Would Trump Have Won the Election With a Campaign to Annex Canada, Occupy Greenland, Take Over Panama and Rename the Gulf of Mexico?

It would be difficult to speculate, with the American electorate in such a condition as it is now, lied to by the media, wrapped up in one specific, one-sided media bubble or another, without a lot of facts from which to discern what's true, as to whether Trump's sudden recurring, repeated themes, which have deviated considerably from the attacks on transgendered persons, and exaggerations of the President's ability to control retail prices, would have been winning campaign themes.  People are so ignorant, stupid and blind to reality, all they see is the name, "Trump," and he gets their vote.  

So this craziness, which would be funny if it were part of a skit on Saturday Night Live, but instead is dangerous and fearsome because the senile old man who spouts it off as if it were a recording being replayed over and over is about to enter the most powerful political office in the world, is being treated by the news media with as much of a straight face as they can muster.  It's business as usual, as far as they are concerned, and if the topics sound like a comedy routine from a late night variety show, well, that's just news.  

The news conference Trump gave at Mar-a-Lago a couple of days ago was quite telling.  Whoever does his make-up is having a difficult time hiding his aged appearance.  He has difficulty focusing when anyone else is speaking, and no matter what was said, he has specific themes that get played, as if he's trying to remember his best applause lines from his rallies.  In the middle of some real whoppers, which are easy to detect from the tone of voice, facial expression and hand gestures that accompany every lie he tells, it was hard not to laugh.  And then, every time I laugh, I'm forced to remember that in 12 days, this man will be sitting in the Oval Office, behind the resolute desk, with his finger on the nuclear trigger.  

And, with his finger on every other trigger of the power of the Presidency.  How can we emphasize and underline the fact that we are in real trouble, since that simple phrase sounds to trite and casual to express realistically exactly how bad it is.  

Looks Like a Lot of Help for Putin, and a Lot of Empty Bravado

Personally, I'm systematically shutting down relationships, and a few friendships, with people who still support Trump.  If they are lacking in the ability to see exactly what is going on, of how much of an enemy of American idealism the cult that has formed around this man has become, and who is pulling the strings, controlling what he says and does because he has literally lost his mind, and keeps parrotting the same themes, then I cannot have a meaningful relationship with them.  And I'm not being arrogant, I'm being practical.  I have to keep my own sanity, and I can't be influenced or emotionally driven by responses to that kind of ignorance.  I'm extremely uneasy about living in a country where the political paradigms are shifting and I feel as insecure as I do when I cross the border into Mexico. 

I've heard it pointed out that most of the themes now running through Trump world originate with Vladimir Putin.  January 20th will be similar to Christmas day in Moscow, with Vladimir opening gifts of some things he could not acquire for himself.  I don't think Ukraine will bow the knee to either Trump or Putin, so his loudmouthed bragging about bringing that war to an end on day one will be for naught.  NATO countries have already agreeded to step up their support. Trump has no influence with the Ukrainian government.  They may wind up having to accept Russia's terms, and give up the eastern third of their country, bu

And that's where all the Greenland talk comes in.  Greenland is a large block of ice with a few square miles of land around the edges and about 50,000 people.  Trump claims that "people have been saying the United States needs Greenland for our security for a long time now."  

And what "people" would those be?  Aside from Harry S. Truman, who co-host Rosanna Scotto of Fox New's The Five, claimed wanted to buy it in 1867, 17 years before he was actually born, the same imaginary ones he cites without bothering to check is facts on every other issue?  And let me interject here, and say that if that bit of stupidity and made-up, fake journalism doesn't clue you in on just how untrustworthy, factless, clueless and deceitful the far right wing media is, then that has become the standard by which stupid is measured,

A US takeover or occupation of Greenland would be a hostile act to Denmark, which owns it.  And that causes a rift in the NATO alliance, something Putin would absolutely love to see happen.  If Greenland is necessary for US security, then Denmark, part of the NATO alliance, would recognize and facilitate that need.  But of course, most Americans couldn't even find Greenland on a map.  

Russia has a lot to do with the Panama Canal talk, too.  Trump claims China controls the canal, another one of his big lies.  They don't.  But you won't find any contradicting of his lie anywhere in the media.  Nor is there any justification for the United States taking back control of the Canal Zone.  Our military is always in position to protect the canal, we are allies with Panama and, in fact, our navy already guards the waters on either side, since we do have a two-ocean navy.  But of course, it would be to Russia's advantage to have a friendly Trump deciding who gets to use the canal and who does not.  

Changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico is a genuinely important issue in world politics today.  It ranks right up there with the price of a dozen eggs.  Well, it wouldn't be Trump if there weren't some kind of bigotry and hatred worked into the equation somewhere.  His niece has correctly told us the man is an egomaniac, and can't stand not to be the center of attention and will do whatever it takes to get him there.  Those same imaginary people who have been advocating for a military takeover of Greenland must be muttering about changing the name of a Gulf that forms the entire eastern coast of Mexico. 

I don't expect his base to really care much about any of this, or even have a clue about what he wants to do or why.  What I do hope this helps with is convincing those who voted for him along the margins, either to get back at Biden for his Israel/Gaza policy, or because they though Trump would do a better job bringing down the price of eggs or groceries or gas, that they were stupid and thoughtless when they voted, and that somehow they owe the rest of us our country back as the price for their stupidity and ignorance. 

Too Many Americans Are Past Caring About Their Own Ignorance

Ask Americans to explain how it was that Harry S. Truman wanted to buy Greenland in 1867, when he wasn't born until 1884.  And half the people that are asked will scream and whine about the question being an attack on Fox News, The Five, and Rosanna Scotto, rather than even think about the level of dishonesty displayed by a second rate television journalist on a cable network where lying and distorting facts is an industry. 

Ask Americans who voted for Trump to explain Project 2025.  Most can't.  

The problem isn't at the top, though.  Democrats, under the Biden Administration, had the ability to bring this criminal to justice in the first two years of Biden's term, and the justice department leadership they appointed to get this job done failed, either because they did not take it seriously, or they feared for their own safety, or they were paid off in advance and never intended to do a damn thing.  Sorry, but the blame cannot be fobbed off on the corrupt, inept, incompetent justices Trump appointed to the Supreme Court, or to the corrupt judges he appointed to the federal bench and expected to rule in his favor when he needed her to.  

And outside of those who understand this, and know exactly what we are looking at, people still voted for him, mostly out of complete or deliberate ignorance.  Those who do see this for the insanity that it is are excusing it by saying, "Well, it's just the way he talks, he really doesn't mean it."  But what politician, in his or her right mind, would even engage in ridiculous talk like this, and almost completely abandon the rest of their agenda?  That's the key here, in his right mind.   Trump isn't. 

The biggest fear of the founders who drafted the Constitution in 1787 was that a chief executive of the government would take power as a monarch, not that he or she would be insane or senile.  The provisions of what to do in the event that a President became unable, physically or mentally, to serve in office didn't come along until the 25th amendment was ratified in 1967, 180 years later.  Inciting insurrection wasn't added to the constitution until after the Civil War.  It doesn't appear that any consideration was ever given to the fact that voters would elect someone who was mentally unfit, either by insanity or by senility or dementia, to serve in office.  

Can We Salvage American Constitutional Democracy? 

An informed and educated electorate, something John Dewey considererd essential for the preservation of democracy, doesn't appear to exist in the United States any more. Media control is blatantly one-sided, evidenced by what the ownership of newspapers like the Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times have done to throttle even their own political editors.  These are, by the way, among the media outlets who think Trump's erratic, demented behavior and displays of senility are normal, and that political conversations like renaming the Gulf of Mexico or making Canada the 51st state are just post-election norms.  

We can't sit around passively waiting for things to develop. Staying informed will take some effort.  There are groups forming, pushing some of the traditional, old-school political norms some Democrats seem committed to following aside, a measure of predictability that gives the GOP a distinct advantage, and take some bold steps, trying things out to see if they work.  New leadership will arise out of those places where we experience success, some of whom have already demonstrated a measure of boldness, and who have abandoned the old school successfully.  

And I think the most important thing we can do is remind ourselves that, even though some of this conversation and rhetoric coming from Trump is outlandish, threatening, ridiculous and often doesn't make sense, he, too, is restrained by a constutition that gives power to the people, power that we have ways to exercise, even without a majority of seats in Congress.  We're about to see how much erosion of democracy has taken place, and whether or not the rails will still hold.  

For my part, the blog, which may be old fashioned, but it belongs to me, will continue.  I have signed on to support the Leaders We Deserve PAC led by David Hogg.  Anyone who is bold enough to interrupt Andy Biggs in a Congressional Hearing and shout the truth until he is escorted from the room is bold enough for me.  I will step up my involvement in my own, safe blue state, to keep it that way and keep Trump and his feds out.  I have joined and will support Indivisible.  I will volunteer for candidates in my area, and close by, who exhibit the understanding that bi-partisan, old school cooperation with the Trump agenda isn't possible, since it represents an un-American, anti-patriotic perspective.  

We need to get the leadership and the knowledge that we have, collectively, to make sure Democrats take back Congress in 2026.  

 

 

The Bad Side of First Amendment Freedom

Baptist News Global: Trump's False Narrative on January 6th is Gaining Traction 

One of my favorite spots on the face of the earth is the famous "Copse of Trees" along Cemetery Ridge, above the field where Pickett's Charge took place during the Battle of Gettysburg.  The trees at the top of the ridge represent "the high watermark of the Confederacy," the furthest advance of the Confederate army against Union troops on the battlefield.  That's as far as Confederate troops got in their attempt to break the Union lines along the ridge.  It was the point of defeat for Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, and the end of the Confederate advance, the point at which the Union was saved.  

I have a canvas print of a photograph taken at that spot by a parent of former students, while on a field trip to Gettysburg.  It was taken right at sunset, after the clouds had broken up on a rainy day, so the pink and orange color behind the trees helps make a beautiful picture of a place that represents a small, but significant step toward freedom.  

January 6th was an Attack on Freedom and on American Values

We have vivid descriptions of everything that happened on July 3, 1863, including the facts which eventually show that the Confederate soldiers who briefly reached the Copse of Trees along Cemetery Ridge during the Battle of Gettysburg were at what would become known as "the high watermark of the Confederacy."  There's no video of the event, everything that happened there was described out of the collective memory of those who were there and experienced it.  

So how is it, with more video of the Trump Insurrection on January 6, 2021, that the false narratives coming from Trump about what happened that day are "gaining traction"?  What does that say about the value that many Americans place on truth, and integrity?  

I'm going to say this here, because it needs to be said.  Those who are Trump followers do not value truth and integrity, because Trump does not value truth and integrity.  

And there's the bad side of the first amendment.  Freedom of conscience means that even a conscience that lies, or that believes lies, and is intentionally deceitful, is protected under the Constitution of the United States.  

It takes a deliberate choice to be blind to January 6th.  Too many people were there, saw it, experienced it, lived in fear of their lives during it, to deny that it happened, and there are too many facts, openly stated by the more than a thousand individuals currently tried and convicted for participating in it, to put the blame anywhere else but on Trump.  So the only way that the false narrative surrounding January 6th, whether it's the belief that it was just a protest, or that it was peaceful, could gain any traction is for multiple individuals to be willing to surrender their own integrity and intentionally lie about what happened.  

So are lack of integrity, dishonesty and lying the new values of Evangelicals, the GOP and Trump supporters?  

I've Had This Conversation With a Trumper, and it Wasn't Productive

A friend of mine flatly told me that the attack on the Capitol was the work of Antifa.  

"Do you know what 'Antifa' stands for?" I asked.  

"No, they're just terrorists.  They are the ones who attacked the Capitol," he said.  

I decided to take the plunge anyway.  "Antifa stands for 'Anti-Fascist'," I said.  "They believe that Trump is a Fascist, and they are against Fascism, and so they are against Trump.  They would not attack the Capitol and disrupt Congress to support a lie they don't believe, and are fighting to stop," I said. 

I got a blank stare, then, "Well that's what they said on Fox News."  

The theory here is that "Antifa," which is a general term for all anti-Fascists, they're not just one large group, attacked the Capitol to blame Trump and make him look bad.  

My response was, "So name one person associated with Antifa, or with any anti-Fascist group, that has been arrested and charged for what they did in this riot.  Because I can show you that every person being charged is a Trump supporter, and those who organized the break in and gave instructions to the rioters on where to go and what to do are either Proud Boys, or Oath Keepers, both of whom are rabid, violent Trump supporters.  And they're testifying they got their orders from Trump."  

And we're now at the point in the conversation where the facts have brought about an awkward silence.  So I point out that everyone arrested and charged either pled guilty to get a reduced sentence, or went to trial and were found guilty were all Trump supporters who claimed that they got their marching orders from Trump himself.  I point to the electronic communications sent out by Trump, calling the protesters to come to Washington.  And I ask one important question.  

"Didn't you watch the video footage of what went on, and what they did?  There's as much as you want to see."  

And the response to that question was, "No, I haven't seen it."  

That's deliberate ignorance.  That's choosing to be ignorant, and I don't even know how to respond to that. That is a whole new level of dishonesty, a lack of integrity that undermines the trust I have in our relationship, and undermines our friendship.  I can't trust someone who lacks the integrity I think is necessary to sustain a friendship.  This isn't just a difference in perspective, this is a choice to deliberately ignore facts and deny reality because it doesn't fit the political agenda.  I'm not going to get all judgmental and angry, I'm just going to abandon the friendship and walk away.  Maybe, eventually, he will realize what he did. 

A Paradigm Shift in What We Value

This is not the kind of thing we can just ignore while walking past, or pretend it didn't happen, or chalk it up as another historical event.  This represents a paradigm shift in our cultural values.  The politician who claimed the election was stolen, and who continued to press that claim in spite of evidence to the contrary, which is itself an indication of emotional and mental instability, incited an insurrection intended to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power and to overturn the results of a free and fair election, for the first time in American history.  There's so much that's wrong with just those things, it's hard to even put into words the lack of integrity and honesty that represents.  

And then, after obviously inciting an insurrection and sitting in the oval office doing nothing to put a stop to it while law enforcement officers died as a result, which is a crime from any perspective, we, the people, are stymied in efforts to prosecute these crimes.  Letting him walk free is bad enough, but turning around and putting him back in the White House without suffering any consequences of his actions represents a paradigm shift in the values and integrity of Americans.  Clearly, a large segment of the population of this country no longer cares about telling the truth, or about honesty or integrity.  

And the irony of the situation is that those who whine the longest and loudest about the collapse of American values are the ones present who will be helping facilitate this and bring it along.   Thanks to Evangelicals, who clearly value money and power over truth and integrity, our nation may be on the brink of collapse.  We've put a criminal who belongs in prison into the White House.  How much longer do you think it will be before we start putting honest people with integrity in prison for their honesty?

One who justifies the wicked and one who condemns the righteous are both like an abomination unto the Lord.  Proverbs 17:15, NRSV

 

It's Been Four Years Since a Mob, Incited by Trump, Stormed the Capitol in an Insurrection Intended to Disrupt the Peaceful Transfer of Power

So it will be that on the fourth anniversary of the now infamous Trump Insurrection, a title which I will use, including capital letters, to communicate exactly what it was, the electoral votes of the former President who incited it will be certified as the winner of the 2024 election.  There's been nothing in American history quite like this, something which the founding fathers of this country could not, on the days when they were speculating about the worst that could possibly happen if they adopted the constitution they had drafted, have ever imagined.  

Today, the uniquely American values that were the result of America's evolution from being part of a colonial empire under the rule of the British monarchy to reaching the heights of world military and economic power as a constitutional democracy, will be tossed aside, trashed, and completely ignored as Congress certifies the electoral vote which will put Trump, the instigator and initiator of the insurrection, back in the White House.  The evil that has succeeded in edging its way back into power, after being defeated, and then showing itself for exactly what it was, has replaced patriotic American values.  A nation that once succeeded in replacing monarchial power with the rule of law has now abandoned that rule of law.  

I honestly have no words which can describe this historical abberration.  It is, in fact, much more than that.  It is a stunning reversal of the growth and development of America as the world's leading democracy, the intrusion of licentious demagoguery, a rejection of the values upon which this country was founded and has existed for over 240 years.  The constitution states that the nation has a government "of the people, by the people and for the people."  If this election really is legitimate, and the people, by a slim majority of those who bothered to vote, but more by the absence of millions who didn't bother, have chosen this as their government, then there have been some massive failures of cultural and social instutitions that once supported individual freedom, and protected individual diversity.  

Elections Have Consequences

We've done this to ourselves.  As far back as the Bush administration, Republicans were supporting plans to divide up and sell the government to the highest bidder.  "Privatize" is always on the table, as is "cut the budget," for the sake of cutting taxes for the wealthy.  And when it comes to controlling the narrative, and getting the message out to the electorate, we had Rush Limbaugh, who constantly advocated for a "winner take all" mentality, abhorring the give and take of bipartisan cooperation and negotiation.  Limbaugh pushed Republicans, who were more often than not a minority, to use any opening they had to stack the justice system in their favor, and to those who were appointed, he offered encouragement to ignore the law and always rule in favor of conservative causes.  

Democrats just couldn't seem to get their voters energized for mid-term elections.  We owe the current conservative majority on the Supreme Court to our party's efforts in mid-term elections being stymied by what was the minority party, because we kept playing the game the old way, long after Republicans changed the rules.  Some of those judges sitting on the federal bench, giving favors to the President who appointed them, rather than ruling according to the law, are gifts of elections we lost this century.

John Dewey, the father of progressive education in the United States, declared that maintaining democracy required an educated electorate.  Republicans, focusing on winning down ballot elections and gaining control of state legislatures during mid-term elections, cut the education budgets whenever they could.  This meant that public schools had to cut budgets, and in order to maintain a focus on more technical, science and math objectives, it meant cutting social studies requirements, which is just fine with Republicans.  And into this gap, in which we have also lost our free press, comes the fascist demagoguery of Trump.  

The Subversion of American Christianity

The blending of several brands of conservative Evangelicalism, including Fundamentalists of the Jerry Falwell and Bob Jones variety, with right wing extremist politics has produced a cult that has tranformed a good segment of American Christendom into an enemy of democracy.  One of the best books directly addressing this subject, prompted by the January 6th, 2021 Trump Insurrection is Defending Democracy From Its Christian Enemies by Dr. David Gushee, Distinguished Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University in Atlanta.  

Gushee points out that Christians in America once embraced democracy, supporting it wholeheartedly, and in the case of some Evangelicals, modeled their church governance in democratic fashion.  He gives a good perspective on how it was that, among the more conservative elements of Evangelicalism, some of its leaders, including Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson who openly organized conservative Evangelicals into political structures to turn the vote to Reagan in 1980, but that underlying their open support was none other than Rev. Billy Graham, and a group of other Evangelical leaders who didn't want to be as open with breaking down the walls of church and state, but who still leaned toward a Christian nationalist perspective with a measure of white supremacy thrown in for good measure.  

They've had to set aside their Christian convictions and values in order to embrace Trump's worldly, licentious lifestyle and blasphemous declarations of not having done anything requiring God's forgiveness, and this has allowed a vacuum to sweep in.  Evangelical leaders who support Trump have given in to the temptation to replace spiritual power to achieve the will of God with worldly power and wealth, which is not God's will for his church.  In so doing, they've become a cult that has misled millions of Americans. 

Can We Prevent the Destruction of Constitutional Democracy

The odds are stacked against that happening at the present time.  We have six justices on the Supreme Court, who have the responsibility for interpreting the Constitution, who have already ruled against its basic principles, and the clear intentions of the founders, to do political favors for the President who appointed them, and who want to use their position for their own accumulation of wealth and power.  And there are plenty of those with the same motives sitting on the federal bench, as we have seen in the case of classified document theft.  

We've lost our free press.  It's not possible, it seems, to penetrate the media bubble in which many Americans seem to be lost.  

We're about to find out exactly how bad it will get.  Whether we can hang on until the mid-terms, or if we can even make a difference at the mid-terms, we are still a long way from finding out.  And when we had the chance, the Justice Department fell short of the mark.  That makes me wonder whether Democrats really did believe Trump was the existential threat to Democracy that was being claimed.  

We will know soon enough.

Modern American Myths Being Debunked by Reality

There is a lot of mythology in America, especially when it comes to our own history and development as a nation.  I've seen a lot of literature that has taken on the task of debunking commonly held myths by presenting the facts in an objective way, but that requires somehow getting past what one has already accepted as fact or truth about the myth.  One of my favorite books, Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, does a great job of debunking myths.  I've used an earlier version of that in a high school American History class, and boy, did I get some reaction to the contents, mainly from parents.  

Recent events have shown us that much of what we once believed about the America we live in is simply not true.  And of course, I'm going to elaborate on a few of these myths, which will make some people angry, but which are, nevertheless, true.  

In America, We Believe In and Support the Rule of Law 

I'm not sure exactly where we can draw the line and say that the rule of law is only for a segment of the American population which does not have the means to afford the kind of legal professional necessary to get around the law.  That's really the bottom line of justice in the United States, it's not whether lawbreakers are caught, fairly tried and punished, but which lawbreakers cannot afford the kind of lawyer it takes to get them off.  

I can't think of any time in American history in which this was not the case.  Living under the rule of law may have been an aspiration, something we strive to achieve, though the legal system we have constructed doesn't promote the rule of law at all.  

The failure of a Democratic party Presidential administration to prosecute the instigator of a very visible insurrection against the United States is proof that America is not a nation living under the rule of law.  That is a myth.  And while I consider the failure to prosecute this crime, along with multiple others we are now aware of that the justice department simply let go of in the past four years, as gross incompetence, it is still evidence that we do not live under the rule of law. 

America Was Founded as a Christian Nation 

There has never been a time when America was "Christian."  Theologically speaking, according to the core principles of the Christian gospel, no "nation" is Christian, by definition.  Only individuals can be converted to Christianity and become Christians.  No matter how many people in any given country have been through a conversion experience, and have become Christians, it does not define or make the country Christian.  

The actual number of people who self-identified in some way as Christian, has fluctuated in the United States, and was at its lowest point during the colonial days, and in the period between the Revolution and the Civil War.  Revivals, known as the Great Awakenings, increased church attendance, but church growth and the spread of Christianity along the frontier was inhibited by the lack of ministers with enough education to correctly interpret and apply the Bible in their preaching.  In fact, there are multiple denominations and groups of churches in the United States right now that are based on a very superficial, literal interpretation of the Bible, including those identified as Fundamentalist, Pentecostal or Charismatic, and groups other Christians identify as cults, such as the Latter Day Saints or Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Science, among others. 

Christianity, including both Catholicism and the broad branching out of Protestantism, has been a pervasive influence in American culture, and in politics and government.  There are those who believe that Christians, of their own kind of course, should hold priority in public office because they think they are better able to determine "God's will" for the country.  But the problem with that is the core beliefs of the Christian gospel do not apply to nations or countries, or ethnicities.  A nation cannot be redeemed based on the number of Christians residing in it, nor is it blessed by God over others for the same reason.  That's a grave theological error.  

Christianity is an individual covenant relationship between God, and any human being who has responded to his word.  There is no such thing as a "Christian nation" and any attempt to make one would fail, because it would not be consistent with the will of God expressed in his written word. 

America is the Greatest Nation in the World

In the television drama, The Newsroom, created and principally written by Aaron Sorkin, Jeff Daniels, playing a cable news network anchor named Will McAvoy, is seated on a panel, answering questions from college students when he launches into a diatribe in response to a student's question, "Can you say why America is the greatest country in the world?" Initially attempting to avoid the question, he delivers a shockingly factual answer.  You can click the link which is the underlined title of the show and watch the clip.  

McAvoy's diatribe, which checks out factually by the way, really hits the nail on the head when he tells the student who asked the question that these are things she might want to remember if she ever does get close enough to a voting booth.  Yes, I know, it's only a television program, but that's often an effective way of delivering factual information, especially when most of the news media in this country doesn't.  

In addition to leading the world in the number of people who believe angels are real, in defense spending, and in the number of incarcerated persons, we also lead it in the number of people gunnned down in mass shootings and we now lead it in two more categories, in the number of uninformed and ignorant people who cast ballots in elections, and in putting criminals in our highest executive branch offices.  That will be a hard record to break.

"That Could Never Happen Here," They Said, After World War 2

That remains to be seen.  

When I was in high school and college, during units when the years leading up to the Second World War were being discussed, the question always arose, about why it was that the United States, which went through similar economic and political circumstances post World War 1 that the Europeans did, why it was that in the United States, fascism and communism didn't take root, while it did in most of Europe.  In fact, one of the reasons England and France were reluctant to confront Hitler, right up to the point where he attacked Poland, was because they were still weary of the first World War, and because there was an element of both fascism and communism in the governments of both countries, and some Hitler sympathizers.  

That existed in the United States, too, though what kept their influence limited was that most of the Nazi sympathizers were in the minority party, and though they hid behind American neutrality in their attempts to push the country in their direction, they were not successful in stopping things like Lend-Lease, or rolling back certain aspects of the Neutrality act.  They were more successful in infiltrating the State Department and in developing highly restrictive rules regarding the admission of Jewish refugees that prevented the United States from taking in very many Jewish refugees all through the war.  

Essentially, while there were Nazi sympathizers and Communists in the United States, they were too small of a minority to catch on and do much damage  The Roosevelt Administration was quite powerful, and popular, and successful when it came to minimizing the effects of Communism that began to infiltrate depression-era politics, and  in keeping democracy strong as Fascism began to grip Europe, including growing influence in France and England, and build a following in the United States.  

"That could never happen here," said most Americans, at least, those educated and informed enough to know what was going on in Europe and who followed Roosevelt's carefully executed policy aimed at keeping both Fascism, and the destruction of the war, away from the United States.  He succeeded in his time, and the prosperity and politics in the United States, which emerged victorious from World War 2, succeeded, for a time, in keeping Fascism from gaining any ground, and which made Communism an enemy and a dirty word.  

But "that could never happen here" was an arrogant myth.  Institutions which were instrumental in the prevention of the kind of lack of information and expansion of ignorance that Fascism, Communism and other forms of totalitarianism thrive on, such as a free, independent press and a high quality public education system, have failed.  John Dewey, who was the founder of the progressive movement in public education, once declared that the goal of universal public education in the United States was, at least in part, to maintain an informed electorate as a means of preserving democracy.  Likewise, the motto of the Washington Post has been, "Democracy dies in darkness."  Both of those institutions have failed.  

And Fascism, though it has taken a somewhat different form in this twenty-first century than it did in the early twentieth, has not only worked its way into the United States government, it has done so through the ballot box.  It rests on the ability of its current leadership to lie convincingly and have those lies propagated through a media that refuses to tell the truth or report honestly about their deception and have those lies take root among an electorate who, for over sixty years now, has been so poorly educated, that the schools they attended rank even worse than those in some third world countries.  American elementary and high school students are required to master about half of the social studies, geography, history, civics and government and political science objectives as the other industrialized countries in Europe, North America and Asia.  So the combination of the absence of a free press, and the inability of Americans to miss its absence and discern the truth, has given us Trump's second term.

The very systems of government set up by the constitution to prevent this from happening here have failed.  We have allowed our system of justice to become so complicated, cluttered with rules and procedures corrupted by those wealthy enough to afford the unregulated cost of attorneys who are adept at finding loopholes and side paths to protect themselves from prosecution that the legal system is generally unable to protect the rule of law.  On top of that, the justice system itself, specifically those who serve in it as judges charged with the responsibility of executing the law, have been chosen not because of their expertise in understanding and administering justice under law, but because of their partisan political preference and willingness to corruptly rule to protect their own party's politicians from prosecution.  

The ideology that produced one of the most visionary sections of the Constitution, the first amendment's protection of freedom of conscience, which included religious liberty and abandoned the state required and mandated religion of a state church, is also being abandoned.  It is sliding into the government via Project 2025, a blueprint for re-establishing a state mandated religion.  It turns government itself into a religious institution for the purpose of defending the Christian religion.  Those who've read it know this, which is why the Republicans and their politicians went to great lengths to lie about their support of it during the campaign, and are now ignoring their lies as they take power in Washington.  

So it's happened here, after all.  The question now is whether or not the Constitution will survive, and whether enough democracy will remain in tact to fight back, and whether enough people will care about it to make a difference, if the opportunity to vote in a free and fair election still exists in two years.  It may already be too late to save things.  We've been warned, not just recently, but throughout our history.  And the world is about to pay the price again.  

For Democrats, Being the Opposition Party Must Start Now, and it Can't be Focused on Self-Preservation

A Presidency That Shouldn't Have Happened, if the Law Had Been Enforced

We are now just weeks away from the beginning of the second Presidential term of a man who has proven that he is not qualified to hold the office.  He proved it with four years of some of the most inept incompetence, and ignorance of how this constitutional democracy operates, that, had he worked for a private company, he would have been fired and locked out of the building.  It wasn't just bad, it was terrible.  He proved it by committing crimes indiscriminately, for his own personal benefit, during the whole time he was in office.  And to top it off, he finished out his term in office by leading an insurrection against the Capitol, with Congress in session, counting the electoral votes.  

That should have disqualified him from ever running for public office again. It was an unimaginable failure, completely inexcusable, that this was not prosecuted and he was not sentenced.  Congress laid out the case and the evidence in its investigation and hearing.  The fact that the justice department was unable to expedite and get the case to trial is a huge part of where the blame lies.  Most legal experts are not convinced that the Supreme Court's immunity ruling would have affected the outcome, since inciting an insurrection is not among the President's official duties.   

So we are in a situation that I am certain the founding fathers who authored the Constitution and spent time figuring out how it would work never imagined would have to be handled by a government of the United States.  And we are going to have to handle it in a way that will preserve the Constitution's authority and principles, and will not allow the convicted felon, who should not be there in the first place, to ruin it, or to take advantage of it to make himself a dictator.

Democrats Cannot Afford Any More Loss of Confidence

This lifelong, financially contributing Democrat is disappointed and concerned about the party leadership's response, or lack of it, to the election loss in November.  From where I sit, which includes gathering information from more progressive media sources, among them Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann, Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid, the response by Democrats to the November election seems to be one of scurrying back into their holes to hide while playing this lame-duck transition by the same old protocols, taking a break after election season and doing nothing of significance while the rest of us face a crisis they convinced us would be the case if Trump won.  I don't remember exactly where I heard the expression, I believe it was on an afternoon talk show on the progressive radio station, WCPT, here in Chicago, that when it comes to politics, especially since 2016, it's like Democrats are bringing a knife to a gunfight. 

Traditional politics, with courtesy and give-and-take in a bipartisan fashion is gone, and it will not return simply because Democrats continue to insist on playing by those rules.  Doing so only gives the other side an even bigger advantage in their determination to remain inflexible and uncompromising when it comes to getting their way.  

There was conversation, at the beginning of the Biden Administration, about the problems created by a blatantly partisan, bribery corrupted Supreme Court that badly needed to be reformed.  The only pathway to doing that was to pack it by amending the Judiciary Act to increase the number of justices, and then having the President appoint the most liberal, free-thinking, far to the left justices that could be found in the federal system.  

But that would have taken a measure of boldness and some risks that Democrats in Congress haven't seemed to be willing to take with Trump lurking in the background, and getting what amounted to a basic open forum in the news media on a daily basis.  The risk would have come with having to break the Senate filibuster to achieve it.  If Democrats broke the filibuster and packed the court, then that would open the door for Republicans do to likewise  It's a tradition that the President wasn't willing to risk breaking.  

If we had been bold, and we had done exactly that, there would be no immunity ruling from the Supreme Court protecting the President from prosecution for crimes he commits while in office, because that court would not have issued such an unconstitutional, unethical, immoral ruling.  Then there would not have been any excuses for the Justice Department to drag its feet in bringing Trump to a quick trial for insurrection, and for stealing classified documents.  

But let me tell you, it's not going to take long for this newly elected Senate to break it, to do whatever their party's sitting President, a convicted felon who shouldn't even be there, wants them to do.  The filibuster rule is a thing of the past and I'm willing to bet that it will take them less than three months to do it.  They're going to break it the very moment it is most convenient for them to do so, and the Democrats and their insistence on keeping it will turn out to be a completely futile gesture that winds up destroying, not protecting, our Democracy. 

Boldness is in short supply. 

Back Up Those Words With Action

Anyone who has read through Project 2025 knows what's coming.  The question is, at this point, one of surviving to be able to elect a Democratic congressional majority in 2026.  

We've been told by the party leadership since the last election, that this one would be the most consequential of our lifetime, and that Trump was an existential threat to American democracy.  The evidence of that claim was his first term, and his daily ramblings and rantings that had the full attention of the media, which gave him far more news coverage than they did the sitting President.  Clearly, based on election results, the Democrats did not get that message out to enough voters.  Or, perhaps, they saw something different between the rhetoric of Democrats about Trump's threat, and their actions.  

I sure did.  

If Trump was the existential threat to democracy that Democratic leadership claimed, then boldness would have prevailed over concerns about certain actions appearing "political," such as expediting his trial for insurrection.  In fact, no matter how "political" it would have appeared, there would have been a commitment to a single achievement, the removal of that threat to American democracy.  With control of both houses of Congress, and the justice department in Democratic hands, that threat was not removed.  That counts as a failure, with consequences we must all now endure.  And that's not something that increases confidence of voters in the Democratic party.  

I understand the extent of the achievements of the Biden administration, especially during his first two years in office.  It was a monumentally successful Presidency.  And it was one that did not get the media coverage it deserved, for whatever reason.  Trump has himself all over the media, but in those ways that are at a President's disposal to do the same for anyone who holds the office, Biden did not make anywhere near the number of appearances he could have ordered by simply setting the date for a press conference or speech.  

This gave tremendous credence to Republican claims that he was showing signs of dementia and his "handlers" didn't want him making public appearances.  It looks, from this perspective, like they just let that go, didn't address it, and didn't change the way they were doing things.  Even hard core party loyalists are going to have difficulty maintaining their confidence in the face of that kind of inaction and lack of response to Republican criticism that made them look like they were right on target.

"They've Given up, They're in Disarray, They Don't Know What to Do" 

I've seen all three of those phrases, describing what the Democratic party looks like right now, from the other side.  They were expecting a fight, some form of resistance, and pushback based on the fact that this really was the "razor thin" election the polls predicted it would be, even closer in many cases, and doesn't show a major shift to the right at all.  But when Republicans lost in similar fashion, they just dug in and didn't budge.  They're seeing the opportunity here to gain a lot more ground than they earned at the ballot box. 

We need strong leadership at the Democratic National Committee.  This can't be a job where people sit and collect paychecks off the contributions.  They need to be our voice in the media, pushing there way in and creating opportunities for visibility that we would not get by being polite, respectful and by sending out email notifications.  We need to show up, and the DNC needs to be the organization that leads the way to doing this.  

And will someone please answer this question for me?  What is there, in Project 2025, which is going to be the Trump administration agenda, that Democrats can work across the aisle to support?  I'm all for bipartisan achievement, but not when that means one party gets it all and the other party lets them have it.  Frankly, if a Democratic member of Congress doesn't comprehend where we are headed and what is happening, they shouldn't be in Congress.  We can't have politicians hiding in their offices, collecting their paychecks, guarding those things as their own assets.  That's a public trust, and I am depending on them to do their job.  And that's not collaborating with the GOP to bring about white, Christian America.  

Carter's Presidency Wasn't Considered Successful at the Time, But He Was One of the Best in This Post World War 2 Era

America's 39th President, James Earl Carter, Jr., who preferred to be called Jimmy, served one term in the White House.  He followed in the aftermath of Richard Nixon, who turned out to be one of the most crooked and corrupt men ever to serve in the White House up to that point.  He won office because he had served as a politician in a state legislature, and then as the governor of Georgia, and had a reputation for being honest and forthright.  

I turned 18 in October of that year, just a few days before the voter registration deadline for the election.  I proudly registered as a Democrat, and stood in line for over an hour outside an elementary school gymnasium in Phoenix, to cast my ballot for Carter.  

There were several factors that pushed Carter, who was relatively unknown prior to his run for the Presidency, over the top.  One was, of course, the frustration of voters who wanted to see Nixon brought to justice for his crimes in the Watergate scandal, who voted against Ford because of the pardon.  Ford was never in a great position politically, and would likely have lost support within his own party if he hadn't pardoned Nixon.  The momentum that carried Nixon into the White House on top of the largest electoral vote majority any Republican had ever achieved was still hanging around in spite of Watergate, but Ford couldn't take advantage of it.  

Carter's shift from the segregationist position he held when he first ran for public office to his surprise declaration in his inaugural address as Georgia governor, that the time for segregation was over, was also a major contributing factor to his victory.  The Civil Rights movement, from just a little over a decade earlier, had produced record numbers of voter registrations among the black population in the South, and Carter became the first President to be elected on the strength of the black vote, not just in southern states, though he carried all of them as a result, but it put him over the top in Ohio and Wisconsin, which he needed to win enough electoral votes to win the election.  

Politics Are Not the Only Measurement of a President's Leadership

From a political perspective, Carter's Presidency might not look like it was much of a success.  There were some legislative achievements, in fact, more than any subsequent Presidency as gridlock replaced working across the aisle as the congressional norm.  He was not a Washington insider, something that never really made those who were comfortable with his leadership, including members of his own party.  

In terms of the Presidency itself, I would say that his biggest achievement was shifting the White House and Washington culture away from the "Imperial Presidency" established by Nixon, who attempted to overstep the boundaries of Presidential power.  By contrast, Carter was most definitely a man of the people, and he restored integrity to the Presidency.  That was something Ford had not been able to do, and is a mark of Carter's success.  Arthur Schlesinger wrote a book, The Imperial Presidency, toward the end of the Nixon presidency, describing what Nixon had done.  Carter, determined to undo it, didn't even want "Hail to the Chief" played when he entered a room. 

His signature achievement was negotiating the Camp David Accords, bringing Egypt and Israel to the negotiating table, and winning the peace, something that still stands, and can be considered the greatest step toward peace in the Middle East since 1917.  I wonder how much more this man would have achieved, given his approach, toward resolving problems between Israel and its other neighbors, had he been given the chance.  His conduct, demeanor and his knowledge of the facts in the situation earned the respect of the Israelis and the Egyptians, ending three decades of almost constant warfare.   

Even though the impression left as a result of circumstances that caused the end of his Presidency after only one term in office, he was successful in getting a lot of legislation through Congress, as much in one term as his Democratic successors Clinton and Obama achieved in two.  Noting that Carter served prior to the time when partisan loyalty has super-ceded patriotism in American politics, he managed to get most of what he set out to do as President done, and most of it was legislation providing for the benefit of the American people.  

Introducing Evangelical, "Born Again", Christianity to the American People

Carter was a Southern Baptist, which places him squarely in the center of American Evangelicalism.  In observing his public life, there was never any doubt that he was not only well acquainted with the theology, doctrine and practice of the Christian faith, but that he was committed to its core principles and beliefs, including having a personal conversion experience, which some Evangelicals call being "born again," using the terminology from the Gospel of John which explains the process of Christian conversion, or "being saved," as many Evangelicals call it.  

And while he very openly practiced his faith in the White House, he never crossed the boundary of imposing what he believed upon others by using the power of his office.  He respected, understood and believed in the constitution's guarantee of religious freedom to all Americans, found in the first amendment, along with separation of church and state.  He respected the rights of others to practice their faith in the same attitude and atmosphere of religious freedom, without compromising his own convictions and beliefs.  

His strongly held Christian convictions, which included his desire to demonstrate his love for his neighbor, by serving the American people, were evident.  The manner in which he expressed his faith while serving as President earned the respect of most people, not their ridicule or derision.  He knew where to draw the line between depending on his faith, and praying for the wisdom and guidance he needed to lead the country, and wearing it on his sleeve, demanding that everyone should have the same faith.  

Carter's example as a Christian stands in start contrast to those among the religious right who became his detractors, and whose ambitions for political power were for the purpose of using it to "make America a Christian nation again."  The organizations that were formed by individuals such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, were aimed at putting someone in office who would use the power of the Presidency to bring about their definition of a spiritual revival that would lead to moral reform of a nation which they had determined was subjecting itself to God's judgement because of its collective immorality.  

Knowing that such a move was neither consistent with sound Biblical doctrine, or with the first amendment of the Constitution, and that a sincere practitioner of the Christian gospel like Carter would never buy their agenda, they turned to a non-Christian, divorced, New Age practicing, "B" movie actor to champion their Christian nationalist cause.   The contrast between Carter, who is recognized and respected for his sincere and visible practice of a Biblically-guided Christian faith, and the Religious Right leadership, who are viewed mostly as money-grubbing crooks and power hungry extremists, gets more visible as each year passed.  

The Most Remarkable Post-Presidency in American History

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. [Matthew 5:9 NRSV]

Carter has been a stark contrast to the entire Religious Right organization, and has set an example that demonstrates his commitment to the Christian gospel, as well as to the American people.  For over 40 years, he participated with Habitat for Humanity, actually contributing physical labor to help people realize their dream of owning a home.  He continued to serve as an ambassador for peace around the world, using his influence and his skill as a former President.  He established the Carter Center, committed to humanitarian activity such as supporting research in the advancement of immunizations and disease eradication and increasing food production in Africa.  

The Carter Center also is engaged in peacemaking, or conflict resolution.  Their record on resolving conflicts around the world, particularly civil strife between political groups in the same countries, where the UN is unable to intervene, is remarkable.  It would be difficult to find an institution more successful at meaningful and lasting peacemaking efforts anywhere in the world.  The Carters have been actively engaged in this work for decades, most of it going unnoticed in the news media. 

He has truly earned the biblical title of "Child of God."  

Carter's Christian faith was the driving force behind his evolution from being a typical, segregationist politician in Georgia, to the remarkable statement he made during his inaugural address as Governor, when he said, "The time for racial discrimination is over."  Those were not just idle words.  He put this into practice, not only as a politician, but in his own personal life.  

Carter was known for his Evangelical faith, from statements he made when running for President, explaining his Christian conversion experience using the common Evangelical term, "born again," taken from John, Chapter 3.  He was a Southern Baptist.  As a result of the fact that the local Southern Baptist church in his hometown did not accept black people as members of the church, Carter became one of the founders of Maranatha Baptist Church, which eliminated racial discrimination membership requirements and welcomed members of all ethnicities and races.  

When the Southern Baptist Convention took a turn toward a more extreme fundamentalist doctrinal position, beginning in 1979, the Maranatha Baptist Church, including the Carters, who were members, withdrew from the denomination, joining a more progressive group oriented toward practice of the principles of the Christian gospel, rather than on unattainable doctrinal purity, called the Cooperate Baptist Fellowship.  CBF, as it is known, has also rejected the intrusion of right wing extremist politics into its organization, and works to protect its churches from such intrusion.  

Jimmy Carter stands as an example of integrity, a true American patriot and a "born again" Christian.  

Well done, good and faithful servant.  You have been faithful with a few things.  I will put you in charge of many things.  Matthew 25:23, NIV