How Many of Those Geniuses and Brilliant People Were Not Hired Because of Discrimination?

Trump turned a tragic plane crash in Washington, D.C. into another opportunity to harp on one of his constant political themes.  His obsession with DEI employment practices appears to be a form of psychosis.  His claim is that because diversity, equity and inclusion are hiring requirements for federal jobs, including those in air traffic control and safety, people being hired aren't as smart or as good at the job as they might be if there were no such requirements.  Of course, this is just more political rhetoric that he spews forth without substantiation or supporting facts, something the news media has simply normalized as far as he is concerned. 

But there's more to it than just political rambling motivated by hatred and bigotry.  My question is, how many people who had the technical skill, the focus, the education and the "smarts" if you will, to be outstanding air traffic controllers were passed over for jobs in the past because they were black or Latino, or Asian, and not white?  

And that prompts a second question, one that any sharp reporter or commentator working this story should have asked, or put out there for Trump's response, "Does he have a shred of data or fact to support the claim that current air traffic controllers are not as good as air traffic controllers who didn't get a job they applied for because diversity, equity and inclusion rules required taking a less qualified candidate?"  

Let's see the proof.  Because, unfortunately, this man's reputation for lying, making up his own conspiracy theories and facts as he goes along, means that when he speaks, he should not be taken seriously or believed.  He's a dishonest crook who relies on lies and dishonesty to get ahead in life.  

And apparently, though not all of the facts are out yet, being a sharp, on the ball, brilliant, white air traffic controller would not have prevented this accident, which is being attributed to pilot error of those flying the helicopter.  

But this is classic Trump, opening his mouth, claiming to be an expert, telling lies in succession, blaming others for his mistakes and trying to somehow benefit personally.  

There is no evidence that DEI policy in hiring practices anywhere have contributed to having to hire people who are less qualified, less capable or less intelligent than those who got the jobs.  More than likely, the opposite is true, and that there have been many highly qualified people who have been discriminated against and treated unfairly in hiring practices because of the kind of bigotry and bias that Trump has promoted all of his life.  

There are books written and movies made about incidents in which brilliant, capable, qualified people were relegated to menial tasks and kept from jobs for which they were more qualified than those who occupied them because of racial discrimination.  One of those is Hidden Figures, based on the experience of three black women who worked at Langley Air Force Base in the space program, with a focus on the career of Katherine Johnson, who eventually came to be the math genius they went to for the calculations they needed for capsule launching and landing.  

There are thousands of Katherine Johnsons in the United States, who are black, Latino, Native American , Asian or even Jewish, who had the skills and the focus and the brilliance, prevented from putting it to use by the kind of discrimination advocated by Trump.  Their existence supports the need for DEI hiring practices, where merit doesn't get overlooked.  

And in this we have yet another example of Trump's incompetence and inability to serve as President of the United States.

Living in a Fantasy World Created by the Media

The last time I was in the mountains of Western North Carolina was early spring, 2006.  It was mid-April, and I spent a week at a writer's conference in a picturesque setting just east of the small town of Black Mountain.  The area is very beautiful, the mountains steep, the small valleys and "hollows" narrow, and prone to periodic flooding.  Of course, what occurred prior to the disaster brought by the remnants of Hurricane Helene was nothing in comparison.  Helene's remnants brought once in a lifetime rains and flooding, and the narrow valleys and streams, filling with water coming down at high velocity, was well beyond the capacity of the rivers, lakes and streams to handle.  

The Trump campaign pounced almost immediately.  In spite of the fact that he is the one who has used disaster relief money as a bribe in the past, and advocates using it for that same purpose now, something conservatives applaud when he mentions it, he claimed that the Biden administration was withholding FEMA assistance on purpose because the area tends to vote heavily in favor of Republicans.  

It was not true, of course, though FEMA funding was limited because of House Republicans deciding to wait until after the election to vote on increasing the aid.  Most people in Western North Carolina, especially those who are Trump supporters, are inclined to believe those lies, even though FEMA assistance poured into the area as quickly as it has after any disaster, and not only were they among the first on the scene, but they had more to offer in short term assistance, as well as long term help, than anyone else did.  

Then, because of rumors pushed by right wing media, threats against FEMA workers were made.  Well, hey, if I've been sent to a place to help with flood relief, and I've brought equipment, food, bottled water, blankets, bedding and money to help people out in the short term, and I'm met at the end of someone's driveway with a loaded rifle, telling me to get lost, then let me tell you, I'm going to move on from there.  I'll take that as a "no, thank you" to what I have to offer.  But that person better not be critical of my attempt, or say that they weren't offered any help.  

By some miracle, and a few media outlets who are still interested in telling the truth, there is word coming out of Western North Carolina, and Eastern Tennessee, that the massive destruction, which completely wiped out highways, bridges, railroad infrastructure, and thousands of homes and businesses, is being cleaned up and roads and bridges are being rebuilt in record time.  And let's be realistic here.  This kind of damage takes years to fix.  But in spite of bad media reports, and all of the rumors deliberately triggered by Trump supporting liars, the efforts of the US Government in rebuilding infrastructure, clearing up damage and helping residents recover are being done in record time.  Thanks, of course, to the efforts of President Joe Biden and his administration, which has managed FEMA as well as any President in history.  

I have personal friends who live and work just east of Asheville, in the small community of Black Mountain, which was devastated by the floods.  Their home sits on the side of a hill, and escaped the flooding, but the access road into their neighborhood was completely washed out, along with most of the streets in the town below.  The day after the water receded, two crews were working in Black Mountain to clear debris and to put down gravel fill so that trapped residents could leave their neighborhood.  The sound of the crews working were everywhere, bulldozers, chain saws, trucks carting stuff away.  Two large refrigerator trucks were set up on the parking lot of a nearby church, distributing food items and household supplies.  

It was all from FEMA.  All of it.  It would be about a week before any other relief organizations showed up to help.  FEMA was there first.  My friends noted that neighbors who were affected by the flooding got immediate financial assistance from FEMA, and were able to apply for all kinds of assistance depending on the extent of the damage, and what their own insurance would cover.  And their reports, on their social media accounts, say that the recovery is moving as quickly as could be expected in the face of the scope of that disaster.  

They, of course, saw the false reports, and they also saw people, in some cases people in poverty, refuse to accept FEMA aid because some Trump idiot had told them if they did, they wouldn't qualify for anything later on.  That's the tragedy in Western North Carolina.  It's lying and ignorance, and the tragedy is the trust these people place in a pathological liar only interested in using them to stuff his own pockets.  

There are people who are having difficulty putting their lives back together, not because the government isn't helping fast enough, but because they bought into the lies Trump and the media have been telling and they've refused the help that has been offered.  Rebuilding and repairing the damage there was a monumental task, the progress that has been made so far is ahead of schedule and remarkable considering the circumstances, and the fact that Mike Johnson and the House Republicans wouldn't call a session to pass an aid package for the area.  That's how much they think of the voter support they get from Western North Carolina.  

Criticism of Bishop Budde by Republicans Characterized as "Un-American". It's Un-Christian, Too.

Atlanta Journal Constitution Opinion, Sophia Nelson:  Bishop Budde Was Right to Speak Truth to Trump 

"Somehow, a portion of the Republican party, including President Donald Trump and his followers, many of whom profess to love the Lord and and demand the Ten Commandments be displayed in schools, have decided that it is OK to attack a Bishop, Marianne Budde of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, for her humble and respectful plea to simply show the least of these among us--our fellow citizens--compassion." 

So says Sylvia Nelson, a news commentator, in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 

Nelson self identifies as a Christian.  She adds, "I consider religious liberty one of the most sacrosanct freedoms our Founding Fathers left for us to protect and honor.  So to see a sitting President openly attack and revile a bishop who asked him to show mercy to immigrants and other vulnerable people is appalling," she said, and added, "Worse, it is un-American." 

Amen to that.  

Clarifying the Definition of "Professing to Love the Lord" 

There's no question that Trump's demand for an apology from Bishop Budde, because she dared speak truth to him based on a core principle from the Christian gospel, which she supported with a citation of a portion of that gospel, is un-American.  There's no surprise in his demand for an apology, since he has no idea what the Constitution says, and even if he did, his ego would not allow him to submit to obedience of it.  Let's get this straight.  We have a President who is a lawbreaker and a felon, and so we should not be surprised when his actions show ignorance of the law, or, more likely, contempt for it.  

Desiring to display the Ten Commandments in school classrooms in the United States, is also a violation of what Nelson correctly calls a "sacrosanct freedom" It is not a sign of someone professing to "love the Lord," but is a political statement made by those who are ignorant of both the first amendment's guarantee of a free conscience when it comes to religion, and of the separation of church and state.  And if Trump, and his followers who profess to "love the Lord" really did what they claim, they would not have criticized a Bishop who "rightly interpreted the word of truth," as the Apostle Paul says, by preaching a biblically supported core principle of the gospel of Jesus Christ in a sermon during a worship service aimed at bringing about reconciliation and redemption.  

Anyone who professes to love the Lord would have found the Bishop's words inspiring, and an accurate characterization of what true Christian practice actually looks like.  The Bishop based her sermon on the words of Jesus, as he was closing one of his own sermons to his disciples, getting ready for his crucifixion.  

Jesus defined "loving the Lord," in the passage she used. 

"For I was hungry, and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink.  I was a stranger and you welcomed me.  I was naked and you gave me clothing.  I was sick and you took care of me. I was in prison, and you visited me."  

"Just as you did this to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me."  Matthew 25:35-36, 40, NRSV 

Being critical of a sermon that is calling on people to practice their Christian faith by humbling themselves and serving others is not "loving the Lord."  It is characteristic, however, of what has divided American Christians for most of the 20th and 21st century, the period during which Evangelicalism developed.  

The moderate to liberal Christians in this country, whose interpretation of the Bible considers its historical and cultural context, and does not consider the whole book as equal, in terms of either authority for Christian practice, or in the manner in which it is interpreted, have collectively focused  Christian practice on how being a recipient of grace by faith in Jesus causes someone to view the world and live by the values that Jesus considered core components of the Christian gospel. Their faith practice includes those things on which the Bishop focused in her sermon, the love of one's neighbor equal to the love of one's self, and all of the core values of the Christian faith emphasized and preached by Jesus in every reference to his teaching in the gospel.  

A more literal interpretation, emphasizing how separate parts of the Bible read and are interpreted literally,  as the translators have determined the meaning of the text, is a late 19th century-early 20th century development in Christianity, which led to the development of what we now call conservative Evangelicals, in its various forms, most notably the fundamentalism of Jerry Falwell and the Pentecostal/Charismatic practice of Pat Robertson.  Their literalism removes most of the historical and cultural contexts by which the Bible's authors interpreted Christian faith and practice, and how they looked at the Christian gospel, and focuses the practice on one's self, on the acquisition and maintenance of one's personal holiness, and on developing this holiness by following the rules and commandments found all through the Bible, including the Old Testament.  

So when Nelson says that many of Trump's Evangelical followers profess to love the Lord, they look at what defines doing so in a very different way.  While it is not consistent with the character of the Christian faith to impose commandments on anyone, since the Christian gospel teaches a lifestyle that is motivated by grace, through faith, not the result of checking off obedience boxes to a list of commandments, the fact that these people want the Ten Commandments in classrooms is quite telling about their lack of understanding of the Christian gospel.  If there was an insistence on posting something on the wall of a classroom that represented Christian faith and practice, it would be the Beatitudes, or the Christian principle of being "salt and light," emphasizing values on which the Christian gospel places the highest value, like peacemaking, mercy and forgiveness, integrity, good stewardship, a sense of community, humility, and loving one's enemies and neighbors equally.  That's the true essence of the Christian faith.  

Where are those things evident among the rhetoric, the lies, the cheating, the thirst for vengeance, and the authoritarian intentions of Trump and Project 2025?  Trump and most of the conservative critics of Bishop Budde, are not really demonstrating a faith that shows their love for the Lord, they are demonstrating a measure of selfish ambition in using Christianity as a means to pursue a very selfish agenda that ultimately exists for the purpose of enriching the few at the expense of the many.  

Trump Attacked Bishop Budde, Religious Liberty and Church-State Separation

One of the differences of opinion between right wing extremism and the Christianity represented by Bishop Budde is that Trump's attack on the bishop was also an attack on the first amendment, particularly on the principle of separation of church and state, the "wall" built by the establishment clause.  White Evangelicals have, since the beginning of their existence in the late 19th century, promoted some form of Christian nationalism.  This is caused by their faulty, literalist interpretations of the Bible which attempt to impose elements of the Old Testament Jewish theocracy into Christian practice.  There's a long history there that is worth knowing, especially by those who wish to see this movement defeated in elections.  

There's a whole history of a movement labelled "Anglo-Israelism," that is an underlying feature of Evangelicalism, the idea that the white Europeans who emigrated to America were chosen by God to be given a chance to build a Christian nation using the resources of the virgin North American continent.  The establishment clause and the first amendment are clear obstacles to this perspective, and clear evidence that the founders were not intending to establish America as a "Christian nation".

Trump, to secure his Evangelical base, has made the erosion of this separation part of his agenda, evident in his attack on Bishop Budde.  This is where the Bishop's sermon has drawn the battle line.  The establishment clause and the principles of religious liberty were the result of the influence of Christians in the United States who had experienced persecution under state church rule, and who came here to escape from it.  Bishop Budde, and the millions of American Christians who are in churches and denominations not influenced by aberrant fundamentalism or mystic Pentecostalism, are the strongest supporters of church-state separation and religious liberty.  They are an essential part of any agenda formed, or reformed, to help combat Trump and his Project 2025 agenda.  

There are Bright, Silver Linings in Those Very Dark Clouds

Those who were expecting the worst from Trump in the opening week of his second term in the White House were not disappointed.  That's exactly what we got.  It has been a reminder, to anyone who still remembers, and especially to those who may have forgotten, that he hit the bar making him the very worst President in all of  American history during his first term, and he is already pushing the limits of that bar in the few days he's had in office during his second term.  

He has revealed what those of us who have never supported him and never would, have known about him all along, that he is a pathological liar, a grifter, a spectacularly dishonest man who is so wrapped up in himself that he can't even treat his own family members with respect.  Combine that with a huge dose of old age dementia, a long list of anti-social pathology, his abuse of alcohol, drugs and food, and an ego that cannot tolerate perceived disloyalty and does not place any value on, or give any respect to, any other human being, and you have an impending disaster looming, not just over the United States, but over the entire world.  

He certainly has the potential to fulfill what his Evangelical religious supporters believe is "the lawless one," the "anti-Christ," the evil one who is prophetically supposed to make an appearance to terrorize the world before the second coming of Christ, in their very twisted, false "end times" eschatology.  The fact that they are blind to who he is, and that they have made him their idol only confirms everything that is bad about the fact that he landed in the White House.  

So Where Are the Silver Linings in This Black Cloud?  

I'm not going to sugar coat anything here, the potential for this wicked, selfish, white supremacist demagogue to do irreparable damage to the United States of America is certainly at the highest level it has ever been in our history.  But I've seen some things, even during this first week, that indicate the potential danger under this second Trump term may be relatively short lived.  Part of that has to do with the fact that his own mental condition is not capable of getting him through what he's going to face over the next weeks and months, and he's already shown some evidence of that.  But most of it has to do with the fact that, in spite of all of the predictions of gloom and doom, and the sensations that the media loves to elicit from always pushing the limits to the worst case scenario, there are still plenty of guardrails in place to hold a renegade chief executive in check, and prevent abuses of power.  

Governing by executive order is a very ineffective way to get things done.  In these days of partisan gridlock in Congress, it has turned out to be a much more used pathway than intended, but executive orders are extremely limited in their scope.  They are not legislation, and the scope of their effectiveness is limited to the ability, and the will, of the executive branch agencies to carry them out.  It did not take very long for a whole pile of lawsuits to be filed to effectively stop most of the more abusive orders he issued.  

The Constitution cannot be changed just because a President doesn't like its limits on his power.  It takes two thirds of both houses of Congress to amend, and with the Republican majority in Congress not being anywhere close to that, any executive orders that are unconstitutional will be slapped down fairly quickly, with no hope of any kind of ruling, even from the current incompetent Supreme Court, to support them.  So it was that his order ending birthright citizenship, which is a basic constitutional guarantee, was rendered ineffective the day after it was issued.  

Most of the rest of his "orders" were mere bravado, issued so he can brag about what he did on "day one."  Whether Alaska's Mt. Denali can go back to being Mt. McKinley or the Gulf of Mexico can become the Gulf of America are signs of his dementia.  This doesn't even rise to the level of political minutia, it's something that got stuck in his mind.  Someone who wasn't affected by the deterioration of his mind wouldn't have made an issue out of this, and it's this kind of thing that will, sooner than later, lead to enough Republican grief over it, and fear of not being re-elected in 2026, nullify most of what he does. 

We'll find out how far our incompetent, partisan Supreme Court will go in holding him back or letting things move forward, but while we currently think of them as a 6-3 Republican majority, I think, when it comes to most of the ridiculousness that is coming down the road, it will be 5-4, with Roberts and Coney-Barrett resisting the temptation to get too far outside the constitutional boundaries.  Gorsuch could also fall into that category. 

Opposition and Resistance is Forming Fast

The media tried to create the impression that the Democratic party just fell apart and disintegrated in the wake of the election loss.  But if there's been a post-election theme that Democrats have picked up and run with, it's the fact that this election was not a mandate.  In fact, at the Presidential level, it was as razor-thin as the rhetoric prior to the election indicated it would be.  Republicans are having to come up with dishonest shenanigans to prevent a Democrat from taking a seat she won on the North Carolina Supreme Court.  

All of the chatter about forcing California to do the bidding of conservatives if it wanted disaster relief money from FEMA for the Los Angeles fires came to a halt when Hakeem Jeffries succeeded in getting California Republican representatives to oppose that nonsense, and since the Republican majority in the House is basically not stable, because there are too many Republicans who actually have to consider their own state's interests, rather than Trump's, when Democrats decide to unite and oppose something, it looks like they'll have enough support to get that done.  

My biggest concern is about the national leadership of the party, which Democrats are going to come to the surface now that the Biden administration has ended.  Normally, in the wake of a lost election, it takes a while for new leadership to develop.  The pressure of the incompetence of a Trump administration will move this forward faster, I think.  There are those who are thinking Gavin Newsom is becoming the national leader of the Democratic party, and that may be the result of the attention being paid to the fires in Los Angeles and the fight over federal assistance.  Governor Newsom was already at the top of the list, mainly because he's a "get it done" kind of guy, to whom the partisan status quo and party protocol means nothing.  

Leadership comes from among those who rise to the occasion.  And while the DNC is about to go through the formal process of choosing a new chairperson, that's not going to produce the party's next leader.  Response to the extremism of the Trump administration will be the way our next leader rises to the top.  Frankly, other than Hakeem Jeffries, there aren't very many Democrats in the House or Senate that seem to be rising to the occasion at the moment.  This will provide an opportunity for someone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has the qualities we are looking for, and isn't afraid to do the right thing, and Jasmine Crockett, whose outspoken disdain for just about anything Trump is definitely a silver lining in a dark cloud.  It's something Senator Fetterman could have succeeded at doing, if he'd made the right choice.  

The silver lining here is that, in the response to an abominable Presidential administration, leaders who are willing to make sacrifices for the good of the country, rather than play the old game of political protocol, will be the ones who get the attention, and who people will follow.  And that process has already started.  There are people in place, some of whom I've mentioned here, others who are about to emerge, who are going to rise to the occasion.  I'm excited to see what go-getters like David Hogg and Beto O'Rourke will do.

Silver Linings in the Media:  Who Will be an Encouragement, Who Will be Factual

The media's four year long commercial for Trump, covering everything he did, including sneezing and going to the bathroom, figuratively if not virtually, was one of the biggest reasons for his winning the election, aside from some theories of my own that I'll keep to myself for now.  But it has created some reactions which are going to be to the advantage of Democrats over the next four years.  

First of all, Rachel Maddow is going to be a regular feature of weeknight MSNBC once again, and that's a good thing.  She is one of the best commentators on television, and having her back regularly has already been a good thing, as far as I am concerned.  I'd love to see some Democratic supporting billionaire buy MSNBC and CNN, and merge the two into a liberal, progressive television news outlet, but for now, I'm glad that Rachel is back.  

As far as talk radio is concerned, my morning commute involves getting to listen to the first hour of the Stephanie Miller show.  And while Stephanie is more along the lines of political entertainment, her show has become a morale booster in so many ways.  She has not compromised or backed down, her show is factual, it provides entertainment along with the commentary, and I'm sure there are people in morning traffic who are looking at me wondering what the heck is going on in my car.  One morning, as I pulled up to an intersection, they were poking fun at something Trump had done, and when the punch line came, I noticed the person in the car next to me burst our laughing as well, and I figured they must be listening to the same program.  

I think the Trump presidency is not only going to keep providing her with a limitless supply of jokes and laugh lines, it is going to elevate her status among Democrats and left leaning independents.  She and her crew do a great job of putting things in perspective and helping me face a day of otherwise gloomy political news.  I can't help but think there are thousands of others who benefit the same way.  This is how we get our energy not just to get through the day, but to step up and challenge the corruption and incompetence that has returned the swamp to Washington in the form of a Trump administration.  

We also need those journalists who are willing to be brutally honest, and tell the truth, calling out our mistakes and miscues and helping to keep us on the right track so that we can fight this administration step by step, stand up for what is right, instead of protecting partisan traditions and being those people who can say, "Well, I told you so," when things go wrong.  And I have two of those in mind, who are willing to speak up and keep us straight.  

Most people are familiar with Thom Hartmann.  Thom is such a calming, matter of fact presence each day, that I have to resist the temptation to wait until I get home to listen to his program.  He's one of those guys who speaks with experience and knowledge, is able to figure things out, is willing to tell us the bad news first and then give suggestions as to how to go about dealing with it, and it's not the end of the world when things don't work out the way he thought they would, or that we expected them to go.  

Perhaps not as many people are as familiar with David Pakman.  David is a podcaster, whose show is as real as it gets, down to the well researched facts that are characteristic of his presentation.  He's also one of those people who doesn't sugar coat the truth but tells it like it is, because fixing problems depends on it.  He was brutally honest during the weeks of panic following the debate when Democrats made some major mistakes in the manner in which they approached that whole scenario.  It made some of his listeners angry at him, at times, I was myself, but he wasn't trying to undermine the party or its candidates, he was trying his best to make sure they got the support from us they deserved.  Moving forward, there will not be a more straightforward journalist calling out the failures of Trump than David Pakman. 

A Trump Presidency is Unsustainable

This guy corrupts everything he touches.  I've seen enough, over the past five days, to be convinced that Trump and his MAGA followers are going to collapse in on themselves long before his four year term in office is over.  With his first acts as President being a boatload of mostly unconstitutional executive orders that will be taken down by the courts in relatively short order, he has once again reminded us that he doesn't know what he's doing, that this is a power trip for him and for his benefit and that of the billionaires who give him their loyalty.  

It won't be able to sustain itself for four years.  

If there's a strong, organized opposition that feeds these unconstitutional executive orders into the court system, where they are regularly struck down, it will go faster.  

The media has sensationalized this to the point where they've made people believe that Trump can do whatever he wants without consequences because the Supreme Court is going to allow it, but that's not true.  We have a constitution that is going to get in his way, and there is no recourse, not even thought the most convoluted court wrangling possible, to let that happen.  

How long will it take for people to realize that putting him back in the White House was a mistake?  I don't think that's going to take very long at all.  He'll be below a 40% job approval rate in less than a year, and he will leave an open door for us to get this back. 

When we do, we need to put into practice the lessons we learned the last time, and make sure our government is demagogue proof.  When we see an existential threat to democracy, we need to take the necessary steps to keep it from happening.  We need our leaders to be bold and take risks to protect American constitutional democracy.   

 

Reaction From the Evangelical Right Wing to Bishop Budde's Sermon Reveals Their Idolatry and Hatred

As expected, the angry reaction from the fundamentalist, conservative, Evangelical, Pentecostal/Charismatic wing has been predictable, finding ways to pick apart the values that Bishop Budde preached.  Here's the bottom line.  There wasn't a doctrinal or theological problem with anything the Bishop said, and in fact, they know she "correctly divided the word of truth."  What some of them have come up with is a very twisted and manipulated interpretation of various Biblical texts, taking them out of the meaning that comes from understanding their historical context, and applying their own literalist standards to make the Bible's writers say something they didn't mean.  They're good at that.  In so doing, they've contradicted their own teaching, but they know most of their followers have absolutely no idea how to interpret scripture, and are dependent on these leaders to do it for them.  

But there's another interesting response in here that tells us most of these so called "Christian" right wingers have a different gospel in mind, other than the one found in the New Testament, revealed by Jesus and recorded by his apostles.  They perceived this as a public attack on their idol, Trump.  Would their reaction have been so quick, so vitriolic and so angry if this had merely been a sermon preached from the pulpit of the Washington National Cathedral during a regular Sunday morning service?  They would have passed this off as just another example of Episcopalian liberalism, and it's doubtful they would have torn into the contents, or into the character of the Bishop the way they did which, by the way, is a violation of the very scripture they claim to be defending.  

The god that these conservative Evangelicals, the fundamentalists of Falwellian ilk and the charismatics of the Robertson ilk, worship is money.  And their idol and object of their adoration is Trump.  

The Apostle Paul actually addresses this kind of apostasy in the church, in his second epistle to the church at Thessalonica: 

"The coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, who uses all power, signs, lying, wonders and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.  For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to beliefe what is false, so that all who have not believed the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned."  2 Thessalonians 2:9-12, NRSV 

For those who aren't Christians, this might not have any specific meaning, but for those who have been caught up in the Trump cult, these are terms they understand, and have falsely applied to anyone who doesn't follow their theology and doctrine.  Trump's very public and repeated denials of his need for God's forgiveness is more than just a difference of religious opinion, it is an outright blasphemy of the core doctrine of Christian conversion, and constitutes a public rejection of the Christian faith.  In fact, Trump even takes it a step further by claiming to have formed his own god, in whom he believes, not the one revealed by Jesus in the Christian gospel.  

This might all just sound like religious fiction and nonsense to those who don't profess the Christian faith, or who are not engaged in religious practice.  However, in the political climate in the United States today, in which political power is quickly becoming entwined with a very real agenda and philosophy of government known as "White Christian Nationalism," the non-religious need to understand the roots of what is going on across the whole spectrum of Christian doctrine, thought and practice in order to unite with those Christians who understand the implications of all of this for the purpose of protecting our basic rights to freedom of conscience, our common freedom of, or from, religion, and especially to strengthen the wall of separation that exists between the church and the state, for the benefit of both.  

The reaction to the Bishop's words, from several conservative Evangelicals in Congress, most notably Speaker Mike Johnson, from leaders like Franklin Graham, along with some of the more vitriolic elements of Charismatic pseudo-Christianity and fundamentalist televangelism, is telling.  They've jumped up to defend Trump being confronted by the truth, in a way that they have never confronted him themselves about his blatant, public licentiousness, claims to worldliness, pathological lying, angry vengeance he spews, and his openly and blatant violations of the law, including the violence he promoted on January 6th, and the hatred and murder he advocates for those who have opposed his lawlessness.  He is the idol they worship.  They no longer follow Jesus Christ, if any of them ever did.

He fits the Apostle Paul's description of "the lawless one."  

  

When Genuine Christian Values Showed up in Washington, It Wasn't in the Form of a Conservative Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Pentecostal, Charismatic

It was the female Episcopalian Bishop of Washington, a prelate of the liberal, progressive, left wing Episcopal Church, a post which makes her essentially the "pastor" of the Washington National Cathedral. The Reverend Mariann Edgar Budde, an Episcopal postulant, deacon, priest, rector and now Bishop of Washington, which is essentially leadership over the diocese where the church's headquarters are located.  

There are some implications involved in her speaking truth to power that really shine some light on the hypocrisy, heresy, apostasy and failure of conservative Evangelicalism to be the testimony for Jesus Christ that they claim to be, and that they criticize the Episcopal Church for not being.  The world has just turned upside down, right on top of some of the biggest hypocrites in the United States.  

She is Everything They Are Not

I've watched video of Bishop Budde's sermon at the National Cathedral several times, and I'll enjoy it every time I watch it.  

Conservative Evangelical leaders, for the most part, label the Episcopal Church as "liberal," and consider it in apostasy for the manner in which it interprets Christian faith, claiming that it either deliberately ignores parts of the scripture that doesn't support its progressive social views, or that it misinterprets them to suit its own presuppositions.  They are dismissive of its theology and doctrine, but even more so of its liberal social practices that include its acceptance of gays and lesbians into church membership and into orgination as clergy, and what they consider to be a soft position on abortion rights.  And on the basis of those interpretations, they claim that the Episcopal church cannot be evangelistic, in that it is not capable of leading people to a Christian conversion experience.  

And, of course, conservative Evangelicals are opposed to allowing women to serve in their clergy, specifically with the title "Bishop, Pastor, Overseer or Elder," which they claim are different titles for the same "office" within the church because being the "husband of one wife" is one of the qualifications to serve in this office, found in I Timothy 3.  

So, when Bishop Mariann Budde preached the sermon in the inauguration's prayer service in the National Cathedral, a church which falls under her jurisdiction as Bishop of Washington, she "correctly divided the word of truth," a Biblical phrase from Timothy that Evangelicals often use as a prooftext to proclaim their own correctness.  Preaching from Matthew 25, Bishop Budde laid out some principles of the Christian gospel that seem to be foreign to most of the Republicans gathered in the Cathedral, and to those in Trump's MAGA movement.  

And from the reaction she got from Trump supporters among the conservative Evangelical leadership across the country, including conservative Evangelicals in Congress, like Mike Johnson, and those among the prominent Evangelical leadership that openly supports Trump shamelessly, she hit a live nerve.  

The biggest problem most of her critics seem to have with her sermon is that she was right.  It spoke truth, and they couldn't find any way to counter that without looking like little anti-Christs.  The spirit of God came down, and rested upon a woman, a Bishop of the Episcopal church, a progressive, liberal, Christian, who didn't preach from some scientific journal or psychiatric reference, or academic history, but who quoted the scriptures, in their correct context, and pointed out where the President's practices were wrong, from a Christian perspective.  

Amen!

And She's Not Backing Down

They didn't get what they wanted.  Not only is she not backing down, she's getting all kinds of media attention and opportunities to emphasize exactly what she did.  She's been on MSNBC with Rachel Maddow, and the sermon content has gone viral, excerpts and quotes showing up everywhere, including AP News, the New York Times, NPR, and Time Magazine.  What she had to say is being called a core teaching and practice of the Christian faith.  

And they can't stand it.  

For the first time, the media is actually reporting the contrast between the Christian gospel and Trump lies and disinformation, and is putting conservative Evangelical supporters of Trump on the side of lies and disinformation.  The coverage has been amazingly extensive.  

We are also seeing the true corrupt character of Trump and of MAGA come out.  Their response has been far less than Christian, in fact, it has been as worldly and as evil as expected.  They've threatened the Bishop's livlihood, and there have been death threats, or at least, as she characterized them, some detractors wishing for her demise.  Their true character is showing, and it is certainly not as focused on the gospel as she has been.  In fact, we are seeing a genuine example of exactly why Trump and MAGA are not Christian at all, in any sense of the world.  

And the follow up to this was provided by Franklin Graham, who said "Trump stands for truth," and has yet to offer a single piece of evidence to support that statement.  I'm going to say something here that needs to be said.  I know a lot of liberals who don't place any faith at all in the existence of God or in the spiritual power of the Christian faith.  But here's an egregious example of someone who has been blinded to the truth by some kind of spiritual force, something the Bible calls a "powerful delusion."  Franklin Graham isn't the only one blind to Trump's evil, anti-Christian agenda.  But he is definitely blind to reality and to the truth.  

And Yet Another Element of the Christian Gospel, the Bishop Offers Grace 

Noting that it is something Episcopalian Christians are encouraged to do, the Bishop made note of the fact that, in spite of how she feels about his politics and policies, she will pray for the President.  That's a private act of one's faith that others can't know for certain.  Given the rhetoric that many of the conservative Evangelical leaders and pastors convey when they speak of Democrats like Joe Biden or Barack Obama, it's hard to take them seriously when they claim to pray for the President, no matter his partisan affiliation.  Well, OK.  I won't judge.  But I trust Bishop Budde.  I know she will do what she says, because her sincerity was visible.  

Author's Note, January 25, 2025

As expected, the angry reaction from the fundamentalist, conservative, Evangelical, Pentecostal/Charismatic wing has been predictable, finding ways to pick apart the values that Bishop Budde preached.  Here's the bottom line.  There wasn't a doctrinal or theological problem with anything the Bishop said, and in fact, they know she "correctly divided the word of truth."  What some of them have come up with is a very twisted and manipulated interpretation of various Biblical texts, taking them out of the meaning that comes from understanding their historical context, and applying their own literalist standards to make the Bible's writers say something they didn't mean.  They're good at that.  In so doing, they've contradicted their own teaching, but they know most of their followers have absolutely no idea how to interpret scripture, and are dependent on these leaders to do it for them.  

But there's another interesting response in here that tells us most of these so called "Christian" right wingers have a different gospel in mind, other than the one found in the New Testament, revealed by Jesus and recorded by his apostles.  They perceived this as a public attack on their idol, Trump.  Would their reaction have been so quick, so vitriolic and so angry if this had merely been a sermon preached from the pulpit of the Washington National Cathedral during a regular Sunday morning service?  They would have passed this off as just another example of Episcopalian liberalism, and it's doubtful they would have torn into the contents, or into the character of the Bishop the way they did which, by the way, is a violation of the very scripture they claim to be defending.  

The god that these conservative Evangelicals, the fundamentalists of Falwellian ilk and the charismatics of the Robertson ilk, worship is money.  And their idol and object of their adoration is Trump.  

The Apostle Paul actually addresses this kind of apostasy in the church, in his second epistle to the church at Thessalonica: 

"The coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, who uses all power, signs, lying, wonders and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.  For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to beliefe what is false, so that all who have not believed the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned."  2 Thessalonians 2:9-12, NRSV 

For those who aren't Christians, this might not have any specific meaning, but for those who have been caught up in the Trump cult, these are terms they understand, and have falsely applied to anyone who doesn't follow their theology and doctrine.  Trump's very public and repeated denials of his need for God's forgiveness is more than just a difference of religious opinion, it is an outright blasphemy of the core doctrine of Christian conversion, and constitutes a public rejection of the Christian faith.  In fact, Trump even takes it a step further by claiming to have formed his own god, in whom he believes, not the one revealed by Jesus in the Christian gospel.  

This might all just sound like religious fiction and nonsense to those who don't profess the Christian faith, or who are not engaged in religious practice.  However, in the political climate in the United States today, in which political power is quickly becoming entwined with a very real agenda and philosophy of government known as "White Christian Nationalism," the non-religious need to understand the roots of what is going on across the whole spectrum of Christian doctrine, thought and practice in order to unite with those Christians who understand the implications of all of this for the purpose of protecting our basic rights to freedom of conscience, our common freedom of, or from, religion, and especially to strengthen the wall of separation that exists between the church and the state, for the benefit of both.  

The reaction to the Bishop's words, from several conservative Evangelicals in Congress, most notably Speaker Mike Johnson, from leaders like Franklin Graham, along with some of the more vitriolic elements of Charismatic pseudo-Christianity and fundamentalist televangelism, is telling.  They've jumped up to defend Trump being confronted by the truth, in a way that they have never confronted him themselves about his blatant, public licentiousness, claims to worldliness, pathological lying, angry vengeance he spews, and his openly and blatant violations of the law, including the violence he promoted on January 6th, and the hatred and murder he advocates for those who have opposed his lawlessness.  

He fits the Apostle Paul's description of "the lawless one."  

  

 

What it Looks Like to be Done With Politics as Usual and Party Loyalty

Monday, for the first time that I can remember in my adult life, I did not watch the inauguration of a President.  As a historian, and a civics and social studies educator, and a lifelong member of the Democratic party, I could not bring myself to sit there and watch something happen that never should have taken place, had our government worked the way the founding fathers desired.  Without the level of trust that they determined, in their day, must exist in order for the constitutional democracy they designed and ratified to work, it reached a point of failure on January 20, 2025 from which it may never be able to recover.  

Frankly, the level of trust required to make government work the way it was designed to work hasn't existed in Washington for a long time.  There have been times, over the past eighty years, when a strong leader was able to make Congress deliver for the people, but that job has become much more difficult with each passing Presidency.   And none of the problems perceived by those who voted for Trump, expecting that he will fix them, will get fixed, because as President, he has neither the authority, nor the ability, to fix the problems he convinced his supporters were the reason to vote for him. 

What's disconcerting about all of this is that the man who made that rambling, disjointed, factless, vindictive, and demented speech as the newly inaugurated President of the United States won a razor thin election by relying on lies, anger, vindictiveness and revenge, and without offering any policy that would solve any of the problems he claimed he would fix.  The party that offered a sound record of fixing problems that government needed to solve, and providing benefits that helped people deal with existing problems, along with long term, common sense solutions, lost, by a razor thin margin but still, a loss is a loss.  

And the rest of the world wonders how it is that a country, blessed with the resources of the United States, and the freedom it has enjoyed for 235 years, would willingly put that freedom at risk to elect, of all things, a reality television star, as the political leader of the country and commander in chief of its military.  

I wonder that same thing. 

Where the Priorities Need to Be

It's not like we didn't see this coming.  Rush Limbaugh was the one who pushed the idea that if the Republicans wanted control, and couldn't get it through the ballot box, then they had to keep picking up pieces of the judiciary when they could win elections and have those appointive powers, and they had to get rid of a free press in favor of propaganda outlets they could control, like his EIB network.  Thom Hartmann has repeatedly reminded us of this fact.  We lost those mid-term elections we needed to win to stop this from happening.  

We did have options open to us.  Maybe Obama's first term was too far back to see someone like Trump coming down the road, but we were already fighting with the far right over the Supreme Court.  The Republicans were more than willing to step outside the bounds of acceptable protocol, and deny President Obama the opportunity to replace Antonin Scalia because they had a majority in the Senate and simply refused to even conduct hearings on his nominee.   

So, it would have been practical to have considered amending the Judiciary Act, when we had a majority in  both houses, and creating several additional Supreme Court justice seats for Biden to fill when he came into office.  That would have prevented Roe from being overturned, which was allegedly an issue of high importance to Democrats, and it would have prevented the ridiculous and unconstitutional immunity ruling this court came up with.  It would have been relatively easy to figure out legislation that would have prevented the next GOP majority Senate from doing the same.  

That would have solved another problem for Democrats.  It would have expidited Trump's insurrection trial and gotten a verdict quickly.  

All of that was talked about, and some Democrats in Congress tried to get things started.  But our party, well, I don't know.  It appears that some Democratic party leaders really didn't think Trump was an existential threat to American democracy, or they didn't think he would win, one or the other.  Either way, that was a grave mistake.  There wouldn't have been anything at all wrong with packing the court and then, amending the judiciary act to make it virtually impossible for them to change the number of judges on the court.  That would have been bold politics, risky, but doable.

Lost opportunities, though, aren't worth discussing at this point.  What we need now, immediately, in spite of the malaise and depression that seems to have Democrats in its grip, is more bold action.  It's time for some leadership willing to do that to step up.  Not in a few months, when things are settled, but now.   

And What Would Bold Action At This Point Look Like? 

Running candidates, and funding them, in those races where Trump snatched members of the house out of their seats would be a good place to start.  So what if they are red districts?  Challenge every single seat.  Surely, we can raise the kind of money that might require.  Maybe it's a long shot, but special elections don't always go by the rules, especially when the turnout isn't high because there's not a presidential election, or anything else on the ballot for that matter.  

I know that the system for choosing candidates to run for political office is severely flawed, skewed in the same direction everything else in our government is skewed toward, and that is the influence of money.  But we need to run the best, most electable candidates possible, we need to keep the narrative simple, clear, and under control, and we need the money to get the turnout necessary to win.  Special elections don't always follow patterns, thinking back to when Doug Jones was able to win the Senate seat in deep dark red Alabama when he was the only candidate on the ballot.  

So let's pick up some house seats and throw the Trump agenda into disarray during its opening phase.  

One of the highlights of my morning commute is the beginning of the Stephanie Miller Show. This is where I get my daily inspiration to keep going, to keep thinking in a positive direction, and frankly, just to hold it together.  They have the exact correct approach, a mix of comedy, with a lot of ridicule thrown in, a check of the facts and a discussion of the big issues of the day in a manner which keeps my attention focused where it should be, and beyond that, assures me that there are plenty of other people out there who think like I do.  

I don't know if becoming one of the most reliable progressive media sites was what they had in mind when they initiated their program, but we need to figure out how to get that program linked up with progressive Democrats everywhere.  They, along with Thom Hartmann, Amy Goodman and David Pakman, would be a knockout media group, doing, in the free press, on the left, what Fox does on the right.  

Sometimes, an offhand remark can get things started.  This morning, I filled up with gas.  Saturday, at the convenience store across the street from my building, the price of a gallon of gas was $3.29.  When I stopped today, two days after the orange headed buffoon's inauguration, it was $3.49.  I made a comment to the clerk, "Well, Trump's been in two days and the price of gas is up 20 cents!"  He laughed, and one of the other customers said, "It's going to get worse than that if his tarrif plans go through."  

Now that tells me there are people who are paying attention to this stuff.  I also heard someone in the grocery store yesterday make note of the fact that Trump had been in office for 24 hours, and the price of eggs had not come down.  Is that trite?  Maybe so, but it's funny, and it is nice to hear people talking that way.  I have to keep reminding myself, this is, after all, Chicago, which is a liberal, progressive bubble at the core of a group of collar counties that control Illinois politics and consistently elect Democrats to Congress.  But still, it helps to imagine exactly how helpful it could be for Democrats to control, not only their own narrative, but the messaging, and make sure it saturates enough of the electorate to make a difference in election results.  

That's what we need to be doing, NOW!  

We Need a Leader, Now

I'm curious to know where the support is going for those who are running for DNC chair.  Frankly, I'm not sure I'd call the DNC effective, at least not recently.  I think we need a strong leader, and the only person running for chair who has said anything that caught my attention was, incredibly, Marianne Williamson, who said, "It's important that we recognize the psychological and emotional dimensions of Trump's appeal.  We need to understand it to create energy to counter it.  MAGA is a distinctly 21st century political movement and it will not be defeated by a 20th century tool kit."  

Amen to that.  But that's about as far as the dialogue interested me.  And it doesn't appear that there's much of a 21st century tool kid developing at the DNC, with the other candidates.  It looks like business as usual. Whining about lack of diversity among the candidates for chair is not a good place to start.  The Hill: DNC Chair Race Sees Lack of DIversity in Candidates

I'm supporting David Hogg's bid to become First Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee.  It's my personal perspective and opinion that the DNC has been moribund for some time now, and it badly needs leadership that can not only unite the Democratic party quickly, but become proactively engaged in being that point where strategy comes together to help Democrats take Congress back in the 2026 mid-term elections.  We need this to be the kind of political think tank like the Obama Presidential campaigns, or Bill Clinton's.  

I'll tell you what did the trick for me, as far as getting on David's bandwagon.  Well, "I get it that its uncomfortable to be told what you don't want to hear," he said, after being admonished to be quiet at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, "but we need to build that culture as a party."  

Yes, we sure do.  Democrats, not wanting to be told what they didn't want to hear, lost the Presidential election on the margins as a result.  There was plenty of expert political advice coming their way that they didn't take until a debate performance by then nominee and President Joe Biden shook them awake.  But it was too late, then.  I want to see someone at the DNC with the political savvy to see things coming before its too late, and to bring those conversations out into the open for discussion, no matter how uncomfortable.  We'd be in much different circumstances today, had a Democratic party political candidate had a full year to campaign, instead of just a few weeks.  

The problem is that the Democratic party needs a real leader now.  We can't wait for the election wounds to heal.  Harris and Biden have left Washington, and it seems that Democrats have scurried into one hole or another.  

Someone needs to step up and earn my vote.

  

Pseudo-Christian Intruders Are Wolves in Evangelical Clothing and a Destructive Force to American Democracy, And to its Churches

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, V. 4, NRSV

One of Jesus' twelve apostles, Jude, was believed to have been the author of these words, which are found in the short epistle he wrote, the only work attributed to him in the New Testament Canon.  Jude wrote a specific warning to Christians about "intruders" who, even in this mid-point of the first century, were finding their way into various Christian churches, the "ecclesia," or gathered ones as they were referred to, with the intention of subverting, or weakening, the spread of the Christian gospel, or to advance some other philosophical or religious purpose.  

In this particular case, Jude identifies their intentions as a "perversion of grace."  The idea of grace is central to Christian conversion, so it appears that the intent is to disrupt the evangelistic mission and purpose of the church, and lead potential converts to Christianity into a more "licentious" lifestyle, probably associated with some form of paganism.  Using a combination of Old Testament examples and descriptions of pagan practices, Jude identifies the intruders, pointing out that they even help themselves to the church's communal love feasts, "feeding themselves."  

He labelled them "waterless clouds carried along by the winds, autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, uprooted, wild waves of the sea, carrying up the foam of their own shame, wandering stars, for whom the deepest darkness has been reserved forever."  That's quite a diatribe, for the purpose of identifying these people and the harm they were doing to the church's evangelistic ministry.  

The manner in which these intruders were to be handled, according to this apostle, was rejection of their message without condemnation of their person.  In a manner completely consistent with the principles of the Christian gospel, Jude's instructions are to proclaim grace, through faith in Christ, while helping these intruders come to an understanding of their error.  

"Keep yourselves in the love of God," he says, and in so doing, continue to show the intruders the "mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads us to eternal life."  Don't consign them to hell, he says, but show mercy, characteristic of the principles of the Christian gospel.  Some of them will need help, because the are wavering, but some will need to simply be snatched out of the fire.  "Have mercy with fear," he says, warning of the danger of being defiled themselves.  

The Right Wing Extremism of MAGA Fits A Modern Day Definition of "Intruders" 

The term "pseudo-Christian" is accurate in describing the political extremists on the far right who have intruded--an accurate term--into conservative, Evangelical Christianity, as well as into other groups of Christians, including many American Catholics.  I use the term pseudo-Christian, because many of these people have come from within the churches and denominations of far right wing Christianity in the United States, including a large number of Fundamentalists along the lines of Jerry Falwell, and the Pentecostals and Charismatics along the lines of Pat Robertson.  

It would be difficult for Christians, committed to the theology, doctrine and practice of Christianity produced by following the gospel of Christ, to take the lead in identifying the intrusion, and then in isolating the message and preventing the perversion of Christians because so many of the people in these churches have been deceived themselves.  One of the characteristics of those within the conservative, Evangelical branch of the American church is a strong resistance to any kind of formal, higher education among their pastors and clergy.  This has produced doctrine that is based on a very literal rendering of English translations of the Bible, rather than on any study of the historical context in which it was written, the meaning of its original language, and the use of figurative and symbolic writing, or on any of the traditions that developed in the church, even before the New Testament was officially canonized and recognized as an authoritative document.  

So, in this pseudo-Christian political movement, there is as much error, leading to practices that are contrary to every principle of the Christian gospel, and to widespread ignorance among a majority of members of the churches who have little knowledge or understanding of the Bible as an authoritative document for their church's faith and practice.  That's made them easy marks for the deceitful phony nature of everything touched by the pathologically lying Trump.  

Put a Christian Nationalist Movement in America in the Same Category With the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and the Hundred Years War

During the 1970's, when Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were forming the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition, for the purpose of bringing revival to the country by "restoring America to its Christian roots,' which was code language for establishing Christian Nationalist rule over the United States, the ability of their movements to succeed in winning enough votes to gain control of Congress and the Presidency was often a discussion in the political science and constitutional history courses at the university I attended.  

Jimmy Carter was President at the time, and one of my favorite professors observed that the right wing religious political factions founded and led by men like Falwell and Robertson would not chose an Evangelical like Carter, because his sincere commitment to a lifestyle and faith practice based on the core values, principles, doctrine and theology of Christianity would not permit the kind of corruption that would be necessary to bring about their ability to take over, and control the agenda of one of the two major political parties.  Carter's approach to the hot button issues they planned to use to stir up the anger necessary to get their fundamentalist, Pentecostal and Charismatic followers to polls they had shunned for decades gave far to much respect to all sides of the debate in accordance with first amendment freedom of conscience rights, a principle that does not exist in a Christian Nationalist worldview.  

He also generated lively discussion in the classroom by suggesting that as this movement grew and gained political power within the Republican party, it would resemble fascist movements of the 1930's, in that party discourse and discussion would be replaced by a single mindedness and party loyalty would give way to loyalty to one candidate or a small group of leaders.  He also predicted an increase in military analogies in various faith movements, rhetoric suggesting that some kind of "spiritual warfare" was taking place and that winning these spiritual battles with the forces of darkness were dependent on winning the political battles, terms like "taking our country back" or "taking our culture back" from these spiritual forces of evil, represented physically by those of an opposite political persuasion. 

And his most chilling prediction was that these people would claim some kind of mandate from God in order to abandon core Christian values and principles, like "loving your enemies, and praying for those who despitefully use you," and "turning the other cheek," in order to use violence as a means of establishing their world order.  He suggested that the extent of their cruelty could rival that of the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition.  

"It will be more violent than the Civil War."  

I'd like to give him attribution for coming up with some fascinating predictions about something that we did not see fully at the time, but he actually got his ideas from others who were already writing about it at the time.  There is more than a little bit of irony in the fact that we are, at this moment, winding down a month-long memorial tribute to President Carter, whose death occurred literally days before Trump's second term begins, and the stark contrast that represents.  

Carter, a true humanitarian, a leader who understood how to balance the sincere practice of his Christian faith with the constitutional principles of American freedom, including the separation of church and state, and whose political achievements in peacemaking pale in comparison to the rest of his life's work, is the polar opposite of Trump, a womanizing adulterer and sexual predator, a business failure and repeated fraud, whose licentious lifestyle was his personal brand, and at the same time a visible and deliberate slap in God's face.  If the contrast between these two men has done nothing else, as far as American politics are concerned, it has helped us recognize which parts of Christianity in America have become an apostate, pseudo-Christian, false religion.  

Build Yourselves Up, Stay Strong, Have Mercy and Hate This Evil 

Jude doesn't tell his readers to meekly back down, and don't cause a fuss.  That might be what some would conclude a Christian should do, but the advice Jude gives here works, not just for Christians fighting an ideological intrusion of evil that's destroying churches, but for Americans fighting an ideological intrusion stealing their Constitutional Democracy.  

First, he says, build yourself up.  Confirm the correctness of your convictions and don't allow yourself to be misled, or deceived.  Second, have mercy on those who have been deceived.  The terms he uses are self explanatory.  "Have mercy on some who are wavering; save others by snatching them out of the fire; have mercy with fear on others, hating even the tunic defiled by their bodies."  

As an Apostle of the Christian church, Jude recognized two potential dangers to its effectiveness and ability to function as a testimony to God's existence, love, and the grace he offered through Christ.  One was that its message and practices would be subject to the persecution of local governing officials who expected loyalty from all of their subjects, and who would use persecution to enforce their demand for personal loyalty, not willing to share that with another god they saw as a rival.  The other was that it would be infiltrated as a result of its own intellectual and spiritual weakness, to be used as a tool to achieve some other purpose, political most likely.  He wrote to protect it from both possibilities. 

The current push toward Christian nationalism comes through this particular branch of the Christian church, classified as "Evangelical" because of a heavy emphasis they place on conversion, and also their distraction from the economic inequalities, class struggles and racial discrimination in society, in favor of an emphasis on the afterlife, and on end-times scenarios and threats of the "judgement of God" on the nation because of the manner in which it has chosen to govern itself.  It is a relatively new movement in the long history and tradition of the Christian church, almost uniquely American in its identity, with theology and doctrine created by clergy who lacked any formal education, or theological training.  

It has existed and developed into what it is in an atmosphere of complete freedom of religion and conscience, preventing the state from interfering in any matters pertaining to the church, and now, a good segment of it wants to destroy the constitutional democracy that gives them the freedom to believe as they choose.  How ironic is that?  

Author's Note:  The identity of the "intruders" which Jude is warning about has been lost.  Some speculation exists that it could be an argument against Gnostics, who were influencing Christian thought during the formulative years of the written epistles and gospels of the New Testament, but no specific characteristics of Gnosticism are mentioned.  They were not conforming to Christian morality, as evidenced by the mention of their licentiousness, which can be a fairly broad term in that regard, but the only doctrinal point mentioned is associated with the slander of the "holy ones," or angels.  By Jude's description, the false nature of their influence was zapping the spiritual life of the church, seen in his descriptive terms such as "waterless clouds carried along by the wind," or "autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, uprooted," which is quite an interesting, angry condemnation.  

I consider Jude's words "prophetic," in that they are a fitting description of what Trumpism and his MAGA politics have done to turn conservative Evangelicalism apostate, which includes healthy doses of white supremacy and Christian nationalism, in spite of his own licentious, worldly, immoral, ungodly behavior and his repeated denial of his need for Christian conversion.  

There are also some interesting historical parallels.  The greatest period of evangelistic activity involving conversion to the Christian gospel in the church's history occurred between the middle of the first century A.D., and the beginning of the third century, when Christians in the Roman Empire were under constant, severe persecution from most of the Empire's governing authorities, including the Emperors themselves.  That came to an end with the Edict of Milan, which ended the official persecution against the Christian church under Emperor Constantine, who saw that more than half of the population had become Christian, and needed a way to use the church to add to his own power and influence, and then when the Edict of Thessalonica corrupted the church by making it the state church of the Roman Empire.  That's the effect Christian nationalism always has on the Christian church, it turns it away from the Gospel of Christ to the power of politics.  

And it loses is character.   

 

For Democrats, the Days of Gentlemanly Old School, Status Quo Politics Are Over

As long as Americans still have the right to vote, my "x" will now find its way next to the names of candidates who demonstrate understanding of the situation we now face, and how we got here, and who are willing, not only to make sure that they understand the electorate and the needs of the American people and are willing to sacrifice their own prestige and position to get it for them, but who are also willing to resist, at every turn, and in every way, the authoritarian bigotry and agenda of the far right wing extremist agenda of Trump and MAGA Republicans.  

Is Trump the existential threat to American Democracy that has been a long running theme in Democratic Party politics now, going back to at least 2016?  I believe he is.  I want to know if the Democrats I plan to support, and for whom I will vote, really believe this to be the case.  And I want to see them respond accordingly now that he has been elected.  If he is an existential threat to democracy, then compromise will simply lead to the accomplishment of his agenda which, in spite of his rhetoric, is Project 2025.  

I'm Not Sure Democrats Know What They Want, or How to Get It

As I read through the analysis of the election results being reported by various media outlets, I'm not sure how much trust I place in those evaluations.  It's been a topic of discussion here, in the past.  We do not have a free press in the United States, we have corporate media whose bottom line is profit.  And that, unfortunately, makes it very difficult to trust what I hear and read.  

For the past four years, since the day Trump got on the helicopter and left the White House grounds in January of 2021, following a seditious attempt at destroying the Constitutional provision for the peaceful transfer of power, and a demonstration of a hatred for the United States from internal anti-patriots we have not seen since the Civil War, he has been covered by every outlet of the mainstream media, every day.  Many of them, chasing down his sensationalism and deliberately perverse, anti-social mental illness, were looking for ratings to boost their profits, which is what most mainstream media has become.  At any rate, he got far more coverage than any ex-president has ever received.  

There must be research that's been done somewhere by now which proves this point.  They kept focusing attention on him, a de-facto candidate until it became clear he was going to be the GOP nominee, and then they gave him more free time than any presidential candidate in American history.  And even with all of that coverage, as favorable as 95% of it was, he did not show any appreciable gains in support, nor was there some kind of major shift in voter support in his direction.  Maybe there was some around the margins, among black men, Latinos and younger voters, as the media reported, but I live in an urban area, and if that was occurring, it wasn't visible.  

My Own Analysis Drives My Politics

We lost this election for what I see as a few simple reasons: 

1.] The Republicans blamed the Biden Administration, and Democrats, for the post-pandemic inflation, and conversely, the Biden Administration failed to gain control of that narrative and promote their messaging in a way that effectively countered what Republicans were saying.  There's a lot of deep-seated ignorance in this country about how the economy operates, especially when people associate the price of gasoline or eggs with some kind of Presidential policy.  

2.} The Republicans tapped into the fear and bigotry of white, middle class, suburban Americans and continue to harp on their long running themes, including their "replacement theory," exaggerating what is going on at the border, and scaring people with false information about allegations of crime that they commit.  Racism plays a huge role in that, something Republicans have been able to use, and Democrats, once again, fail to counter in their messaging.  The Republicans focused on a few narrow themes that got lots of attention, and the Democrats couldn't counter the false and misleading information.  

3.} While it seems laughable to me, at this point, given the wholesale licentiousness that is so characteristic of Trump and all of his cronies, and the blatant ignoring of it by prominent Republicans who claim a high degree of Evangelical self-righteousness, Republicans used Democratic party and candidate support for issues focused on the rights of LGBTQ persons to gain advantage among ignorant haters.  They don't focus on the denial of rights so much as they claim Democrats are willing to tax the middle class into beggary to pay for privileges for LGBTQ persons.  Not true, but once again, they got that message to land with a lot of voters outside their extremist base, and Democrats were, once again, rendered inept and incompetent in countering that misinformation.  

4.] Money is the biggest influence in election results.  The ability of billionaires who control 99% of the wealth of the country to contribute ridiculously huge sums of money, far outstripping the ability of 99% of the population to raise an equal amount.  Elon Musk bought this election for Trump, and let's be honest, it wouldn't have happened if that kind of money, to pay for the focused, concentrated messaging they got from it, had not been available to Trump.  

5.] The Democrats shot the biggest hole in the bottom of their election boat with all of the controversy and panic that was allowed by party leaders to go unchecked following the debate between Biden and Trump.  Trump actually came out of that debate, in the opinion of a majority of Americans, looking worse than Biden did.  Trump had a lead in the polls, "razor thin" as they characterized it, which he lost after the debate, and might have lost even more had Democrats handled it without all the confusion, caterwauling, wailing, attention focused on big donors getting their way, and the appearance of being a party in disarray.  

Ultimately, it was too late to change candidates that late in the campaign.  And frankly, looking at some of the exit poll analysis, where Harris and Walz lost votes in battleground states this time around, Biden held leads following the debate.  

My conclusion here is that the same themes keep coming up for Democrats.  We lose when it comes to messaging, and media coverage.  Part of that is because our candidates complicate the issues and try to put too much information in their message.  This is America, and with a population of 320 million, and an electorate in which perhaps a fourth of the actual voters are reasonably educated enough to understand all of the issues and the implications, messaging needs to be simple, to the point, and focused on those specific things which have a high level of acceptance and popularity.  Transgender surgery coverage is not at the top of the list.  Crime, the perception that immigrants are responsible for it, and the price of gasoline, are high on the list.  

Back to the Original Question:  It's Not Whether Trump is an Existential Threat to Democracy, but Whether Democrats Serving in Office Believe That He Is

One of the easiest ways I've found to weed out contact lists in my social media accounts is to engage in a discussion of Trump politics, and bring actual facts into the discussion.  Most of those kinds of people will disconnect from you pretty quickly, and my response is that they likely had nothing of value to contribute anyway.  The tendency of virtually all of these people is to focus on the one thing that Trump did that also was on their agenda, which was the appointment of highly partisan justices to the Supreme Court and getting Roe overturned.  And then, to completely ignore the criminal aspects of his Presidency, from the indisputable evidence that Russians helped him win in 2016, from the Mueller report, to his cover-up of his affair with Stormy Daniels during Melania's pregnancy and Barron's infancy [some lovely licentiousness there for conservative Evangelicals, huh?], to the Trump Insurrection, one of the most unpatriotic, un-American acts ever committed by a sitting President, to his stealing classified documents and the pressure he put on the Georgia Secretary of State to "find votes" that didn't exist for him. 

And now that we've seen Project 2025, heard his lies about his involvement with it and his support for it, and will see it enacted in the executive orders he issues on Monday, most of which will be struck down right away, the deniers must admit they are not troubled by these things.  

It's not possible to trust Democrats who are not troubled by these things.  Compromise and negotiation in a democracy is at the heart of its ability to work, but it is not possible to compromise or negotiate with people who do not believe in compromise or negotiation, and who are supporters of an agenda that they won't compromise on its implementation.  That's not democracy, that's not consistent with American Constitutional Democracy, and it is antithetical to the whole idea of the United States of America.  That's why it must be opposed, along with anyone who supports it, or who thinks that something can be gained by compromising with it.  

What makes me doubt the belief Democrats have in their own rhetoric, that Trump is an existential threat to Democracy, is that opportunities to make sure he ceased to be a threat were squandered, when action was possible to prevent Trump from ever being able to run again.  Congress impeached the man for incitement of insurrection on January 13, 2021.  And while the Senate, of course, refused to convict, the groundwork was already in place to get a conviction on this charge.  

How serious should this have been taken?  Serious enough to break the Senate filibuster, and pack the Supreme Court to ensure that no potential immunity rulings or derailments could come from them, especially given their propensity to be so highly partisan and the appearance of owing favors to Trump for their appointment.  Then, after the Congressional investigation concluded, using the full force and power of the Presidency, get that case into court, cutting the red tape, stopping the delays and getting Trump tagged as an insurrectionist.  Bold moves, but a group of Democrats, serious about the threat Trump posed, should have been able to get that done.  That's certainly my expectation. 

If opportunities to demonstrate the same kind of boldness, and of strong conviction, to protect this nation and its Constitution, to which they all swear an oath, present themselves again, those Democrats who demonstrate boldness of the kind I've just described will get my vote and my support.  

Thank You, President Joe Biden

As expected, the Presidency of Joe Biden has been one of the best administrations in modern American history.  His numerous accomplishments, coming out of what was the single worst presidency in history, are being recognized as much as is possible by a muted, somnolent, mainstream media that has become corporately owned and billionaire biased, focusing on sensation rather than fact.  Five decades in public service, knowing how to get things done and make government work, the Biden Administration will be especially noted for reversing the damage and destruction done by the incompetent, inept, incapable Trump.  Contrast with that, on either side of his administration now, will simply amplify how good Biden actually looks. 

There are some personal benefits which the Biden administration achieved that I find noteworthy, because they address personal needs of my own and are a demonstration of a president who cares about people more than raising money to be re-elected. One of those things is getting insulin prices capped at $35 a month for senior adults.  That directly affects me.  The price of insulin is ridiculously high, mostly due to profiteering.  I hope this restriction on prices lasts, because there is no way I would be able to afford insulin otherwise, it is too expensive.  

And then, it appears that he has achieved some success in getting the attacks on Gaza stopped, or at least, to getting a cease fire deal.  It's his agreement they're working with.  He deserves the credit for that.  

So thank you...

...for considering the suffering and deprivation of people coming to the United States and offering them asylum.  

...for getting us out of Afghanistan, and for not getting us into any other war. 

...for the infrastructure bill, which I have personally witnessed making improvements in my community.  And for fighting inflation and being successful at it.

...for being a President with integrity, who tells the truth, so much the opposite of the failed, immoral, worldly, licentious, pathological liar to which the other party is mindlessly addicted.

The Legislative and Political Accomplishments are Great, but the Integrity is Greater

There are long lists of Biden's political accomplishments that will be part of the historical record.  But there is something that Americans need to learn, once again, how to value in the people they choose as leaders, and it is something that many of them have set aside, either as a result of their own ignorance, or a deliberate choice to be ignorant, that is still part of what I consider to be the moral qualification of a President.  And that's a person's integrity.  

It's not possible to live a public life and hide a lack of integrity.  And frankly, I think that is the primary qualification for anyone desiring to serve in public office.  As a voter, it is important for me to trust the person I'm voting for, to know they they are genuine, they tell the truth, and they value the responsibility for the public service they have because they love this country and care about its people.  In a system that has become increasingly corrupted by money needed to campaign and by the increasing ability of money to buy the loyalty of politicians, as well as their favor, integrity in a political candidate is increasingly rare, and at the same time increasingly important. 

Joe Biden is a man of integrity.  

I don't expect politicians to be perfect, they will inevitably make mistakes.  But when it comes to their integrity, demonstrated by the consistent practice of values that include morality, and respect for all human rights.  I've heard conservative Evangelicals excuse their preference for a worldly, immoral leader by claiming they are not voting for a pastor-in-chief, but for a commander-in-chief, but I think the qualifications, when it comes to immorality, are the same.  A vote cast for someone who lacks integrity or moral values is an indication of a lack of one's own personal character and morality.  President, or pastor, it doesn't matter.  Both positions require exceptional standards, and Joe Biden certainly meets those standards.  

A Missed Opportunity? 

When I look at this term, and evaluations of the Biden Administration's performance as a Presidential administration, I have to wonder just how much better off the United States would have been if Joe Biden had been able to mount a campaign and run for President following the Clinton Administration.  The course of politics is not predictable, and that's something that we will never know.  I am glad that he was able to reach the Presidency, though, even though it was late in his life and at the end of his political career.  He deserved it.  He was certainly exactly what this county needed after the most disastrous, failed Presidency in history.  

And looking back over his long career, Biden was a huge support to helping Carter, Clinton and particulary Obama be successful.  He may very well be one of the last great statesmen to serve in the White House.  We are beyond the ability and use of statesmanship to maintain a bi-partisan kind of cooperation with the GOP in order to make government work. Biden was successful. The responsibility for that now is all on the other side, and they are in winner-take-all mode. 

History, and All That...

The Presidency has an interesting history in this country, and people have different opinions when it comes to who did a good job and who didn't.  Not everyone who served did so with integrity, or with pure motives, or had the best interests of the country in mind while they were in office.  And the way that "history" rates them, or the interpretation of history rates them, includes a combination of their integrity and their achievements, and those who managed to lead the country through a crisis deservedly get higher praise.  

My personal favorite was John Quincy Adams.  A one term President, who was the first to be elected without getting a majority of the popular vote, and who was overshadowed by the flamboyant and loud Andrew Jackson, was ahead of his time in moving the United States government into a greater role in the economic development of the nation, as well as making an impression on its national conscience with regard to its addiction to slavery.  That's the kind of progressivism we need, and why there is such resistance to it defies explanation.  Those are problems that still need to be resolved. 

The media's failure to fairly and accurately give this President his due may obscure part of his place in history, but there is no denying he has been one of the best so far this century.  And that's not without competition, since Obama's Presidency also occurred this century.  Being preceeded, by, and succeeded by Trump will raise public opinion of Biden by the tremendous contrast between his character, and by Trump's complete absence of any at all.  

Biden made the statement, recently, that he believed he would have won this election.  That's not something we'll ever be able to know, now.  He still holds the record as the candidate who received more votes than anyone in the history of the United States.  He'd have won this time if he'd have been able to turn out just half of the difference that stood between him and Trump in 2020.  More Americans have trusted Joe Biden, so far, than anyone else, a confirmation of his integrity and character.  

Thank you, President Biden.   

What Loving Your Neighbor Looks Like in the Face of Unthinkable Tragedy

When Our Church was Tested by Fire

The entire ministry focus of the First Baptist Church of Pasadena, California changed dramatically between Sunday, January 4th and Sunday, January 12th.  Between Tuesday, January 7th and Thursday, January 9th, more than 1,400 homes, businesses, schools and other buildings burned in the cities of Pasadena and Altadena, in the Eaton fire.  The pastor of First Baptist Church tells a harrowing story of his family's evacuation of their own home, of having to go through the trauma of deciding which belongings were most important, and which ones they might not see again, and then, having to leave their house behind as flames, close enough to be seen from their roof, engulfed the northern streets of their city.  

They were among those who were fortunate enough not to lose their homes.  But several families who were members of the church community did, along with many others who took refuge in the church building which was opened as a shelter during the evacuation and has continued to serve in that capacity ever since.  The congregation did gather for worship on Sunday, something the pastor says in the BNG article that they do best, and it became a time of not only giving comfort to those within the church who suffered such an unimaginable loss, but also to organize themselves, put their building to use as a place to organize relief for the community, and then determine how best to use their resources to shift to this ministry that has become a sudden and immediate priority.  

They are, of their own initiative, not waiting for a hint or a push, stepping into the need and making themselves available, sacrificially.  It's a natural thing to do for a church which understands the basic Christian principle of loving your neighbor as you love yourself.  

The Church's Website Provides Ways for People to Help

The first thing to be seen when the website for https://fbcpasadena.com/ is open is the page providing information about the church's ministry in the wake of the wildfires.  There are multiple ways listed there for people to help, information provided about exactly what the church is doing to help and indicating that this is their ministry priority now until the need is no longer there.  The help and resources are available to anyone who is looking for either.  

I would also suggest listening to the Daily Encouragement messages that are recorded there.  Doing so will be an inspiration and a motivation to get beyond thoughts and prayers, and think of the people as fellow human beings, our neighbors, even if they are a long way off.  These are people just like the rest of us, going about their regular business a week ago, never imagining that in a few short days, their home would be gone, and in some cases, family members, friends and neighbors would also lose their lives.  The evacuation, with winds blowing down trees, smoke spreading everywhere, streets blocked, and traffic crawling as entire communities fled, must have been a terribly traumatic experience, as the pastor describes his family's evacuation.  

So if this kind of tragedy is still a bit too far away to feel anything, then listening for a few moments is the right thing to do.  It's far removed from the politics, indifference and hatred that's been spewed as a result of this tragedy.  Here's a church providing an example for the rest of us to follow when it comes to loving our neighbor as we love ourselves.  

No strings attached. 

I read somewhere last week that 85% of the members of Congress claim to be Christian, of some kind or another.  So how is it that the members of Congress who are both Christian and Republican don't want to offer relief for the fires without political strings attached to it?  How evil is that?  I'd suggest listening to some of the messages recorded by this church's pastor and taking heed.