Ukraine is an Independent, Sovereign Democracy and It Is Entitled to Peace Without the Sacrifice of Its Territory

Any American politician that does not support a Ukrainian peace agreement that restores all of Ukraine's sovereign territory to its rule, including the Crimea, and the Donbas, is a traitor to America.  

All of this talk about negotiating this and what price Ukraine must pay for peace in a war that it did not start is ridiculous.  It shows no understanding whatsoever of any kind of American idealism, the kind of strength, freedom and humanitarian consideration upon which our nation was built, and after whom the Ukrainians modelled their democratic republic.  

Any true, patriotic American who has any understanding at all of what our own country stands for, and the values it represents cannot take any other position, other than demanding Russia withdraw from Ukraine, all of its territory is restored, all of the people they have kidnapped are returned and then, that Russia pay for the damage they have inflicted.  

There is no integrity in anything else.  There is no value and respect for freedom or democracy in any other position.  

Ukraine's struggle for freedom has been a much longer and much more difficult one than just about any other European nation.  From the Czarist days of the Russian empire, Ukrainians have sacrificed the sovereignty of their nation and the unique identity of their culture, to which Russia owes a great deal of its own position in the world.  Ukraine bore the brunt of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, its cities and cultural landmarks damaged and destroyed, its people murdered, its Jewish population, larger than any other place in Europe except Poland, decimated in the Holocaust.  And it suffered under communism, as a vassal state within the Soviet Union.  

Now, it is free.  And it is fighting for its freedom against an oppressive enemy, defending itself remarkably from an unprovoked and unjustified attack.  The fact that the United States has not openly and wholeheartedly embraced Ukraine, and given it far more support than we have is a black mark on our own patriotic values, and those who have resisted helping the Ukrainians are showing their lack of patriotism.  

We could redeem our integrity by raising our support to the level necessary for the Ukrainians to make Moscow quit and give back what they've taken.  That is the only satisfactory, patriotic American kind of peace that is acceptable in Ukraine.  

With Political "Favors" Coming From Unexpected Sources, Americans Have a Chance to Reform the Two Party System

On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century, by Timothy Snyder 

We are there. 

I've referenced Timothy Snyder's book here, because Chapter 13, entitled, "Practice Corporeal Politics," has suddenly become more relevant than ever.  As we now exist on the real side of what was once the "existential threat to democracy" that Trump was before he was re-elected, we now are experiencing attempts at imposing tyranny, with some Americans and some people who came here for the safety the country once provided from it, experiencing it directly.  

It's Not the Experience I Imagined 

The election of 2024 was razor thin.  I'm not convinced, with the number of Trump loyalists who replaced legitimate poll workers after the accusations and threats following the 2020 election, that Trump and the GOP actually won this election.  There were more mail-in ballots thrown out in swing states this time around, seemingly, according to the research done by some individuals, like Greg Palast, just enough to change vote totals giving the razor thin edge to Trump.  A couple of well placed bomb threats, called into precinct voting places in heavily Democratic areas of Atlanta, Georgia and North Carolina, may have derailed just enough blue votes to tip the balance in his favor.  

Nevertheless, I did not expect the Democratic party leadership to disappear after it was all over.  They left behind a bigger vacuum than I would have expected, into which Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have come with a uniting, progressive narrative.  They are directly responsible for spurring what appears to be growing anti-Trump sentiment coming from some unexpected sources, including more conservative independents and some Republicans.  The Democratic party in Congress seems to have gone into self-preservation mode. Yeah, there are some signs of leadership here and there, Cory Booker's filibuster, Chris Van Hollen's trip to El Salvador, some angry speeches and fist pumping.  

Trump resistance and opposition, however, is going in a bit of a different direction.  There are signs that "corporeal politics" are developing in response to the tyranny that is unquestionably unfolding.  Perhaps in spite of the scattered policy wonk messaging that Democrats are known for, a simpler message is appealing to people and capturing their attention.  That message is, "Get him out."  That seems to be the one thing providing the energy and enthusiasm that is getting people into the streets, and motivated to action against the war on our democracy and our freedom.  Democrats who want to lead need to pay attention to this message, and get on board with it.    

Just before the election, in fact, when polls were bouncing up and down like tennis balls, a political analyst, Rachel Bitecofer, appeared on the David Pakman podcast, and said that there was still a way for Democrats to concentrate their messaging and win enough support to eke out a narrow win.  They didn't follow her advice.  And they lost by a razor thin margin.  Somehow, that has caused this paralysis of leadership.  The poll numbers are dismal for Trump, but they are a disaster for Democrats.  And yet, a clear majority of Americans are highly dissatisfied with everything Trump is doing.  

Democrats need to hook up with the opposition's message.  Messaging is difficult for Democrats but this is an opportunity that cannot be wasted. 

Practice Corporeal Politics

Snyder says, "Power wants your body softening in your chair and your emotions dissipating on the screen.  Put your body in unfamiliar places with unfamiliar people.  Make new friends and march with them."  

That seems to be what's happening now.  People are taking to the streets to protest, making new friends and marching.  The message is simple, the theme is clear.  "Get him out."  And it's not just the Democrats and the liberals and the woke people who are marching.  It's a nice jumble of people from different political backgrounds, including a fairly decent representation of Republican voters.  So this could very well  be a movement that picks up a voice on the single issue of Trump being a threat to democracy, and who won't sit still and support it.  

In his book, Snyder follows the example set by the Solidarity labor movement in Poland, and its success in eventually getting that country's communist government out of power.  This is an exercise of freedom and it generally expresses the will of the people, no matter what news media outlets are under the control of a different group.  Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are emphasizing the populist side of the left's agenda.  And they are most definitely getting a reaction, especially from Republican members of Congress in whose districts some of their rallies have been held.  

There were more than twice as many people at a Sanders-Cortez rally in Tucson than the victory margin for Juan Ciscomani, the Republican who represents that congressional district, recently.  The Congressman was shaken enough by that turnout to hastily agree to an online town hall meeting, after not having scheduled one prior to that time, and he got an unpleasant earful.  He's one who is vulnerable to public pressure, clearly, and needs to be subjected to it continuously in order to help his mind get made up where it needs to go, instead of just being Trump's yes boy.  Large numbers of people have showed up at recent opposition rallies, not only in Tucson, but in Sierra Vista, in a redder part of his district.  

We need to remember, when dealing with some of these right wing extremists, that integrity is not high on their list of values.  Not much in the way of a goal has been discussed by organizers of marches and rallies that have been a clear demonstration of the dissatisfaction of the American people with the chaos of Trump's first 100 days in office.  I think the removal of Trump by either pressured resignation or impeachment should be at the top of the list, since he's not likely to admit mistakes and change policy, and that needs to be done in accordance with the rule of law.  The best shot we have is convincing about 8 Republicans in the House, and about 15 in the Senate, that he needs to go and either pressure him to resign or impeach and remove him.  

That sounds like it is too big a task, but with the mounting failures and disasters shaping up as the mob of incompetent boobs Trump picked to lead cabinet posts continue to be stymied by their lack of ability to make good decisions and do a decent job continues to anger people, it might be easier than we think.  He has a pretty fragile ego and a volatile temper.  It's a mountain that I think can be moved well before the mid-term elections put even more pressure on him. 

I'm sure they are quite busy trying to subvert that election, even as we speak. 

Will This Lead to a Non-Partisan Movement in American Politics? 

I hope what it leads to is the development of an opposition movement to Trump, and to right wing extremism, that ends the threat to democracy and kills the movement toward white Christian nationalism.  I hope this wakes up apathetic Americans to the reality that their interest and involvement in government is essential to the survival of Democracy and they can't just sit back, pay no attention and expect someone else to protect their rights and freedom.  

And I hope it leads to an early end to the Trump presidency, so that we can rebuild from the damage and restore what has been taken from us.  

  

Is Pope Francis the First "Woke" Pope?

He was an advocate for migrants, interfaith dialogue as a way to prevent conflict, nuclear disarmament and an end to the death penalty, and the dignity of workers.  Pope Francis collected both friends and foes in his attempt to turn the 1.3 billion strong Catholic Church into a "field hospital" with its doors open to all and with a special love for those on the margins.  

So says the Catholic Courier today, April 21, 2025 upon the death of Pope Francis.  That may be just a little bit understated.  In a hierarchical church, occupying a position that has wielded far more political influence and power than it has taught spiritual principle and encouraged Christian practice, Pope Francis' legacy is a direct contrast to the leadership of his successors in almost every way, including in his emphasis on what it is that actually makes the Catholic Church Christian in its identity.  

If there's anything that actually indicated this Pope was on the right track when it came to reforming the Catholic Church, aiming to return it to its biblical roots, it was the opposition he received from the more conservative elements within the church, especially in the United States.  A quote from an article in America Magazine, a Jesuit publication, says, "What really bothers the detractors of Pope Francis is that his theology stems from reality:  from the reality of injustice, poverty and the destruction of nature, and from the reality of ecclesial clericalism."  

In other words, because he was from South America, his ministry faced a different world than that of most previous popes, one where the academic side of church theology found itself much less relevant in the face of the kind of ministry necessary to bring spiritual comfort along with meeting the physical needs of an overwhelming amount of political oppression, instability and injustice, and a high level of poverty.  He was, according to his critics, not authoritarian enough when it came to pronouncements of sin, too merciful when it came to controversial issues like homosexuality, too lenient on dogma and too critical of conservative politicians supporting the church's political influence in those parts of the world where it is still exercising its Christian nationalist power.  

In other words, he was too connected to an emphasis on practice of the core principles of the gospel of Jesus, and on building a ministry foundation based on that, and that made him seem like a left-wing crusader bent on undermining the church's political influence.  

In other words, Pope Francis was, in whatever way being Pope allowed him to be, "woke." 

The Catholic Church Needs Another Pope Francis to Move Forward

The membership total of the church seems huge, at 1.3 billion.  But that is waning in terms of the actual participation of those members in the life of the church, even in attending its masses.  In the United States, the pandemic, which was one of the crises that this Pope had to deal with during his tenure, cut into church attendance, which was already declining steadily, and hasn't recovered.  The clergy sex abuse scandal, which is pervasive and won't go away, has been swept under the rug for too long, and in spite of Pope Francis' efforts to clean up the mess and deal with it, something he did more effectively than any of his recent predecessors, who more or less ignored it, it has had devastating and far reaching effect.  

While some European countries still take count of church membership based on baptism numbers and as part of their citizenship requirements, church attendance and participation is way down, even in heavily Catholic countries like Poland, Spain and Italy.  Younger people are dropping away, even from cultural traditions like confirmation celebrations.  It is, like its Protestant counterparts, an aging institution that is struggling to survive, a remnant of its former self.  The merger of dozens of parishes and the closure or merger of dozens of its schools every year is a sign of decline that can't be ignored. 

Pope Francis re-introduced the church to ministry that connects people with doctrine and theology, based on the Christian principles of Christ's gospel.  That, in turn, spurred a small revival of interest, the first in quite some time, which brought people back to the church.  And of course, in so doing, it has generated controversy, especially among those who benefit from their own co-opting of church power and influence.  

So the Catholic church now faces a choice.  Do they pick another Pope Francis type of reformer?  Or do they go with conservativism and tradition and hasten their decline and death?  

And just for the record, I'm not Catholic.  My knowledge of Catholic doctrine and theology comes from those with whom I've been friends, over the years, who are practicing Catholics, including a priest whom I've known for over twenty years, and who is himself a big believer in this Pope and the kind of ministry he favored.  I read. So take that into consideration in evaluating my perspective.  

 

For Those Who Miss the Point...

The Constitution outlines who it is who has the authority to determine the role of government.  The preamble starts out with the words "We, the people."  Recognizing that the loose confederation of thirteen states that had just united to win their freedom from the British crown wasn't working very well and was headed for disaster, the founders determined to form "a more perfect union."  It wasn't perfect, and they knew it wouldn't be, but it was a lot better than what they had.  It has survived for almost 250 years and as things turned out, it was considerably more perfect than what they had before.  

There were some things which they saw as the responsibility of a central, national government which they intended to establish, while allowing their fears to build in provisions which would prevent the government from becoming too powerful over people, because they did not want another king, nor did they want the kind of demagogue we seem to be stuck with now.  They saw the job of government as having five primary responsibilities: 

• Establish Justice
• Insure domestic tranquility
• Provide for the common defense
• Promote the general welfare
• Secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity  

And from the start, they disagreed over the power of government, and the size of government.  But they recognized some facts about human nature, so they devised a Constitution which protected the individual liberties they valued, and defined the limits and boundaries of government authority in interfering with those individual liberties.  This was the rule of law, built on trust, but also with a healthy dose of fear that an imbalance of power anywhere in the system could become an enabler for the kind of demagogue they feared the most, embodied in the image of a King.  

The Nation's Enemies Versus the Enemy Within

I have yet to meet and engage in discussion with a Trump supporter who can factually articulate exactly what it is that Trump has done for this country, and specifically for themselves, that merits their support.  Maybe there is someone out there who can say, truthfully, "He cut my taxes, he made the economy better, he made the nation safer, both from foreign threats and from crime, and insofar as it was his responsibility to do the things the Constitution demands of its government, he did so."  

But that would be a rare individual, indeed.  That's because Trump did none of those things.  

There are plenty of people who believe this, but what they might believe and what is actually true are two different things.  That's been part of the problem with Trump all along, his political success rest on falsehoods, invented statistics and outright lies.  For one thing, people are generally not educated enough to understand the way government is supposed to work.  They've bought into this "winner take all" mentality, not understanding that this is a democracy, and its government is a republic.  That does not mean that a candidate who wins an election by a razor thin plurality does not have any mandate to claim that their agenda is "what the American people voted for."  

Those who put the emphasis on the "Republic" part of American democracy don't understand that in a Republic, the rights of the minority are equally protected under the law.  So to simply start "cutting" government budgets, under the false pretense that there is massive fraud and that spending is "out of control," both very nebulous and undefined arguments, is in direct conflict with the rule of law.  

So to immediately begin dismantling and slashing "government spending" out from underneath a social structure that previous governments have researched, and given consideration to establishing based on their responsibility to promote the general welfare, and seek the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, all of which collectively represent the "will of the people," is to be an enemy of the American Republic, the democracy that undergirds and supports it, and of the American people themselves.  

What is interesting involves political conversations I have with some of my neighbors.  About half of the people who live in my building are immigrants who came here as refugees, many of them from Communism in Eastern Europe, from Poland, Bulgaria, Latvia, Ukraine.  They see what is happening very clearly, detect the presence of foreign interference, know exactly what it looks like and who it is, and are baffled at the amount of time it has taken for the political leaders on the left to react and respond.  

The Disintegration of American Values 

There are social institutions which have developed over the course of American history that have contributed to the stability and security that we have enjoyed for most of our existence as a nation.  Some people, by personal conviction or experience, might disagree, but I think the evidence supports the argument.  

The system of compulsory, public supported education that developed over the course of the early years of American history was a powerful stabilizing force that has contributed to the success of democracy and the security of the nation.  Education preserves and protects democracy and contributes to its smooth function by providing an educated electorate that has the ability to be informed and aware of issues which affect the function of a democratic Republic.  But this system has fallen victim to Republican destruction, tax and funding cuts, at least two GOP Departments of Education messing with graduation requirements and achievement standards, dumbing down the curriculum and removing much of the social studies requirement, claiming that the schools were "hotbeds of liberalism."  

The conservative, Evangelical branch of American Protestantism has opened the door to the intrusion of blatant, anti-Christian right wing extremism.  It has shifted its loyalty from God to money, and has changed its salvation from faith in Jesus Christ to faith in Trump.  It has fallen victim to the same kind of heretical intrusion the Apostle Jude warned about 2000 years ago and in so doing, it has completely undermined values like integrity, investing its support in a compulsive, pathological liar, misogynistic adulterer and rapist, while abandoning its own values.  

While it is true that the founders intentionally separated church and state institutionally, there is no question that Christianity, as the predominantly practiced religion in the United States, has had a profound effect on supporting, undergirding and sustaining a values system that contributed significantly to the preservation of Democracy.  But now that one of the larger branches of Protestant Christianity in America has been corrupted by greed and the intrusion of right wing extremism, it has become the means by which to undermine democracy and usher in white Christian nationalism. 

Our system of justice itself has become corrupted, weighed down and pre-occupied with money issues and has turned itself into a money-making, profiteering tool.  Those with the greater wealth in this country can access a level of justice that the majority of Americans can't even imagine exists.  It can be bought, it can ignore the rule of law, or even defeat it, depending on the corruption level of the judges charged with its stewardship.  

And in spite of one of the highest values of American idealism claiming to be the fact that no one is above the law, the fact of the matter is that Trump has demonstrated that to be a complete fallacy.  Judges he appointed in the federal system took their oath with the full intention of remaining loyal to him rather than upholding the law.  And he prevailed in calling in favors from those he appointed to avoid being prosecuted and held accountable for heinous crimes he committed against the American people.  

Are We at the Point of Resistance and Opposition, or a Correct Response to Tyranny? 

We saw this coming.  Whether it was that Democrats thought Trump was finished when he lost in 2020, or that he would never have the power to get back in, the steps that could have been taken to prevent this were not taken and when Trump won again in 2024, nothing was being done or had been done to stop it.   What we now have is a well planned takedown of Constitutional Democracy in favor of a white supremacist, Christian nationalistic oligarchy originating through executive orders from the White House, something as equally illegal as everything else he does. 

People are finally waking up to this nightmare, taking steps to protest and resist it, and poking their moribund legislators to some kind of action.  They are, finally, taking to the streets.  Those in position to do so are using the courts, filing lawsuits and getting injunctions to stop the worst abuses.  Now that everyone as caught their breath, some of the worst abuses are at least being slowed down by the judicial branch.  And it's not an impossible leap, at this point, from GOP control of the legislative branch to putting enough pressure on a few members of the House and Senate to prevent a complete collapse into Christian Nationalist oligarchy.  

What's happening is not just partisan political battling over how much or how little government should do for its people.  That ended when the GOP decided they were going to adopt the Rush Limbaugh methods of "our way or the highway" and started their attempt to turn the United States from a constitutional democracy into a white, Christian nationalist oligarchy.  Resistance and opposition only work when all three branches of government are committed to democracy, which guarantees the protection of the rights of the minority.  What's happening now is that people's guaranteed rights are being taken away from them.  

That's tyranny.  And the American people have, in their history, demonstrated an ability not only to recognize it when they see it, but they know how to fight it and defeat it.  And that must happen, once again, in order for American Democracy to prevail and survive the tyranny that is attacking the United States now.

With Democrats, There's a Lot of Frustration Behind the Criticism

Some of the same polling data that those opposed to Trump are celebrating, watching his job approval rating fall to levels below where it was during his first failed term, is showing the Democratic party members in Congress getting a 29% job approval rating, with only 7% "strongly approving" of the job they are doing.  That kind of puts a damper on a celebration, huh? 

Well, what did you expect? 

It's hard to put a finger on just exactly where it was that things turned south, but if I were a professional polling analyst, and I was interested in truth, not just projecting a political image, I'd be looking into what transpired around the time of Biden's first debate with Trump, and the fallout that happened afterward.  The image that Democrats have built for themselves has never really been sharp, clear and focused, but that was a disaster of epic proportions.  We looked like the GOP for about six weeks, with shadowed influence built around money interests calling the shots and trying to run the show.  

That's when I realized that the hope we had placed in the fact that mountains of evidence had been produced and that Trump had finally and actually been indicted for his massive crimes would wind up coming to nothing.  I realized, when the Justice Department and the attorney general Merrick Garland went completely silent after a tremendous congressional investigation made the case for proving Trump's guilt as the seditious inciter of an insurrection against the Capitol, that this was going to come to nothing.  

And look, I get it.  Trump was the insurrectionist, inciting violence for the purpose of overturning the results of an election he clearly could not prove was "stolen" from him.  The Republicans are the ones who have basically pooped their brains out and turned into walking zombie yes men, lacking the will or the patriotism to serve their country as anything but a shill for a con artist.  

But when Democrats had the chance to stop this from happening, they chose to give the old status quo, politics-as-usual, give-and-take, compromise and dealmaking that the GOP abandoned during the Reagan Administration one more try.  That was the safe route.  We got the rhetoric, "Trump is an existential threat to democracy."  But nothing was done about bringing him to justice.  Excuses were made about Republican justice appointees and the delays he made in his trials that stretched cases out for years, a travesty in a system where the rule of law is supposed to be the way things are governed.  

The power to remove him permanently as an existential threat to American democracy belonged to the Democrats who controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency.  This was, and is, a serious threat, that we are now experiencing, and it could have been avoided by breaking the filibuster and packing the Supreme Court.  Packing the court would have expitided his insurrection and document theft trials in a couple of ways.  One, it would have eliminated the immunity ruling he was able to hide behind in the long run.  Two, the cases themselves could have been taken by the court, and the trial held there.  Or, the court could simply have ruled, based on the evidence in the Congressional investigation, that Trump was an insurrectionist, and be done with it.  

We would not be experiencing now what we are seeing if that had been done then.  Yes, it certainly could have been criticized as being political, or looking that way.  But it would have effectively protected the democracy we have now.  

So why are we expecting the Democrats to be bold, take risks and protect our democracy now when they wouldn't do it when they had the chance?  That explains the frustration we are seeing and hearing.

Most Are Just Sitting on their Asses in their Offices, Waiting It Out, Doing Nothing and Protecting Their Own Narrow Interest

There were five different notices on my social media account today, telling me how bad things are getting economically, that we are headed into recession, that indiscriminate cuts are being made, all what we know.  Each was accompanied by a request to send money to whatever politician was making the plea, because of course, that's going to resolve the problem.  

Nothing I've seen from anyone who has asked for money will solve the problem.  I have yet to see the kind of risk, and boldness, that, had it been applied when we were in power, would have eliminated the problem.  Even now, the willingness of Democratic party senate leadership to cave, and not to stand firm when they had a chance to make a difference, means that whatever they might have to say is not going to be taken seriously.  Why support something with my political contribution that is not what I think is the right thing to do?  

Looking Elsewhere for a Real Hero to Come Along

The two sides of American partisan politics, which are largely responsible for the impasse we've reached, and for the rise and support of a demagogue in an office, exercising power the Constitution clearly does not give him, are not the place to look for resistance that will be successful.  We need new leadership that will take risks and make bold moves when opportunities arise to do so.  If we'd have taken the steps to pack that damn Supreme Court when we had the power to do it, the benefits would have been both immediate and long term...

The whole support system for the corrupted politics we have experienced, the infamous Citizens United ruling, could have been immediately overturned, and the money that now runs American politics could have been completely and totally removed from the system.  

Roe v. Wade would still stand.  The implications of that are staggering. 

But Democratic party leadership didn't want to appear political.  That fact took priority over protecting the American people from a second term under a demagogue, a direct threat to the Constitution, to American Democracy and to our own sense of patriotism and pride.  

So don't get prickly over the criticism that Democrats are getting now, because it is well deserved.  

A Two Thousand Year Old Christian Calendar Tradition With a New Twist on Its Celebration

Palm Sunday, in the small Baptist church in which I grew up, was just the Sunday before Easter.  The Baptist tradition followed by most of the members wasn't big on the events of the Christian calendar, except Easter and Christmas, we didn't cover the pulpit with the various colors representing the different seasons of Christian tradition, our pastor wore a black suit, with a black tie and a white shirt, and the only thing different about Palm Sunday was that we sang the typical crucifixion hymns and left church in a somber mood. 

So, did anyone go to church on Palm Sunday?  Maybe to a non-denominational church, where it seemed to be a cute thing to gather all of the younger children in a room off the side of the sanctuary, give each one of them a palm branch and have them come in, adding a little kick to the emphasis of the day.  Or maybe worship was more formal at a mainline Protestant or Catholic church, where there was a processional, during which the clergy marched in with the palm branches, waving them around while other clergy carried incense burners and others sprinkled holy water on the worshippers in the pews.  

Most of us in the United States went to church after the news of the Russian bombing attack on the Ukrainian city of Sumy had already been circulated.  In fact, I heard about it on my way to church, on MSNBC's satellite broadcast.  I thought to myself that there would not be a single worshipper anywhere in the United States who would be sitting in their church that morning, worried that a foreign enemy's drone would sent a bomb through the roof, while some of our fellow Christians in Ukraine were dead, because that had happened to them while worshipping in their church on Palm Sunday.  

It made me angry.  I'm enraged that this happened, that historically, people who are even more closely aligned in ethnic culture and especially in the same Christian tradition could attack their brethren without even giving it a second thought, that such an incredibly evil act could reach right inside a Christian church, and have American Evangelical supporters of Trump try to brush it off, excuse it, justify it or simply ignore it as insignificant.  That makes them as evil as those who did it. 

I hadn't planned to do it, but after I heard this news, I gave my entire Sunday offering, which included my monthly gift to the church, to the ministry our church supports from which takes funds and gifts to Ukrainian relief directly to churches in Ukraine for distribution, across the Romanian border.  This avoids the bureacracy and gets the aid to where it is needed, mostly for food and shelter.  

I called my very liberal, Democratic congresswoman's office, left a message encouraging her to say something on the floor of the house, and asking her if she's brave enough to start an impeachment inquiry.  I called both of my Democratic senators, and left messages with them along similar lines.  

I don't expect to see any condemnation or repudiation of this attack from any self-appointed, right wing religious leaders in this country.  I expect to hear the whining about Trump not having anything to do with this, or something like Rubio's remark, that this is why Trump is trying to bring an end to this war, something he promised to do on his first day in office, but among the many things he has failed at so far.  Putin wouldn't have done something like this if he thought he did not have Trump's support to give him the upper hand in any negotiation.  

I could go into a preachy, justifiable rage against Evangelicals, and the fact that their support for Trump all along, and their indifference to the evil con artist, rapist and fraudster that he is has turned them into a pseudo-Christian cult that has abandoned all of the values of the Christian gospel they still claim to preach, but this specific event, at this particular point, carries little weight toward that conclusion.  That they care only about political power and the money they can make off of it has been obvious ever since Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell linked up to defeat Jimmy Carter in 1980.  

So, on Palm Sunday, 2025, to this Christian tradition is added the tragedy of an unjustifiable, brutal, inhumane, evil attack by one group of white, Eastern Europeans of the same racial and cultural heritage on another group of white, Eastern Europeans.  

For what purpose? 

Protests Are Good But Much More is Needed

Sometimes I wonder if there are very many people who understand the size, scope, and the agenda of the Heritage Foundation.  This is a group, dating back to the Nixon Administration, that has slowly been developing the groundwork for turning the United States away from what it sees as liberalism that is destroying its values, into a white, Christian Nationalist regime that aligns with their own worldview as far as culture and society are concerned.  They've been at this, relentlessly, for close to 50 years.  They've slowly assembled the resources and support they've needed by making common cause with every ideological faction that can find agreement with their "worldview."  

In the late 70's and early 80's, though some very useful television evangelists, like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and a little known Texan by the name of James Robison, they managed to take over the leadership of most of the conservative, Evangelical branch of the American church, using abortion on demand and gay rights as the "evils" against which they needed to fight.  This constituency, made up of ultra-conservative fundamentalists and Pentecostals, had a tendency to avoid participating in what they called "secular" politics, but their leadership, over time, convinced them that they were called by God to save the country from evil by voting against liberals who just wanted to destroy things.  

That added, to the treasury and the power base of the Heritage Foundation, a significant constituency and it provided a religious endorsement for their right wing extremism, though the message, morality and ethics of the Christian gospel did not phase the Heritage Foundation's agenda, which bears no resemblance at all to any known practice of the Christian gospel.  

This enabled the foundation and its leadership to swallow up the Republican party, separating themselves from its more moderate wing, offering those who supported it nothing, in fact, turning them into political pariahs, like Mitt Romney, who was the last "mainstream" Republican nominee for the Presidency.  Romney hasn't ever endorsed Trump, and in fact, hasn't ever backed down from the position he took back in 2016, when he made a nationally broadcast speech warning Republicans about the dangers of nominating him the first time.  

Going back and listening to that speech, Romney was familiar with the Heritage Foundation and its agenda, and that placed him in a very awkward, and eventually crippling position as having to maintain his Mormon orthodoxy, which, like any true form of Christianity, is ideologically incompatible with Christian nationalism and with the aims and practices of the Heritage Foundation.  But their money is found in almost every Republican politician's pot.  And it buys their complicity, their silence, and rewards their lack of honesty and ethics. 

Falwell, Robertson and Robison Weren't Heretics, They Were Just Willing to Sell the Truth in Exchange for Power

Well, maybe two out of three isn't a bad guess here.  Robertson was a businessman evangelist from the outset of his ministry, building parachurch ministry businesses that operated off the contributions of people in churches and which were designed to make money for him.  His ability to turn a ministry enterprise into a money-making machine was likely among the most prosperous and productive in the history of conservative Evangelical televangelism.  CBN was one of the early media "silos" that cut people off from legitimate, truthful information and Robertson's own daily news show, "The 700 Club," was one of the most masterful propaganda outlets that existed among right wing media.  And it still is.  

Robertson used the fact that he was ordained as a minister by a Southern Baptist church in Norfolk, Virginia as a ticket to legitimacy with a broader, Evangelical audience than his Charismatic oriented CBN could deliver.  

Robertson, as a Charismatic, was a proponent of "faith healing," and the belief that relevation from God was still being delivered through prophets, like himself, who could understand and interpret messages often delivered by what is known as "speaking in tongues."  Robertson has frequently stepped out on a limb with prophetic utterances about events that don't happen, though on occasion he manages to guess well, and exploits that while ignoring dozens of other predictions that don't happen.  But his television network has been a huge asset to the right wing politics of the Heritage Foundation.  He's let them have everything they need. 

Jerry Falwell is in a similar mode, operating a television ministry that mainly broadcasts his own sermons preached from the pulpit of his church, Thomas Road Baptist Church, in Lynchburg, Virginia.  And like Robertson, being an independent, fundamental Baptist mistrustful of associations with other Christians, and of any educational institution over which he did not exercise control, he led the church to establish Lynchburg Baptist College on its campus, which has grown into Liberty University, on a new campus where the church relocated.  

Falwell's television program began in 1956.  Called "The Old Time Gospel Hour," it appealed to the fundamentalist element among Evangelicals, primarily independent Baptist churches that refused to join denominations where the doctrine and theology were based on historic Baptist principles, and on a contextual, historical interpretation of the Bible, rather than their preferred literal rendering in King James English.  There are some glaring theological errors in fundamentalism, especially in their eschatology, or teaching about "end times."  

Falwell got closer to the right wing extremism in politics as he saw that their way of handling the secular political world, basically by separating from it, was not producing the kind of political results they wanted when it came to issues like abortion and gay/lesbian rights.  When he built an informal alliance with Robertson toward the end of the Carter years, frustrated because Carter, a fellow Baptist, would not bring his personal religious faith to bear on a political issue, he sided with Reagan in the 1980 election.  

What's interesting about what Falwell's group brings to the table is that he continued to preach fundamentalist doctrine and theology as if he hadn't violated its separationist principles by getting directly involved in secular politics.  He never really bothered to attempt to justify this duplicity, he just let them exist in different worlds, while he and many of his associates were deeply engaged with the Heritage Foundation, and committed to helping them raise money, he kept preaching his Baptist separationism.  

Setting aside the core principles of the Christian gospel in order to benefit from the power of secular politics has become the M.O. of the Heritage Foundation and its Evangelical allies.  They are getting the political power and money that they have always had at the center of their pseudo-Christian agenda.  

This Well Organized Political Machine is the Trump Agenda

This is what we are fighting against.  Can someone point me to an agenda driven, money raising, media powerful foundation of equal influence and effect on the Democratic party's side of American politics?  

I'm going to say a few things before moving on, because I think they need to be said. 

Democrats have seen, in the manner in which the growing influence of the Heritage Foundation has manifested itself in Congress, a complete change in the manner in which government business is being conducted.  The Republicans increasingly resist compromise and negotiation, and in recent years, when they've been in power, they've shut Democrats completely out of the legislative process.  But when Democrats get back in power, they shrug it off, and go back to their old protocols and government procedures as if nothing has changed, and as if they have learned nothing from the prior experience. 

Democrats were told, following the 2020 election, that Trump would do everything he possibly could to avoid being separated from the Presidency.  There was intelligence and information available that he would attempt an insurrection, or some kind of tactic to use force to stop the electoral votes from being certified.  "Be prepared," came the warning.  But the reaction of most Democrats appeared to be surprise. 

Democrats were told that Trump would use every possible legal system maneuver and trick to delay prosecution and avoid being tried and convicted for his crimes.  They knew what he had done, and had experienced it, yet the party leadership was unwilling to take risky, but bold steps to make sure Trump never got near the White House again.  There were warnings, and there were suggestions from people who had the political experience and savvy to know, to use the power that Democrats had for two years to make sure Trump was tried and convicted for insurrection, and sent to prison.  They were told that it would take breaking the filibuster and packing the Supreme Court.  Wouldn't that have been worth whatever cost came with it to keep him out of the White House?  

But it was branded as political, it was outside the traditional status quo, and party leadership didn't have the will to push it through.  

Democrats had determined in 2020 that Joe Biden's presidency would be transitional, because of his age.  This is something that should have been taken care of from the beginning, made clear that Biden would serve one term to clean up the mess Trump made of government, and then support and hand it off to younger, and more progressive leadership.  That was one of the reasons Kamala Harris was selected as VP.  The party was warned that it would not be a good idea for Biden to run again, especially when it became apparent they weren't going to do anything to stop Trump or bring him to justice.  That led to a panic and a mess following a subpar debate performance on Biden's behalf, a mass of confusion in which the lack of clear leadership in the Democratic party was laid bare.  

Democrats had been warned, for four years, that the Trump campaign's caterwauling and complaining, and massive lawsuits over the 2020 election would change the landscape.  Veteran and experienced election workers, not wanting to be put through a mill grinder, quit, opening the door for thousands of Trump supporters to take those positions.  Trump's whining and complaining about the election being stolen was the loudest and longest warning to Democrats that the Republicans were going to do everything they could to steal the 2024 election.  

"Yeah, we've got it," was the response.  

Greg Palast's observations, research and report following the election would suggest otherwise.  Not only did the GOP find ways to throw out enough ballots to steal the election in every battleground state, but there was almost zero effort on the part of Democratic officials to do anything at all about it.  

And So, Now We Are Here...

The Republicans, with their Heritage Foundation Project 2025 plan book being followed to the tee, have been running amok, doing exactly what we were warned they were going to do, and that was make Trump dictator and impose a Christian nationalist regime to control the United States.  

We were warned.  It's been written about, reported, good grief, copies of this draconian, anti-Democratic piece of trash have been circulating around for a while not.  We knew it was coming.  Nothing was done from November to January, to develop a plan for resisting it and opposing it and making it difficult for Republicans to implement.  "Woe is us," is the cry, "They have a razor thin margin on both houses."  

Nothing was done from January, through February, into march, except the activism of Senator Sanders and Representative Ocasio-Cortez.  I can't donate much, but that's where all my donations are going right now.  That seems to be the only place where there is some good being done.  They sure helped draw attention to the crisis, and we are finally seeing people out in the streets.  But that's not going to be nearly enough.  

We need to start disconnecting Republican senators and congressmen and women from their party loyalty to Trump.  That's not an easy prospect, it has been done before, but not with the kind of wealth and power like the Heritage Foundation has behind them.  These are fallible human beings we are dealing with and unpopularity is not something they feel gives them an advantage.  We will need a lot more commitment than we have seen so far.  And there's not a lot of time.  

We've been warned. 

A DNC "War Room" and a "People's Cabinet" are great ideas, if the party can make them work.  It's about two years too late, maybe more, but there's something out there.  

How long will decent, freedom loving Americans put up with the gross immorality being exhibited through the policies and practices of the Heritage Foundation?  These people know nothing of Christian faith, they are duplicitous hangers-on, exploiting the good name of churches with their extremist right wing politics.  What's happening now is a test of true patriotism, and if your stomach isn't churning and your anger burning right about now, then you are not a patriotic American.  

Trump Opposition is "Emboldened," says Mother Jones' Tim Murphy. Emboldened to Do What?

You Can Stop Asking Where the Mass Opposition is. It's Everywhere.

Tim Murphy's observation on Saturday's mass protests against Trump's actions and policies is a great narrative on the subject, one of the best I've read. You can read it too, by clicking the link above.  He does a great job characterizing the feelings of protesters, and pointing out that this is a movement that exists everywhere, that opposition to Trump's second term in office is widespread and condemning.  

It's a pity that this wasn't happening prior to the election, when it would have made a real difference. But, as Murphy observes, most people think the first time around wasn't nearly as bad as what we have seen, and a lot of people just didn't believe it would go where it has so quickly.  So it is that we have what we have.  

The only other protests I can recall in my own lifetime were those held against the Vietnam War.  Those were big, but this seems to be much larger and much more universal in its purpose.  Trump has never held the confidence of a majority of Americans, though it seems there should be more Americans who understand this is better resolved in a voting booth than in marches down city streets.  The message is clear, and received, the Trump administration does not represent the will of the American people.  But we are constitutionally stuck with it until his term is up.  

Or are we? 

The Opposition is Emboldened, and its Momentum Will Carry it Forward

What is the goal of the opposition?  Protests are design to put forward the idea that a chosen political course of action is not popular, and needs to be reconsidered.  For someone like Trump, who will never be influenced by protests or opposition, and who doesn't have the ability within himself to compromise on anything, the question goes back to the purpose of the protest.  

The size and scope of the turnout shook the Republican party's Congressional leadership to its very core.  They, of course, won't admit it, but it's not really much of a secret at this point.  If that was one of the goals of the protesters, it was achieved.  What the result of this will be, short term or in the long run, is anyone's guess.  

The Constitutional options are limited: 

• Impeachment and removal, which seems highly unlikely.  However, it was Republican pressure on Nixon, after the Watergate scandal broke, threatening removal if Congress did impeach him, that got him to resign.  We seem to be a long way off from that kind of pressure coming from enough Republicans to force him out by resignation.  
• Invoking the 25th amendment, also unlikely given that many of those in the cabinet are his own hand-picked sycophants who don't see his insanity, or do see it but want to use it for their own advantage. 
• Putting enough public pressure on him to get him to resign on his own.  I don't see this as a realistic possibility.  Trump is emotionally incapable of seeing mistakes he makes. He has been the worst President in history, by far and away, worse than even poor James Buchanan, whose lack of leadership actually caused the Civil War, or John Tyler, who succeeded William Henry Harrison after just 31 days, and whose term can be characterized as one of the most anti-Constitutional, anti-patriotic times in history, except for Trump. Tyler managed to alienate himself from the entire electorate, and both major political parties in just four years.  

So, considering the options, what is the goal of the opposition?  

What Can Protests Alone Do? 

From what we know about Trump, a guy who measured his own support by crowd sizes at rallies, he is deeply disturbed by the size and scope of opposition against him.  Word has leaked out that he is enraged by news of the size of his opposition's rallies and no matter what his advisors tell him, he cannot resist taking the bait and making some kind of response.  He might as well just say, "I make a lot of my decisions in anger, based on response to opposition I see."  And as a result, he makes a lot of mistakes.  

And claiming that protests are made up of paid protesters, which is exactly what Trump has done, via Elon Musk, is kind of funny.  If the Democratic party had that kind of money, they more than likely wouldn't have lost the election. 

The protests are not likely to affect Trump or his administration very much.  But they are having a devastating effect on the Republican party, many of whom have seen "empty chair town halls" in their own districts as a direct threat to their re-election. Combined with recent special election results, including the landslide won by Susan Crawford for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in the teeth of millions given to her opponent by Elon Musk, and the turnout that Josh Weil and Gay Valimont got in deep red, gerrymandered Florida districts, the Republican rhetoric seems to be making some shifts.  The Trump tariffs seem to be on the verge of being taken back by Congress.    

We aren't at the point where they're mad enough at Trump to dump him...yet.  But that's one of the goals, and I won't predict when we will get to that point.  Nixon knew, in 1974, that there would be enough Republican votes to throw him out of office, so he resigned.  That took just over two years from the time that the crimes he committed occurred, and just under a year from the time that word got out.    Getting Trump out that way, even though his corruption is far worse than Nixon's was, is a more difficult prospect.  But the protests will have an effect and you can bet that there are members of Congress in some gerrymandered states, and some red states, that know how many protesters were out in the streets in their state by heart right about now, and they've done the subtraction of those numbers from their last election vote total.  

Someone's already been kind enough to point out that if the shifts in margins in Wisconsin and Florida this month, virtually equal in the ten percentage point drop in Republican support, translates over into the next election, 45 Republicans in the House, and seven in the Senate, would lose their races.  I think the numbers will be larger than that, by the time we get that far.  

We do not have a media reporting on this fairly or equitably.  In fact, many of the journalists I see on television, including a few on networks that don't appear to be bought by money, and the habit of inserting several news items each day, chronicling everything Trump does except trips to the bathroom, while ignoring the opposition, is still going on in spite of their protesting that's an unfair accusation. 

But how do you reach supporters who are blind to reality?  Trump is slashing and cutting government departments and services, based on the unproven lie that "trillions" can be saved by cutting "waste."  He's not cutting waste, he's cutting what the government does for its people, which is one of its constitutional functions.  Trump and the Republicans operate under the false pretense that if the government is involved in providing some service, there is massive waste.  It's their definition of "waste" that is lacking in credibility.  Providing medical services for people who cannot afford insurance to cover them is not waste.  But they think it is.  It's the populist rhetoric that is impossible to refute.  

The goal is to continue to put enough pressure on the whole right wing side of the government to trigger a constitutional movement to push him out, either by impeachment or resignation, both of which may not be the long shots everyone thinks now.  This guy's popularity can fade quickly.  I think either he, or one of his ridiculously incompetent cabinet members, like Gabbard or RFK Jr. or Hegseth, will do something that causes real damage and opens up a real security threat to the United States, and that will do it.  

In the meantime, keep protesting. 

"If Trump is an Existential Threat to American Democracy, then..."

 Ex-is-ten-tial  adjective  relating to the existence of a thing; a concern with the continuing existence of something; i.e. existential climate change threatens the existence of life forms.  

It is a difficult word to define, but as an adjective linked to the noun "threat" and used in reference to Trump as a politician, the meaning is clear.  The manner in which Trump operates as a businessman, and subsequently has operated as a politician and President of the United States makes him an existential threat to American democracy.  He has no understanding of the Constitution, and no appreciation for the values it embodies.  He's a demagogue who demands personal loyalty, not patriotism, from his followers.  His god is the dollar, and he's made it clear that while he loves Evangelical votes and support, he won't convert to their brand of Christianity, preferring the prosperity gospel cult, from which he chooses his "spiritual" advisors. 

But we are now well beyond defining Trump as an existential threat to democracy.  He has proven this statement to be true.  

So what do we do about it?  

Being Bold and Taking Risks Wasn't on the Agenda

Trump was re-elected in spite of the fact that he has been convicted of sexual assault, and indicted for inciting insurrection and stealing classified documents.  Our justice department failed, over a four year period during which the politics were favorable, to bring him to trial.  There are multiple reasons why our system failed, but it was mainly because when the threat needed to be evaluated and considered for what it really was, it wasn't taken seriously.  And when the obstacles to a resolution became apparent, the party in power was not willing to use its power to remove the obstacles.  

Yes, that would have required some very risky and bold moves.  It would have meant getting rid of the sacred Senate filibuster, something that needed to happen a long time ago, and letting a majority of votes work for the good of the people.  Of course, when the other party is in power, they'd take advantage of it.  They already do as much as they think they can get away with doing.  But if they'd done it when Biden was in the White House, amending the Judiciary Act and letting him appoint five more liberal justices to the Supreme Court, several things could have been accomplished.  

The court could have taken the insurrection case themselves, and determined Trump was an insurrectionist, disqualified to run for public office.  Or, they could have expidited his trial in the federal system, undercutting his delaying tactics leading to a quick verdict.  There would have been no ridiculous, unconstitutional and inherently corrupt ruling on Presidential immunity from prosecution.  And Roe would have been saved.  

But apparently, not enough Democrats, including the President, really believed that Trump was an existential threat to American Democracy.  Not even to the point where they were willing to use the powers of the Presidency to expidite the insurrection trial.  It was a four year term of "business as usual," with an ineffective and useless justice department right at the time we needed boldness and risk the most.

So What's the Difference Between Trump's First Term and This One? 

Let's cut to the chase.  While Democrats have been messing around with their political protocol, trying not to look political, and still trying to make a system of political compromise work that the GOP abandoned two decades back, a pseudo-Christian, neo-Nazi, white supremacist, Christian nationalist group called the Heritage Foundation, which is what the old Moral Majority and Christian Coalition of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson has become, put together a plan to take over the government of the United States and turn it from a constitutional democracy, where all of its citizens have a voice, into an oligarchy, where only Caucasians who acknowledge the pseudo-Christian cult philosophy of the power structure have any say at all.  

And I remain unconvinced that they did not use their power and influence, in the places where they have it, to steal the election by falsifying the election results.   

We are seeing a systematic implementation of Project 2025.  Everything Trump is doing is related to following, in some fashion, the steps they have outlined to gain control of the government before they put their full blown agenda into place.  They've been delayed along the way by some pushback, mainly through legal channels and gaps in the federal judiciary where they did not control the judicial appointments.  And they are somewhat handicapped by the fact that Trump had his own agenda for who he wanted in certain cabinet positions, so there are some non-Project 2025 appointees, like RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard, who are more Putin tools than Heritage Foundation hacks.  

But, one of the hard facts of what is developing is that the Democrats are, once again, slow to act in the wake of the election, and stone deaf to suggestions of things that could be done before Trump took office to at least throw up some obstacles to slow them down. Every day that goes by is a day that they do something to advance their white supremacist, Christian nationalist agenda.  And every day that goes by that the opposition and resistance to it is stymied trying to figure out what to do and how to do it is a day they gain toward achieving their goal. 

We keep seeing Democratic leadership meet with Trump, try to work with Trump, compromise with Trump, crawl down to Mar-a-Lago or up to the White House. That won't work.  That looks a lot like feathering their own nest, and protecting their own interests. When will we learn, that Trump is always going to make it look like Democrats are crawling to him on his own terms, and he considers everyone that does a personal victory?  And it's only Caucasian Democrats that seem to be susceptible to this temptation.  

We're Not Completely Powerless

Those of us who voted for Democrats in the last election have expectations of those politicians that they need to understand and meet if they are going to continue to win the trust of the voters.  And that includes no compromise with the Trump administration.  We don't have control of Congress, but the margins are very small, and we can stop things in the Senate.  It also seems that one of the biggest values we are getting from protests and from conducting "empty chair" town hall meetings is pressure on Republicans who are very vulnerable at the ballot box.  

It appears that the DNC is actually shaking off its moribund condition by giving its support to an idea called The People's Cabinet, an idea put forward by Timothy Snyder, whose observations of a similar idea from Great Britain received a lot of positive feedback in this country from those in opposition to the Trump administration.  A "shadow cabinet" gives the opposition a place to provide immediate feedback and speak directly to the media with a unified voice of opposition.  Apparently, the DNC is taking some initiative to support this idea and get it going, hopefully moving with speed that we're not used to seeing from them.  

And I think we still need to push hard with every possible issue and tool that can be used against Trump, from the fact that he's still not been brought to trial for insurrection, or for stealing classified documents from the White House, and keep up the pressure that moves toward a constitutional resolution of the problem we are facing, either his forced resignation from the Presidency, or by convincing enough members of Congress on their side, whatever that might take, to decide that it is more expedient for their future if he is gone.  The Signal scandal, which is still unresolved but has been left smoldering, not in flames by Democrats, and the open manipulation of the stock market that we saw with his schizophrenic tariff "policy," which can't really be called a policy, would have had enough political ramifications for any other administration to leverage major change.  

This is Trump's weakness.  His ego will not permit him to admit mistakes.  Why Democrats have not long since learned how to make that work for them, I cannot fathom.  His niece has written several volumes of strategy that are available in every bookstore in America, and from multiple on-line providers.  That might require some key Democratic leaders putting themselves in a direct line of fire, and believe me, I understand that there is real personal, physical danger involved in that.  But I think our country is at the point where it needs a hero.  

It is inevitable, given the total and complete lack of experience, qualification and intellect, of the agenda-driven sycophants Trump has appointed to his cabinet, that they will continue to make massive political and logistical mistakes that will affect large swaths of Americans.  So when someone like Kristi Noem, or Tulsi Gabbard, or RFK Jr. puts their incompetence on display, the opposition needs to zero in, and make sure that even the media silos have to address the incompetence, and get a good look at the emptiness behind the eyes and the robotic lack of character that is displayed.  Make sure they know they will be blamed for the disaster.  

I am thankful for those who have stood up.  Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have really kept the Democratic party in the game at this point.  The millions of Americans who turned out for last weekend's rallies, most of whom were quite passionate and very well informed, were, at least in part, motivated by what this 83 year old United States Senator, and this 35 year old United States Congresswoman have done.  They were already active and engaged, they saw this danger for what it was and have given their best to keep the stream of information flowing and the opposition continuing.  They got it.  If Bernie had been in charge of the Senate in 2021, when we had a slim majority, he wouldn't have quit until the filibuster was broken and the Supreme Court was packed with liberals.  

And we wouldn't be where we are now.  

This is Already Outside the Boundaries of Partisanship.  It's a Movement. 

I've joined in with Indivisible, and  I will continue to write here as long as it is possible to do so.  I started this blog in 2020, and it is completely voluntary, not supported by any political entity demanding quid pro quo loyalty in exchange for favorable words.  I could not participate in the rallies last weekend, I suffer from diabetic foot problems that limit my ability to get into those kinds of venues, and I can't walk far.  But I join in the discussions on Signal, I contribute, carefully where my limited resources allow, but still contribute, and I vote in every election.  

It seems like a lot of Americans have difficulty learning their lesson.  The first article I wrote here, on Christmas Day, 2020, was about just how bad the first Trump administration had been, in comparison to all previous Presidencies, and how it didn't really take a whole lot of time for many people who had voted for him, and almost everyone who didn't, to realize that he has no real substance, he's an image, and everything he touches fails, including money ventures at which he thinks he is an expert.  And now here we are, just a little over five months after he was "elected," and 60% of the country wishes that had never happened.  Again.  

We get trapped inside ideology, inside media silos, and in an age of massive and instant electronic communication, we can avoid seeing the world we live in as a whole by simply turning off a few switches, and turning on a few others that lead to fantasy rather than reality.  How many Americans are even aware of George Washington's farewell address, or the fact that we have, as a country, become so much of what he warned us about not becoming, that it is not likely he would recognize the United States as the country he helped found if he came back from the dead and observed.  

One of my angles is showing, directly, how the claims of Evangelicals who have become politicized by support for Trump, actually have to abandon their faith in the Christian gospel in order to do so.  I have a good theological education and background that helps, and there is a growing group of followers here who have come to that conclusion themselves.  I hope I helped.  The branch of American Evangelicalism that has incorporated Trump's right wing extremism into their doctrine and practice can no longer be defined, biblically, as "Christian," since it only reflects the destructive evil of the extremists to whom it is loyal.  It now seems that many of those who were caught up in this are waking up to the reality of the perversion and evil reflected by MAGA. 

If Trump is an existential threat to American democracy, then we need to wake up to this as a fact, and do all we can, within the boundaries of the rule of law in our constitutional democracy, to eliminate the threat. 

Life in One of America's Blue Cities

It was a dream I had, from the very first time I ever visited this city, which didn't happen until I was well past 50 years of age.  This is a place that pulses with life, a huge, densely populated, culturally diverse, center of culture and economic life of the American Midwest, Chicago.  It's the place political conservatives love to hate, with a long history of Democratic party dominance, due in part to its base of organized labor and more recently, because it was the place where former President Barack Obama got his political start.  

It's political history has been colorful, to say the least, and often criticized.  But let's remember, America is still a democracy, and Democrats are popular here because they are a grass roots political movement that relies heavily on popular support and on getting things done for the people.  It's not easy getting elected in Chicago, and it is even more difficult after election, especially for high profile office holders, partly because expectations are so high.  

I choose to live here, and am planning on retiring here, or at least, close enough to visit regularly.  

Yes, it does cost a little more to live here, at least in some ways.  But not so much that there aren't other expenses that help balance things out.  For one thing, living in the city, we save about 35% on our grocery bill, since we have multiple choices of places to shop that are far less expensive than the one grocery store that existed in the small town where we lived before moving here, and even less than the big box retail places, one brand in particular, that existed in the county seat, 15 miles away from where we lived.  Food prices here are noticeably lower, because of the competition, and department stores and other retail goods, also affected by competition, also provide us with a big savings.  

We also save here in the big city on utilities.  Maybe its unique to Chicago, but our water, electric and gas bill, because of competition, is half what it was when we lived in a small town.  And I can also save by buying a transit pass, and taking public transportation to work, instead of filling up with gas and driving.  The combination of bus to train to bus to work saves me twenty minutes of drive time, and the cost of the ride each way is well below what I'd be paying for gas, not to mention wear and tear on the car.  

It's real estate that makes the biggest difference in cost.  Property values, especially inside the city limits, can run pretty high, and drive up rents or mortgage payments.  When we moved, we swapped square footage for rent, moving from a 2,800 square foot, two story house with full basement to a 650 square foot condo, for about the same monthly payment,  The condo utilities are less, because of both size and their actual cost, taxes are more.  So that's how we've made it work.  And we've gained a community of neighbors in our building that we really didn't have when we lived in a small town.  

The difference between what I pay in taxes here, and what I would pay if I moved across the state line in Indiana is $134 per year.  That's it.  And let me tell you, the smoke from the factory chimneys in Chicago blows east, because Indiana sucks. 

But that's enough about the cost.  Living in Chicago is worth the difference we pay.  

Life is vibrant in this crowded, densely populated, big, old Midwestern city.  With a population larger than a third of the 50 states, and growing once again, Chicago still retains so much of its historical appearance, ethnic and racial diversity, and what it has to offer, that, after seven years, I still haven't covered it all.  There are museums, live theaters, teams in just about every category of professional and college sports, including college football, my personal favorite.  The restaurant scene is incredible, and the best places are the small, hole-in-the-wall hot dog shops, Italian beef vendors and the pizza is to die for.  

I'm not much for walking anymore, since diabetes and neuropathy have played havoc with my feet.  But I can still enjoy a stroll down the Magnificent Mile, on Michigan Avenue.  I'm not much of a shopper, my wife is, though, but I will go just to find a new place for lunch.  Sometimes there's something therapeutic in being among the kind of crowds that are encountered down there.  

There is something to be said for a city that promotes and maintains a high percentage of educated population.  There are 18 colleges and universities within the city limits, along with the largest junior college system in the country, two years of college at a minimal cost to its students in 7 schools scattered around the city.  Altogether, there are over 50 institutions of higher learning in Chicago, including four medical schools that provide significant research.  

I've benefitted tremendously from being close to the medical facilities in the major cities where I've spent most of my adult life.  I have a couple of conditions which I'm able to live with, but which require a level of care that is not always available in rural areas.  And what I've observed here, aside from the quality of the care, is the effort to make it accessible and available to the whole population.  Most of the major hospital systems are not-for-profit, and they have clinics which cover virtually every neighborhood.  

Welcome to the Real World of Politics in Chicago 

It has a reputation, not always a good one, but Chicago politics are a microcosm of how things work in the United States.  This is a  Midwestern, American city, and it reflects Midwestern American values in a big way.  

It is a working class, union-based political stronghold of the Democratic party.  The municipal government operates off of a tax base provided by almost 3 million residents, and one of the largest corporate business communities in the country.  Taxes, which we all love to complain about, run 1.52% for households, less than the fourth largest city in the country, Houston, and about average of other big cities.  I've lived in Houston, too, and for the tax dollars I pay in Chicago, we get a while heck of a lot more.  Our schools are better, for one thing, our crime rate is lower, and if I don't want to fight the traffic here, which is, I will admit, worse than Houston was, I can use public transportation, combination of the bus and the "L", and get to where I'm going in a half hour or less. 

It's a big city, and big cities have crime, though in the United States, some of the highest crime rates are found in smaller cities like Memphis or St. Louis, both of which have much higher crime rates than Chicago does.  The violent crime is concentrated in a few of the neighborhoods with high poverty rates.  Overall, while there are neighborhoods where it is always a good idea to be a little more vigilant, the fact of the matter is that most neighborhoods in this city are walkable and safe.  Three precincts are responsible for 90% of the gun violence.  That was not the case in Houston, where multiple neighborhoods have difficulty with gun violence.   

From a personal perspective, I have not been victim of a crime since living here.  In Houston, I had my apartment broken into, even with the alarm set and running, and on three different occasions, someone broke into my parked car, once at work, once sitting in the underground garage of the apartment building, and once while parked in the lot of a shopping mall.  That's anecdotal, but the fact is, I feel safer here in Chicago, safe enough around where I live to walk my dog late at night, safe enough to ride public transportation, including the bus-train combinations that get me to my destination faster than driving and parking do.  

Do the Politics of a Region Really Make a Difference?

After having lived in various parts of the country, including Missouri, Kentucky, Arizona, Texas and Pennsylvania, I say that they do.  People complain, but where government works like it is supposed to work, as far as the services it provides, and the ability of individuals to feel that their conscience is free, and their "pursuit of happiness." is protected.  

Conservatives are always jabbering and jawing about their freedoms being taken away from them.  I challenge any conservative to tell me what freedom they lose by living in a place like Chicago.  I can't think of one thing.  This is a great place to live.  

And in addition to the local politics being dominated by the Democratic party, so is the state.  J. D. Pritzker is or governor, that's a bonus, right there.  No kooky legislation gets through the Democratic supermajority here, and in spite of its critics, the city council works well, too.  Very well, as a matter of fact.  I have no complaints.

 

Sensationalism Doesn't Belong in Journalism, But It's There!

In one of his pointless, senseless, rambling, demented monologues, Trump got triggered to make comments about the possibility that he would seek a third term.  In a demonstration of the poor quality of education received by some journalists in this country, some reporters picked up on this theme and it was one of multiple Trump news items that popped up for a while.  Reporters put the news out there as if it were something of significance, and as if Trump mentioning it makes it a possibility.  

Of course, the various deceitful ways that they were talking about a "third term," like having another body in the oval office elected as President who just gives deference to Trump and lets him run the country, is along the lines of what they were talking about.  But that's about as realistic as the possibility that he could actually run for, or serve, a third term.  That cannot happen unless the Constitution is either amended, or destroyed.  

It's an ego booster.  In Trump talk, there are "some people," a nebulous group whom he wants us to believe is representative of "the American people," and who are really just his own sycophants, who might have brought this up.  Getting around the rules is an obsession with this guy.  No one is talking about how to make it possible to get Trump a third term, in fact, well over half of "the American people" are talking about how to shorten his time in this term by a considerable amount. 

So why is this popping up in the media everywhere, as if talking about Trump ten times a day is not already a waste of time?  

In case these journalists are misinformed, or profoundly ignorant, the way it works is that the Constitution specifically states that a President is limited to two terms in office, and can only be elected to two terms.  In the event that a Vice-President was called upon to serve starting on the 402 day of his own term, then that person could wind up being in the White House as long as 9 years, 364 days.  But they cannot run again after winning two elections and they must leave at the end of their second term. 

It would take a two thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, and two thirds of the state legislatures ratifying it to change the provision about Presidential term limits.  That's not happening.  And no, the Supreme Court cannot step in and re-interpret that part of the Constitution.  There's not even any grounds to file a lawsuit.  Any forceful attempt to simply remain, or to sabotage the incoming administration would be identified as a coup, and if force was required to get him out, any opposition that was defending his attempt to stay would, along with him, be arrested.  

The ideology to which the GOP has sold out very likely doesn't care about the Constitution, something that we not only need to consider, but to be prepared to oppose, defending, as patriots, the Constitution against what would be one of its enemies.  Journalists would be doing their job if they pointed out that talk of a third term is not in the best interests of anyone in this country. 

"Trump Resistance Movement" and "Democratic Party" Are Not Necessarily Synonymous

One of the observations that became a little bit clearer and more focused following Saturday's massive anti-Trump, anti-Musk, anti-GOP rallies is the fact that the Democratic party is not in the lead when it comes to this movement, and while most Democrats are part of the resistance and opposition to what is, after just 77 days, a miserably failing Presidency, the two things, which I will identify as the "Trump Resistance Movement," and the "Democratic party," are not necessarily the same thing.  

There has been a massive amount of analysis of the 2024 election, most of it speculative, without strong, solid data to back it up, purporting to have discovered the exact reason why Kamala Harris lost one of the closest elections in history to Trump.  Just this morning, I heard a talk show guest of Richard Chew, on Chicago's WCPT, claim that it was a movement away from Democrats of Gen X'ers, black men and Hispanic voters, but the evidence he offered was speculative, not accurate.  

Personally, my observation is that the defeat was caused by the same reason most Democrats have lost elections, going back to 1980.  It's their inability to match the message with their actions.  The shifts in various demographics cannot account for the drop off of 5 million plus voters from the 2020 election.  It's hard to take the message seriously if the actions don't match the rhetoric.  Democrats claimed that Trump was an existential threat to American Democracy, as he certainly proved from 2016 to 2020, and is now proving once again.  No argument there.  

But the actions didn't demonstrate enough conviction to convince a lot of "low propensity voters" that they were serious about the claim.  The overall effort made to use Constitutional means to eliminate such a threat by Democrats in leadership positions was weak and irresolute, and was not convincing enough to marshall the kind of voter support necessary to win.  If they'd put in an effort to match their rhetoric, and Biden had stayed on, he'd have won a landslide.  Harris would have had an easy win.  

Their old-line leadership, which includes Biden, just couldn't break out of their habits.  I love Joe Biden, I think he was the right choice in 2020, as a transitional President, to bridge the gap between the horribly failed Trump term, and a progressive, reform aiming Democratic party under Harris.  But he spent such a long time in the Senate that he was hobbled by unwillingness to mess with its traditions and its antiquated, anti-democratic features dubbed as some kind of elite status by many of its members.  The remnants of an old, give-and-take system that valued political compromise that is long gone, abandoned completely by the opposition party, dragged Democrats down.  

Democrats could not see past the obstacles thrown up by a Republican-corrupted justice system, and in spite of claiming Trump was a threat, they could not get him in front of a jury for trial as a seditious insurrectionist as a result of a series of frivolous delays, along with deliberate foot-dragging on the part of an irresolute and inept, incompetent attorney general.  Discussions about breaking the filibuster to pack the Supreme Court, when they had the power to do it, were pooh-poohed.  We're talking about saving the country from a potential dictatorship, here.  But they made keeping the antiquated, outdated and undemocratic filibuster a priority. And they weren't willing to take the step necessary to pack the Supreme Court, which would have opened all kinds of doors, including getting Trump tried and convicted as an insurrectionist long before the mid-term election rolled around, eliminating the ridiculous and unconstitutional immunity ruling and saving Roe.    

With control of both houses of Congress and the White House for two years, the Democrats were unable to accomplish this highest priority of government tasks.  

With a Few Notable Exceptions, Democrats Weren't at the Front of Saturday's Protests

Some Democrats, those who have also been baffled and frustrated by the irresolute stumbling of their party leadership, were an active part of the Saturday protests and rallies.  Of course, with so many different locations, it's hard to tack the involvement of everyone who was out there.  But from accounts I've read, most of the speakers were activists, authors, local leaders who aren't necessarily office holders.  The Democrat who represents the state legislative district in Illinois, where I live, didn't even show up at a rally.  

Here in Chicago, it was local chapters of Indivisible that organized and promoted the protest.  Democrats in Congress, even the leadership, didn't make many headlines on national news.  Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth was part of the protest, I saw and heard some from Eric Swalwell, who I expected to be out in front, and Jamie Raskin.  Of course, Bernie and AOC, who were really the catalyst to get all of this started, had prominent roles and high visibility.  Former Texas Congressman Beto O'Rourke is an activist organizer now, in Texas.  Most comments from Democrats are favorable.  But they're still not out in front on this, because where it is going seems to be into areas with a lot higher level of political risk than most of them want to take. 

So, while it is difficult to imagine the Democratic party as part, but not the whole, of a Trump opposition movement, that's exactly where we are.  And in order to defeat Trump, getting him out of the White House by whatever non-violent, constitutional means is possible, even forceful public opinion that convinces enough Republicans to force his resignation, it's probably going to take more than the Democratic party leadership is actually willing to do, in the long run, to bring this about.  Democrats didn't use the tools they had available to them when they had the power in their hands, not to stop Trump, not even to save their holy grail, Roe v. Wade.  Now that they don't have the tools, they've turned to fundraising appeals using this as a backdrop.  

This is a grassroots movement.  It's the evidence of a landslide election the Democratic party could have won if it had stuck to, and clearly communicated its message.  It's the sign of a political shift that is coming, one that may eventually be identified as the Democratic party, but with a new set of leaders.  Attempts to let the focus get distracted off into side issues won't be allowed by this movement.  The Democrats can't advance their complicated policy platform now, anyway, so the focus must remain on the most effective course of action, and that is stopping Trump from completely demolishing the country.  

There's progress, and movement in the right direction.  But it has to come quicker and form faster if it is to be effective in stopping Trump.

If this is the beginning of a new politically progressive movement, slightly to the left, that will appeal to a lot of constituencies both parties have been unable to reach, then it's a good thing.  

 

 

 

What was Accomplished by Saturday's Protests?

Millions Stood Up April 5, A Day of Action

Here's a quote from the article I linked above, which is a narrative of the speech given at the "Hands Off!" rally in San Francisco on Saturday, April 5 by activist Rebecca Solnit.  The entire speech can be found in the link above.

"I am not saying we will do this.  For that, we'd have to be patiently passionate and passionately patient.  We'd have to stick to our principles, keep showing up and keep standing up even when it looks bleak.  We have to do the right things even when the consequences of our actions might not be immediately obvious.  We have to persevere even if it is scary, and by that we, I mean those of us least at risk on behalf of those of us most at risk.  We can do this.  

Will we do it?  Are you in? For the long haul?" 

In It For the Long Haul 

The turnout for Saturday's "Hands Off!" rallies and marches around the country clearly exceeded the expectations of the organizers.  This was a kind of testing of the waters, a check on the political temper of the United States after just 76 days of the second Trump Presidency.  I've been reading the media pundit reactions, the politician reactions, the statements from organizers, and the public reaction that we are getting from the media is predictable.  I'm going to ignore a lot of the predictability in evaluating the effect of what transpired.  

And I have to say this here before I go on.  Colleges and universities who operate programs that train journalists, particularly the news writers, copy editors, and the editorial commentators, are absolutely embarrassing themselves with the product they are graduating, and with the poor quality of the work being done by those to whom they are handing degrees.  That should be an item in the top five of any list of things that have gone wrong in this country and are responsible for this political disaster we are now facing.  The lack of discernment, of content knowledge of the American Constitution and the government which operates under its principles and rules, the ability to discern truth from a lie, and the lack of conviction evident in repeated failure to call out lies, especially among younger journalists, is appalling. 

It'll be a while before the full impact of Saturday's events will be felt.  The horror of seeing crowds ten times larger than even the most optimistic predictions in deep red states like Utah, Montana, Idaho, West Virginia, and Texas has Republicans in a real panic.  Even what we've seen in some of the understated and carefully guarded words, mostly pre-fab stuff, over the weekend, that is one of the more visible reactions.  From that side of the aisle, I don't expect a lot of words to be said.  What I expect is a change of plans that will be noticeable soon enough.  

But even in the big, deep blue cities, the turnout exceeded expectations.  Some of the venues, like Daley Plaza in downtown Chicago, just weren't big enough to hold the turnout, so it spilled over into the surrounding streets.  

And here's an obvious fact.  If a Presidential administration has motivated protests of this size and scope, in virtually every nook and cranny of this country in just 76 days in office, it is in an unmeasurable and disastrous world of trouble, and it does not have a future.  

It will take a while for this to sink in.  The GOP is being held together by fear of retribution, not exactly a value of American politics that has ever had much success in the past.  The margins are showing up in polling data that has become even more dismal for Trump than it was in his first term.  Already.  Saturday's rallies affirmed the feelings that are showing up in those polls, as did the special election results last week, so now, the party operating out of a fear of opposition and defeat that is manifesting itself in a deathly fear of holding public, town hall meetings, is scared spitless. That, more than any words of a Fox News commentator, says just how scared Republicans are about their future with Trump in the White House.  

So being committed to being in for the long haul is a strategy that will work.  

The Opposition Has Come Together, and is Inviting Democrats to Get On Board

We have come from a point of uncertainty, confusion and paralysis following the 2020 election, that continued all through the last days of the Biden Presidency, up to and since the inauguration, to a point where the realization of the true consequences of electing this incompetent, demented, emotionally and intellectually crippled, dysfunctional demagogue are setting in quickly.   For decades in this country, we have fought apathy among various groups of people in our country who somehow got disconnected from their responsibility and role as "we, the people," and buried themselves in something else, refusing to participate in the very activities that were meant for their own benefit, even during those times when their own perspective didn't prevail.  

It was even worse, during this last election cycle, as truthful information got buried in sensationalism, competition for ratings that equal profits for media company owners, ignorance and lack of discernment resulted in the media becoming a propaganda outlet for Trump.  We had four years of the guy in the White House, and there isn't any way to be honest, and evaluate that Presidency as anything more than one of the worst failed Presidencies in our almost 250 years of Constitutional history.  And we've had some real bad, totally incompetent, inept failures who led the country into disasters we didn't have to experience, like the Civil War.  

This President is worse than any of those, and the fact that in an age of electronic media, and instant communication, that fact can be distorted, manipulated, and made to convince seemingly educated and intelligent people otherwise is a huge problem that must be corrected at every level where it exists, from television news to church pulpits, everywhere the lies are promoted.  The truth is getting out there and Saturday's turnout is evidence of that.  

This is a true grassroots movement, in the real political sense of that term.  While its organizers are, for the most part, members of the Democratic party, the party and its leadership is pretty much along for the ride.  Other than Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, there hasn't really been anyone who has done anything meaningful or effective as far as opposition to this administration's incompetence is concerned, except make a few angry speeches and used it to help set up fundraising operations for their own upcoming re-election campaigns.  We picked up Cory Booker last week, after his remarkable speech acknowledged mistakes Democrats have made in the past, and realistically assessed the future.  

I'd be in favor of Schumer stepping down, and handing the mantle of Senate leadership to Senator Booker.  Tomorrow couldn't be soon enough.  If Schumer wants to retire and get out of the way, I'd be OK with that too.  Democrats are the natural choice to lead this movement, and the fact that the momentum appears to be well past where most of them are still hanging out is a sign that we need a change in leadership.  That may well be something that results from the effects of yesterday's rallies and marches. 

It will be a long haul.  As Booker alluded to in his speech, the Democrats have made mistakes and squandered chances to prevent what's happening now from materializing.  But there's too much self-focused, self-protection going on that prevented the kind of bold risk-taking that would have produced what the justice system in this country was designed to produce, and that is an honest government held accountable to the people.  There is no excuse for Trump not being brought to trial for his crimes long before any thought of the 2024 election rolled around, and there is no excuse for action not being taken, when it seemed that the blockades, especially from the Supreme Court, were going to prevent it.  

Democrats had the power for two years during the Biden Administration, and could have used it if not for the restraints they put on themselves by sticking to their political traditions, not realizing their opponents had abandoned those rules and there was no way to win by following them anymore.  It doesn't seem like that lesson has sunk in yet, and that's why this movement is ahead of the party leadership, not really following it. It seems to be choosing its own leaders. 

What I Would Like to Happen vs What Needs to Happen

Public pressure can do a lot of things, including causing a failing, corrupt, ineffective demagogue to resign the Presidency.  We saw this happen in 1974, when public pressure from revelations coming out of the Watergate scandal pushed enough members of the Republican membership of Congress to commit to impeachment and removal of Richard Nixon, letting him know before a trial actually started that his Presidency wouldn't survive the outcome.  

The result of a Presidential resignation now would be to put an even more incompetent, and far worse individual in the White House.  And even if they both stepped down, we'd get Mike Johnson, a sniveling, spineless coward with no moral or ethical convictions.  The question is how much influence the Heritage Foundation has over those in line for the Presidency, and how much support would be left among Republicans in Congress to keep pushing that agenda in the face of public pressure.  But clearly, while the options are the lesser of two evils, getting Trump out of the White House is the best option.

Musk, very likely, is gone.  That word came down after Tuesday, when he more or less took a major beating in Wisconsin, an election won by a Democrat who very likely benefitted from people who turned out because he got involved.  I don't think Trump has the mental capacity, or the emotional ability or ego strength to push him out the door and shut down DOGE, but I think those who are his handlers realize what might happen if that doesn't happen.  Something has to give in the Signal scandal, too, and it can't be a low level sacrifice.  It must be either Waltz or Hegseth.  My guess is the latter, since having an incompetent in the Pentagon is a worry for some GOP Senators, too.    

As I watched video of the crowd that materialized in Washington, DC on Saturday, probably ten times larger, or more, than the January 6th mob of traitors and insurrectionists, I thought, "what a contrast."  A peaceful demonstration, showing respect for the democracy that gives it the freedom to march and to protest, as opposed to the violent attempted overthrow of a legitimate election.  These were true American patriots, exercising their rights and sending a clear message of opposition to a President who is failing to do his job.  

We Have a Movement

So it will be a long haul, but we have a movement.  The size and scope of this particular protest was impressive, but beyond that, it is a sign that the message is getting out, and awareness of the truth, and let me underline that, the truth, is getting out.  I don't think we have a figure of just how many people turned out on Saturday, but what we do have is evidence that change is being demanded, and is coming.  Combined with Tuesday's shocking special election results, even in Florida, where anti-Trump voters boosted turnout and doubled the election percentages of Democratic candidates in just five short months of discontent, there's been a political earthquake. 

A lot of damage has been done, and will continue to be done as long as Trump is in the White House.  But what we know about him is that his ego can't persist against opposition.  I expect that this was not a weekend very many people on the White House staff or in his secret service detail wanted to spend in his presence.  But the pressure needs to keep coming.  We will do well to focus our political contributions on the places where it does the most good, on Senator Sanders' and Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez' movement and organization, and on the organizations which have formed, and are putting this together, like Indivisible,  which was responsible for a lot of Saturday's turnout.  

"Will we do it?"  Yes, we will. "Are you in?"  Yes, I am.  I have problems standing for a long time, can't walk for long distances because of diabetic foot problems but you'll see me with my lawn chair at rallies and gatherings.  "For the long haul?"  Yes, for as long as it takes.