Adam Kinzinger Gets This Right: Christians Who Support Trump Don't Understand Their Own Faith

Kinzinger: Christians Who Support Trump Don't Understand Their Own Religion

"I'm going to go out on a NOT limb here:  this man is not a Christian," said former Illinois Representative Adam Kinzinger in a social media post on Sunday, December 23.  Kinzinger added, "If you are a Christian who supports him, you don't understand your own religion."  That's in response to a Truth Social post from Trump.

When Republicans Get Things Right 

The old saying, "even a broken clock is right twice a day," is a good description of how I feel about Republican politics, and politicians.  The attraction between Republican politics and Evangelical doctrine and practice is easy enough to see.  Both are systems which promote a privileged class of people benefitting from the power that comes from the collective group and its resources.  Both run by oligarchy rather than on any democratic principle, which is just formality, not authoritative.

Adam Kinzinger grew up in an Evangelical church, Baptist by denominational affiliation, and is currently involved in a conservative, non-denominational Evangelical church, which explains his affinity to Republicanism.  However, there are places in Kinzinger's more moderate practice of Republicanism that indicate the effect of a more Biblical, less politically-oriented practice of Christian faith, in his case, than that which is visible in the heretical form of Evangelicalism, blended with right wing extremist politics, which we see dominating the GOP.  

Kinzinger says that he voted for Trump's impeachment because of his own faith convictions, something which resonates with my own Christian convictions, based on an orthodox interpretation of the Bible, not on the faddish trendiness of modern megachurch celebrity preachers.  It cost him his seat in Congress, and it opened him up to attacks from the likes of self-appointed Evangelical "leaders" like Franklin Graham, who's more a worshipper of prosperity than a believer in Christ.  He was the recipient of a very un-Christian attack on his own character from members of his own family.  In spite of sticking to some Republican political positions, that, along with his service on the congressional committee that investigated Trump's insurrection crimes, gives him some credibility.  

"This Man is Not a Christian" 

Jesus himself is recorded as saying that those who believe in and follow the Christian gospel are not to judge others, an admonition found in Matthew's gospel, chapter 7 verses 1 through 3.  But there's a difference between taking something someone says at face value, and comparing it to the lifestyle they want to promote for themselves, and judging them.  Saying that Trump is not a Christian is merely pointing out the obvious, which includes Trump's own words on the subject.  

Evangelical teaching is very clear in defining the term "Christian" as one who has experienced what they call "salvation" or having had a conversion experience that includes mandatory elements derived from both the words of Christ himself, and those of his apostles.  The elements of conversion to Christianity include having experienced a spiritual conviction of one's own sinful nature, as compared to the nature of God, and a desire for repentance, or turning away from this sinful nature.  Acknowledging that belief in the sinless life of Christ, in what he lived and taught, and turning to him by convicting belief, as opposed to mere intellectual assertion, in the sacrifice for human sin he made oby being crucified, and in his divine nature as the Son of God, signified by his resurrection from the dead, are all specific elements of conversion which, according to Evangelical doctrine and theology, brings forgiveness from sin by God himself, and makes one a "Christian." 

The lifestyle that accompanies this confession and conversion is expected to follow the example set by Jesus and taught by the apostles in the New Testament, as the new covenant, or Christian gospel, and includes virtues and values that are defined and explained in multiple places, starting with Christ's Sermon on the Mount, found in Matthew chapters 5-7, and beginning with the Beatitudes of Matthew 5:3-11.  Conversion occurs in multiple circumstances, so those who have experienced it do not always have the advantage of being around people who can guide them in their faith, that's what the church is supposed to do.  

Trump says he's "Christian," and is clear that's in the traditional sense of the term, in that he has some connection to a Protestant church somewhere in his past.  However, on more than one very public occasion, in the presence of so-called Evangelical leaders, Jerry Falwell Jr., Robert Jeffress, pastor of Dallas First Baptist Church, and Franklin Graham, he has dodged the conversion question, claiming he has "his own belief in God," and that he has not done anything which requires forgiveness.  That, along with the lifestyle he continues to lead and the image he continues to promote, is easy to interpret as not being Christian, at least, not by the Evangelical definition of the term.  

And that, very naturally and logically leads to the question of why those who claim that this is the center of their own life would ever support, endorse, or approve of someone who lives that way as a leader, whether it's in their church or in their country.  That's not judgmental, that's simply a reasonable conclusion based on fact, including on the words of Trump himself.  

Given the evidence presented during the congressional hearings, which Kinzinger helped by providing bi-partisan leadership, he arrived at the only conclusion that he could have in following his own conscience, governed by his faith, and that was that Donald Trump was worthy of impeachment and removal from the Presidency.  That is the ONLY decision that any Evangelical Christian, whose consicence is governed by their faith, could determine and still remain true to their beliefs.  

If Someone Tells You Something About Themselves, and What They Will Do, Believe Them 

It's blasphemy to attribute the rise of a demagogue as a leader, which is an exact description of Donald Trump, and call that demagogue "God's man."  None of the men who were called to be leaders in the Old Testament accounts of theocratic Israel were perfect.  But none of those who the accounts in Kings and Chronicles describe as "doing evil in the sight of the Lord," ever came to anything except judgment.  

And while there are two Apostles, writing in the New Testament about governing authorities having their power due to God's allowance, and instructing Christians to acknowledge this authority and give it respect, there is no place at all where Christians are instructed to give their loyalty and allegiance to governing authorities over that of Christ, nor is there any distinguishing between governing authorities based on their political posture.  Applying those passages to our current political system and government means that Christians should give the governing authorities the respect they are due for their position, whether they are Democratic party, Republican Party, independent or Hottentot.  

And under no circumstances will God ever ask Christians, who believe in him, to be loyal and give allegiance to an adulterous, lying deceiver who denies that he needs God's forgiveness and who makes up his own religion rather than acknowledging God's power and authority over him.  Ever.  

Pay close attention to what comes out of Trump's mouth this time around.  What he is claiming are his plans for a second term in the White House are anti-Christian, and you can find the definition of that term in I John 4:1-3 and 2 John 7.  So is the white supremacy, Christian nationalism, Seven Mountains Dominionism, and other heresies whose followers see Trump as God's man.  That should be a warning for any Christian who understands and believes the gospel of Christ in the New Testament by conviction not to support, or vote for, Trump.  

So thank you, Representative Kinzinger, for being true to your faith, and for putting country over party.  It's tragic that there are so few Republicans who at least get this right.

Evangelical Apostasy is a Big Danger to American Democracy

Baptist News Global: "What the Hell is Wrong With These People? 

What's wrong is a relatively easy question to answer, but a difficult problem to solve.  

I grew up in an Evangelical church, and denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, and got my B.A. and one of my Master's degrees from universities affiliated with the denomination, so what I'm saying here is based on experience and observation.  The cultural factors that have produced the theology and doctrine of what we label as "Conservative Evangelicalism" have also produced the kind of fantasy imagery that has elevated Trump to what some people now call, in jest, the "Orange Jesus."  

The Southern Baptist Convention is the surviving heir to the Confederate States of America.  Along with the home-grown collection of Pentecostal and Charismatic churches and clusters of denominations that make up most of what we call American Evangelicalism, are tendencies and patterns of belief that have helped to create what we know as the Trump cult.  Their theology and doctrine is not historic or traditional in any sense, in fact, it is quite the opposite of that.  It emerged from the American frontier, and from more remote and isolated communities where it was virtually impossible to get educated pastors for churches.  

Theology and Doctrine Which Contributes to Evangelical "Apostasy" 

In spite of believing in some absolutes which would seem to lead people in the opposite direction of the kind of sinful worldliness that characterizes Trump's lifestyle and is his personal trademark, behavior which at least one Apostle labels as "anti-Christ," conservative Christians gravitate toward that kind of personality in the leaders they choose for their churches.  

Southern Baptists have designed a denominational structure that allows strong, forceful personalities, the kind of people who seek power and use leadership to build their own personal kingdoms, to run the show and bypass the few democratic rules and structures they have in place.  Over the past 30 years, almost all denominational practice and policy has been shaped by the influence of two men, one the President of a small, broken down Bible college in Dallas, the other a Republican political operative and appeals court judge in Houston.  These men pointed to supposed "liberals" in the universities and seminaries, and convinced the uninformed and uneducated people in the pews to use the backward, provincial governing structure of the SBC to appoint trustee boards to fire people they claimed were liberal and to feather their own nests, along with those of their friends.  

That, along with the increasing alignment of the Southern Baptist Convention to Republican party politics has brought about a 20% decline in church attendance and membership over the past decade.  

The kind of duplicity and hypocrisy this generates is visible in everything these people do.  They take a hard line against adultery, but cheer and give unconditioned loyalty to a man who has claimed to have had affairs with literally hundreds of women, at times to openly humiliate one of the three women he's been married to in public, and who not only has not repented of it, as orthodox, conservative Christian doctrine requires, but has openly claimed he has done nothing requiring repentance.  

And politics and political affiliation has a lot to do with the standards that are applied.  Former President Bill Clinton does not get the same consideration, even though he has repented and acknowledged his need for repentance.  Baptist News Global has a good story on what's been going on with Clinton's former church in Little Rock, which you can read Hypocrisy Among Baptists Affected by Politics.

"God Sometimes Uses Evil People to Achieve His Purposes"  

Well, depending on how wide open the interpretation of the Bible can get, there's a case that can be made for this argument, except, of course, when the outcome doesn't suit the purpose of the individual who is making the interpretation.  This is where hypocrisy happens big time.  

Note that none of the arguments used to justify support for an adulterous, womanizing, lying, deceitful, cheating fraud who happens to be a Republican apply to a Democrat who was criticized for many of the same things.  So in this particular interpretation, God uses evil people to achieve his purpose if the evil person is Republican, but not if the person is Democrat.  

But beyond that, there's not any place in the Bible, even reaching deep into the Old Testament to find those examples of evil people God used to collectively punish Israel for its sins, where God required his people to also give their loyalty and support to the evil person.  It should be noted, these are examples from history, and the "evil" people were generally in the form of attacks from surrounding enemies designed to focus the attention of the Israelites on their own sinfulness or to get them to depend on God.  In many cases, rather than an actual historical record, the story featuring the evil leader isn't necessarily a historical account, but is a parable for the purpose of illustration.  

And then there's the argument that God still used David as a king, even though he wasn't perfect.  There's no doubt that David was King, and no doubt that he wasn't perfect, though it is difficult to say how historical all of the accounts are regarding his reign.  But there's nothing in that statement that supports God "using" any American President, or excluding any American President for that matter, based on that example.  Once again, stories about King David were primarily illustrations, designed to help cope with being a people in Babylon in exile.  They're not applicable to modern politics. And the places where the New Testament talks about governing authorities do not distinguish between specific political parties or political ideologies or worldviews from modern times.  They simply require Christians to respect all governing authorities as being under God's authority and to pray for their well-being, success and prosperity. 

But, for people who hear interpretations of Bible passages always literally applied and always tying everything to some specific example, without any consideration of the Biblical context, this is, quite literally, the gospel.  Arguing for a better interpretation of scripture only gets criticized as liberalism, the all-purpose evil that can be used for proof of anything.  Support for Republican politicians and politics has been a doctrinal and theological point for some conservative, fundamentalist Evangelicals for a long time.  It has never mattered that the President at the top of the ticket was a new ager, like Reagan, a liberal Episcopalian like George H.W. Bush, a liberal Methodist like George W. Bush, a Mormon like Romney or a worldly, womanizing heathen like Trump. 

An Abandonment of Spiritual Power for Political Power to Get Things Done

All of this rhetoric serves the purpose of confusing spiritual power with political power.  If it's all under the umbrella of "the will of God," then abandoning principle and doctrine in favor of pragmatic outcomes is just fine.  Immorality becomes irrelevant.  Leaders are not required to understand or lay claim to a Christian "conversion experience" to be leaders, it's the results they get, mainly empowering the politics of far-right wing conservatives, that make them leaders.  

Nor does the governing structure matter much, either.  Churches and denominations are not democracies, they are oligarchies and confederacies designed to provide a privileged few with their own perks, benefits and ability to establish their own personal kingdoms that everyone else supports and defends.  Do you see why that fits so well with the Trump cult?  This is pseudo-Christianity that has destroyed much of American Christianity and is aiming to destroy American constutitional democracy and the rights of individual Americans.  

Thankfully, there are voices coming from inside this movement that are helping to undermine the politics with as little further colateral damage to the faith as possible.  It's likely that many of the churches and denominations that have fallen victim to this temptation to political power will not survive, and that may be a good thing.  The third temptation offered to Christ was the same kind of worldly power and when he turned that down, it made the formation of the Christian gospel and the church possible.  

It is now sorely in need of a restoration. 

Trump has Nothing To Offer, According to One of his Iowa Supporters

Interview with Iowa Trumpie 

Richard Ojeda, a military veteran, former member of the West Virginia Senate and former candidate for the United States Senate, is one of the most common sense politicians I've ever heard from the state of West Virginia.  He does a great job of commentary on the linked interview of a Trump supporter interviewed prior to attending a rally in Iowa.  I honestly don't know if they pre-selected this person from among several interviews, or whether this just happened randomly, but they could not have picked someone better to characterize exactly what a Trumpie looks and sounds like when trying to answer questions of a political nature.  

If that interview had been a high school civics test, she'd have earned an F, since she was unable to answer any of the questions with an actual fact.  In fact, even with regard to the political position of her favored candidate, she was unable to actually answer a question about his position, or what he had done.  She was unable to articulate a single fact or identify a source of facts during the entire interview.  

She did an outstanding job of making a case for voters to support Joe Biden.  

President Obama is Secretly Running the Country

Perhaps this explains why Trump seems to forget who he is actually running against, or the fact that he never did actually run against Obama, but keeps mentioning him in his speeches as if he ran against him and won in 2016, and is running against him now.  I must admit, I've heard some crazy things from Trumpies (my personal nickname for his supporters) before, but this is a new one.  

I will say this--if President Obama is secretly running the country, he's doing a fantastic job, even better than he did when he was actually the President.  

I guess she hasn't noticed Trump having to be helped on and off stage, either by one of his sons, or by one of his aides.  

So, What Exactly is the Problem with President Biden? 

Asked several different times in several different ways, the only thing she could come up with was an accusation against Democrats in general, ruining the country with Communism, but socialism first.  And when she couldn't come up with an example of socialism that was ruining the country, she shifted over to the "two million" illegal immigrants in the country that "nobody knows about."  The interviewer didn't ask, but I'd like to know how she knows about them.  Where'd she get that number?  And how do we know if there are two million if nobody actually knows they're here?  

Aside from that, she couldn't come up with anything.  And she couldn't come up with any reason to support Trump, either,  But, "God bless him, we need you," was what she said she'd say if she had the chance to talk to him.  

Can it be That Bad?  In This Country?  In the Twenty-First Century? 

Did you notice, in the background, the appearance of the people who were gathering for this particular Trump rally?  Not in the kind of numbers he likes to brag about, obviously, but this must have been way out in the sticks in Iowa somewhere, to get even that many people together who all look like, as Ojeda suggests, they came out of the movie "Deliverance."  Hillary Clinton's term "deplorables" came to my mind.  

This is what we are up against, and why our constitutional democracy is in danger.  

In a country with the kind of resources we have, the fact that people like this exist, walk around and enjoy the freedom that they have is a miracle, because their presence is an indictment on the effectiveness of our educational system.  I'm sure that Ojeda sees this around him in West Virginia, and that makes him an expert in the "deliverance culture" so he can certainly identify and address the problem.  But the bigger issue is how in the world is it possible to talk with these people reasonably?  They not only are not educated, but have no respect for education, are unable to recognize facts and so, are vulnerable to any kind of scam that comes along.  

Trump, from his life's experience in business, is a master scammer.  Listening to this woman in the interview makes it easy to understand why some people are taken in.  She is almost completely unaware of the reality of American politics, and her field of awareness and understanding is very limited.  As she says, she's not very articulate, which is the result of not being very knowledgeable, and running more on feelings than facts.  Avoidance is her defense mechanism, moving the conversation away from uncomfortable reality.  

It is this bad.  There are millions just like her.  Fortunately, there are more people who have a better grasp of reality.  Her conclusion, that Trump offers nothing, but she's going to vote for him anyway, says it all.   

Chris Hayes: Democrats Overperforming in Elections is "Real" as Opposed to Polling Data

All In with Chris Hayes

A Referendum on the Job Approval of the Biden Administration

"The 2022 midterm elections will be a referendum on the performance of the Biden Administration." 

That's a quote that could be attributed to any of fifty news commentators on virtually any network or news source prior to the big red wave that was coming, to sweep Republicans back in power because people, well, people just weren't all that enthused about the Presidency of Joe Biden.  Generally, if I watch network or cable news, it tends to be MSNBC, so they were saying it less frequently than the Fox news commentators, but there's no mistaking their certainty that even though the President is not on the midterm ballot, his job performance would be.  

By the time the midterm elections rolled around, the composite polling data was measuring his job approval level at 42%. Yes, indeed they were,  And so, coupled with the doom and gloom of the fact that the party in power always loses seats in Congress during a midterm, it was pretty clear that the red tsunami, a term that conservative news was using, was going to shift around 40 or 50 house seats and sweep Mitch McConnell right back into the senate majority leader office.  And in spite of the polls "tightening" right before the election, as they always do, the term "red wave" was still being used right up to the time election results started coming in.  

Oops. 

Both "red wave" and "referendum on the Biden administration's job performance" disappeared from the news narrative that same evening, except on MSNBC, whose commentators continued to refer to the results as a referendum, staggering in its failure to conform to previous midterm election results for the party in power, but a referendum, nonetheless, on what was an outstanding performance of a Presidential administration.  

It was a night of Blue bombshells, among them the sweep, by Democrats, of statewide offices in Arizona, including a dramatic shift to a Democrat in the governor's mansion, the return of a Democrat to Pennsylvania's governor's mansion after a two-term Democrat was term limited, the flipping of Pennsylvania's Republican senate seat and the re-election of Raphael Warnock to Georgia's Senate seat which held the Senate majority for Democrats.

Polls Try to Predict the Results, but Elections are Real Results  

Not long after that, we were back to doom and gloom, a dropping job approval rating, though it has been somewhere between 42% and 48% depending on which pollster you use on whatever day you choose, and more signs that the Biden administration just wasn't cutting it with voters.  As the election draws closer, and decisions were made regarding candidates planning to run, in October, polling data that showed the President with a comfortable lead over his Republican rivals suddenly, and inexplicably, shifted.  

I will note that there has been a shift in the composite polling average which is comprised of a multitude of polls, more now than there were in 2016 or 2020.  Some of them show very little change over the course of a long period of time, while a trend sort of developed after a New York Times/Siena College poll shockingly reported that Trump had taken a small, within the margin of error lead, over the President.  The Times was one of the "red wave" alarmists among the media, right up to within a week of the mid-term elections (late October, according to what they still have archived on their website).  

I always watch MSNBC's election coverage.  They do a much better job of analysis and explaining than any of the other networks do.  Their reassurances were comforting, noting that mountains of mail-in ballots were being counted with a substantial number of Democratic votes in several battleground states and to be patient, wait, and Joe Biden would eventually be known as the winner of the election.  They explained exactly how the count would go in places like Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Nevada, and were very confident in their predictions.  And they were right. 

So when Chris Hayes did some research into election results, following yet another gloriously successful night of off-year elections that defied the doom and gloom of most media pundits who more than likely knew how things would turn out but weren't willing to concede yet another cluster of referendum elections on the Biden Administration's job performance, he found some interesting facts.  Hayes discovered that not only have Democrats defied prior trends after a sucessful Presidential election, but in this most recent string of special elections and off-year elections, they are overperforming their baseline by 11 percentage points.  That is, according to Hayes and his research, significant.  

So are we looking at a referendum on the Biden administration that goes against the polling data, or should I say, against the conclusions of the pollsters?  As Hayes suggests, polls are theoretical guesses, elections are the real results.  

Why is there Such Incongruity Between Polls and Election Results? 

Presidential campaigns over the past decade or so have gone on a lot longer than in the past.  As soon as one election ends, it seems like campaigning starts for the next, a gift, at least in part, of the 24 hour, round the clock news channels, podcasts and sensational media.  It's too early to gauge public opinion nine months before the major parties have their nominating conventions.  And we know that a lot of "fake polling" has been fed into the composite data, on purpose.  

Methods of gathering data are also suspect.  The Gallup organization, a well-respected and generally accurate, long-term polling group, has said that electronic technology, especially the rapid advance of cell phones, combined with the high number of people, mostly under 40, who no longer even have a land-line telephone, greatly complicates gathering "random"  samples and collecting data, and skewing results.  They have expanded their margins of error, and increased the number of actual responses in collecting data to try and improve their accuracy.  They claim they have resisted adding this to a list of factors considered in analyzing results.  They do a wide variety of research on multiple topics, not just politics, which helps them identify trends over time.  But their explanation may be the best one we have as to why polls and elections are not squaring up as accurately as they once did.  

And as Chris Hayes, and his colleagues who have been involved directly in White House administrations, Nicole Wallace and Jen Psaki suggest, there are other factors to look at when considering the job approval and re-election chances of a sitting President.  That would include the number of individuals committed to supporting him with their cash.  It's hard to argue that there's been a high level of concern among Democrats about the President's age and viability as a candidate when money for his campaign is hitting record highs so early in the campaign, and when the number of individual contributors is reaching levels above where they were prior to the 2020 election.  

People may say they wish someone younger would run, but in reality, their money is telling us what they're going to do when they cast their ballot.  That's happening, while his likely Republican opponent is reduced to raising money by whining about 92 indictments he is facing on serious insurrection, fraud and theft of classified documents charges. 

There are also multiple other options right now.  The nomination process is just beginning.  The Biden campaign won't really get into full action mode until after the beginning of the year, and they are using a sound strategy combining their pointed advertising, much of which is reaching into electronic media, and a ground game to activate voters and get them to the polls.  A couple of the big pollsters have actually admitted that they were off because they significantly underestimated the number of "likely voters" among Democratic party constituencies in 2022, most notably Millennial generation voters. 

So Will These Trends Continue into the 2024 Election?

I can't remember who it was who said it, but I remember, back during the Reagan administration, hearing a pundit or commentator say that "Public opinion shifts just don't happen, they are manufactured."  Do people really shift back and forth between politicians when it comes to politics?  Not really.  We do seem to have a much higher percentage of Americans who are unable to understand how politics and government work, who are unable to distinguish between propaganda and truth, and who fall into a cynical and apathetic malaise of confusion because they let themselves be affected by every trendy fad or conspiracy theory that makes the rounds of social media, than we did thirty years ago.  But we're talking about upwards of 150 million people who are registered and eligible to vote.  The majority of those who will are generally more informed than those who don't live in the real world.  

It's showing up in real election results, not polls.  And there's a lot that will happen between now and the 2024 election.  A legal system that has so far withstood challenges to its integrity is about to deliver some verdicts that will have an effect on how people vote, something that even the right leaning polls now are admitting will be a significant and negative effect on their favorite candidate.  Bottom line, I believe that if the election were held tomorrow, Biden would win the popular vote by at least 8 million votes, would add the states of North Carolina and Ohio to his electoral total while holding every state he won in 2020, and would be re-elected along with a majority Democratic House and Senate.  

The "Politics" are Lining up for a Democratic Party "Blue Wave" in 2024

Primary season begins soon, though we are still 320-some odd days away from election day in 2024, and though in American politics, where just enough opinion along the margins can change in a short period of time, there are some things happening in politics that point to the formation of a nice "blue wave" beginning to develop for 2024.  And yes, it's pretty visible after a couple of months of gloom and doom for Democrats, brought on by some selective emphasis on a few prominent polls, several, which used the term "red wave" to describe the 2022 mid-term elections up to within just a few actual days prior to the election itself, when no red wave, or anything like what was predicted, actually occurred. 

There's a segment of the American electorate that lives isolated in its own media bubble, unaware of real live events or what's actually happening in politics.  That's a problem, of course, but that whole segment is not large enough to win on the kind of nationwide scale that would be necessary to claim victory.  The doom and gloom polls started coming out in October, suddenly, and with no real rational as to why there was such a shift in public opinion all of a sudden.  Then, we had off-year elections which some media pundits jumped out to say were a "referendum on the Biden administration."  That was before the results were in, and the impression that the media wanted to create was that it wouldn't be a strong endorsement.  After all, their polls were showing doom and gloom and their prognostications on the elections, specifically in Ohio, Kentucky and Virginia, two red states and a purple one, weren't good for Democrats.  

If that were the case, then it was a rather resounding referendum, right in the teeth of the polling data. Afterward, there was some backing down from the "referendum" talk.  Well, the results didn't fit the media poll results, nor their predictions. So the "refererendum" talk died down.  

Trump is going to get beat in the 2024 election, and the Republicans will struggle mightily to maintain their House majority, something I don't think they will get back.  In all likelihood, the Democratic senate majority will remain slim, but intact.  And yeah, I'm optimistic, but I think there's good reason to be this way.  

The President has achieved a long list of accomplishments, due to his experience in politics, that have greatly benefitted the American people, among them, a series of policies which have led to a growing, roaring economy.  

These achievements cannot be overstated.  They have provided much needed improvement and they have generated the most prosperous economy we have had in ages.  His success in dealing with the COVID pandemic stands alone in contrast to the blithering incompetence of his predecessor and that alone is reason enough to re-elect him.  But the economy, in spite of inflation, is roaring.  In fact, a roaring economy produces inflation.  When there's lots of money to grab, the grabbers are game.  

Then there is inflation, a.)which the President said would take time to deal with but which would eventually come down and b.)which is the result of a prosperous economy, and c.) which is now coming down as a direct result of what the President's policies did to make it happen.  

The political phrase, "It's the economy, stupid," is countered by the fact that a majority of Americans are bored by economic facts, and that just makes it easier to blame whoever is in the White House, even though they don't have that much control over the economy.  For whatever it's worth, the propaganda being spread about people not feeling that the economy is prosperous is countered by the fact that they are buying a lot more stuff and they are working. 

So keep talking about it.  

Trump's indictments, especially those surrounding his attempt to overturn the constitution and the election, and his campaign rhetoric about revenge and dictatorship are having a negative effect on his campaign.  

If we took a poll of people who have noticed a significant downturn of Trumpie rhetoric among their social media contacts, it would be virtually universal.  I don't know how well my own social media contacts represent the country as a whole, on the two sites where I maintain a presence, I have just over 500 different contacts, friends or followers.  I'd guess, with a quick count, that the percentage of them who once were Trump supporters, but who are no longer, is around 15%.  And what's interesting is that there's been almost no chatter that I've seen about Biden's age or his job performance.  Sure, a lot of my contacts are strong Democrats, but that flies in the face of polling data that says a majority of Democrats are hoping for someone else to run.  

There are two ways of looking at Trump's numbers among Republicans.  Yeah, he seems to have a large lead among the rest of the strange and moribund Republican candidate field, but in many of the polls, between 45%  and 50% of those questioned would prefer someone other than him.  That's among Republicans, and that's not a strong showing for a former President.  And a recent Quinnipiac poll mirrors the Morning Consult's finding that 44% of Republicans would not vote for him if he is convicted on election or document theft charges.

The Dobbs Decision overturning Roe v. Wade is the gift that keeps on giving and giving and giving...

Any time that 60% of the electorate strongly favors something, in this political atmosphere, that says something.  This has been the ticket to upsets in red states, big wins in blue states, and big turnouts everywhere.  Democrats tend to win, and win big, when more voters turn out to vote.  So if there's an issue that should be at the front of every campaign for every Democrat running for President, Congress, governor and state legislature, this should be it.  Heck, if it works, even if you're running for dog catcher, use it. 

Republicans in Congress seem to be engaged in a foot-shooting contest. 

Taking the wrong side on issues that are of importance to the majority of the electorate is not a good pre-election campaign position.  I have mixed feelings about starting hearings into determining whether an impeachment is warranted with regard to the President.  But it will have a decided advantage for him at the ballot box.  In addition to helping the President, it will help Democrats get some congressional seats back.  

George Santos and Kevin McCarthy are also gifts that keep on giving.  Santos is proving to be just as bad as he was accused of being and is one of the best neon flashing signs that tells voters to stay away from the GOP as has ever existed.  McCarthy is still so bent out of shape about losing the speakership that he isn't careful about what he says, and he's basically telling voters that they can't trust the GOP.  Thanks, Kevin.  

Crime and inflation are the whines and complaints of Republicans trying to get some election traction.  If they were really concerned about those things, why are they going on Christmas break without doing anything about them?  

Leaving Ukraine aid hanging is dangerous.  That, in and of itself, may be the nail in their coffin.  Support for Ukraine is high on the list of political priorities for a clear majority of registered voters.

Former Illinois Congressman Adam Kinzinger, a conservative if there ever was one, and not necessarily oriented toward bi-partisan cooperation has said that he will vote for Biden if Trump is the nominee.  Former Wyoming Congresswoman Liz Cheney, daughter of one of the most Republican Vice Presidents in modern history, has come out with a book to support her effort to make sure that Trump doesn't get re-elected.  I'd say both of them are probably capable of drawing off about 20% of the GOP electorate within their own sphere of influence, Cheney probably more of a share than Kinzinger.  It must be enough to cause Trump plenty of consternation and draw his ire, because he obsesses about both of them.  They're on his revenge list, which means something.

Then there's Trump, on the campaign trail, making speeches...

He's doing a wonderful job of convincing voters to support Joe Biden.  Even when conservative commentators, like Sean Hannity, whitewash everything and open up the door for him to publicly deny the worst charges against him, he refuses.  Of course, he's going to be a dictator, we saw that the last time and now he has the thugs and cronies he needs to carry this out.  If there ever were a case for a man not being qualified to be anything, much less President, Trump has made it for himself.  When he takes vocabulary out of Hitler's former speeches, using terms like "vermin" to describe people he doesn't like, meaning those who don't bow at his feet and kiss his rear, and claims that immigration is poisoning the blood of the country, he's telling patriotic, real Americans who live in the real world, and understand this country's values,  "Please don't vote for me!"  

I Don't Need a Poll...

The Biden campaign is well funded, by far more contributors than Trump's has.  And frankly, I'm not bothered by the fact that there might be other Democrats who seek the nomination.  They'll do us the favor of keeping the nomination in the media instead of being ignored by whatever bad behavior Trump comes up with to get mentioned.  And when the time comes, I expect they will concede, graciously, and give their support to whomever the party nominates.  

I hope there is a major effort to get underneath the issues that the Green Party promotes, and a lot of effort put into neutralizing Jill Stein as a candidate.  Get on board, Jill, and you and your party will have a much better chance of getting most of what you want than you will if Trump wins.  If she's being bankrolled by Russian interests, namely Putin, then that will come out.  Cornell West, well, Cornell doesn't seem to be getting off the ground.  I'll say it here, a vote for a third party candidate, by a potential Democratic voter, who supports interests to the left of center, which includes the Green Party, is a vote for Trump.  

Stein helped Trump get elected the first time.  She has no chance of winning, so she might as well tell the truth and tell us which candidate she prefers, so we know, and so her voters can support that candidate.  Unless she doesn't value truth or justice, and is in this entirely for her own ego, she needs to be up front and honest.  

I am hoping that our experience in the 2022 mid-term elections has finally taught the younger voters in the Democratic party that staying at home instead of voting has long ranging consequences, mainly neutralizing the majority and undermining the will of the people.  And that includes casting votes all the way to the end of the ballot, including voting for judicial nominees at the end.  

The Constitution provides for succession to the Presidency, so the age of the candidate isn't an issue.  And if you think the physical stamina and mental functioning is an issue with the current President, you'd be wrong.  But if you watch Trump's speeches and rallies, you'll notice there's something wrong from the slurred speech, wandering thoughts and his having to be helped up and down steps.  When was the last time you saw a photo of Trump jogging?  Biden does, every day.

The choice is clear.  Voting for President Biden is voting for America, the Constitution, the Democracy and the continuation of the freedom of all people.  Voting for Trump is voting for dictatorship, the dissolution of the Constitution and the disastrous end of the United States of America.  He was the most incompetent, anti-Patriotic President we've ever had, his first, and what will be his only term, was an inept, abject failure.

In November of 2024, we are going to see a clear repudiation of Trumpism, and an affirmation of freedom in a Biden win by a comfortable margin. 

All that Republican Talk About "Grooming" Ignores Their Own Big Problem With It

Houston GOP Activist Knew About Accusations of Sexual Abuse Against Southern Baptist Leader and His Own Law Partner

This is the Southern Baptist Apocalypse

I Grew Up in the Church Cult

Unless you're involved in Texas Republican politics, or in denominational politics in the Southern Baptist Convention starting around 1979, the name Paul Pressler might not mean anything to you.  He's one of those southern "Good ole boys", an attorney who works to get his fingers in every pie, so to speak, the guy who can't ever win elected office, but manages to make his way into appointed, and self-appointed positions of authority for his own benefit.  

Pressler, along with Paige Patterson, who was President of Criswell College, a Bible and preacher training school belonging to the First Baptist Church of Dallas, where W. A. Criswell was pastor at the time, are known for figuring out how to use the Southern Baptist Convention's officer election process, and the committee appointment powers that went with the office of President, to turn the leadership of the denomination over to fundamentalists, a movement known as the "Conservative Resurgence" in the Southern Baptist Convention.  

Convinced that liberals were in control of the six theological seminaries where ministers were trained, and working to make the theology of the denomination much more liberal, along the lines of denominations like the Episcopal Church and the Disciples of Christ, Pressler and Patterson worked to use their influence, and the relationships they built to well known media preachers and mega-church pastors to get enough messengers to conventions where officers were elected.  By getting a series of denominational presidents elected who were committed to appointing only conservatives to the committee that nominated and appointed the trustees who ran the denomination's institutions, including the seminaries and mission boards, they could ensure conservative control.  

The turn toward more conservative theology had underlying motives.  It was also to align the convention politically with the far right.  Paul Pressler was also a big time Republican operative in Texas, sitting on the bench as a district judge and then as a justice on the 14th district court of appeals in Texas, both positions requiring appointment by the Republican politicians in the state.  Pressler also served as President of the Council for National Policy, a networking group for proponents of Christian nationalism that started during the Reagan administration.  He, along with Richard Land, the first executive director of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, were instrumental in pushing right wing politics into the Southern Baptist Convention, and aligning the denomination with the Republican party.   

That's who Paul Pressler is, the subject of the article linked above from the Texas Tribune.  

As it turns out, both of the "architects" of the Southern Baptist conservative resurgence have had their reputations tarnished by sexual abuse scandals.  Pressler, as referenced in the Tribune article, has been  accused of six different incidents involving males from the churches where he served as a volunteer youth minister, or employees of his law firm (see the Texas Tribune story here).  Patterson, as President of two of the denomination's theological seminaries, Southeastern in Wake Forest, North Carolina, and Southwestern in Ft. Worth, Texas, failed to properly handle sexual abuse cases committed by male students against female students, basically letting the perpetrators off the hook and telling the female victims to forgive and forget.   

These are not "drag queens," or transgendered persons, gays or lesbians from the political left.  These are leaders directly involved in orchestrating the marriage between far right wing Republican politics and conservative, fundamentalist Evangelicalism.  What they claimed to be doing was restoring the Southern Baptist Convention to its historic, conservative roots.  What they were really doing was using the denomination to advance a right wing political agenda and to feather their own nests.  And they determined that it was better to use political power to achieve their goals, rather than having faith in the spiritual power of God. Their own worldliness got the better of them.  

The denomination itself is paying quite a price for its sins.  The sexual abuse scandal, which an investigation by the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News uncovered, keeps coming to the surface, growing and getting bigger as time goes by.  Each of the last three years, just prior to the annual convention meeting, the statistical report from the convention has shown a 400,000 decrease in overall church membership.  

Things are not always as they seem.  Moral failure doesn't appear to be the exclusive domain of the far left, does it?  

Jill Stein May be a Progressive, but Her Presidential Candidacy Will Only Help Trump, Not the Green Party Supporters

Advocating for a green new deal.  Believing that jobs, health care and education are basic human rights.  Government is obligated and bears responsibility to end poverty, oversee a just economy and guarantee equality in the application of freedom and justice.  "Power to the people" is the theme and slogan of the presidential nominee's candidacy.  

I love all of that, along with the need for government to become involved in radical justice, protecting human rights and the environment.  I find little with which to disagree in the Green Party platform, or in the 2016 Presidential candidacy of Dr. Jill Stein.  Their perspective on these specific issues represents my politics more closely than the more moderate and diverse platform of the Democratic party.  But in spite of that, realizing that our two party system is still the predominant factor in national elections, I couldn't think about casting a ballot for Stein, because I knew Stein didn't have a chance, and I knew that taking a vote away from Clinton could be detrimental to her chances. 

And in spite of finding quite a lot of agreement with the Green Party's platform, I think Stein and the party are very misguided in making another attempt at the Presidency.  It's pretty clear, from the numbers, that she siphoned off enough potential votes from Hillary Clinton to keep her from winning.  At this point now, she needs to step down, endorse the President and spend her time between now and election day campaigning for him.  

The only major disagreement I have with their party platform, or in Stein's candidacy, is their illusion that they could make a difference by running as a separate party, against all of the other candidates.  Stein in particular seems like a very well informed, well educated, well rounded individual with a genuine grasp of American problems and the ability of its government to work toward resolution.  But I have to question their thinking, really, when it comes to what they thought they might accomplish by running as a third party candidate for the Presidency.  

They were considerably short sighted in thinking that by running, they would not siphon votes off from the Democratic nominee.  If they didn't give that any consideration, then they were derelict in their ignorance.  Running against the two major party candidates, did they not see that they did not stand a snowball's chance on a hot stove of winning enough votes to carry one state, and knowing that would be the case, that taking votes away from the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, would completely doom any chance they had of seeing even one point of their agenda bear any fruit?  Did they openly, or secretly, prefer Trump over Clinton?  

Maybe they thought that they would not get enough votes to make a difference in any specific state, though that would call into question the sincerity of their belief in the things for which they are advocating and be defeating the purpose of running a third party candidacy in the first place.  If there hadn't been a Green Party, it would not be accurate to say that its members would have unanimously supported Clinton's bid for the White House.  That's not necessarily predictable, but it is plausible.  

If Stein and her party had taken a close look at how the election was shaping up in August or September, and realized that a Trump victory would mean no hope that their agenda and platform would be advanced, and that as the more progressive wing of the left, they would be subject to even more political grief than they would ever have endured under a Clinton presidency, she could have made a difference.  In fact, had Stein decided to abandon her candidacy, and throw her support to Clinton, not only is it much more likely that Clinton wins, but that she and her party would have a real voice in the Democratic party.  Because in the long run, had Clinton picked up 80% of the vote that Stein got in Wisconsin and Michigan, and slightly more than that in Pennsylvania, she would have been elected President.  The whole experiment with the orange headed buffoon, who worked to undo everything that the Green Party stands for, would never have happened. 

So not only did they fail to achieve their own party's objectives, by winning the Presidency, they also failed to put themselves in a position to have any influence in the government at all.  Trump opposes and worked hard against everything they stand for and believe, and want to do.  But it would have been a sure bet that they would have had a voice, probably a pretty significant one, in a Clinton administration.  Their issues have certainly not been ignored by President Biden.  

There are those who say that Stein's candidacy in 2016 wasn't the cause of Clinton's loss, and that most of those voters would have stayed home if they hadn't had a Green Party candidate, but I strongly disagree with that statement.  Green party voters are pretty politically savvy, and they understand that they are among the "vermin" that Trump claims are poisoning our blood.  Is that a group that stays at home if they don't have a candidate to their liking?  No.  She did take votes away from Clinton, enough to make a difference.  That wasn't the only cause of her loss, there were other factors including things that get judged in hindsight that weren't as easy to see before the election itself, related to Clinton's campaign.  But there is a valuable lesson to learn here about owning and taking responsibility for all of the issues across the party spectrum, because while they may not attract voters from the other side, they will certainly be considered by those who share similar values.

I realize that it goes against our stated democratic principles to frown on, discourage or otherwise discredit third party movements.  On the other hand, one of the things that the Democratic party in this country has been particularly skilled at doing is having a broader vision and a bigger platform.  They are the party of inclusion, and the spectrum of who is welcome within its ranks is broad and inclusive, sometimes to their own detriment.  But being more friendly to its progressive wing will not be detrimental to Democrats at this point in particular.  The support of a group that was able to put together a campaign drawing more than 1.5 million votes in 2016, and which did wind up taking enough votes from Clinton to make a difference in the election makes it worth considering the issues they want to bring to the table.  

We are at a point where the critical issue facing voters is the survival and strengthening of our constitutional democracy.  The Green Party, along with Libertarians and other independents need to come to grips with this reality and realize that nothing in their platform or agenda will matter if a Democrat is not elected to the White House in 2024.  They are, in Trump's mind, part of the "vermin" he detests.  So make common cause, accept what is an open invitation through the door and work to build a united front against an intrusion of fascism unlike any we have ever see.  On the other hand, Democrats need to be more flexible in broadening their agenda without creating conflict.  

So stand down, Green Party.  Get your candidate to endorse Joe Biden.

Democrats Need to Plan Their Political Strategy to Take Advantage of Constitutional Provisions Like Republicans Did

The first time I ever heard Rush Limbaugh on the radio, I was driving down a narrow, winding road in the Missouri Ozarks and his two hour rant was being carried on a local AM radio station in some small town.  I thought he was awful, and I listened, more in fascination that he was even able to be on the radio.  I kept listening, because as he put forth his very opinionated diatribe, he was also telling listeners how to get their way with government.  

Pointing to weaknesses in the system, such as lifetime appointments for judges, low turnouts especially in local elections and the jurisdiction that various levels of government have, Limbaugh was a strong advocate for Republican gerrymandering, claiming that the power of state government to draw district lines extended right into Washington, DC.  Noting that Republicans win elections because of low turnout, he was one of the major architects of the takeover of state legislatures during the early 2000's, while Democrats won major elections and then didn't show up to vote in the mid-terms to protect their gains.  He was particularly prideful in taking credit for this GOP strategy slowing down the Obama Administration, which he openly called socialist.  

So this is where we are.  And my question is, "What are we going to do about it?"  That's a question for all Democrats, particularly our party leadership.  

Incredibly and unbelievably, a demagogue who almost ruined the government with his incompetence, lack of integrity and disregard for the rule of law is back on the campaign trail, and in this constitutional democracy, based on the rule of law and on integrity and trust, it appears that the crimes he committed, including an open attempt to defy the constitution and disrupt the peaceful transfer of power with an insurrection designed to overthrow the government, are not an obstacle to his desire for a second term.  

Not only that, but if we listen to the media, they are telling us that the polling data they are collecting indicates that he may actually have a chance to get elected, in spite of the fact that he faces 92 felony indictments for trying to overthrow the government.  In what other country in the world would such an enemy of the nation be walking around free, and actually considered as a viable candidate for public office after all that?  

Failing to Plan is Planning to Fail 

Didn't Democrats have anyone able to catch on to the strategy and plans of the GOP, and try to do something to counter that?  They have the numbers, if they can get the turnout.  Democrats elected a Senator in Alabama, Doug Jones, by planning and carrying out a "get out the vote" strategy in a special election in 2018.  Democratic voter turnout in Alabama has not reached that level since.  Why not?  Because there hasn't been planning conducted and carried out on the same level as that since then, that's why.  

Republicans have succeeded in having a disproportionate influence over government at every level because their plan included getting voters to turn out for every election that matters.  Limbaugh advocated for gaining control of political positions that, in turn, had appointive powers to fill other government offices, especially judges, to extend control well beyond any term limits faced by elected officials.  And that's exactly what we are facing now.  

2024 is Coming Quickly so What's the Plan, Democrats? 

There's too much handwringing, whining and worrying going on here.  Trump hogs the media, and he's in front of the cameras or mentioned by commentators and reporters far more than the coverage the President gets.  So why not plan to change that?  Huh?  It's hard to calculate the value of the free advertising that Trump gets, just because he's done something destructive or stupid or crazy, or because the media is fascinated with a demagogue.  

Here's a fact.  No third party candidate is going to win the 2024 election.  I don't care how exactly someone like Jill Stein or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or Cornell West lines up with your thinking, they do not have a snowball's chance on a hot stove of being elected to the Presidency.  But we know from past history, and from our quirky electoral college travesty, that a third party candidate can derail the election of the candidate favored by the majority.  

I wrote a post several months ago entitled "No more Jill Steins" and I mean what I said.  There should be a plan here, that works toward getting all three of these individuals to step aside.  If they have the smarts to run for office, then they have the smarts to know that they can't win, and that if Trump does win, they and their supporters will be among the first who will be under attack, because he has already labelled them as "vermin."  So we need a plan that gets these people off the ballot and on Biden's side. 

The Democratic party has won a string of elections, almost unprecedented success, since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade with the Dobbs decision.  That has led to election victories in places not imagined just six years ago.  It put Democrats back in full control of the state legislature in Virginia, it won two big elections in Ohio and it helped return a Democrat to the governor's mansion in Kentucky.  It gave the party momentum.  What's the plan to keep this going? 

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, and the Texas Supreme Court gave the Democrats some valuable campaign ammunition this week, when they prevented Kate Cox from receiving a life-saving medical procedure in Texas, forcing her to go out of state to get treatment for a condition that could have been fatal had she not sought care.  That needs to be a centerpiece of the 2024 campaign, pointing out how inhumane and cruel Republicans are when it comes to imposing their beliefs on everyone else.  

Potential Dictatorship Must be Stopped

Limbaugh's theme was "no compromise."  If it wasn't within the ideological and political boundaries of his own thinking, or what he defined as "conservative" thinking, then there was to be no compromise.  He would prefer to bring government to a complete standstill and do nothing to allowing "libs" any participation.  And that's more or less the way conservatives have operated since at least the Reagan administration.  That's the extent of the influence he had over the party.  Limbaugh is partly responsible for creating Trump.  

Well, Limbaugh is dead.  And it's time to put a stop to his destructive political philosophy by ending any hope Donald Trump has for being re-elected.  He's destroyed himself, and left plenty of words out there that can be used to turn this back on him.  Democrats need to come out with a no-compromise, straightforward way of doing things and stop being surprised when they win elections.  A Democrat has received the majority of votes in every presidential election this century except 2004.  It's time we start making that count for us by actually putting people in the office and then abandoning this antiquated, pseudo-democratic way of electing officials and running the country.  

It doesn't appear that the structure put in place by the constitution is strong enough to prevent the rise of a demagogue in America.  So it is going to be up to we, the people, to send a message that affirms the principles and rights in the constitution, upholds it as the law of the land and sends potential demagogues packing.  We must vote in numbers we have not yet achieved.  Trump must be beaten into the ground, to send the message that this country will continue to be free and will not tolerate would-be dictators.  We need to make sure Joe Biden is inaugurated on January 20, 2025 and Donald Trump is in federal prison long before then.   

Terrorism and Brutality of Hamas Doesn't Justify Brutal Retaliation

Opposition to Israel's Attack on Gaza Isn't Anti-Semitic

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

Hamas is a terrorist organization, and its goal is the destruction of the nation of Israel.  If you read the descriptions of the October 7 attack they carried out against Israeli citizens, most of them gathered at a concert near a Kibbutz close to the border with Gaza, and in neighboring communities along the border, there was no mercy, no consideration of humanity, and the intention was to be as brutal, cruel and harmful as possible, sending a message to purposefully disrupt any feelings of security and safety those living in Israel might have had.  

Militarily, any attempt at conquest would have been futile, and the Hamas leadership knew that was the case.  Knowing that Israel would retaliate quickly and with all of the force available to their military, this almost seems like the plan was to provoke the attack in order to create a situation in which world opinion would turn against Israel.  Being embedded among Palestinian people living in Gaza, which is an impoverished, overcrowded province into which people were pushed after being displaced by several Israeli-Arab wars, is a deliberate move that is as inhumane and immoral as it is strategic.  And frankly, what's happening to people in Gaza as a result of Israel's attack, is as much the fault of Hamas, which is embedded in the impoverished province, known as the world's largest open-air prison, as it is of the Israeli Defense Force's attack.  

What Hamas did was commit a blatant act of terrorism, no less horrific than dozens of other similar terrorist acts, including the Al Qaida attack on the World Trade Center.  It was pure evil, should be roundly condemned, not only by those who did wind up condemning it, but also by anyone who is genuinely interested in the peace of the region, and justice for the Palestinian people.  Hamas, while enjoying enough support in Gaza to run the place, is not working on behalf of justice, or prosperity, for the people who live there.  So let's make that point clear.  

Is This Kind of Retaliation Necessary for Israeli Security?

Hamas has a base of operation in Gaza because the governing authorities there, whether they actually represent the sentiments of the people or not, created a power vacuum that allowed them to come in, recruit from among the local population, and have free reign to set up their terrorist operational base.  So an unprovoked attack on Israel, which had no hope of achieving any real military objective, or of achieving the ultimate goal of Hamas, which is the elimination of Israel, was quite costly in terms of what the response from Israel would be.  

Look at the response of the United States too the 9-11 attacks.  The "shock and awe" bombardment of Baghdad was an unjustified attack on a country that wasn't involved at all in the Al Qaida attack.  But we had one of the most clueless Presidential administrations in history, when it came to foreign relations and intelligence, the latter factor lacking in more ways than one.  This attack came out of Gaza, so of course, Gaza would be where the bombs would fall.  

Hamas' concern for the safety and security of the people who live in Gaza is, in the manner in which they operate, non-existent.  It is incredibly inhumane to put civilians in this kind of danger in any event.  To use hospitals and schools, and even religious sites like mosques, as storage facilities for ammunition and operational bases for military operations says more than any propaganda could say about the contempt that Hamas' leadership has for the common people of Gaza, and about how little value they have for human life.   

But, does what Hamas did, with this hit and run raid into Israel that murdered 1,500 people and set off this war, justify the indiscriminate bombardment and the killing of civilians in Gaza?  Especially by a people whose own recent past history should make them among the world's most sympathetic and sensitive to displacement and suffering because of their religious practice and ethnicity?  Does maintaining security and responding to this most recent terrorist raid require bombing an already poor, impoverished population, creating massive homelessness, a refugee surge in a province in which there is no room for people to move around, and where the bringing of economic life to a standstill will trigger starvation? 

I've seen some of the images the media has released from the aftermath of the attack in Israel, and it is a reflection of the brutality and lack of respect for human life that characterizes Hamas and other terrorist groups.  It is very difficult to resist the temptation to seek vengeance.  If it were possible to single out the Hamas militants who carried out this attack, and subject them to the same torture and horror, without perpetuating violence or endorsing it for any reason, then that might be close to justice.  But of course, that's not possible.  And many of those who are condemned to suffering in Gaza are indeed, children and innocent civilians.   

In the long run, the question about the cost of this war is whether or not it will achieve its end, which, for Israel, is the destruction of Hamas in Gaza, and whether the human cost is worth achieving that end.  

The way it has gone so far would be an indication that it won't. The destruction and death in Gaza has long since past a point where any measure of justification or effectiveness of purpose has been rendered meaningless.   

Whose Fault is it and Who is to Blame? 

Those are the wrong questions to ask.  The question to ask is how can the violence be stopped and what can be done, long term, to resolve the problem.  Human reason and wisdom can be applied, but it will take willingness on the part of both Israel and Hamas and its supporters to reach a peaceful solution and at the moment, the parties are not in any position to be in agreement.  

Up to this point, security measures have succeeded in keeping Hamas out of Israel and when those measures inexplicably failed, after years of relative success, the current problem erupted.  So how was it that Hamas was able to penetrate the border, getting to where they did, and carry out an unprecedented attack through security that has successfully prevented similar kinds of breaches for decades?  Basically, it was the boundary and the security all along it that was keeping the peace.  

What's the strategy in Gaza for eliminating Hamas?  Complete conquest and occupation by Israel will not eliminate an enemy whose leadership will be gone by the time the Israeli Defense Force occupies all of the Gaza strip.  What's left will be thousands of sympathizers and supporters who will blend into the ruins and refugee camps, hide out, or simply exist while waiting either for help or for new orders.  

I've heard advocates speak of enforcing the treaties that were made through the UN, stop building new settlements, back out of the settlements that have been placed on land Israel had agreed to cede to Palestinians prior to 1967 and stick to those agreements.  But for many of the middle eastern militants, any agreement with Israel is not satisfactory, because their desire is for Israel to not be there at all.  It has, in fact, been a mess ever since the British came in at the end of World War 1 and decided that its imperial interests were greater than the native populations of lands they controlled.  That was how British imperial rule worked around the world and they meant for it to be the same in the Middle East.  It's not an insoluble problem, but right now, human reason and intellect are stymied.  

Peace Exists at a Higher Level 

There are multiple factors which keep peace from being worked out in the Middle East.  Jerusalem sits at the crossroads of three world religions, all of which have deep seated hatred embedded among their followers for the other two.  Within a small square of land inside the boundaries of the Old City, a tiny land area of the city, there is sacred ground to all three religions, and it makes finding the peace difficult. 

It will take a deliberate effort at dismantling the elements of the hatred that has become the trademark of this conflict, in order to every realize a genuine peace.  I don't believe we will ever see this in our lifetime.  There are efforts to build genuine peace in Israel, as can be seen by the article that is linked here.  But this takes time.  For now, the world is beginning to show its intolerance for bombing refugees and killing children and it's beginning to look more like revenge and less like defense in Gaza, an impression Israel cannot afford to leave with the rest of the world.  

Saying this is not anti-Semitic, not at all.  

Building Peace at Summer Camp

 

To Conservative, Evangelical Christian Trump Supporters: Consider the Absurdity of Your Choice to Lead our Country

 To Conservative, Evangelical Christian Supporters of Trump: 

"Consider the absurdity of your choice to lead our country.  Trump is a twice-impeached former President who has never received the votes of a majority of voters, an indicted felon, an adjudicated rapist, a prodigious liar, a chronic business failure, a self-confessed sexual assailant, a fawning admirer of autocrats, an unapologetic racist, a serial philanderer who has cheated on all of his many wives, a draft-dodging coward and particularly loathsome in appearance and demeanor.  I could go on but you get the idea.  He has no redeeming qualities other than a rapidly approaching expiration date.  Any of his myriad faults should be disqualifying for the highest office in the land and yet he is the overwhelming choice of most Republicans."--Thanks to FightingIrish from Democratic Underground for this wonderful paragraph, "My response to a friend asking me about 2024," December 11, 2023 

An Anti-Christ, By Definition

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.  And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heart that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.  I John 4:2-3, NRSV

The only recognizable confession of faith in conservative, Evangelical Christianity is the confession that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.  At the time this was written, the individual making this confession is stating that Jesus of Nazareth, the itinerant rabbi who is identified and whose teachings are recorded in the four gospel accounts of the New Testament, is the long anticipated Messiah of the Old Testament. So Jesus, and all of his teachings, constitute the full Christian gospel.  For believers, this is redemption, salvation from and forgiveness of sin and the values and principles reflected in Jesus' message define the practice of the Christian faith.  

Since linking up with some Evangelical leaders and embracing their politics, Trump has never acknowledged any of this.  In fact, within his political movement, he has his own "disciples" who preach and teach practices and principles that are the diametric opposite of everything Jesus taught.  Trump's own son, Don, Junior, publicly rejected one of the central teachings of Christianity, Jesus' statement about turning the other cheek, found in Matthew 5:38-39.  

"We've been playing t-ball for half a century while they're playing hardball and cheating.  Right?  We've turned the other cheek, and I understand, sort of, the biblical reference--I understand the mentality--but it's gotten us nothing!  Okay? It's gotten us nothing while we've ceded ground in every major institution in our country," said Trump Jr., addressing a gathering at a Turning Point rally in Arizona last year.  

So the core teachings of Jesus "have gotten us nothing," according to Donald Trump, Jr., spokesperson for Trump's presidential campaign.  

...and this is the spirit of the antichrist...

There's too much narcissism and too much ego in Trump's way for him to even say what some self-appointed Evangelical leaders want him to say about his alleged Christian faith.  The problem is that conversion to Christianity requires a personal act of humility, the admission that one is a sinner, and needs the forgiveness that cannot be earned by personal effort, but which must be received as an act of God's grace.  Trump's repeated response, unable to be humble, is to claim that he has never done anything requiring forgiveness, and that he has his own idea of who God is.  

So by any Evangelical Christian's definition of Jesus as the Christ, whether it's Mike Johnson or Billy Graham, or Robert Jeffress, Trump's denial of this core teaching of the Christian gospel fits the definition found in I John 4 of the term "antichrist".  Perhaps that's why he prefers to hang out with prosperity gospel heretics, like Paula White, when he's feeling he needs to play his Evangelical audience, instead of some of the more mainstream so-called "leaders", who call her a heretic and a money grubber. 

Biblical Text Provides Food for Thought For Conservative, Bible-believing Evangelicals

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

Jude, one of Jesus' apostles and perhaps his half-brother as well, was certainly prophetic when he penned these words of warning to the early church.  It's as if he were given a vision right into the twenty-first century and saw what was happening in the United States, and how American Christians were being beguiled, fooled and flattered into supporting someone whose character, lifestyle, worldview and lustful thirst for revenge against his enemies is as opposite of the Christian character Christ taught in the gospels as one can get.  

Apparently, even in the first century, there was a risk that Christians could be easily beguiled and fooled into following an evil leader instead of the Christian gospel.  While some were capable of keeping things straight, and preserving the integrity and doctrine of their churches, there were others who were deliberately deceitful and others who were easily duped by slick talking enemies of the church.  Twenty-one centuries later, the risk of heresy and deceit in the church is still a big one, in spite of having a whole Bible to warn us.  And it has come, not surprisingly, in an unorthodox blending of right wing politics with right wing Evangelicalism and Christian mysticism.  

I've heard the argument from some Christians that God used David, who wasn't perfect either.  And that's true, he did.  But David was a follower of God, a believer in who he was, not in his own made-up version of who he thought God was.  And of course, God used evil men to accomplish his purposes.  If you consider the judgment of Israel over the course of their history, because of their continuous drifting into paganism, then yes, I suppose he did use a few Assyrian and Egyptian and Babylonian rulers to chastise his chosen people.  But he never required them to give their loyalty to these evil men, not one time. And you should not be doing that now.  

Is American Christianity an Enemy of Democracy? 

David Gushee, a Baptist professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University, has authored a book which identifies the heresy of Christian authoritarianism and calls out its attack on American democracy. Defending Democracy from its Christian Enemies Personally, from my own convictional point of view, this is such an aberration of Christian theology and doctrine as to render congregations who are duped by it apostate.  And while it may be a good thing that we are now seeing the wolves in the church in sheep's clothing, we must still vanquish the wolves before they destroy the republic.

While American Christianity, in the broadest sense of the term, is not an enemy of American Democracy, the parts of it that have fallen victim to the heresy of Christian nationalism, and in which the values of the Christian gospel have been turned upside down and emptied out in favor of a sensual worldliness, are an enemy to democracy, to the rest of the church, and to American society as a whole.  So to those Christians caught up in this who value their faith, this should be a warning that your support for Trump is also separating you from biblical, orthodox Christianity.  You must make a choice.  Trump or biblical Christianity.  You can't have both. 

  

 

 

Evangelical Experts Say Trumpism is Antithetical to Christianity

 Bill Leonard: Are Our Churches Prepared for Christian Autocracy?

It is a rather remarkable indictment of those who claim to be followers of Jesus that they would continue to show fealty to a man whose cruel ethic has always been antithetical to Jesus' and becomes more so every day.  Many of the same people who celebrate Christianity's contributions to civilization--championing the belief that every human being has inherent rights and dignity, celebrating the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount and the parable of the Good Samaritan, and pointing to a 'transcendent order of hope and justice that stands above politics,' in the words of my late friend Michael Gerson--continue to stand foursquare behind a man who uses words that echo Mein Kampf.  --Peter Wehrner, former GOP speechwriter, contributing editor at "The Atlantic."  

Dr. Bill Leonard is a native Texan who is the founding dean of the Wake Forest University School of Divinity, and is professor emeritus of church history and Baptist studies.  He, along with Nathaniel Manderson, a Baptist minister who made headlines this week by declaring that the Trumpism version of the Republican party is standing with Satan, and Tim Alberta, another Evangelical Christian writer for "The Atlantic," whose book The Kingdom, the Power and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism, is due to be released tomorrow, are all calling out the fascist, Nazi rhetoric now emanating from Trump, as antithetical to true, biblically sound Christianity.  

Pointing Out Mike Johnson's Theological Error

Responding to Johnson's recent statement that America is not a "democracy," but a "constitutional republic" which the founders "set up because they followed the biblical admonition of what a civil society is supposed to look like," Leonard said that was not just a description of bad government, but also bad exegesis.  The phrase, "biblical admonition of what a civil society is supposed to look like," says Leonard, "is the stuff of what theocracies are made."  

"There is no singular biblical admonition toward civil government," said Leonard.  "but a multi-millennial line that stretches from twelve tribes to monarchs like Saul, David, Solomon, Ahab and Jezebel (and don't forget Herod now that Advent is at hand).  Perhaps the strongest 'biblical admonition' calls us to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with God, whatever the government might be," he said.  

Likewise, it is very clear, from the statements of the two founding fathers who were most closely associated with the development of the first amendment's guarantee of religious liberty and especially of the establishment clause, putting a "wall of separation," as Thomas Jefferson called it, between the church and state, that no Christian theocracy or autocracy, was their intention.  They dismissed the idea of any sort of religious test for service in elected office in any government institution, whether Congress, the Presidency or the court system.  Interpretations by courts of what defined "religious liberty" early on were clear that there was no intention whatsoever for the United States to be a "Christian nation".  

Trumpism Represents Worldliness and is the Opposite of Biblical Christianity 

Trump lived his private and public life stamped very clearly with a worldly brand, reveling in attention from multiple extra-marital affairs, tactically flaunted publicly to convey the message that he was his own man and even married, his wives had no control over him, but he had complete control over them.  He also publicly announced his business and tax fraud, daring legal authorities to come after him and proving that anyone rich enough didn't have to follow any restrictive laws.  And he got away with most of it, or chose to settle before a verdict was reached in court.  

He's evaded every attempt by religious leaders who gather around him and look prayerful and reverent, to conform to their well-coached words to describe his "relationship with God," which he denies he has.  He defines God in his own way, and repeatedly says that he has done nothing for which he needs to be forgiven, a direct denial of the conditions required for Christian conversion.  So he is, by his own admission, not only not a Christian, but defiantly anti-Christian.  

Leonard outlines some specific points which Trump has made part of his campaign for President that should be warnings for Christians to avoid giving him any kind of support, including voting for him.  

• He claims he will seek retribution against his political enemies, punishment not for crimes, but for opposing him.  This is a directly opposite position from the Christian gospel, and a total denial of Jesus' teaching. 
• He plans to subvert constitutionally guarantee liberties by increasing the power of the presidency through surrogate control of the Department of Justice and the FBI.
• He has claimed that an influx of immigrants into the United States is "poisoning the blood of the country," phrases that are dangerously close to the Nazi racial policy of Aryan superiority. 
• He promises violence against those he calls "vermin," another reference borrowed from the National Socialist rhetoric of Hitler and the Nazis.  

Virtually everything that Trump declares outlines a political perspective that is the opposite of every principle and practice outlined by Jesus in the Christian gospel.  There is nothing of the humility, meekness, peacemaking, hungering and thirsting after righteousness, sorrow and repentance from sin, loving one's enemies and turning the other cheek which Jesus proclaims as visible virtues exhibited by Christians.  There is no resemblance in anything Trump says or does that conforms to the love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control that the Apostle Paul says are produced by the presence of God's spirit.  

And then there are the words of the Apostle John, in his first epistle, where he says, "Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love."  John uses the term "antichrist" to describe the character of one whose actions work against the spirit of God, and everything that Trump proclaims as part of his political agenda fits that definition.  He is an antichrist and an anti-American anti-Patriot.  

Getting This Message Out

One of the most politically remarkable events of my lifetime occurred on the Rachel Maddow Show last night.  Former Representative Liz Cheney spent half an hour being interviewed live by Maddow, a sight that I would not have believed had I not actually seen it.  The daughter of one of the most Republican of Republicans of our time, appearing on a progressive journalist's signature television program announcing the publication of her latest book, a narrative aimed at preventing Donald Trump from receiving the GOP nomination and running for the White House.  

So what seems impossible, in convincing a growing number of conservative, Evangelical Christians who have made voting Republican a doctrinal point of the practice of their faith, must be done.  The choice is clear.  It is not possible to hold Christian convictions that are revealed in the teachings of Jesus and the Christian apostles and support and vote for Donald Trump.  Trumpism is, by his own declarations, an inherently evil, anti-Christian perspective.  Christianity rests on grace and is redemptive.  Trumpism is destructive and rests on vengeful hatred.  Those two things are mutually exclusive and incompatible.  

Leonard mentions several Evangelical influencers who are taking an anti-Trump position.  I'd strongly recommend Tim Alberta's new book, released today, which you can find at Bookshop.org, a site that supports independent bookstores.  You can find the comments of Baptist pastor Nathaniel Manderson in this article, Minister Claims Mike Johnson, Republicans, are on the Side of the Devil.  

And here's a link to a book I've recently finished, and which calls out Christians for participating in the attempt to weaken and eliminate American Democracy, David Gushee: Defending Democracy From its Christian Enemies. 

I would also encourage you to continue reading The Signal Press.  I'm an amateur journalist, an educated professional, a Christian raised in the Evangelical tradition (Southern Baptist) and a Never Trump, Democrat supporter of President Joe Biden.  So spread the word, I love to see the angry comments of Trumpies who read what I write.  

On Hamas, Gaza, the Palestinian People, Israel and Zionism

We might as well weigh in here.  This is a problem that hasn't gone away since it began, right after the end of the First World War.  It will not be resolved by human intellect and reason, as long as there is the kind of failure to understand, and consider, history that seems to be at the root of many of the current problems. 

Understand, as you read, the author's perspective.  My way of looking at the world, "worldview," some like to call it, is heavily influenced by Quakerism, which rests on the values of simplicity, peace, integrity, community, equality and stewardship.  Valuing practice over doctrine, human life is a sacred gift and within humans is a spark or inner light which unites us all together and makes us equal.  We believe that it is possible for human beings to coexist, and live in freedom, without fear of persecution, out of respect for each other as equals, when our values are aligned.  And while that is extremely idealistic, it takes into account human flaws and develops a system of accountability.  

The Current Middle East is a Product of Flawed Imperialism

Could a political state have been created in Palestine that would have allowed for the settlement of Jewish immigrants from all over the rest of the world, giving Jews a refuge and a homeland without displacing the existing Arabic population, creating a country that would be a constitutional democracy guaranteeing individual freedom and protecting human rights?  We haven't really been completely successful at doing that in our own experiment with Democracy.  In a part of the world where deep-seated religious beliefs fight against the whole concept of human equality and basic human rights, it might have been an impossible dream. 

One thing is for sure, the redrawing of boundaries and recreation of provinces based on ethnic and language divisions, different nuances of Islamic tradition and most notably, for the benefit of the imperial economic development of the Europeans who came into power in the region after the First World War and collapse of the Ottoman Empire, did not contribute to either democracy or peace.  So an independent state in which Jews and Arabs could live, side by side, in peace, had no chance at all of succeeding.  It was never even part of the consideration, though the Balfour Declaration, from Britain's foreign secretary, hints at some of the idealism. 

The expectation that the required military presence of the imperial power, and those who were sent there from the imperial government, would be responsible for keeping the peace and enforcing the law.  And whatever they determined was the right thing to do would be done.  It's not that no consideration was given to the self-determination of the people who lived in the land, whose land it was, but in an imperial system, the priorities always go to protecting the interests of the conquerors first.  

So, from 1917 to the late 1930's, the British were almost as restrictive to Jewish immigration into Palestine as the Arabs were.  Zionism grew in strength and support, increasing the pressure to open up Palestine as a Jewish homeland, based on ancient historical and religious tradition.  It was the Holocaust, both before World War II and then especially in its aftermath, which greatly increased the pressure and caused significant increases in Jewish emigration to Palestine.  

History Cannot be Reversed

The decision regarding allowing Jewish people scattered all over the world, but more specifically, from Jewish communities in the Middle Eastern provinces created after 1917, and from Europe, primarily Eastern Europe, involved multiple groups of people, including some of the Arab leaders in and around Palestine.  But ultimately, the power to open the door rested with the British government which controlled the territory after 1917.  No doubt, they were influenced by Zionists, but also by Christians, specifically those within a philosophy of Anglo-Israelism, the idea that English speaking peoples were, like the ancient Jews, chosen by God to achieve a specific purpose, using Christian evangelization as a reason to establish political power.  

Maybe the British empire could have kept the lid on unrest, violence and war, as the population of Jews increased, but ultimately the circumstances of the Second World War and their less dominant position in the region as a result of the war, changed their military and political position.  The uncovering of the horrors of the Holocaust, and the fact that hard core antisemitic populations still dominated Eastern Europe changed perceptions about the need for an independent Jewish homeland and ancient religious tradition made Palestine the only viable choice. When a two state solution was proposed in 1948, and the Arabs rejected it, war was the result, in which Israel declared its independence and then took land where they were predominant in settling.  That's when the displacement of the remaining Arabic population began.  

The history of the Jewish people following the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D. is unique.  Jewish populations, including the Sephardim and Ashkenazim, representing different ethnicities and origins, are connected primarily by religion.  The most prominent groups of Jews prior to the Second World War, were in Eastern Europe, mostly in Poland and Ukraine, remnants of the Hassidic dynasties and of a history in the middle ages that was one of persecution and isolation.  The cultures that developed here, among Ashkenazi Jews, are quite different than those of the Sephardim in Southern Europe and the Middle East.  And yet, they are now the dominant Jewish culture in Israel.  And it is that unique history that has allowed them to maintain their identity in spite of having lost their homelands to Roman upheaval following the 70 A.D. war.  

That may be the only example, in world history, of a people whose culture, held together by some racial and ethnic elements, but mainly by religious tradition, retained much of its identity in spite of not having a national, political state in existence for over 2,000 years.  Zionism, which is the political push for creating and sustaining a modern Jewish state, was potent enough to use the circumstances of the two world wars to achieve their goal of establishing an independent Jewish state in Palestine. 

A Violent Clash of Religious Traditions 

My personal theology and Christian doctrine, developed out of a lifetime of studying the text of scripture and interpreting it in its historical context, reveals the existence of God whose character contrasts completely with the very dim and limited perception of humanity.  Most Christians make the error of misjudging the character of God by failing to consider the words of Jesus, who claimed to be his divine Son, as their interpretive standard.  But it was Jesus who, through a series of pronouncements in his Sermon on the Mount, beginning with the words, "You have heard that it was said..." but ending with the conclusion, "...but I say unto you..." which gave insight to previously difficult phrases to understand.  

Throughout history, the application of human intellect to attempts to resolve humanity's problems most frequently led to violence and war.  Among other perceptions, Jesus completely changed that one when it came to resolving the issues and problems which existed among human beings.   

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God.  Matthew 5:9, NRSV 

Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissentions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing and things like these.  I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.  

By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.  There is no law against such things.  Galatians 5:19-23, emphasis mine. 

So, within the Christian tradition, as expressed by these two church apostles, Matthew and Paul, there is a belief that humanity can aspire to peace.  Since religion is at the very core of the hatred that keeps perpetuating the violence, it is religion which must resolve the issues and bring the peace.  Suggesting that abandoning religion is the answer is unrealistic and impossible.  Humanity has not yet, with its vast wealth of knowledge, wisdom, experience and education, resolved the problems that lead to violence, inhumanity, death and genocide.  

From a distance, our tendency is to look at conflict from our own perspective.  Events of history in the 20th century, and a relatively provincial perspective of Christianity has made most Americans sympathetic to Israel and hostile to any Arabic people, with a nasty tendency to lump all Middle Eastern Islam together, when it is anything but a homogenous population.  That's part of the problem, and part of the solution.  Understanding what is really happening, and why, is the first step toward peace.  We have not taken that step yet. 

So we have a conflict, triggered by religious, racial and ethnic bigotry, resulting from an imperial system that has displaced a large portion of the Arabic population of Palestine on the grounds that they were racially inferior and religiously unworthy.  That cannot be undone.  Of course, those who have been displaced, and oppressed, are going to fight back, and that's why many of them have turned to Hamas or Hezbollah.  Their position in the political negotiations that have taken place over the years has never put those who directly live in Palestine in any reasonable position.  It's always others making decisions and calling shots. 

How to put the power to resolve this in the hands of those who are there, and who think they've figured out a way to peaceful co-existence is the issue.  As long as those who want to commit violence are able to do so, peace has no chance.  And maybe, it never will have, given the history and the difficulties encountered.  But then, no one ever though Egypt and Israel could live in peace, either.  It can't all go one way.  As several influential politicians and commentators have said, specifically Bernie Sanders, "Israel's security is tied to Palestinian justice.