Stephanie Miller Show Guest This Week, Pastor John Pavlovitz

Pastor John Pavlovitz appearance on Stephanie Miller Show This Week

In a democracy that depends on free speech for survival, the Stephanie Miller Show continues to be one of the most consistent sources pointing out the truth about the incredible corruption and moral bankruptcy of the political and religious right.   Miller doesn't run the usual kind of podcast, news program, talk show.  She uses a talent for comedy and a long personal history of being close to politics to talk directly to the audience.  Her show comes on when I'm driving to work, and I'm sure people are looking at me in my car laughing, nodding my head, and fist pumping that happens when she's on the air. 

What Miller has done, by bringing someone in who actually represents traditional, historic Christianity, and who has the ability to discern the true practice of the faith from the collection of its history found in the Bible, is contrast the pseudo-Christian cult of Trump, carved out of conservative, Evangelicalism, with true, historic Christian faith practice.  John Pavlovitz starts with the core values of the Christian gospel, the narratives that quote Jesus Christ himself, and with the understanding that "love your neighbor as yourself" is the one principle on which the whole faith practice rests.  You'll here this in every word spoken in the dialogue in this conversation.  

The segment with Pavlovitz begins at the 2 hour mark.  

This is What Democrats Need for the 2026 Midterm Elections

Democrat with Washington Experience Announces Run Against Susan Collins 

He's young, he worked for Congresswoman Katie Porter, and his work in Washington included time spent with a group called "End Citizens United", with the goal of getting big money out of politics.  And while Collin's office tried to label him as a west coast liberal, the fact of the matter is that he's a small town Maine native from a family that typifies the values and character of his home state far better than Collins does, with his father as a preacher and mother working as a teacher.  

That, along with his political views, and his youthfulness, make him an attractive candidate.  He's certainly not shown anything like the spineless, wishy-washy, indecisiveness that characterizes Collins time in the Senate.  Her character is represented by spectacular cave-ins to partisan pressure, when she knowingly voted to approve Supreme Court appointees who were lying to Congress, and who duped her into thinking they would never vote to overturn Roe.  The loss of Roe is largely her fault, and that's not how you represent people who trust you to stick to your word and hold to your convictions.  

If that's what the people of Maine expected from their Senator, unfortunately, they were sorely disappointed.  They won't be disappointed in Justin Wood.

Expect Strong Arguments for Establishment Democrats Getting This Nomination

The seat needs to be flipped, regardless of which Democrat finally winds up with the nomination.  Wood will more than likely have to overcome establishment money which will most likely go to Governor Janet Mills, who is also planning to run for this seat.  Wood represents a segment of Democrats committed to getting that kind of money out of politics, and it would be nice to elect someone whose presence affirms that position, and proves that it can be done.  

From a personal perspective, what I'm looking for are Democrats who actually take the threat of Trump to American democracy seriously, and who will be willing to take a few risks and be bold enough to do the kind of things that will shut down that threat.  I want to vote for candidates who would have been willing to get rid of the Senate filibuster, and who would not have been opposed to packing the Supreme Court, seeing it as necessary to bring Trump to justice, and to restore court decisions that are more consistent with the Constitution and the values it represents, and willing to prevent corrupt judges like Alito, Thomas and Roberts, and immoral playboys like Cavanaugh, from influencing court decisions.  

I want to vote for candidates who see the core values of the Democratic party from my economic and social status.  I worked for a living, all my life, in retirement, I'll be virtually dependent on Medicare, and almost completely reliant on social security.  I believe that those who have benefitted the most from the things that we, the taxpayers, have provided for them to prosper should pay the highest tax rates as a result of their benefitting from infrastructure, security and economic power.  "Fair share" is the best word to describe this, and I believe candidates like Justin Wood will stand for these values.  

Janet Mills would be an excellent choice.  But I think Wood is a little closer to where the common people live and work.  And it seems, in some of the tone and attitude that is being reflected, even at this early point, there's more or less an expectation that she's "next in line" or "has paid her dues."  And that's a little more establishment than I am willing to support at this point in my political development, after seeing what the Democratic party establishment failed to accomplish when it came to bringing Trump to justice.  In spite of everything else they did accomplish, that was a priority that they should have achieved, if nothing else got done.  

Maybe enough Americans have had enough, seeing that politics as usual has now made two huge mistakes in who it has managed to elect to the White House. 

Trump Failures Are Doing the Hard Work for Democrats to Take Control of Both Houses of Congress in 2026

MSNBC Admits It Is Possible for Democrats to Hurt Trump Politically

"Trump is already one of the most unpopular presidents in history, and despite the appearance Republicans tried to paint that he had an overwhelming mandate to implement his agenda, the White House response to polling shows that there are limits to what the regime can get away with.  

Now, Democrats just need to get voters to pay attention." --Katelyn Burns, MSNBC

Even with some Democrats still playing the political game of statesmanship abandoned by the GOP thirty years ago, and with a 26% approval rate in Congress, both of which can look, to frustrated constituents, like a deliberate attempt to fail, it seems that Trump's incompetence, insanity, ignorance and demented ineptness will be the best strategy Democrats have looking forward to the midterm elections.  

We have some of the most incredibly and unbelieveably unqualified, incompetent individuals running the major departments of our government as we have ever seen in our entire history, and that is saying a lot.  We have Kristi Noem running the Department of Homeland Security thinking that a series of campaign television commercials, at taxpayer expense, is the way to keep the country safe from internal security problems.  How safe is that making anyone feel?  We have Hegseth in charge of the Defense Department, using it more as a platform for pseudo-Christian heretics and religious revivals than as a means of defending the country against its external enemies.  

Does anyone really feel safe?  If so, that's just because they are ignorant of the real danger, not because we are really safe.  

The fact that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is holding down a government executive leadership post, and not holding down a bed in an insane asylum is, perhaps, the one position in the Trump administration that characterizes its inept incompetence more than any other.  The other position which represents a deliberate attempt to engender wholesale disrespect and disregard for government and for the Constitution is having Pam Bondi serve as Attorney General.  She is more clueless than Merrick Garland ever was, with a level of incompetence that would be dangerous if she actually showed up for work and did anything.  

The biggest personal disappointment in Trump's cabinet is the Secretary of being asleep, formerly the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio who admitted in a congessional hearing that he is the single most clueless person in the government.  He was clueless about the fact that a whole group of foreigners were present within the boundaries of the United States to curry the favor of the president with bribes in the form of investing in one of his businesses, completely illegal according to the constitition, completely ignored by the lawless demagogue in the White House.  

The Vice-President, who is a clueless moron, is being true to form.  Fortunately, he doesn't have any responsibility except to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency.  And the only good thing about that is that if it happened, it means there's no Trump.  While it would mean that we have an even more incompetent, and clueless idiot in the White House than we already do, it also means that the entire Project 2025 agenda collapses, as self-preservation trumps [couldn't resist] chaos. 

Then there is Trump himself.  I thought his first term more or less woke this country up from its slumber, with his demonstration of just how much damage one man can do to the government and to the nation, even with minimal legislative support.  The fact that this criminal, with indictments for crimes committed against the American people got re-elected, [I'll always believe he cheated] is a sign that the American people may not be as much of the intellectual, political and economic superpower it likes to believe it is.  

No, an America that, whatever circumstances brought it about, re-elected Trump, is a dumb and stupid America, an uneducated America, an America in which the majority of the population has lost the essence of democracy, freedom and the core values that once made us a great country. Trump's re-election occurred in an America where  MAGA has characterized, and organized the ignorance and bottomless stupidity that has brought us to this place politically.

Our Patriotism Has Significantly Eroded

Over the course of the nearly 240 years since the Constitution came into existence, it has stood the test of time.  The fact that a genuine consensus, not just a simple majority, is required to make changes has prevented the various political factions that developed and exist in the country from changing it.  Some of those factions, including that of Trump MAGA populism, have tried to find ways around its provisions for consensus, and from time to time experience very limited success.  But the checks and balances have largely remained intact.  

We were more or less forced out of our isolationism by two world wars that transformed us from being the "Arsenal of Democracy" to becoming the world's only democratic superpower, economically and militarily.  And the values that once undergirded and secured the Constitutional Democracy, in the form of the federal republic that was estabished, and which protected the separation of powers from partisan division are being eroded.  

Volumes are being written about the root causes of what's happening.  One of the problems is the feeding of this ignorance through the plethora of media sources which people now trust to get their news.  The core of the free press has been corrupted by corporate financial interests, leading to the isolation of large numbers of people away from facts and truth in "media silos."  The fact that an almost billion dollar settlement in a lawsuit against one of the operators in those silos, assessed because they lied, neither convinced most of their audience that they are liars, and did not deter their continued lying is a symptom of this problem.  

The settlement, to be effective, should have shut the whole company down, diversted all of its assets and bankrupted every single one of its owners as an example of what happens when media is not responsible to tell the truth.  The fact that a billion dollar settlement was not enough to do that is one of the reasons we are seeing our democratic values slip right out of our hands. 

I'll highlight another reason.  The value of separation of church and state, clearly articulated in the establishment clause of the first amendment, which guarantees freedom of concience, has become a major contributor to the political ignorance that fuels the MAGA cult.  Trump's interest in conservative Evangelicalism has nothing to do with any personal conviction or belief.  He's simply recognized the fact that conservative Evangelicals now make up the largest constituency in the Republican party, and their endorsement is a neccessity in winning the Republican nomination.  

He has, in fact, publicly denied having the kind of Christian "conversion" experience that Evangelicals teach as a core principle of their doctrine, which involves the requirement of acknowledging one's own sinful nature, and repenting of it, something that Trump's ego, attested to by family members and friends who know him well, is not capable of doing.  So he has invented a version of faith that he can claim he "keeps to himself," and has chosen a prosperity gospel "prophetess", whose basic doctrine is considered heresy by almost all conservative Evangelicals, as his "spiritual advisor."  Her presence tells me everything I need to know about Trump's contempt for biblical Christianity or for any acknowledgement of the existence of any being in the universe more important than himself.  

Conservative Evangelicalism is not mainstream, biblical Christianity.  It is a pseudo-Christian collection of mega-churches and denominational fellowships built around personality cults of leaders who are able to promote themselves by owning their own media outlets and who profit by taking dollars out of church offering plates and receiving it directly from their own followers.  It is based on the fundamentalist and Pentecostal doctrine that developed in the 19th century, in the wake of the Second Great Awakening, promoted by a largely untrained and uneducated clergy who were unaware that the Bible was not originally written in King James English.  

One of the primary heresies of Evangelicalism surrounds various interpretations concerning the second coming of Jesus, and an event they call "the rapture," based on a gross misinterpretation of the Apostle John's book of Revelation.  It's that misinterpretation around which their various versions of Christian nationalism are formed.  These people see themselves as superior to the "lost" people of the world, and that justifies their ability to murder them wholesale to make the world a better place in order to usher in the return of Jesus.  But there's a measure of having been corrupted by greed in this bunch, too.  Money can change church doctrine.  

Can Democrats Get People to "Pay Attention" 

So, there seems to have been an awakening of Americans who now have "buyer's remorse" because they may have voted to help Trump get back in, and now they are going to pay for it in higher prices because of his ridiculous tariff policy, which he doesn't really have the authority to enforce, and his claims of waste and inefficiency running into the billions of dollars in the federal government, which is really just warmed-over Republican belief that the federal government should not be in the business of helping its people by "redistribution of wealth," which is what they call tax policy to support government programs.  

As close as the election in 2024 turned out, looking at turnout and at what the polls are now suggesting is the collective opinion of the electorate, based on that data, Kamala Harris would win the Presidency by around 6-7 percentage points, would carry all of the swing states, and Congress would be narrowly in the hands of the Democrats.  That's a general analysis of the first 100 days of Trump's second term. 

The question is, can we survive this disaster until the midterms will allegedly turn the tide, based on this polling data, and what will get people to pay attention?  What caused the change between 2020, when they paid attention and kicked him out after his first term, and 2024, when so many voters who had supported Biden in 2020 just sat it out at home?  

Democrats had a chance to get voters attention between 2020 and the 2022 midterms, and didn't take it.  The message was clear, that Trump was an existential threat to American democracy.  But the actions of the party's members in Congress and the administration did not convey that they really believed their own rhetoric.  An enthusiastic investigation into Trump's direct instigation of the January 6th insurrection turned into one of the most dilatory, lackluster, foot-dragging, ultimately moribund prosecutions in the history of American justice.   That didn't say, "We think he is an existential threat" to anything. 

So what are Democrats doing now to "get people to pay attention"?  The Democrats in the Senate couldn't even hold it together to stop a cloture vote during a filibuster that would have prevented the administration from getting what it wanted attached to a continuing resolution, back when such a move would have said, "We mean business," and when the blame would have fallen squarely on the President.  

They're making angry speeches.  But the only ones who seem to be getting people's attention are Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and David Hogg at the DNC.  And that seems to be making the party's political analysis and pundits mad, because their establishment buddies aren't getting the job done and someone else comes along with some new ideas that seem to be working just fine. 

Last month, the approval rating achieved by Democrats in some of those same polls that show Trump in a genuine free-fall was running between 29% and 26%.  One more recent poll suggests that might now be about 25%.  That's not the direction they need to go to win the midterms.  

We are seeing the results of long term problems.  In the meantime, the simple goal is to prevent as much of this damage from happening as possible, which will happen when enough people wake up and put pressure on their Senators and representatives.  Even Republicans can be swayed, especially if they think they are going to lose their seat.  This starts by listening to what those who are having huge success motivating voters are saying.  It can't be done without including that element of the electorate, which seems to be increasingly non-partisan, in the plans.  

The War in Gaza is Tarnishing Our Reputation, Too

For those who have paid little attention to the violent history of the region known as Palestine, since World War II, this attack by Israel on Gaza is not the first time.  The Gaza Strip, which occupies a narrow piece of land slightly southwest of the central part of the state of Israel, was territory set aside in the original partition of the land when the Jewish state of Israel was created in 1948 by British and American support.  Along with the West Bank, the Gaza Strip was part of the land set aside for the displaced Arabic Palestinian population to make room for sovereign Israel.  

It has been frequently invaded, bombed and attacked by Israeli forces on the premise that it was a hotbed of terrorist resistance to the establishment of independent Israel.  That's true, as far as it goes, though when a foreign power comes in, takes over the political and economic control of an area, and then uses that control to set aside territory already occupied and home to people whose ancestors have lived there for centuries in order to make room for a largely refugee population of a completely different religious, ethnic and cultural background, some resistance to being ousted from homes and property might be expected to become violent.  

Actually, it was the Ottoman ruler Suleiman who first opened up Palestine to Jewish immigration fourteen centuries or so after the Romans had banished the Jewish population and destroyed the Temple in 70 A.D.  They allowed Jews to return on a limited basis, in relative peace, without upsetting the political or religious balance, a small but significant gesture of religious tolerance that was unusual for the time and place.  The Christian Byzantines, who occupied Jerusalem after the Roman era, weren't keen on any kind of Jewish repopulation of the province or city, nor were the Muslims of Mohammed's empire, who murdered the Christians when they took over Jerusalem.   

The number of Jewish immigrants coming into Palestine ramped up as their position in Eastern Europe became more tenuous, even before the First World War. But of course, the current situation in which the Jewish population flooded into the small provinces of the region was the result of the Holocaust, and its aftermath.  And that was due to British control over the province, which happened as a result of the Ottoman defeat in the First World War.  

Since then, it is hard to imagine a people group anywhere in the world who have been treated worse than the Arabic population in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.  Neither of those areas is capable of sustaining the population that would be pushed into them by the establishment of Israel's sovereign territory, which is all that has been considered as part of any "two state solution" to the partition of the region in order to create the independent Jewish state of Israel.  The Jewish population had the favor of the British conquerors,  backed by the United States.  

So in effect, two states were created, but the one into which the bulk of the Palestinian Arabic population was pushed is more like one of America's reservations for its Native American remnant than it is like the sovereign state on the other side of its borders.  It is not sovereign, by any stretch of the imagination, it is overcrowded and grossly under-resourced.  Yes, there are Palestinian Arabs, about two million of them, who were offered citizenship in the Israeli state, but being second-class citizens in a foreign nation, which is what they are, is not a reasonable choice that any freedom-loving American would consider acceptible.  

The Arabic population of the West Bank lives in a large, open air jail.  They do not have freedom of movement, Israelis are building settlements in their territory that, because of the access they require, cuts off easy movement from one Palestinian community to another and brings a police and security presence to their communities that is oppressive and unjust.  Gaza, which is already nothing more than an overcrowded, poverty stricken strip of hot, arid desert without adequate water or other basic human resources, has been periodically subjected to bombing and destruction of its already substandard infrastructure.  

And the world, including the democratic free world, turns its back and ignores the people in those places.  And so, with all of that as part of everyday life, didn't anyone realize that those conditions are breeding grounds for the kind of violence of desperation that has periodically emerged from these places?  And is it not possible to realize that, as long as these problems go unresolved, and the treatment of these people continues as it has, the more bombing and destrution they endure, the more likely they will be breeding grounds for violence and ripe for recruiting by militant terrorist groups.  

What kind of difference could have been made if all Palestinians had been treated with the same kind of deference and consideration the more recently arriving Jewish refugees have received?

And so, as time has passed, and conditions have worsened inside Gaza and the West Bank, and the oppression and pressure has increased, the frustration has increased, resulting in violent outbursts.  The October 7th attack on Israel by Hamas, originating inside Gaza, was an inexcusable, inhumane, terrorist attack and it prompted   

And in our gross ignorance of this entire situation as a nation, we contribute, not to the recovery and improvement of life for the Arabic Palestinian population, but to their misery, isolation and destruction.  We've decided that, because of their ethnicity and their religion, they deserve to be treated this way, mainly by being ignored, which is an unbelievable rejection of our own national values and principles, including religious intolerance.  

The United States is not seen as a refuge or an ally by the people who have been crowded into these two small provinces, now watching one of them be levelled, beyond habitability by humans.  We are seen as complicit contributors, supplying Israel with the weapons it is using to level Gaza and to eliminate any possibility that the Arabic population of Palestine will ever enjoy the kind of sovereignty they now have.  And we, who have the power to not only stop this war, but to bring about a peaceful resolution that would resolve the problems, are doing nothing.

How Does This Problem Get Resolved? 

The pattern of terrorist attacks and regional wars that have plagued the middle east since the power vacuum created by the defeat of the Ottoman Empire occurred will continue until there is a resolution to the resettlement of several million Palestinians that provides equitable economic opportunity as well as a strong sense of their own safety and security.  That includes recognizing their right to exist on land their ancestors have occupied for more than a thousand years.  It also includes recognizing Israel's right to exist, something that the United Nations has already established. 

So far, the version of the so-called "two state solution" that has existed has not worked at all, since the economic inequities are not considered.  Appeals to the fact that two million Palestinian Arabs enjoy Israeli citizenship do not resolve issues any more than claiming that the oil-wealthy Arab nations bear responsibility for resolving the problem.  The economics must be equalized and the amount of sovereign territory must be adequate to support the population.  

And let's be clear.  The Christian nationalist and Christian dispensationalist theology that pushes itself into the position the United States takes on Israel is based on bad theology and a poor doctrinal interpretation of what they call "Eschatology," or "end-times" teaching.  They are flat wrong, and should be ignored. 

Realistically, I do not see any kind of momentum in any direction that would lead to this issue being resolved in my lifetime.  And that is far more unfortunate for the Palestinian people than it is for any of those government bureaucrats who have the power to make a difference, and won't do it. 

The "One Big, Beautiful Bill" That Will Run Up the National Debt by Trillions, is the Democratic Party's Chance to "Control the Narrative"

This one is simple.  This bill, the one Trump labels "one big, beautiful bill," is nothing more than a tax cut for billionaires, and with the Trump tarriffs, is going to cost Americans who have to work for a living more money.  And if anyone still cares about it, it will massively increase the deficit.  

Trump has been stuffing his own pockets, using this second term in the White House, right out in the open.  In spite of what the law says, and it's pretty clear, Trump accepted a $400 million bribe in the form of an luxury jet from Qatar.  He's illegally involved in a cryptocurrency business directly connected to his Presidency and he has not relenquished control of any of his business enterprises, another violation of the law.  We, the people, are represented by those laws, so he is flaunting his ability to do as he pleases in our faces.  He has nothing but contempt for the American people, including the ignorant and stupid people who call themselves his MAGA supporters. 

What would happen to any one of us, if we decided to blatantly flaunt the law?  

So there's the message.  Trump is giving tax cuts to billionaires, while the rest of us will have to pay for them while bearing the cost of his tarrifs in increased prices in the consumer goods we buy.  

That's a pretty simple message.  Let's see if the party leadership can get on board, avoid complications and win big in 2026 when the midterms come around, because they have convinced people they are the ones to win this.  

There Are Some Examples to Follow

We don't have to reinvent the wheel here.  Senator Bernie Sanders has consistently been promoting this message for his entire political career.  His continuous stump speech addresses these issues in a clear and concise manner.  He, along with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have been out in front of this theme, and their message is certainly resonating with voters.  Why not build a little bit of party unity here, since we are clearly on the same side, and take advantage of a lot of foundational ground work that has already been done by them?  

I'm in favor of carrying this one step further than we've gone before.  Make Senator Sanders the Senate Minority Leader.  In terms of effectiveness, in getting things done, the prospect of that happening goes up significantly if Senator Sanders is in charge.  Yeah, I know he's an independent, but he's far more effective at communicating this message, and he won't play the old school political games that imprison Schumer.  

Yep, that would be a bold move, but Democrats need to start doing that a lot more often, not only to show that they're serious and not playing political games, but maybe to slap themselves across the face to wake up and smell the coffee, with a 26% job approval rating in Congress.  

That's pretty convincing evidence that David Hogg's plan to try and get 20 new faces and names out there who are serious and won't hold back like so many are doing now will be successful in getting Democrats a majority in the midterm elections.  Don't take that for granted, it will take work, but he's doing something about it when everyone else is playing status quo politics. 

Why Does This Party Seem Determined to Hold Itself Back? 

Be bold.  Take some risks.  

Don't underestimate what we're fighting against, which I think is a huge problem.  Trump does not play politics. He's a demagogue.  His rhetoric reflects commonly held misconceptions when it comes to politics, based on faulty impressions or outright lies.  And it's not a matter of the truth being somewhere in the middle.  I can't think of a better example of his attempt at pushing a false narrative than his insistence that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating the pets of people who lived there.  He could not even come up with one example of such an incident, even by offering bribes to people who lived there to support his lie.  

There shouldn't be any hesitation in challenging something like that.  But, as far as my observation of that situation goes, Democrats completely missed the opportunity to march in there, pack out a high school football field and make the lies about Haitians look like lies about Haitians.  But I don't recall seeing Senator Sherrod Brown, who was running for re-election, taking advantage of what could have been a gift that keeps on giving.  He didn't even go to Springfield after all of that mess came out in the debate, and when the votes were counted, he lost to Republican Bernie Moreno.  It might not have made a difference, but boy, was that a missed PR opportunity.  

We could be rid of Citizens United, the Presidential immunity ruling, and we could have saved Roe with risky, but bold, action back in 2020, when we had control of both houses of Congress and the White House.  We could have made sure Trump was in prison and never saw the inside of the White House again.  But boldness carries political risk, and it was the party establishment that wanted to slow things down and not rock the boat.  So Trump continued to escape justice.  

We are at a point, just over 100 days into Trump's second term, where his overall approval rating as President, and his favorability rating has fallen into the toilet.  We expected that, it happened last time.  He cannot sustain support for a long time because he is so unstable and unpredictable, and he's not a competent leader.  He's incapable of the kind of stability that is required for people to trust him.  His assertions are lies, which means he promises to do things about something that doesn't exist.  He's laid out his entire first term list of achievements in this "big, beautiful bill," so making that as unpopular as possible will have a long term electoral effect.  It's the kind of messaging Democrats have been dreaming about, and now, here it is.  

What will we do with it?  

The Manufacturing of Public Opinion in America

Voter suppression and the re-writing of rules for counting and verifying ballots, particularly in several swing states, managed to get enough Republicans in swring states in positions to throw out enough Democratic votes, especially minority votes, to give Trump the win.  I remain convinced that Trump cheated by illegal suppression of votes, and by getting state legislation allowing registrars to throw out mail-in ballots for the slightest irregularities.  

Take some time to read and listen to Greg Palast on this particular subject.  Under Trump's leadership, Republicans have continuously made it more difficult for Americans to vote, and easier to throw out ballots that are probably not going their way.  Trump talked about and whined about the election being stolen from him for four years, and came up with all kinds of reasons for why it was, without a single shred of evidence, then planned how to steal the next one using the same methods he whined about being used against him.  

But how is it possible for a man whose first term in office was, by any measure, the single worst Presidency in all of American history, and who committed waves of crime with mountains of evidence produced in two major investigations, able to get the kind of support this demagogue has been able to maintain among a base that represents about 30% of registered voters?  The man is a buffoon, an image, a fraud, a phony, a grifter whose old age dementia requires much more management of his appearances than the media claims about his predecessor.  How is it that he has the kind of support that he does?  

It's because we have no free press left in America, and because he is a public figure who has a specific identity, and whose obsession with money, which leads him to place financial value on every aspect of life, is exactly the kind of President the billionaire class in America need to be able to run the country their way.  They control the media, having turned it into a for-profit venture like everything else they touch.  So with money as the bottom line of everything, they have conducted a four year media campaign to re-elect Trump as President. 

The media just kept covering Trump and his phony sensationalism.  They sometimes helped create a narrative out of some issue he brought up that wasn't really an issue, and they gave him as much favorable coverage as they could when long delayed indictments started getting handed down.  They turned the attention away from his legal troubles, conveying the narrative that he was being attacked and persecuted in a witch hunt, using his words, and his narrative, while ignoring the sitting President and refusing to give his achievements the coverage they deserved.  He was given a four year free television campaign for the Presidency.  

Jake Tapper, of CNN, has helped to show us in which direction the bias has been pointing, with the release of his most recent book.  His bias is now completely clear.  

Democrats Bear Some Responsibility

Democrats did not take advantage of the tools at their disposal, including the FCC's Equal Time rule (not to be confused with their "Fairness Doctrine") to make sure they got fair coverage.  The rule technically applies only during the time period considered to be part of the actual political campaign, but there is no denying Trump was campaigning to get back in the White House long before he ever left it the first time.  

Then, of course, when Kamala Harris made an appearance on Saturday Night Live, you could hear the screaming about how unfair that was, and how it violated that rule, all across the country.  I can't recall ever seeing any converage, or hearing any complaints from Democrats about all of the free coverage Trump got that Biden didn't get.  

With control of the White House and Congress in their hands following the 2020 election, Democrats could not seem to organize themselves to deal with Trump as "an existential threat to American Democracy," as they claimed he was.  He committed crimes, most notably inciting a violent insurrection against the Capitol, and stealing classified documents, and that was after his collusion with a foreign country and the crimes he committed prior to 2016 documented in the The Mueller Report.  

The only explanation offered for the failure of the Justice department to prosecute over 90 crimes for which he was indicted and for which there was a mountain of evidence for slam-dunk verdicts is some whining about how the courts, including the Supreme Court, were stacked against them, causing interminable delays, though admittedly, the Attorney General was also dragging his feet.  "It would look too political," was the reason given, by spokespersons for President Biden himself, if they got more aggressive.  

So they ignored the calls of those within the party to take neccessary actions that would expitite his prosecution, including amending the judiciary act to expand the Supreme Court, or "pack" it, as the vernacular suggests, a move that would have made the Biden administration the single most accomplished Presidency of the modern era.  Not only would that have moved Trump's trials along to verdicts long before any campaign's official start, it would have saved Roe, overturned the ridiculous Presidential immunity from prosecution ruling they issued, and rid us of Citizens United.  

America would be a much different place today, May 18, 2025, had they done those things.  And the media narrative would be completely different.  

This is something Democrats continue to struggle with.  But the narrative of having saved American Democracy from the threat of a demagogue who wants to be dictator would have been accomplished.  And that would have spelled victory in the election and progress in Congress right now. 

"Too Political" Was One Media Narrative

The fear of looking "too political" is a media narrative that has plagued Democrats since the Obama Presidency.  Democrats are faced with undue media criticism when legislation got through Congress without a single Republican vote, as if that were a bad thing.  Frankly, I don't see it that way.  If they succeed in getting legislation through Congress, even if no Republican supports it, that's a success they should celebrate.  There's nothing notable or laudable in obstructionism.  But the media tried hard to shape public opinion by placing the blame for single party legislative success during the Obama administration on the Democrats.  

I vote for Democrats to be elected to Congress, and I would be furious if my representative or senator stepped back, took a look at how Republicans felt, and were planning to vote about a piece of legislation Democrats were pushing, and decided to vote against it because it was not getting any bi-partisan support.  But, not having anything else to criticize, that's the theme that the media took up with the things Obama achieved, largely with the support of Democrats.  They, for the most part, supported McConnell and the obstructionists, and didn't use negative tones to talk about their obstructionism. 

We are not hearing any media criticism at all, except from a few predictably moderate sources, of the fact that the entire Project 2025 agenda is built on single-party support.  

It's a complicated search to figure out exactly how and where corporately owned media outlets and networks are connected to ownership that is favorable to the agenda of the Heritage Foundation.  Clearly Fox News, sued, found liable for bias and ordered to pay almost a billion dollars to a vote counting machine manufacturer, is run by the Heritage Foundation.  How much influence they have over the other networks is visible in the manner in which they handle these issues.  Only MSNBC has offered any editorial criticism, or handles it in a similar manner to the criticism of the Obama Administration for moving forward with only the votes of Democrats in Congress.  

Very Little of a Free Press Remains

With most Americans now locked inside media "silos" and refusing to acknowledge or pay attention to anything that doesn't agree with their political perspective, there is really very little accountability left in the idea of a "free press."  And it seems that the politically controlled and ill-equipped FCC is unwilling or incapable of enforcing regulations for broadcast licensing that demand equal time and fairness in reporting.  Rules designed to keep media outlets from being bought and controlled by political interests are simply ignored and not enforced.  

A sizeable chunk of the population doesn't get its news from traditional sources that still follow some kind of journalistic ethics.  They get it from a virtually unregulated media with a plethora of websites and podcasts all aimed at cornering a niche to make money.  There's little regulation, as far as the standards of the FCC are concerned and ethics, integrity and honesty are no longer values of media sources, including those who claim to be "Christian."  Some of them are the worst violators when it comes to truth and integrity.  

It's up to each individual American to do the hard work of research, to determine where the truth lies without being distracted by appeals that are based more on their monetary value or commercial appeal than they are on any set of human values.  Read books carefully, noting the author's perspective and background.  Listen to podcasts with discernment, applying those critical thinking skills learned in school, if those are even being taught anymore, and pass these skills along to your children.  Otherwise, we become victims of propaganda doing the will of someone else who has the money to purchase the means of manipulation.  

Our freedom depends on it. 

 

The Poor Quality of American Journalism on Display: Jake Tapper Writes Another Book

Passed over at ABC when George Stephanopoulous replaced Diane Sawyer at Good Morning America, losing out to Christiane Amanpour, Jake Tapper is one of those journalists who more or less blends into the crowd and really doesn't stand out.  Frankly, I'd almost forgotten that he had worked at ABC News, in the shadow of some of their more well-known journalists, though ABC News isn't anywhere close to being the powerhouse journalistic media outlet that it once was.  And I consider it a step down, going from there to CNN, which is at the bottom of the ratings pile in political reporting.  

The idea that President Biden, because of his advanced age, had loyalists and family members who shielded him from full public view because his "dementia" was showing is a long standing right wing political narrative.  It's nothing new.  In fact, it's been more or less debunked, and I'm a little curious as to where Tapper got his information, which would be nothing new, that would lend some original credibility to his claims.  

No, I'm not curious enough to purchase, or read, the book.  There are a lot of other journalists who are also book authors on topics that are much more interesting and engaging than this tired theme.  If he actually had a psychiatric evaluation and some real, factual medical data, doing a hit piece like this on a former President might make sense.  But apparently, from all that's out there about it, he doesn't have anything like that. 

So what's the point? 

Evaluating the Biden Administration From its Achievements

The Biden administration was, by any fair political evaluation, the best performing Presidency in over sixty years.  In terms of what this President was able to accomplish, most of it in two years, both politically and economically, history will rank him favorably among the best.  There were difficult moments and there were some problems, most notably inflation, which his administration tackled in the best way they knew how, and which, in the long run, made things better than they might have been otherwise.  But the economic strength, job growth, and maintenance of low unemployment accross the board points to the success of this administration.  

So perhaps Tapper is among those journalists who just didn't like the guy, and wants to make sure history doesn't evaluate him favorably.  If that's the case, and that is his bias, what that says about him as a journalist isn't good, then, is it?  

There are some frustrations I share with fellow Democrats about the Biden administration.  They did not do a good job bringing Trump to the justice he deserved.  Knowing that wasn't going to happen constitutionally, because of Republicans lacking integrity and any kind of a spine, using the methods at their disposal was the next best shot at bringing this master criminal to justice.  It was bound to look political, that could not be helped.  But if it was a choice between looking political, and putting things in place that would eventually save American democracy from a demagogue, then I'm for doing whatever it takes.  

He should have pushed and supported those in the Democratic party who were ready to jump forward by revising the Judiciary Act and breaking the filibuster in order to pack the Supreme Court.  Ask who is the biggest blockade to real justice in this country right now, and you'll get people who identify specific justices.   He should have named a real strong, assertive, risk-taking attorney general with the reputation and ability for getting things done instead of an incompetent, milquetoast Merrick Garland.  That was his biggest mistake, with preventing a fascist demagogue from getting back into power as the top priority of his administration.  

But this crap about him needing a wheelchair, or questioning the sharpness of his mind, even though his speech, always affected by stuttering, was was off base.  This is a man who rode ten hours across a war zone in Ukraine, then walked with President Zelenskyy for two miles through the streets of Kyiv.  Who was doing the handling then, Jake?  

I'd submit that Mr. Tapper was not around enough to give this kind of an evaluation, even if he were qualified to do so.  Tapper, along with most of the rest of his fellow journalists, spent most of their time covering Trump, far more than they did President Biden.  That fact alone zaps the credibility of the whole theme of his book.  

Journalists Don't Neccessarily Make the Best Authors

I'd read something written by Rachel Maddow.  In fact, I've read all four of her books.  She's a good writer, and she has several things Tapper doesn't have, like a strong command of the English language, a much deeper and more expressive style, clarity, and she's not a wannabe.  Tapper's reporting isn't anywhere close to Maddow's commentary, and he's missing a big measure of professionalism and style. 

The only other journalists I've been tempted to read, as far as their books go, are Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw.  And they're my generation.  They have substance, write from their own experience and there's just something there that's attractive, informative and motivates me to sit down and spend some time with them.  Tapper just doesn't have any of that.  And choosing to bash Biden tells me that he knows he needs sensation and an audience with their minds made up already sold out to the opinion he wants to sell.  Who else is there to convince?  

But, would it be America if someone wasn't trying to make a buck off of it. 

Instead of Conceding the 2026 Senate Midterm, Democratic Party Establishment Needs to Gear Up to Take It

Democrats Stumble in Race for Senate 

So I do realize here that citing an article from The Hill is falsely emphasizing a conservative bias and emphasis, but this one covers the spectrum of Senate elections coming up from the perspective that a Democrat deciding to step down is conceding the race to the other side.  In recent days, on several talk radio programs, I've heard Democratic party strategists drag out that tired, old repetitive narrative of already counting the votes based on the last Presidential election and making plans to protect the turf at a time when being aggressive and bold is a necessary strategy.  

This is one of the reasons people are frustrated, why the Democratic party is suffering from low approval ratings, and why it seems that, in the face of a destructive demagogue, it doesn't appear anyone in leadership is standing up in an aggressive and bold enough manner to indicate they believe Trump really is a threat to American democracy and to the rule of Constitutional law.  When the political tools were in their hands, they wouldn't take the aggresive, bold steps necessary to put an end to this, and that's why we are here now.  

They're sending out their fundraising letters and emails.  My social media is loaded with appeals, including from out of state candidates looking to pick up some help from blue state Democrats.  The rhetoric is pretty much the same as we've been hearing for a while.    

Talk is Cheap

In the days following Trump's defeat in 2020, there was a sense that justice was headed in the right direction and that the country had been saved from political and constitutional disaster by getting him out of office.  We saw the crimes he was willing to commit and the lies he was willing to tell in order to try and stay in office, which horrified most people, and as a new Congress took control, opening a full investigation into those crimes, which included the organization of, and incitement of an insurrection aimed at disrupting and possibly stopping the peaceful transfer of power established by the Constitution, and it appeared everything was going to work as it should, and by the time the midterm elections rolled around, he'd be nothing more than a bad black mark on American history, sitting in prision writing memoirs as incoherent as his speech. 

How that didn't happen, in spite of Democrats having the power to make it happen, and in spite of what he did being out in the open is the result of partisan politics causing the unraveling of beliefs and convictions held by Americans for 240 years.  Washington, in his farewell address, has been proven to be correct in his warning the American people against becoming partisan.  He saw political partisanship connected to the elitism and inequality of status and wealth of monarchy as evil, and the newly formed American Republic, based on pure Democracy of the principle that all human beings are created equal as the best way to defeat it.  

IF any political figure in American history got something completely correct, that was it.  

The accountability that comes with a free, independent press has gradually been eroted by the corporate ownership of media that no longer tells the truth.  There's a religious ideology which, over time, has separated a segment of the population from the rest of the culture and then created a social and political environment that allows those within its grip to be manipulated and used for political purposes because they have been convinced that their "worldview," which lowers the value of human existence based on racial inequality and a false perspective of material wealth, is the right one.  

The two years that Democrats were in power in Washington, with majorities in both houses and a President in the White House, produced a remarkable series of legislative accomplishments not seen in any presidency in several decades, in spite of the fact that Republicans abandoned all of the principles and protocols of functioning in a bi-partisan government decades ago.  Democrats finally realized that they didn't need to compromise, and that there was a power in accomplishment, especially after the disastrous and incompetent way the GOP and their President handled the pandemic, and they used that to pass legislation and put an agenda in place that brought the country to a level of economic prosperity it had not experienced in more than 60 years. 

And because the news media is so unfair, biased, and owned by corporate interests whose politics are opposite those of the Democratic party, most Americans were kept in the dark about what the Biden Administration achieved.  

But the Priority Should Have Been Bringing Trump to Justice

It's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.  The overriding priority of the Biden political agenda was what to do with the former President, who had committed some spectacular crimes for which he had never been held accountable, to get into office in the first place, while he was in office, and especially in his attempt to stay in office after being decisively defeated.  No legitimate evidence, even of the kind he was convinced existed, to prove there was "massive election fraud" which cost him the 2020 election.  In fact, everything that turned up not only proved the ballot counts to be accurate and representative of the wishes of the electorate, but revealed attempts by his supporters to cheat and steal votes.  

Trump got four years of free campaigning, in the news coverage he got on a daily basis from the media, who gave his loony conspiracy theories and his words and deeds far more attention than they did to the real achievements of the Biden administration.  The Democrats didn't seem to be aware of this happening, and if they were, didn't make an effort to counter it in the mainstream media.  Of course, in the conservative media silos, people were never informed of the truth, and were led to believe outlandish lies. 

But the way to solve this problem was within the power of the Democrats during those two years, 2021-2023, when they held the power in both Houses.  Of course, Trump was impeached for the insurrection he incited, but there would never be enough honest Republicans in the senate to convict, and everyone knew that.  The Supreme Court, setting down their partisan neutrality and letting their corruption come to the surface, ruled 6-3 that a sitting President is immune from prosecution for crimes he may commit while executing the duties of his office.  That should have been a signal to Democrats to do something that was well within their power, and ability at the time, to do.  

We would not be here now if they had the boldness to take the risk to amend the Judiciary Act, increase the number of seats on the Supreme Court by 5, or 6 to get an odd number, allowing President Biden to appoint judges to fill those seats at once.  That's called "packing the court," and it is something that has been talked about, and done, at times when the court's ideology got away from the power of "we, the people." 

"Too political," said the President, whose years in the senate also led to his over protection of the filibuster, which would have had to be abandoned in order to pass the legislation through the Senate by simple majority to pack the court.  He was correct in his assessment that such a move would be seen as playing politics by the other side.  They've already abandoned the basic protocols of statesmanship, that was a casualty of the Reagan years.  So why they felt they needed to protect Trump by holding to these outdated political tools is beyond me.  

Packing the court, and abandoning the filibuster would have had long term effects that changed the way things get done in Congress, but if it had been done when it was first brought up, at the beginning of Biden's term, there would have been plenty of time to make sure the risks were minimal.  But we would not be seeing the destruction of our Democracy now had this been done.  

With a packed court, Roe would have been saved.  Citizens United, which is responsible for much of the influence billionaires now have over government they are buying piece by piece, would have been overturned.  The Presidential immunity ruling would have been overturned, and the ruling that the appeals court issued just before the Supreme Court ruled, would have become the law of the land, and no President would be above the law.  

With a packed court, the justices could have wiped out all of the delaying motions Trump put up to avoid going to trial for insurrection and for stealing classified documents, expidited both trials, made sure no corrupt Trumper like Aileen Cannon got close to being in charge of the cases, and had his bags packed for Leavenworth.  Looking at the political reaction to the miserable failure a second Trump term has already become, this might have helped Democrats keep control of Congress for two more years.  And who would the GOP have run for President who could have won the election at that point?  

Nobody. 

So Why Concede The Senate Already?  If Party Leadership is "Tired," Then They Need to be Replaced by More Energetic and Ambitious Leaders

It seems we're going to let the pollsters and the pundits choose and execute Democratic party strategy for the midterm elections.  It's going to be based on old political analysis and conventional practices, not on the urgency of the disaster that we are facing.  Well, most of them aren't going to feel it like the rest of us.  They've used their political position to make sure their bank account can weather the storm, and they'll just hunker down in their big homes and beach houses and watch those of us on Social Security, Medicare and fixed incomes, who trusted them to be responsible,, suffer.  

When Trump was re-elected, and  the full scope of the disaster was known, and people discovered that Project 2025 was real, and moving forward, even though that's not what they voted for, the next possibility for change turned the focus to the 2026 midterm elections.  Maybe, in blue states, we can hold out until then, but if Democracy is going to be saved now, 2026 is the final opportunity and even that might be too late to undo the damage.  

The most sensible rhetoric at this point is actually coming from the DNC.  David Hogg is proposing to help raise money to replace Democrats with some new, bolder leadership willing to take risks to save the country from fascism.  Of course he's been attacked by the establishment, which affirms that what he wants to do is probably the right thing to do and it will work.  The head of the DNC, Ken Martin, who has been a disappointment as far as I am concerned, at least is giving some lip service to a "50 state strategy," which is also a step in the right direction.  

The DNC has been so ineffective for so long, I'm not sure it can do much good now, but if, with some new-found energy, it can contribute to a move in the right direction, I might even be tempted to send a contribution.  

We need leaders who won't concede Senate races a year and a half ahead of time.  There are signs of early collapse of Republican support, which should be like blood in the water for a shark.  That's the way Democrats should be acting now.  Those two congressional races in Florida were damning repudiations of Trump, given the size and scope of the Democratic vote that turned out, and the ground that had been made up in just a few months.  

Senator Schumer's letter, which I got last week, isn't anywhere close to what we need to motivate voters and get the kind of results out of this election that we need.  And age isn't necessarily the problem, since 83 year old Bernie Sanders does not appear to be slowing down.  That's where the energy is going and that's where Democrats need to look for leadership to get things done and avoid the same old same old same old politics and political punditry that have led to this failure of will. 

The polls clearly show that there's been enough of a shift of support for Republicans to cause Georgia Governor Brian Kemp to decide not to challenge Jon Ossoff for his Senate seat.  That's a clear sign that Ossoff is leading in the internal polls that the parties trust to make these kinds of decisions.  Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has been thought to be another potential challenger, also steered clear of entering the race.  

A brief google search will turn up news stories indicating that Republicans have concerns about the vulnerability of several of their Senators, including Susan Collins in Maine, whose public polling indicates disastifaction and vunerability, Ashley Moody in Florida, where recent special elections showed a huge shift in voter preference, backlash for what their governor and Trump have accomplished in the state, big concerns for what is happening with Iowa Senator Grassley, and though it might come as a surprise, Mitch McConnell's open seat in Kentucky, up for grabs, is a toss-up.  

I'd also think that if Democrats could get a solid candidate with some energy and Bernie Sanders' backing they could take Shelly Moore-Capito out of her seat in West Virginia.  She is one of the most disconnected senators in Congress from the needs of her constituence, yet they seem to be completely in the dark when it comes to her voting record against their interests, particularly rural health care.  It was West Virginia's other senator, Joe Manchin, working with the Biden Administration, that re-opened one rural hospital in West Virginia, in Williamson, and helped keep the hospital in Welch, in McDowell County, open as well.  Moore-Capito voted against appropriations that opened those doors.  

So let's not concede just yet.  

Hogg's Move to Bring Fresh Faces into the Old Democratic Crowd is the Only Plan Democrats Have to Oppose Trump

It's not surprising that Trump's job approval rating has slipped below the 40% mark, his disapproval is just a couple of points short of 60% and the country is falling apart because he has chosen a cabinet and executive branch staff who is even more incompetent and unable to do those jobs than he is.  Those on the fringes who voted for him this time because they thought he might be better in some way were disabused.  All he's got left right now is the Heritage Foundation's money and influence that is part of his MAGA base. 

I'm not surprised that Democrats in Congress have an even worse job approval rate, 26%.  Of course, Republicans in Congress are doing about the same, maybe a little worse, because they are slowly realizing they are being made responsible for Trump's abysmal job performance and accountable for his failures.  But for all the talk about the midterm elections of 2026 being the best chance to put a stop to the Trump insanity, Democrats are doing surprisingly little to change the perception of themselves.  At a 26% job approval rating, hopes of winning a majority in both houses during the midterms is not running very high. 

The party leadership is protecting its own turf, rather than making some bold moves, requiring personal sacrifice and risk.  That sends the wrong message.  They can say that Trump is an existential threat to American democracy, but until they do something that shows this is an urgent priority for them, rather than just electioneering and campaign sloganing, those miserable job approval ratings will continue, as they are even as this is read, and will get worse. 

Do the Party Leaders Know Why Their Own Constituents are Frustrated? 

Getting on message and getting it out is a chronic problem for the Democratic party.  As the opportunity to win the 2024 election slipped away in weeks of panic and confusion mostly caused by the reaction of big donors to Joe Biden's debate performance, the same inability to read the crowd, so to speak, created a season of doing absolutely nothing to stop the threat to democracy, or even to create a sense of urgency that Trump was such a threat.  

That's why the level of frustration is so high, and the job approval is so low. 

There is a huge amount of frustration over the fact that an inept and incompetent Merrick Garland could not use the power of the Presidency to get the insurrectionist, document thief into a courtroom for trial.  That was simply inexcusable.  Nor would Democratic leadership, Biden included, do everything they could to make sure it happened.  They could have revised the judiciary act, broke the filibuster, packed that damn, corrupt court, expidited Trump's insurrection trial, and saved Roe while overturning Citizens United.  There were plenty of Democratic members of the House and Senate on board with that.  And it all would have worked, except the old school leaders wanted to protect their turf, their seats, and play the game the old way, which their opposition abandoned 30 years ago. 

What Hogg wants to do is find enough Democrats to replace those who held back, and wouldn't take those risky, bold steps to make sure Trump was ineligible to run, and went to prison for his crimes. I'm 100% for doing exactly that.  

When it became pretty clear that Biden's Presidency should have been a transitional one, two years before the election, we needed bold party leadership to go to him and convince him that it would be best for both the party and the country if he did not run again.  Few political experts doubt that Democrats would have won the 2024 election had they held a regular primary to select a new nominee.  They might well have picked Harris, but they would have picked someone who was willing to take some risks, who could have distance him or herself from the issues that affected the Biden adminstration, and who would have had two years to run a campaign, keep an eye on Republican tactics to suppress and steal votes, and very likely have won the election, especially if Democrats had taken the neccessary steps to make sure Trump couldn't run again. 

Hogg is looking for Democrats willing to tell the truth and make the country a priority over political careers and long term occupation of seats that should be term limited anyway. 

Democratic senate leadership had the opportunity to put an early roadblock up in Trump's way by blocking the continuing resolution with all of the things Trump wanted in it, early in his term.  Yes, it would have shut down the government, but who gives a damn?  Trump would have been blamed for that, and Democrats would have kept him from getting the means to make his damaging DOGE cuts right off the bat.  But nine Democrats, nine of them, caved in and voted for cloture, and let him have what he wanted.  Nine. 

And that's why David Hogg is doing what he's doing.  It's needed, and thank goodness we have him at the DNC.  I know his boss there doesn't like it, but Democrats won't succeed by hanging on to the status quo, old school way of doing things, and the old line leadership is all about paying homage to the big donors and long time traditions, which have cost us an election and have opened the door to what we have in Washington right now.  Ken Martin had better side with progress, and separate himself from the old guard, and move the party where the action is, get caught up to the Trump resistance that is running far ahead of where they are, and sit down and listen to his vice-chair, or he's going to be another ineffective, "who cares?" leader in a long line of ineffective, "who cares?" leaders at the DNC.  

The party needs fresh faces who understand the seriousness of this threat enough to be bold, and take risks to protect our democracy, instead of protecting their own turf, traditions, and feathering their own nests. Look where the momentum is, and who the people are following.  It's clearly not about age, since an 83 year old Senator is one of the most energetic, and crowd-drawing attractions in the anti-Trump movement.  It's about priorities, and while a lot of lip service was given to the "Trump is an existential threat to democracy," mantra, the party's actions spoke louder than its words, and proved, with irresolute cowardice, that was not what they believed.  Hence the current frustration and tanking job approval ratings. 

My Senator, Dick Durbin, has a long and distinguished career in the United States Senate, but Senator Durbin passed is prime about 5 years back and his failure to be up on the front lines taking risks, being bold and protecting democracy means that it is time for him to step down, and let someone else with more energy and willingess to take a risk step up and take his seat.  I feel the same way about Senator Schumer.  Retire, Senator, and let Governor Hochul appoint Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to your seat.  Let's get Bernie in position as Senate Minority Leader and position ourselves to win in the midterms and then erase every vestige of the failed Trump presidency. 

Move to Defund and Disband the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention is Politically Motivated

Baptist News Global: Mohler Has Changed His Tune on the SBC ERLC 

Baptist News Global: SBC Membership Shrank by One Fourth in Two Decades

It's Kind of a "Who Really Cares?" Moment in the Southern Baptist Convention

The Southern Baptist Convention established the Christian Life Commission in 1953 as a lobbying organization mainly for the protection of religious liberty and the separation of church and state issues.  It was Baptists, operating out of their traditional position that the church should be independent and autonomous, free from the political coercion of the state, that influenced both Jefferson and Madison and led to the first amendment's inclusion of religious liberty and the establishment clause, which separates church and state, in the Constitution.  

But that has, over time, drastically changed.  Though there are still plenty of Baptist churches, fellowship groups and associations who hold to their traditional perspective on separation of church and state, and who defend freedom of conscience from government coercion, the majority of those in the Southern Baptist Convention, influenced by the infiltration of fundamentalist doctrine and practice, have taken a different position.  Desiring their Christian Life Commission to become more involved on the side of anti-abortion activism and less opposed to church-state separation, that prompted the SBC's withdrawal from the Baptist Joint Commission on Public Affairs (now "on Religious Liberty).  And that changed the mission and direction of the Christian Life Commission.  

Led by Bush ally Richard Land, renamed the "Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), the organization pushed hard to become an anti-abortion activist organization and to drag the SBC into Republican right wing extremist politics following the "Conservative Resurgence."  Neither Land nor Paul Pressler, the Texas appeals court judge who was one of the major "architects" of the resurgence, were ever able to push the SBC to the point of outright endorsements of GOP Presidential candidates, but that was not for lack of trying.  

Then Land stepped down in 2013, due to a shift in denominational politics, and Russell Moore became executive director.  Moore's legacy at the ERLC looked to be more bland, conservative extremism, until the election rolled around in 2016 and he became an outspoken right wing Evangelical opposed to Trump's candidacy, because of his disgusting immoral behavior and crude, worldly attitude.  Moore, now editor of Christianity Today , never backed down from that perspective, so the Trump machine within the SBC went to work to try and bring the whole organization down.  

And that's what's happening now, with the involvement of the great Southern Baptist pontificator, Dr. Al Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.  

Mohler wasn't a Trumper in 2016 either, but he's a "lick your finger and stick it in the air to see which way the wind is blowing" kind of Baptist leader.  So he eventually changed his mind.  But Moore never did.  He managed to make an exit and land on his feet in a more sympathetic, more moderate, less politically insane branch of Evangelicalism.  His successor failed to denounce him or trash his reputation or behave in other un-Christ-like vengeance, and so, jiggling with rage, Southern Baptist Trumpers are now pushing to simply shut down the whole ERLC to hurl their hatred and get back at the remaining leadership for not bowing at the feet of their political enamorata and favorite ungodly idol. 

Mohler has had his own issues with the Conservative Resurgence crowd in the SBC, and with its Trumpers, whose defacto leader, Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas, is the Southern Baptist Convention's Trumper-in-Chief.  Jeffress, himself rejected as head of the White House Faith Office under Trump, a job he wanted so bad that he embarassed himself trying to suck up to Trump to get it, is still somewhat resentful of Mohler's prior position as a never-Trumper.  He helped put a stop to momentum to elect Mohler as President of the Southern Baptist Convention on two different occasions, including one very embarassing moment when Mohler was actually placed on the ballot. 

As the Southern Baptist Convention has embarassingly, to its shame, failed to come to grips with a very ugly clergy sexual abuse scandal in its midst, angry conservatives need other issues to rally the troops and distract the media from their absolute and complete failure to handle this scandal.  So taking down the ERLC solves a couple of problems.  One, it is vengeance for the long-gone Moore's failure to bow the knee to the orange headed buffoon.  It's an attack on a reasonable position consistent with the denomination's claimed conservative Christian values.  Two, it frees up money that the cash strapped, rapidly declining denomination desperately needs to pay legal fees for the lawsuits that have cropped up as a result of their being stymied in trying to deal with a sex abuse scandal. 

Who really cares?  The Southern Baptist Convention, which keeps billing itself as the "Nation's largest Protestant Denomination," is rapidly disintegrating.  It has lost a quarter of its membership and a third of its weekly attendance in two decades, the vast majority of it in the time since Trump first started running for President.  Support for the worldly, morally bankrupt Trump among Christians in a conservative denomination hasn't been as big a hit as many people hoped.  It's led to an exodus of most of its younger, and more politically moderate church members.  This has hit hard, especially in the pocketbook, at a time when bills from legal challenges resulting from the incompetent manner in which denominational leaders have handled the sex abuse crisis. 

Too Little, Too Late

On the surface, the purpose of the ERLC was similar to the Christian Life Commission in preserving the separation of church and state, and protecting religious liberty of churches and denominational institutions in the public square, including its six seminaries, two mission boards and Lifeway Christian Publishers by fighting against government intrusion.  Under Land, most of what it did was related to the anti-abortion issue, and attempting to bring the denomination into right wing politics.  

Under Moore, when the scope and extent of the sexual abuse scandal was revealed, the ERLC was the first entity in the denomination to open its doors to victims as a place where they could express themselves, and to develop and offer ministry to help victims recover.  For doing this, they were widely criticised.  Since the scandal broke, the whining and caterwauling has all been about the money the denomination stands to lose for the ham-handed way they've handled this.  Very little effort or sympathy has been expressed for the hundreds of victims.  Once Moore was pushed out the door, any assistance, and expressed sympathy, for the victims was over.

The current staff of the ERLC, following the direction of its trustees, isn't sinking into the mire of extremist right wing political support, and is distancing itself from the right wing extremism.  Its own trustees continue to be supportive of the leadership, but in the quirky way the SBC is structured, the convention messengers at an annual meeting can completely defund it, leaving it without financial resources.  

Not that it matters.  Most Southern Baptists are, to the detriment of their denomination, caught up in right wing politics.  They are uninterested and trying to distance themselves from any responsibility for the sexual abuse crisis, hiding the misogyny of the leadership behind local church autonomy.  

The chickens are already coming home to roost. 

 

If You're Hoping That the 2026 Midterm Elections Are the Answer to This Disaster, Then It's Time to Do More Than Just Protest

More Americans appear to be hitting the streets in protest of the unconstitutional, mostly illegal actions of a renegade Presidency than at any other point in our history, with the possible exception of the Vietnam War era.  Even conservatively biased polls are indicating that the number of Americans showing dissatisfaction with the first 100 days of the second Trump administration is heading onward and upward toward the 60% mark, and his job approval ratings are even lower than the records he set during his first term.  

You're not reading the words of someone here who trusts most of the data that now comes out of what are mostly corporate-owned media pollsters.  Anything associated with the far right conservatives hasn't been trustworthy or truthful for a long time.  So I do have some doubts when I see headlines from Newsmax or Newsweek making note of a 29% or 26% approval rate for Democrats.  But there's a little more than just their bias involved in my observations of what's actually going on.  

I'm a lifelong Democrat, and while I'll admit that feelings are not the best way to validate poll results, what I'm seeing in writing, on social media, from a lot of Democrats, is that some of the disapproval and dissatisfaction with Democratic members of Congress may be coming from within the party.  For me, that doesn't mean I'm not going to vote when the time comes.  Even a weak, self-absorbed Democrat is better than any Republican.  But being weak and conciliatory, now, during this time, is unacceptable.  

The Messaging Dilemma is Rearing Its Ugly Head, Again 

The best message we had, going into the 2020 election, was that Donald Trump is an existential threat to American Democracy.  We got that right.  We had four years to see that he was, and we've now had another 100 days to see just how right we were.  But this is a dilemma for us, because in spite of getting this messaging right, we can't seem to respond to this threat effectively.  

We had a huge advantage after his first four year disaster in office that proved he's mentally imbalanced, emotionally incapacitated and incapable of providing the kind of leadership we expect in a President.  We complain that the Republicans have control of media silos through which they keep their followers blinded to the truth.  But the party's approach and response to that, other than the whining and using it as an excuse, is to go back to the traditional means of trying to get media attention from the other mainstream outlets, amidst all of their "Trump, Trump, Trump" coverage.  

If a comparison exists somewhere, between the amount of television news coverage Joe Biden was given during the four years of his Presidency, and the amount of coverage Trump got during the four years of Biden's presidency, Trump would win hands down walking away.  My guess is that he got ten  times the amount of network news time that Biden did.  

And whose fault is that?  It can't all be blamed on the mainstream media.  They cover what they're given.  

"But this is just the way Biden does things," we were told.  As if what he's done in the past has worked, and there's no need to change.  And yes, I found that frustrating.  It also turned out to fall short of the goal of eliminating Trump as an existential threat to American Democracy.  "The way Biden did things," combined with the way the Democratic party establishment did things, fell far short of its potential effectiveness.  

The panic that occurred following Biden's debate performance that triggered the rush to get him to step down from his re-election campaign said an awful lot about why the Democratic party, my party, was so ineffective in stopping the Trump threat.  All that panic and confusion, no real leadership stepping forward, and a small group of powerful major donors calling the shots was all I needed to see.  Even at that, at that late date, and with that behind us, the fact that this was still a winnable election speaks more to just how bad Trump really is, than it does to just how well the Democrats can articulate their message.  

I will always believe that if Biden had declared, in 2023, that he was not running for re-election, and had organized the party to choose a nominee that could carry and deliver the message, Democrats would have won a landslide in 2024, and we would not be here now.  And of course, if Democrats had been more resolute and determined, and united behind the message of Trump's threat to democracy in 2021, when they took power, a few risky but bold political moves would have brought Trump's downfall shortly after the Congressional committee wrapped up its investigation into his starting an insurrection against the Capitol.  

Had Democrats marshalled their power, got on message, and moved with some boldness, the disastrous mess that happened with Merrick Garland and the DOJ would never have transpired, and Trump would have been adjudicated and in prison before the midterm winners were sworn in. 

So What's the Plan, Democrats, for the 2026 Midterms?   

The GOP margins in both the House and Senate are slim.  They should be easy to break down, given the disaster that has occurred during Trump's first 100 days.  But where is our Democratic party leadership?  I can't see anything that they are doing to try and position themselves to win, and I am seeing an increased number of commentators and columnists, and Democratic party media advocates, like Thom Hartmann and Stephanie Miller, who are trying to ring alarm bells and get things moving.  

We are 100 days into a disaster.  We are seeing rising opposition to this Presidency everywhere.  And yet, Democrats in Congress have a 26% job approval rating.  Something is seriously wrong, and isn't connecting.  

I'm not a "sit on my butt and protect my own interests" kind of guy.  I'm on social security, with a modest supplemental income, but I set aside something every month to give to Democrats.  I'm getting to the point where standing for hours at a protest isn't possible, nor is making a long march, though I really enjoy doing that.  Twice now, in the past year, I have volunteered to knock on doors in neighboring purple state Wisconsin, to help Democrats in elections. And if you want to get a good look at what I consider well-invested time and effort, click this link to The Signal Press and read to your heart's content.  

I'm on board with David Hogg's idea to make some changes in party leadership for all of the reasons I've put down here.  I'm supporting Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, largely because I really like their messaging, which is clear, to the point, and motivates voters to action, but also because they are doing something in the absence of many other leaders doing nothing.  I'm considering myself fortunate to live in Chicago, in Illinois, where our Democratic party leaders are bold, and vocal, and on target with their message, and I'd love to be right at the head of the line when J. D. Pritzker announces he is a candidate for President in 2028.  

I would love to be wrong about the silence and lack of forward movement I'm seeing from Democrats.  We should be the leaders of the Trump opposition, setting the agenda, but that's happening more spontaneously, in the Indivisible groups that are forming, on the message boards and social media outlets where people who are strongly opposed to Trump, but not necessarily strongly supporting of Democrats, are giving birth to a new political movement.  

Trump, and his cronies, are publicly announcing and carrying out plans to steal the midterm elections, right out in the open, suppressing votes that will potentially go against them.  They've long since publicly announced their knowledge, and how to implement, all of the things they've claimed have been used against them in election stealing, and they have already implemented them to steal the 2024 election.  We knew that, there were thousands of people sounding the alarms, and we kept being told there were law firms on it.  Turns out, well, there weren't enough to stop the stealing.  

So what's the plan to keep the midterms free and fair?  

Tell me there's a plan, a structure, an organization, and on top of that, a genuine desire among Democrats to keep this country free from the tyranny that now has it in its grip.  

There's a Direct Connection Between the Steep Decline in Conservative Evangelical Church Membership and Involvement in Right Wing Trump Extremism

Southern Baptist Convention Membership Continues its Long, Steep Decline 

Still calling itself the "Nation's Largest Evangelical Denomination," the Southern Baptist Convention posted an eighteenth straight year of declining membership, with  just under 260,000 church members leaving the rolls of the church to which they once belonged, one way or another.  

The nation's largest Evangelical denomonation reached is peak membership in 2006, at 16.3 million.  Since then, membership has declined, with the sharpest and steepest declines occurring after 2016, when there were years when nearly half a million members disappeared from the rolls.  The decline has slowed, somewhat, over the past three years, but even with annual losses falling below the 300,000 mark, over three quarters of a million members have been subtracted over the past four years.  While weekly worship attendance has slowly crept back over the 4 million mark, since dropping during COVID, membership continues to drop sharply.  

The attendance figure, averaging 4.3 million this past year, is still a much lower figure than the 6.2 million who sat in the pews prior to 2006. What's actually causing the "bounce" right now is the returning of those who didn't attend during the COVID pandemic.  That's about over, as the increase over the past year was fairly insignificant.  And the same study that shows this membership decline also points to the fact that 69% of the church membership is 50 years of age or older.  Only 10% of Southern Baptists are under 30.  

What that indicates is that a high percentage of those individuals who grew up in a Southern Baptist church, and likely participated in its children's ministry and youth group, have left, deciding that raising their family in the same church offers little in the way of value to them and their life.  That's a big decision.  It's interesting that the decline corresponds directly with the increased intrusion of right wing politics that started with Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and their baiting by the GOP back just prior to the 1980 Presidential election.  

Involvement in Extremist Right Wing Politics is Key to Understanding the Decline

The correlation between Southern Baptists' rapid membership decline, and the increased involvement of mostly Caucasian, conservative, Evangelical Christians in far right extremism, a political perspective that is anti-Christian in both its means and ends, is pretty easy to see.  There's no other demographic study that shows anything else coming along in the early part of this century that would find a big enough presence in the church to cause membership to drop so subtstantially, especially the rise of a worldly, morally bankrupt, failed businessman, Donald Trump, whose public behavior is completely antithetical to the values of Christianity.  With many of the denomination's pastors preaching a form of white, Christian nationalism in place of the biblical Christian gospel message Jesus revealed, and the intrusion of Trump's licentious lifestyle, many faithful church members have said, "no thank you," and have left.  

If you ask a hundred Americans between the age of 55 and 75 which of the Presidents in this modern era of American History best characterized the values, theology, doctrine and practice of the Christian faith, 75 of them would say "Jimmy Carter," without hesitation.  In the whole stretch between Franklin Roosevelt, and the present time, there's no one else that comes close.   There were two other members of Southern Baptist churches who have occupied the White House since Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman and Bill Clinton, but they weren't known for their faith practice like Carter.  No one else in the Presidency since then comes close to that. 

But Carter's brand of Christianity was sincere, committed to practice of the core values of the Christian gospel without exception, and that always includes a depth of understanding of Jesus' interpretation of the greatest commandments--to love God with all your heart, soul and mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself,--neighbor being defined as fellow human beings and illustrated by Jesus as a Samaritan, which takes a strong stand against any kind of racism or ethnic prejudice and which promotes the value of equality.  The kind of biblical Christianity Carter believed and practiced contrasts with the dark, legalistic brand of the fundamentalists and Pentecostals who make up the political Evangelical right. 

Carter further angered the Falwell-Robertson fundamentalists by refusing to impose his own personal religious practices and convictions through his Presidency.  Carter may have been the first Evangelical President in American history to prove that it was completely possible to be a sincere, faithful Christian, and not feel compelled to use the power of the Presidency as a means of imposing convictions on the consciences of Americans who enjoy freedom of conscience under the first amendment.  Carter understood that Christian nationalism, especially with its white supremacist element attached, was heresy to Christianity, and unconstitutional to American idealism.  

He was personally opposed to both abortion and to homosexuality as a lifestyle.  But he understood that the Constitution protects the rights of the minority to the free exercise of their own conscience, and that the establishment clause forbids imposing religion as a means of legislating and governing.   Frustrated by their own failures to eliminate these practices by "winning the lost," and failing to fulfill what they believed was their own destiny from God to bring social reform to the United States, to prepare the world for the second coming of Jesus in their warped, heretical theology, they turned to the Republican party, and New Ager Ronald Reagan for leadership.  

They have not had a political leader who shares their Christian convictions, doctrine and theology since then. The religious right, conservative Evangelical wing of the GOP, whatever you want to call it [I call it pseudo-Christian fascism myself] has had to accept political leadership that does not accept or agree with their religious doctrine and theology.

Delivering a Conservative, Evangelical Denomination to Right Wing Republican Extremism as an Inside Job

The problem that Falwell and Robertson had in getting full support of Evangelicals was that the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention at the time shared Jimmy Carter's perspective on keeping secular politics out of the denomination and its churches.  A group of conservatives, bent on subverting the mission and purpose of the Southern Baptist convention to bring it into alignment with right wing extremism, and with a more Christian nationalist perspective, began a movement in 1979 to take over leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention's six seminaries, its executive board, radio and television commission, publishing house and mission boards, for the purpose of using its resources to support conservative right wing extremism, specifically the Republican party.  

One of the two "architects" of this movement, known as the "Conservative Resurgence," was a Texas appeals court judge, and Republican party activist named Paul Pressler.  He teamed up with a Bush administration ally, Richard Land, to tighten the grip of right wing conservatives on the Southern Baptist Convention's leadership.  And that's when the denomination began to die.  

It took them about ten years to get a majority of the seats on the executive committee and all of the trustee boards, and then another six or seven to make sure there were no "moderates" left anywhere, after purging seminary faculties and the professional staffers at Lifeway publishers, and at the executive committee offices.  Then, because the various state bodies affiliated with the denomination had not all caved in to the political pressure, another six or seven years to try and get control at that level, making sure pastors in the churches became political activists crossing the line and preaching right wing extremist politics as Christian theology and doctrine.  

And that brings us to somewhere in the early 2000's, as membership and attendance peaked, and then started to decline, seminary enrollment began to drop, baptisms, which represented new members and converts, tanked, and the money machine that ran all of this operation began to be starved for contributions.  

There were a whole lot more Southern Baptists who were more interested in a genuine faith practice than in Christian nationalism and right wing politics than the leadership of the Resurgence thought there would be.  At least three of the 37 state conventions affiliated with the SBC refused to go along with the turn toward right wing politics, including the largest one, the Baptist General Convention of Texas.  And at least two denominational groups have split churches off from the Southern Baptist denomination, including a group known as the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, with about 3,500 churches, and the Alliance of Baptists, which has about 300 churches.  These groups have been committed to keeping the Christian gospel at the center of the mission and purpose of the denomination, and are fighting against the influence of Christian nationalism and the racism that has infiltrated the Southern Baptists.  

Since 2006, when the drops in membership, attendance, financial giving, seminary enrollment and baptisms started to be felt, more than 3.5 million people have left the denomination, including entire congregations at one time.  The weekly average attendance in the denomination's churches has dropped more than 2.5 million, not counting the losses it has recovered from the pandemic.  And as this year's membership decline of 260,000 was reported, the exodus is still happening.  That's 38% of the average attendance, and 22% of the total membership, with 75% of the decline occurring since 2016, the year Trump was first elected President.  

It Doesn't Take Research to Figure This Out, It's a Logical Conclusion 

Participation in any form of organized Christian practice in the United States has been on the decline for some time now, and it has reached a point where there are now two generations of Americans in which the majority of members have no church affiliation.   There are multiple reasons for why Southern Baptists, who experienced growth in numbers across the board until the mid-1990's, have gone into a steep decline that is worse than most of their mainline Protestant counterparts that they like to criticize.  

A lot of chickens have recently come home to roost.  Not all Southern Baptists, especially those in churches outside the south where most of the growth was occurring during the 70's and 80's, are white, or Republican.  The political leadership that denominational leaders were supporting did not share their fundamentalist doctrine, theology and practice, especially Reagan, who practiced New Age religion, or George H. W. Bush, a devout Episcopalian.  Even George W., a Methodist, wasn't an overboard religious conservative.  

But Trump, who is the antithesis of Christian, a wealthy "man of the world" who reveled in his worldliness, moral bankruptcy and sinful behavior, and who openly denies his need for God's forgiveness (see I John 1:10 for what that does to Christian theology), a three time, publicly declared adulterer, business cheat and fraud, and pathological liar, was a shock to the system.  His presence among those of Evangelical brands who have embraced him, has pushed a lot of genuine, faithful Christians out, and even though the Southern Baptist Convention stopped short of endorsing him, leaders like Pressler and Land, and high profile pastors who support him, like Robert Jeffress, have caused a lot of people to decide that faith and politics, with Trump involved, can't mix without destroying the faith. 

I grew up Southern Baptist, and I'm one of those who left more than two decades ago, with an entire congregation that unanimously voted to separate from the mess.  There's a lot more of that happening now, whole churches who see what a hypocrite Trump is, and do not want their church corrupted by an intrusion of "licentiousness." (See the book of Jude for an explanation of what that means.) 

The theological and doctrinal heretics that those conservative Evangelicals who insist on continuing to support Trump must accept in order to get their political aims achieved betray their claims to being Christian as phony and insincere.  And it's not just in the Southern Baptist Convention where this exodus of those who refuse to be bullied into accepting this immoral demagogue as part of their faith practice is happening.  

Denominations that once seemed impervious to decline are now fracturing and splintering as the gap between those who believe in the Christian gospel and those who only want to use it for their politics grows wider.  Across what church researchers identify as the whole spectrum of conservative Evangelicalism, including most independent, non-denominational churches, the attendance and membership of local churches has dropped by over 16 million since 2016.  

And there's been no shortage of corruption among the Southern Baptist leadership who led the denomination down the right wing political path.  

Paul Pressler, one of the two "architects" of the Conservative Resurgence, settled a long standing lawsuit prior to his death as allegations of homosexual activity surfaced, dating back to his days of serving as a church youth leader.  In fact, a letter from the leadership of First Baptist Church of Houston, where he was a member just prior to launching the Resurgence, removing him from all of his volunteer positions because of allegations of his having molested young men he encountered in the church, came to light as it was revealed that there were leaders in the conservative movement in the Southern Baptist Convention who were trying to cover this up, in order to avoid a scandal that would derail the conservative political cause he was leading.  

Paige Patterson, the other of the "architects" of the Resurgence, was investigated and charged with conducting improper investigations into sexual abuse allegations which occurred on the two seminary campuses where he served as President.  It appears that Patterson tried to cover up the allegations, and attempted to protect the perpetrators while intimidating the female victims.  One of those he allegedly tried to protect was one of his proteges and favorites among the student body at Southwestern Seminary, where he was President until being fired recently.  

The denomination itself has been embroiled in a raging controversy over allegations of a cover-up of sexual abuse by pastors and church leaders.  The tip of this abuse iceberg, which has yet to find a bottom, was uncovered in an expose published in the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News in 2019.  After six years of wrestling with what to do, how to handle it, and how to respond to it, the denomination is stymied by its own inability to come to grips with the extent of the problem, or come up with a solution to the problem.  

Worst of all, denominational leadership has placed its priorities on moaning, complaining and gnashing their teeth over the high cost of lawsuits resulting from this scandal which has cut into mission and ministry giving to the point where it has triggered a budget crisis.  But they have done absolutely nothing to acknowledge the thousands of mostly female victims of this abuse, their attitude has been to resist, to blame, and to ignore, those who show up regularly at the annual convention meetings to make themselves heard.  

Southern Baptists can trumpet their claimed correctness of theology and doctrine, including their belief in the "inerrancy and infallibility" of the original manuscripts of the Bible, and their conservative politics as loudly and long as they want.  But their true colors as a pseudo-Christian political cult, with a lot of leftover, antebellum racism and white supremacy, misogyny and Christian nationalist heresy working in their midst, is showing.  

And the true Christians, the followers of the principles and practice of the gospel of Jesus Christ, are leaving in droves.