The Supreme Court Has Become As Much of an Existential Threat to American Democracy As Trump

Trump has used the same standards of incompetence and character flaws to make his Supreme Court appointments as he has to build his cabinet.  So we have this wonderful gift, from the past two Republican Presidents of the United States, a Supreme Court made up of individuals who not only did not possess the credentials in the federal judiciary or legal field to advance to a job with the kind of Constitutional responsibility as the Supreme Court, but who seem almost deliberately inept and incompetent, as if they think their job is to sabotage the court, upset the carefully crafted balance of power in the Constitution and throw the government into confusion, by undermining it. 

America's founding fathers operated under the impression, which has, in modern times become an illusion, that the individuals who would be considered for appointment to these kinds of public office would come from among those who had studied the law and the constitution, and had a respect for its principles and for the limits and balances that it placed on government power and its use.  They clearly did not expect its members to be driven by partisan politics or personal ambition, but by a desire to serve the public, defending the most vulnerable and enforcing the guarantee of equal individual rights for every single person within the boundaries of the United States of America.  

Considering those ideals against the backdrop of decisions made by this Roberts court makes them look like some kind of sick joke.  

But, what do we expect?  

We've elected, twice now, a President who is a narcissist and a misogynist, a womanizing adulterer who has built his reputation on the worldliness of his lack of morality, pathological lying and dishonesty, and on making a mockery of a legal system whose authority he flaunts and a nation whose patriotism he mocks.  So it should come as no surprise that, in making appointments to the court, integrity, honesty and good character wouldn't be things he took into consideration, nor would the legal competency and accomplishments of his justice appointments.  

We already had Clarence Thomas, whose moral character was called into question by multiple women who had worked under his supervision, most notably Anita Hill.  In spite of the fact that Hill's allegations of sexual harassment were proven by evidence presented, the Republicans went ahead and put him on the court anyway.  Thomas has since proven he lacks both the common sense and the knowledge of Constitutional law to serve on the court, and his willingness to take bribes which affect decisions he makes has become an embarassment to a branch of government that once valued the fact its ethics were self-regulated.  

Samuel Alito, too, has proven to lack the kind of personal honesty and integrity that are necessary to preserve the court's reputation.  The power he has held as a justice has been too much for his weak integrity and lack of character to hold out against the temptation to use his power for personal benefit.  And we haven't even gotten to the Trump appointees yet.  

Brett Cavanaugh is another immoral embarassment.  There was a time in this country when the perpetually drunken frat boy at the weekly parties, the guy who could never remember how he wound up in his bed, or someone else's, the morning after, and whose drunken behavior included assaulting women until he found one who would sleep with him, wouldn't be considered the "most likely to succeed" in his college class, much less the most likely to wind up as a Supreme Court Justice.  But Cavanaugh has become the poster child for drunken frat boys, and the success they can now achieve in politics.  Apparently, living in a drunken stupor and the violence against women it produces is now a qualification for serving in the federal judiciary or in the cabinet. 

Neil Gorsuch also has a record of ethics violations in fiancial dealings to his own personal benefit.  They weren't big, splashy scandals like those involving Alito or Thomas, but they are situations that any judge desiring to uphold the law and preserve their reputation for honesty and integrity would have avoided, since there is the appearance that he accepted favors in exchange for legal rulings. 

Then, if we're still talking ethics and honesty, and applying those characteristics to this court, there's the fact that all of Trump's appointees lied to Congress, by declaring their belief that the Roe v. Wade decision was "settled law," and that they were opposed to overturning it.  Clearly, whether it is visible or not, this is a court that cannot be trusted, and can be bribed and bought.   

And that is the historical record, and the reputation by which the Roberts court will always be known. 

 After 240 Years, We Need Ethics Rules For the Supreme Court 

The authors of the Constitution did not put in a whole long list of ethics rules or practices of standard integrity into the text.  They assumed, by their own observation, that while there would be differences of opinion, the men who would be qualified by experience and knowledge to serve as Supreme Court Justices, or Presidents for that matter, would be respected for their integrity, something that would help them rise to the places where their work would be appreciated, and valued by those who would either elect them or appoint them.  They could not have imagined how selfish, greedy, bribed by money and the potential of the power it brings, some of the potential nominees would be, or that anyone like that would ever get on the court.  

But here we are, with at least six of those now on the Supreme Court, having abandoned any sense of American patriotism or respect for Constitutional principles, some having taken bribes in the form of perks and money, others simply not having the ability to do the job because their outspoken ideology and partisan loyalty has become more influential in rendering their opinions than the objective lega, Constitutional standards we expect, and is more visible than their integrity.  

There are six of them that need to be impeached and removed, all of those appointed by a Republican President, because their objectivity as a jurist has been wiped out by partisan loyalty and personal self-interest.  

I doubt that we will ever have the opportunity, even if Democrats beat the odds and win control of Congress back after the midterms, if there is a free and fair election and their prospects wind up changing from what we see right now, to impeach six justices and get them off the court  

We Blew the Chance we Had in 2020

Had the Democrats followed the lead of those within their ranks calling for the Congress to pack the Supreme Court in 2020, we would not be facing an existential threat to the existence of American democracy, at least, not from Donald Trump.  That kind of risky political action requires boldness, not tradition and status quo political games.  The GOP has shown no interest in including Democrats in any negotiations when it comes to the legislation they want to pass, or the actions they want to take, at any point when they've held the majority in both houses.  

So why should we play the old status quo political games?  Why not do things our way?  Why can't our leaders get that?  

Packing the Supreme Court, thereby neutralizing the Republican appointed incompetent conservatives, was within our reach.  It would have required amending the Judiciary act in the House to add five [or however many we wanted to add] seats to the court.  This would have been appropriate payback for the Republican stonewalling of Merrick Garland's appointment in 2012, and for lying like they did and rushing Coney-Barrett onto the court before the election in 2020.  It would have given President Biden five appointments to the court.  

It would have also required getting rid of the filibuster in the Senate.  Well, it's my opinion that the filibuster is as big an obstacle to democracy as Trump himself is.  Let it go.  Yes, that works both ways, and prevents the Democrats from stalling and obfuscating when they are in the minority.  But isn't the preservation of our Constitutional democracy more important than standing on some stupid political tradition?  

The Republicans could not have stopped that.  And the benefits would have far outweighed the consequences of tit for tat down the road.  

The newly packed court could have overturned Citizens United, allowing Congress to pass stringent campaign finance reform taking billionaire money out of elections.  It would have restored Roe v. Wade.  It would have overturned the Presidential immunity rulings and made the President accountable to obey the law or suffer the consequences.  And they would have wiped out the delays and stalls in the federal courts where Trump was buying time to wait out the clock to avoid prosecution for his insurrection and stolen documents crimes, which would have rendered him ineligible to run and put him in prison.  

That's now a consequence we have to live with, and it may well be exactly the reason why the party's job approval ratings aren't getting traction against the worst Presidency we have ever experienced in our history.  

If We Won Back Control of Both Houses in the Midterms, What Can We Do With That? 

Our old line, old school, traditional party leaders have already given up on getting control of both houses back in 2026.  Yep, read 'em and weep, that is exactly what they are saying and it is why I am not sending money anywhere except to Leaders We Deserve and to Fight Oligarchy Tour.  These are so obviously the most effective Democratic party opposition movements right now, and it's where the optimism is found.  I'm also giving to Indivisible, and attending some of the rallies and marches, because that appears to be working.  

So this discussion is moot unless Democrats decide they are going to genuinely oppose the existential threat to democracy posed by Trump, stop whining, and quit feathering their own nests and protecting the turf they have left, and make an effort to save the country.  

Impeachment takes a two thirds vote of both houses, so that is out of the question.  But a Democratic controlled Congress can stop the flow of incompetent and heavily partisan jurists to the federal benches, and hold the seats open for a porential Democrat in the White House in 2028.  Perhaps the most important job they can do is to stonewall, and prevent the implementation of any further damage.  

And I don't think the Supreme Court is imprevious to public pressure.  I'm not opposed to directing some of Indivisible's marches and protests at the Supreme Court.  There's a lot of room out there on that plaza on First Street SE.  

And if we do manage to win the 2028 election, including control of both houses, in what will be the certain wake formed as a result of the disaster of having the single worst and most corrupt President in American history in office, we need to immediately take the steps necessary to stop that from ever happening again.  We will not have the ability to overcome the conservative corrupt majority on the court any time soon, so packing the court will be the best alternative to making sure the justice branch of the government stays within the boundaries of its constitutional balance.  Once that happens, we can find ways to legislate, and to get the court to rule, to prevent Republicans from taking advantage of our move to save the country.  

This is The Democratic Party That I Know and Love

Who are Democrats and what do they stand for?  

I can tell you.  I've been one since the day I first registered to vote, in Maricopa County, Arizona, on October 7, 1975, one day after turning eighteen years old.  It was less than two blocks to walk to the county office building from the college campus, and as soon as my last class was over for the day, I headed out.  I told the unsmiling clerk what I wanted, and she put the card on the counter for me to complete.  Arizona had partisan registration back then, and I still remember how proud I was to write "Democrat" in that blank spot.  And that's what's always been there.  

Sometimes, We Don't Put Out a Clear Message, But It Hasn't Changed Much

Democrats are the party of the people.  When I registered to vote, I knew what they stood for.  I give two people the credit for that.  One was my Dad, a World War 2 Navy veteran, air conditioning mechanic, grandson of Irish immigrants who came here willing to work hard to build a better life.  His understanding of politics was that while everyone has their faults and flaws, there are politicians who stand for something more than just using their position to get ahead, and that working hard and being honest were the keys to success in life.  

There were those who were phony, he said, and those who will prove who they are by what they are able to achieve.  He cast his first vote for President for Franklin Roosevelt.  His belief about hard work gave him deep convictions about the way Roosevelt and the Democrats saw their role as a government in helping the American people get through a depression, not by handing things out,  but by giving them opportunities to exercise the value of their labor, to build bridges back to prosperity.  

The other person I credit with my knowledge of, and appreciation for Democrats is my high school social studies teacher.  Without putting any kind of partisan spin on anything he taught, he laid out the values of the Democratic party that existed in the 1970's, belief that the working people of the United States were the source of national greatness.  His favorite President was Lyndon B. Johnson, who he always said had a crusty exterior, but who understood that it was the people of this country who were its greatest resource, and who did more than any other politician to break down racial barriers as well as offer what he saw as unlimited opportunity in the United States for those anywhere in the world who wanted to invest their labor in building this country.  

Democrats Are "For the People" nnd Represent "The Little Guy"

Democrats value humanity.  I think we got separated, somehow, from being known as the party of the working class because we value the equality of each person's human experience.  Where did the distinction develop that this party is too focused on its far left agenda for  LGBTQ rights, or abortion rights, or on illegal immigration than it is on minority rights or the working class?  I believe our politics have been consistent.

The Democratic party believes that government has an obligation to protect individual rights, but also that it should be involved in addressing and resolving issues faced by the American people, particularly as a defender of those who are less privileged.  When Democrats talk about promoting the public welfare, they mean giving government, as the only advocate for the people, a higher level of oversight over those things that have a direct impact on our lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness.  Government oversight levels the playing field and enforces standards on which people can depend in order to create their own opportunities, based on their own hard work.   

The Constitution defines and guarantees basic human rights.  That requires a level of oversight in areas such as money and finance, health care, natural resource management, manufacturing and education.  The bottom line is that Democratic party politics generally define themselves by the bottom line of government doing what is necessary for the benefit of all the people, not just a privileged few, based on their wealth, or their race, or their level of education.  

Democrats are not driven by ideology.  We are driven by necessity.  For example, we see the value of education, not just in providing society with an educated electorate, but in enhancing the opportunities of all people, so the government has taken the responsibility for providing a system of public education that everyone can access.  And we push for more than just maintenance of the system, we push for improvement of it, we believe educators, not politicians, should be the leaders of the improvement, and we work to increase the accessibility of students to the higher levels of it.  

Republicans are afraid of an educated society.  

The Democratic party that I know believes that health care is a basic human right.  Not just basic health care, but whatever health care is available based on what medical research has discovered and made available.  And as far as I know, the party goal is still working toward reducing the cost and increasing the accessibility of the best health care available.  The only kind of health care reform that the American people have seen, as a recent political development, it was has been proposed by Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama.  And what both of them proposed moved this country miles toward a universal, single-payer system.  

And I'm Going to Make Religion Part of the Discussion

The small, Southern Baptist church in which I was raised did not resemble the white supremacist, Christian nationalist direction that conservative Evangelicals have taken.  In all honesty, there was a lot of superstition and folk religion blended in with some basic Christian theology and doctrine.  Our pastors were all bi-vocational, and I don't remember any of them having much beyond a couple of years of college education.  But politics were never, ever preached from the pulpit.  And in that particular congregation, made up mostly of working class people, most of whom were civil service employees at a nearby military base, there were more union members and Democrats than there were Republicans.  

When I went to college, at a university that was operated by the same denomination, I learned a lot of theology and doctrine that was quite different from what I had been taught in that small church.  The professors, who would now be labelled as "liberals," (and to be honest, were labelled that way back then by some people) emphasized a systematic Christian theology based on prioritizing the specific principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which starts with what he called the first and greatest commandment, including "love your neighbor as you love yourself."  He says that all of the law and the prophets hang on these this commandment.  And his narrative commentary doesn't start with the ten commandments, it starts with the Beatitudes. 

That's pretty easy to figure out.  

So one of the reasons I am a Democrat, and remain loyal to this particular way of expressing my patriotic loyalty to the United States because of my exposure to the Christian faith.  I no longer identify with Southern Baptists, and avoid any association with the terms "conservative, Evangelical,"  and I self describe more along the lines of Quakerism, if a label is necessary.  But the basic values, the respect for other human beings, regardless of who they are or how they identify themselves, is a core Democratic party value.  

Getting Our Image Back 

There was a discussion yesterday on WCPT between one of the hosts and a Missouri legislator who is one of the minority leaders. I was in and out of the car, so I didn't get the names. The discussion was over the fact that, in spite of voters overwhelmingly passing an abortion rights amendment to the state constitution, the legislature, with a Republican supermajority, was still stonewalling the amendment and denying the will of the people.  This was a constitutional amendment, not just a bill passed by referendum, and it was popular.  

The question came up about other initiatives, part of the Democratic agenda, which get widespread support from Missouri voters, but yet, Democrats, who regularly produce around 45% of the vote in the state, just can't seem to get their politicians elected to office.  Why is it that Democratic party values, reflected in legislation that is popular with a majority of the voters, seem to be favored by a significant majority, but the legislature doesn't reflect that level of support for Democrats? 

The values are there, and they are popular.  So why aren't the politicians?  

Honestly, I can't really answer that question.  Personally, I don't cast ballots for Republicans.  If there's a place on the ballot and there's no Democratic candidate, I leave it blank.  I know that not all of our politicans are great people, and some of them are more interested in the perks than in using the power to benefit people.  But somewhere along the line, many Democratic candidates are identified with left wing extremism more than they are with the party's values.  

I do believe that we need to open opportunities for some new leaders.  We do have those in office now who have lost their motivation and seem tired, unwilling to take bold risks that lead to positive outcomes.  We lost a Presidential election, not because we had a bad candidate, or that she was a black woman, and the electorate wasn't ready for that, but because our party was plunged into confusion and chaos three months before the election when a decision that its leadership should have made at least a year before, for President Biden not to run, than doing it the way they did.  And because our values were not on display during any of that chaos, while the big donors called the shots and got at least one change they wanted without the approval of the rank and file.  

I hope Harris runs again in 2028.  She'll win easily with time, and she's one of those politicians who have the charisma and the intelligence to rise above the field on their own.  

We need politicians who not only know what this party stands for, but who are bold, willing to take the risks necessary, putting their own job on the line for the benefit of others, which is what Democrats used to do.  Pay attention to David Hogg and Leaders We Deserve.  He has that kind of enthusiasm and motivation, he is centered in the party's values and he is willing to take those risks to bring about opportunity.  Time will bring others to the surface, a process that is already taking place.  Don't look for the angry speeches, look for the politician who is putting his job on the line.  That will show you who is carrying the party's values, and who is playing the old school games.  

The "Party in Disarray" Strikes Again: Full List of Democrats Voting to Block Articles of Impeachment Against Trump

Full List of Democrats Voting to Block Articles of Impeachment Against Trump 

We''ve suspected this to be the case for quite some time, maybe as long as five or six years, but there, in this list of Democrats who voted to block the articles of impeachment introducted by Representative Al Green, is the evidence of a party "in disarray" and of a completely dysfunctional government.  Evidence has presented itself, pretty clearly, to explain why Democrats keep seeing their approval numbers fall, even when we thought 26% was the floor.  And yes, this is a Newsweek report heavily slanted to the right, but good grief, what the hell is going on in Washington? 

I'm trying hard to understand the reasoning.  Yes, of course there would not be enough Republicans to go along with this to make it happen, but it puts them on the record.  I heard the argument, about saving things like this for something that would be more effective, and about taking actions that are going to fail.  I also see that Democrats in Congress have a lower approval rating than Trump does, and I've become convinced that this is precisely because we aren't seeing the kind of bold, risk taking that is required to show conviction in the belief that Trump is an existential threat to Democracy, and that we aren't just playing some political games here.  

So when something like this happens, and the party fragments on a key symbolic vote like this, how else can it be described other than they are once again in disarray, that there is no strong leadership to unify the Democrats in Congress.  When there is a chance to say, "We do, indeed believe that the best thing for this country is to get Trump out of the White House as soon as we can, and we are taking that stand, together, even though we know we do not have a majority."  

What message does this send?  It looks like no one is in charge, and everyone is doing their own thing.  It's the turf protecting and job protecting that I've said has been going on ever since Harris lost the Presidential election.  It looks like a lot of Democrats do not take the threat of Trump to this democratic republic seriously.  

I'm a lifelong Democrat, raised in a union worker's home, a World War 2 veteran who made unselfish sacrifices so that his family could enjoy the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.  I'm a sacrificial contributor to the party, across the board, and I am also an active volunteer.  And I'm long past the time when I would ever consider voting for a Republican, even at the local level.  I told candidates for our city council election this past spring that while I realize national political issues aren't really a factor in the city's governance, who each candidate supports tells me a great deal about their common sense, discernment and whether or not I can trust them.  And I didn't vote for a single Trump supporter in the whole council and mayor field. 

But stuff like this is frustrating and discouraging to me.  It certainly explains the low approval ratings.  I would have to answer a pollsters question about whether or not I approve of what Democrats in Congress are doing with a no, I do not.  I want them to be more aggressive in resistance against Trump, and provide a more unified plan of action, rather than hide out in their office and wait to see which way the cat jumps. 

I looked down the list, and I did not see my Congresswoman's name on it, so I called her and thanked her for her vote, which, even though her side lost, is an important step in making our government work the way it is supposed to work, and hold demagogues accountable.  That's why I voted for her, and she has done a great job so far.  It's Illinois Representative Delia Ramirez, and so far, she's been outstanding. 

I would strongly suggest that anyone else who finds that their representative's name is not on that list do the same, and encourage them.  

 

The Politics of Now With The Midterm Elections 17 Months Away

Last week, somewhere around six million Americans took to the streets again, in organized "No Kings" protests  that occurred in large cities, small cities, blue states and red states.  Bernie Sanders and AOC are on the road again, drawing record crowds to political gatherings now aimed specifically at constituents of some of the more antagonistic right wing extremists in Congress.  There have been town hall meetings in red districts conducted by Democratic members of Congress, some of them, anyway.  It appears that this is a strategy that is having an effect, given the reaction of Republicans whose districts have been invaded by these Democratic-sponsored town hall meetings.  

Trump, on the other hand, makes one of his more deceptive, incompetent foreign policy moves by leaving everyone in confusion.  He makes it clear that the United States supports Israel's attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, then hints around like the US is going to participate in the attack on Iran, without congressional approval, mind you, then tells everyone his decision on what to do with Iran will be made in "a couple of weeks."  Then, yesterday, we get the news that US B-52 bombers were lined up to participate in the Israeli bombing of Iranian nuclear production facilities.  

This is just one of many of Trump's actions since the convicted felon and indicted criminal got back into the White House.  How that happened, in the United States, under our Constitution, is the result of mind-boggling corruption and unimaginable incompetence when it comes to the balance of power and the system of accountability built into the United States Constitution.  It's a combination of things, really, across the culture, that have separated a majority of the American people from any real knowledge of how their government works, or any awareness of what it is actually doing.  We have failed to provide the kind of educated electorate necessary to sustain a democracy.  We have allowed money to become the driving force behind political power, undoing the principle of "We, the people."  

Christianity has been the pervasive religious influence in American life, in spite of our separation of church and state, and religious liberty.  And it was a stabilizing force as well, helping to sharpen the boundaries of our moral compass which, thirty years ago, would have made a morally bankrupt, worldly narcissist like Trump an outcast, not President of the United States.  But Christian nationalism and religious fundamentalism has led the conservative Evangelical branch of American Christianity to abandon its patriotism, claiming that a free church in a free state leads people to abandon God.  They are unable to see that it is their own apostasy, and departure from orthodox Christian theology has done the damage.  

The Political Reality of the Spring of 2025 

I'm not even sure where to start.  

In spite of the lack of consistent and accurate polling data, and of a media that has any knowledge of where to focus, or how to tell the truth, we can still make some observations and draw some conclusions.  And the first thing we need to look at carefully, and with serious resolve to prevent it, is the fact that the Republicans are going to cheat in the next election if they can get away with it.  They have told us, for going on five years now, multiple conspiracy theories of how the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.  Well, that tells me they know where the weaknesses are, and how to change vote totals without being detected.  

So who, among Democrats, is going to take responsibility to make sure laws are followed and the midterm elections represent the will of the people?  Any hope we have for getting rid of Trump lies with the necessity that the midterm elections are accurate.  So which of our leaders is looking out for the accuracy of the vote?  

Can We Trust the Polls?  

We have a plethora of polls, with a significant number of them underwritten by interests who benefit from skewing the results to attempt to affect public opinion, and what the media talks about.  I listen to some of these reporters and commentators on the mainstream media networks and I wonder when the colleges and universities that produced these idiots dumbed down their curriculum, and abandoned journalistic principles which once made the media in this country a genuinely free press?  

There's not much connection between the polling data.  One day, someone reports that Congressional Democrats have a 26% job approval rating, while Republicans are at 37%.  Then we see a poll that shows Trump's job approval rate at 45% and his disapproval at 55%, which is the worst performance of a President during his first 100 days in history.  Or so a couple of news sources say.  The spread, however, has dropped as low as 38% job approval, and there are two polls running now with that number.  But Fox News and Newsmax stick with some older data, showing him at 49% job approval.  They have to go back to polls taken in February and March to get those numbers.  

And yet, since the 2020 election, Democrats have won some major elections in areas Trump allegedly carried in the 2024 election.  In Wisconsin, where Trump allegedly eked out a tiny sliver of a win, Janet Crawford defeated a Trump sycophant for a seat on the state Supreme Court by a ten point margin in one of the highest turnouts for a judicial election in Wisconsin history.  In two of Florida's deepest red, gerrymandered Congressional districts, Democratic candidates improved their vote totals by 20% in special elections with supremely high turnouts, without help from the Congressional re-election committee or the DNC.  

Indivisible, and the Effect of Protests

We have seen the largest resistance and protest movement in American history form in opposition to Trump's policies and to his incompetence, along with the monumental ignorance and stupidity he appointed to the cabinet.  For the record, I was opposed to Democrats behaving as the minority party status quo, approving some of his appointments because of their political standing while opposing others because they were just totally unqualified.  I expected an all out effort to block every single appointment, or at least slow it all down deliberately, and if I answered a poll question as to whether I approved of the job Democrats are doing in Congress or not, I'd say no, I don't.  And I think what the people wanted their representatives to do is reflected in the increasing numbers of them who are getting involved in protests and making their voice heard.  

Bernie Sanders and AOC are deliberately targeting specific audiences with their anti-oligarchy message and it is clearly resonating with large numbers of people.  Whether those who are paying attention to them will wind up putting pressure on Democrats to do something, or to work as a coalition with what is obviously a large number of independents who are part of the resistance to Trump, remains to be seen.  But they are not going about this in the old line, old school, typical Democratic party status quo format, and whatever they are doing is working.  So there may be some work that Democrats have to do to make themselves part of a movement of which they seem to be more on the fringes. 

I have to wonder how many of those people now involved in protests actually voted in 2024?  The rumor is that surveys show only about 75% of them did.  Some of them are experiencing voter remorse over Trump, though in that protest group, I doubt there are enough to change election outcomes.  The best outcome the protests can produce is a higher voter turnout.  The rallies and town halls will be effective in communicating the message.  

This is a People's Movement

Almost everything that is happening here is a people's movement.  The protests are being organized by people who have come together in various regional chapters of Indivisible, and who are setting their own calendar.  The town halls in red districts are being organized locally, as invitations are issued to the members of Congress they want to show up.  So it is that someone like Eric Swalwell might get speaking engagements outside of California, because he's got the ability to articulate the message and stay on target, pointing to every bit of Trump's incompetence and corruption. 

And that is the message here.  I regret that our Democratic party, when it had the power from 2020 to 2022, did not take the steps it could have taken to pack the Supreme Court, overturn Citizens United, and cut through Trump's delays, getting him to trial for insurrection and document theft, with verdicts disqualifying him from running for office.  We could have, and the fact that we didn't is a stain on our party's reputation and effectiveness.  It is one of the reasons why our job approval rating in Congress is so low right now.  

But that doesn't change the message, that Trump is an incompetent, corrupt President and his destruction of American democracy must be stopped at all costs.  And if the momentum for doing that now is out there, among the people, and it will produce the kind of voter turnout necessary for Democrats to win Congress, both houses, back during the midterms, then so be it.  The pundits and the status quo leadership is already saying, "we can't win the senate back this time."  

Why not?  Trump intends to cut the government's service to the people in order to give a few billionaries massive tax cuts that they don't need, and which only feeds their selfishness and greed.  And that, along with his incompetence and corruption, are the best reasons to get him out.  

And I don't want to elect people to office just to hold a spot for the party.  We need those who are in Congress to be bold, take risks, and believe that Trump is too incompetent and corrupt to be President.  They also need to believe that billionaries need to pay their fair share of taxes to support all of the good our government does for its people.  I'll support any candidate who gets on board and convinces me they understand this clear, simple message.  

 

The "Largest Protestant Denomination in America" is Dying

"But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first."  Revelation 2:4, ESV

Bill Moyers: God and Politics; 102; The Battle for the Bible

The Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant denomination, held its annual meeting last week in Dallas, Texas.  The annual meeting is made up of delegates, known as messengers, from among the 45,000 or so churches that are affiliated with the denomination.  Registration included just over 10,000 messengers, one of the larger gatherings over the past decade.  With churches able to send as many as 10 messengers to the annual meeting, based on membership and on the amount they contribute to the denomination's cooperative ministries, that means about 5% of the churches were represented among the messengers.  

The denomination is facing issues that, thirty years ago, it never imagined it would face, when fundamentalists, who were not in the majority, but who had a significant following in the denomination, began an effort to affect the election of officers who controlled appointments on two of the most powerful committees, in order to change the makeup of trustee boards at all of the denomination's six seminaries, two mission boards, publishing house and commissions, to place it under fundamentalist control.  The claimed objective was to enforce a doctrinal position on Biblical Inerrancy that fundamentalists believed, and claimed that those who didn't were liberals who were subverting the Christian gospel.  

But one of the distinguishing characteristics of Baptists, that make them different from other Protestants, is that they don't gather in denominations to force doctrinal unity on independent, autonomous churches.  In reality, the leaders of this fundamentalist takeover, known as the "Conservative Resurgence," were introducing Christian Reconstructionism into the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, to bring about political change leading to the imposition of Christian nationalism on the country, culminating in what we now know as Project 2025.  

It was at that moment that the Southern Baptists reached the peak of their influence and set events in motion that would lead to the denomination experiencing its steepest declines in membership and attendance since Reconstruction.  I believe it was at that moment in 1979, clearly explained by Bill Moyers in the documentary linked above, that the Southern Baptist Convention destroyed itself.  

Business matters attended to by the convention's delegates, known as messengers, attending the annual meeting in Dallas this month provide some hints of issues that are fallout from the fatal decision the denomination made in 1979, which at least one pastor who was interviewed in Moyer's report claimed was "the first time a major denomination was turned back to its conservative roots," and that this event "may have been more significant than the Protestant Reformation.  Southern Baptists were actually turned away from their roots, as Moyers clearly demonstrates, onto a fundamentalist pathway that was a clear diversion from its historic roots.  

So what did the denomination devote most of its time and energy at this annual meeting? 

• Stymied in efforts of the past five years to develop some means of handling multiple complaints of sexual abuse by pastors and other church leaders, they simply turned their attention away from the scandal, hoping that by ignoring it, it will go away.  They have failed, for almost five years now, to wrap up and resolve issues related to widespread sexual abuse by church pastors and leaders, uncovered in an investigation called Abuse of Faith, launched by the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express News in 2019.  After an independent investigation uncovered significant problems in reporting abuse, allowing abusive pastors to move on to different churches, and failing to develop a system of reporting that would help prevent this from happening, and abandoning victims with no system of support, the messengers just moved on.  
• The fundamentalist takeover in 1979 has led to increased pressure on churches which have women serving in roles that use the title "pastor."  For the third time, an amendment to the SBC constitution was proposed which would kick churches out of the denomination if they have ordained females in a pastoral ministry role.  The amendment failed to gather the two thirds vote required for passage.  
• For the third time in a row, a motion was brought forward to completely defund and disband the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, which is the lobbying group representing Southern Baptists on religious liberty issues in Washington, DC.  The motion's defeat turned into a vote of confidence in the commissions work.  The opposition has more to do with politics than with religious liberty.  The former executive director, Russell Moore, now editor of Christianity Today, is an outspoken never-Trumper, so these motions to defund and disband the ERLC are an attempt to continue to punish the trustees and the organization for not calling him out or firing him.    
• An inordinate amount of time was spent on a single resolution, devoted to expressing support for the Supreme Court to overturn the Obergefell decision, which allowed for same-gender marriage.  It's a resolution, worded in such a way as to leave many people wondering what the connection is to the work of what is supposed to be a Christian, not a political, denomination.   

The Largest Collapse of Attendance and Membership Since Reconstruction 

In Bill Moyer's documentary, God in Politics, linked above, one of the first statements made is from a North Carolina pastor, Robert Tenery, who states that the vote taken by messengers at the Southern Baptist Convention, in June of 1979, when a group that became known as the "Conservative Resurgence" elected Dr. Adrian Rogers, a high profile fundamentalist pastor from Memphis, Tennessee as President of the Southern Baptist Convention, was the first time a major denomination had ever turned back to its "conservative roots," and that the move was perhaps even more significant than the Protestant reformation.  

That's a laughable statement, along with pity for Tenery's ignorance.  

It was turn toward hard line, far right fundamentalism, at least on the surface, and a turn toward a commitment to Christian Reconstructionism for the purpose of using the voting power of the Southern Baptists, along with other conservative Evangelicals, to completely reform American politics, pushing toward Christian nationalism.  The last 46 years of control of the leadership of the denomination have made their political aims very clear, and their concern over enforcing the uniformity of the doctrine of inerrancy a mere ruse to achieve their political purposes.  

Southern Baptists were founded by churches in slave states who objected to the increasingly abolitionist perspective of the Triennial Baptist Convention, which refused to appoint a slave owner nominated as a "test case" by a group of Baptists in Georgia as a missionary.  So their "roots" are found in their support for the enslavement of black people, based on the false doctrinal belief in their inferiority to white people. It was not until 1995, 150 years after the denomination was formed in Augusta, Georgia, that any formal apology for their role in the enslavement of human beings came about.  

Think about that.  The largest Protestant denomination in the United States was founded on beliefs and convictions of people claiming to be Christian in a false, inhumane, unChristian doctrine and practice. And it took them 150 years to realize the error of their ways.  

So it should not be surprising that another false doctrine would be at the core of a "Conservative Resurgence" aimed at using the voting strength of this same denomination to bring about radical political reform leading the United States down the path to Christian nationalism.  Nor should it be surprising that this movement has led to the largest collapse of attendance and membership in this same denomination since Reconstruction.  

The Southern Baptist Convention is Dying

The decline in attendance actually started in the late 1990's.  The membership of a typical Southern Baptist church is, on average, about 45% larger than the actual number of people who are involved in and engaged in the ministry life of the church.  In fact, at its peak, in 2006, while total membership reached 16.2 million, the average weekly attendance across the denomination was slightly over 6 million.  Membership records are kept by local churches and reported annually, so there are always variations, but the fact of the matter is that if all of the churches counted the members who attend at least one service per year, that figure would be, at best, about 7.5 million.  So the numerical strength of the Southern Baptists, among the whole of American evangelicalism is about half of what it claims.  

Figures from the denomination itself, as reported by its churches, show a staggering decline in both membership and attendance, that has grown particularly steep over the past decade, coinciding with the first election of Trump to the Presidency.  Membership has fallen from just over 16 million to a current 12.8 million, the lowest number since World War 2.  And weekly attendance dropped from a peak of 6.2 million down to a bottom figure of 3.8 million two years ago, some of that due to COVID.  Since the pandemic, attendance has come back up slightly, to 4.2 million.  

Does the intrusion of Trump's right wing extremism, along with his lack of any religious background or interest, and his troublesome dishonesty and immorality, have anything to do with the exodus of membership from this denomination?  Yes, the evidence certainly points to the fact that too much Trump from the pulpits translates into too many members streaming out the door.  The largest drops in membership figures, from year to year, occurred between 2018 and 2022, when more than 400,000 members left each year.  That figure slowed down, to around 200,000 a year for the past two or three years, but has started to climb again with this year's report.  

It's a combination of circumstances that are all connected.  Last year, after debating the issue and requiring the credentials committee to come up with a more rigid definition of the title "Pastor," the fundamentalists succeeded in kicking out its largest and most evangelistic congregation, Saddleback Valley Community Church in Mission Viejo, California.  That caused an immediate subtraction of 40,000 members, and several other churches, including Elevation Church, a 25,000 member congregation in Charlotte, North Carolina.  Altogether, it is believed the churches which left the denomination as a result of Saddleback's exit have, to this point, added up to over 100,000 members and more than $10 million in contributions.  

The failure of the leadership to follow directives of convention messengers in cleaning up the sexual abuse scandal, and putting a system in place to help churches avoid calling ministers who have prior abuse records has also led to an exodus.  It's seen as being connected to a general attitude of misogyny which characterizes fundamentalist Christianity, not compatible with historic Baptist tradition or values, but since they control the leadership, and have decided to find ways to distract the rank and file members from the real issues, there's been a loss of interest in staying the course.  

Victims of abuse have been openly and publicly criticized, instead of being comforted, and helped with restoration to their own peace of mind and mental stability.  Denominational leaders do not seem to notice how bad that appears to the broader Christian community in this country, nor that it is costing them the commitment and loyalty of another wave of churches and members.  

And the increased presence and influence of right wing extremism is driving ethnic congregations, mainly those made up of majority Latino and Black membership, out of the denomination.  White supremacy being such a natural part of Christian nationalism makes it difficult for those who push for Project 2025 support among Southern Baptists to recognize how racist they are.  And at a time when Southern Baptists were just beginning to welcome and work with black Baptist congregations, this has raised its ugly head.  [see New Blog for a Pneuma Time by Dr. Dwight McKissic for insights into how this has affected the denomination's relationship with its black pastors and churches]

Where is the Bottom? 

At its current rate of decline, Southern Baptists might have had to cede their title of "largest Protestant denomination in the United States" to the United Methodist Church by 2030, except that the latter is also fragmenting into several different denominations, also caused by right wing fundamentalist, Christian nationalist political influences.  I see a couple of scenarios for the Southern Baptists, who face a future of diminished influence as a result of their decision to become dependent on political power of the GOP, rather than on the spiritual power of the Holy Spirit.  

There is already a splinter group of Baptists, called the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, which formed in the late 1980's when those who still followed historic, traditional Baptist doctrine and values decided that being Southern Baptist was no longer compatible or practical for their own ministry purposes, and formed a new fellowship to provide theological education and missionary opportunities.  Over 3,500 churches have affiliated with this group, but they have a distinctive theological and doctrinal character that has probably attracted all of the ex-Southern Baptists it will find.  

Denominational identity has shrunk in importance among American Christians over the past 50 years.  I think many of the churches that have left will find their place among independent, autonomous, non-denominational churches which now make up the majority of non-Catholic Christians in the United States.  And many of the members who have left their churches have found their way into other non-denominational churches that minister to their needs.  

At some point, the decline in membership, and departure of entire congregations from the Southern Baptists will stop, when the only ones left are the hard liners who pushed for this political reform to occur.  They misjudged how much support they could drag out of a Christian group that got its start defending the practice of slavery as "Christian".  My best guess, from personal knowledge and experience, having grown up in a Southern Baptist church, is that it will lose at least half of what remains.  And in the long run, that may be good news for those who are hoping to see the end of Project 2025 and Christian nationalism.  

  

This is How Democrats Are Resisting "The Existential Threat to Our Democracy"?

"Weak, Whiny, and Invisible" Critics of DNC Chair Ken Martin Savage His Tenure 

It hasn't seemed that the DNC has been highly effective for quite some time.  The last chairman, Jaime Harrison, got the position as a consolation prize for losing an election to Lindsay Graham, and I really couldn't figure out why, or how, that happened.  Democrats did manage to pull off the 2020 election, bigger at the Presidential level than on the congressional level, which seemed to be a little disappointing, but then, the surprise came in 2022, when the GOP just didn't make the shifts happen according to long standing tradition regarding the party in power and the mid-term elections.  

But how much of a factor was the DNC in that 2022 election?  Looking back at what the media was saying, Harrison and the DNC are rarely mentioned.  And looking at how some of those house races went, Democrats might have been able to hold the house as well, if the DNC had made a better and more coordinated effort.  

I keep hearing that Democrats have trouble with messaging, and with controlling the narrative.  That's my observation, from a purely amateur perspective, but it seems to match up pretty well with what the political experts and the analysts are saying.  We seem to do a really good job of shooting ourselves in the foot right at the moments when we need to be the strongest, and clearest, and the most focused on what we are doing.  

I'm already weary of deleting emails and text messages from Democrats raising money for their mid-term re-elections.  It's June, those elections are 17 months away, and we have no coordinated, unifying presence in social media, in the media, or in Congress.  Neither the DNC nor any specific political campaign had much to do with millions of people turning out for protests that have been pretty regular since the convicted felon was elected, and are getting much larger.  The focus is on raising money for "me".  I keep hearing from them that Trump is an existential threat to American democracy, and seeing fingers pointed at what he is doing, but I don't see anyone actually doing anything that I'd call meaningful or effective to stop him now.  

We had four years.  And we didn't do anything meaningful or effective to stop him then, either. 

Wasn't Ken Martin Supposed to be the Best Choice Because of His Effectiveness in Minnesota Democratic Politics? 

I actually paid attention, when the announcement was made, that Martin was chosen as DNC Chair.  He did have a record of effectiveness in Minnesota Democratic party politics, and Minnesota has been one of the brightest places in the country as far as Democrats are concerned.  He had experience and he had achieved success.  So we elected him.  

And we elected David Hogg at the same time.  From Hogg, we got a fair evaluation of the state of the party and of the DNC, which polling data has proven to be right on target.  With a 26% approval rating in Congress, Democrats have some issues to deal with, and Hogg correctly perceived, again with the help of polling data, that changes in leadership were necessary.  Well, that can be checked out, and verified.  This Reuters poll, reports Common Dreams, has found that 62% of Democrats are giving thought to the fact that the party needs new leadership.  

The DNC's response to that was typical of the way it often responds to everything.  A "rules problem" was found, requiring Hogg to run for re-election to his position just a few months after he had already done so.  Yeah, so we know how these things work.  He declined, to focus his attention on a highly successful endeavor that is resonating with the majority of Democrats, and that is the need for new party leadership.  

It appears he took a significant amount of what was new interest in the DNC with him, leaving the moribund, ineffective organization to itself, and to the sharp criticism of being a do-nothing now levelled at Ken Martin. 

The Choices are Simple:  Unite, Become Aggressive and Focused on Fighting Trump, the Existential Threat to American Democracy, or Preserving the Old Guard's Turf and Tradition and Letting Democracy Go

A lot of Democrats are frustrated by a party leadership that seems to always be a day late and a dollar short.  We lost a Presidential election by less than 2 percentage points, that shrinks down to less than 200,000 votes across three swing states, because the party leadership wouldn't dare convince President Biden not to run again a year earlier, when a primary campaign might have made all the difference in the world.  We squandered a lot of internal support with weeks of bickering after the debate, waiting for Biden to decide, and showing just how much more influence billionaire donors had than the rank and file did.  

The occasional fired up, angry speech in Congress isn't going to cut it when it comes to stopping Trump.  Making excuses, that we just don't have the power right now, is not going to cut it either.  We were promised things would be different at the DNC, by Ken Martin, the guy who had the experience and know-how to run the place.  They were going to come out with a "War Room," an aggressive means of fighting back and making sure the Democratic party stays on its message, that Trump is a threat to democracy and pointing to everything he is doing that threatens it.  

We're waiting.  

What we have is that the more effective, progressive voice who was pointing to the problem that Democrats were resonating with, was pushed out of the DNC.  And the status quo of a moribund organization has remained in position of leadership.  

I guess that some of the participants in the "No Kings" marches and protests, and the resistance movements that have happened so far are Democrats, but it doesn't look like there are very many Democrats in Washington who are part of this movement.  In the states, yes, governors and legislators have been extremely active.  Our governor, J. B. Pritzker, has been extremely active in helping protests have access to everything they need and he's been out there.  I give our Senator Duckworth a lot of credit for her direct calling out and confronting Hegseth's incompetence.  

A Solution for Democrats to Save American Democracy

It might be campaign rhetoric to them, a catchy slogan to smear the other side.  But Trump, a convicted felon, legitimately indicted for a set of serious crimes against the people of the United States, beat an incompetent, slow, inept justice system and escaped justice to become the greatest threat to the Constitutional Democracy that is the American Republic.  And while too much damage may already have been done, and the means to fix the problem, which includes a well-educated electorate and united opposition, may no longer exist, Democrats have to stop just talking about it and actually try to do something about it. 

They are being called on to do more than just protect their own turf, raise their own funds and run for re-election with the hope that old line political wisdom about mid-term elections kicks in automatically.  They are being called on to do something effective on behalf ot the American people, to stop the takeover of the United States by a godless dictator.  

That means being on task, staying on message, taking some political risks and making some bold political moves.  That's a lot harder now than it was back in 2020 when we controlled both houses.  We need to do our best on election day to make sure Trump sees that day as the effective end of his Presidency and his MAGA movement.  That means a lot of leaders are either going to have to wake themselves up and get a move on it, or step down and let someone else do it.  And we alreadyhave a good idea of who most of those are.  

So the question is, are we up for the job?  

"Would the First Amendment Be Respected if 'Christ For the Nations Institute' Had Been a Mosque, and the Minnesota Assassination Suspect Attacked Republicans?"

When the discussion on Joan Esposito's Chicago talk show on WCPT this afternoon turned to Vance Boelter, the suspect in the assassination of Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, and shooting of state senator John Hoffman and his wife, one of the callers noted that if the Christ for the Nations Institute, which Boelter attended, and from which he graduated, had been a mosque, and his victims Republican politicians, federal investigators would have been swarming all over the place by now.  The fact that this is not the case is proof that, far from being persecuted or discriminated against, Christians of all branches and denominations are still treated with privilege and deference in the United States, over those of other religions.  

The claims of Trump and of the sycophants around him that Christianity is discriminated against and persecuted in the United States are patently false, and this is just one example among many.  We'll see where this goes.  But it is highly likely that Boelter will not, in any way, receive the same treatment or sentence that any radicalized Muslim in the United States would receive for doing exactly the same thing.   

Wanna bet on it?  

Religious Liberty Commission Repeats Evangelical Grievances

Let's observe, carefully, exactly how this specific conservative Evangelical, Vance Boelter, who is now the prime suspect in a political assassination which also included the homicide of a spouse, two attempted murders, one a political assassination, and a conspiracy to commit more assassinations, will be treated.  The lies and distortions, and defending what he did, are already pouring out of the far right. Let's observe how his religious background is handled, and whether terms like "radicalized" are tossed around by the media.  Ultimately, the test will be the plea deal that he makes with the prosecution, and how they will handle this particular case, compared to what we have seen in similar situations where the defendant has not been white, or Christian.  

I am going to conclude, in advance, based on observation of the world in which we live, that the grievances of the Evangelicals referenced in the Baptist News Global article linked above are completely bogus and false.  The premise for which Trump's religious liberty commission exists is that Christians are discriminated against and marginalized in American society, and that is an absolutely false contention.  White Christians are the single most privileged group among all Americans, and while the decline in their numbers, and some court rulings from the sixties pushed back against that, it is still a fact.  And this incident, and the manner in which the media is already handling it, is proof of that. 

First Amerndment Lessons

This is not an indictment of Christ for the Nations Institute, nor is it intended to assign blame for this horrific political assassination and attempted assassination to this school, or to the faction of American Christianity with which it is affiliated, and where it fits theologically and doctrinally.  My purpose here is to point out that white Christians in the United States have privileges and are given the benefit of the doubt in deference to their numbers and presence in the culture, over those of other religions, and over those who claim no religious practice.  

Christ for the Nations Institute has issued a press release regarding these political assassinations, acknowledging the fact that the shooter, Vance Boelter, was in fact a student there, and graduated with a diploma in Practical Theology in Leadership and Pastoral.  The press release can be found here:  

Press Release from Christ for the Nations Bible Institute on the Minnesota Political Assassinations  

CFNI is a Bible college that serves a constituency which is heavily influenced by a pseudo-Christian heresy identified as the New Apostolic Reformation.  This is a movement that has grown out of the Pentecostal/Charismatic branch of far right wing conservative Evangelicalism and which combines a very skewed and false perspective of "end times" predictions with other heresies including white supremacy, Christian nationalism and the prosperity gospel.  The more extremist elements of this heretical, pseudo-Christian cult were involved in the leadership of extremist groups that attacked the Capitol during the Trump Insurrection of January 6th, and there were CFNI alumni and former students among those extremists.

It is unfair to judge an educational institution by the conduct of a select few of its alumni.  We would object to making judgements about the character of the University of Pennsylvania or the George Washington University Law School based on the actions of one of its alumni, Michael Avenatti, or criticizing the Catholic Church and St. Anselm College because Caroline Leavitt graduated from there, or claiming that the University of Georgia is responsible for producing crazy conspiracy theorists because it is Marjorie Taylor Greene's alma mater.  

It isn't unfair to give close scrutiny to the theology, doctrine and practice of CFNI in order to gain an understanding of the extremist right wing politics that somehow, because of various circumstances, motivated and prompted Vance Boelter to conspire to murder politicians because of their political views.  Their leadership has acknowledged this by putting out their own public statement, acknowledging that Boelter was a student there who earned a diploma from them, but also defending their mission and purpose, and condemning his actions as being completely inconsistent with their beliefs and convictions.  

The first amendment protects their right to religious liberty, and to base their theology, doctrine and practice on their interpretation of the Bible.  It also protects their critics, who are going to ask legitimate questions about any potential connections between Boelter's motivation and what he was taught at CFNI, especially if he is found guilty, or confesses to his crimes.  

I happen to think the comparison made by the caller on the talk show is a legitimate one.  Would the circumstances, and the outcome, be different if Boelter had been Muslim, and instead of a Bible institute, had gone to an Islamic educational institution known for a more literal and radical approach to the interpretation of the Koran and how to relate to non-Muslims?  Would the first amendment be applied the same way?  

We will have the opportunity to observe this over the next days and weeks and see if this is the case.  It certainly is a legitimate question.  

But, Be 100% Certain of the Fact That Murder, From Any Christian Perspective, is a Sin

There is no circumstance in Christian theology, doctrine or practice for which murder is justified.  There are some arguments that can be made for self-defense, but murder is clearly defined and interpreted in the Bible as the taking of another human life.  It is sin, and it separates the sinner who commits it from God.  

Those who try to justify it by pointing to examples where those identified in the Old Testament as having killed "enemies of God" are barking up the wrong theological tree.  Those Old Testament mandates, examples, passages and laws were part of the covenant agreement between God and Israel.  But Jesus, who claimed to be the Son of God and whose purpose in coming was to reveal the identity and will of God to humanity, and then to die as the sacrifice required for all humanity's sin, noted that he came to fulfill the law and the prophets [Matthew 5:17].  And he did so by replacing the law with his own atonement for sin, and in fulfilling the prophets by interpreting the law in the Christian gospel.  

And there is no place in the gospel of Jesus Christ where taking the life of another human being can be justified.  

Being a Democrat is not a sin.  Taking a political position which supports the first amendment, even though that may allow another human being to do something with which I do not agree, or which I might consider sinful, based on my own religious beliefs, is not sinful, nor is it morally wrong.  According to the Christian gospel, each human being is accountable to God for their own behavior, and that includes deciding if they've done something requiring forgiveness or not.  

There is absolutely nothing in the Christian gospel that justifies what Vance Boeltner did.  

 

Why the Approval Ratings Are So Low For Democrats in Congress

When I write an opinion piece like this, it is always open for criticism that is reasonable and fair, and challenges with a difference of opinion.  I'm not a professional political pundit.  I'm an amateur journalist with a strong interest in politics and I follow beyond what we see in the news media.  I also listen to what people are saying and how they are reacting, and I think, in the voices of my neighbors who openly engage in political discussion, I can temper the information I gather and come up with some very plausible reasons why Democrats are stuck at a 26-29% job approval rating, which runs below that of the Republicans, and below Trump's tanking numbers. 

No Leadership to Unify the Party, Simplify the Message and Provide Necessary Boldness to Take Risks to Get Things Done 

We lost a Presidential election, and in the aftermath of all of that, which included some very strong-armed attempts at pushing narratives to explain why which were not accurate and which missed a lot of what went wrong, no strong leadership has emerged.  At a time when it is needed the most, the party appears fractured because a clear leader who has the ability to attract support from all constituencies has not yet emerged.  

What appears to have happened, by my own observation, is that all but a few of the Democrats who survived the 2024 election went into turf protection mode.  Not much criticism has been levelled at those who plunged the party into mass confusion right after Biden's first debate performance crashed and burned over the manner in which getting him to step away from the nomination was handled.  There was absolutely no excuse for that, and regardless of what political analysts who have a vested interest in focusing attention elsewhere have to say, it was, in my opinion, those weeks of confusion and the headless manner in which Democrats handled it, that cost Kamala Harris by the tiny percentages of votes by which she lost the swing states. 

That is, by the way, the point at which the approval ratings began to wane.  In spite of the messaging that the party was attempting to use to contrast themselves with the GOP, it was the big money contributors who grabbed the limelight, and control of the narrative, and got their way.  At least, they got their way for the moment, long enough to convince those who thought the party was different in this regard from the GOP, to stay at home on election day. 

I don't think Kamala Harris was the fully favored choice of the movers and shakers among the party's big donors, but the time was too short for anyone else to mount the kind of campaign to get to the point where they had the name recognition and the ability to draw in the campaign funding.   Biden, at that point, did exercise some leadership, in directing the support of the party to Harris.  

That was an excellent choice, and it should have been enough, especially against a weak, corrupt liar like Trump.  But Harris has never been the kind of political media celebrity that Biden was, and wasn't coming off four straight years of being in front of every news camera in the country, like Trump, who got four free years of unlimited media coverage.  That's why Harris lost, not because she was a woman, and not because she was black.  She lost because she did not have the kind of exposure it took to get couch potato Americans off their rear ends and into the voting booths, or to send in their mail-in ballots.  She lost because most of the news media had been promoting Trump's candidacy for four years.  Imagine how big her landslide win would have been if she'd had that kind of media coverage?

So we have no real, strong individual party leaders at this point.  There was a vacuum created when Nancy Pelosi lost the house speakership after the 2022 midterms.  Schumer, frankly, without Pelosi's initiative and support behind him, is no leader.  His motto will be, "We may have lost our Democracy, but we played by the rules, adhered to protocol and kept our dignity."  And the DNC, a moribund and ineffective zero under Jaime Harrison's leadership, did not have anyone waiting in the wings.

Priorities, people.  Trump is an existential threat to democracy, and that's what people care about, hence, the low approval rating. 

Fear Causes Paralysis, and Limits the Kind of Risk Taking Boldness That Wins The Hearts and Minds of Voters

Look who most of the Trump resistance, which includes a significant portion of rank and file Democrats along with a lot of independent voters who see Trump for the threat that he is, is following.  

Bernie Sanders, the 83 year old Senator from Vermont.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 35 year old Congresswoman from the Bronx.  David Hogg, the 25 year old political organizer and chairman of "Leaders We Deserve," who is already one of the most effective Democratic party fundraisers.  Those are the people who are motivating the protest turnouts and raising the money.  

So what do I mean by risk taking boldness?  Well, we got a good perspective of what that looks like from Senator Alex Padilla, in his direct attempt to confront the lies being laid out by puppy-killer Kristi Noem.  That hit a live nerve, didn't it?  I doubt Noem got any personal popularity points as a result of that incident.  It moved the Senator to my list of Democrats who deserve some additional attention as potential leaders.  There he was, confronting the lies and deceit head on, using his power and influence to attract attention to the shrill shrieking of Noem, exposing her anti-American, anti-Constitutional rhetoric.  He helped shut down the rhetoric that they've used to try to make it seem like Los Angeles is burning to the ground and out of control, when clearly, it isn't anywhere close to that.  

That's taking a bold risk. 

Sanders, meanwhile, is taking his "Fighting Oligarchy" tour, which is getting bigger crowds than Presidential rallies did for either party in 2024, back on the road, to Oklahoma, Texas and Louisiana.  One stop will occur in Shreveport, Louisiana, in Speaker Mike Johnson's home district.  Any kind of showing there at all will be an embarassment to Johnson, and it's getting the point across to all those local news outlets who will be there to cover the event.  It also helps support local candidates running for office.  

For what it's worth, he may be 83, but he's a leader we deserve.  If Democrats had embraced Bernie and his message, we might be in position to take back our lead among working class Americans at this point, and see what that does to Democratic party chances in elections.  This man gets his message across.  I've watched the video of the meeting he held in deep red McDowell County, West Virginia with Chris Hayes, shortly after the 2016 election, addressing the opioid crisis that had crippled that community and the looming health care crisis that resulted, endangering the operation of the county's one functioning hospital and emergency room.  

He was brilliant, and he, an independent who labels himself as a socialist, drew a standing room only crowd in the local high school auditorium. 

I can't wait to watch coverage of his Shreveport rally.  

And I'm not going to talk about risk taking boldness without mentioning the squandered opportunities Democrats had to put Trump away for good, completely eliminating this existential threat to democracy and putting a monkey wrench in the Heritage Foundation plans to turn America into a Christian nation.  

We held both Houses of Congress from 2020 to 2022 under a Democratic President.  There were those who spoke up and pointed out that the judicial deck was stacked against Democrats, but that there was a narrow path to success, via amending the judiciary act to open up the number of seats on the Supreme Court.  Five, I believe, was the suggested number, enough to neutralize the conservatives, to jam Trump's insurrection trial through the court by undermining his delaying tactics, to overturn the immunity the court gave him and to get him in prison with no hope of ever running for office again.  

That would have required breaking and removing the filibuster from the senate, a cherished relic of an obstacle to true democracy that old liners think of as a distinguishing feature, but in these days of cut-throat politics, is an albatross around the neck.  The benefits would have certainly improved the approval rating of those who got behind it and pushed it through.  

Imagine, Trump found guilty in a speedy but fair trial, sentenced to prison and disqualified from office.  Roe saved.  Citizens United overturned.  The President having to adhere to the law like ordinary citizens do.  Just keep in mind, fellow Democrats, that is the world that we could have had today, if our party leadership had been more inclined to bold risks than self-preservation and turf protecting. And that explains why our approval ratings are sitting at 26%.

Taking This Show on the Road

The Democratic party does not get the kind of favorable media coverage that the GOP does.  That's an assertion I am making, from observation, and anyone with some expertise is welcome to test its veracity.  If I want accuracy in reporting, I'll listen to Stephanie Miller or Rick Smith or Thom Hartmann, or Democracy Now!  

But when Democrats hold town halls in red counties and red districts, an interesting thing happens.  First of all, Democrats can see they are not alone.  Even in some of the deepest red counties, an exciting presentation draws out crowds of Democrats that can pack the local high school gym.  And there's an energy when everyone in the room is politically like minded.  

Just ask Beto O'Rourke, who conducts these kinds of meetings in small town Texas all the time.  A lot of people look at what O'Rourke is doing as futility, in a state like Texas.  But the fact of the matter is that his organization, Powered by People, is the most effective group in getting Democrats elected in Texas, and has been responsible for raising Democratic vote totals in the state significantly. The day will come in Texas when this organization helps a candidate win a statewide race.  

The fact of the matter is that we must meet fire with fire.  I've heard the expression used on the Stephanie Miller show several times that Democrats fighting Republicans politically, under the current political circumstances, is like bringing a knife to a gunfight.  Democrats have fallen into the same hole as Republicans, letting their self-preservation run their politics.  Republicans are afraid of being "primaried" by Trump, so they vote his convictions instead of representing the perspective of their constituents.  Don't tell me Democrats aren't doing the same thing, because they are afraid of losing their seat.  

When we have members of Congress who are committed to serving the interests of the people who elected them, then we have a functioning Republic, and we don't have that now.  But I'm more than willing to bet that the members of Congress with the best shot at winning elections will be the ones who are interested in their constituents, and their perspectives, and how they need to be served by the government that belongs to them, find out what those interests are, and become their champion,  rather than the ones who are just interested in how to raise enough money to get another term with paycheck and perks.  

And when we start seeing Democrats getting out there among the people, listening, and then taking real action to demonstrate that they are sincere, not phonies and frauds, or shills for a more powerful politician, those approval ratings will soar, and they will set the conventional political wisdom of who votes red and who votes blue on its ear.  

 

 

This Year's Southern Baptist Convention Further Distances Denomination from "Biblical Christianity"

Here's What Didn't Happen At This Year's Annual Southern Baptist Convention 

The Southern Baptist Convention's 1,000 Word Resolution Covers Nine Hot Topics

The core, foundational principles of the Christian gospel, revealed by Jesus Christ through the narratives of four gospel writers in the New Testament, start with a foundational, theological statement that Jesus made when he was asked by a lawyer to define which commandment is the greatest.  That was somewhat of a trick question, since giving a "wrong" answer would have branded him as a heretic.  But Jesus not only answered the question correctly from a Jewish theological perspective, his answer defined the core principle of the Christian faith.  

"Hear, O Israel, the Lord Our God; the Lord is One.  Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.  The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself.  There is no commandment greater than these."

So the defining characteristic of a Christian, the faith practice that expresses the core value of the gospel of Jesus Christ, is the visible love for one's neighbor.  And to make the point just a bit clearer, Jesus further defined the definition of "neighbor" by using a parable in which a Samaritan, a member of the ethnic group that the audience to whom he was speaking actually hated and resented the most, is the prime example.  He is a pagan, a "half breed" who demonstrates a love for his neighbor regardless of his ethnicity or religious beliefs, or the known hatred and bigotry the man he helped may have held for Samaritans.  It was pretty clear to those who heard him, and it's pretty clear from looking at the principles of the Christian gospel that "neighbor" equals "fellow human being."  

There are no exceptions to be found.  Jesus made it crystal clear, in his preaching, teaching and by the example that he set, that the way we treat others, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or personal circumstances, is the basic means by which our Christian faith is identified.  

An Old Saying, But Applicable Here, "Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds" 

For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have have secretly slipped in among you.  They are ungodly people who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ, our only Sovereign and Lord."  Jude, v. 4 

The "Largest Protestant denomination in the United States" just finished its annual meeting in Dallas yesterday.  A list of resolutions condemning what they see as the social and moral ills of the country is usually forthcoming.  This year, the formal complaint about all that they perceive is wrong with this country came out in one long, 1,000 word resolution that was brought to the floor of the convention, got every little debate, and passed.  

They condemned gays, lesbians, childless couples, people who remain single, and transgendered persons by pointing out how pervasive all of these things have become in our culture.  

They left out the fact that for the past six years, they have been stymied by their inability to deal effectively with a sexual abuse crisis within their own denomination, in which hundreds of pastors and other church leaders, including those working with youth and children, have been reported for abusing members of their churches.  In many cases, because Baptist churches are independent and autonomous, abusers have been able to move on from a church where they've been exposed, to another congregation that is not aware of the abuse.  

Many of these cases were reported to the denomination's Executive Committee, which not only kept them confidential, and did nothing to stop the abuse, but which actually wound up protecting abusers by claiming that, because they have no ecclesiastical authority over any local church, they could not take any action.  

Of course, when this story broke, in an expose done by the Houston Chronicle called "Abuse of Faith," back in 2019, many of those attenting the Southern Baptist Convention as messengers from the churches were horrified, demanding that the leadership do something about it.  But over the course of the past six years now, any effort to bring about a solution has met with stiff resistance from denominational leadership, who have done everything they can from attempts to undermine the independent investigation that was commissioned, to accusing the victims of lying, and of participating in a "satanic plot" to undermine these good men of God and their ministries, as well as hurt the work of the denomination. 

Year after year, the rhetoric from out of the annual meeting was whining and complaining at the increasing legal costs to the denomination, which used up a significant amount of its capital reserves paying legal fees and now must come up with several million more out of their "missions money," to pay what they still owe.  There has been almost no remorse, and no consideration whatsoever given to the hundreds of victims who have suffered the abuse.  Those who have attempted to put together resources to help churches minister to victims of sexual abuse have been  harrassed and eventually pushed out of their positions for calling attention to the scandal.  The denomination, along with most of the churches where the abuse has been perpetuated, have abandoned the victims, leaving them to recover on their own.    

So here we have this year's orchestrated, cut and dried resolution, complaining about what ails our culture and society, and whose fault that is, a political manifesto from the blending of extremist right wing politics and conservative Evangelicalism, but not a peep about the hundreds of rape and abuse victims left behind by Southern Baptist pastors in Southern Baptist churches. 

And they failed to address Trump's adultery, rape, pathological lying, moral bankruptcy and making God a liar by denying his own sinful nature, as a prime example of a morally bankrupt culture.  Leaving out all of that, which is more of a threat to public decency and morality than anything their resolution named, makes them hypocrites and leaves their resolution without merit, and useless.  Southern Baptists are just another group of pseudo-Christians caught up in extremist right wing politics.  They and their resolution are meaningless.

Apparently, "Loving Your Neighbor as Yourself," Has Been Downgraded in Southern Baptist Theology

I grew up in a Southern Baptist church, and I was always taught that "Jesus is the answer."  We were taught to live our lives in a way that reflected those values of the Christian gospel, specifically to find ways to show our love for our neighbor as a means of also demonstrating the love we have for God.  There were no ulterior motives involved, it was just an expectation, to be identified by others as a Christian because of this visible, sincere love that is the core value of Christian faith and practice. 

So where does a resolution that writes some of our neighbors out of the greatest commandment come from?  I'll tell you.  It comes from an intrusion of "licentiousness," the influence of a secular, political demagogue who, as Jude verse 4 says, "has stolen in among you."  

Perhaps the presence of individuals Southern Baptists want to publicly label as "sinners" instead of neighbors is something they see as an indictment of themselves, because of their ineffectiveness in their ministry of evangelism, winning converts to Christ who then reflect what they consider to be the values of the Christian gospel.  They've got some idea that God is going to judge the country because it does not collectively adhere to a specific religious practice and because of the presence of certain kinds of sinners.  So God is going to judge America because of gays, lesbians, and transgendered persons, along with childless couples and single people who choose not to marry, but not because of Southern Baptist pastors and youth leaders who rape and abuse members of their congregation, or Presidents who are serial adulterers, liars, rebellious insurrectionists and rapists?  

The failure of this denomination to condemn, and put a stop to the sexual abuse crisis within its own ranks, and its failure to publicly condemn Trump's immorality and demagoguery nullifies the validity of their 2025 resolution, and makes the Southern Baptists who approve of this pseudo-Christian hypocrites. 

David Hogg Exits DNC Vice-Chairmanship After Re-Vote; Will Still Keep Focus on Electing Effective Democratic Leadership

I'm not really clear on what the rules are at the DNC that caused a re-vote to occur, following the election of David Hogg as Vice-Chair, and Malcolm Kenyatta.  Should I be suspicious that, because of his strong opinion that some Democrats are asleep at the wheel when it comes to resisting and opposing Trump's ineffective, incompetent and anti-Democratic leadership, and he's threatening some of the status-quo establishment, they are pulling power strings to orchestrate this move and get him out?  Or should I just take this for what it is, and consider that a sleepy, moribund, ineffective organization like the DNC is just a political relic, and be glad that Hogg is no longer tied down by his role as one of its vice-chairs, but is now free to pursue raising money to help Democrrats awaken from their slumber and do their damn job?

I'll go with the latter option. 

As a loyal Democrat, raised in a Union home, and voting straight ticket for almost my entire life, I believe making regular contributions, as much as I possibly can, is part of what helps candidates get elected.  I give as much as I can, being careful to try to direct those gifts as effectively as possible.  I mainly support our Presidential candidates, the Senate candidate in my state and the Congressional candidate in my district, along with making a small gift to the DNC's Congressional election fund, and occasionally, finding a candidate from another state whose election is strategic and critical to the party's ability to be effective.  

I'm getting up in years, and headed toward eventual reduction and living on a smaller fixed income.  So I give now while I can.  The effectiveness of that gift is important to me.  And so, with this news today, I have decided that the small amount I've been sharing with the DNC will now go to Leaders We Deserve.  I got the message loud and clear, the DNC is committed to protecting an ineffective status quo that is asleep at the wheel, and has earned a lower job approval rating in Congress than either the Republicans or Trump.  

And you can't win elections like that. 

Taking Trump Seriously as an Existential Threat to Democracy 

Hogg made the mistake of pointing out the flaws of the Democratic party status quo.  Many of them, in turn, are attacking him, rather than paying attention to the message he is delivering, and how it is resonating with their party members.  The true colors of an entrenched bureacrat show out pretty quickly.  It was the influential movers and shakers among the Democrats who let the chance to prosecute and convict Trump on charges related to stealing documents, and to the January 6th insurrection slip through their hands while they stood around and did nothing about it.  The abysmal failure of Merrick Garland, and of Democrats who controlled both houses for two years following the 2020 elections, runs counter to the achievements of the Biden Administration, which Trump is now undoing and picking apart one by one.  

I'm in 100% agreement with Hogg on this issue.  We need effective Democrats who are willing to be bold, take risks, and consider the needs of their constituents as more important than protecting their own political turf.  We had the power, the positions and the ability to show the nation that we took the threat of Trump to our democracy seriously, and we failed to bring about even one action that would have prevented him from running for office.  That's because the old guard status quo was more interested in how political those things would look, than they were in getting the job done.  I will not vote for those polticians who hesitate, dither, dawdle and worry about their own reputation or job above their concern for me as one of their constituents. 

So I think Hogg has been set free from what would have been unnecessary restraint of trying to please the status quo of a moribund political club like the DNC.  I've been waiting for the war room they promised to get going.  Looks like Ken Martin is no more effective than Jaime Harrison was, and that wasn't a very high bar at all.  The DNC is well off the beaten path now, and I've lost my interest in supporting it.  

Leaders We Deserve isn't about age, though there are a lot of younger, more energetic people involved who will do a good job if they get a chance, setting aside the sleepy status quo and staying on message.  I'm almost 68 years old, and I happen to think that Democrats need to shed their sleepers and pick some effective leaders that will motivave the party to take actions that attract voters.  And votes are the numbers that win elections, not someone's age.