Trump Just Suffered a Major Political Defeat

Trump just suffered a major political defeat.  

There's no way around what is a very simple analysis of his choice to pick a battle with late night television host and comedian Jimmy Kimmel.  Making a move to use his power as President of the United States to put pressure on the ABC Network to cancel Kimmel's show because of comments Kimmel made that basically told the truth about Charlie Kirk was a bad strategy all the way around.  

Bowing to the pressure, the ABC Network contributed to the political disaster by cancelling Kimmel's show.  Big mistake.  

The public outcry against this unconscionable, unconstitutional, un-American, anti-patriotic act by a sitting President, and against the ownership of the ABC network, was monstrous.  It did not take long for events to move forward as a result.  It only took a relatively short amount of time for ABC's executive leadership to realize what a gigantic mistake it had made, and very likely calculating how much this was going to cost them, and reverse their decision.  

This couldn't have turned out any worse for the President if his opposition had scripted it.  

Kimmel returned to the airwaves, still cancelled by owners of television stations with a censorship mentality, but completely unable and ineffective in their effort to keep people from watching Kimmel.  So on September 23, he delivered a well spoken defense of himself, and of his right to free speech under the constitution, along with a scathing, flattening rebuke of Trump, intentionally needling him with words chosen carefully to get more blowback that makes Trump look even more incompetent, illiterate and unhinged. All of this in front of a television audience much larger than he normally would have.

And it worked.  The gullible, easily offended Trump couldn't resist tweeting back and making himself look even more ridiculous, opening himself up to yet another barrage from Kimmel the following night, in front of yet another massive audence far larger than his regular ratings, which, contrary to Trump's lying assertions, are pretty good for a late night television host.   

Trump appears to be too ignorant, or too emotionally disabled, to realize that he keeps setting himself up for the fall.  The late night talk show hosts, along with those who mix comedy and politics, like Stephanie Miller, and show hosts like Thom Hartmann, are among the last vestiges of a free and fair press in this country and Trump's attacks only draw attention to his ignorance, ego flaws and his anti-American, anti-Patriotic attacks on the Constitution. 

This has really been a pleasure to watch.  Kimmel's monologue has been devastatingly honest and particularly sharp and brutal toward Trump, and it's fun to imagine how much ketchup has been thrown against the wall of the White House dining room.   

Confirmation of Some Really Difficult Truths

Common Dreams on Charlie Kirk's Legacy

Baptist News Global: On Charlie Kirk, Selective Outrage and a Church that Refuses to Tell the Truth

The first time I heard the name Charlie Kirk, it was in reference to one of the Turning Point USA gatherings being held in Phoenix.  What attracted my attention was the fact that Don Trump Jr. was one of the featured speakers.  I have little interest in what Don Jr. has to say, but what caught my attention to this particular statement of his was his open denial of a core principle of the teachings of Jesus Christ.  I mean, these people spend an awful lot of time helping keep a good sized segment of conservative Evangelicals, most of whom know very little about biblical Christianity and can't distinguish the cultic views of Christian nationalism from biblical truth taught by Christ, in the dark.  

Speaking at one of Charlie Kirk's Turning Point USA rallies in Phoenix, Arizona on December 19, 2021, Don Jr. said, "We've turned the other cheek, and I understand, sort of, the Biblical reference--I understand the  mentality--but it's gotten us nothing.  Ok? It's gotten us nothing while we've ceded ground in every major institution in our country."  

To say that a core principle of the Christian gospel, taught and put into practice directly by Jesus, in its context, as a means of demonstrating the sincerity and veracity of one's Christian faith, has "gotten us nowhere," is blasphemy, by any Christian or biblical definition.  The fact that this remark, which Don Jr. has repeated since, is included in a Turning Point rally is a demonstration of Kirk's apparent approval of it, or of his fear of directly confronting anything a Trump says.  Along with the other long running themes of Turning Point USA and of Charlie Kirk, this is just one of hundreds of pieces of evidence that identify him as being part of a white supremacist, Christian nationalist cult, the result of blending the right wing political extremism of Trump with conservative Evangelicalism.     

The Common Dreams article I linked above does a great job of outlining exactly who Charlie Kirk was, by his words and deeds.  He was a political strategist, or a political fundraiser who made sure he took care of himself with many of the dollars Turning Point raised. He was willing to lie to make a point in a political debate, as he deceived conservative Evangelicals into an embrace of a political philosophy and perspective that is mutually incompatible with their own theology and doctrine.  A prophet of right wing Trumpism, Kirk, willing to lie as openly and readily as Donald Trump, is an indruder in the church, as the Apostle Jude describes in his very short, but clear epistle in the New Testament, just before the book of Revelation.  

Kirk's mostly errant and distorted doctrine and theology made him a pseudo-Christian more inclined to the heresy of Christian nationalism, with a hint of white supremacy, than any kind of defender of the Christian faith.  There was some of that blended in, but mainly for the political advantage that it provides.  Those kinds of fringe comments, which he makes all the time, wouldn't be there at all if his interest was actually Christian faith and practice, and not right wing politics. 

Anyone like me, raised in a Southern Baptist church, with a higher education background that included Biblical studies, theology and Christian education at the undergraduate and graduate level, knows this about Charlie Kirk.  Some admit they have little in common, and mostly disagree with everything Kirk says.  But, pay attention and know this, that no one on the left who disagreed with Charlie Kirk would approve of his assassination.  

Assassination is Not the Left's M.O. When it Comes to Political Debate and Opposition

It's hard to find someone on the political left, especially among its articulate leadership that is equipped for debate, who thinks assassination is the best way to eliminate one's enemies.  That's not how the left does things.  What you get from the left is exactly what we see, a genuine reaction of shock, horror and sorrow over yet another senseless death as the result of politically motivated violence.  The lies being told about motives behind other recent assassinations, including of Democrats in Minnesota, are a disgrace and a black stain on Kirk's character.  Justifying threats of violence, including murder, against one's political enemies is as close to pure evil as any human being ever gets.  

It's been one of the most difficult lies conservatives have ever had to craft, that this assasin somehow morphed from being as far to the right in an insulated, ultra-right wing Mormon community as one could get, to becoming Charlie Kirk's assassin over basic philosophical differences because he had been radicalized by the left.  There's no pathway that exists to get Tyler Robinson from the far right wing, Trump endorsing and approving white Mormon family from which he came to being far enough to the left to want to take Kirk's life because he no longer was in agreement with him.  

So what that means is that Kirk's assassin, Tyler Robinson if they caught the right guy, has moved even further into the more extremist part of the far right where killing public figures with whom you no longer agree is dogma.  That the theme of the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the Groypers and other right wing extremists who see eliminating their ideological enemies as a mission from God. 

Another Round of Social Media Disconnection

I'm frustrated, angry, and disappointed.  I grew up in a Southern Baptist church and while I can't really explain it, I began to distance myself from the folk religion that passed for the Christian gospel and Christian practice in that congregation.  I can't really point to what it was inside of me that led me to the understanding that what I was taught in that church growing up was not the truth, but was a very distorted faith practice that resented those who had an education, resisted any kind of theological or doctrinal perspective that did not line up with what they considered to be conservative Biblical orthodoxy and seemed to get some kind of satisfaction out of attacking their religious enemies, which included all of those they identified as "the lost," along with the Christians in other denominations who didn't exactly follow their interpretation of the Baptist Faith and Message.  

I learned from being around intolerant people that it's not possible to even think their minds can be changed, and all that's going to come from trying is an argument that will end in being rejected and called a name because bending to their will is their only objective.  When I broke with that particular church, it followed an argument that I'd had with the pastor.  He got angry because I wouldn't back down, and then, because I made the first move in rejecting what he was telling me.  I was dating his daughter at the time, so that meant the end of that relationship which was just as well, since she was as pig-headed, dogmatic and stubborn as he was.  

Now I'm seeing others that I know, from my days in conservative Evangelicalism, and from some conservative Evangelicals I've met since, make Charlie Kirk some kind of martyr for the cause.   Arguing back, like I would once have been tempted to do, is a waste of time and effort, not something that would change any minds, something I no longer feel responsible to do.  I am explicitly and absolutely against any kind of political violence, including this particular assassination.  I don't care how bad the ideas or impractical, or false is the doctrine and theology.  He had the right to tell us who he was and what he believed, as we have the right to disagree, and I disagreed with just about everything he said publicly.  

So now, I must also step away from anyone who believes that Charlie Kirk told the truth and is a worthy spokesperson for the rights of human beings.  He was a white Christian nationalist, and his ideology, with its touch of racism and bigotry, was a pseudo-Christian influence, mutually exclusive of orthodox Christianity,  And the sooner the world sees this, the better.  

 

Are There Religious Implications Involved in Today's Political Assassination of Charlie Kirk?

These are just some random thoughts that have popped up as I have read through, and heard some of the news stories related to today's tragic shooting death of Charlie Kirk.  Regardless of what people thought of him, and it's pretty clear he was a polarizing figure, with an in-your-face kind of approach to his hard-line, right wing political views, political violence of any kind, directed at anyone, should never be considered acceptable for any reason.  It is the one method of opposition that never succeeds in achieving its goal.  

The Location of the Shooting Has Some Significance, Maybe More Than We Might Think 

It happened in Utah.  What most Americans generally know about Utah, and associate with it, its that it is the headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and has the highest percentage of population of its members, also known commonly as "Mormons," than any other state.  So people might find it unusual that such an assassination would occur in Utah.  

It happened in Orem, a town that is really part of a larger metro area connected to Provo, where Brigham Young University is located, the center of the LDS church's education program.  Provo and Orem, along with some smaller "suburbs," make up a single metropolitan area where the percentage of Mormon residents is among the highest of any other place in the state of Utah.  While half the population of Utah is made up of members of the LDS church, the Provo-Orem-Spanish Fork area is over 70 percent LDS.  So the Mormon population there would include those who have a higher level of theological conviction and education, and a deeper involvement in the LDS community, which is anchored by the church.  

Utah also happens to be one of the easiest states in which to buy a gun, and has a high percentage of residents who are gun owners.  

Stick with me, some of this might actually be worth considering when it all adds up.  

Utah Valley University, where the gathering was taking place at which Kirk was shot, is the largest state university in Utah, primarily a commuter school with an enrollment of over 45,000 undergraduates, 10,000 more than either the University of Utah, or Brigham Young University.  Even though it is a state university, it is likely that the number of LDS students enrolled there is well over half the total, given the fact that most of its students commute from the Provo-Orem-Spanish Fork area, which is Utah's second largest metro area.  

So what would attract a group of predominantly Mormon students to a gathering where Charlie Kirk, who is a conservative, Evangelical Christian, is the speaker?  From a theological and doctrinal perspective, being Mormon and being Evangelical are mutually exclusive.  Evangelicalism as a whole treats Mormons as a heretical cult, one of the worst in terms of deceiving people away from true Christian faith, at least, from their perspective.  Mormon leaders and theologians are open in their caustic criticism of Evangelicals.  In fact, it is a core doctrine of Mormon faith that Joseph Smith was informed directly by the Angel Moroni, who appeared to him and revealed the location of the "golden plates" he allegedly translated into English as "The Book of Mormon," that all of the followers of all of the other Christian churches that were in existence were wrong, that they were liars and did not have the truth.  

Did I mention, that's a core doctrine of Latter Day Saints theology. 

So it is common ground in conservative, right wing politics that brings Mormons together with conservative Evangelicals.  But not on every single political point, either.  

Shared Perspectives But Different Outcomes in White, Christian Nationalism 

The Latter Day Saints have a Christian nationalist perspective that declares themselves to be the chosen people of God for the purpose of one day being the government of the United States.  It is their divine will, included in their prophecy, that God has ordained them to take over the government, using the vast resources and power of the United States to convert the rest of the world to Mormonism.  Everything they do, from temple rituals to having well over the average number of children, is built around this belief.  And there is no room in this Mormon perspective of Christian nationalism, for the heretics of the Evangelical right.  

Likewise, the dominionism of white, Christian nationalism that dominates some branches of conservative Evangelicalism considers all Mormons as heretics who will be put to death when they are given rhe righteous rule of American, as God's chosen people.  Kirk got a crowd of almost 100% white college students to a rally on Utah's largest university campus.   For the most part, the shared politics keeps religion out of the discussion, and Kirk's speeches are generally not overly laced with either Biblical references or Christian theology.  

But one thing is clear.  There can't be two "chosen peoples" destined to rule America, and thus, the world.  For Mormons, the purpose in doing this is to turn the rule of the world over to the Mormon God, who procreates spirit children in need of human bodies.  For Evangelicals, the purpose of their Christian nation is to eliminate all of God's enemies in order to usher in the Second Coming of Christ.  With, of course, all associated benefits, including acquired wealth, going to the church leadership. 

Is it possible that an LDS hard-liner, distrustful of Evangelicals because that's ingrained in their theological instruction from their pre-school days, took advantage of a casual, less secure atmosphere at an open air rally in a place that was obviously easy to access, and got at Kirk for his theological and doctrinal incompatibility with the Latter Day Saints?  

That discovery would not surprise me. 

I doubt that the shooter was some frustrated, angry left winger.  That's been rare, at least in the most recent plague of politically motivated shootings and violence we've seen in this country in recent years.  Disaffected Proud Boys or Oath Keepers are right wingers, not left wingers.  Left wingers abhor gun violence.  Even those who tried to get at Trump were politically on the far right.  

Well, it's a theory.  

My heart goes out to Charlie Kirk's wife and children.  This was senseless, tragic and cruel, and it is the kind of behavior that has no place in American Constitutional Democracy, or as any part of any faith that wants to align with the gospel of Jesus Christ.  

The Means We Have to Take Back Our Constitutional Democracy

There's been some silence here for a while.  And that's been deliberate.  

It's hard to write about politics and about what's going on while watching the constitutional democracy that our founding fathers sacrificed to build, and patiently promoted, waiting until people were able to see the value of a better way of doing something, taking some risks, with bold moves that they didn't know would be accepted or rejected, disintegrate along with the remnants of our free press, liberty of conscience, religious freedom and above all, the high value of human existence that created all of this in the first place.  

Over the Labor Day weekend, and since, there were more protests, as it seems the crowds taking to the street are getting more vocal, louder, and more specific in what they are protesting against.  The media takes note of them, not giving them anywhere near the kind of coverage protests used to get when they were directed against the Vietnam War, but then, that was a cause that our media, most of them, supported.  Few of those who work in the media now could pass an eighth grade constitution test.  And I know, because that's a class I taught for years, to hundreds of students.  

Constitutional Means to Make a Change

The founders left us with just a few possible means to make a change in government between elections which were designed to be the free exercise of the will of the people.  They didn't really account for the fact that the level of trust and integrigy that was required for the electorate to make good decisions when it came to choosing the nation's political leadership would ever be undermined by enough ignorance and corruption to make a bad choice.  

But that's what's happened.  

The place where such change is most difficult to make is the place where, in our present situation, it is needed the most.  The Supreme Court is at the root of the problem.  There's been enough bribe money and influence distrubuted to get enough justices, those who were appointed because they showed some kind of moral or ethical weakness, or a lack of integrity and trustworthiness, to rule in favor of the ability of billionaires and billion-dollar profiteering corporations to corrupt the electoral process by taking all of the restrictions off campaign contribution amounts.  The ruling, called the "Citizens United" case, has made it possible for members of the House and Senate, members of the Supreme Court, and just about anyone else in electoral politics, to be bought by big money without accountability. 

Frankly, I don't have to prove any specific claims here.  It's so visible, the evidence is in what these justices have done, and what the politicians who were elected by big money are doing in exchange for the sale of their integrity and character, that their words and deeds are full of evidence of the way they're poisoning our country.  

We, the people, are left with a very narrow, virtually impossible Constitutional way to make the kind of changes in government that are necessary to preserve constitutional democracy in America now.  What we actually have at our disposal is the pathway to impeachment and removal from office, of six incompetent Supreme Court justices along with a President, Vice-President, House Speaker and President Pro-Tempore of the Senate.  And we're pretty convinced, given the partisan alignment of Congress, and the unwillingness of the majority party to act with integrity and honesty, that this is an impossible pathway.  

It is also not very likely that the 25th Amendment can be used to get Trump out of the White House, though if anyone actually wanted to make a legal case, based on evidence for doing so, they'd have enough to remove him a dozen different times.  

Protests, marches, the voices of literally hundreds of thousands of marching citizens in the streets, is not even making a blip on the radar inside the GOP.  There's a good reason for that.  Nothing ever comes of it.  There are marches, speeches, protests, crowds and turnouts that are impressive in their size and scope, but in and of themselves, aside from the rhetoric, and creating awareness of the problem, they have had zero effect in moving the needle toward a reasonable conviction of the President, six justices, most of the cabinet and the congressional leadership, who are grossly incompetent in their leadership of the United States.  

At the end of the day, heading home, the sun comes up the next morning, and there's no follow up.  It's pretty clear that the kind of public pressure needed to change votes in Congress, wake some Republicans up to reality and get this President out of the White House, leaving enough time left to either stop the progression of the destruction of American democracy or start putting it back together, is not resulting from the protests.  

So what really is the point, if that's not it? 

Figuring Something Out

I've just started to figure out that many of the difficulties Democrats have had during times when we've been the ones in power are of our own doing.  We make things harder for ourselves by not taking the party line like the GOP does, no compromise, this is it.  I realized this when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House following the 2020 election.  We had the chance, during that two year stretch, to get a lot of things done, including getting billionaire money out of elections once for all with the overturning of Citizens United.  

And no, we did not have a supportive majority on the court.  But the amendment of the Judiciary act, bumping up the number of Supreme Court Justices could have been an  "in your face" proposition.  A risky but bold move to break the filibuster, and pack the court, would have changed everything on this side of 2024.  Not only would we have been able to see Citizens United overturned, and strict rules placed on campaign finance, but we could have saved Roe.  And an added benefit would have been the ability of the court to clear out all of the blockades Trump was putting up regarding his own indictments and sent him to prison, disqualified from ever running for office again.  

It wasn't Republican opposition that stopped all of that from happening.  It came from within our own party.  

We can't keep doing business this way.  What we do now must either count toward restoring Democracy, and stopping Trump, or we will never have another opportunity, even as we have squandered so many.  We can't squander this one.  Individual political careers are secondary to the restoration of American Constitutional democracy under a renewed Democratic party.  The midterm election in 2026 is just a start.  

 

Chicago Doesn't Need the National Guard to Enforce the Law

The idea of calling out the National Guard to supplement the police force in major cities is a populist misconception that goes back to the days of the Vietnam War protests in the 1970's and civil rights unrest in the 1960's.  The only thing that calling out the National Guard achieved in those days was to push the level of violence higher than it already was, and it culminated in the shooting deaths of four unarmed students and the injury of nine others at Kent State University in Ohio in 1970.  Calling out the National Guard to put down protests hasn't ever been successful.  So trying to turn them into law enforcement officers is also headed toward being an unmitigated disaster.  

So far, it's just been a political threat by an unhinged, demented, incompetent President to get at two of his biggest political enemies.  It's not about the crime, since Chicago's crime rate, which has been steadily coming down over the past four or five years, isn't anywhere near the level it is in the cities on the top ten list for violent crime.  It wasn't about crime in Los Angeles, either.  He has the National Guard picking up trash in Washington, D.C.  Otherwise, they wouldn't have anything to do there, either. 

My wife and I have lived here eight years, just now reaching retirement age.  It was a deliberate choice out of four different job offers we received for this last stage of my career and with most other factors being equal, we chose this job offer primarily because of its location.  Finding housing in the city isn't easy, but we had some help, and landed in a reasonably priced, fairly spacious condo in a building for people who are past 55 years of age, on a bus line ten minutes from an "L" station.  Until COVID hit, I rode the bus and train to and from work, without incident, because it takes 15 minutes off the commute.  

After I got comfortable with the ride and the schedule, I discovered that the "L" and the bus connections are the best way to get around, and not have to worry about traffic or parking when I have a doctor's appointment.  And it works well when we want to go out for dinner downtown.  I'm just now getting back to doing that, after driving for a while during the pandemic.  I've never felt unsafe, or insecure, and I've never been uncomfortable, either riding, or at the station getting off and waiting for the bus.  Those times we've done this at night, the trains and busses are full of people coming to or going from sports events, the theaters downtown, dining out or heading to the airport.  

There are high crime areas in the city, as in any large American city, and for a while, there was a problem in a few Chicago neighborhoods with a high percentage of homicides by shootings, including some drive-by incidents and some multiple street incidents.  Much of that was leftover from an neighborhood where a lot of abandoned housing was pulled down around 2015, and in pockets that are within proximity to the Indiana state line, where guns are much more readily available than they are in Illinois.  

Comparatively, I lived in Houston, Texas for over 20 years.  I was a victim of several crimes while living there.  Our apartment was broken into and robbed during the day, in spite of us having an alarm connected to the apartment office, though the police were never called.  My car, parked in the designated, and gated, parking lot of the apartment complex was broken into twice.  Once, the glass of a side window was broken out and the car's stereo system was removed, and the second time, they forced a lock open, and apparently tried to take the car, messing up the ignition switch, but couldn't get it started before a security guard came along and chased them off.  

We also had a window broken out of a car in a mall parking lot in Springfield, Missouri, damage done in order to get an empty purse that had been only partially shoved under a seat.  

None of those crimes could have been prevented by the presence of the National Guard in any of those cities.  

Tonight, we are seeing posts and news reports about shootings in Chicago over this Labor Day weekend.  Well, of course, given the size of the city, and the easy access to weapons just across the state line in Indiana from the south end of Chicago, where a lot of this violence occurs, with gang activity in that part of the city, there will be shootings, especially on holiday weekends when the booze is flowing, too.  But, it's not just Chicago where this is happening.  In fact, this particular Labor Day weekend has been particularly brutal in places like Houston, Miami, St. Louis, Memphis and Jacksonville, and we aren't hearing about Trump sending the National Guard to any of them.  There's not much they could do here, either, unless they are willing to go door to door through some of those southside neighborhoods and collect all of the firearms.  

And the violence is worse on the Indiana side of that state line, at least up here in the northern part of both states.  If there's a place where National Guard patrols on the streets might actually do some good, by simply keeping the criminal element out, it would be Gary, Indiana.  Indiana needs gun control legislation, based on their violent crime statistics, much worse than our Chicago.  

Calling out the National Guard has never been successful in lowering the crime rate.  There's a good reason for this.  They're not trained in law enforcement.  They are quite helpful providing extra hands after a natural disaster.  They're well trained military units whose service in war zones has been effective and appreciated by the regular army troops they are helping.  Law enforcement in this country is not carried out by the military tactic of simply shooting people who are suspected of committing a crime.  American values are based on our experience of living under the tyranny of a king, so we developed a justice system based on the principle of innocent until proven guilty.  

Real American Patriots would never order military troops into the streets to enforce the law at the point of a gun.   

Let's Tell the Truth

Sending in the National Guard to Chicago is a dig at Trump's political rival, Illinois Governor J. D. Pritzker.  Oh, there may be some resentment there, too, about the fact that Chicago took in and is hosting most of those who the governor of Texas, Abbott, sent up here last year by bus, helping them find jobs, which most of them have, and wait out their assylum petitions.  Chicago is, of course, doing what Texas can't and won't do, in proving just how much more patriotic and American we are.  

I've met some of these people.  They're nice, many of them are young couples with families they love and want to keep safe, which is why they risked the trip to get them here.  

Sending the National Guard into Washington, and taking control of the police force there hasn't changed that city's declining crime rate one bit.  It was already lower than it had been in a decade, largely due to the efforts of the Biden administration.  Trump has the National Guard pick up trash, but really, there's not much they're able to do that contributes to lowering a crime rate that is already on the way down because the city's police department finally got some resources it needed to combat the root problems of high crime.  

Compare crime rates across the country during Trump's first term in office to Biden's, and the difference is notably significant.  Well, that's what happens when the government invests in law enforcement.  We should, since we claim to believe in the rule of law, but Trump never would.  Biden did, and it made a difference.  Maybe not to those who are ignorant of facts, like most of the MAGA crowd, but they're not there to actually witness the difference anyway.  I am living in Chicago, and I love it, feel safe, and I can tell the crime rate is going down without Trump's help.  

We need leaders who can see through the thin veneer of Trump's calling out the National Guard to Washington, and to taking control of the police.  A mid-term election is coming up.  I think he will use these tools to keep Democrats from taking the seats they apparently are going to win back in the House and Senate, in a big way.  That ends the MAGA, Heritage Foundation 2025 agenda.  He's told us a thousand different ways and a hundred different times he's going to rig and steal elections in his favor.  

Maybe we should believe him?