than buying ads.  Even the extremist right wing propaganda outlets like Newsmax and Fox have to cover it, and while they are pretty good at distraction, diversion and particularly distortion, it's going to be up there for people to see.  

Biden's job approval numbers aside (there's a new A/B rated Winston Group poll out yesterday that has him at +2, 46-44 with the upper 40's being increasingly common) the numbers on January 6th are high for Democrats, Independents and Republicans who see this as a horrific event, running in the 70% range and higher, while those who side with the insurrectionist traitors are under the 30% mark.  That may not all translate into votes at the ballot box, but it's there to be taken and used as a campaign issue by any Democrats who want to pad their numbers and expand their base into independent and even a little GOP territory.  

Trump himself is contributing to the negativity against him.  His statements inciting violence and promising pardons to participants are preaching to the shrinking choir.  His recent Texas rally, which fell well below its attendance expectations, just add to the 65% of the electorate who now say they view him unfavorably.  That hard core 30% of his base may be tough to convince, but it is nowhere near a large enough group to win very many elections, except in places where it is concentrated.  In districts where a Trumpie is "primarying" an establishment Republican, multiple seats in Congress will go to Democrats who might not have had a real chance before.  And it will be about Trump's endorsement and support.

The potential for this translating into votes is enormous.  More than the President's job approval rating or that of Congress, this is a very hot button issue that's going to play a major role, along with the Big Lie, in who people choose to vote for in the 2022 mid terms.  The Democrats could win on this issue alone, if nothing else was lining up for them.  

COVID is a Factor

Vaccinations and mask mandates provide some good insights into the political activity of the electorate.  Research has shown that the majority of those who are vaccinated are Democrats or moderate independents.  The majority of anti-vaxxers are Republican and Trumpie.  This is an action poll rather than just asking for a political preference.  People have made a decision and took steps to follow through.  I think that says a lot about who is going to show up and vote when people have shown up to get vaccinated.  

The numbers are pretty high from an election standpoint.  Almost 70% of adults in the US are vaccinated.  Most polling data shows that a little over 70% favor mask mandates  A lot of that is going to translate into votes in November, and not in the Republicans' favor.  Being anti-vax and anti-mask is a losing issue.  People can see the progress that has been made and contrast everything that has transpired under the current administration compared to the nothing that was done under the previous administration.  

Why do I think you can look at something like this and see it translate into votes?  Well, the candidates who have this advantage must use it as part of their messaging.  But these are people who have received good, reliable information and they've gone out and acted on it.  That tells me that they are "likely" to continue to support the effort.  And since virtually everything gets wrapped up in politics these days, those who support COVID mitigation efforts like vaccinations and mask mandates clearly make up a majority of the electorate. 

The Trump Administration's failed response to COVID, the indecisiveness, the ignorance and misinformation, was the nail in their election coffin.  I don't think he'd have won anyway, but the lack of a coherent and workable response to an emergency was just one more demonstration of the inept incompetence of the Trump administration, and of Trump himself.   

It's the Economy.....

Instead of talking about policy or drawing attention to what Senators Manchin and Sinema aren't doing, the Democrats have a political foundation for victory sitting right there for the taking.  It's called a roaring economy.  The last three Democratic Presidencies have all brought to you economic recovery and prosperity.  The Trump administration rode on the coat-tails of President Obama's economic recovery.  So, with unemployment numbers drropping like a stone in the well, the stock market showing an upward trajectory, economic growth up to near-record levels, retail sales in 202I making a startling recovery and the problems that do exist, like inflation (which is the result of a roaring economy) and the supply chain in the process of resolving, Democrats are sitting in control of the best issue they've got for winning. 

Money always wins out over social issues and there's no better evidence for that than the recent past Presidential administration.  The Democrats are sitting on top of an economy that will give them the opportunity to reverse the trend of the party in power losing mid-terms.  It's going to be a matter of controlling the narrative and the messaging and making sure all of their constituencies turn out in large numbers.  That will do the trick. 

A Critical Point

This November is an election Democrats must win, especially if there is to be any reversal of the anti-Democratic movement now sweeping the Republican party.  By definition, Democracy, along with the civil liberties, individual rights, and free enterprise are all liberal values.  The Republicans have reach a point in a political era where the majority no longer supports their values and premises and so they've had to resort to gerrymandering and other tricks to inflate minority status to remain in power, rather than change their agenda and listen to what we the people are saying.  

I like what I am seeing from Biden, venturing out to promote the infrastructure plan which has become his signature legislation after just one year.  Now that we seem to be past the Christmas season doldrums, the mainstream media and those committed to promoting liberal values seem to be ramping up as we head down the calendar to the election.  A strong, resolute approach to January 6th, continuing to succeed against COVID and pushing the economic narrative all get votes, and should result in a sweeping Democratic victory in November.