"Enough is Really Enough," Says Maricopa County as a Second Set of Sanctions is Filed Against Kari Lake

Maricopa County and Governor-Elect Hobbs File for Sanctions Against Kari Lake for "Frivolous Lawsuits"

What we are seeing in Arizona politics is a paradigm shift.  The fact that Maricopa County, where the board of supervisors is still dominated by remnants of the establishment Republican party, though that is shifting, has had enough of the futile, baseless, frivolous attempts of a Trump-endorsed right wing extremist candidate for governor, who narrowly lost, is clear evidence of the shift.  They are asking the court to sanction Lake and her legal team for their most recent attempt to have the will of the people overturned by courts.  The county's basis for their suit is Lake's statement prior to the election that she wouldn't accept the results unless she won.  The judge in the case is proceeding with the sanctions.  

Let's be clear, Lake knows that most of her support comes from a constituency that is mindlessly and hopelessly ignorant, pitiful in their fear when it comes to ridiculous conspiracy theories and suckers when it comes to handing their money over to despicable candidates for office like this.  That's why she let it be known, before the election, that she wouldn't accept the results if she didn't win.  That was to get her base riled up, perhaps toting their weapons to places where they might genuinely interfere in the counting of ballots or certifying the election.  But, from a legal perspective, it was a pretty stupid thing to say, since it has handed the county all they need to prove their sanctions claim, and to prove that her claims of election fraud are bogus.  

Republican Frustration with the Shift in Arizona Politics

In spite of Trump's endorsement, Lake trailed Democrat Katie Hobbs in virtually every reliable poll prior to the election, though the race did tighten, and some of the "fake" polls that were inserted into the data made it look like Lake might actually win by two or three points.  But Arizona's explosive population growth over the past two decades, much of which has occurred in its most populous county, Maricopa, where over 60% of the state's population, and voters, live.  

Outside of Maricopa County, the heavily Republican rural areas are balanced out by four heavily Democratic counties, including the state's second largest, Pima, where the 1.2 million residents of the Metro Tucson area make up 50% of the population of the state outside Maricopa County.  The Republican advantage outside of Maricopa County has been, in the past three election cycles, virtually non-existent.  

It's not enough to simply run as a Republican in Arizona any more and expect that to be the main focus of the campaign.  Democrats and Independents who increasingly vote Democrat, now outnumber Republicans statewide, and candidates must have a viable agenda and address real issues facing the state's voters to win elections.  In a state that Biden won by just over 11,000 votes in 2020, on the strength of a 45,000 vote margin in Maricopa County, it wasn't very perceptive of Lake to try to run without any prior political experience, on a similar agenda.  

Hobbs not only had a coherent agenda, and a clear plan for a political path forward for Arizona, but she led the effort to protect the integrity of Arizona's vote count against attacks from the Trump campaign.  The silly wastefulness exhibited by Republicans in the state senate, in securing the hugely expensive services of the unqualified auditors known as the "Cyber Ninjas" for an unofficial "audit" of Maricopa County's 2020 votes that turned into an "unmitigated disaster" according to county supervisors and election officers, probably did more than anything else to tilt the balance of the vote in Maricopa County in Hobb's favor, which led to her winning the election.  Legitimately.  

With the exception of the office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Democrats have won control of every other executive office in state government in Arizona, an unprecedented event in state history.  All of the other Republican candidates for these offices followed Lake's lead, and filed lawsuits to win their election in the courtroom, instead of among the voters expressing the will of the people.  Aside from that being a demonstration of an appalling lack of patriotism, and a subversive attack against American democracy, it is also now a colossal failure.  None of the other Republican candidates and their legal teams could find a shred of credible evidence that there was fraud in the election and that it was deliberately "stolen" from them.  The voters of Arizona, including among the 3 million new residents who have moved there since 2000, and almost 5 million since 1990, have spoken.  

Bilking "Suckers"

This is about raising money for future political ambitions.  Lake knows she lost, as certainly as Trump knew he lost in 2020 once the vote tallies were finalized and certified.  Her entire demeanor and approach to this whole post-election tantrum conveys a very clear understanding that she knows she lost and she also knows that her claims that she "won by 200,000 votes" are bogus.  There are always glitches and equipment issues and a whole array of problems associated with elections, but there are solutions to all of them which make it possible for every voter's ballot to count accurately.  The failure of a handful of printers in Maricopa County provided cover for Lake's bogus claims, but the county was right on top of that and documented the fact that every voter who chose to cast a ballot did so, and their votes were counted.  

But a little bit of "cover" goes a long way among people primed to believe in advance that there is a problem.  Dragging out lawsuits and keeping people believing that at some point some court is going to take a case in which there is no evidence and reverse what a previous court has done.  And as long as there are believers, there will be money.  Trump is collecting millions and he's selfishly hoarding it, keeping other Republican candidates from getting as much.  I'm sure there were some elections at some level the party might actually have won this cycle, if their candidates had resources that Trump collected and held.  

And that's what's going on here.  Kari Lake will never become governor of Arizona, certainly not at all based on an election that she clearly lost.  She's trying to figure out her next move, and she wants her supporters to pay for her time and effort.  And that's what this is all about.  

American Elections are the Most Secure in the World 

Election deniers thrive on ignorance.  It's not easy to admit that a majority or plurality of voters don't see things the way a specific candidate may see them.  The polarization that we've seen, introduced by hostile media elements, promoted by various extremist factions including elements of the religious right, has introduced an "all or nothing" attitude into politics, which makes it difficult to make government work.  So convincing people who don't really pay much attention to anything except their own self, that someone is "rigging" elections is easier than it should be.  

But factually, it is virtually impossible.  The scope of a conspiracy to "steal" an election, with the technology that we have available today, would be virtually impossible to achieve.  Too many eyes are watching.  People who are informed, and understand the process, know this.  

Don't believe otherwise.  And keep an eye on your checkbook.  

Zelenskyy Visit to the US is Another Reminder of Faltering Patriotism Among Republicans

When Missouri Senator Josh Hawley claimed that his reason for not showing up for Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's speech to Congress was that he didn't want to be part of a photo op for Ukraine asking for more money from the United States "when they have not given us an accounting on anything they have spent," it reminded me of a little bit of American history surrounding Lend-Lease, Franklin Roosevelt's historic legislation that was a major factor in the allied victory over Nazi Germany during World War 2.  

Lend-Lease was a historic policy.  Recognizing the danger to the United States that was caused by Nazi Germany's conquest of the European continent and particularly the fall of France, Roosevelt got Congress to pass Lend-Lease, which provided for sending war goods, initially to Great Britain, in the form of a "loan" which, theoretically, they would pay back after the war was over.  Lend-Lease did two things which helped the United States win the war, after the Pearl Harbor attack made it a genuine "world war."  It enabled the British to defend their homeland and remain in the war, wtithout which winning it would have been a much more difficult, longer and deadly prospect for the United States.  And it helped gear up American industry for wartime production, so that when war did come, America's industrial capacity was able to supply a military operation of historic proportions. 

Though the intention of Lend-Lease was that countries which received help, initially Britain, but later on, Russia and the Nationalist Chinese, who had been fighting the Japanese since 1935, would pay for the goods when their economies recovered from the war, no real accounting was ever kept.  National security was the priority, as it should have been, and there is no amount of money that could ever pay for preserving the security and sovereignty of the United States, as far as most Americans were concerned.  The objections were mostly from Republicans who, ironically, were known Nazi apologists and sympathizers, and were silenced when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and Hitler declared war on the United States.

Of course Hawley, as usual, doesn't know what he is talking about and doesn't have any facts to support his contention, which isn't surprising for him or other Republicans any more.  His deliberate ignorance of the situation and downplaying of the significance of American aid to Ukraine, along with the false narrative he and other Republicans put out, making it sound like the United States is doing everything and our NATO allies in Europe are doing nothing by comparison, is another false statement, a lie, that the facts also don't support.  There has been an accounting for everything.  And Ukraine is receiving help from the other NATO countries, including billions in humanitarian aid coming from the European NATO allies.  

Republican Attitudes are Anti-Freedom, Anti-Patriotic and Anti-American.  What's the Motivation Behind All of Their Whining? 

Why would members of a political party that once waved American flags in the faces of perceived enemies, launched military invasions of countries to impose "democratically elected government", and declared Russia and China as the biggest enemies of the American ideals of individual freedom and democracy suddenly act so foolishly ignorant when the head of state of a nation that is fighting against one of the declared enemies, and advancing American ideals along with defending their freedom and sovereignty, comes to Congress to thank us for our help and to ask for more?  Republicans have lost their minds, and that's showing up in these actions as well.  But I see two explanations, both credible, both supported with evidence.  

It's political.  Trump made some ham-fisted mistakes with his handling of Ukraine as President.  Among the long list of his inept actions, his attempted bribery of the Ukrainian government, asking them to lie against his political opponent in exchange for help that Congress had already appropriated was one of the lowest moments of his failed Presidency, and considering how much corruption there was, this was one of the most immoral and depraved things he did.  Republicans like Hawley, who have no integrity and grovel at his feet, are miffed at the fact that President Zelenskyy refused to get involved in their corruption and refused Trump to his face.  

Hawley's refusal to show up for President Zelenskyy's speech to Congress is understandable.  How could he be in the same room with someone who has demonstrated the kind of integrity, honesty, and commitment to his nation's sovereignty and freedom and not be completely shamed and embarrassed by the contrast to himself?  There are some Republicans who know the depth of Trump's corruption and insanity, who can't seem to find the character, integrity and strength to stand up to him, who seethe with jealousy against those who do have the character, integrity and strength to tell him "NO!" to his face.   I don't know if Hawley is one of those Republicans who realizes that Trump is a fraud, but it would certainly explain his actions and the tone and temperament of his words. 

There's some Russian interference in there, somewhere.  We have several hundred pages of The Mueller Report that document multiple ways in which Putin has interfered in American elections, specifically 2016.  There's documented evidence that Russian money and propaganda finds its way into politicians campaigns, PACs, and social media posts, and there are documented attempts by Russian operatives to hack directly into voting apparatus.  And one of the most interesting observations about these multiple, known attempts is that they aren't intervening on behalf of Democratic party candidates.  I'm not aware of any specific evidence connecting Hawley to any Russian interference.  But refusing to show support for the Ukrainian President on his visit to the US while his country is at war with a dictatorial oligarchy that sees American freedom and democracy as its primary enemy makes speculating about such interference legitimate.  

Failure to Support Ukraine is a Sign of Faltering Patriotism and is Dangerous to the Freedom of Americans

Ukraine is fighting for their freedom and sovereignty, on our behalf.  After hundreds of years of oppression under Russian Czarist imperialism and Soviet communism, and the devastation of the Nazi invasion during World War 2, along with suffering under Nazi domination for almost four years, including one of the bloodiest Jewish massacres of the holocaust happening in Kyiv, the Ukrainians chose democracy and freedom.  Like most fledgling democracies, in countries where the people have never lived in true freedom, they had some stumbles and falls during the early years of their national government.  But it hasn't taken them long to figure out how to stabilize their economy and their politics.  Their leaders point to the example that we Americans have set for them.  

That's exactly why they are a direct threat to Putin and his government.  Russians are increasingly aware of the differences between life in Ukraine, and life in Russia. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, where we attempted to force democratic reform militarily, Ukraine adopted American idealism on their own, by their own experience and observation.  Their country has prospered by it.  The contrast with Russia is visible by just crossing the border, according to Ukrainians I know who have told me.  The Russians who live in Ukraine, and who are in a position to cross the border themselves, also see the difference.  That's why Putin has been so interested in capturing the Donbas region, where most Russian-speaking Ukrainians live, and where there is ample opportunity for Russians, crossing back into their own country, to observe what freedom and democratic government look and feel like. 

Why Republican Americans would not whole heartedly and enthusiastically support Ukraine and be willing to provide them with the resources they need to defend their country is unexplainable and unjustifiable by any standard.  Over 80% of Americans support the aid we are sending, and somewhere around 60% say we're not sending enough.  Republicans were quite supportive of sending in the military to topple Saddam Hussein, and also to toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan.  There are Americans, a sizeable minority if you accept the accuracy of polling data, who are willing to risk sending in the military to help Ukraine.  

So what's wrong with these Republicans who are behaving so badly?  Yes, that' a rhetorical question. 

The Power to Make Change is Still Ours, Through the Ballot Box 

The Republicans who showed their true colors when President Zelenskyy visited are not people of integrity, they have no character to speak of, and they have sold themselves out to a lust for power and money that they are dependent on a failed, former President to continue to deliver for them.  We have to do a much better job of getting rid of them than we did during the 2022 election.  Our turnout fell short of what it should have been.  We're still playing by the same old political rules, still not getting that these midterm elections also count, and not getting ahead of the narrative and the themes that seem to motivate voters.  

Notice, in many of the articles here in The Signal Press there are some terms that I choose deliberately, to send the message.  Republicans are not patriots. Americans appear to worship the almighty dollar and are money-driven and that can sometimes be confusing when it comes to figuring out our true values.  But equality, freedom, fundamental human rights, and a government that is empowered by "We, the People," are American values.  The Ukrainians have confirmed this.  So do the thousands of people seeking asylum here from all over the world, who are willing to line up at the border and wait months or years to get it.  

Some Republican politicians are showing us that they no longer value freedom and democracy, and they prefer a more authoritarian approach that enables them to enrich themselves at the expense of others.  They are no longer willing to consider other people as equals, and they don't believe in the basic human rights outlines in our constitution.   I think pointing those failings out is the best path we have to keeping what we value as a nation.  That's the narrative we need to promote at every opportunity.  

Thanks to politicians like Hawley, we have examples and evidence of faltering Republican patriotism.

Who Believes in American Idealism and Freedom? Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian People Do

The United States of America has spent trillions of dollars attempting to export its democracy and values to other places in the world since it emerged from its isolationist period following World War 1 and became the leader of the free world.  World War I and the Versailles Treaty was a setback to the emergence of the United States in that role, but the Second World War, and the defense of democracy that was required in its wake brought about the change.  

In many ways, our handling of this role has been ham-fisted and awkward.  Not every nation where we became involved in defending democratic freedoms understood exactly how to handle them, and in some cases, such as Nicaragua, South Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, were ill suited for any kind of democratic government because of all kinds of internal factors.  But we spent billions and billions of dollars, and thousands of American military lives, to attempt to bring it about.  

So I'm having trouble understanding the Republican party's cool response and subtle opposition to providing assistance to help Ukrainians preserve their national sovereignty, democracy and freedom against Russia, one of the world's perpetual enemies of individual freedom and democratic reform, led by one of the most virulent opponents of that kind of idealism.  This is the political party that was willing to bankrupt the United States treasury to preserve what passed for democracy in South Vietnam, that approved meddling in the internal affairs of Nicaragua to prop up a dictator because he wasn't a Marxist, though he was far from a freedom loving idealist.  This was the party that spent trillions trying to impose democratic reforms on a divided, hostile Iraq, a country created by British imperial interference after World War I, and a culture hostile to the kind of equality required to have democratic values in a government.  

And it was the party that invested trillions of dollars in "nation building" in Afghanistan, in yet another country hostile to democratic values and idealism and incapable of sustaining either a democratically elected government or a military force capable of defending it.  And in every case, the motivation behind American involvement in every single one of those places, even Nicaragua, was to get a step ahead of the Russians, and preserve a military and political advantage against them.  This was particularly intense in the days when Russia was a communist country, but it is still a foreign relations priority now.  

Considering the position the Republicans have taken when it comes to promoting American democracy around the world, their response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and to the support this country is giving to the Ukrainian government and military, is quite political, exposing their complete and total lack of patriotism and a grotesque, selfish, anti-patriotism.  It's clear that when it comes to protection of individual freedom, respect for democratic values and protection of the constitution and the ideals it has always represented, the Democrats are the party of patriotism, while the Republicans look more and more like fascists.  

The Ukrainians adopted American idealism when the Soviet Union dissolved, and they finally became an independent nation after hundreds of years of being a satellite state to Russia's Czarist imperialism and Soviet communism, forced on them by geography and conquest.  Struggling, as expected, during the early years of establishing a democracy under a constitution very similar to that of the United States, whom they considered the best possible example in the world to follow, the determination that the Ukrainian people have demonstrated in defending their nation and preserving their democracy is worthy of every dollar spent in support of their defense, and more.  We didn't have to force our idealism on them, they accepted it after seeing how it worked for us.  

The rhetoric of Republicans since the Second World War should have been supported by unbridled enthusiasm for Ukraine's fight against an illegal invader who also happens to be this country's greatest enemy at the time.  Their response to this courageous and historic visit of President Zelenskyy to the White House, and to the whole effort to support Ukraine in defense against one of our biggest enemies makes them hypocrites and exposes their motives against patriotism and American ideals.  They seem to be more willing to give aid and comfort to the enemy than to help Ukraine remain free.  Their actions demonstrate opposition not only to Ukraine, but to the values and ideals embodied in the United States Constitution.  

Not only is Ukraine fighting to preserve its democracy, based on American idealism, but it is fighting on behalf of the United States, helping us gain a military and political advantage over Russia without having to endanger a single member of our armed forces.  Victories for Ukraine against Russia are also victories for the United States.  That Republicans can't seem to see that, and are unwilling to support it makes me question the oath of loyalty to the constitution taken by every Republican member of Congress when they were sworn in.  Ukrainians and American Democrats are true patriots, defenders of freedom and of the ideals embodied in the United States Constitution and in the Ukrainian constitution that mirrors it.  Republicans, taking the opposite side, can't be considered patriots or defenders of the constitution, they have made themselves enemies of it. 

Senator Hawley, and I only use his title out of respect for the office and not its despicable occupant, didn't bother to attend President Zelenskyy's speech because he was upset that there hasn't been an accounting for the aid we've sent to Ukraine.  Well, Mr. Hawley, this patriotic American is in favor of unlimited military assistance to Ukraine in the form of whatever we have they can have and I don't care if they ever account for it.  We never required such an accounting of lend-lease help to either England or Russia and the fact that the Ukrainians are standing for us against Moscow gives us every reason to support them with unlimited aid.  By his own actions and words, Mr. Hawley has identified himself as anti-patriotic and an unAmerican, fist-pumping insurrectionist supporter.

I admire President Zelenskyy.  What a gift it has been to Ukraine that they were able, through their representative democracy, to elect him to office for such a time as this.  He has more courage and integrity, and more respect and love for America, and its ideals and freedom, than all of the Republicans in Congress put together.  

I don't want this conclusion to be too complicated.  President Zelenskyy's visit to the President of the United States and his address to Congress was a show of solidarity among freedom-loving people in both countries.  Our unconditional support is exactly the right, moral, decent, and patriotic American thing to do.  The Republican reaction to this tells you they aren't patriots, don't care about American ideals or democracy and more than anything else, no Republican politician who feels this way and openly expresses it deserves to get your vote.  

If you really want to make sure that American remains a strong, great nation, support the aid to Ukraine and work to defeat all of the Republicans who hold public office and will be on your ballot. 

Note 12/23:  To those of you who asked about my frequent use of the term "patriotic", you're right.  I was making a point.  Republicans aren't, and this is one of multiple pieces of evidence of their drift into fascism.

American Democracy is "On the Brink" and Public Education is Part of the Problem

Gallup: By a 55% to 42% Margin, Americans are Dissatisfied with Public Education

Count me among those dissatisfied with the American public education system, though not for the same reason most people find themselves feeling that way.  This particular poll, along with other recent polling data, attributes some of the recent increase in dissatisfaction happening among conservatives and the far right, who have bought into a false narrative about instructional objectives which "groom" students to consider a gender identity other than the one they were born with, and which promotes other "woke" ideas like racial equality, critical race theory and this whole idea that all Americans, regardless of their gender identity, sexual orientation, race, religion or lack therof, native language or other distinguishing differences, have equal rights guaranteed by the constitution.  

Did you detect a note of sarcasm there?  

Schools are a microcosm of the communities they serve, so naturally, they reflect community values.  They are government-owned institutions, which means that they cannot constitutionally promote or favor students or employees based on their religious beliefs, or the absence of them.  But they should be fulfilling a primary purpose, one that was intended by those who saw the value of providing the opportunity for education to everyone in the country, and that was to use education as a primary means of preserving the democracy through having a well-informed, educated electorate.  

I'm not convinced that public education in this country is living up to that expectation, nor has it been doing so for a while.  My opinion is based partly on observation, from having been an educator for most of my career, and having a front row seat to observe what is happening in schools.  And it is based on the observation of what has been happening in politics and government.  We're seeing some dangerous extremes, not that we haven't seen this sort of thing before, but we haven't seen the widespread acceptance of ideas that have no factual foundation, and which gain acceptance without any evaluation of their truthfulness or any evidence that the issue driving them is a reality.  

Education Doesn't Work as a "For-Profit" Business Enterprise 

The absolute reality of education in a free society, especially in a constitutional, representative democracy, is that it must have adequate resources to succeed.  And the primary key to success in education is the quality of those who are engaged in the occupation of teaching the students, starting in the lowest grade levels.  Private business, motivated by profit margins, secures the best employees it can find to staff its operations because the ability to make a profit depends on their ability to compete in the marketplace.  

The inequity of achievement among American schools is directly related to the inequity of funding available.  More accurately, it is directly related to teacher compensation and the provision made for their continued professional development and advancement.  The difference between overall levels of student achievement in states where teacher salaries are similar to other professional occupations, and where professional development in the form of both graduate-level education and in-house training are provided by the school systems, and those where teacher salaries are low by comparison, and teachers must pay for most of their own training, is staggering.  

That inequity of funding is as political as it gets.  It's one of the fundamental differences between Democrats, who support public education at a high level and understand that providing high quality, competitive education requires paying for high quality, well-trained teachers, and Republicans, who seem willing to let public schools deteriorate and collapse around the students enrolled in them to give tax breaks to the wealthy and to corporate business.  Then those same businesses seek their employees from those places where Democrats are in charge of the schools. 

The difference in teacher pay and benefits across the country is also as staggering as the differences in levels of student achievement.  The two things go hand in hand.  And the level of student achievement directly affects the issue of political awareness required to be members of the supportive electorate in a representative democracy.  

Start Social Studies Education Early, and Make it Equal with Science and Mathematics Requirements

The emphasis on technical education, and on mathematics and science core objectives in schools is understandable, given the comparisons between American students and those in the rest of the industrial and developed world.  But it has come at a sacrifice of time spent in other subjects, most specifically social studies.  From someone who has taught government and constitution over a period of time, and who has seen the objectives reduced and the requirements downgraded, this has been discouraging.  It also explains, in my humble opinion, exactly why our democracy has come to this particular point in its history.  Ignorance exhibited publicly about matters pertaining to American history, the founders, the constitution and how government and the economy actually work, by members of Congress who missed out on simple, eighth grade instruction, has been appalling.  

And if that's what members of Congress don't know, the level of misinformation among the electorate is also appalling.  And dangerous. 

The common complaint I've heard, when I bring this up in educational circles, is that math and science requirements take up too much of the time, and they've crowded out the social studies requirements.  But the solution to that is simple.  Students in European countries, and in places like Japan, China, Singapore and Korea, have a longer school day, as much as two hours longer in some cases.  While most American students are in between 8:00 and 8:45 a.m., they're out by 2:30 in most cases, earlier in some places, on their way home and done with school for the day.  Many of them will only log on to their computer to play games or get on social media after that.  But elsewhere in the world, leaving before 4:00 p.m. is unusual, and depending on the block schedule for the day, dismissal at 5:00 is not unusual.  

Several years back, I lived and worked in a school in the suburbs of a large city in a southern state where many of the students were the children of Asian immigrants from Singapore, Malaysia and China, engaged in the research side of two major oilfield companies near the school.  Almost all of these students would leave our school at dismissal, and would spend another two hours a day every Monday through Thursday in a supplemental educational program hosted at a local ethnic community center, where they studied Chinese, English grammar, composition and public speaking skills, and studied American History, Government and Democracy.  One of the parents told me flat out it was because they observed the inadequacy of the public school education and because of the "glass ceilings" which existed in the American culture in which they chose to live, the added education gave their children an advantage.  They came here because of the opportunities and freedom provided by American democracy, and wanted their children to understand it, respect it and benefit from it.  

Imagine that.  

So what would be the problem with adding an hour to the school day and making sure our students in every school are educated in the full scope of American history and civics, not only to avoid the mistakes of the past, but to help students understand the scope of the freedom they enjoy, not to take it for granted or expect that it will always be there, but to encourage direct involvement to help make it work even better than it does?  Is that not worth an additional hour of school per day, which would still not equal a 40 hour week? 

Education is the Power to Fight Against Ignorance

Nelson Mandela said, "The worst enemy of humanity is ignorance and fear, and the best weapon to fight this is education.  If you educate a person, you are empowering that person."  

This isn't an instant solution for what has become a chronic, long term problem.  Undermining education appears to be part of the strategy that is being used to slowly destroy or completely change American democracy.  It's one of many things that must be done now to put up a front against the ignorance that is the best weapon of the enemies of democracy, who are using other institutional tools, including religion, social media and massive amounts of wealth, to bring about their own kind of change.  

We have to save our schools, so that they can empower the next generation, or our children and grandchildren may never know the freedom we've known and experienced.  

"We the People" Are the Power Behind the Constitution

The January 6th Congressional Committee has wrapped up its investigation and concluded with four criminal referrals to the Department of Justice.  The Constitution separates powers of the branches of government and the legislative branch has come to the limits of its powers of investigation.  Enforcement of the law is an executive branch responsibility.  We, the people, are now expecting the Department of Justice, as the primary government agency with the task of carrying out the executive branch's law enforcement responsibility, will follow Congress' recommendations, supported by a mountain of virtually irrefutable evidence, and bring all of the indictments necessary to start the process of holding Donald Trump and everyone who supported and helped him try to subvert the constitution and overturn the results of a legitimate election accountable.  

It is time to issue the indictments.  It's probably wishful thinking to hope that they will hold Trump, Flynn, Eastman, Stone and Bannon without bail until trial, but that's not an unreasonable expectation here. A case can be made to support that kind of action.  But to expect that these guys would get treated like average, everyday Americans in criminal matters, while reasonable, logical and is the way that it should be handled, I'm not holding my breath.  

It has become clear, from facts, that America has emerged from the single most corrupt Presidential administration in the history of the country, far worse than the long forgotten scandals of the Harding administration, which were pretty bad for their time.  This has been worse than Watergate and the Nixon Administration, which has been the prime example of government corruption in America since it happened.  Worse than Watergate.  That, too, was about manipulating the electoral process, but this was far worse.  This was an insurrection, a violent attempt to overthrow a legitimately elected government and overturn a legitimate election.  It was an attack on American values, ideals and patriotism, and on the constitution and the peaceful transfer of power that is a bedrock and cornerstone of this nation.  

Take that thought in for just a minute.  This was worse than Watergate.  Far worse. 

It warrants indictments and convictions on criminal charges, resulting not only in the disqualification of those convicted, including Trump, from ever serving in public office, but in appropriate prison sentences that fit the crimes committed.  We, the people, expect at least that much.  

An example needs to be set and the firm defense of the constitution and American democracy established in order to deter those who would try to take us down this path again.  This is America and democracy and individual freedom are American ideals.  I hate to use cliches, but there's one that applies here.  This is America, love it or leave it.  

And this is just the January 6th Trump Insurrection corruption.  There's more, involving the removal of classified documents from the White House to Mar-a-Lago.  We're expecting indictments in that case, too.  The reputation of the Biden administration, as the executive branch responsible for enforcing the nation's laws, depends on the Department of Justice doing the right thing.  

Yes, People Are Leaving Evangelical Christian Churches Because of Right Wing Politics

Lots of them, in fact, are leaving precisely because they cannot reconcile one of the foundational principles of the Christian gospel, the "second greatest commandment" to love others as one loves themselves, with the behavior of people in the church, particularly those actively engaged in politics. 

Brandon Flannery, Baptist News Global: I Asked People Why They are Leaving Christianity and Here's What I Heard 

A Significant Exodus

The twenty-first century has seen a dramatic drop in the percentage and number of Americans who claim affiliation with a church.  The decline experienced by mainline Protestants in the latter part of the 20th century was blamed on "creeping liberalism" by Evangelicals.  But the decline among conservative Evangelicals in this century has been much more significant, and rapid.  And it's based on a combination of reasons with the failure to follow gospel principles, in spite of claims by conservative Christians that they believe the Bible to be "inerrant and infallible."  "Love your neighbor as you love yourself," and "love your enemies" doesn't match with the pseudo-Christian, right-wing political philosophy that has intruded deeply into the churches and denominations of conservative Christianity.  

People notice when behavior doesn't align with principle.  

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.  This is the great and first commandment.  And a second is like it:  You shall love your neighbor as yourself.  On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets."  Jesus Christ, recorded in Matthew's gospel, chapter 22, verses 37b through 40, ESV. 

In Flannery's research, he discovered that the inconsistency between what Jesus defined as "loving your neighbor" and how most churches treat people who are different, including LGBTQ persons, immigrants, women and women's rights activists, and civil rights advocates (those criticized by the conservative religious right as "liberal, woke") as the primary reasons why people are leaving churches and leaving the Christian faith altogether.  The term "politics" shows up in his research as one of those reasons, specifically the use of the Confederate flag as a racist symbol, and all of the baggage, including the racism and anti-Semitism, immoral worldliness and the manipulation of Christian faith and the scripture by Trumpism as a tool to get people to conform to ideals that have nothing to do with the gospel.  

I find it specifically aggravating to see Christians insist that marrying their faith experience to Trumpism, based on the abortion issue alone, while ignoring the fact that Trump is not a Christian at all, but an adulterous, womanizing, sexist, racist, greedy opportunist who denies the conservative definition of "salvation by grace through faith in Christ" because he claims he has no need for repentance and has done nothing for which he must ask forgiveness.  That's a faith of convenience and cultural acquiescence, not one defined by Biblical principle based on the gospel of Jesus Christ.  No wonder people are leaving that, there's no substance there at all.  I left one of those churches myself.  Finding one that still sticks to the Christian gospel isn't easy these days, and I understand why people just give up trying.  

"Christianity is a religion that boasts about its love," says Flannery, "but people are not seeing it and they're walking out the door."  

The decline has been quite significant, from 90% of the US population in the 70's who claimed Christian affiliation, to just 64% in 2020.  That's a lost of almost 80 million people, not counting the fact that two-thirds of the 64% who identify as Christians rarely attend the church to which they claim to belong.  But among Evangelicals, the most serious losses have been in the last decade.  And that's a direct result of the intrusion of extremist right wing politics, blending with the doctrine and theology preached and taught by the churches.  

Flannery's research shows that departures from Evangelical churches are almost all related, one way or another, to inconsistency between the practice of a Biblical, orthodox Christian faith, and what has intruded into the church in the form of the alliance between more extreme branches of right wing politics whose ideologies are subverting the Christian gospel, manipulating it into something that can be used to get votes.  

For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only master and Lord, Jesus Christ.--Jude 4

Those Who Fail to Learn From History...

The Christian church was never intended to use the power of the state to advance its mission and purpose, nor does political influence ever benefit the church when it does.  James Madison observed the hundreds of years of bloodshed, caused by religious violence, as European monarchs clashed with each other and with the papacy over the extend of control and influence.  His determination to keep that bloodshed and violence from happening in America resulted in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which created a free church in a free state. 

The literal approach to interpreting the Bible leads conservative Evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians to focus on historical events recorded in the Old Testament as foundational to their doctrine and practice and they miss the point of the Christian gospel.  Jesus provides an interpretation of the "law and the prophets" and lays the cornerstone of the foundation of the Christian church on the two greatest commandments, loving God and loving others like self.  John, who had a reputation for forceful expression, goes so far as to call those who "hate their brother" liars when they claim to love God. 

And while church leaders look at research like that found in Flannery's report, and blame it on the increasing influence of the "liberal, woke" world, I find this encouraging.  Most of those who are leaving churches for all of the reasons the survey found aren't leaving the Christian faith, they're just getting out of places where politics has been allowed to creep in, or in some cases, welcomed with open arms, and they're going elsewhere to worship.  It also shows that the grip of extremist right wing politics on conservative, right wing American Christianity is not as strong as the media portrays.  The bond between individual Christians and the churches where they worship is strong, so if people are willing to leave, because of the reasons they've cited, in the numbers by which they are leaving, they must feel pretty strongly about it. They must be liberal and woke.

I don't expect the influence of politics among conservative Evangelicals to wane much.  Too many leaders within the churches have counted on it to build their own personal empires, and are now dependent on it.  This is not something that is easy to undo, even as membership continues to decline.  But the impact will change.  White, conservative, Evangelicals and those who are on the political right represent a shrinking constituency, an 8% drop in total participation since 2016, and a similar drop among self-identified white, conservative Evangelicals in support for Trumpism.  

My Christian beliefs and convictions, along with my personal practice of the faith, haven't changed at all.  However, I no longer identify as "Evangelical," and I make it pretty clear that the way I vote and my political convictions do not define my Christian doctrine and theology as "liberal and woke," or any other judgmental terminology the far right likes to use in its self-righteous efforts to feel good.  "Anyone who does not love does not know God," says the Apostle John.  "As he is, so are we in this world."  

I don't see this exodus ending any time soon. 

Silence is Not the Typical M.O. of Conservative Evangelical Leaders

Within the culture of conservative Evangelicalism, there is a strong tendency to be highly critical of the doctrine and theology of churches and denominations which don't hold similar views.  Many of them go so far as to claim that Catholics are not genuine Christians because of their theology, and they criticize most mainline Protestants for their "liberal theology."  Even within their own branch of American Christianity, there are sharp lines separating the "Free Will" churches from the "Reformed Calvinists" and separating fundamentalists from Pentecostals and Charismatics.  There's usually no shortage of pastors and church leaders happy to comment on why others are wrong, and point to the public statements of other pastors, church leaders and politicians who don't line up in lock step with their own views.  

There are some "discernment blogs" operating which abandon the principles of the Christian gospel to criticize those they don't like or agree with, especially other conservatives who don't buy into their own perspective.  They are so caustic and so bad that it is difficult to take their claims of being "Christian" seriously, since they exhibit exactly none of the values and virtues of the Christian gospel.  

But they can be completely silent when they want to be.  

As Christian Nationalism, which is a pseudo-Christian perspective that denies the Christian gospel, becomes the theme for some Republican politicians, there is only a little criticism from a few pastors and church leaders in American Evangelicalism.  Maybe there's more being said in individual churches, but there are few leaders willing to speak out publicly against this dangerous, heretical ideology.  

As groups like Charlie Kirk's "Turning Point" gatherings attack the Christian gospel directly, claiming that teachings of Jesus like turning the other cheek, loving enemies and demonstrating a spirit of humility or meekness hasn't gotten those who practice them anywhere in this world, there should be outcries at least as loud as some of the discernment bloggers are shrieking at a nebulous "wokeness."  But it seems that they are willing to let the gospel be subverted, undermined and attacked, so they can create the kind of division among people on which they thrive, also a perspective that is diametrically opposed to genuine Christian faith and practice. 

There's been some muted criticism of Trump's dinner table endorsement of "Ye's" anti-Semitism, and the presence of holocaust denier and anti-Semite Eric Fuentes, both of whom have lost all of their integrity with their attention-getting causes and tactics.  But it's nothing like I expected to hear from those who thought that Trump moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem was the greatest thing that's happened to this country from a religious perspective since the Second Great Awakening.  I've even heard some attempts at defending him, claims that who he invites to dinner is his business and just because he invites them doesn't mean he agrees with them.  

From the Worst of The Worst, Complete Silence 

I don't want to generate any traffic in the direction of some of the more despicable critics among the fundamentalist brethren in particular.  Looking at one of their sites today, there's the usual bashing of Christians they consider "woke," An article entitled, "The Worst Christians of 2022," and left-over criticism of the state of California still going after churches for being open and defiance of state instructions during the pandemic.  No mention at all of the now infamous dinner at Mar-a-Lago, though there are pieces critical of pastors and church leaders who have spoken out against it.  

The mainstream media put some effort into getting statements from Evangelicals who usually have something to say about everything and everyone else.  They got a small sampling of general statements, some comments that anti-Semitism is wrong, but I didn't see anything of substance, nor did I see anyone who actually came out and said they're no longer supporting Trump because of this latest ugly incident, on top of the lies, insurrection, fraud, adultery and sexual abuse.  

It's a Huge Credibility Problem

Blind to the image they've created, many Evangelicals just can't seem to see why their churches are dying, people are leaving and they aren't able to win converts with the exception of some of the children of those who still attend their churches.  They fight against the philosophical perspective which says that human intellect is capable, when educated, of solving the world's problems, but they fail to see that they have become completely dependent on human politics to solve them.  It is inconsistent to believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present God whose spiritual power is capable of solving all of humanity's problems, and then turn to political power and political leaders. most of whom don't believe in any god, and who exhibit nothing that resembles Christian principles, and expect results consistent with Christian faith.    

It's inconsistent to claim that the Bible is without error and infallible, and yet support politicians who are divisive, turn opposition into mortal enemies and dehumanize anyone who disagrees with their politics.  Jesus interpreted the commandment not to commit murder to mean that even hatred is murder.  Marjorie Taylor Greene wishes she had organized January 6th, because she'd have brought guns.  That's a definitive statement on her part if I've ever heard one.  For people who are so adamant about protecting the life of the unborn, they are casually flippant and threatening when it comes to all other human beings.  That's not even pseudo-Christian, it's anti-Christian. 

How to Interpret the Silence

Complicity.  

That is the only way to interpret the failure to speak out and defend the values of the Christian gospel.  Real Christian conviction, through the Holy Spirit of God, doesn't look like this at all.  It bears the marks of grace, wisdom, love and peace, and it seeks to bring people together, not drive them apart.  So what we are seeing here is a group of intruders with no grace, no wisdom, no love and no peace and they are pushing their way into the churches to subvert their mission and purpose and use their influence for political gain that has little to do with Christianity.  

"These are grumblers and malcontents," said the Apostle Jude.  

"They indulge their own lusts, they are bombastic in speech, flattering people to their own advantage," he says.  

Their silence calls them out.

Residents of Cochise County, Arizona Have an Opportunity to Take a Stand Against Election Denier Lies

 Lawsuit Brought by Two Cochise County Supervisors Against Election Certification Declared Moot

Since the almost disastrous stonewalling, delaying and violating the law by refusing to certify their county's ballots by the state's legal deadline, there's been a lot of talk in Cochise County, Arizona about the possibility of recalling county supervisors Peggy Judd and Tom Crosby.  Their refusal to follow the law, resulting from their belief in baseless and unproven conspiracy theories about vote counting machines, and as an attempt to stop statewide certification of the election by withholding their own certification of votes, is grossly negligent and irresponsible.  It is a demonstration of incompetence which sends a clear message to voters that they are not qualified to serve, and are willing to put their own interests and politics ahead of their responsibility to the county's residents.  

There have been multiple calls for these two supervisors to resign.  They put the 55,000 or so votes from Democrats, Republicans and Independents in the county at risk of not being counted.  Had the Secretary of State allowed that to happen, subtracting those votes from all of the elections that would have been affected would have resulted in Democratic candidates winning the District 6 congressional seat and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction elections.  That risk was incredibly irresponsible, and a demonstration of a lack of respect for the will of the voters that is unpatriotic and anti-American.  

All of those votes came from people who were residents of the county that these supervisors are charged with the responsibility of serving.  But their actions were obviously quite self-serving, imposing their own interests and opinion over the interests of those whom they are elected to serve.  They broke the law, and had to be forced by a court to follow it.  One of them, Crosby, did not show up for the meeting that was court-ordered, which is a further violation of the law.  

There is further evidence that in their plotting to carry out their election denier agenda, the two Republican supervisors may have violated the state's open meetings laws as well.  If they had integrity, resignation would be the best way to resolve the problem.  County election supervisor Lisa Marra said that recall is a complicated and involved process.  People who make these kinds of mistakes and show this kind of incompetence in the private sector get fired.  So regardless of how complicated that process might be, the voters owe this to themselves to hold these supervisors accountable for their incompetence, and fire them. 

Turnabout is Fair Play

Republicans have pushed to get candidates into lower level positions on school boards, city councils and county boards of supervisors precisely as a means of initiating an election-denier agenda.  Here is a perfect opportunity to take back a couple of seats and restore some common sense to county government, while saving the taxpayers from having to pay for wasteful, pointless court costs.  

We've seen that election deniers seldom have the support of enough of the voters, including Republicans, to win very many elections.  Cochise County has had its share of backward politicians for decades and decades (I grew up there, so I have some idea of what that's been like), and being a county supervisor should be a position that gets past partisan politics into oversight of resources which make the county a better place to live.  

An Opportunity for Redemption

It was embarrassing, yes, embarrassing, to the residents of Cochise County when its supervisors started making national headlines for essentially cutting of their nose to spite their face.  While alluding to non-existent ballot issues in Maricopa County, basically parroting Kari Lake, who lost the gubernatorial election, they put their own county at risk, not something that you'd expect from responsible county supervisors.  The news, as well as the names of the two supervisors who acted so incompetently, was spread all over the country, making the whole county look provincial and backward.  

A strong showing of voters in a recall election that ousts the two election deniers would be a great opportunity for the county to get some of its reputation back as the historic center of the old Southwest instead of forever being associated as the election denying county.  Getting two Democrats to join the third one on the county board of supervisors, who, unlike Crosby and Judd, respect the law and for American democracy, would make great headlines.  

So we encourage those who are thinking seriously about launching the recall to do so.  It may be difficult but it will be worth it.  

Georgia Voters Say "NO!" To Racist White Supremacy and Anti-Semitism

There were some milestones made by Senator Warnock's re-election in the Georgia senate runoff election December 6th.  He already was the first black man to serve as a Senator from Georgia, and he became the first black senator from Georgia to be re-elected to the senate where he will now serve a full six-year term.  His re-election meant that President Biden becomes the first sitting President since Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1934 not to have an incumbent senator from his party lose a mid-term election.  His election, and re-election, along with that of Senator Jon Ossoff, also in a runoff in 2021, is a signal that population growth in Georgia has diminished the Republican dominance of state politics and it is in the process of becoming more politically progressive.  

Why I Think an Ordained Baptist Minister is the Perfect Choice for the United States Senate

Senator Warnock is a Baptist pastor and theologian who is the pastor of the historic Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King was also pastor.  Ebenezer is a predominantly African-American congregation affiliated with the Progressive National Baptist Convention, a denomination made up of mostly African American congregations which hold what I describe as "pure Baptist" theology.  This includes belief in "a free church in a free state," or total separation of church and state and complete religious liberty.  It also includes determination of church doctrine based on the Protestant Bible, interpreted within the context of the historical background of its authorship, rather than the more literalist approach of more conservative, fundamentalist Baptists, and conservative Evangelicals, who claim the high ground morally because of their opposition to abortion, but who now carry the heavy baggage of Trump's dishonesty, lies, betraying the country, his whole worldly lifestyle of moral depravity, slapping Evangelicals in the face, and the white supremacist, Anti-Semitic racism that goes along with their support of Republicans.

Senator Warnock is the pastor of a church whose name is associated with civil rights and which, as a congregation, has helped more people protect their civil rights, and is pro-active in preventing abortion, not by advocating for criminalization of it, but by actually helping women who see it as their only choice find a way out on which they can depend.  That's quite a contrast to Republicans, who want to make criminals out of the women who are mostly making their decision based on dire circumstances and feeling they have no other choice.  And it makes those who supported Walker because of his alleged "anti-abortion" position hypocrites. 

The combination of Senator Warnock's preaching and writing, and the ministry work of the Ebenezer Baptist Church of which he is pastor are perfect for service as a United States Senator.  Regardless of one's perspective and opinion about Christianity, it is the virtues and values of the faith on which the Senator relies to provide the leadership and representation required of a legislative leader.  The meekness, humility, desire for doing right, having a good perspective of strengths and weaknesses, and being a peacemaker, which are all visible in Senator Warnock's life and ministry, are assets in leadership.  Integrity, honesty and compassion are, believe it or not, core values of the Christian gospel and it is refreshing to see these values practiced by a member of the Senate, instead of what we usually see from politicians. 

A Senator Who Represents All of His Constituents

I do not see Senator Warnock as a Baptist minister who seeks to impose the Christian gospel by the use of his authority or position.  It is at the core of his identity, and his life is a reflection of his faith, but not in a way that imposes it on others or lays out the expectation that in order to gain his favor, one must share his doctrine and theology.  Silence from prominent Republicans when it comes to overt displays of racism by white supremacists and Anti-Semites is in contrast to Senator Warnock, who won among one of the nation's most ethnically, racially and culturally diverse electorates.  I've never heard any criticism of the Senator with regard to any kind of demonstration of racial or ethnic bigotry.  He is a strong advocate for equal justice for all.  And I think the fact that he has been the top vote getter in four straight elections in just two years is a massive affirmation.  

His record in the senate speaks for itself.  There's no evidence that he is using this position to further some political career.  He's still the pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church and he has brought that congregation's historic advocacy for social justice right into the United States Congress where it belongs.  And that's on behalf of all Georgians, and by extension, all Americans.  

Thank You, Georgia Voters! 

You've still got some work to do within your state legislature and state government, but you have given us Senator Raphael Warnock, and Senator Jon Ossoff, patriotic Americans who come from racial and ethnic backgrounds that are part of the very essence of this nation.  Our country isn't centered on a racial or ethnic identity, it is centered on a set of ideals that are aimed at setting people free and helping them live that way.  Their election is a smackdown of those who are trying to push racism in the form of white supremacy, Christian nationalism and Anti-Semitism back up to the top of our politics.  

Georgia voters, at least in these two elections, have said "NO!" to that.  Thank you! 

Integrity in Politics: Thoughts of a Native Arizonan, and Democratic Party Member

When a politician is elected on the ticket of one of the two major political parties, I believe they are obligated to serve their entire term as a member of that party.  It's a betrayal, and I don't use that word lightly, to make a party switch in the middle of a term to which they were elected by the voters under the banner of, and with the resources and support of, the party. 

Kyrsten Sinema was elected by Arizona voters, with the full support of the Arizona Democratic party, along with considerable financial backing of the Democratic National Committee.  After decades of political frustration in one of the most politically backward states in the country, Democrats won a Senate seat in a statewide election, laying a foundation for the eventual victory that the party experienced in 2020, with Joe Biden being only the second Democrat to carry the state since Harry S. Truman in 1948.  With Mark Kelly subsequently winning Arizona's other Senate seat, Democrats in Arizona finally had some gains to celebrate.  

No doubt, Sinema has been a disappointment to those who elected her, especially since Democrats got control of Congress in 2018, and then the Senate in 2020.  Her history in the state legislature and as a politician would indicate that she was a progressive, or at the very least, a left-leaning moderate, coming from membership in the Green Party, self-identified as a "Prada socialist," and from some leadership among Democrats in a Republican dominated Arizona legislature. A native of my own hometown, Tucson, which is a Democratic stronghold in Arizona and has been for decades, it is difficult to consider any scenario that would transform someone, whose own personal freedom as the second LGBTQ female to be elected to the Senate has been supported by Democrats and not Republicans, from a progressive background to a centrist independent. Regardless, to make that switch while still in office lacks integrity and is a betrayal of those who voted for her and supported her election. 

I'm not going to speculate on possible political ambition, on who contributes to her political election funds or any other reason for her to do something like this.  She's an alumnus of Brigham Young University, something in her background that I've wondered about since her name first came to prominence in Arizona Democratic politics, and was raised in the LDS Church, though she left it after finishing at BYU, and got her law degrees from the much more liberal Arizona State University.  Still, Mormonism is a cult with strong indoctrination, and the ability to develop moral and spiritual control over people's lives.  That does make me wonder a bit about this sudden "independent" streak of hers.  

But leaving a political party that was instrumental in the successful achievement of political ambitions is dishonest and deceitful, and is a demonstrable lack of character.  More than the mess she created among Democrats in the Senate, and her inexcusable behavior, this is a character flaw that disqualifies her for public office as just another dishonest politician who can't be trusted, and isn't qualified to serve.  That's the bottom line.  

My hope is that Arizona Democrats start now on the process of finding a candidate for this seat who will be able to replace her in 2024.  She will not be a Democratic candidate so the field is wide open.  The success Democrats have had in Arizona recently, as their registration numbers increase due to higher Latino involvement and population growth mainly from California and the Northeast, means that the Democratic nominee will have the inside track for victory in the general election.  I seriously doubt Sinema will take votes away from the Democratic senate nominee.  I know enough about Arizona politics to know that she's done.  Republicans aren't going to support her.  A strong candidate with a solid campaign will win this seat back for Democrats in 2024.  

 

For Evangelical Christian Supporters of Trump: A Bridge Too Far

There's No Such Thing as the "Lesser of Two Evils" 

I saw a social media post where the pastor of a small town church in the South was trying to justify voting for Trump with a "lesser of two evils" argument.  His tone and his language betrayed the fact that he knew his rational wasn't consistent with the Christian gospel but he seemed compelled to justify his vote by claiming that Trump's appointment of three of the justices who helped overturn Roe v. Wade weighed more heavily than the adultery and womanizing, incessant and pathological lying, racism, Anti-Semitism, insurrection, tax and business cheating, rejection of the Christian gospel and attempts to undermine it with substitute theology.   

That's not supported by any biblical text, which is an interpretive requirement from the perspective of Conservative Evangelicals who believe the Bible is the final authority for all Christian doctrine and theology that guides the practice of the faith.  Casting a ballot for Trump, even though he was a terrible President, one of the worst we've ever had, based on his deal-making support for the single issue of an anti-abortion position is the voter's choice.  But that can't be turned into an argument for a "Christian position" that ignores lying, adultery, dishonesty in business dealings, denying or setting aside core principles of the Christian gospel for the sake of politics or lack of moral character in deliberately living and celebrating the worldliness of a lifestyle.  Nor can it be used as a trade off in choosing candidates for office who are incompetent and incapable of governing and leadership.  

My priority, as a Christian voter, is to protect my religious freedom, which depends on the nation's democratic, constitutional government.  It is to elect candidates who will uphold the law, demonstrate loyalty to the ideals and principles supported by the constitution and represent me as one of the people who are the power behind government.  If electing candidates running on support for a single issue is someone else's thing, that's their right to waste their vote.  As we have seen, support for politicians simply because they are opposed to abortion rights doesn't always equal an elected official who respects religious freedom and submits to constitutional law.  And it rarely yields a competent politician who has the interests of his constituents in mind while serving.  

The fact that the former president nominated Supreme Court justices who were willing to overturn Roe v. Wade doesn't weigh on some kind of moral scales in his favor against the immoral "bad side" of the former President.  I've always thought that it would be unconscionable to support someone who celebrates a lifestyle of worldliness that is lived in direct contradiction to the Christian values and virtues of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and to do it deliberately and be intentionally offensive about it, as the former President 45 does.  And it is also unconscionable to fail to recognize his attempt to overturn the constitution and the peaceful transfer of power, based on a lie for which no evidence was ever produced and his instigation of an insurrection intended to destroy American constitutional democracy.  That, too, is evil.  

Trump Should Get a "No" From Any Christian Perspective

Trump was never on my radar screen as a candidate I would ever support, including in that determination my own Christian faith perspective.  But for those who do believe that being a "Christian" of their particular brand is a qualification to get their vote, Trump doesn't meet any of their criteria either.  He is not Christian, certainly not by any conservative, Evangelical definition and that's not judging him, that's taking him at his word.  He belligerently rejects the Evangelical requirement of acknowledging conviction of sin and needing repentance, claiming that he has not done anything requiring repentance or forgiveness.  He defines the "God" he believes in on his own terms, an idea of some sort of spiritual being who looks and acts like Donald Trump.  

The "Evangelical" he has identified as his "spiritual advisor" is a female, self-proclaimed "prophetess", Paula White, who, when she wasn't connected to Trump, was also identified by the vast majority of conservative Evangelicals as a heretical, prosperity gospel preacher.  Virtually all conservative Evangelicals are also staunchly adamant in their rejection of female pastors and preachers, though since Trump has cozied up to White, what was a blistering stream of criticism of her and her ilk has been silenced.  

The writer of the book of Jude, which I think does a great job of warning churches of exactly the kind of intrusion into their ministry that is happening with Trump, describes the kind of lifestyle that Trump has made into his personal identity as "licentiousness," a general term that refers to a self-serving kind of hedonism which reflects characteristics that are diametrically opposed to those produced by the Christian gospel.  "These are grumblers and malcontents," says Jude, "they indulge their own lusts; they are bombastic in speech, flattering people to their own advantage."  

The support by so many Evangelicals for Trump was seen, rightly so, as their placing a priority on political power to achieve their ends over Christian character and moral values.  That support has come at the expense of evangelistic efforts, which are at the lowest point they've been at since the Depression, and a steeply declining church membership and attendance among most Evangelical churches and denominations.  Seeing that a group of Christians has abandoned the spiritual power they claim to have in exchange for political power to achieve their ends on a single issue has undermined the Evangelical image and tainted the Christian gospel.  

When Jesus was tempted by the Devil with the use of worldly power to establish his kingdom, he vehemently rejected it.  Evangelicals have embraced it, denying the gospel and now they must carry the baggage of immorality, lies, insurrection, sedition, and even attempts to label themselves as "suckers" for believing that Jesus really did say the best way to handle opposition is to "turn the other cheek."  

Anti-Semitism Comes to Dinner

Personally, I believe Evangelicals who support Trump crossed that "bridge too far" by ever supporting him in the first place.  A little patience, support for a candidate who shared the same political perspective and lived by the same values would have been the correct approach for those in conservative American churches who think that this is a "Christian nation."  It's difficult for me to reconcile most Republican political perspectives with Christian doctrine and theology because they are much more influenced by, and oriented toward a single racial and economic demographic, but there are Evangelical politicians in the GOP whose lifestyles are consistent with the Christian gospel.  

But the all or nothing approach most Evangelicals take toward the Roe v. Wade decision and the abortion issue creates some awkward difficulties for them when it comes to almost any other political or social issue.  They wind up having to carry the baggage of having to overlook Trump's personal immorality, which he flaunts as part of his image, the denial of government support and help for its citizens in order to cut tax breaks for wealthy constituents, and his openly hostile, abrasive, name-calling immaturity, which runs counter to Christ's insistence that the sincerity of one's faith was visible in the manner in which they treat others, especially their enemies.  

And then there's the new baggage from this past week, as Kanye West, an obnoxiously loud anti-Semite, and Nick Fuentes, a holocaust denier, were invited to dinner at Mar-A-Lago.  The weak and not very emphatic denials from Trump were not credible.  The lack of an uproar among Republicans was predictable, and the silence from the party's Evangelical constituency was despicable.  To claim that one of Trump's great achievements was moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, not a tremendous political achievement by any standard, but to say absolutely nothing about his support and endorsement of the single most notorious anti-Semite among the American population is, without question, a bridge too far.  

There is some muted, quiet discontent among some Evangelical supporters of Trump.  The fact that it takes something as absolutely awful and horrific as this was to get a handful of supporters in his Evangelical constituency murmuring about the wisdom of this dinner engagement is an absolute indictment of their political alliance and opens the door to legitimate criticism of the sincerity of their Christian faith.  And I'll point out here that Fuentes is perhaps one of the more active promoters of Christian nationalism, a purist in that philosophical perspective.  Support for Israel among Evangelicals, tied to their futurist eschatological views of the "end times", is cardinal doctrine.  Fuentes' appearance at Mar-A-Lago, along with that of Kanye West, should have caused a tsunami of criticism from the religious right.  It should have been a bridge too far for even some of the hard-core Evangelical supporters of Trump, who have abandoned all genuine Christian gospel principles at this point.  

Holding the Line

There are churches, pastors, church leaders and many individual Christians within conservative Evangelicalism who are holding the line against this intrusion of godless conservative politics into their ministry.  They understand that Jesus himself separated his "kingdom," his church, from secular political power.  Two thousand year of church history proves that his approach was the right one, and that when the church depends on the power of politics to accomplish its mission and purpose, both of those things are subverted and not achieved.  

A former President, who has announced his candidacy for the Presidency, invited two prominent, well-known anti-Semites, one of them a denier of reality and factual history which occurred during the horror of the Holocaust, to his dinner table.  That constitutes and endorsement of their views, and is a glimpse into what a second Trump presidency would look like.  The fact that this "bridge too far" move did not create more of a stir, especially among Trump's more conservative constituency, is an advance warning sign of some very dangerous ideology taking root in this country.  There are no excuses that can explain this away.  Those Evangelicals who never engaged or allowed the intrusion of Trumpism made the right move.  Those left wondering whether there's a problem, even after this earthquake,  are lost.

As the Apostle Jude said, in his very short epistle, "Certain intruders have stolen in among you, people who long ago were designated for this condemnation as ungodly, who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Lord and Master, Jesus Christ."  

Don't Elect Lunatics to Positions of Serious Public Responsibility

National Review: Don't Elect Lunatics to Positions of Serious Public Responsibility

The supervisors of Cochise County, Arizona, or should I say two Republican supervisors out of three, one of whom is a Democrat, are on the verge of making a boneheaded, ridiculous move, out of their baseless belief in election denialism, which will nullify over 44,000 votes, the majority of which are from Republicans.  Not because of any glitches or problems with ballots, or machines in their own county, mind you, but because of rumors and innuendo spread mainly by Kari Lake's campaign, about a small handful of ballot glitches in Maricopa County.  

Maricopa County has already certified their vote total, including laying out a mountain of evidence proving that none of the voters in the precincts which had ballot printing problems were denied the right to vote.  It was the only place in the state where Lake, who was determined to make a stink if she didn't win, had anything that looked like it would support her baseless conspiracy theories and blame her loss on voter fraud.  There were not anywhere near enough votes affected by the glitch to make up the difference by which she lost, over 17,000 votes, and the county was meticulous in laying out the evidence that not a single voter was disenfranchised, either by the glitch itself, or by the delay it caused in having to wait in line.  

But two supervisors in Cochise County, three hours away from Maricopa, and a cultural and ideological world away, have decided to risk their county's votes, none of which were affected by fraud, to make a point and draw attention to the Maricopa County issue.  They appear to be undeterred by the truth, unable to comprehend that they are setting aside their responsibilities as elected officials for a non-issue.  

Not knowing what options are available to the voters in Cochise County, I would suggest that whatever options they have to remove these two supervisors, who are more interested in forcing their own ignorance and superstition, and willing to risk the right to vote of every registered voter in their county for it, be done as quickly as possible.  I don't know if Arizona provides for the recall of public elected officials, but I'd say that would be the way to go if its' available.  Beyond that, joining in calls for them to step down would be another option.  And apparently, since they are in violation of the law, arrest is also a possibility.  

Whether these antics are a wake up call for Republicans in Arizona, I don't know, but they should be.  This is the Republican party we have now, a group of people willing to take away your rights so they can gain political power for themselves.  But these antics, and that's what they are, have the potential to cost the GOP two seats, one in Congress, where the upcoming majority is already razor thin, and may be getting thinner, and one in the State Superintendent of Public Instruction's office.  They richly deserve for that to happen and I hope it does.