From Her Own Perspective, Boebert's Downplaying of Son's Teenaged Pregnancy is Hypocritical

 Newsweek: Boebert Doesn't Want to "Nitpick" the Bible Over Son's Teen Pregnancy

Congresswoman Lauren Boebert's recent announcement that her sixteen year old son would be making her a grandmother at age 36 was accompanied by some remarkably hypocritical comments from her.  

"So we can nitpick what the Bible says is right and wrong, but I think just having that heart posture of wanting to serve God and do the right thing is so important," she told Dave Rubin, a conservative talk show host.  That comment followed her saying, "Obviously, I'm a Christian and you know there are standards we like to uphold, but none of us do it perfectly."  

"It doesn't work that way," Boebert said she told her son, when he claimed that being a teenage parent was "heredity" because both Boebert and her mother had their oldest child at 18.  "But I'm really proud of him and my grandson's mom for being responsible, because they could have taken a different route, and both of them chose life," she said.  

"It wasn't anything I had to browbeat with them, I very calmly had the conversation when we found out, just let me know if you think something else, I just want to have a talk with you if you decide to go a different direction, and both of them were very excited and wanted to move forward and welcome life into this world," she said.  

Boebert is not an articulate speaker, so the position she is actually taking isn't always clear.  But for one who campaigns frequently with a microphone and a preacher-like pacing and pointing that frequently makes use of church buildings as campaign venues, and whose rhetoric and perspective is a classic, textbook blend of right wing politics with fundamentalist religion, going soft on the issue of personal morality, which is a major component of both Jewish and Christian doctrine, is inconsistent with most of the rest of her politics and her brand of Christianity. 

She's right when she says that none of us uphold standards of Christianity perfectly.  But she missed the point completely.  It's not a matter of "nit picking."  Christianity is a faith that rests wholly on grace.  And while she doesn't want to "nit pick the Bible" with regard to her son's situation, she doesn't seem to mind doing the equivalent of that to those she identifies as her political opponents. 

In a church service in Colorado, during her campaign for Congress, Boebert declared that she was "tired of this separation of church and state junk.  The church is supposed to direct the government.  The government is not supposed to direct the church.  That's not how the founding fathers intended it."  

She went on to declare that separation of church and state is not in the constitution but it's in "a stinking letter and it means nothing like they say it does."  

More incoherent babble from her here, including the failure to identify the nebulous "they" who are declaring that the government should direct the church, if that's what she was referencing.  Where is there any government "directing" of the church?  That's a straw man argument if I ever heard one.  

And that "stinking letter" to which she is referring is, I'm guessing, Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut, a group of Christians who had expressed their concerns about whether the new American constitution would set up and support a state church, an institution which they had concluded, through their study of the Bible, was not the church that Jesus had established through the Apostles in the first century.  Theirs was a doctrinal and theological concern, based on the Bible.  Jefferson's response, in that "stinking letter," explains exactly what the founders intended when they wrote the establishment clause into the constitution, and it was not for "the church to direct the government."  

But Boebert's remarks are not surprising, coming from one who doesn't want to "nitpick the Bible" on major doctrine.  She is clearly not an expert on government, American history or Christian doctrine and theology.  And her oldest son has apparently not picked up on the sincerity of his mother's blend of religion and politics.  

I love the fact that the constitutional, representative democracy in which we live makes it possible for anyone who makes the effort and puts their ideology and vision out there in a place where it can be seen can run for public office and have a chance at getting elected and serving.  The down side of that it opens the door to those who carry the prejudices of ignorance and fear to get elected and have influence.  There are places where ignorance and apathy outweigh the influence of an educated and informed electorate, which are the keys to preserving and sustaining democratic government.  

But this closeness to the people, which gave us founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who were religious opposites, but politically compatible, has also given us representatives like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, who is a bright star in the future of Democratic politics, or like our own Vice-President, Kamala Harris, whose success in politics is an example of what an educated and informed electorate can produce.  

I'll add this in closing.  It's a prophetic word from the obscure, frequently overlooked book of Jude in the New Testament.  Readers can decide if it applies here. 

For certain intruders have stolen in among you, people who long ago were designated for condemnation as ungodly , who pervert the grace of God into licentiousness, and deny our only Lord and Master Jesus Christ.  V. 4

 

Age Not a Factor; Signal Press Endorses Joe Biden's Re-Election Campaign

The economy is moving along well.  Inflation, which is the sign of a strong economy and a good job market, is under control.  That's not something heard in the media now, as the focus on the 2024 election coverage ramps up, but that's a fact.  Gasoline prices are stable.  The unemployment rate is at a historic low.  Lots of people love to complain that they don't have it as well off as they should have, but the fact of the matter is that, two years into the Biden Presidency, the contrast between his success and the failures, inept mistakes and corruption of his predecessor, are as stark and realistic as any in history.  

So, with nothing else from which to manufacture news, the media is focusing on Joe Biden's age.  O.K.  Well, that's a factor.  He's the oldest President we've ever had.  So what?  It opens him up to criticism from enemies and political opponents who throw around terms like "dementia" and slow mindedness.  There's been no evidence of that.  He grew up with a stutter, which still affects his speech, his voice, because he uses it so much, does get raspy on occasion.  But it is clear to anyone who knows and is objective about it, that his age is not a disability, and hasn't been one up to this point.   

And as far as Nikki Haley's remark is concerned, that electing Joe Biden is just setting things in place for a Harris presidency, well, if that turns out to be the case, a Harris presidency would be a considerably better prospect than a Haley presidency, especially if the latter follows the pattern of mediocrity and absence of service to the people that her governorship of South Carolina did.  Having Kamala Harris as Vice President is an additional reason to vote for Biden.  

However, the most practical reasons we have for endorsing the President and supporting his re-election come from the success he has enjoyed during the first half of his first term in office.  In every way, from foreign policy success to job creation and the economy, to caring about American senior adults, veterans and the working class, President Biden's first term in office is worth repeating.  People love to complain about the economy, but it's hard to be critical of a Presidency during which unemployment has reached historic low points, the stock market has reached historic high points, personal income growth is setting records, and a post-COVID recession has consistently been avoided.  Inflation is a problem, but it's also the sign of prosperity, even though, of course, no one likes it.  But even that is responding to the economic policies of the Biden administration.  

The Republicans who are running are offering nothing.  Trump's term in office was a disastrous failure in every way, and his ongoing campaign theme of "the election was rigged and I was cheated" offers nothing to the American people, because it is all about him.  Desantis, in his culture war, "anti-woke," approach is seeing his support and favorability among Floridians drop like a stone in a well, and in just a few short months, even before announcing a candidacy, his support among the GOP has evaporated.  Haley was a mediocrity as governor of South Carolina, Pence, a pitiful figure left over from the failed Trump administration, lost what little integrity he had by agreeing to crawl on to that ticket with Trump and shares responsibility for the corruption and incompetence of the administration. 

We've seen all the headlines and read many of the follow up stories this week to President Biden's announcement.  Earlier in the week, a Rasmussen poll, which is a polling service that generally isn't known for a high level of accuracy, but has a conservative bias, came out with a 49% figure for job approval of the President.  On occasion, other polls, in a two or three day survey period, report similar numbers.  Personally, I'm not in a location where I have observed anything but wholehearted support, but it seems a bit incongruous, with the results of the mid-term elections in 2022, that the President's job approval ratings were ever as low as they were reported.  As far as 2024 goes, as the Democratic nominee, he's the odds on favorite to win.  

And I'd bet on those odds. 

Just So You Know, In Case You're Interested

As a regular participant in Democratic Underground, I frequently see many posts from participants who have a much different perspective on politics and religion than I do.  Politically, this is the kind of diversity that is the strength of the Democratic party.  From a religious perspective, I don't expect complete agreement, and, because I am a practicing Christian, I respect the religious perspective of others, all others, regardless of what it is.  

To be fair, in a free society, I have a full right to my beliefs, and to my expression of them which includes explaining why I believe what I do, and to interact, when the discussion goes in that direction, based on what I believe.  Within the whole scope of what is identified as "Christianity," the differences in what people believe are considerable.  I have moved, in my life experience and education, from the narrow position of believing that what was allowable, to please God and to be a legitimate Christian, was a single track set of doctrinal and theological beliefs and behaviors, to realizing that, as the Apostle Paul describes it, "Now we see through a glass, darkly."  

I have no corner on the doctrinal or theological "market."  There are many others who, through their study of the Christian scriptures in their historical, cultural and  theological context, know much more than I do, and have drawn conclusions and established traditions that are as legitimate as any expression of Christian faith in which I have engaged.  Jesus himself left the door to what constitutes a "conversion" experience, if one chooses to call it that, or a life experience, which is a better description of what it is, fairly wide open, emphasizing virtues and values that bring human beings together in community, rather than emphasizing eternal existence as some kind of "reward" for right theology and doctrine, and right living.  

In fact, in any form of orthodox Christianity, eternity isn't a reward for behavior or for getting doctrine and theology right, it is a grace gift of God, eliminating a sacrificial system of worship in place in most human cultures, and replacing it with a system that emphasized a set of higher values and moral character development. What Jesus pointed to was a way of life requiring the use of our intellectual and emotional capacity to understand characteristics and values that make life better, not just for ourselves, but for the entire whole of humanity.  The Christian gospel and the New Testament are full of references to those characteristics.  By preponderance of the written evidence, Christianity is living according to a set of values, immersed in freedom that results from humans being created in the image of God.   

Of course, I was predisposed to believing in God by my parents and by the culture around me.  I grew up in a small church, where I was able to discern that what people claimed to believe wasn't how they actually lived their life.  I saw church leaders who used their position in the church to bring advantage to themselves.  I saw people who would nod their agreement with the belief that the Bible was " the inerrant and infallible word of God" but who could not answer simple questions about its contents, and whose lives didn't really reflect what they claimed to believe.  I grew up in a "faith" that was all about getting the doctrine right and obediently following the rules in exchange for pie in the sky by and by.  

I've questioned my beliefs, adjusted them, filtered them through the education that I was fortunate enough to receive, including through graduate school in a state university where my faith was challenged by professors and students.  They have been refined, supported and undergirded by some outstanding, faithful people whose lives reflected the full effect of the values and virtues that are at the very core of Christian faithfulness.  I believe that being a Christian, by following the full gospel text and the apostolic narratives in the New Testament, is living in this world according to those values and virtues, all of which are prioritized in a theology that leads one to worship and acknowledge God as love and the acceptance of his grace that leads to the service of others through those values.  I have concluded that the faith in which I grew up, and which has intersected with right wing politics to produce a heretical apostasy of the Christian gospel, was not for me and was not really Christian.  

The Quaker influence over my faith emphasizes living immersed in the values of simplicity, peace, integrity, community, equality and stewardship, which touch the surrounding world to make it a better place and help others make it through this life.  The Baptist influence, (historical Baptist, not "conservative, fundamentalist, evangelical Baptist) emphasizes Christian liberty, including freedom of the individual soul to worship God and choose the grace he has offered through Christ, freedom to engage in spiritual relationship with God by individual freedom to read, interpret and apply the principles of written scripture by faith alone, belonging to a local assembly of other Christians, "called out" as Christians into the ecclesia, or body of believers in Christ, and the complete independence, autonomy and freedom of that body, without any ecclesiastical authority or political power over it.  

It's my faith.  And I'm not interested in making you change your mind about it, or coercing you into believing exactly as I do.  You and I, and everyone around us, are all human beings, and in my faith perspective, that means we are all created in the image of God, which is the core of our freedom and the essence of our humanity. I hope that I motivate others by my example, that I am an inspiration, not browbeating by using threats of eternal damnation, but showing and living by values that I believe make our lives better.  

Jesus made two major points under which the rest of the Christian gospel falls.  One, to love God with all of your being, and two, to love your neighbor as yourself.  That's where living out those values comes in.  That's real faith, giving relevance and meaning and a purpose to this life.  There are long lists of the characteristics and qualities of living according to the gospel, along with passages about forgiveness of sins, not judging others, belonging to a faith community that mutually supports, cares for and encourages each other, written during a time when a totalitarian Emperor ruled much of the known world and a selfish, cruel and inhuman form of paganism was in control.  I'm not going to argue the finer points of evidence for or against God's existence, the historical accuracy of the Bible, or the accuracy of science.  I'm just going to live according to those values.  

It is because I believe faith means living according to virtues that give our life meaning and purpose that I am a Democrat, who believes in democracy and all of the individual freedom that comes with it.  I will stand up for it and fight for it.  

I will also stand up for, and fight for a pure Christian faith in the face of an intrusion of apostasy and heresy that is distorting its doctrine, corrupting its theology and undermining the effectiveness of its mission and purpose.  I'm talking about the intersection, and I use that word with deliberate smugness, of Christianity with right wing Republican politics and MAGA Trumpism, that has subverted loyalty to God and replaced it with loyalty to power and influence.  It is not possible to be loyal to political leaders whose lifestyle is diametrically opposite the values and principles, mission and purpose of the Christian gospel.  That is the main false, paganism of our time and place.   

It is not necessary for anyone to intellectually challenge what I believe, or try to prove it wrong, or belittle it, or criticize me for believing it.  If you're not a believer, that's OK.  I'm not asking you to become one in order for us to agree politically, socially, or otherwise.  But it's not necessary for you to justify your perspective by bashing mine.   

Arizona County Hires Election Denying Conspiracy Theorist as Elections Supervisor

Election Denying Conspiracy Theorist Hired as Cochise County Elections Supervisor

After multiple controversies, lawsuits and actions demonstrating an incredible amount of gross incompetence, two county supervisors in Cochise County, Arizona have approved the hiring of a conspiracy theory-spouting election denialist as the man in charge of counting their ballots.  These two supervisors continue to insist on casting doubts on the accuracy of the last two elections, despite evidence that proves those accusations to be lies.  

They've cost the taxpayers of the county thousands of dollars in legal fees for their incompetence.  Their antics led to the resignation of a competent, professional election supervisor, something they apparently had on their agenda when they were originally elected.  They almost caused the county to not have any of its votes counted in the 2022 midterm elections because of their illegal delay in failing to certify the vote total, making the same false claim about Dominion voting machines that have been proven false time after time after time.  

All but one of the county residents who came in to provide testimony during the supervisors meeting expressed their displeasure at the hiring of this individual, who was one of the election deniers leading the effort to attempt to stop certification of votes in November, 2022, in order to try to save the election deniers who lost. 

The election denier who was hired, Bob Bartelsmeyer, is a hard liner.  The irony one of his previous comments, "Everything the Dems are doing was done in Germany before Hitler took over," should not be lost on anyone who understands exactly what these people are doing and how they are going about it.  That, along with insisting that he will never be convinced the 2020 election wasn't stolen should disqualify him from serving on any public payroll where tax dollars pay his salary.  These people need to be exposed and expelled from any contact with any part of our elections system.  They are the real danger to democracy.   

County Residents Are Taking Action

After all of the incompetence and confusion created by the two Republican supervisors, Tom Crosby and Peggy Judd, costing thousands of county taxpayer dollars, violating the law and making a mockery of the election process, a group of residents in Crosby's district determined to start a recall effort which appears to be moving along quite well.  This will throw some gasoline on that fire.  Recalling one of the two will save the county's election integrity, since the third supervisor, a Democrat, votes in a responsible, common sense way, based on affirmed facts.  Judd's district has the highest percentage of registered Republican voters in the county, but many of the constituents who came to the meeting to express their opposition to the choice of this election denier were from her district, and apparently several of them are also planning to get the recall petitions circulating.  

The Warning Was Sounded Long Ago, so Where Have We Been?

Our hope of having free and fair elections depends on making sure these people are shown the exit from any responsibility related to elections.  We've been warned, but for some reason, unless it's a presidential election year, a lot of our constituency doesn't take the time to cast ballots or check out who is on the lower end of their ballot.  The evidence that the 2020, and 2022 elections, were clean, that there was no "massive voter fraud" and that the conspiracy theories about voting machines being programmed to favor Democrats were all lies is overwhelming.  Believing it in the face of hard evidence is insanity, and we don't need mentally ill people in government, where there is enough incompetence already. 

It was almost a regular, weekly part of Rush Limbaugh's radio show to point out ways Republicans can use what power they had to game the system, and use the rules to create an advantage for themselves while Democrats were focusing on the upper parts of the ballot and behaving according to their normal patters.  And a lot of those local county officials, who were regular listeners to his program, followed his instructions, invading precinct meetings after primaries, school boards, city councils, county supervisor boards and other places where local officials have almost absolute control over elections.  

And so here we are.  What do we do about it?  

Most of this will have to be fought through the courts, or through what processes the Republicans once slipped this under the door, through local elections where supervisors, city councils and other governing bodies, even local school boards or hospital boards where public dollars are spent, and it will take time.  I just hope we have enough, and until then, there are enough people keeping an eye on this, like the people who show up in Cochise County, at supervisor meetings, and keep telling their two Republican supervisors that they need to either get it together and do it right, or get out.  According to the article posted from the Herald Review, the county's only daily newspaper, every supervisor's meeting since the election has drawn a crowd of voters angry at the two Republicans.  A recall effort might just trigger a resignation, and that would change everything. 

It's time to put an end to this nonsense.  These nut jobs don't outnumber us.  Finish the recall effort against Crosby, and that's enough to make some change.  It might just be the encouragement others need in other places like Cochise County to motivate and bring an end to this creeping fascism.  

Here is a link to donate to the recall of Tom Crosby: 

Donate to Recall Tom Crosby

On the Political and Religious Right, Does Character in Leadership Matter?

Baptist Standard: Court Documents Shed Light on Allegations Against Pressler

There are all kinds of things like this, buried in the intersection between the religious right and the GOP.  It's important for Democrats to take note of stuff like this and bring it out when the far right tries to claim support for being the party of "family values" or trot out their conspiracy theories about running child trafficking rings in the basements of pizza parlors, and the "grooming" of students for sexual exploitation purposes.  

Who groomed Lauren Boebert's son for getting his 15 year old girlfriend pregnant? Who launched the message that the Congresswoman "wasn't going to nitpick the Bible" in her response, after nearly three years of nitpicking the Bible on the campaign trail? Who groomed Sarah Palin's daughter, Bristol?  Who influenced her boyfriend to use his new-found fame and grab some cash by posing for a photo shoot in a pornographic magazine?  

With "one man, one woman equals one marriage for life," as the centerpiece of the religious right's position on "family values," it seems a little strange to me that in 1980 they chose to nominate a divorced, "B" movie actor with marital fidelity problems over the most visibly Evangelical Christian ever to occupy the White House.  Or that they ended up giving the most support they've ever given any candidate to the man with the most worldly, anti-Christian image they could find, twice divorced, multiple extra-marital affairs, including with known porn stars and make him their standard bearer.  Strange, perhaps, but surprising, no not really.  It's standard M.O.  

An Ongoing Story That Underlines the Hypocrisy of the Religious Right

Back in the 1970's, a group of prominent pastors in the Southern Baptist Convention did not like the fact that the denomination was being influenced by the scholarship of its six seminaries, moving toward a more historical and contextual foundation for interpreting scripture, and away from the fundamentalism and anti-education bias of old time frontier religion.  There were two individuals who figured out how to manipulate the trust-based apparatus of choosing trustees and leadership of denominational institutions, including its two mission boards and the six theological seminaries, and, using the celebrity status of some prominent, megachurch pastors, began what became known as the "conservative resurgence" in the Southern Baptist Convention.  

These two individuals, known as the "architects of the conservative resurgence," included Dr. Paige Patterson, then-president of a small, struggling Bible college, Criswell College, an independent school operated by the First Baptist Church of Dallas, on whose campus its classes met, and Paul Pressler, a Texas appeals court judge from Houston and then a member of Houston's First Baptist Church.  Patterson supplied the theological and doctrinal rationale for the resurgence, while Pressler, with connections to the Bush family, worked on the political ends.  

Pressler served as president of the Council for National Policy, a far right wing Republican group connected to Ed McAteer's "Religious Roundtable" that was instrumental in securing Ronald Reagan's nomination for the 1980 election.  Pressler received the organization's Ronald Reagan Lifetime Achievement Award for everything he did to bring the religious right into the GOP.  And that was his primary interest and his role in the Southern Baptist "conservative resurgence," to link the movement with right wing Republican politics, which he did with some success.  

The article that is linked notes multiple allegations against Pressler, from young men who were either under his leadership as part of a church ministry, or at his law firm.  He was not a member of a Southern Baptist church until 1978, when he left Bethel Presbyterian in Houston, where he was a youth pastor, after allegations of an "incident" involving a young man.  He joined First Baptist Church, and shortly thereafter assumed his role as "architect" in the "conservative resurgence."  As noted in the article, this congregation also became aware of an incident involving a younger man who was also a member of the church.  

Pressler settled one sexual assault lawsuit with a plaintiff in 2004, paying $450,000.  The article in the Texas Baptist Standard also notes that he was recipient of a letter from First Baptist Church's deacons, regarding another incident with another young man, also a member of the church, which warned him by stating, "Given your stature and various leadership roles in our church, the Southern Baptist Convention and other Christian organizations, it is our considered opinion that this kind of behavior, if brought to light, might distort your testimony or cause others to stumble."  

It seems to me that the church's leadership is pretty muted and understated.  There are allegations, one case that has been settled, and incidents of which multiple individuals, including the leadership of at least two churches and a law partner, are aware, involving attempts to cover things up.  The issue has come to light, whether justice will be served by the courts or not, and it has created a huge credibility problem for the Southern Baptist Convention.  By extension, it also undermines the credibility of the religious right.  

At Least Find People Who Sincerely Believe in the Cause

It doesn't make much sense to claim to be advancing a conservative religious and political agenda while engaging in behavior that is the moral opposite of the agenda.  And yet, time and time again, the leaders that the religious political right consistently turn to in order to fight for their cause are morally bankrupt, worldly, and have a lifestyle that is exactly the opposite of the kind of Christlike sincerity one would expect from those who want to force this by law on everyone else.  

But when I see things like this, it helps me understand why a movement that claims to be built on "family values" turns to leadership that exhibits anything but family values in its behavior.  It's not about the values, it's about using them to convince people to put them in power so they can grab the money.  

All of these leaders, regardless of the level of the religious right they have functioned, will go to their graves as rich men.  That's the America they live in.  And they'll get it by convincing millions of Americans who live paycheck to paycheck, to give it to them.  

A $787 Million Admission by Fox News That They Lied to Their Viewers

Fox News Settles With Dominion for $787 Million 

There was never any doubt in my mind, at any point, that Fox News, including most of its local network affiliates, put a spin on the news that made facts unrecognizable and that it served as a de-facto propaganda arm of the Republican Party.  Frankly, I've really never watched it.  The closest I've come is when interviews are played on other networks because certain politicians won't appear anywhere but Fox.  Other than Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson, I couldn't name another person who appears on the network.  

That's because I want to be informed, I want to hear facts, not spin, and I want real information.  I can watch cartoons and get more than I could off Fox.  So I am not surprised that they were going to be held accountable financially for the slander they committed with their lying, and repeating lies, about the 2020 election.  That's certainly not all they've lied about.  If justice were served by circumstances, Fox would have been shut down a long time ago.  But this settlement, which is obviously an amount aimed at preventing a shut-down, is quite satisfying.  

As much as I hate to admit it, money is one of the only ways a company like Fox will ever be brought to justice.  It has to hurt or it won't do any good.  I'm not sure this will actually change anything.  As long as they stay in business, they make money off lying.  I don't expect them to be more cautious, just more careful about how they lie. Why they seem to think it isn't possible to spout conservative propaganda and still be truthful about it is a mystery, except that they seem to think that's what they have to do in order to keep their audience.  

There are conservatives who claim that the other, "liberal" news outlets are just as bad, just as reckless with the facts, and just as assertive with the left wing propaganda.  I don't doubt that, even among the best journalists, there can be a spin or perspective that comes from their bias.  But the bottom line is that none of them are getting sued for defamation.  Claim that they aren't telling the truth, but find facts to support the claim.  That's the big difference we're looking at here.  The difference between Fox News and other media outlets which their viewers label "liberal," is being open to correction by facts.  Most everyone else is, Fox, along with the extremists like Newsmax or Breitbart, are not. 

I've followed this case fairly closely, just to see where it might end up. The discussion on MSNBC's Morning Joe program this morning speculated about Fox's ability to figure out how to divide out the payments of this settlement in order to survive. There was speculation about shifts in ownership, dividing up the company into smaller pieces and selling them off, being absorbed by another media source, or simply going out of business.  There are multiple independent lawsuits related to this same issue, along with at least one other two billion dollar suit filed by Smartmatic.  

What we now have are admissions from those within the company responsible for content of news and commentary broadcasts that they knew the claims about rigging voting machines was a complete and total invention of the Trump campaign, and that the "reams of documented evidence" promised by Rudy Giuliani, which never made it into a single courtroom, did not exist.  This is no small amount of money, but I'm sure it represents the accounting department's best guess at what it can afford to get this out of the court without completely bankrupting the company.  Unfortunately, with much more to come, based on this same lie, I don't believe Fox News will be able to continue to exist in its current form.  

Personally, I believe everyone involved should be held accountable.  This was a crime committed against the American people, a lie that they continued to circulate when they knew that what they were reporting wasn't true.  And those in Fox's lineup who opened their mouths and spread it, including the likes of Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson, should have to pay out every penny they have to their name to cover the damages.  Frankly, they should serve time in prison, along with Trump when he is convicted of seditious conspiracy.  

A Network That Had Zero Credibility Now Has Less Than That

So what does this mean with regard to their news reporting?  

It means that the credibility of everything they've ever reported or about which they have pontificated and commented is questionable.  The information that has come out, just about this specific case, undermines everything else.  It means that whatever they report cannot be trusted.  That's nothing new for me.  I always knew this.  So did almost anyone else who can think for themselves.  

Will it change the minds of any of their viewers?  I have always wondered how it could be possible, in a country with the resources and education of the United States, that so many people can be so ignorant, lacking any critical thinking ability, discernment, moral or ethical values or even reading and listening skills.  So I'm not sure.  Many of them are the same people who believe Q-Anon conspiracy theories, which would indicate a pre-disposition toward false, fake news and information.  I did see a post on social media from a conservative admitting that he no longer believed that Dominion helped "rig" the election, but still believed there was election fraud.  When I asked where his support for that statement came from, he said, "Fox News."  Even after the word came out of the trial that virtually everyone at Fox News was aware that Biden legitimately won the election, this guy wasn't convinced.  There's no cure for ignorance that runs that deep.  

$787 million is a lot of money. For what Fox News and Donald Trump perpetrated on the United States, and the distrust and fear that has created, there is no compensation adequate enough to repair the damage or restore what was lost as a result.  This is a huge loss for Fox News and a huge windfall for Dominion and I hope the latter hugely benefits from it.  I hope that it does result in the dissolution or destruction of Fox News.  I also hope that it opens the door for lawsuits that bankrupt other media providers, like Newsmax and Breitbart, among others, and put those liars out of business as well.  

 

Will Political Victories in Tennessee, Court Blockades in Florida, Work to Protect Individual Rights?

 Online Petition Calls for Speaker of the Tennessee House to Resign

Florida Educators Pushing Back on Desantis' "War on Woke"

There will be political successes down the road for Democrats, including in parts of deep red states, for which credit can be given to the "Tennessee three."  Tennessee's house speaker, Cameron Sexton, took the opportunity provided by a protest that descended on the state capitol building to try to expel three Democrats from the already veto-proof state house of representatives.  What he and his fellow Republicans did will go down in history as one of the most politically stupid moves they could have made.  

Their attempted expulsion of the three Democrats did more, politically, to advance the cause of common sense gun control than any Democrats in the legislature have been able to do.  Expelling the two young, black men, but not the white woman, made them look pitifully racist.  The lack of any acknowledgement or denial of that, especially on Sexton's part, was a huge political mistake.  Trying to equate the protest at the capitol in Nashville with the violent, rebellious insurrection in Washington on January 6, 2020 was laughable.  And trying to shift the focus away from the pressure put on the Republicans in the legislature for Tennessee's lax, virtually non-existent gun control laws, which were responsible for the deaths of six people on a Christian school campus in Nashville, was about as unsuccessful as possible as a political move.  

Lots of Talk and Not Much Action Will be the GOP Response to the Shooting, Protests and the Response

A petition, organized by a Christian group called "Faithful America," has gathered more than 20,000 signatures online, calling for Sexton's resignation.  I don't expect him, or any Republican in the legislature, to acknowledge any opposition, since it is a symbolic act, and is not likely to get the desired result.  But it is clear that they feel the pressure.  The governor is actually using language that indicates he might be interested in signing some kind of "red flag" legislation.  It's not likely that they will actually get around to passing anything that would actually do any real good, but Republicans have been good at making it look like they are responding when they are not. 

I don't think the pressure from this particular shooting is going away.  I've always said that Republicans will click their tongues and offer thoughts and prayers to shooting victims until one of the victims is a family member, relative, or even the child of one of them.  Then, they will get off their rear end and do something.  This shooting was, by any measure, on their turf.  It happened in a Christian school operated by a conservative, fundamentalist Evangelical church, in a predominantly white, segregated neighborhood of Nashville.  Several prominent Tennessee Republicans, including the wife of the governor and one of its senators, have close connections to individuals at the school where the shooting occurred, including at least two of the victims. These weren't just nameless faces in some overcrowded public school. At least one Tennessee legislator has or recently had children enrolled at this school.  

The Faithful America petition hammers on two points, including what they call an attempt to "silence black and progressive opponents and to distract from from demands for gun control."  So they bring both racism and gun control to the front of the table once again.  I don't expect Sexton to pay much attention to this, at least, not in public.  Tennessee's legislative seats have been heavily gerrymandered, though the disadvantage of that was seen last week, when two supervisor boards with the responsibility for filling vacant legislative seats voted overwhelmingly to send these two gentlemen back to the seats they came from.  

These are the kinds of issues that motivate voters.  And they are the kind of thing that flip partisan majorities, not everywhere, but potentially in enough places to change the direction in which things are now headed.  Here are two young, African American men, both Christians themselves, one a student in the state's most prestigious divinity school, Democrats, standing up for fellow Christians who experienced a horrific shooting attack on their school, and for the safety of school children all over the state, against a repressive, shameful group of heavy-handed, oppressive Republican legislators.  

Educators in Florida are Throwing Up Legal Blockades to Desantis' "War on Woke" 

They are fighting back in Florida. 

Bryn Taylor, a graduate student at the University of Florida, makes note of attempts to roll back diversity, equity and inclusion advocacy at the state's colleges and universities, saying that doing so will result in being taken back from social progress.  She is president of Graduate Assistants United at the University of Florida and a member of a diversity, equity and inclusion council at the University. 

"Why don't you want your base to become educated?" she asked.  "Why don't you want your citizens to have the best access to the best schools in the world?"  

The specific, "Stop Woke" act of which Taylor is speaking has been blocked by the courts.  Desantis is counting on appeals in what he calls "more conservative" appellate courts to reverse the blocks.  But the longer this goes on, the better the chance of the opposition, much of which is found on Florida's numerous college and university campuses, to organize, get their information in front of the courts and hopefully keep this draconian, backward, socially regressive legislation from ever being enforced. 

Frankly, I think what Desantis and the Florida legislature are doing is sowing the seeds of their own demise.  Desantis wants to throw his name in the hat and make a run for the Presidency, but this message is already suppressing the interest voters might have in him.  Frankly, I think this will be the pathway for Democrats to get themselves in control of the state of Florida.  It has awakened the sleepy activists down there.  Disney is pushing back.  The educational community is organized and working together and they did get this into the courts.  We'll find out if Florida judges have integrity and if not, we'll find out how much Florida voters value their freedom. 

It Must Be More Than Talk

People must vote, in every election, even at the local level, from where a lot of this ideology emerges.  Democrats who live in deep red counties and districts are still Democrats, and their heading to the polls is vastly important, even if their votes won't overturn the majority in their area.  There are places where support can make the difference in the margins, as well.  Did you know that Ruben Gallego actually outraised Kyrsten Sinema in the most recent cycle of fundraising, to take a senate seat back that Democrats in Arizona won?  He's the kind of guy to watch, who makes a difference.  So do legislators like the two young men in Tennessee, now on the national stage and with more power and influence than they had before they were expelled.  

We just had a local election in our area, for city council and school board.  I went to two candidate forums, one for each.  I asked one question of each candidate, "Do you believe the election in 2020 was stolen?" At the school board forum, one of the candidates asked me what did that have to do with the local school board.  I said, "your answer tells me everything about you that I need to know."   

 

Shouldn't Laws Made For Us Also Be Made With Us?

Baptist News Global: Desantis and Florida Legislature Pretty Much Want to Control Everyone 

American students reach a point in their educational experience, usually in the eighth grade, where they must pass their first standardized exam on the United States Constitution.  Throughout my twenty years in the classroom, I taught my fair share of America's eighth graders, getting several hundred of them, over the years, to the point where they could pass this exam and move on to high school.  I also took many of those students, again numbering in the hundreds, on a class field trip to Washington, D.C. to help support this instruction and reinforce what they learned.  

As a result of all of that educational experience, I've taken students into virtually every government building in Washington, including the White House during several Presidential administrations, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, Library of Congress, and into the maze of hallways in the Senate and House office buildings to meet the people who support the work of their Senators and Representatives, along with meeting some of the members themselves.  We've eaten lunch in the cafeteria in the Supreme Court building, the basement of the House office building and in the food court of the Department of Commerce.  My students were up on their government class experience enough to recognize members of Congress eating their lunch in the same place.  

My goal was not just for them to do well enough on the test to pass it.  I wanted them to learn about the constitution, the history behind its development, the reasoning that went into it by the founders who wrote it, debating over minutia as they put it together, out of their own experience which was significantly affected by their experience as colonists under British rule, as well as their realization that the remoteness of their location in the world was giving them an opportunity to experience a kind of human liberty that no one else in the world had ever experienced together, as a people.  I wanted them to know where their freedom came from, what it looked like, and what they had to do to keep it.  

I didn't want them to ever take the freedom they had for granted.  I wanted them to know that their education, which enabled them to be an informed participant in their government, and casting an informed ballot, was the key to maintaining their freedom.  

So what I want to know, when I see articles like the one I posted above. is where are the students who were taught constitution and had to pass that exam when all of this is going on?  Where are the protests, the news stories, interviews, calls for reform?  Didn't these kids learn their constitution in eighth grade?

Shouldn't Laws Made For Us Also Be Made With Us?  

Why are Republican fascists in states like Texas and Florida, attacking the content of the curriculum of the public school system?  Because younger voters engaging and being active have been their undoing.  Issues have brought young voters out in record numbers.  Democrats sometimes sleep through the midterms, and we still did some of that this time, taking the standard polls and predictions for granted and preparing ourselves for the status quo.  A little bit more re-organizing of the money we raised and some focus on congressional districts that were on the margins and a turnout, in about a dozen congressional districts, that was just 1% or 2% higher than we got, and we'd still have our majority in the house.  

The barrage, and that's exactly what it has been, of anti-educational, anti-freedom legislation that has poured out of Florida like a lava flow, should be the campaign theme of every Democrat who runs for office in that state in the next cycle, whether it is city councils and school boards, homeowner associations and golf course administrators, or the state legislature or congress.  Lawsuits take time, but so much of this stuff is so blatantly unconstitutional, the Democratic party needs to find ways to challenge everything and give at least some of what it raises to fighting it off in the courts.  

But the bottom line is making sure that our students in schools, all of them, know and understand that they live in a Democracy, and that it is their responsibility to participate in it, so that they are, as intended, the primary influence behind the laws that are made.  It's pretty obvious that laws that are now being made are about controlling people and the only way those laws will be successfully enforced, and stay on the books, is if those who are being controlled by them allow it to happen.  

The only way those laws will be successfully enforced, and stay on the books, is if those who are being controlled by them allow it to happen.  

And it's easier to make sure that we have control over laws that are made to govern us if we elect the legislators who make them, rather than having to fight them through the courts.  The idea of what is or is not constitutional these days has faded, partly because what we require our students to learn about it in school is not enough.  Civics and American History need major overhaul, and need to be put back into the curriculum at every level.  It's a topic for another complete discussion, but instead of taking time back from other subjects, we need to consider lengthening the school day to European standards to make this happen.  We've put our democracy in danger, partly because our schools have failed to teach this.  

Expecting Democrats in Texas, Florida and Other Red States to Resist Means We Need to Help

The problem in Florida and Texas is that Democrats are depending on too few candidates to get statewide turnout.  The analysis of the votes in the 2022 midterms, in both states, show a similar, frustrating pattern among Democratic voters, and that is simply not turning out, even in the kind of numbers they now hold in voter registration in both states.  Val Demings was a top-tier candidate and I can't help but imagine how much different things would have been in Florida if she had been paired on the ballot with a candidate for governor who had similar charisma and ability to turn out voters.  

Likewise, no Texas Democrat has done for the party what Beto O'Rourke has achieved in two statewide elections.  But he was more or less alone at the top of the ticket, in terms of both charisma and name recognition.  Turnout among the Democratic party constituencies in Florida was well below even mid-term thresholds.  It was good in the strong Democratic counties in Texas, compared to the past, but the fact of the matter is that the minority constituencies of Democrats, especially Latinos, are not registering to vote in numbers that represent their percentage of the population.  In Texas, 40% of the population is Latino, and 40% is white, the difference being just one tenth of a percent between them.  But whites have a voter registration 16% higher than Latinos, and a turnout rate that is an additional 5% higher.  All of that has to change.  

As an Illinois Democrat, I chose, this time around, to give my meager political contributions to places where I thought it would do more good than here.  I deeply appreciate the job my Senator, Tammy Duckworth, has done, and I'm thrilled with Governor Pritzker's achievements and all that he has done.  But it was pretty clear, early on, that neither of them would be challenged in their re-election bids.  So I sent direct contributions to Tim Ryan, Cheri Beasley, John Fetterman and Katie Hobbs, and my regular monthly gift goes to the DNC's Congressional election fund.  That's an individual decision, but I think our party needs to think just a little but more out of the box about how it finances campaigns.  

We are Americans and even if our state isn't becoming fascist, we are all affected by this.  It must change, and we must be the ones who change it.  

The Governor of Texas Wants to Pardon Daniel Perry: Here's the Message That Action is Sending

Comments Made by Daniel Perry, Released by Travis County Judge 

It's been difficult to get a handle on this particular case based on the information that has come out during the trial of Daniel Perry in Austin, Texas, on murder charges.  Perry, a 33 year old, ex-army sergeant, was driving for Uber in downtown Austin when he encountered a protest against police brutality in the wake of the George Floyd murder.  He honked at the protesters, then drove his car into the crowd near 28 year old Garrett Foster, an Air Force veteran who was legally carrying an AK-47.  Perry, who was also armed, shot Foster and fled the scene, later calling police and claiming that Foster had threatened him with his weapon, leading to a self-defense shooting.  

The jury correctly perceived that Perry did not shoot in self defense, as he claimed, since he had been the aggressor, driving his car into the crowd.  Perry claimed that Foster had "raised his rifle" toward him, posing a legitimate threat under Texas's "stand your ground" law, permitting use of a firearm for self defense if there is perceived danger.  But the jury wasn't convinced, since witnesses said Foster didn't threaten with his weapon, and at any rate, Perry had just driven his car right into the protest, making him the aggressor. 

The Right Wing Politics of Racism is an Issue Here, Even Though the Victim was White 

Bringing in the racist texts and social media comments made by Perry in the past was part of the sentencing phase of the trial.  The defense, of course, is trying to prove that Perry, who also happens to be Jewish, is a good ole boy.  Texas can sentence someone to life in prison for murder, even at this level, where five years would be standard.  Not only do these comments put the potential sentence in perspective, and underline the fact that the jury got this right, it sure makes Abbott look bad.  He already had his mind made up, and wasn't going to change it.  

The governor has been siding with Perry and pushing for a pardon since this started, before the revelation of Perry's racist comments.  Why would a governor who had previously been the Attorney General, want to interfere with a jury trial and overturn the results of the rule of law?  I haven't observed much respect coming from Greg Abbott for the rule of law.  This is a repeat of the Kyle Rittenhouse farce, except this time, there wasn't any evidence that the victim threatened the shooter, who was using a car as a weapon along with his assault rifle.  Many of the protesters were African American, and it was being led by Black Lives Matter.  Of course Governor Abbott would side with a racist shooter aiming to take out protesters.  

Aside from the racism that is clearly a factor here, is the issue of the rule of law.  The jury did not find that the defendant met the burden of proof required for acting under Texas' "stand your ground" statute, a draconian law that permits armed civilians to commit murder if they can convince a court that they would have somehow been a victim if they hadn't taken the first shot.  The standards for proving this in Texas courts are very low.  A corroborating witness and a dead body within close proximity of where the shot was taken are just about all the proof Texans need to shoot anyone they want for any reason.  There are cases in Texas where stolen guns have been found on victim's bodies just to make the "stand your ground" defense work to perfection. 

A large crowd of Black Lives Matter protesters, on the streets of Austin, Texas, isn't Abbott's kind of political activity.  And I'd be willing to bet that's exactly why he's so hot to get a pardon for a deranged, gun-toting racist.  It appears that the prosecution and the judge, anticipating Abbott's unconscionable interference with the rule of law in getting around a jury verdict, are laying the groundwork to grab Perry on federal charges, and also to open the door to civil suits.  One of his posts mentions his family's wealth.  I say, go for it. 

An Enemy of the Constitution

If Abbott succeeds in following through with this pardon, it will be clear evidence of his complete lack of respect for the rule of law.  Trial by jury is one of the constitutional rights that supports the very foundational principles of this country.  I would suggest that the governor read some of the spewed vitriol coming from his fellow extremist conservatives over President Clinton's pardon of Susan McDougal, Patty Hearst, his brother Roger, and Henry Cisneros.  All of that rhetoric can be applied to his attempt to get Daniel Perry off the hook, and it makes him look worse than he thinks Clinton was.  

So the governor of Texas is standing against the United States Constitution.  

A Political Nod to White Supremacy 

The murder victim in this shooting episode was white.  So how is it that this could involve white supremacy?  

It was a Black Lives Matter protest.  That was what enraged Perry, enough to cause him to drive his car into the protesters, an act he intended to commit harm.  This recent action by the judge in the sentencing phase of the trial, releasing social media posts from Perry, which clearly indicate he was a racist, and which absolutely go to the motive of his actions.  He intended to hurt or murder someone in that protest, and Foster, carrying a weapon, gave him what he perceived to be his chance to get away with it.  

I do not believe there is any reasoning that justifies the governor of Texas considering a pardon for this man.  Abbott's extremism is outside the boundaries of both American values and common decency.  A life was taken in an indiscriminate shooting.  A jury of the perpetrator's peers has decided justice in his case, and the governor, an attorney and a former attorney general who should know better than to get involved in this, needs to leave it alone.  

And he has a chance to get out of what is a terrible political situation of his own creation, by acknowledging the man's bigotry as the motive for his crime, and backing away.  If he goes ahead with his plan, then he is complicit with the racism and white supremacy that was behind the whole incident.  

I lived in Texas for over 25 years, including during the time when Abbott was rising in power .  Texas hasn't had a governor who understood the role of government or who really represented all of the people since Ann Richards.  I have no expectations at all that this governor will ever do what's right in situations like this.  Frankly, I don't think he cares, since there's enough of the electorate in Texas that buys into extremist lies and conspiracy theories to get just enough votes for people like him to win elections.  Abbott doesn't have what it takes to make it on the national stage, but if he has an eye in that direction, incidents like this will come back to haunt him.  

Pardons Make it Possible for Some People to Live Above The Law; They Must Go, Along with "Executive Privilege" 

As a student of history, with a college degree in it, I understand the reasoning that brought about the power of the pardon.  Perfect justice isn't possible among imperfect human beings, especially after the experience most Americans had with the colonial justice system imposed in America to establish British rule in colonies where many of the settlers had ancestry in other countries besides England.  At the federal level Presidential pardon power, along with the requirement that the executive appoints, with legislative approval, the judges who run the system, is one of the checks and balances written into the constitution.  In most states, it is a similar check and balance on the power of state courts.   

It has also become, as time has passed, an increasingly political weapon.  Presidents of both political parties have used it, especially as they are leaving office, as a means of favor granting for benefactors, to make political statements about specific crimes or to right what they consider to be a "wrong" in their own mind.  The pardon, by state governors and by the President, is one of those checks and balances that has outlived its usefulness.  In a politically polarized atmosphere, it has become the means by which the enemies of the people can live above the law.  They, along with the ridiculous interpretation of "executive privilege" by the previous justice department, are due to be done away with.  

Two Americas: The Way Things Have Always Been

Before reading this, here's a warning.  I'm going to sound cynical, it's a rant, and I'm writing this mostly to process the thoughts and the feelings.  It's an opinion, an editorial, for the purpose of therapy.  So this would be the place to stop if that doesn't sound like the kind of mood in which to spend the rest of the evening.  Otherwise, read on and take note of the fact that there is a comment section, monitored by the author.  

We've just experienced marathon news cycle coverage of the indictment of a former President.  The guy is a criminal, was one before he ever ran and people knew it, was one during the whole corrupt four years he spend in office, and people knew it, and still is one and people know it.  If America were a nation of laws, and if there were justice, the man would have been sent to prison decades ago, the first time he cheated consumers out of their money on one of his fraud schemes, or failed to pay sub-contractors for the work they did on behalf of his company, or the first time he cheated on his taxes.  

He brags about this stuff, especially about all of the devious ways he has used to cheat the American people--yes, we are his victims and we are the ones he is cheating--out of taxes he owes.  He's proclaimed, loud and clear, that people who are honest, who legitimately pay taxes, are suckers.  They live in another world, in a different country, one where, if any one of us did the same thing, we would be swept up into the criminal justice system, prosecuted and be serving time before we could sort out the paperwork.  

But that is not the America in which he lives.  We seem to have an outsized fascination for characters like our former failed President, those kinds of people who are rich, and who have become such worldly and corrupt figures that they are almost like creatures in a fairy tale.  We are fascinated by the fact that people like him actually do exist, and they actually do get away with crimes and corruption that none of the rest of us would ever get away with.  

One of the most predictable things to ever happen in American politics happened last week.  The most corrupt, crooked man to ever be elected and serve in the White House was indicted for the first of multiple crimes committed against the American people, because the Constitution says that's who, in theory anyway, are the power behind the laws of the land.  He appeared somewhat intimidated, upset and looked perhaps a little frightened sitting there, through something that probably bored him to tears and to which he very likely didn't pay a whit of attention.  But those couple of hours in Manhattan dominated the news cycle and provided him with hours upon hours of free publicity and helped him raise $14 million for his campaign to be re-elected as President of the United States.  

Because he lives in a different America than the rest of us do. 

Oh, we heard about Jack Smith, and January 6th, and the document scandal in which this former President illegally, and perhaps seditiously or treasonously took for the purpose of expanding his bank account--because everything he ever does is aimed at that goal--and the phone call he made to the Georgia secretary of state to try to get him to corruptly alter vote totals, whether they were correct or not, and the plans he laid for fake electors to subvert the constitution and steal an election.  We heard about all of those pending indictments.  And he may actually be indicted for all of those things, or some of them, anyway. 

But if you seriously think that he will ever spend a moment of time in prison, or suffer a financial consequence, or actually experience a single consequence for any of those things, then I would like to talk to you about selling my beachfront property in Arizona, along with my yacht.  

There's still time for the delusion to continue.  But time, mountains of it, piles of it, months of it, years of it, has passed since these crimes were committed and he is still raising money, showing up on every possible media source, running for the Presidency and idiots and stupid people are supporting him while he is doing it, scraping up dollars from their hard-earned incomes to hand over to a billionaire.  And yes, doing that makes them stupid idiots.  He has more time than money, because, in the long run, even if there are indictments, nothing is ever going to happen to the man.  And you can take that to the bank.  

Is that cynical?  I don't think so, not in a country where worthless people with no redeeming social value earn millions by putting their worthless drama in the media so people can watch them contribute nothing worthwhile and make millions.  People will sacrifice their last dollar to keep up with the Kardashians, and they'll do the same for a corrupt billionaire who has no moral character to speak of, precisely because he's corrupt without moral character.  We want this "other America" to exist, so we can watch the drama created by these untouchable people who steal our justice from us, and experience none of their own. 

If that's not enough to support every word I've written here, then add to the mix the news that one of our Supreme Court justices has been treated to vacations worth ten times what he has ever earned as a Supreme Court justice by a billionaire political contributor and oh, by the way, he has gone to great lengths not only to hide this fact, but to absolutely lie about it.  Clarence Thomas has never camped out in a Wal Mart parking lot and if you believe that, go back to my statement about my Arizona beachfront sale.  This is a complete corruption of our justice system, a revelation which undermines every single Supreme Court case on which this justice has ever issued a ruling.  It makes me wonder if he has ever issued a ruling that someone didn't pay for.  

And I thought his wife's seditious undermining of democracy was his biggest problem.  

But the Thomases are fortunate that there are two Americas, and the price that has been paid for his position has made them part of the other America where there is a completely different definition of justice.  The only reason this incredibly corrupt activity has been revealed, by accident, is that there is nothing that will ever be done about it.  It is illegal, it is corrupt, it completely undermines a Supreme Court that was already suffering from the foundation of corruption that several other justices brought through the door.  But it all exists in the other America, so it will continue to exist.  No one who is in a position of power to call this out and do something about it will do anything about it.  

This is nothing new.  People of wealth, power and privilege have always had a way, in this country, to use their resources to live as they pleased, without submitting to the will of the people through the laws we've agreed to follow through our representative democracy.  There is a boundary line between the America those of us who are regular people, ordinary citizens, the "paycheck to paycheck" people who work for a living and try to think of ourselves as having a constitutionally guaranteed life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.  But this boundary, between two different Americas, is much stronger than the one that runs between the United States and Mexico.  It is a gulf that cannot be crossed.  We live under the law.  In the other America, they live as they please at our expense, without any law.  And we suffer for their corruption. 

Oh, how I want to hear someone say "no, you're wrong!"  "This is not the way it is!"  "We are a nation of laws and these lawbreakers will be brought to justice!"  

"Just be patient, this kind of thing takes time!"  

Yes, it does.  All the time in the world, in the other America.  All the time necessary for a corrupt ex-president to win re-election and then the other America destroys our America and we all live under fascist oppression.  Or die under it.  

OK.  Rant over........

Baptist News Global: Why Such a Need for Literalism?

 Rodney Kennedy: Why Such a Need for Literalism?

I saw this in  Baptist News Global which is an excellent site if you are looking for a solid, spirit-led approach to Christian faith and practice.  It resonated. I strongly recommend that you read the whole piece.  It won't take that long and he nails it.  

Arguments for living out a genuine Christian faith cannot begin with the assumption that the inspiration of the Bible's writers meant that God used their hands to write his word without filtering anything through their mind.  There is no place, not even the favorite prooftexts of those who make the claim, that the Bible's writers lay claim to infallibility, in the way that we define that term, or even inerrancy, as we define that term, and that it is meant to be interpreted literally, according to the context of our life, education, language and experience.  It is not a holy rule book set on the shelf, with select verses (divisions that are not part of the original text, by the way) in categories for dealing with human problems.  

As Kennedy says in this piece, literalism has led to "awful" ideas such as how immigrants should be treated, discrimination against women and minorities, insisting women can't be ordained as pastors (I read people who use the defense, "it says so in the Bible"), screaming about being "woke", which is a genuine awareness of the lack of equality and justice among minorities in a predominantly white society, Critical Race Theory, Replacement Theory, white supremacy, anti-science and in my opinion, the worst product of biblical literalism and of the merger of religious fundamentalism with right wing politics, white, Christian nationalism.  

Those who insist on literalism have, according to Kennedy, substituted a literal Bible for God, they have replaced God with words about God.  I know the church creeds by heart, that claim the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible are the "sole authority for the faith and practice of the church."  The Bible's writers don't make that claim, in fact, they provide ample instruction in faith and practice being directed as a work of the indwelling Holy Spirit.  The "sole authority" claim is a trademark of the conservative Evangelical war on the Catholic church, which includes church tradition and the papal succession as ecclesiastical authority.  

I also recommend Kennedy's book.  Check the link. 

The Immaculate Mistake

Moving Toward a Message That Motivates Voters

The 2022 midterm elections were a gift to the Democratic party.  I've never believed Republicans ever represented the mainstream of America, since I consider myself in the mainstream, and I have little in common with the GOP, less now than ever before.  But I think the narrative heading into 2024 is being written as we speak, and I think that there are some personalities within the Democratic party who are picking up the themes and crafting them into what I believe will be an overwhelming advantage for Democrats running for anything in 2024.  

This is my list of things that need to be in the narrative, so to speak, not necessarily prioritized, but which, by observing trends, polls, listening and reading, lead me to conclude that they are vote getters and winning issues.  Democrats always get accused of being too much on the side of policy, less on the side of feeling.  But these issues all seem to be producing a lot of feeling, and they're moving forward pretty rapidly.  

All Things Trump

This is the largest gift-wrapped package under the tree.  The presence of Donald J. Trump as a candidate for President is enough to tilt the Presidential election back to Biden by at least as much as he won the last time.  This time around, the independent voters have dwindled and melted away, below the 30% favorability threshold, and Republicans who are not likely to vote for the orange headed buffoon are in double digits.  If he manages to get all the way through the nomination process and into the election, I would find that very concerning, even more so that he would get votes.  But it won't be enough, not by a mile.  

An even better scenario would be that he gets the GOP nomination and then picks a raving lunatic nut job for a running mate out of those popular with his base.  Then, he winds up getting convicted of seditious conspiracy and is no longer eligible to run.  I don't think he's smart enough to pick a Republican who might actually be able to win.  He'll grab one of the extremists vying for his attention and really weaken the ticket.  

His 2016 win was an electoral college accident that won't be repeated.  Instead of focusing hours of news coverage on his orange head, focusing it on his lack of a comprehensive agenda of any kind will do the trick.  And while it may seem anecdotal, among the extremists I know who have been his biggest flag wavers, the enthusiasm is pretty low.  Maybe his supporters just naturally get beaten down by the atmosphere in a state like Illinois, but there's not nearly the kind of enthusiasm about him running as there has been the past two cycles.  

Tennessee is Providing a Gun-Control, Racism Double Punch

Another gift that has been given to Democrats by hard line Republicans aiming to control state legislatures without the constitutional protection provided for minority viewpoints has come through Tennessee.  In their zeal to smack down a couple of younger, African American legislators to show their own bigness, they made a gigantic mistake.  They gave them a national platform.  They also made themselves look a lot less potent than they intended.  Justin Jones was reinstated by the legislative body that had the authority to do so, unanimously, I might add.  It looks like Justin Pearson will also be reinstated.  

The attention that has been drawn to the Tennessee legislature, and its locked-down Republican majority has been damaging to the far right extremists who run it.  Several years ago, a political reporter for the Nashville daily newpaper, The Tennessean, said it would take a major political awakening in Tennessee among moderate to liberal voters who have been lulled into inaction by Republican dominance, to turn things around.  This looks very much like that's happening.  

There will be more interest from the far right in curbing unrestricted assault weapon acquisition with this particular shooting, which took place on their turf, in a conservative, Evangelical Christian school in an affluent, white neighborhood.  Democrats will, of course, be out in front on this issue, and may actually experience some success.  People are tired of school shootings committed by insane people with assault weapons.  The poll numbers are great for those who want to take action and put a stop to this madness.  That would be the Democrats, by the way.

We will see how tired they are of the same old white supremacy rearing its ugly head.  Every African American, Latino and Asian adult over 18 who lives in Tennessee should be registered to vote and ready to wait in line, along with whites who are tired of watching economic opportunity go elsewhere because the state's racism is so repulsive to businessmen and women of color.  Who in the world thought that it would be a good idea to expel three legislators for participating in a protest?  That was bad enough, but it really turned into a major mess when the one white legislator who was part of the protest was spared expulsion while the two youngest members of the legislature, who happened to be African American males, were kicked out.  I don't think the effect of that horrible move can be effectively measured in terms of political damage done to the GOP, especially in Tennessee, as a result of that mistake.  

The Dobbs Decision is the Gift that Keeps on Giving

Didn't we know that, in the wake of any court ruling that overturned either part or all of Roe v. Wade, there would be idiocy and stupidity on the right that would boggle the mind?  We did, but I don't think anyone really imagined that it would turn out to be as bad as it is.  In their zeal to force their will on everyone else, the right is simply helping to set the table for the return of Roe more quickly than they imagined it would happen if it ever were repealed. 

I concur with most of the commentators and pundits on the left, that the Dobbs decision was the single most important factor in turning back what could have been a disastrous mid-term election.  But the plunge into confusion and disarray (one of my favorite words) that has overtaken the Republican party in the aftermath of the election has turned into a political advantage that may only come around once in a century.  It's been heartwarming to see how Democratic politicians have responded to this.  The Republican party, the Republican-led Congress and the Supreme Court are all under water in a flood of political contempt.  

The polling data on this keeps widening as various legislatures do their thing.  I even have some good words to say about the media on this.  They were pointed to Idaho as an example of where the Dobbs decision and the overturning of Roe would be the most extreme, and do the most damage.  I think MSNBC got the ball rolling but other networks have followed up on the story.  Women in an entire state are losing access to maternity care, because their state legislature has been so extreme when it comes to the follow up on Roe.  What kind of political thinking leads to putting women at risk by making some of them drive up to six or seven hours to find a hospital that will treat them if they are pregnant?  

A Simple Message That Motivates Voters

Modern Presidential politics has come down to a numbers game.  Assess the situation, collect the money and put it in places where there's almost a guarantee of shoring up the numbers and preserving the status quo.  Win where it's a sure thing, minimize the risk in marginal elections and let the rest of it go.  And that is exactly why Democrats find themselves gerrymandered out of legislative control in states where they have a 50-50 split, or even a slight majority.

That's not good enough.  Red counties, or congressional districts, or legislative districts, also contain Democratic voters.  And they also have a number of adults who are eligible to vote but who don't register because of the apathy created by years of single party domination.  They may be sympathetic to Democrats, but they've become apathetic about voting.  Those people, along with independent voters, are the kind of people Democrats need to reach with what is clearly a successful and winning narrative involving the protection of individual rights guaranteed under the constitution.  

Tennessee has some of the lowest voter turnout in the nation.  It remains to be seen how these events, including the shock of a school shooting and the expulsion of two young black men from the legislature, will affect voters but in the few days since these things have transpired, it has put literally thousands of people in the streets of the Tennessee capital city, making their voices heard and their opinions known.  In the wake of the Dobbs decision, legislative houses in seven states flipped to the Democrats in a mid-term year when they are the party in power in the White House, an unheard-of occurrence.  

So the narrative works to motivate voters.  Now is the time to be smart, to take advantage of the gains, to keep this at the forefront of the news cycle, minimizing the "Trump did this or that today" message and emphasizing the fact that Democrats are fighting for individual rights.  Read some of the news stories coming out of Tennessee this week.  Democrats in the state are as energized and positive as they have been since the days of Al Gore.  The Republican governor, who, up to this point, has been one of the biggest obstacles to any kind of movement on gun control, is sending signals that show the pressure has been turned up and he is worried that the party's control may be in danger.  

Let's keep it simple, Democrats.  Take advantage of every gift, especially as indictments come down on Trump.  The 2024 election season is shaping up to be the party's best moment of the new century.  Be generous with financial support and vote in every election.  

 

Answering a Few Questions on the Third Anniversary of The Signal Press

Wednesday, April 13 will be the third anniversary of the Signal Press.  The product of an educator who also happens to be an amateur journalist with some professional reporting and editorial experience, my intention was to bring ideas to religious and political discussions, where those intersections occur, from a much different perspective than they usually come from, that of a Christian who is a self-identified progressive Democrat who has concluded that joining the Democratic party was the only consistent political expression with my Christian faith.  From the email responses I get, and some of the comments that I get, I will say that I have succeeded in doing what I intended to do.  

Being connected to other blogs, including links to several similar, like-minded political or Christian, or both, sites has helped boost the readership as much as, I hope, the content has done.  The counter says that 31,772 readers have hit this site this year so far, a number almost equal to the first two years of its existence.  I can tell, from emails I get, that some conservatives read it, and I hope that it causes them to think things through when they do.  A few responses I've received indicate that might be the case.  I also get responses from like-minded individuals who point things out I might not have mentioned, or taken into consideration, or didn't think about when I was writing.  I appreciate those, too, it makes me a better writer.  

As a way of marking this third anniversary of The Signal Press, I've pulled out a few of the most common questions I get, and the answer that I gave in response.  Perhaps that will help define my mission and purpose here a little better.  

How can you reconcile your Christian beliefs with your political perspective?  There are some things that go hand in hand with conservative religious convictions and conservative politics, so how do you reconcile the two?  

The very core of the Christian gospel is the belief that God created human beings in his own image.  The writers of the four gospel accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus capture this belief in recording his words.  In the narrative known as the Sermon on the Mount, which is likely a collection of multiple messages taught by Jesus, he defines this freedom in spiritual terms.  He doesn't lay out a system of following rules in exchange for blessings, he describes the practice of virtues that are character traits which have inherent value because of the way they touch the lives of other people.  

According to Jesus, humans have a free will choice to make a spiritual covenant with God through what we call conversion, or salvation, which brings freedom from the sin that separates us from God  When humans use their free will to respond to spiritual conviction, they are empowered to live a life that exhibits these spiritually-generated values, things that Matthew outlines in his gospel, Chapter 5:3-11.  For me, personally, the way I choose to express my Christian faith is similar to Quakerism, which places a high priority on the reliable and trustworthy living according to a set of specifically identified values, including simplicity, peace, integrity, community, equality and stewardship.  Being Christian is more about living by its values than pointing out where other people fall short. 

Jesus made it pretty clear that the way Christians treat other people, which he defined as "loving your neighbor as yourself," was, next to honoring and worshipping God, the single most important identifying characteristic of his followers.  He clarified exactly what he meant by "neighbor" in a parable, in which the character who set the right example and did the right thing was part of a minority religious, ethnic and social minority despised by the Jewish establishment.  

And I find that this is far more compatible politically with a partisan perspective that values individual freedom of conscience and which creates an atmosphere in which people can follow their own convictions and make their own choices within the broader scope of what has been agreed on when it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  A law can restrict or direct behavior, but it cannot enforce integrity or stewardship or peace or produce actions motivated by love.  Christian theology is very clear in connecting morality to individual choice motivated by the spiritual freedom experienced through genuine Christian conversion.  It loses its spiritual character and quality when it is enforced by law and is not a real choice.  

America's founders did not create a nation for the purpose of enforcing Christian moral principles by law. They created a nation for the purpose of giving all people, including Christians, the freedom to live according to their own conscience and by their own beliefs and values.  James Madison, one of the primary authors of the constitution, observed that making any branch of Christianity a "state church" hindered its progress, and that setting it free from the control, regulation, and political manipulation of the state was for its own benefit, enabling it to function as an independent, free church in a free state. 

My Christian faith, expressed through living out its values, is very consistent with my belief in individual liberty that is a core Democratic party value.  So a political position that supports the constitutional democracy under which we live, and defines the moral parameters which guarantee life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is one that is consistent with my Christian faith.  Democrats are committed to preserving and protecting democracy, which supports individual rights and that is to the benefit of American Christianity, which has no restrictions placed on its freedom anywhere, for any reason.  

It is a fallacy to equate conservative Christianity with conservative politics.  The two things aren't the same, though I would have to say, at this point, that my Christianity defies being defined by any adjective.  It is also a fallacy to claim that conservative politics are informed and driven by conservative Christianity.  The religious beliefs that currently drive conservative politics, including "Christian" nationalism, along with the mix of false conspiracy theories, are not Christian, by their doctrine, theology or practice.  

"Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit," said the Apostle Paul, " but in humility regard others as better than yourselves.  Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others."  Philippians 2:3-4, NRSV  

How can you call yourself a Christian, but support politicians who are "baby killers" and who give sexual deviants and perverts the opportunity to spread their lies?  

I don't support "baby killers" and I don't support sexual deviants and perverts.  

First of all, making politicians who support abortion rights for women responsible for the decisions made by those women who seek an abortion by calling them "baby killers" is no different than holding politicians who refuse to pass meaningful and effective gun control accountable for every death in a school shooting, and calling them "child killers."  The American Constitution protects individual rights and makes individuals accountable for their own decisions.  So does the Bible.  

The constitution guarantees the religious liberty of every American, including liberty from being required to practice any kind of religion, or to follow any religious creed, doctrine or theology in order to enjoy any benefit of being an American.  That means that I can believe that the Bible provides support for the belief that life begins at conception.  It also means that, even though I may believe that, I do not have the right to impose that belief on someone who believes differently, and it also means that lawmakers, responsible to the people who elect them, also do not have the ability to use government to impose what is an inherently religious belief.  

The same constitution gives every Christian the right and the freedom to spread their own faith and convictions.  If conversion is the answer to the world's problems, then you have the right to preach your message and work toward converting as many people as will willingly listen and respond to it.  Someone else might think you're just spreading your own lies, and they have the right, in this country, to think that.  But they don't have the right to stop you from living according to your conscience and speaking about it.  You have that right because those who hold a different religious belief, or who do not have a religious belief, also have the same right when it comes to their conscience.  

I consider myself educated and informed.  If I'm being honest, then I must admit that I don't really understand all that is involved with sexual orientation or gender identity.  I know that being gay or lesbian or transgender doesn't mean those persons are sexual perverts or deviants and that few, if any, gay, lesbian or transgendered persons would accept that this is a choice they have made.  Regardless of what you, or I, believe our Christian faith teaches us about this issue, it is irrelevant when it comes to the rights of persons in this country who are lesbian, gay or transgender, because they, like us, can live according to their own conscience which does not have to conform to any religious doctrine or theology.  And their choosing to do so neither, as Thomas Jefferson said, "break my leg nor picks my pocket."  

I would be in favor of government, at the local, state and national level, working to find real solutions to the underlying problems that cause most women to choose an abortion over giving birth, other than the medical complications of a pregnancy, which are personal decisions belonging to the women and their doctors.  We have seen abortion numbers in this country decline, during both the Clinton and Obama administrations, because there were some programs in place that helped alleviate the poverty and hopelessness that are the major cause of abortion choices beyond medical necessity.  When education is available that simply informs young people how pregnancy occurs and how to prevent it, the abortion numbers go down significantly.  

According to the Christian gospel, supported by the Bible's writers, it is not our responsibility or business to judge the spiritual character of anyone else, but only that of ourselves.  We are not perfect, and we live in an imperfect world.  We are accountable for ourselves before a holy God.  We are taught, by at least two of the apostles, and by Christ himself, not to judge others because we are imperfect and subject to judgment ourselves.  Fighting a culture war with these issues at the very front of the battle not only diminishes the effectiveness of the Christian witness and testimony, but it fights against the equality that is a core value of American demoecracy.  

I'd just like to know how it is possible for you to be a free thinker, well educated and observant, and still believe in the Bible, and in the existence of God, which can't be scientifically proven.  

That's a fair question. 

Much of that has to do with the way I was raised, though both of my parents were raised in churches that they left, and did not return until shortly after I was born.  When they did go back, they rejected the superstitions and the "folk religion" that describes what they had been raised in, and chose a Baptist church with a succession of pastors who believed in soul freedom, a core Baptist principle, the belief that one must, as the scripture says in Philippians 2:12, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."  

Neither my parents, nor our pastors, nor my Sunday school teachers and other church leaders ever taught faith by obligation and coercion.  They lived what they taught, by choice, made mistakes, acknowledged them, sought forgiveness, and didn't dwell on them.  I saw something in their lives that gave them joy and a sense of real peace.  Maybe there are those who will say that's just what they were used to, what they were raised with so they attributed it to God and the indwelling presence of his Holy Spirit.  But it was a faith which, in practice, involved much more living by a set of values than it did doing a lot of talking about it without backing it up the words.  

Is that proof of the existence of God?  Is it that the existence of God can't be scientifically proven, or that science has not yet conclusively proven that God does not exist and that is something it will never prove?  

It was during college, at a Baptist-related university, that I began to read and follow a group of pastors within the Southern Baptist Convention who really centered on the "four freedoms" which they believed were supported by the core teaching of the New Testament.  You can google Walter Shurden's book, The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms, and get a good idea of this particular theological principle.  It's in that particular theological "camp" where my beliefs are centered.  

My faith is also heavily influenced by several Quaker writers and teachers, whose theology and faith practice run in a very similar vein.  Phillip Gulley, a Quaker minister, wrote a book more than a decade ago with the title, If the Church Were Christian:  Rediscovering the Values of Jesus, which still sits on my bookshelf as a reference for my writing and speaking engagements.  Quakers see God as an inner light, "that of God in everybody," and believe we are guided by this inner light which manifests itself in our lives as a set of values.  There are people who live their lives in such a way that makes it difficult to deny the existence of God as the spirit guiding their conscience.  

The values of the faith give it meaning and purpose.  And I do believe that there is the spirit of God behind it, a spirit who has inspired people, at different points of human history, to point the world back toward how humans are capable of living, as intelligent beings with a free will, on this planet and in the universe.  I don't think the purpose of Jesus, in the gospel narrative that he initiated and inspired, intended to have that used as a wedge to divide, or a standard by which to judge.  I think, as he said, and his disciple, later Apostle John, recorded, "I have not come to condemn the world, but to save it."  

So yes, I do believe God exists, and that Jesus fulfilled his divine purpose as the Christ.  You can call that religious superstition or presupposition based on my upbringing.  I call it faith.  

So, exactly what is it that you're trying to do here? 

I'm trying to point out, with plenty of evidence and a heavy dose of opinion, that the right turn taken by some branches of American politics is based on modern philosophy aimed at separating us from the idealism that our founding fathers put in place when they started this experiment in democracy.  They showed the world that this works, that people live up to the best expectations when they have the freedom to determine the course of their own life, and that peace and prosperity exist side by side with pure democracy and freedom of conscience.  

The old world ideas, that "nations" are put together and held together by common ancestry and culture, were shattered by America, where people from everywhere came together and put in place the potential to create the most diverse society in the world.  It is a place where, if you believe in God and have some theological perspective, the way he intended the world to be.  And if you're not there, then the use of the intelligence and reasoning capacity we have should inspire us to higher standards.  We've shown the world how a constitutional democracy works, and it's caught on.  Not everywhere, but in enough places that there's a chance we can share this planet without allowing personal ambition to destroy it.  

If this country is ever to live up to its potential, we need to make the democracy work as well as we can.  That means living according to values that take us to a higher standard than selfishness would achieve.  So I'm trying to promote the values and inspire the readers and encourage participation and get people to vote so that we can continue to exist as a free country where individual liberty is always an ideal to achieve.  

That's what I'm trying to do.  So thanks for reading long enough to ask the question. 

Here's a great post I'd love to share with you. 

Robert Kennedy, Baptist News Global: Why Such a Need for Literalism?