Evangelicals Have Been Beguiled and Deceived and They're Blind to the Realities of Trump's Agenda

I can't get behind someone based on incidental agreement with some of his policies, but whose character is atrocious, lacking any moral or ethical guidance, and the complete opposite of what Jesus Christ taught about character to his followers.  I'm one of them, and that makes it difficult for me to even listen when Trump speaks, and impossible for me to even think about voting for him for President of the United States, a country whose constitution, laws, and government his actions show that he despises and hates, and a Christian faith, it's confession, repentance and grace, which he absolutely refuses to acknowledge. 

For those who read this who were not raised in, or have never been a member of an Evangelical church in the United States, some of what you may read here will be difficult to understand.  I was raised in an Evangelical church, a small, conservative, Southern Baptist congregation of 50 people, and I received most of my higher education in a university and graduate school affiliated with the same denomination.  

I'm going to put this in the kind of terminology, using interpretations of passages of the New Testament, that Evangelicals will understand.  Those who are not Evangelical, or who are not Christian, can still figure out the message that is being communicated.  In one sentence, it is this:  Following the guidance provided in the Bible about what it means to be a Christian, committed to the gospel of Jesus Christ, Trump's worldly character and lifestyle are completely inconsistent with Christian faith and practice and voting to put him in the Presidency of the United States would be antithetical to the kind of commitment and loyalty required to be faithful to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Loyalty is to Christ, or to Trump, But It Can't be to Both

Evangelicals have been deceived by Trump, and they have been spiritually blinded.  Most of them are single-issue voters, they get all of their information inside a closed bubble of their own biased sources, they have believed provable lies, listened to his rhetoric, and given him the loyalty that they once reserved only for Jesus Christ.   He's become a political messiah, and their support is based on imagery, and on lies.  They've become radicalized in their support of him, seeing an image of him that does not exist in reality.  They are blind to his corruption, dismissive of his blatant immorality, including his objectivization and sexual abuse of women and his fraudulent business practices.  They ignore his refusal to even take the first step toward a genuine Christian faith, which is acknowledging conviction of one's sinful nature.  He claims he is sinless.  Yes, he does.  Openly.  

The Bible's authors warn Christians about being beguiled and deceived into idolatry.  The problem here is that, because they stand to benefit from the political power that Trump will get if he is elected to the Presidency once again, they are unable to see the truth.  

For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ.  And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.  It is not surprising then if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness.  Their end will be what their actions deserve.  2 Corinthians 11:13-15, NIV  

Trump's masquerade of himself to conservative Evangelicals is rooted in the abortion issue.  This is something they've been after for decades, going all the way back to Jimmy Carter's term in office, when Jerry Falwell, James Roberson and Pat Robertson first formed their organizations to support Reagan, because President Carter's interpretation of the establishment clause didn't open the door for them to try and get judges on the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe.  

Since then, that's been a single issue to which most conservative Evangelicals tie their votes, not only for President, but for other offices.  It has distorted their perspective, allowed politicians to play on their convictions, using this issue to get support for their own agenda, often leaving this one behind for someone else to try to pick up.  Reagan didn't apply the litmus test of abortion to his SCOTUS nominees.  Bush Sr., ignored the religious right and nominated pro-choice justices based on their financial and business convictions.  Dubya kept the swing "balance" in place to avoid having Roe overturned while he was in office, sensing that it could bring political disaster to the GOP.  

And that left Trump, a man who loved having his immoral sexual escapades become the front page headlines of the gossip columns and social media outlets.  Trump has never been opposed to abortion, at one point openly stating his support for it, and being the subject of multiple rumors at times when an affair he had may have resulted in an abortion or two, especially after he already had all the heirs he wanted to leave behind.  Nor is he opposed to it now, as he clearly stated in Tuesday night's debate.  He's just interested in the political effect supporting the pro-life Evangelical position has on his ability to win Presidential elections.  

He claimed he was a "deal maker." And so, he made a deal with the political structure of the far Evangelical right, through groups like the Heritage Foundation.

They made a deal with the devil.  And he deceived them to get what he wanted.  

He made it pretty clear during the debate on Tuesday that he doesn't think the six week limit on when an abortion can be performed is long enough.  It's a short statement, but he said that clearly.  And he doesn't think a woman's right to an abortion should be restricted.  He only supported the overturning of Roe because "everyone, Democrats, Republicans, everyone wanted it to go to the states."  That's a direct quote.  

So he deceived his Evangelical supporters into believing he was pro-life, when he was only using that as a means of getting their vote.  And now, he's trying to get the votes of those he thinks are pro-choice liberals.  His duplicity is simply a sign of something that we knew all along, Trump cannot be trusted.

Trump Rejects Basic Christian Doctrine, Including Conversion or Salvation

For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Lord and Master, Jesus Christ.  Jude, V. 4, NASB 

From an Evangelical perspective, Trump is "not one of us."  

He is an intruder, whose gateway into American conservative Evangelicalism was political power, not spiritual leadership.  His morality precludes his being able to get in on the latter basis. His open denial of having had a genuine conversion experience means his Evangelical supporters can' even claim that his bad behavior, including his incessant lying, pushing for violence on his behalf and the whole string of crimes he has committed, have been washed away with all his other sins, because he claims he doesn't have any sins that need to be washed away.  

Among Evangelicals, "salvation," or the conversion experience that leads to forgiveness of one's sin and restoration to a right relationship with God, is a core and essential doctrine.  It is not possible to be Christian, by the Evangelical definition of the word, without being converted, and it is impossible to be converted without first experiencing conviction for one's sinful nature, and the sins that have been committed in their life, and then recognizing that receiving God's grace through the sacrifice Jesus made, his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection, is how that grace is received and applied.   

The first step toward conversion is conviction and confession of one's sin.  This, Trump has publicly refused to do.  Even when directly confronted by well known conservative religious leaders, Trump denies that he has ever done anything requiring God's forgiveness.  

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 heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.  I John 4:2-3, NRSV[emphasis mine]

Those are the words of the Apostle, John.  The confession of Christ is essential to a salvation or conversion or confirmation experience in every Christian tradition, including the Evangelical one.  

There are those who are critical of Evangelicals who sometimes try to "baptize" politicians or political views that are not consistent with Christian doctrine and practice.  Trump has made it impossible for them to run around accountability on that bypass.  And this separates Trump from Christianity.  Failing to acknowledge this on the part of many Evangelical leaders separates them from Christianity, too.  

The Dilemma Associated With Project 2025

And the Devil took him up and showed him all of the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and said to him, "To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will.  If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours."  

And Jesus answered him, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve."  Luke 4:5-8, ESV  

The Christian church has been tempted with the bait of political power to advance its ends since Constantine issued the Edict of Milan and declared he saw a vision of a cross with the words, "By this sign, conquer."  The only problem with all of this is that establishing a "Christian nation", a theocracy similar to the Old Testament covenant relationship with Israel, has no basis in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  And that's clearly illustrated in the symbolism of this particular temptation of Christ.  

The end result of seventeen centuries of the church being subjugated and merged with the political power of the state was centuries of warfare and bloodshed, the virtual death of any real evangelistic or spiritual Christian faith, and a church which became an unrecognizable institution when compared with the one Jesus envisioned and inspired the Bible's writers to describe, explain and instruct.  

The principles, practices and virtues taught by Jesus, found in the gospel, are antithetical to violence and bloodshed which resulted from forcing a pseudo-Christian, false gospel on people using the political power and authority of the state.  It was tyranny, and the various versions of Christian nationalism being advanced by far right Evangelicalism contradicts every precept and principle taught by Jesus, commanded by Jesus and every example set by Jesus.  It is not Christianity, it is antichrist.  

And on top of all of the tyranny that the 900 some odd pages of Project 2025 would impose on the American people, including the threat of the use of violence and bloodshed against those who resist, someone on one side of the issue or the other is lying through their teeth.  It's either the Heritage Foundation, which authored this draconian, heretical, tyrannical political platform with Trump's approval, blessing and input, according to them, promising he would implement every point of it if they helped him back into the White House, or it is Trump lying about not ever having anything to do with it, and trying to distance himself from it because his campaign team told him supporting it would guarantee his defeat in November.  

This is yet another dilemma for a narcissistic politician who is playing one side against the other in the hope that neither one will notice while they are voting for him.  He's a two faced liar.  And I can't be any more clear than that.  To conservative Evangelicals, he's pro-life and the killer of the Roe decision.  To moderate, pro-choice voters, he's the guy who did what "everyone" wanted, by letting the states vote on abortion, but keeping it legal outside the six week ban now imposed by some conservative states.  To conservative Evangelicals, he's the reason Project 2025 exists, and they wrote it for him to implement.  To everyone else who is alarmed by its extremism, its pandering to billionaires and stripping the American middle class of the last vestiges of their wealth, and this is something someone else came up with that he's never heard of.  

We don't need that kind of mess.  That's a disaster waiting to happen.  We need leadership, not equivocation, truth, not lies, character, not corruption.  

Yes, Character Does Count, for a Whole Lot

For a branch of the Christian church that claims such a high level of doctrinal integrity, theological accuracy, and spiritual superiority for itself, Evangelical support of Trump is an astounding display of ignorance and gullibility.  

For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce great signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.  Matthew 24:24, NRSV 

Even while Jesus was alive, he was warning his followers of the consequences of being deceived.  All of the theological and doctrinal accuracy, and belief in the inerrancy of scripture is worthless if those who claim to believe it fail to recognize its message and cannot discern the absence of any kind of the visible values and character the Christian gospel says are the visible signs of belief and commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ.  I don't think it is that difficult to discern the lack of character in someone who lives a licentious, worldly, lifestyle centered on the acquisition of power and money, determine that he embodies the spirit of antichrist (I John 4:2-3), and to avoid putting that person in any kind of leadership position on which our country depends.   

Policies are the product of the kind of give and take required in a free society where the people are empowered by democratic values.  Politicians must understand they are the servants of all, not just obligated to favor those who agree with their particular preferences and stance on the issues.  The character of a candidate is a much different matter.  Leaders must be trusted and their character tells us they can be trusted.  No leader is going to get 100% agreement on policy from 100% of the people they are responsible to lead.  But they do need to get 100% of the trust of those people who are depending on them for the nation's security and prosperity.  

Dr. Adrian Rogers, the late pastor of the Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, Tennessee, preached a sermon back in 1996 entitled "Does Character Count?"  In it, he used biblical principles to affirm that the character of a leader, even in a secular democracy, is of far more importance than a platform of issues, and he laid out some specific evaluations of character for his listeners to apply to candidates for which they were planning to vote.  Of course, Dr. Rogers was aiming to steer Christians away from voting for Bill Clinton, and his bias is duly noted.  But his biblical principles are still valid points, and they haven't changed.  If Bill Clinton, by those standards, did not have the character to be the President of the United States, then I would submit, by those same standards, neither does Donald Trump.  

Correcting the Misimpression that the Biden Administration is "Unpopular" or "Failing"

Unpopular is a News Media Term

The news media has an interesting way of using language to make a point without appearing to show their bias.  They work in terms and phrases that assert facts not in evidence to create the impression that they are working off a substantiated source when they're really not.  Putting the adjective "unpopular", which can be a relatively nebulous and undefined term, in front of "Biden Administration" makes the point that the President and his administration are not measuring up to a satisfactory standard.  

But what, exactly, does it mean to say that a presidential administration is "unpopular"?  And if the term is used in a media context, how is that factually verified?  

It's not verified, in this application, it is an assertion from a reporter who threw the term in there because he or she isn't satisfied with the administration's position or policy on something and they think there's room for a change.  That makes its use a demonstration of bias.  

Citing polling data would be one way to prove the "unpopularity" of a Presidential administration, if there is some percentage of Americans who say they disapprove, or approve of the job a particular President is doing.  Since the beginning of President Biden's second year in office, the media has pointed to a job approval rating in the mid to low 40's as evidence of the unpopularity of this administration.  That's an awfully general assertion, however.  Most of the Presidents of the 21st century have had job approval ratings lower than that, including Biden's predecessor Trump, who ran in the upper 30's for most of his term, and Dubya, who would have given his right arm and left leg to get his job approval rating over 35%.  

And with Trump being the candidate once again preferred by the GOP to run their White House, calling the Biden administration "unpopular," when its opposition is even less popular is a little, no, a lot silly. If you put stock in the polling data, Trump's "disapproval" rating, however it is defined, has a low ceiling at 57%.  It doesn't go lower than that.   

Assertions Are Easy to Make, Difficult to Prove

The fact that the mid-term elections have become sort of an evaluation of the first two years of a Presidential term, whether it is the first term or second, is also a media perception.  Whether or not they have gathered enough information from the polls to make that determination, or whether mid-term elections seem to go against the party in power because the turnout drops significantly is a matter of opinion.  I tend to see the latter as the main reason for the shifts in Congress, though it is difficult to understand why people who, two years earlier elected a President would not turn out again to help that President continue with his agenda.  

The mid-term elections following Biden's first two years in office were a smashing success for the Democratic party, compared to previous similar elections.  That media narrative, about it being an evaluation or a measure of the popularity of the President was stunned into silence following the 2022 election.  Even as they were calling results on election night, and it was dawning on many of the reporters that their polling data had failed to make a prediction within the margin of error in more than two thirds of the races, labelling the Biden administration as "unpopular" could not be supported by the evidence they normally used.  

I didn't buy any of the explanations made as to why it was that the midterms, and subsequent special elections, were not going the way some commentators and pundits thought they should be going.  To me, a reasonably educated and observant American with a graduate degree and a lot of experience in the education field, the answer was obvious.  President Biden was effective.  He didn't run to be popular, he ran to get stuff done, and he did.  

As I write this article, at this moment, I am looking out of the bedroom window of my condo at an entire neighborhood where the streets are torn up and concrete sewer pipe is piled up, waiting to be installed under the streets.  In this neighborhood, built in the early 1950's, the work is long overdue.  At the entrance is a sign placed there by the contractor, noting that the money being spent is from the President's infrastructure bill passed earlier in his term, $165 million dollars that our small municipality received specifically to make these kind of improvements.  This particular project, along with six other infrastructure contracts in this particular township, will support more than 70 jobs over an 18 month period.  And this is happening everywhere in the country, and it's just one example. 

People Won't Like This, and They'll Fuss, But I'm Saying It Anyway

Popularity is a perception.  Journalists live and work in the same community everyone else does and sometimes, it's their anecdotal observation, not their professional evaluation, that writes their story.  

I do not believe that Trump would have beaten Joe Biden.  Trump hit his ceiling of support in 2020, and he took a huge credibility and trust hit when he organized and sent a mob to attack Congress while they were certifying the electoral votes.  That was the end of any future chance he had to come back.  No matter what the media claims the polling data says.  As the Vice President said last night, 81 million people fired him.  And more than 81 million people were going to show up in November, and make sure he stayed fired.  Because the reality of what another Trump term would look like is a bigger factor for the electorate than inflation, or the border, or the Ukraine or Gaza war.  

And while I don't have polling data to cite to support that, I don't need it.  Millions of Americans go about their business every day, think about who they are, and face the real world.  And once every few years, they walk into a voting booth and cast a ballot, exercising a precious freedom.  Prior to election day, 99.8% have not responded to a single poll question.  But they vote anyway.  And I am completely confident that when the votes were counted, more than 81 million voters would have put Biden back in the White House.  It may have come down to a couple of percentage points in some of those "battleground states," and then again, it may have been more comfortable than it was in 2020, which is what I think.  

And when it is all over on November 5, I believe more than 81 million voters, probably closer to 90 million, will send Kamala Harris to the White House.  

To Evangelical Trump Supporters: Trump Has Sold You Out

Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.  Matthew 7:15

Hello, my Evangelical friends and former fellow church members.  I hope you were watching the debate last night.  If you were, and you paid close attention, you would know that your "inamorata" politician, Trump, has completely sold you out.  He thinks you are in his back pocket, that you will set aside your convictions and beliefs to vote for him, because that's basically what you already do.  And he does not think he must be accountable to you any longer, in order to get your full support. 

A Huge Flip Flop on Abortion Rights

Trump has flip flopped on the key issue of abortion rights.  After bragging to you that he appointed three Supreme Court justices who were key in overturning the Roe v. Wade decision, which made women's reproductive health care a constitutional right, he now claims that he's not opposed to abortion, that a six week window in laws restricting access to abortion is not long enough, that he is OK with each individual state determining, by vote, whether to allow abortion rights or not, and that he's willing to live with the referendum results in Ohio, Kansas, Kentucky and other conservative states where voters sent the message to their state legislators that they want abortion to be safe and legal.  

More importantly than that, he clearly stated that he would not be in favor of a federal law banning all abortions, something every politically oriented Evangelical group supports 100%.  

In other words, he's sold you out in order to get votes, because he has seen that a significant percentage of the population wants the protections of Roe v. Wade restored.  He can't just take a reverse position because that would make him look like he made a mistake, so he invented this ridiculous argument that "everyone wanted the states to be able to do this."  That, by the way, was a big lie.  Not even all Republicans wanted that.  But his pathological lying has never seemed to bother you much, has it? 

So, according to what Trump said in the debate last night, if all 50 states passed laws making access to all women's reproductive health care decisions back to the women, including abortions, he would support that because the states voted for it.  And he would not support any attempt in Congress to pass a national abortion ban.  That goes against every reason you have ever given for supporting a moral degenerate like that as a candidate for President.  It's the one thing you have consistently used to defend your support for someone like him, who rejects even the basic premise of a Christian conversion experience.  

Do you really have strong convictions and beliefs about this?  Where does this leave you?  It leaves you with nothing, politically.  

Trump Denies Support for Project 2025

Trump also turned his back on those of you who were wistfully hoping for a Christian America.  All that work done to produce Project 2025, in full consultation with Trump himself and with his campaign, something he openly lied about during the debate, claiming he had nothing to do with it and doesn't plan to do anything like that, thrown  under the bus, along with the Heritage Foundation, who initiated the project at his instigation.  

The Heritage Foundation took great care to try and keep Project 2025 a secret, because they knew if that came out and looked like it might be a Republican party platform, it would cost them at the ballot box.  I'm pretty sure the orders to keep it secret came from Trump himself, since there is plenty of evidence he was directly involved in its authorship and told the Heritage Foundation if they helped get him elected to office, he would implement every point of it.  That's the kind of deal he makes. 

He also threw his own VP nominee, J.D. Vance under the bus, since Vance has been trumpeting his support for Project 2025, along with Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, also a supporter.  And I'm pretty sure that includes a lot of you, who think that God gave white people this virgin continent on which to create a true Christian nation after all of the bloodshed and fighting in Europe for the better part of ten centuries.  

It's unfortunate that there are Christians who do not know enough about what Jesus said and taught, and about what the scriptures you claim to be inerrant and infallible, have to say about this to know that goes against everything Jesus said and did.  Establishing some kind of "Christian" rule, by force if necessary, is nothing short of tyranny.  And for the church, heresy.  You can continue to believe whatever you want, but in this constitutional democracy, we all have freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.  

And you now have a Presidential candidate who claims he had nothing whatsoever to do with Project 2025, because he knows that if he does, he loses the election.  

Trump has sold you out on two of your most important political issues.  Are you going to show the strength of your convictions, and stop supporting him or are you, as I suspect, going to continue to bow the knee, and replace Jesus with your pseudo-savior Trump?  

No Wonder Your Churches Are Emptying

When people try to make excuses by claiming that "God sometimes uses evil men to achieve his purposes," it's a sign of their desperation for worldly, political power.  The reason the things you want don't ever seem to materialize is that they are not in God's will, they are in yours.  God's not going to place the power for you to control someone else's life in your hands.  That's what you are seeking, with these political alliances and support for candidates like Trump, who have similar ambitions.  

It is clearly inconsistent to preach the Christian gospel and then give political allegiance to someone who refuses to even acknowledge that he has sinned, and needs God's forgiveness.  You are being used, by leaders in your churches and denominations, and most especially by people who have set up their ministry like some corporate entity, designed to take your money and deliver empty promises in return, in order for them to get the political power they need to make more money.  

Of course, my perspective is that Trump is lying, and if elected, won't care what he said during the campaign.  There's a big risk in that for you, though.  Last time he made a lot of promises to you that he didn't keep, hoping you would be satisfied with the judges he appointed and wouldn't complain about all the things he didn't do for you.  He may still try to implement Project 2025 and claim that his deceit was just "owning the libs."  If you think that's funny, and being deceitful in politics is something Jesus would do, I question, legitimately, whether you even know who he is.  And if Trump's willing to flip without acknowledging what he promised or said earlier, who's to say that he wouldn't do the same to any of you, on any issue he chooses to use to protect himself or line his pockets.  That is, if you still have any convictions left to stand up for.  I'm not so sure any of you still do, after this.

And there's always the risk that his billionaire friends and his dictator buddies mean more to him than you do, as his most loyal constituency.  He thinks you're stupid and gullible, which is why he feeds you the ridiculous lies and conspiracy theories, and you confirm your stupidity and gullibility by buying it.  It's pretty likely that, with money on his mind, you'll get thrown under the bus too, once he's used you to get what he wants.

Go read the book of Jude, and follow his advice regarding intruders in the church.  Trump and Trumpism is an antichristian intrusion and deception.  It's time that it was shown the door.

 

In the Post-Trump Era, Four Battleground States Show Big Moves Toward Democratic Party Policy, Politicians

 In 2016, Hillary Clinton lost the election by failing to overcome razor thin Republican margins in the "blue wall" states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.  There was too much counting on tradition, and too little money spent and campaign time devoted to those three states that had been reliable for Clinton's predecessor, and for Democrats going all the way back to 1992.  A couple of rallies, a few campaign offices, and she would have been the first female President of the United States.  

So it is no surprise that the focus, in 2020 and now again in 2024, is on those three states, along with four others that have flipped their past tradition and supported Democrats in recent election cycles, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and Nevada. 

There's a lot of talk about this election coming down to razor thin margins in these "battleground states" because of how close they were in 2016, and then again in 2020.  But really?  When it came down to it, Biden campaigned in all of them, and won Pennsylvania by over 80,000 votes, and Michigan by over 100,000.  Wisconsin was close, just over 20,000, and that was the closest one that he actually needed to win the election.  Arizona, Georgia and Nevada were closer, but he didn't really need them after Pennsylvania put him over 270.  

The media is doing a lot of hollering and pointing attention to this microscopically close race in seven battleground states that will make the difference in who is elected President of the United States.  "Razor thin" is the common phrase.  And of course, they have their polls, those eternal polls, which, somehow always manage to fit the media's narrative better than they do the outcome of elections.  They have their apologists, who will fine tune the numbers and twist the rhetoric to make it sound like the way to know how an election will turn out is to listen to them. 

I don't think it is "razor thin."  I think it's more wide open than it was in 2020.  And there is evidence from other actual ballots having been cast to support this contention.  Polls don't vote.  Democrats do, and they have taken control of the politics in four of these battleground states since Biden won in 2020. 

So I have a slightly different take than our somewhat biased media.  It's based on reading between the lines, on data that we have and know how to interpret, on past voting patterns that polls often use to adjust their own numbers and it also contains some common sense.  You're reading this as it is, a guess by an amateur who has a background teaching high school students government, economics and American History and who has watched, and observed trends and elections for 40 years.  Take that for whatever it's worth.

Pennsylvania, the Eternal Battleground

Pennsylvania has been politically diverse since before the Revolutionary War.  Shay's Rebellion, in the Western part of the state shortly after the Revolution, may have been a warning of what was to come.  

I don't know what signs pollsters are looking at to make us think Pennsylvania may be wobbly for Democrats.  Here's what I'm looking at.  

Since Biden carried the state in 2020, Pennsylvania has moved in a decidedly Democratic direction.  Democrats captured the state House after Republicans, at one point, held a supermajority.  Tom Wolf, who originally defeated one-term Republican Tom Corbett in 2014, took a double-digit landslide win into the governor's office for a second term.  Then, in 2022, Josh Shapiro, who had been Attorney General in Wolf's second term, won a double digit landslide, becoming the first back to back Democrats in the governor's mansion going back to the beginning of the 21st century.  

Also, during this time, Pennsylvania's congressional delegation went from 5 Democrats and 13 Republicans to 9 Democrats, 8 Republicans.  The state flipped its second senate seat in 2022, when John Fetterman won by 5% of the vote over Mehmet Oz, in a race that far exceeded the poll predictions of an Oz win.  

So Democrats have gained ground in every election where ballots are actually cast in Pennsylvania, going back to 2018.  With Josh Shapiro being Harris' primary surrogate in his state, and his approval rating soaring over 60%, it's easy to see Harris carrying Pennsylvania with a margin well over 100,000 votes.  

Michigan, Where Democrats Get Women Elected to Office

The Democrats have won a hard fought ground battle in Michigan, initially campaigning against Republican leadership's gross mismanagement and mistakes, and then won re-election on their ability to GSD.  Gretchen Whitmer, who is herself a potential Presidential contender at some point down the road, has led the way.  Since Biden won in 2020, Michigan has replaced their Republican majority with a Democratic one, taken all of the state executive offices and won with larger re-election margins than the initial election.  Biden won here in 2020 with a margin of 154,000 votes, 3% of the vote rounded up.  

With approval ratings of the state government running in positive numbers, and the strength of a second term, solid Democratic governor along with strong candidates down ballot, including Representative Elisa Slotkin running for Senate, it's difficult to see Michigan being won by Trump.  I'm comfortable saying it goes the other way, especially with an energized black voter electorate, and Harris wins by more than 250,000.  

Wisconsin Looks So Much the Same

Wisconsin is in the second term of a popular Democratic governor's service to the state.  This state, where the congressional districts and state legislative districts define the term "gerrymandered," is about to emerge from that hold as well.  The key event in Wisconsin's electoral history since 2020, aside from the re-election of Evers and a complete Democratic sweep of every statewide office, was the election of Janet Protaciewicz to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, flipping its majority from Republican to Democrat.  She won by 11 points, in a landslide.  The implications of this, including redistricting the gerrymandered state and congressional districts, was huge.  

So Wisconsin looks a lot like Michigan and Pennsylvania in many ways.  I listen to a Wisconsin-based political talk show, "The Devil's Advocate," on WCPT Chicago in the evenings, and I give them partial credit for my prediction that Wisconsin may actually be "safe Democrat" for Harris.  

"No one has ever seen the kind of crowds at Wisconsin rallies like Harris-Walz has."  

I hope that doesn't sound too much like some other candidate. 

Arizona's Rapidly Changing Political Landscape

In 1980, Arizona had 2.7 million people, 6 electoral votes and was 65% Republican, one of the highest percentages in the country.  In 2020, Arizona had 7.4 million people, and while party registration still favored Republicans, the vote went for the Democrats, as Biden won by 15,000 votes.  But the state continued trending to the left, when Katie Hobbs defied the polls and won election as governor in 2022. To say it's 50-50 now is no exaggeration, as every statewide seat except Superintendent of Public Instruction was won by Democrats.

I've always referred to Arizona, my home state, as the most politically backward in the nation.  Straight Republican since 1952, including the 1964 disaster when favorite son Barry Goldwater barely carried his home state against Lyndon Johnson, it has a quirky past with Republican governors who couldn't stay out of prison.  

But already a purple state, a large in-migration of people from both California and the Northeast makes it increasingly Democratic in outlook.  It is on the verge of flipping both of the houses of the state legislature.  Congressman Ruben Gallego, running for Sinema's abandoned Senate seat, has a sizeable lead over Kari "Loon" Lake.  With Mark Kelly and Gabby Giffords as her surrogates, my best guess says Harris wins Maricopa County with an 80,000 vote margin, and carries the state by 40,000.  

Nevada May Be As Close as a Turn of a Card or a Roll of the Dice

And then again...it may not be.  

The Culinary Workers Union is the biggest mover of election priorities in Nevada.  With a fairly popular Senator on the ballot, Jacky Rosen, and the endorsement of the union, in the largest population centers of the state, where 80% of the voters live, Harris has the advantage.  It will be close here, probably closer than in other battleground states.  But Harris has energized women voters, a large part of the Nevada electorate, and Latino voters, where polls show her percentage of support is as much as 6% higher than Biden's was.  

Nevada does look a little different than the first four.  It has a Republican governor, and the other Senator, Catherine Cortez-Masto, won a very close race in the mid-term for re-election.  If the enthusiasm from the DNC can get this far, and the rally that Harris and Walz had in Las Vegas might be an indication of how contagious that was, then Nevada could continue to be a blue state.  

Nevada works as a swing state in combination with Arizona or Wisconsin, adding 6 votes to Arizona's 11 and Wisconsin's 10.  If she wins Michigan and Pennsylvania, then Arizona or Wisconsin is all she needs to put her over.  Nevada is just icing on the cake.  

Georgia May See a Surge in Black Voters Again

Like Arizona, Georgia is a state where rapid population growth has changed the makeup of the population and moved the state back toward having a majority of Democratic party voters.  Though Georgia's statewide offices remain in Republican hands, since 2020, both senate seats have flipped to Democrats Jon Ossoff and Rev. Rafael Warnock.  Biden carried the state narrowly, by the number of votes quoted by Trump minus one, 11,780 votes.  The two senators won by a slightly higher margin and when the regular election for Warnock's seat came up again, he won a narrow but not quite as close election.  

Harris has energized black voters.  There is talk that she may get black voters back up to the level that Obama had in 2008, and 2012, seven percent higher than it was in subsequent elections, which made a difference.  In addition to the black vote, Harris also has energized younger voters, which make up a higher percentage of Georgia's electorate than some of the surrounding red, southern states have.  

Warnock depended on the metro Atlanta vote to win, but he succeeded in getting Democrats out to vote in many of the rural counties.  Sometimes, it is the character of the candidate that makes the difference and in Georgia, that might just be the case once again.  How much will the feud between Georgia's governor and secretary of state and Trump affect the GOP electorate?  

Harris also has quite a ground game and a lot of volunteers in Georgia, far more than Trump has on the ground here.  And she's gone after Democratic voters in rural areas that are usually very red. She got quite a reception on her bus tour of South Georgia, and that may be one of those things that makes a difference in a close race.  

North Carolina has Also Shifted by Population Growth

Most of the state officers of North Carolina are Democrats, and since Trump barely won this state in 2020, it is a battleground again.  The high percentage of black voters could push Harris over the top here, if they are as energized as they appear to be, and reach those 2008 Obama levels.  That's enough to overcome the highest level of support Trump got here in 2020.  

One of the huge issues in this state is women's healthcare choice.  It ranks as high on the political issue list here as in almost any other state.  And ironically, one of Harris' advantages in North Carolina is that Josh Stein, the Attorney General, the Democratic candidate for Governor, has a huge lead over Mark Robinson, the Lieutenant Governor, running on the GOP ticket.  Two of the most recent polls have Stein at +10 and +11 respectively.  That will help Harris.  

So in my analysis, looking at the trends, I think North Carolina will be a +2 or +3 point win for Harris.

For What It's Worth, What About Florida and Texas? 

As close as most of the available polling data indicate this race is in both of those states, I also understand why the media and the pollsters are not moving to talk more about them or to try and keep it appearing as if these are deep red states, when they're really not at all.  Any big news about a polling shift in either state, both of which are absolutely essential to Trump, would throw his cash strapped campaign into chaos.  Trying to defend those two states at the same level that a battleground state campaign requires would be fatal to Trump.  So the media will wait as long as they can.  

I don't need to wait.  She's within the margins of error of most polls in both places.  With hard line right wing state governments, and two governors who are almost as crazed and insane when it comes to power grabbing as Trump is, it doesn't seem likely that either state would flip.  Texas' notoriously undemocratic, unpatriotic Attorney General, Ken Paxton, has tried to deplete the voter registration rolls by millions of voters, to make some margin for Trump.  But the problem he is facing is that Beto O'Rourke, who, in two campaigns, one for Senate, one for governor, not only broke out of the mediocre percentages of Democratic votes, but also helped register millions of Democrats to vote, and has an ongoing registration campaign that is well past the half million mark in its most recent efforts. 

The big question in both of these states is whether or not the results will get certified if Harris wins, especially if she lifts Collin Allred to a win, who leads over Cruz in the key senate race, and Debbie Murcarsel-Powell, who is running neck and neck with Rick Scott.  We are dealing with Republicans who are more than willing to find ways to subvert the power of the people's vote if they think they can get away with it.  And if either one of these hard line right wing governors, neither of which is known for their honesty and good character, decide to test the waters and see what happens if they try to put unelected electors in place to cast ballots.  If I were in charge of the justice department, I'd send the FBI to enforce the law, and arrest them both if they failed to do their job.  

Polling in Florida, if it can be trusted, is actually moving toward Harris and Democratic candidates for office, especially Murcarsel-Powell, who leads in some polls now.  I hope Democrats in the state are immediately and powerfully ready to face down Desantis and the state officers and force certification once the ballot count has been confirmed.  And the same goes for Texas.  

So Yes, I'll Pick 'Em

With Democratic state administrations, I think Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania are safe for Harris.  Winning those eliminates her need for any other battleground state.  But I think she's going to get the other three as well.  

And that might be overly optimistic.  The again, it may not be accurately estimating what Harris and Walz, and their campaign have brought to the table.  

I always though Biden's presidency would be transitional.  We needed relief, badly, from the incompetent, inept, ineffective and dangerous Trump, who showed he could not be trusted the day he visited the North Korean dictator and determined to make that a centerpiece of his foreign policy.  When it didn't appear that there would be a move within the Democratic party to reorganize a campaign for 2024, and Biden decided to run again, I was fully supportive.  And I still believe that had he stayed in, he would have beaten Trump.  I may be setting myself up for disappointment, but I've never believed Trump has the character to convince enough of the American people he can handle the job.  I don't think he did in in 2016, and that's why the Mueller Report and everything associated with his election has been covered up, never to see the light of day.  

And there's the whole issue of Trump's age, stamina and competency.  Age and claims of hiding dementia in Biden were harsh media criticisms a month ago.  Now, with an obviously unhinged, demented, senile Trump, that no longer seems to be an issue.  Well, so the media might have moved that to the back page to protect Trump.  But it may also backfire with a vengeance.  He can't hide among his MAGA crowd forever, or he won't win.  

I not only believe Harris will win, 7% more of the popular vote and over 300 electoral votes, but she will also have long enough coattails to bring the Democratic controlled senate with her and get the House back under Democratic party control.  

"Democracy Dies in Darkness," Says the Motto of the Washington Post, as They Help Turn Out the Lights

"Profit Motive" and "Free Press" is an Oxymoron

To conservatives, anything that isn't favorable toward their preferred perspective and politicians, and which calls out and reports negative information about them is biased, as far as they are concerned.  The idea of finding a "niche" among the population that is prone to believe conspiracy theories and that is lacking enough education and discernment to actually distinguish between facts and what they perceive as some kind of bias was exploited by Rush Limbaugh.  He found his "niche audience" on AM radio, a medium with which he was familiar from his days of playing records and announcing song titles and artists as a disc jockey.     

AM radio was dying, as the music and entertainment had moved over to the FM side of the dial where it had a much clearer, crisper signal.  AM stations, especially in smaller media markets, were going silent.  The combination of Limbaugh's political ideology, and building a network of radio stations, mostly AM talk formats, in places scattered around the country within reach of the audience who shared the fears and believed in the conspiracy theories he pandered turned into a money making operation, the bulk of it went in his pocket, but there was enough that came in from local advertisers to help AM stations scrape by and avoid bankruptcy or buyouts.  

I worked for a radio station in a small town in South Texas, originally just a 5,000 watt AM signal that played country music.  When I worked there, the owner had borrowed money and invested in adding an FM transmitter for the music side of the broadcast, letting the DJ's go, and subscribing to a satellite broadcast to save money on personnel, while the AM side was a news radio station that had a radius of over 100 miles.  It barely broke even, after paying personnel and consulting expenses for outside news and talk sources.  So he joined Limbaugh's EIB network, basically mortgaging the station property to pay the subscription fee, and got four hours a day from the network, two of it Limbaugh's own show.  

The network didn't exist to "save" the small town radio stations on which it built its audience.  In this case, the station picked up enough listeners to attract a few long term advertising contracts from local businesses who wanted their ads aired during the EIB shows.  Though the station paid a high monthly subscription to be on EIB, it was allowed only eight sixty-second advertising spots during the whole four hour time slot.  Basically, the money generated from the local advertisers they picked up paid the monthly fee to EIB for the satellite feed.  Limbaugh made millions off of hundreds of these small town radio stations.  The radio station owner, still in debt for the improvements he made, without sufficient income to pay it off, eventually sold out to a media corporation and two counties lost their only local news and radio voice.  

And that illustrates what's going on in America's "free press."  It has grown into a system that has been made to work for its ownership's political interests.  There is no interest anymore in defending Democracy or in protecting "we, the people" from tyranny.  The "niche" audience of people on the political left is still large enough and effective enough to have some influence, and make a place for itself in the market, as we see in MSNBC, and to some extent, still has some influence in the corporate board rooms of the three major networks.  But this is not a free press.  That has died. This is now, like just about everything else in the United States, a commodity that can be bought and sold in the marketplace.  

I couldn't move forward here without mentioning Rupert Murdock.  No links, no credit, and one paragraph to simply say that this is one of the biggest obstacles in America to a free press.  If it were possible to sue and hold accountable one person for the damage done by decades of misinformation, it would be this man, and his Fox News empire.  They were sued, by the way, in a crippling way, and I am praying that there's more of this on the way.  That would be one magnificent way to help turn some of the lights back on.  If that would extend to all of the right wing extremist wannabees who have followed Murdock's model and imitated his despicable character, like Newsmax and others of that ilk, we might have a free press again at some point.  This is one big reason why we no longer do.  

It's Not a "Free" Press if it Can Be Bought and Sold

It is ironic that, in the United States today, one of the more "fair and balanced" media outlets is PBS, the government owned, taxpayer supported network.  It's about as bland and non-controversial as it can possibly be, though I do give it credit for protecting free expression, especially when it is in danger of being lost simply because of a lack of enough popularity to generate revenue.  Popularity should never be a determining factor in the cultural, social, or personal value of any art form or free expression and in that regard, PBS is a gift.  I wonder if it would survive a second Trump term in office? 

The only other "fair and balanced" media that exists in the United States is the collection of listener supported news outlets and media brands that have formed.  They do not have the money to provide the kind of staffing necessary to gain the listening audiences and the ratings that would make them a highly effective factor in the convoluted politics we now face because of the failure of our justice system and the breaking of the Constitutional guardrails intended to protect the people's power from usurpation by dictatorship.  

But they do exist.  And in this season of political turmoil, they are still giving light in the growing darkness.  

One of the priorities that I personally see for a Harris Administration, if enough support can be gathered in Congress, is the prohibition, on constitutional grounds, of the ownership of media outlets by corporations.  We need to keep media outlets from being owned by big business interests, and we also need to keep the ownership of media outlets independent.  No one should be allowed to own, and thus have editorial control, over multiple radio, television and internet media outlets.  

And we need someone at the FCC who is willing to put teeth into enforcing fairness, once those laws are changed.  

In the meantime, I will share some links that I hope will be beneficial and provide some peace of mind in this time of media confusion and usurpation.  

Common Dreams

Pacifica Network

AlterNet

Democracy Now!

McClatchy DC

Mother Jones

Nation of Change

Salon

The American Prospect

The Intercept

The Nation

The Atlantic

Baptist News Global

The New Yorker

Justice in America is Dead

It's time to face facts.  

We've come a long, long way from those days, just months ago, when Trump faced over 90 indictments for crimes he committed against "we, the people."  From an insurrection aimed at overturning the Constitutional guarantee of the peaceful transfer of power, and the crimes committed in carrying that out, to stealing classified documents exposing our country to espionage, to intimidating and lying to poll workers and attempting to subvert election results in Georgia, to committing fraud in order to avoid having an affair with a porn star exposed prior to an election, it's all been lost in the incredible bureaucracy of various levels of the legal system that seem almost designed to protect political criminals like Trump from ever being brought to justice.  

When all of this started happening, I really didn't want to listen to the few voices raised in doubt about whether any of this would ever come to anything more than just media talk.  "Now we've finally got him!" was a phrase I heard and saw in multiple places, especially where Democrats gather to discuss politics.  

"Finally!  He's not going to get out of this so easily!"  

There were plenty of defenders for Attorney General Merrick Garland, who, following the damning Congressional investigation into January 6th in which two Republican members of the house sacrificed their political careers to join, appeared to be dragging his feet, not really doing anything to move the case against Trump forward.  I really wanted to believe, so badly, that he was feverishly putting things together out of sight, for the sake of not exposing the prosecution's hand, and that the bureaucratic system that moves like a turtle most of the time was being pushed to produce results.  

But it turns out, he really was dragging his feet, something he eventually admitted to doing.  I'm not sure where the pressure came from, but once a special prosecutor was named, and he eventually got indictments, there were those who kept insisting that it was too late, and that the court system either couldn't, or wouldn't, have a trial ready to go before the election rolled around.  I so badly wanted to believe the now fewer voices who still believed justice would be done and Trump would be tried before voters had a chance to cast their ballots.  

And here we are.  Even the one case, in the State of New York, which took almost a decade to prosecute, where there was an actual trial before the election, concluding with 34 felony convictions, has been neutralized, weakened, and pushed off to the side, the sentencing postponed, and postponed again, now not to occur until weeks after the election is over.  

And so, all of those who were once ridiculed and criticized for not believing in our justice system, for being critical of a Democratic-appointed Attorney General, for not believing that the system was powerful enough to endure, as it was intended, in spite of human error, to work on behalf of the people, have been vindicated.  

The system is broken.  Justice, in America, is dead.  

Oh, for those among our population who do not have the means to buy their way out of trouble, and who do not have the political power to threaten careers and threaten to jail people who are working to bring about true justice, we still must face the consequences of crimes we commit, and we still must pay the cost for the system, regardless of its effectiveness on our behalf.  In light of what is now happening, I don't know if that can actually be called "justice."  We must bear the brunt of the corruption of justice.  

And I must also ask, where's the outrage over this?  I'm not hearing much.  It's as if, collectively, we, the people of the United States have so widely accepted this corruption that it comes as a matter of course, no surprise, no demands for accountability, nothing.  

When Democratic Presidential nominee and Vice-President Kamala Harris started her campaign for the Presidency, she reminded us that she is a prosecutor, and as such, she knows Donald Trump's type.  I have no doubt of that.  However, we appear to be at a point in all of what is going on that her ability to identify Trump's type has come at a time that is too late to save justice from a fall.   

I really want to know what is going on, and what has caused this total collapse of will and the commitment to justice represented by those people who put their lives on the line to protect it?  Is it some kind of threat to the safety of those involved, and for their families?  Or is it money, from billionaire friends of Trump, worth putting in to see what it can buy, in order to protect their interests by putting him back in the White House?  Or is it a combination of all of those things?  

I don't know the answers to those questions, though I have my own suspicions and guesses.  But what I do know, is that not only have we seen the death of justice in America, we have also seen the death of the free press.  It's happened right in front of us.  They've been reporting all of this collapse and outrage as if it were just routine, no more sensational than the liquor store down the street getting robbed for the fifth time.  And today's news programs were sickening drivel, inconsequential babble and driven by the ignorance of people who call themselves "journalists."  

The New York Times puts its motto on its pages, "Democracy dies in darkness."  Well, people, the sun has gone down fast, and we are in the last moments of twilight for our Democracy.  It's been left up to us.  

The "Ideal America" Being Pushed by Trump and Vance Is White Supremacist Nationalism

As much as I dislike watching or reading news stories about rallies and stump speeches given by Trump and Vance, I've read enough to get a very clear picture of what they are promoting and where their idealism is going.  The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 is the centerpiece of virtually everything they do, and it's interesting to note that, in spite of his vehement denials, Trump, Vance, and the entire GOP campaign for Congress has been tagged with it.  People do seem to be paying attention.  

I'm not making some earth-shattering observation here, though wading through Trump and Vance rhetoric is a good way to induce vomiting.  They are betting that bigotry and racism, anti-Semitism, and separating people in America by race, ethnicity, personal wealth, religious beliefs and cultural identity, and favoring the bigots, racists, wealthiest, straight, white people by promising them all of the favor of government while discriminating against everyone else who doesn't fall in that category will get them enough votes to win.  

And so, in the world's most prosperous, and ideologically and politically most free country, the fact that there are enough of these people to make an election as competitive as it seems, and might well be, is a damning indictment.  The fact that, in spite of our freedom, in spite of our prosperity and our resources, in spite of our ideology, in spite of our Constitution and the groundwork laid by our founding fathers, in spite of the claims of the heavy influence of Christianity on the nation, this hideous, hateful, divisive, subversive ideology has as much of a following as it does is a sign of the failure of multiple government, cultural, social and religious institutions.  

There are few words to describe the complete and total lack of any kind of humanity that Trump and Vance spew out every day.  Total depravity is one term that comes to mind, from the theology developed by Jean Calvin during the Reformation to describe what he believed was the state of mankind apart from God.  

Depravity of Trumpism is so Prolific, We Fail to be Shocked by it

Vance has done more to give voice to the depraved bigotry, insensitivity, racism, and hatred than any other Trump surrogate, with the exception of Trump himself, and maybe he has actually been worse than Trump, though they are both giving Satan a run for his money.  An unbelievable remark, which should have sent a shudder through the hearts and minds of every parent of a school-aged child in this country made its way out of Vance's mouth in the wake of the deadly school shooting in Georgia.  

School shootings are just "a fact of life."  

In this country, they are.  But not anywhere else in the world.  

The fact that a candidate running for Vice-President of the United States can make a matter-of-fact statement like that, and not get any real reaction from anywhere in the media is a testimony to the fact that the media has lost its effectiveness as a protector of free speech and as the people's advocate in this nation.  Please point me to any media outlet that is expressing genuine, horrific outrage over this statement.  I'll gladly take this comment back.  Until then, at least part of the blame for this collapse of American values falls on the American news media.  All of them.

The founding fathers never thought that they needed to put guardrails on a democracy where people, who they believed were decent, generally law-abiding and respectful citizens, were responsible for vetting candidates.  They never imagined that someone who was so degenerate and depraved, who would commit crimes with impunity and adopt a political ideology aimed at destroying everything they had carefully constructed, would ever be able to pass the scrutiny of public opinion and get into position to run for office.  So they never developed ways to prevent it from happening.  They left that up to we, the people.  Somewhere along the way, our stewardship of democracy has broken down, to even allow this man to be nominated by a major political party.  

A Complete Collapse of Religious Conviction

Since this blog was started, the cowardice and failure of conservative Christians to live up to their claims, both doctrinally within their own house, and politically, with their cult-like voting requirements to claim Christian faith as a title, has been underlined and emphasized.  I've never seen such a complete and total abandonment of conviction and values, in exchange for recognition and political power to get things done.  Obviously, conservative Evangelicals do not trust the Holy Spirit of God to answer their prayers, so they have turned to Donald Trump.  

It is within the Evangelical branch of American Christianity where the bigotry that fosters racism still exists, and still spreads it to other parts of the culture.  It is an open, unconfessed sin and in spite of a few pronouncements and resolutions that half-heartedly condemn it, it has been from within these narrow minded, willfully ignorant, education-resistant churches that racism has welled up and spilled out.  These  people, and their leaders, are not practicing any faith, they are clustering around mysticism and superstition, fed by their own ignorance.  

Trump, who rejects every core principle and doctrine of conservative, Evangelicalism, figured out how to tap into the energy of the racism and that's what keeps this attraction going.  He has nothing but contempt for their ideology, but he realizes the value they are to his ability to get the power he needs for self-preservation.  That's why conservative Evangelicals continue to form the core of his MAGA base.  Their values system was built on sand and it has collapsed in the face of pressure.  It has sold its soul to a real devil, a deceiving antichrist [Matthew 24:24]    

Author and Atlantic magazine magazine journalist Tim Alberta recently told an audience at Baylor University that the American church has become, "in some ways every secularist's fever dream--hateful, bullying, hypocritical--more consumed with winning culture wars than with promoting peace on earth, goodwill toward men."  

"The stench of scandal and the lack of accountability that perpetuates it drags the name of Jesus through the mud," he said.  

He correctly identified pastors who push politics and who "weaponize the word of God to justify their own lust for worldly idols. grafting the enduring power of the gospel onto their ephemeral obsession with winning elections, subjugating their enemies and imposing a version of Christianity focused on strength and status."  

Alberta describes what is going on as a crisis in the American church.  It is a crisis, at least among conservative Evangelicals who have seen their church attendance and membership begin to decline as their involvement in politics increased, going back as far as the Reagan days.  But the sharpest drop in attendance has come since 2016.  To use a biblical analogy from Jesus himself, if politics seems to be creating a crisis among Evangelicals, it may also be doing sincere Christians a favor by separating the sheep from the goats.  Far right Evangelicals who are completely wrapped up in right wing Trump politics do not exhibit any characteristics that identify them, from a biblical perspective, as Christians.  In fact, they fit the Bible writer's descriptions of the pagan populations that surrounded and persecuted Christians in the first three centuries of the church's existence. 

How Deep Does White Supremacy Run? 

 We're going to find out, this election cycle, just how deep the evil of white supremacy and racist ideology runs in the United States.  If, over the course of our existence, we have been a progressive nation, overcoming those things that we associate with a more primitive, less knowledgeable past, and have truly made progress toward recognizing the equality and value of every human being on the face of the earth, regardless of their skin color, race, ethnicity, religion, politics, language or their level of intelligence and capability of free thinking, then we will see the result of a free and fair election that sets us free from the narrow minded bigotry of Trump Republicanism.  

If we have not made that kind of progress, then let's at least hope there is a big enough majority in the electorate to see the difference between what's being offered by the extremists on the right and the progressives on the left, and continue to keep a window open through which progress can still happen.  Otherwise, our society and our nation will fall.  Trumpism isn't capable of productive government and that will lead to anarchy.  

And that's exactly what our enemies have been hoping for, waiting for and working for.  

Lacking in Grace, Evangelicals Have Earned Their Bad Reputation

Baptist News Global: Shepherds for Sale and the Evangelical Civil War

Charles Qualls: Who's Woke at Bubba-Doo's

Conduct yourselves wisely toward outsiders, making the most of the time.  Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer everyone.  The Apostle Paul, Epistle to the Colossians, 4:5-6, NRSV

Let your speech always be gracious.  

The Way Christianity Should Be

The piece that is linked above, by Charles Qualls, who is the pastor of Franklin Baptist Church in Franklin, VA, is part of a whole series he writes for Baptist News Global, centered on the life that surrounds an old country store he calls "Bubba-Doo's."  There are multiple illustrations throughout the series, which I very much enjoy reading, that are clues about the manner in which this particular pastor approaches the Christian gospel and sees what kind of faith it produces.  The word that comes to mind is "gracious."  

Dr. Qualls obviously draws on his Georgia-raised background in coming up with the characterization of a place like Bubba-Doo's.  I didn't grow up in that part of the country, but I've spent enough time in places like that to visualize such a place, along with the people in the surrounding community.  Dr. Qualls' examples illustrate Christian faith as gracious, and shows the kind of patience and understanding with people that earn a good reputation even among people who are not Christians or predisposed to accepting Christianity at face value.  

In this particular story, one of the characters is a lesbian, the niece of the owner, whose presence as an employee in her uncle's store has stirred up complaints from a few customers, calling the store owner "woke" and threatening not to visit there or conduct business anymore.  The illustration in this fictional account points to a more gracious way to treat the person, as a human being, as a family member, as an individual who is accountable before God for themselves, than some mean-spirited response, or a boycott. 

The story illustrates the point in an excellent way.  Treating someone with dignity and respect, because they are a fellow human being, doesn't constitute an endorsement of their lifestyle, their political position or their faith.  It's simply the right thing to do.  They are accountable for themselves before God, not before anyone else, and they have not asked for a judgment or ruling on the rightness or wrongness of their lifestyle. 

Here's the bottom line.  Conservative Evangelicals claim that the Bible is inerrant and infallible, and that it is the sole authority for Christian faith and practice.  If that's true, then interpreting the Christian faith out of the New Testament starts with the recorded words of Jesus Christ himself, using them as the interpretive criterion for all of the rest of the Bible.  Jesus, answering a deep theological question from religious leadership, said that the greatest commandment was "to love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul, and all your mind," in other words, with your intellect and your spirit.  And he also noted that the second greatest commandment was equal to the first, "to love your neighbor as yourself."  

"Neighbor" is a broad term, and it went beyond just the people who live in the neighborhood.  Jesus illustrated the point by using a Samaritan as an example, a man who was of a different ethnicity, spoke a different language and practiced a different religion was defined as "neighbor."  All through the New Testament, it is clear that this is a core value of the Christian gospel.  The way for a Christian to demonstrate their love for God, in obedience to this greatest commandment, is to love one's neighbor.  There's no other way to do it.  

As I look at the public image politically engaged conservative Evangelicals in the United States put forth, I see nothing that resembles this primary, core Christian virtue.  

Forget Loving One's Neighbor, These People Hate Each Other 

That's in contrast to the kind of Christianity that is visible as an influence in American politics, and which prompts authors like Megan Basham, among others, to turn over rocks looking for ideological and theological disloyalty among big-name Christian leadership.  Disloyalty, in this case, is measured not so much by differences of opinion over Bible interpretation, though that is clearly a factor, but with declarations from some Evangelical leaders that being Christian includes voting for conservative Republicans, specifically giving loyalty to Trump.  

So, within this religious-political movement that ironically gives loyalty to a man who rejects the very core principle of Christian conversion, denying his own sinfulness and his need for God's forgiveness, which is an absolute requirement, under Evangelical interpretation of the Bible, to becoming Christian, and who lives a lifestyle diametrically the opposite of that which is laid out in the inerrant Bible by Jesus and the Apostles, there is little love to be found.  Mostly what shows is a lot of jealousy of the wealth and influence of others, and anger at those who keep this for themselves and refuse to bow the knee to the worldly reprobate who, for the third time, is the GOP nominee for President.  

Lying, character assassination, mis-quoting and mis-interpreting public statements, failing to verify statements made that are used to undermine the integrity of someone else, I can't find any place in the inerrant, infallible Bible that makes these particular "attributes" identifying marks of a Christian.  The apostle John does say they identify an attitude of being he calls "antichrist," but they bear no resemblance to the characteristics that identify true Christianity.  Yet there is the exact strategy used by Basham to call out those within the Evangelical fold she believes to be "traitors" and "leftists."  

I'm not going to repeat all of the infighting, accusations of lying, of being "leftist," or "traitors" or wolves in sheep's clothing that Basham slings around in her book.  I wouldn't recommend reading it.  The article that is referenced here more than makes the point.  

But I will say this.  Any Christian leader who claims that a Christian is identified by how they vote, and that true Christians cannot vote for Democrats is directly contradicting the words of the Bible's authors.  Being a political leftist doesn't disqualify anyone from being Christian, and a political leftist who demonstrates love for God by loving his neighbor is far more Christian than a far right wing conservative Evangelical Republican who hates all of his neighbors who don't think like, act like and believe like he does.  

There's a reason why 16 million people who once belonged to and attended churches in the United States that identify as "Evangelical Christian," no longer do so.  They went to church for inspiration and motivation in living out a set of values and virtues taught by the Christian gospel.  They left when they got the opposite of that in the form of Trump's right wing extremism.  

America was NOT Born as a Christian Nation

Baptist News Global: Was America Born as a Christian Nation? 

Dr. Robert Jeffress, the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas, has just written a book entitled, America is a Christian Nation.  For a pastor of one of the flagship churches of the Southern Baptist Convention, with an impressive list of degrees, including one from a credible university, he's not very capable of interpreting written history as far as his contention is concerned.  

There's no question that Dr Jeffress is conservative when it comes to his theology.  He's very fundamentalist Baptist in that regard, including the fact that he is a dispensationalist, like the well-known W. A. Criswell, long time former pastor of the same church.  His theology degrees are from two very tightly-wound seminaries, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth, which is fundamentalist Baptist through and through, and Dallas Theological Seminary, non-denominational but heavily influenced and steeped in fundamentalism, so much so that most of its graduates serve Baptist churches.  His most recent doctorate, in Divinity, came from Dallas Baptist University, less conservative, perhaps, than Southwestern, but still conservative.  

His undergraduate degree is from Baylor University, a school with deep, historic roots among Texas Baptists, and because it is a private school, in Texas, is very Republican when it comes to politics.  But it is one of the leading universities influenced by the breakaway moderate Baptist movement known as the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and has deliberately re-aligned its trustee board to get away from having its theology and academic departments, particularly the sciences, be directed by fundamentalists.  The Baptists who now run Baylor are in good company with the ones who also operate Baptist News Global, which is a moderate-to-liberal publication owned by the Baptist General Association of Virginia.  

So I have to conclude that he either didn't learn much about American constitutional history at Baylor, or he ignored what they taught him.  But then, attending Baylor is less of a theological statement, even though its theology is quite liberal compared to the Southern Baptists who once owned it, than it is a rite of passage for rich, white Baptist kids from Texas who are more interested in the prestige that the name gives them than in anything they learn in its theology classes.  

Jeffress Seems Somewhat "Woke" on a Few Issues, Anyway

Jeffress is typically Southern Baptist on most social issues.  He is vehemently opposed to women serving as church pastors or ordained leaders of any kind.  He is also vehemently opposed to any kind of same sex marriage or LGBTQ rights, and he is a staunch defender of the anti-abortion activist position, desiring it to be eliminated as an option anywhere in the United States.  

After Charlottesville, he came out with a statement condemning racism.  

"Let there be no misunderstanding," he said, "Racism is a sin."  He added later on, in a separate interview, "all racism is repulsive and totally contradictory to the word of God."  

He was not an anti-vax supporter.  "There is no credible religious argument against the vaccines," he stated.  

He loses all credibility, however, by standing with Trump.  Any pastor who publicly endorses candidates for office is placing his political perspective and the power that may go with it above his ministry to his congregation.  Pastors, like everyone else, are entitled to their own opinion and perspective, but ministry is a higher calling, and that's a common, Evangelical interpretation of the point.  

Standing with such a morally bankrupt, corrupt, and totally unrepentant person like Trump is an inexplicable position for the pastor of one of the most well-known Southern Baptist churches in the country.  Of course, among conservative Christians, there's always the "out" of a conversion experience.  Even that is cheapened by using it as a means of giving a pass to a moral degenerate who happens to use political power, and money, as a bribe for favors and for getting out of trouble.  In Trump's case, though, there's been no conversion experience.  In fact, Trump has openly denied having committed any sin requiring God's forgiveness.  And those are his words.  

The value of what Trump has to attract leaders of the Evangelical far right is what he can do for them politically, and a Christian nationalist country is high on their agenda.  I don't know how many of them realize how quickly he can turn on them when he's gotten what he wants and doesn't need them any more.  They've given up a lot to follow them, not just their credibility, but their loyalty has shifted away from Christ and the Christian gospel, and they've given that, too, to Trump.  

"It's More Complicated Than That" 

According to Rodney Kennedy, author of the linked article from Baptist News Global says Jeffress' premise is flawed by a "false reading strategy."  Jeffress, says Kennedy, is of the opinion that gathering snippets of sayings by founding fathers that include the words "God," "Christian," "Bible," and "belief," constitutes the proof necessary to declare their intentions to make America a Christian nation.  

Another of Jeffress' flaws in making his point is his reliance on the work of David Barton, the founder of a group known as "Wallbuilders," dedicated to undoing the wall of separation that the Constitution establishes between church and state.  Barton, who is not a historian, but holds a degree in religious education from Oral Roberts University, is a Fundamentalist source of misinformation and of completely re-writing history.  Jeffress almost completely relies on Barton as the source of his information for his book, which Kennedy calls "an extended version of one of Jeffress' sermons."  Barton's historical interpretations have been debunked, to the point where many Evangelical Christian schools won't use his stuff.  

If America was founded as a Christian nation, and specifically, if the writing of the Constitution is the result of a foundation of "Biblical truth," where, exactly, are the examples of Biblical truth in the Constitution and where are the citations of references from the Bible to support those Biblical principles?  Use of the term "divine Providence" does not constitute a Christian confession of faith.  It doesn't necessarily indicate the users actual belief in God in the same context as conservative Christians do. 

The strongest evidence against the idea that the Founders intended to establish a Christian nation is the establishment clause of the First Amendment.  This ended the existence of a state church in America, and it set all churches free from state oversight, regulation, approval of the appointment of its ministers and from dictating the content of the preacher's sermons.  It also created a completely secular state, in which those who were in government service, as members of a legislative body, head of state, or in the judicial system as magistrates, mayors and other political leaders, were no longer required to hold membership in a church in order to serve in office.  

It was also obvious in the writing of James Madison, whose observation of the persecution of Baptists by the state church in Virginia, the Church of England, had inspired his idea for religious liberty, and of Thomas Jefferson, himself an agnostic, who also expressed this idea of religious liberty in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut.  In their unique way, both of these men saw the tyranny imposed on those whose conscience led to expression of a faith different from that of the state's official church, and on those who did not desire to follow any kind of religious belief.  

How "Christian" Could a Christian Nation Under Trump's Leadership Be?

I'm not curious enough about how a Trump-led Christian nationalist America would look to have any desire at all to try it out.  From observation, it could not be Christian, since there is absolutely nothing in Trump or his politics that resembles genuine Christian faith.  It is quite the opposite in the anti-Christian nature of the rhetoric and behavior exhibited by its leader, who demands loyalty Christians usually give only to Jesus Christ.  I use the term pseudo-Christian to describe this movement.  The white, Christian nationalism pushed by conservative Evangelicals is only a means to deceive people into supporting this political movement leading America toward dismantling its democratic idealism in exchange for dictatorship. 

Neither Trump's MAGA base, nor the conservative Evangelicals who are part of its core bear any resemblance to the Christian faith that is laid out in detail in the New Testament.  The words of Jesus himself, recorded in the four gospel accounts of his life and teaching, are the criteria by which all of Christian faith is guided.  Trumpism sets all of that aside, and maybe that's too kind of a way of saying it, rejects the Christian gospel and has created one of their own.  

For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ.  And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.  2 Corinthians 11:13-14, NIV

 

Two of the Founding Fathers actually took the step to write the establishment clause into the First Amendment, which separates the church, and by definition, all religious institutions, from the state, intentionally creating a secular government and at the same time granting all churches the freedom to conduct and regulate their own affairs without state interference.  From the historical record, there was little objection to doing this among the delegates to the constitutional convention.  The establishment clause is clear evidence that there was no intention among America's founders to create a "Christian nation."  They'd had enough of that.