The Fact that Trump was Elected is a Sign of Serious Dysfunction in American Culture and Society

Rick Wilson, The Lincoln Project: "What We Lost With Trump" 

The link will take you to an article (I think you can access without being a subscriber) that is an excerpt from Rick Wilson's book, Everything Trump Touches Dies.  I look at reading things from the Lincoln Project as a test of one's understanding of true American idealism.  If I read and watch these things, and find them resonating with my own thoughts, beliefs and values, gathered, incorporated and practiced over a lifetime, then I evaluate myself as being a patriotic, "mainstream, grass roots," American.  I'd give myself a pretty high grade when it comes to my understanding of our identity, our roots, and the manner in which America, not perfect by any means, but still working on it, relates to the world.  

But our political system has taken a very dangerous and wrong turn into a darkness and down into an abyss that is really bent on destroying everything this country has ever been, or aspires to be.  The institutions which supported and undergirded American idealism have failed to protect and preserve the Constitutional democracy they were intended to protect.  The electorate in a democracy must be educated and informed, and able to discern facts from lies.  It must be seasoned with cultural institutions that have moral and ethical values at the core of their mission, purpose and practice.  It must know, and be able to learn from the past mistakes in its own history, and what it knows must have an effect on who it elects to lead a republic.  

But we elected Donald Trump.  

From Rick Wilson: 

Who could have imagined that a man of Donald Trump's spectacular vulgarity, vanity, and gimcrack gold-leaf aesthetic would turn out to be a president without a shred of dignity?  Who would have thought that a man  with a grasp of history derived solely from movies and television would be unable to channel the power of this nation in times of crisis?  

Who would imagine that a serial adulterer with a desperate need to have his manhood validated and who engaged in a string of risible, sleazy affairs would become an international laughingstock? 

Who could have foreseen that the faux billionaire up to his ample ass in debt to God knows who, would look at the White House as a way to nickle-and-dime the taxpayers and the GOP into bumping up his revenue stream at his golf courses and hotels?  

Spoiler:  Everyone, ever. 

Three paragraphs is not enough to describe Donald Trump's antisocial, dysfunctional, morally bankrupt absence of character.  He's a pathological liar, a phony, a fraud, and completely dishonest and untrustworthy, with a lifelong set of examples to illustrate just how bad he is.  We have elected some individuals to office, across the board and including the Presidency, whose ability to hide their true character and be deceitful to survive politically is a known part of history.  But we have never elected an immoral, inhumane monster like Trump. We've come close, Nixon broke the mold as far as honesty and trust was concerned. But with Trump, it is hard to imagine how he could have been born, raised, and lived in this country and never have picked up and practices a single one of its virtues or values. 

The Total Collapse of Conservative Evangelicalism into a Pseudo-Christian, Religious-Political Cult is a Primary Reason For The Dysfunction of Culture Leading to the Election of the Demagogue Trump

America was not founded as a Christian nation, but while that was not the intention of the founders, as far as connecting the government to a state supported church, but the establishment clause, which separated institutional government from institutional Christianity, set the church free to chart its own course, and define, by the collective consciences of its members, its theology, doctrine and practice.  This resulted in the development of multiple branches and denominations and even independent churches, each following, in their own way, some form of Protestant expression.  

Free from restrictions which corrupted its theology, doctrine and most notably its clergy, Protestant Christianity flourished in the United States, enjoying periods of revival and growth almost continuously from the early 1800's, including what is known as the Second Great Awakening, an early 1800's revival that pushed American Protestantism in a much less Calvinist direction, emphasizing free will, personal faith and good works.  Conservative Evangelicalism can trace its beginnings to this movement, as the establishment and growth of new denominations, most notably the Baptists and Methodists, emerged.  

The emphasis on personal "holiness," or the exhibition of virtues and values embedded in the Christian gospel, had an influence on American society and culture, as pervasive as the Enlightenment had.  Protestants were, by far, the largest single religious influence in the United States, and at times, a majority of the adult population of most states and regions of the country were members of Protestant churches.  

This had a profound impact on American democracy and the electorate.  The expression of Christian values did not stop at the door to the voting booth.  Americans elected their fellow Protestant Christians to office in large numbers, and this influence in the culture was a major factor in supporting the election of individuals who exhibited character and values, and though it did not prevent all of those who lacked character and moral values from getting into office, it was a stabilizing influence.  

But all of that has changed.  Evangelical conservativism is a very legalistic approach to Christian faith.  Much of it operates under a theological and doctrinal perspective characterized as "Fundamentalism," a faith practice which requires intellectual adherence to a specific set of doctrinal beliefs, interpreted by a few prominent pastors and church leaders.  Several of these leaders, who gained followers and influence as television evangelists, helped pull conservative Evangelicals into the Republican party, and the combination of both groups desiring to expand their influence using political power and the acquisition of wealth, are responsible for the corruption of much of American Evangelicalism as well as the Republican party.  

Into that toxic mix of politics and religion, comes Trump.  And almost immediately, there is an effort among both the televangelist politicians of the religious right, and the GOP leadership, to turn him into what they need him to be to get him elected.  The way to excuse all of his immorality, which includes criminal behavior like rape, multiple adulterous affairs that Trump himself bragged about having while married, cheating and business fraud, and a whole list of things that would make an Evangelical pastor's hair stand on end, is to attibute to him a "salvation experience," which is an instant cure-all for sin, and instantaneous forgiving and forgetting the sinful character so that they can now, with a clear conscience, vote him into office.  

But unfortunately, Trump's ego cannot admit to being repentant, which is a core requirement for Christian conversion, according to Evangelical doctrine.  He has not only openly denied experiencing any guilt or conviction for his sinful, worldly, immoral lifestyle, he has openly denied that he thinks those things are sinful, and he claims he does not need God's forgiveness for anything he has done.  

The Apostle John, in his first church epistle, addresses that kind of attitude directly, and it is a passage of scripture that Evangelicals use to define their view of Christian conversion, or the "salvation experience" as they call it.  

"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.  If we confess our sin, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.  If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar, and his truth is not in us." [I John 1:8-10]

I was raised in an Evangelical church, attended a denominationally-owned university, and among my higher education, earned a degree from a Baptist seminary.  I know that there is not an Evangelical pastor or church leader who has not memorized these verses, as I did when I was in Vacation Bible School around 4th or 5th grade.  Trump has openly declared for the record that he has committed no sin which requires God's forgiveness, and he has done nothing wrong.  He's on the record in multiple places having made this statement, including in front of prominent Evangelical supporters.  And that is all that can be found on the subject.  

Evangelicals who have allowed themselves to be sucked into the political merger with Trump's far right wing extremism must excuse their support of Trump, then, by separating their politics entirely from their Christian faith and practice, something they cannot do because of the manner in which politics has become religious dogma for them.  I've heard all kinds of ridiculous excuses which exhibit either a complete ignorance of their own claims to being Christian, or which are bordering on heresy as far as Christian doctrine and theology are concerned.  

"Well, you have to overlook what he does because he is just a "baby Christian," is one of the ridiculous defenses of support.  His alleged "conversion" which included a session with known prosperity gospel prophetess and heretic Paula White, his "spiritual advisor," never took place, according to him.  He isn't Christian at all, his lifestyle, the face that he puts forward publicly, lends itself to calling him "heathen" as far as any religious practice is concerned.  

"I'm not electing a pastor-in-chief, I'm electing a commander-in-chief," is another ridiculous statement defending support for Trump.  No Christian who has had exposure and has been taught the content of the New Testament can make that statement without understanding that it is a complete denial of everything they have been taught, and an abandonment of the Christian gospel.  In Jesus' day, no one in the church had the ability or was in a position to choose their leadership, but it is clear that in making choices about who to follow, Jesus himself declares that choosing those who have character, are virtuous and who are, as he describes, "full of the Spirit of God," is the only option  Knowingly voting for someone who openly denies Jesus as the Christ is support for antichrist, according to John in his first epistle [see I John 4:1-3].  

Trump is no King David, for those who try to make that comparison.  There's a significant difference, from a theological perspective.  David responded with remorse, confessing his sin, grieved over his guilt and followed God's prophets instructions to the letter for his restoration, which was not a simple, easy instant conversion.  It required sacrifice, suffering the consequences of the bad choices, and making amends.  So when you see Trump down on his knees, asking forgiveness, acknowledging the rape and the other crimes he has committed, willing to provide restitution, and especially walking away from his use of the Presidency to get revenge on his political and business enemies, then you may have seen genuine repentance.  But I wouldn't hold my breath.  

This collapse of the entire theology, doctrine and practice of conservative Evangelicalism as turned it into a pseudo-Christian cult, incapable of preserving and protecting the Constitutional democracy.  It has become the opposition, taking on all of the characteristics of fascism as the world has seen and defined it throughout human history.  It is neither a Christian faith that can save, or a political system that is democratic.  

The American Education System Has Collapsed, and is No Longer Capable of Sustaining the Kind of Informed Electorate Necessary to Preserve and Protect Democracy 

There will be those who are critical of any attempt to point out the faults of American public education that have helped contribute to our collapsing democracy.  Before getting out the claws, give some fair and reasonable consideration to the facts, which support the claim that our educational system is no longer able to sustain an informed electorate.  

It was the American education reformer John Dewey, who saw in public education the potential for increasing the information level of the electorate, and the potential for education to bring about social reform.  He was head of the teacher training program at the University of Chicago in the 1920's, and designed a program to train and certify teachers who would then be able to go into school classrooms and be a positive force that encouraged and helped bring about social reform, overcoming many of the prevailing biases and prejudices of what was a very segregated and unequal society.  This included providing an electorate that was educated in civics, and would guarantee the preservation of the Constitutional democracy.  

Dewey, of course, wasn't alone.  It took a while for the teacher training objectives and standards to kick in, but it was a widespread enough movement that it had an effect on American politics.  There are various differing conclusions about what Dewey's reforms achieved, but general agreement that it helped bring about the current political era, a shift from Republican predominance over Congress and the Presidency to Democratic domination, beginning with the election of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932.  Seven of the next ten Presidential terms of the United States would be Democrats, and control of Congress shifted decidedly to the Democratic party.  

Hand in hand with this political change, the academic quality and effectiveness of instruction in the public school system greatly improved, opening the door to larger and larger freshmen classes in colleges and universities, raising the overall education level of the United States.  That's a good thing for a democracy.  And while some people don't want to hear it, teachers were expected to run their classroom effectively, and manage student behavior to avoid disruptions, earning the respect of students desiring to use education as a way of improving their life  

Dewey's reforms, system of teacher training and the use of education as a means to bring about social reform and political change began to erode in the post-war era.  As Republicans crept back into position to influence and control government, they also began undermining the public education system.  There was a lot of reaction, most of it negative, to the attempted integration of public schools for the purpose of achieving racial balance, and as a means of eradicating racism.  The mantra of excessive government spending and tax reform led to budget cuts for schools, which had less political clout than the business community.  The ability of the public schools to function as a means of social reform, and concurrently, as a way of providing an informed electorate to support democracy waned considerably in the late 1960's, and became subject to new reforms initiated in the late 1970's based on "keeping up with the world in science and technology.  

First of all, the push toward more math, science and technology based education has shoved social studies out the door.  In 1975, requirements for graduation from most public high schools in the United States included four credits, of year-long courses, in social studies education.  Students in the 8th grade were mandated to take an Early American History course that included nine weeks of Constitution studies, and had to pass a Constitution exam to graduate from the 8th grade.  One full year of American History was required, along with a year of economic and cultural geography, and a full year of Civics during 12th grade.  The other year included a semester of Economics, and a semester of state government and constitution.    

The university I attended required 12 credit hours in basic social studies courses for graduation with any major, requiring 6 credit hours, or two one-semester courses, in American History.  The most popular choice there, at the time, was the Basic Constitutional Law course, because the professor who taught it did such a great job. 

Now, in 2025, in most states, social studies requirements are half of what they once were, because the school day has been shortened, and the number of courses required for high school graduation reduced.  From my own experience in the classroom, I've noticed that high school students are no longer able to do the kind of reading that I once assigned when I first started teaching in 1979.  The thought of using a textbook in a history class now, like Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States would generate multiple parent complaints, and moans and groans from students who find the reading more complicated than the technical manuals they are now taught to read.  It would be impossible to assign a book like Jill Lepore's These Truths: A History of the United States in some universities now.  

And I think that kind of approach to teaching history is absolutely necessary for the provision of an informed electorate.  

The last time I taught a high school government class, which has been cut to one semester in most schools, it was an AP class, and I was appalled to learn that students in what is supposed to be an advanced honors class that gets extra grade points did not have to read Washington's farewell address, the Federalist Papers, or Madison's The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection, something I think all Americans should have to read before being allowed to vote. 

And for those who want to be critical of any critique of public education, I would encourage you to visit a school in one of the larger cities, which is where the vast majority of students are found and most education is taking place.  You'll find that the maintenance of order, and the ability of the teaching staff to utilize its time in any effective way is severely limited, paralyzed by politicians who think they are experts on how educational institutions should be operated.  Teachers work in fear, knowing that an accusation here or a criticism there could cost them their job, which doesn't pay that much already.  There are no public institutions in the United States that our political system has ruined worse than public education, except maybe public transportation.  And that's a close contest. 

We've Lost Our Free Press

Wilson says, "Setting the Trump campaign's endless torrent of bullshit aside for a moment, the tragedy of a party and a presidency that will argu endlessly and fruitlessly about basic, incontestable facts is a truly terrible sign of the corrosive nature of this man and his machine."  

Well, he has a lot of help.  

Since he came down the escalator in Trump tower in 2015, announcing his run for the White House, he has been the primary subject of media coverage.  And what he gets is a very carefully edited version that cleans up the language, ignores the dementia and the insanity and focuses on the sensational.  Out of office after being defeated by Joe Biden, he got triple the media coverage of the sitting President and I'd bet on that amount before any research showed it.  

Almost every word that comes out of the man's mouth is a lie, an assertion of false claims to support what he wants to do.  Few reporters or commentators bother to fact check, and if they do, his error is never the actual point of the story, though it should be.  Since he got back in office, the list of things the news media is reporting Trump is "planning" to do, including run for a third term, that is illegal or unconstitutional is a long one.  But what most of these reporters don't seem to know, from their own lack of intellect, or from the poor education they received, is that he can't do any of it.  But they treat it like he's somehow going to get it done. And that, of course, increases ratings and makes money.  

And I have to wonder about the personal morality, convictions, educational level and intellectual ability of many of the reporters and commentators who, when discussing Trump on almost a daily basis, leave out the fact that the man is simply a despicable human being, a walking moral and ethical vacuum, incapable of demonstrating humanity.  That never factors into any of the thousands of reports about Trump running constantly all the time every day. 

We seem to ignore the fact that we cannot take American democratic values for granted.  We've had some real creeps, like Rush Limbaugh, who, in their greed-driven quest for a money-making niche, did their dead level best to take out their hatred and contempt for American values and the American people on its government and constitution, undermining the necessary element of trust, in order for it to work the way the founders designed it.  Rush made it easy for people to avoid hearing truth they don't like or that doesn't fit with their own preferences by simply turning the channel to one that will lie to them in exchange for ratings and the money that goes with them. 

How Do We Fix This? 

It will take decades to eliminate the factors that have led the voters of the United States to abandon their democratic republic, if they can even be eliminated at all.  Trump's ability to get elected depends on multiple factors, including more than a third of the eligible electorate not even being registered to vote, and another big percentage of them remaining at home instead of voting.  It also depended, to a large degree the second time, on an awful lot of illegal and underhanded voter suppression and some outright cheating to steal the election, something we have known was coming, because it is all he has ever talked about, for eight years.  

The Donald Trump that his MAGA base follows doesn't exist.  Everything he said or did to convince people to vote for him was a lie, but even if you show them the evidence, their will not to believe the truth overpowers reality.  I see it now in the eyes of people who have been caught up in the MAGA cult as they realize nothing on which they were basing their opinion or their vote was true or real, that it was all a lie and that he would say or do anything to create the impression he wanted based on to whom he was talking.  He claimed he knew nothing about Project 2025, didn't know what it was and certainly would not make any of it part of his agenda.  But he appointed its authors to his cabinet and every executive order he has issued is following its agenda as closely as possible.  I now see a few people who are waking up to this fact, regretting their vote and ashamed of their lack of awareness.  

How does that get fixed?  Ignorance is one of those problems of humanity that leads to disaster.  

Nobody trusts the government.  Why should they?  Trump committed the crime of sedition by inciting an insurrection against the Capitol, and the justice department was stymied by its own rules, unable to bring the criminal to trial for more than four years.  That's a sign of systemic corruption that will take a revolution to eliminate.  

Democrats may never have the chance to fix it.  At the root of the problem is a totally corrupted and bribed Supreme Court.  But old school politics prevented action when Democrats last had a senate majority, and could have broken the filibuster to amend the judiciary act and pack the Supreme Court with judges who would override the corruption and do things like eliminate the Citizens United decision, shutting down PACS and limiting political contributions.  Making justices abide by ethics would be another action on that list.  

In fact, overturning virtually every decision this Roberts court has made would be a good start.  

Unfortunately this will also require making some permanent constitutional changes.  The founders felt the electorate would never allow an immoral, unethical criminal to be elected to public office so they left it up to the electorate, which has done it at least twice now.  There must now be requirements added to the list of qualifications to serve in public office that include not having been adjudicated as a felon for anything, not just crimes committed while in office, in order to be eligible to run.  

There is no fix for a corrupted, apostate church.  It will have to fall in on itself and reorganize who and what it stands for before it can be of value to the culture.  Evangelicals have lost the ability, and the right, to preach to us.  The best thing we can do is leave all that alone and let it collapse in upon itself, and let it happen.  In the long run, their numbers aren't enough to do any damage anyway. 

And it's time for another era of school reform, mandating more time be spent by students in academic studies involving social studies concepts.  In addition to increasing the social studies course requirements for graduation, including at the university level, is a necessity.  There are some specific points students should have to know before they get a diploma or degree.  There is also nothing wrong with using schools as a platform to teach common values to students and to advocate for social reform, things like, oh, I don't know, diversity, equity and inclusion.  That produced the most effective era of politics in American history, and we survived World War 2 as a result of it.  

I do not expect the damage to be repaired during my lifetime.  We are not even close to being on the road to getting rid of the problem, and won't be if we follow constitutional law, and limit our efforts to get Trump out of the White House to having him declared insane, impeached or win the mid-terms, nullify him and let his term expire in defeat.  

 

Buyer Beware: A Disturbing Pattern is Rising Among Those Wanting to be Trump Opposition Leaders

The contest for those aspiring to be leaders of the Democratic party opposition to Trump seems to include using the fact that he is an existential threat to American Democracy as a means to raise large sums of money.  As I was reading and responding to emails I received today, I found no less than five such requests from individual members of Congress, all claiming to be spearheading the effort to oppose the unconstitutional, authoritarian approach of the Trump administration, to being loud voices against what he's doing, and needing money for the effort, of course.  

That's in addition to appeals for money I keep getting from the Harris-Walz campaign, which I supported with a larger monthly contribution than I usually make, due to the shorter nature of the campaign, and to appeals from the Democratic National Committee, claiming to be fighting for American Democracy and against Trump, but not providing any specifics about what they are actually doing or where that money is going.  I'm on a fixed and limited income, so I am careful where I contribute, and right now, the sum total of what I gave to the DNC and to the Harris-Walz campaign each month now goes to Josh Weil and Gay Valimont, the Democrats running for the open Congressional seats in Florida, and until this week, to Blake Gendebien in New York, running to replace Elise Stefanik, who is staying in place for the time being. 

I'm disturbed by the number of individuals collecting money by claiming to be the voice of opposition to Trump among Democrats, who all seem to be at cross purposes when it comes to what they're doing.  Making noise in Congress, or loud, angry speeches in the media isn't going to cut it, as far as I'm concerned.  With a 29% approval rating in the polls, a sell-out vote for cloture in the Senate to help Republicans avoid a government shutdown, and no apparent visible progress at all being made by the DNC, anywhere, I'm not inclined to waste my contribution.  

After the special election, it will go to Bernie and AOC, who seem to have a handle on rallying opposition that is growing large enough fast enough to be effective.  And they are looking at this, not from a partisan perspective, but from the perspective that the biggest threat to the United States as the world's leading democracy is its own President.  They are uniting everyone who sees that to be the case, not just carving out a niche of the Democratic party that will, in the long run, have zero effectiveness. 

I think everyone ought to be getting together on this, and joining in those efforts, instead of raising money to run their own show.  But here we are, the Democratic party, which always has trouble with its messaging, caused by the temptation to go in too many directions at once, faced with the greatest threat to our freedom and our Constitutional democracy that we have seen since the Civil War, and World War 2, going in too many directions at once, and using the threat more as an opportunity to fulfill personal ambitions than to actually do something effectively opposing Trump. 

The man with the singularly focused message is 83 year old independent Senator Bernie Sanders. Behind him, with the same, simple message, is Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who was part of the united opposition to the continuing resolution by House Democrats.  Together, they are putting together organized opposition to Trump that is resonating with people, and motivating them to action, which is exactly what is needed now.  Without the ability to use the constitutional tools at our disposal to remove this President from office, the next best way to stop him is to mount enough public opposition to put the fear of God into him, and it's becoming clear that Bernie and AOC are doing exactly that.  

It's getting to some Republican members of Congress, too, who are a little closer to the action.  Ask Arizona Congressman Juan Ciscomani, who just witnessed a rally of 25,000 people in his district, why his tune has become much more moderate and much less MAGA over the past month and a half.

Hear This From a Contributing, Committed, Lifelong Democrat

If the opposition to Trump is diluted by individual political ambitions of Democrats wanting to use this as an opportunity to fundraise for themselves, then we're doomed, and we will never see opposition to Trump amount to anything.  We are also setting ourselves up for a mid-term election defeat that we cannot afford to have happen.  There are many independent voters, and even a few Republicans, who have been awakened and alarmed by what they never believed they would see, and believed the lies that Trump didn't know anything about Project 2025, and that if he were elected, everyone would become prosperous by giving more to the billionaires.  

The MAGA base is unsalvageable from its own stupidity and ignorance, but there are a lot of Trump voters who are now having buyers remorse, and who wish they had been better informed or not so easily duped by his lies who will be singular in their focused opposition to Trump.  I'll say this again, to make the point.  The greatest enemy of the United States of America at this time in its history is its own President.  We will stand beside you as you lead us to rid this country of that enemy threat.  

I'm past hearing angry speeches and listening to sales pitches about the effectiveness of an individual's campaign for a congressional seat in a state where I don't even live.  I'm going with those who are taking the risks and making the bold moves to bolster opposition that will neutralize this existential threat, and I have no interest at all in helping to advance someone's political ambitions.  Those need to be set aside because there is something much more important that should be a priority.  

The things that we value, starting with diversity, equity and inclusion, protecting the rights of all Americans, all of the freedom of conscience issues which we so ardently support, will be just fine as long as we secure American democracy and protect and defend the constitution.  Democrats must be focused on the single issue of saving the country from this constitutional crisis.  Step forward, I'll follow, and if the elected politicians won't lead, we'll find leaders, among the people, who will.  

Democrats Have a Lot to Consider, and Better Do It Quickly

Polling data was released by a couple of the major networks last week which showed that the favorability rating of the Democratic party in Congress had fallen to 29%, down from 47% just before election time.  In one poll, it was as low as 27%.  

Question one is, of course, how accurate are these polls?  You're reading the words of one who no longer trusts the media to be honest, whose confidence in the ability and knowledge of many of those who work as journalists, including editors and pollsters, is quite low, considering the almost complete lack of civics education many of them exhibit publicly.  The conclusion is that they may be a reasonably accurate reflection of those who were polled, though what is actually being asked by the pollsters seems a bit vague and nebulous.  

Question two is, if the data is close to an accurate reflection of public opinion, how did it fall so fast, and, considering what we are facing, what is being done to change that perspective.  

Some Democrats Are Upset With Their Own Party Following the Narrow Loss in the 2024 Election

The manner in which the polls express this "approval" is not a simple mathematical formula, saying that if 29% of those in the poll approve of the Democrats in Congress, then 71% of those in the poll will go out and vote Republican in the next election.  Among the 71% who aren't approving are Democrats who want to see something different than they are seeing in their party's reaction to Trump.  I'd put myself in that category, especially if I'd responded to the poll after the vote was taken on the CR.  But even before then, it seemed that they just couldn't get on message, or respond in a way that looked or sounded like it might be effective.  

Noting that the other party's numbers are similar, and Congress' job approval rating has been in the toilet for a long time still does not relieve the Democratic party leadership, whoever that might be now, of the responsibility they have to their constituents.  We did not put them there to do nothing.  And I think the even more powerful message in this polling data is that we didn't put them there to do what they are doing.  

I think it's pretty simple, really.  

We are for the preservation of American democracy.  We believe in the Constitution and we support the rule of law.  And that means we are opposed to every word, and every deed, of the current President.  We have come to a point in our history where the biggest threat to the existence of the United States as the world's leading democracy is its own President.  This President, the incompetent cronies he has installed in his cabinet, and the members of the Republican party in Congress and in the judiciary who support him, are a real and active threat to the American Republic, its Constitution, and the idealism it has stood up to support over the course of its existence.  They are also a threat to me, personally, to my life and the lives of those I love.  

Those within the Democratic party who are still passively responding to all of this, thinking they can still conduct business as usual and at some point, this will all go away and everything will return to normal, are as much of a threat to all of those things as this President himself.  

Change must come, and action must be right behind, or what we have will be irretrievable.  We can no longer afford interminable court delays by a reticent and incompetent attorney general, dithering over whether the filibuster is worth saving or not, or debating over whether giving the Republicans everything they wanted in a bill they authored without consulting a single Democrat is a better option than letting the government shut down as a consequence of something the other party did, and then fussing over who will get the blame.  

Remove the Words "Work Together" From the Political Vocabulary

It is not possible to achieve ends that benefit the American people by "working together" with the Republican party.  Perhaps, at one time, prior to, oh, let's say, 1980, that was a possibility, and there might have been some rare moments since then when some good, though not the best resolution to the problem, could be achieved.  But that is in the past, as George Washington's warning about the devastation and ruin that political partisanship can cause has come to pass with a vengeance.  The level of greed, selfish ambition and self-interest that has infected this country goes well beyond any protection the founding fathers had the foresight to include in the Constitution.  That requires anyone still interested in preserving the rule of Constitutional law, and democratic idealism to stand firm without compromise to defend it.  

It is not possible to "work together" with criminals who blatantly violated the law, and got away with it.  The Republicans are supporting a man who instigated a seditious insurrection against the United States, who made off with classified documents that he most likely either did sell for money, or intended to do so, and whose own lack of self control led him to commit crimes against other persons, most notably raping of women.  There is absolutely nothing he can say or do, except to resign from office and beg for forgiveness from the American people, on his hands and knees in humiliation, offering restitution, that should be worthy of our attention.  "Working together" with his supporters is to be complicit in their crimes. 

Use Every Constitutional Means to Remove This Criminal From Office

How it is that the President of the United States is a convicted rapist, and has so far managed to evade indictments for sedition and insurrection, and for stealing classified documents?  It's because our justice system has been corrupted.  And there are those who think that because this is so, it will not ever be possible to bring someone like Trump to justice.  

I'm no lawyer, and depend on the same experts most other people depend on to interpret the law, but as a history major in college, one of the courses I took, in American judicial history, was fascinating.  Things that people thought were impossible, looking at "public opinion," transpired through a combination of lawyers and judges with convictions and expertise figuring out how to make justice happen when it appeared there was no justice to be had.  I'm not saying thi, but so what? 

I think we are on the verge of seeing public pressure push Elon Musk out s is completely dependable, but every avenue in this area must be tried.  That'll make some people madof the White House and away from Washington politics.  Having protesters descend on Tesla dealerships and stop potential sales at a time when the stock value is dropping like a stone in a well is starting to cause him some real problems.  I'm not in favor of those who want to vandalize by starting fires or destroying property.  Those who are simply not buying Teslas are having a real effect on his bottom line and I'm betting it won't be long before he tells Trump to get someone else to do his dirty work. 

And there are still the open doors to forcing this President to resign from office, or impeaching and removing him, or having him declared incapacitated.  Speculation is that because of Republicans simply refusing to acknowledge facts, these doors are closed.  But I don't think they are.  They try to look good on the surface, but the stress of this week's gigantic mistake, disclosing war plans to a journalist inadvertently has an awful lot of fingers being pointed at where the incompetence was and where the blame should go.  This bumbling bunch of incompetents that he has picked for these positions can't do the jobs they have, and these kinds of mistakes are going to keep happening, hopefully not in a way that severely disables or damages the country.  

And among this group, that lack of trust is already undermining the Presidency. 

If Democrats Want Political Success, They Need to Get On Board With Us

Look at who's getting the attention of voters, and motivating and giving voice to dissent among Trump's opponents.  It is not the Democratic party establishment.  Its Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Tim Walz, and J. D. Pritzker.  Its Jamie Raskin and Eric Swalwell.  To a lesser extent, its Chris Murphy and Wes Moore.  Three governors, three members of the House and two Senators, none of whom are establishment Democrats. All who were in Congress voted against the Republican-authored Continuing Resolution, and in the Senate, against cloture. 

These Democrats are committed to listening.  

The opportunity to gather enough support to take back control of Congress when the Mid-term elections roll around in 2026 is going to depend on Democrats getting out of their own brand of rigid institutional politics and trying to sell that to people who suddenly seem to have awakened to the fact that Trump is planning to do everything he said he would do, and is implementing Project 2025 almost word for word despite his denial of knowing anything about it.  Democrats must find a message that resonates with those of us who know Trump is a pathological liar, and is incapable of doing anything to protect and defend the Constitution he despises.  

And we need a Democratic party that is committed to taking action when it is warranted and needed, and taking the risks that go along with it, instead of worrying about what they are doing appearing to be "political."  Frankly, that's a label that can't be avoided now.  We need a party that is willing to pay the cost of boldness, understanding that while it may not be fair that a House member loses their seat in a relatively conservative district for taking a stand to do something that's right, it is not a sacrifice made in vain.  

 

Putting a Low Value on Truth, Evangelical Leaders Embracing Trump's "Spiritual Advisor" Deny Their Own Convictions

Paula White-Cain is Trump's appointee to lead whatever he calls his White House religious liaison.  He calls her his "spiritual advisor," rather than his "pastor", but he clearly accords her, and her heretical, pseudo-Christian preaching a high place in his world.  This is just one more humiliating frustration Trump's right wing sycophants among the conservative Evangelical heretics of the United States must accept in order to play by his rules and catch whatever scraps fall off the table for them.  

If it is difficult to figure out why it is that these well known evangelists and pastors are so willing to completely abandon Christian orthodoxy in order to be seen with Trump, well, it's not that hard to figure out, really.  It's money.  

If you were scratching your head, figuring out how it was that Samaritan's Purse showed up at some disaster, pretty close to the front of the line, it's not because they are so spiritual, their desire to help is greater than their fear of danger.  It's that Samaritan's Purse gets a gigantic check in the neighborhood of $80 million from FEMA to provide disaster relief services.  It's pretty simple, really.  There is no way they could provide the scope of the services they do without that assistance, and it was during the Trump administration, back prior to 2020, that they first started using Samaritan's Purse to help out.  

And of course, Samaritan's Purse won't be among those whose federal checks are being slashed to save money to give tax breaks to billionaires.  Franklin Graham has been a loyal Trump sycophant, setting aside his Christian convictions to join the world of denial and apostasy in order to benefit from the support he delivers to Trump.  It's always a quid pro quo with these kinds of "evangelists" who peddle a diluted and distorted form of the Christian gospel for money. 

A Direct Smack in the Face to Conservative Evangelical Pastors Who Support Trump 

One of these days, news headlines will be talking about some overweight Southern Baptist pastor whose head exploded from the frustration and angst he's had to hold back and not speak up in order not to appear critical of Trump.  These guys have given up the entire core foundation of the Christian gospel to give their unqualified support to a man who hates their faith and shows his contempt for it by humiliating preachers, making them keep their convictions to themselves while he demonstrates loud and clear that he has no respect for Christianity and no intention of accepting a genuine, Evangelical conversion experience.  

There are two specific points where Trump's choice of a spiritual advisor, which left out all of the sycophants from conservative Evangelicalism, goes completely against conservative Evangelical convictions.  One is the fact that in conservative Evangelicalism, especially in the United States, women are not permitted in the pastorate.  They cannot be ordained as ministers, and cannot serve in any capacity that even resembles spiritual leadership.  Churches that have women on staff relegate them to pre-school, children's ministry and mission support groups and ladies circles.  They do not teach Sunday school classes with men in them, nor can they lead worship or preach from behind the church's "sacred desk."  

So Trump's choice of an ordained woman, who calls herself a "prophetess," is, by the conservative Evangelical definition, a serious departure from Biblical truth.  This is something that causes denominations to break fellowship with churches who do this, but don't expect any courage like that to come from spineless Evangelical Trumpies.  

The other is that Paula White is, by every conservative, Evangelical definition of the word, a theological and doctrinal heretic.  Her emphasis on the exercise of prophetic, miraculous "spiritual gifts" is, in Evangelical theology, a completely backward approach to the Christian gospel.  Her belief that revelation continues to come from God, via practices such as speaking in tongues, which can supercede biblical revelation is directly in opposition to conservative Evangelican beliefs that the Bible is the sole authority for Christian faith and practice, and is without error and infallible.   While there are those in the Pentecostal branch of conservative Evangelicalism that accept miraculous sign gifts, the idea that revelation is ongoing, and that only a few select "prophets" are qualified to interpret it is heresy.     

She has been labelled a cultist by many of those in the Evangelical churches and denominations, and is considered as a false prophet.  But she was chosen by Trump to be his spiritual advisor, precisely because that's the kind of theology that doesn't require accountability or repentance.  And while I can't name a single Evangelical denomination that would not consider her a heretic and a cultist, I haven't heard any Evangelical leaders fuming or griping about her being chosen, again, to lead the White House faith liaison office, like so many of his right wing religious sycophants want to do.  

Trump clearly has no respect or consideration for the beliefs and convictions of his Evangelical supporters, and he is clueless when it comes to what his Evangelical supporters believe and value. If he had any respect for them at all, other than seeing them as a vote delivering machine, he would have picked someone like Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas, or even Franklin Graham, who has a known name and pedigree among the conservative, Evangelical community.  

But they, are also making a clear choice.  They are demonstrating that their loyalty to Trump runs deeper than their loyalty to Jesus Christ or the Christian gospel.  They are willing to set aside principles and convictions that they have used, in the past, to define who they are and what they claim to believe, in order to stay on the Trump train, and that makes them pseudo-Christian hypocrites.  Most Evangelicals will not recognize or identify churches that call women to the ordained ministry, or that believe in continuous revelation as Christian, and will not fellowship or work with them, believing them to be deluded and influenced by modern culture.  But those who are caught up in Trump's right wing extremism are willing to abandon these core beliefs.  

Confusing Right Wing Politics With Christian Doctrine Creates a Powerful Delusion

The gospel writer Matthew records Jesus saying, "Enter through the narrow gate.  For wide is the road and broad is the gate that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.  But small is the gate and narrow is the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. [Matthew 7:13-14]  Relying on one's own efforts to be "religious," and being self-righteous doesn't cause convictions and beliefs to run deep.  Depending on outward appearances and religious rituals are the result of a Christian expression that is built on intellectual adherence to a set of doctrines and beliefs, rather than dependence on the actual practice of convictions that are produced by genuine conviction and belief.  

There are a lot of people who have found that the loose structure and lack of a system of accountability and responsibility that is afforded by the independent and autonomous nature of most of Evangelicalism is a quick and easy way to make money and use it to enhance personal power and influence.  That kind of power was one of the temptations of Jesus, according to the gospel narrative, symbolic of what is a very common human temptation.  Among conservative Evangelicals, there are a lot of Kings, like Paula White, who are the absolute rulers of their "kingdoms." usually megachurches where their word as pastor is unquestioned.  

Jesus, and the Apostles in the first century, went to great lengths to distinguish the Christian gospel as a lifestyle, with values motivated by conviction, not by intellectual assent to a set of doctrines, or driven by fear and superstition, nor as an instrument or tool of government for political control and civil obedience.  Nor was there ever any intention to repeat or re-establish the old Jewish theocracy, as many of those who lived in Judea and Galilee at the time envisioned, a conquering Messiah who would throw out the Romans and re-establish David's throne.  Jesus made it clear that the "Kingdom" he would establish, as an heir to David's throne himself, would be a spiritual one, not a military empire.

The Apostle Paul said, "They perish because they refuse to love the truth and so be saved.  For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion, so that they will believe the lie, and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth."  [2  Thessalonians 2:11] 

The Apostle Jude warned church leaders to be on the lookout for intruders whose purpose was to subvert the Christian church.  

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

What White believes and preaches is that riches, wealth and prosperity are signs of God's blessings, a quid pro quo, if you will, that he provides in exchange for righteous behavior.  Connected to that is the idea that America was founded as a Christian nation, and that it is the world's richest and most powerful country as a direct result of God's blessing, provided based on its collective righteousness.  But that collective righteousness is being threatened, in their minds, by liberalism.  Because we have legalized abortion, and allow same-sex marriage, and do not jail and execute transgendered persons God is going to remove our prosperity.  And so, it takes a move toward dependence on government to force the unrighteous to get in line and stop endangering everyone else's ability to get rich.  

But there are no such quid pro quos in the Christian gospel.  Redemption, or salvation, which is the result of Christian conversion, does not result in a guarantee of financial wealth and prosperity.  The list of what it does result in can be found in Matthew 5:3-11.  It's a lifestyle that, if genuinely applied and lived out, is visible by the values it produces.  

Wealth and power are powerful delusions.  It's not so hard to see why Trump prefers this kind of spiritual advisor.

An Easter Gift For Those Who Have Absolutely Lost Their Mind

Baptist News Global: Trump's Faith Advisor Selling Seven Easter Blessings for a $1,000 Gift

It is impossible to reconcile the sincere and genuine practice of the Christian faith with support for Trump and his right wing extremist politics that includes the Christian Nationalist agenda of Project 2025.  The two things are not philosophically or morally compatible.  

The object of worship in Christianity is Jehovah, the God revealed by Jesus, the Christ, as the creator and sustainer of the universe.  He is to be worshipped with all of our heart, soul and mind, our entire being.  We are also to worship God by loving our neighbors as ourselves, because they are his highest creation.  Jesus equated these two commandments as "the greatest."  

The object of worship in Trump's far right wing politics is money.  Everything is measured by its financial value, and everything he does is to increase the amount of it that he has.  Any labor not devoted to generating a profit is, in his mind, futile.  

There are thousands of Evangelical pastors and church leaders Trump could have chosen to run the White House faith office, and be his "spiritual advisor."  If he believed in and followed the Christian gospel, he would join a local church and that pastor would become his spiritual advisor.  But, other than getting the votes of those Christians who have been duped and deceived into following him, Trump despises Christianity and denies any personal need for it.  He has chosen, instead of a Christian who expresses belief in Biblical doctrine, a prosperity gospel heretic who sees American Evangelicalism as a chance to make a buck off of the ignorance and superstition of the prosperity gospel she preaches.  

Every prayer she utters, every "blessing" she gives has a financial value attached to it.  It's not hard to see why Trump is attracted to her and rejects traditional Christian practice.  She worships money, too, and has developed a system for making a profit off religion.  Blessings have a financial cost to them, in her world.  And that's what resonates with Trump.  

His Choice of White as Spiritual Advisor Makes Hypocrites and Liars Out of Evangelicals who Support Him

One of the core doctrines of conservative Evangelicals is that women cannot be pastors and cannot be in a position in the church where they have any authority over men.  The largest Evangelical denomination in the United States, the Southern Baptist Convention, has recently taken the step of dismissing churches from its membership if they have a woman on their ministerial staff who is serving as, and designated as a pastor.  It is such a hard line doctrinal point with them that they do not believe Christian churches who have designated a ministry role in their church for someone they call "children's pastor" or "youth pastor" or "teaching pastor" believe the Bible or are practicing true faith.  And they are kicked out of denominational cooperation.  

But because Trump has made White, a self-proclaimed "prophetess" his spiritual advisor, many of them have had to hold back their criticism and judgment.  They are so sold out, and so far out of the Christian fold at this point that they are willing to be silent, and not be critical.  Inwardly, I know some of them personally, and they are seething, but of course, they are too spineless to stand up for their own traditions and beliefs.  

Peddling the Gospel For A Buck, er ah a Thousand Bucks is Blasphemous 

Let's cut to the chase.  White is a heretic.  She knows nothing of the Christian gospel.  Blessings cannot be sold for a profit, they are free for the asking.  Peddling the gospel by convincing people they can pay money for blessings instead of following the Christian path to a conversion experience by being convicted of sin, repentance and trusting God to restore the relationship is blasphemy and at least one of the Apostles in the New Testament, Paul, says so.  John says that one who denies he has sin is lying, and the truth is not in him.  And, he later uses the term "antichrist" to define the behavior.  

So, here we have, for those who want to see it, a demonstration of the fact that Christianity is not compatible with Trumpism.  

How a Conservative, Evangelical Denomination Handles Allegations of Sexual Abuse by Church Leaders

They gripe about how much money the legal fees are costing them.  They hide behind their denominational "polity," one in which they claim there is no central ecclesiastical connection or authority that allows the denominational leadership, which consists of an elected President, two vice-presidents and a recording secretary, along with an executive board made up of representatives from the various state bodies of the denomination, to have authority over any individual church, because the churches are all independent, and autonomous, and affiliate voluntarily with the denomination.  

But as far as the abuse itself goes, well, they don't seem to be interested in how to stop it from happening.  And they have not lifted a finger or made any effort at all to provide ministry support to the victims.  If we look at the way they have handled this particular issue, it can be described as anything but Christian.  

I'm talking about the largest Evangelical denomination in the United States, the Southern Baptist Convention.  An expose done by the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express News several years ago, led to an uproar at the annual meeting, or convention, where representatives known as "messengers" elected by the 45,000 independent, autonomous churches affiliated with the denomination, conduct their annual business.  

The expose was prompted by complaints from victims advocates, including a group led by former abuse victim Christa Brown, known as Stop Baptist Predators, that in spite of hearing multiple reports of sexual abuse by Southern Baptist clergy, the denomination was either burying the evidence, or hiding behind "local church autonomy" as a way of refusing to acknowledge an deal with the problem. The messengers over-rode vote thresholds design to protect a very narrow and elite group of hand-picked leaders and demanded a full investigation be conducted.  

Though the investigation by the two newspapers covered just cases of sexual abuse by pastors, youth ministers and some denominational employees, like missionaries and seminary professors, that had already been adjudicated, and was limited to some 700 such cases in just a few states, there was an outpouring of reports of cases across the denomination, including discovery of a file of reports being kept secret by one of the executive board members, on the grounds that the denomination has no control over what happens in its independent, and autonomous congregations.  

However, though they claim no ecclesiastical connection or control exists, the denomination's elitist group of leaders, known as the "conservative resurgence," from a movement to gain control of its officers and executive board dating back to 1979, have exercised extremely tight control over the theological and doctrinal beliefs of those independent, autonomous churches, demanding almost lock-step agreement with every point of a statement known as the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.  Most recently, they have kicked churches out of the denomination for giving a position with the title of "pastor" to women.  

So it is both deceitfully inconsistent and shamefully deceptive to claim that there is nothing the denominational leadership can do about sexual abuse in its churches.  The messengers, representing those churches, demanded a list of things and the response from the leadership, predictably, was every possible way of resistance, and offering up every thinkable excuse for why it could not be done.  The whole process had to be taken out of the hands of the elitists in the leadership cult, and actions forced on them by the messengers, and by hiring outside counsel, rather than allowing the insiders to pick their own lawyers to conduct the investigation.  

Predictably, there has been all kinds of hollering, complaining, whining, fussing and bucking against any action taken to investigate sexual abuse in the denomination.  And also predictably, these power-brokers, mostly white men, have launched verbal attacks and abuse and made accusations against the victims in the cases that became known publicly.  

It would be consistent, in a denomination that claims it is among the more righteous, and theologically and doctrinally correct of all Christians, because of their view of the Bible, to spend resources on helping victims recover, on their comfort and on their emotional, spiritual and physical well-being.  But those kinds of gracious acts of ministry, which are consistent with the beliefs and teachings of Christianity, have been the one thing in this whole mess that has been deliberately and carefully avoided.  Those who moved to use denominational resources for this kind of ministry after all of this was revealed have been hounded, criticized and driven out of the denomination.  

That tells you just how Christian, or not Christian, is the leadership of this denomination.  

What's the big issue?  The money that has been spent on legal fees as a result of opening up an investigation and finding, predictably, a denomination whose leadership did everything it could to cover up and hide the abuse that was going on and to protect some of the abusers who were found among prominent leaders. The headlines in denominational publications, and from their own Baptist Press are complaints about the costs of the investigation that the messengers "wrongly" pushed on the denomination.  

Well, they're the ones paying the bills.  They have the right to decide where they are going to spend it.  

And during all of the time that this investigation was going on, and messengers were facing decisions about how to go about getting it done, a faction within the denomination was planning to pass an amendment to its constitution that would exclude churches with women serving in any capacity as a "pastor."  So women in this denomination not only need to fear for their physical safety, but they are also not welcome to share in the leadership of churches that, if it were not for their work and support, would likely no longer exist. 

This Goes Hand in Hand With Evangelical Acceptance of Right Wing Extremism as Doctrine

The Southern Baptist Convention's membership and attendance peaked at 16.2 million in 2006, and plateaued for several years, before beginning a sharp decline in 2015.  Since then, the annual membership losses have frequently exceeded 400,000, and the total membership has now gone below the 13 million mark for the first time since the early 1960's.  The number of people showing up for worship in the churches, which has always lagged behind membership, has dropped from its peak of 6 million in 2006 to a post-Covid recovery of just under 4 million.  

As the denomination and its leadership have become more deeply engaged and involved in right wing extremism, more members have walked out the door, to worship in churches that don't have a political mission and purpose.  There are even some Southern Baptists, along with some other Evangelicals, who are also experiencing a numerical membership crash, who are starting to recognize that since Trumpism is not compatible with Christianity, churches where the former is the primary focus are seeing their members leave in droves. 

Sexual abuse is a symptom of this intrusion of right wing extremism.  No religious convictions are capable of overcoming temptations to exercise a level of power over others who are more vulnerable.  Sexual scandals abound in American churches, where the Catholics have paid dearly for a decades-long sexual abuse scandal by their clergy.  The incidents in the Southern Baptist denomination, per-capita, are approaching the numbers the Catholic church has had to deal with.  Both groups have had a problem finding ways to minister to the victims. 

The Christian gospel is not compatible with any of the precepts of Trumpism, especially now that it has incorporated the draconian, unAmerican, anti-Christian Project 2025 as its agenda.  

How Much Time Do We Have?

 Holding Out for a Hero: Democrats Need Bold, Fearless, Risk Taking Leadership Now

The last four years have been a political roller-coaster ride.  I'm a loyal Democrat, I'm active in politics and my educational background includes American history, civics, economics and political science.  So I am informed and stay informed and can discern the truth.  

And I'm going to emphasize the fact that I'm a loyal Democrat once again, because I want to drive home the point that what I'm saying here isn't idle bashing or criticism based on candidate preference.  It's the reality that we are facing in what is now well beyond a constitutional crisis.  The Democratic party is left without unified, solid leadership and that's not intended to sound critical, it's just the way it is, and any other evaluation of the situation is an attempt to put a happy spin on crazy. 

We've had some articulate, forward-thinking, sharp and polished Democrats in the House and Senate who have made some angry speeches, pointing out, accurately and succinctly, the illegal, immoral, crusade of lies that Trump and Musk are using as pretexts to cut the government according to Project 2025 plans, and also pointing out that they have found absolutely no proof for any of their pretexts at all.  The reaction to it, mainly through the judicial branch, is holding back most of the damage for now, though the media keeps clamoring about it as if they know what they are talking about.  There are a lot of reporters and commentators who would get a flat out F minus in my civics class, if what they've reported is based on what they know.  

But there's not been much in the way of resistance or opposition that has formed and is looking for an effective way to stop Trump.  The Democrats are having trouble getting the approval of many of their own supporters and party members, because they aren't unified, and what leadership we have, especially in the Senate, is either too interested in protecting their own interests, power, and influence, or too caught up in playing old politics, long after the Republicans have abandoned civility and compromise as a means of getting things done.  When have we ever heard of members of our party voting to allow a piece of legislation through Congress in which not one single Democrat had input in developing?  

That's not leadership.  

Look Who's Resonating With Democrats, Disaffected Republicans and Independents

The hero of the moment, for the Stop Trump movement, is the 83 year old independent Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders.  Senator Sanders ran for the Democratic party nomination for President twice, and his message hasn't changed.  A year after Trump was elected the first time, he was addressing the opioid crisis in front of packed houses in deep red counties.  He's a truthful populist, and his resilience and the fact that the people of his state have repeatedly placed their trust in him is affirmation of his belief in the American people and his desire, as a politician, to benefit them, not himself.  

I'm going to say something that will make a lot of people angry, but it needs to be said.  If Bernie Sanders had been the Democratic nominee in 2020, and had been in the White House, Donald Trump would now be in prison for the crimes he committed during his first term, especially for inciting an insurrection against the United States.  

That's why he's the one who, along with Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, are drawing the kind of crowds and interest that are surpassing the size of campaign rallies, and is building the kind of popular support, and pressure, that it will take to stop Trump.  That is a big job, given the failure of the GOP to stand up for itself, and their spineless support, which is based on what they are getting out of it.  Democrats in Congress, especially in the Senate, are stuck in their old way of thinking, and a few of them have sold themselves out.  So there's no credibility for a resistance there.  Sanders isn't a Democrat, and AOC is on the House side, where there appears to be a bit more in the way of unity.  

I'm almost convinced that if Bernie had been the nominee in 2016, Trump would never have been elected.  He brings working class support and credibility in his message that, united with moderate to liberal Democrats, would have swamped Trump and maybe even picked up a couple of red states, in addition to solidifying the blue wall.  

Among the resistance to Trump, they are getting attention.  We know the other groups are out there, and organizing, but they sure don't show the kind of momentum Sanders and AOC are showing.  The only question, really, is whether they will be able to rally the kind of public pressure that will be necessary to break the tiny Republican house majority into enough pieces to put a stop to Trump, toss Musk on the trash heap and perhaps, over time, allow Democracy enough time to hang on until the mid-terms, if that's where the hope now lies in making a change. 

So How Long Do We Really Have? 

I still spend some time watching MSNBC, and a few of their commentators I can still trust.  But even they are prone to put a happier spin on things than the reality which exists.  Attempts to mess with Social Security are going to awaken a sleeping giant and the blowback from that is going to be quite a surprise smash in the face to Trump and Musk, and to the GOP.  Democrats don't seem to have put a lot of effort into helping their candidates, facing special elections to take away GOP seats in Congress, so I don't know if we can count on that.  I sure hope they pull it out but if they do, it will be in spite of the DNC and the party, not because of it.  Too much of that old style politics as usual again.  

Something has to neutralize Trump before the mid-terms roll around, otherwise, the damage might be too big to fix quickly.  My biggest fear is foreign intervention at the point when our enemies think we will be weakest, and they'll know that because Trump or Musk will tell them.  

So I don't know, and won't venture to guess how long we really have before our democracy and Constitution can't be saved.  I know that we need to take every possible step we can now, to try and save it.  

And let's not forget, we had four years to get this job done, including two years up front when we had full control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency.  Four years, to prosecute a criminal for his crimes in a country that claims to be based on the rule of law.  But interminable delays, because of allowances and concessions made to the rich and powerful, in the justice system are not characteristics of a country that respects the rule of law, and taking more than two years to hand down indictments in a crime where the overwhelming evidence was made public within a year of the crimes being committed is unacceptable.  

Had Bernie Sanders been President of the United States in 2020, the Senate filibuster and Democratic party seniority traditions would have fallen by the wayside.  He'd have pushed to pack the court, had five or six liberal justices on the court, there would have been no immunity ruling and they would have taken the insurrection case and brought it to its rightful conclusion before the mid-term elections were held.  And the budget would be balanced, and a good portion of our government debt paid off by now on the 'fair share' of taxes he would have led Congress to levy on the 1% who have 99% of the money.  

Maybe that's AOC's plan.  If it is, she has my vote. 

Risk and Boldness, Not Politics as Usual, Are Required to Stop Trump an Save American Democracy

Ben Rhodes, New York Times: There is a Way for Democrats to Stop Trump and Save America

It was not long after the 2020 election, still very early in Biden's term, that a discussion on a message board caught my eye.  It started with the suggestion that if Trump was screaming so loud, and hollering so long about the 2020 election being "stolen" from him, including the illegal lengths he was willing to go, and the millions he was willing to spend--of other people's money of course--on legal fees to try and turn it his direction, that he might be laying plans to steal the next election.  There was little doubt he was going to make a run for the White House again.  And all of the caterwauling he did, describing exactly how he believed the election was stolen, was a road map to what he and his allies in every single red county in the United States were planning to do to steal the next election.  

But, no worries, said the Democratic party's Washington establishment.  "We're keeping an eye on it."  

We had slim majorities in both houses of Congress, and the Presidency.  Our politicians, including the finally-elected President Biden, declared that Trump was an existential threat to democracy, and set about to assure us that he would be brought to justice, especially for planning and inciting an insurrection, a brutal and potentially fatal and disastrous attack on the United States Capitol, an unprecedented rebellion, based on an outrageous lie.  

In the long standing tradition of making politics move glacially slow, in order to avoid controversy and make it look like government is being productive, Congress was obligated to organize and conduct an investigation into the insurrection.  I'm no lawyer, but I've done a massive amount of reading from multiple legal experts on this particular subject, and there is no explanation forthcoming from the Justice Department as to why it dropped the ball and failed from the outset to do what should have been routine procedure for such a crime, even as Congress was conducting its own investigation.  

President Biden complained to critics who were demanding action that to take such steps against a former political opponent would have "appeared to be politically motivated."  Those were his words.  

And he would have been right.  But he was supposed to be a transitional President, right?  That's what he said, and alluded to on multiple occasions, when he was running.  And he had already declared that Trump was "an existential threat to American democracy."  He was absolutely right about that.  So what if this appeared to be politically motivated?  Doing the right thing would involve ignoring those implications and making sure Trump was removed as an existential threat to American democracy.  

Of course, we know now that Congress was acting virtually alone in conducting a relatively slow-moving investigation into Trump's seditious activities.  The justice department, by the attorney general's own admission, was slow-walking its own investigation, precisely to avoid the appearances of political motivation.  

Frankly, I don't give a damn about appearances.  If they believed Trump was an existential threat to American democracy, they failed to defend that democracy, and the Constitution they took an oath swearing to protect, by the whole manner in which they handled the investigation, the indictments and the monumentally significant failure to get Trump in a court room, in front of a judge and jury, and convicted before the next election rolled around.  That was what they needed to achieve and we know how that turned out.  

Let's be completely honest here.  If Trump succeeds in demolishing American democracy, and he's well on his way to achieving just that, the irresolute inaction and almost complete collapse of will among Democrats will be what enabled this to occur.  It wasn't the "system," it was the willingness of our politicians to let its interminable delays and flaws, mainly built-in to it to protect the privileged from justice, be the factors to blame for their failure to protect American democracy.  

"Well, But, There Wasn't Really Anything We Could Do, You Know, With His Supreme Court Supporting Him and His Judicial Appointees Protecting Him.  

If you believe that, then I have a beach house to sell you in New Mexico, cheap.  

There were voices, among younger, more aggressive Democrats, who exhibited an extensive knowledge of the Constitution, in providing a course of action for the Democratic party to take to end this charade, and prove they really believed Trump was an existential threat to democracy.  Though we had narrow majorities in both houses, the ability existed to break the Senate filibuster, a huge obstacle to democratic action in a republic, and then amend the judiciary act to allow President Biden to appoint enough justices to the Supreme Court to over-ride the conservative majority, neutralize the pig-headed Roberts, and prevent the ridiculous immunity ruling they issued on Trump's behalf.  

That would have been a bold move, but looking at where Trump is headed and what is happening, it was a necessary move.  But Biden didn't want to give up the filibuster, on long standing tradition and principle.  And in hindsight, a majority leader like Schumer wouldn't have gone along with doing it.  They were right in claiming that Trump was an existential threat to American democracy, but they were wrong, dead wrong, in the manner that they chose to deal with that.  I wonder if they really cared.  They have the resources to protect their own interests and cover their rear.  The rest of us are the ones who will suffer under this.  

And that might explain why there wasn't a whole lot of enthusiastic support from voters in November of 2024.  They might have seen Trump as a threat to democracy, but they didn't see Democrats as the best way to deal with it. 

Had the court been packed, the interminable delays brought by Trump's attorneys, and the slow moving, slow walking attorney general involved in prosecuting him for insurrection would have had to move their rear ends.  The motions would have been wiped out in a day, and the trial date would have been set two years before the 2024 Presidential election.  A two year delay in prosecution should be absolutely rejected as gross judicial inefficiency by the American people.  If we ever get control of government again, progressives need to blow up the justice system and start over.  

So what the Biden administration will become known for will not be the string of legislative accomplishments it achieved during those first two years.  It will be for the failure to bring the nation's most notorious, dangerous, criminal and enemy to justice, and for facilitating and setting up his re-election to the White House.

A Paper Tiger

In the post from the New York Times, by Ben Rhodes, that I linked above, he interviewed several immigrants from countries where democracy had failed, and had been set up for oligarchy.  One of them, from Turkey, said this, which really captured my attention: 

"As a citizen, you feel like this country was a paper tiger.  All those institutions we believed would stop this sense of insanity didn't even exist.  There is shame that comes from the defeat of a system you've been living in."  

A congressional investigation that dumped mountains of criminal evidence which proved, beyond the shadow of any doubt that Trump organized, planned and helped conduct the insurrection on January 6th was left sitting there, after its completion.  The major part of the hearings, televised to multiple millions of Americans, were damning.  But after it was all over, and the hype ended, and it went out of the news cycle, the justice department remained disconnected.  The case was essentially made for the attorney general and handed to him on a silver platter, and the response was, "no, thank you.  We'll do it our own slow, traditional, non-political way."  

The risks of busting the filibuster, packing the court and getting Trump legally adjudicated as a felonious insurrectionist don't seem to great now, do they?  

An what about the "we're keeping an eye on the election" claims, as the alarm bells rang and the reality of Trump making an attempt to steal the election, which was pretty much right out in the open, told to us by his own supporters who outlined all of their own theories about how 2020 was stolen from them.  They knew where they could go and what they could do, and had systematically made sure that enough of their people were in place to guarantee Trump got just what he needed.  

When the election results came in, and states like North Carolina, Georgia and Pennsylvania began showing almost orchestrated differences in the votes Trump was getting in red counties, just enough to overcome what he didn't get in 2020, I knew that they had stolen the election, and that in spite of the Democratic party rhetoric, about making sure that they were keeping an eye on it, and "Mark Elias will take care of it," they weren't really doing anything about it.  Greg Palast showed us evidence that they tossed enough mail-in ballots on technicalities, which was at the core of their plan, to achieve their narrow victory.  

And what did Democrats do, before this when the warnings were shrill and frequent, and afterward when the evidence was in hand?  

Not what we should have done.  Or what we could have done.

Can the Democrats Protect American Democracy Now? 

"The hard truth is that the Democratic party, in its current form, cannot lead the opposition that is required."  

That's the evaluation of Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national security advisor under the Obama Administration, and a contributing editor to the New York Times.  I've read some of his work before, and he's in a position to know, and be honest about it.  Simple observation shows him to be correct.  Our senate minority didn't have the stomach to do the right thing about the CR.  How in the world are they going to confront the big stuff we know is coming? 

I'm not running through all of these past errors and mistakes to point fingers or be critical.  But we need to learn from them.  The Republicans have the distinct advantage.  They were willing to step outside the boundaries of morality, the rule of law, and the principles that make up American democracy to grab and hold power for their own agenda.  They organized and conducted a destructive, damaging, dangerous insurrection.  We, on the other hand, weren't willing to do the obvious, when we had the chance, and those things that Democrats were being pushed to do were within the law, the boundaries of morality and American idealism.  The founders didn't want a partisan court, and wrote the judiciary act to provide Congress with ways to prevent it.  The court has been both disloyal to the constitution and deliberately immoral and corrupt.  

We had a chance, a real chance, with the special elections occurring on April 1.  But it appears that the action on those has been faltering and irresolute.  So I can see Rhodes' point.  

I'm getting up there in years, dependent on Social Security now, worried about health issues that are starting to catch up with me, and about surviving.  But I'm all in on protecting our democracy and standing up for the values on which this country was founded.  Marching and protesting are fine, making calls and writing emails are fine, too, but if those who have been given public trust by serving in office are more interested in protecting their own interests than they are in protecting democracy and more critically, our freedom of conscience, then I don't need them and I'm not voting for them or supporting them.  

I'm going to end here with one of the best quotes in the piece from Rhodes: 

How are you going to reform how politics works in this country if you won't reform how it works inside your own party?  

You can't build movements without breaking things.  That entails risk.  You will lose some donors, antagonize some interest groups and even alienate some voters.  

But nothing could be riskier than our current course.  This country is being destroyed from within, and what are we talking about?  We don't need a detailed new policy agenda from Democrats that they can't implement now and that most people will never read.  We don't need politicians fanning out as awkward guests on podcasts about sports or conspiracy theories. 

We need authenticity.  We need to know that the party is willing to fight for the things that matter most to people in this country and is unafraid to take on the special interests that are destroying it.  Don't just tell us what program or policy you are for; tell us why you are for it.  Show leadership by letting a new generation ascend.  Look for people like Andy Kim who are showing courage and creativity in communities.  Amplify those voices so there is a resistance that doesn't feel manufactured.  

"How Can You Maintain Your Christian Faith When American Christians Capitulate to the Evil of Trumpism?"

Eugene Schlesinger: 'Therefore God Gave Them Over to the Desires of Their Hearts'

Read the Bible as Subversive Speech Against Empire, Wendell Griffin and Allen Boesak

Baptist News Global: Did Jesus Really Say That?  Lovett Weems

"You should know this, Timothy, that in the last days there will be very difficult times.  For people will love only themselves and their money.  They will be boastful and proud, scoffing at God, disobedient to their parents, and ungrateful.  They will consider nothing sacred.  They will be unloving and unforgiving; they will slander others and have no self-control.  They will be cruel and hate what is good.  They will betray their friends, be reckless, be filled with pride, and love pleasure rather than God.  They will act religious but they will reject the power that could make them godly.  Stay away from people like that! [2 Timothy 3:1-5] 

I get asked, a lot, to explain how it is possible to maintain my Christian faith when so much of conservative, Evangelicalism in the United States has abandoned the core principles of the Christian gospel, to embrace an evil demagogue like Trump.  Can I not see the hypocrisy, the abandonment of core theology and doctrine, the shift in practice?  

Yes, I can.  I saw a lot of that before Trump came along.  The political corruption of American Evangelicals started with their rejection of Jimmy Carter, and embrace of Reagan during the 1980 election campaign.  There were flaws in their theology, doctrine, church polity and practice long before that which made them susceptible to being hijacked.  There's a measure of insecurity, which manifests itself in arrogance and condescension, that blinds them to their own hypocrisy and they have been, as the apostle Paul describes, been sent a "powerful delusion."  

It was my college experience that taught me how to systematically "deconstruct"--for lack of a better term--the mythology and mysticism of conservative Evangelicalism and see Christianity for what it really was, a religion based primarily on the philosophy and teachings of an itinerant Jewish rabbi named Jesus, who happened to be in the lineage of the ancient Israelite King David, and who directly connected his "gospel" to the Jewish theological idea of Messiah, or savior.  His disciples credited him with being the divine son of God, the Messiah himself, and the Christian gospel that he developed and taught out of the remnants of Jewish theology and monotheism as a lifestyle testifying to this spiritual salvation.

"The wisdom of Jesus' teaching is in stark contrast to some current religious language about who and what it is that constitute evil, enemies and demonic powers currently at work in the United States," says Lovett Weems, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Church Leadership at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, DC.  "That stark contrast has led to a conclusion that the way of Jesus 'doesn't work today,' as some put it.  Tragic but true," he adds.  

Dr. Russell Moore, editor of Christianity Today, has encountered conservative, Evangelical church members who identify the teachings of Jesus in the Bible as "liberal talking points."  

"Multiple pastors tell me, essentially, the same story about quoting the Sermon on the Mount, parenthetically, in their preaching--turn the other cheek--and have someone come up after to say, 'where did you get those liberal talking points," Moore said, quoted in an interview published in Newsweek magazine.  

"When the pastor would say, 'I'm literally quoting Jesus,' the response would be 'yes, but that doesn't work any more, that's weak'.  When we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we're in a crisis," Moore concluded.  

We have been in a crisis for quite some time, if that is the case.  The politics and religious beliefs have become indistinguishable, and that is never a good combination.  It was enough, in fact, for Jesus to address it directly, and for two of his apostles, Peter and Paul, to make definitive statements on how Christians were to approach the civil government, to prevent either persecution and intended destruction, or worse, being corrupted.  

Christian Theology is Simple, Evangelicalism is a Legalistic Complication of It

With very little exception, the core of the Christian gospel can be found in two chapters of the gospel account of Matthew.  Chapters 5, 6 and 7 record Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount," which most theological experts believe is a compilation of all of what Jesus preached and taught during the three years he spent, mostly in Galilee, in what is referred to has his public ministry.  Aside from some specific events associated with particular places and times, beginning with the Beatitudes, a description of characteristics defining the practice of a life of faith, along with the blessings they produce, and including careful re-interpretations (You have heard that it was said...but I say to you) of Jewish faith practice, he covers the whole scope of a religious practice based on grace, exercised by faith.  

So, Christianity is a lifestyle, not a set of rules that one must obey in order to achieve conversion or salvation, but a set of virtues and values, recognizing the ancient Jewish creation narrative that humanity is created in the image of God.  At the very core of Jesus' teaching is his declaration that "all of the law and the prophets hang on these two greatest commandments," to love God with all your heart, soul and mind, and to love your neighbor as you love yourself.  

Multiple interpretations, traditions and practices have developed over the 2,000 year history of the Christian church, that have affected what it looks like, dragged it into error and apostasy, used it for political advantage or monetary gain, by emphasizing the fear of hell and punishment over the aspects of God's image being reflected in all human beings.  

Evangelicalism, a more recent development, dating back to the revival movements of the mid to late 1800's mostly in the United States, has developed a system of measuring true Christianity by intellectual assent to a set of specific theological interpretations based on a literal rendering of the biblical text, rather than any consideration of its historical, cultural and social context.  The emphasis is placed on gettting people to engage in a specific theological confession as a means of entering through a spiritual portal into conversion or salvation, and then learning the list of doctrinal acknowledgements that one must believe in order to be Christian.  It's a very legalistic approach, almost completely backward from what Jesus preached and taught.  There is no accountability beyond the local church, and it places a huge amount of authority in the hands of each church pastor.  

Characteristically, some of its congregations are personality cults built around the preaching and teaching of one man, and grow into mega churches, because they are dependent on the preaching style and personality of that pastor, who becomes "the only one" who can lead the church.  And though the role of pastor is supposed to follow the servant leadership model that Jesus said, most Evangelical pastors have authority given to them by the church they lead, and authority that they take for themselves based on the overall theological and doctrinal ignorance of their church members.  

That's what Lovett Weems and Russell Moore have discovered, and pointed out.  The way of Jesus doesn't work, because it undermines the pastor's ability to control what his congregation believes and how it thinks.  The Sermon on the Mount sounds like a bunch of "liberal talking points" to those who aren't able to distinguish between the Christian gospel and the right ring extremism of Trump politics.  It's even more disgusting and disturbing to realize that any of these pastors who have studied in a theological seminary know exactly how the core principles of Jesus, and the basic principles of "wokeness" are completely compatible.  

Maintaining my Faith is a Matter of Keeping it Centered in the Christian Gospel

Whenever this subject comes up, I offer those who can't seem to get away from their ideology a challenge.  Read through Matthew's gospel, chapters 5, 6 and 7.  And then, after reading through them, give a thought to the public words and demeanor of Donald Trump, or one of his MAGA cult followers.  I'll take them out to dinner if they can, legitimately, fine just one similarity which can be proven.  Trump supporters will say anything favorable about Trump whether they see it or not, because he tells so many lies, they can't see them for what they are.  But, being completely honest, the contrast is stark, condemning and accurate.  

The Christian gospel, and the Christian church, are a way of life that is so diametrically opposite the worldliness of Trump, as to make it impossible for them to be compatible.  Several years ago, I dropped using the word "Christian" as a noun, modified by the adjective "Evangelical" and simply call those who have merged their faith with their politics as "Evangelicals," and let that be the noun, because they are not, by definition, Christian.  They are pseudo-Christian in that they have adopted the appearance of Christian faith and practice, but their doctrine makes them a dangerous cult.  And while I'm not in a position to determine the sincerity of anyone's Christian faith, I can point out the clear and stark contrast between genuine Christianity and sincere MAGA Trumpism.  

It isn't possible to be both of those at the same time. 

Christian Nationalism is Rooted in Evangelical Heresies

It's pretty clear that the view of human life and existence expressed by forty different authors of various books of the Bible evolved over the thousands of years of history that is covered by the text.  The Apostles who wrote the New Testament go to great lengths to make it very clear that "love your enemies" meant that genocide, which was a common practice of the time period of its writing, and considered acceptable in the Old Testament, was sin, along with the ethnic and racial hatreds that were also common.  The words of Jesus recorded in the gospels are the criterion by which all Christian doctrine and theology, along with the text of the works of the Apostles in the canon, are interpreted.  

Jesus answers the question of "who is my neighbor," after proclaiming that loving your neighbor as you love yourself is part two of what he considered the "greatest" commandment.  He tells the parable of the good Samaritan, making a positive example out of a member of an ethnic group that was at the top of the Jew's list of most despised and hated people, next to the Romans, of course.  The Apostle Peter has several experiences, each prompted by what he describes as a "spiritual vision," a prompting from God, to cross ethnic and racial barriers and bring the ministry of the Christian gospel to people he had been taught were inferior, and to despise and hate.  

These examples, along with the words of Jesus, are quite different, intentionally, than the examples and practices of the Israelites, recorded in the Old Testament, who believed themselves to be ritually unclean if they came into direct physical contact with a gentile.  And it's one of the grave doctrinal errors made by Evangelicals, who claim belief in the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testament Protestant Canon as "inerrant and infallible."  The fact of the matter is that Jesus clearly replaced the much lower view of humanity found especially in the Old Testament historical record with a much higher one.  And yet, much of what is found in Christian nationalist philosophy is a reference to Old Testament genocide and practice against the pagan populations who lived around Israel.  

It is on this particular point, in fact, where American Evangelicalism parts company from orthodox Christian faith and practice.  Christian nationalists have used "It was God's will" as justification for the annihilation of the native populations of North America, who they condemn because they were "godless heathens" as well as justification for the enslavement of African Americans, claiming that black skin was the mark God put on Cain, Adam's son who murdered his own brother, a story from myth, not history.  

Evangelicals, as Christian nationalists, believe that whatever was necessary to allow white people to take over North American land, and consider it a gift from God for their Christian faithfulness, to be able to exploit the resources of a virgin planet. is justified because it is being done for God, whether that's displacement of the rightful owners of the land, or conquest and destruction of those who get in their way, including eliminating political enemies.  

This is the way that they are leading America.  So if you haven't caught on, and aren't awake to this yet, you need to get there quickly.