No Theology or Doctrine Justifies Christian Participation in an Insurrection Like January 6th

Christian flags and Jesus T-shirts are visible in the footage from the Trump Insurrection against the U.S. Capitol on January 5, 2021. One of the most disturbing images from the video presented by the committee this past week was of a flag pole on which there was a US flag and a Christian flag being used to jab a police officer trying to defend the Capitol.  Anyone in that mob who claims to be a Christian needs to be called out.  There's absolutely no justification whatsoever for a sincere follower of Jesus Christ to be involved in an insurrection of any kind, especially not a violent one.  The Bible's writers call that kind of behavior "antichrist."  I call it sinful, and substantiate my claim with the scriptures Christians claim are authoritative in all matters of Christian faith and practice.  

Lying is Sinful and the Reason Behind the January 6th Trump Insurrection is a Lie

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.  Exodus 20:7, NRSV

Claiming that there was massive voter fraud, and that the 2020 Presidential election was "stolen" from Trump is a lie.  I'm not even going to argue that point here, there is so much evidence out there, including much of it from pseudo-auditors paid by Trump supporters to sift through ballots in six states, five in which the state legislature allowed it, none of whom found even a small piece of evidence to prove anything but that the vote totals were accurate.  Believing a lie makes one a liar.  

It's possible for a reasonably intelligent person with a high school diploma to do some research, find facts, develop an understanding of how elections work, including the process for protecting the integrity of the vote and the safeguards to prevent fraud, look at specific information regarding this election and see that the "evidence" presented by Trump's campaign was not credible, while the evidence presented by every secretary of state in every state they sued was consistently accurate, and discern the truth.  It is also possible to look at the conspiracy theories and the stories of fraud, and determine that they are false and lack credibility.  And regardless of personal bias toward a favored candidate, someone with integrity, a Christian who understands this commandment, would not defend a lie even if it is to their advantage, because it dishonors their faith in God.  

We now know, from the testimony of multiple individuals in the Trump Administration, that everyone knew there was no evidence of any fraud, and that they knew, by their own inside information, that the vote totals in the six states Trump tried to challenge and accuse of fraud, were accurate.  They knew that he had lost and they knew his claim that the election was stolen was a lie.  

Carrying a Christian flag into a violent insurrectionist mob that intended to kidnap, torture and murder members of Congress, and who did murder five police officers, is exactly what commandment number 3 warns against doing.  The flag represents Jesus, the pledge that goes along with it declares allegiance "to the savior for whose Kingdom it stands."  I do not know whether the individual who carried that particular banner, and used it as a weapon against a police officer who was protecting the Capitol and doing his job, was a Christian or not but that really doesn't matter.  What matters is that what they did with it was a sin, for which the commandment says there is no acquittal from the Lord. 

Three of the gospel writers reference blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as "unforgiveable." An act such as this, the violent misuse of a symbol of the Kingdom of God, would qualify, since the flag represents the spiritual kingdom Jesus established through the Holy Spirit. Bringing the flag to this insurrection is an indication that the person who did it knew exactly what they were doing.  There are no excuses for supporting a lie.  And there are spiritual consequences for doing so.  A sincere Christian with an understanding of the faith would know this.

The Example of Jesus in the Face of Arrest is the Most Powerful Argument Against Participating in Violent Insurrection by Christians

John's gospel account of Jesus' arrest is the most comprehensive record of what occurred in the Garden of Gethsemane.  And it is the single most powerful argument for the Christian virtue of peace, versus rebellion and violence, anywhere in the Bible.  

Then Jesus, knowing all that was to happen to him, came forward and asked them, "For whom are you looking?"  They answered, "Jesus of Nazareth."  Jesus replied, "I am he."  Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them.  

When Jesus said to them, "I am he", they stepped back and fell to the ground.  John 18:4-6 NRSV

This would have been the point, in Jesus' ministry, when he could have started an insurrection against the Temple guards and Jewish authorities who had come to arrest him.  And in fact, at least one of his disciples, Peter, who had brought a sword for this purpose, attempted to take some action. 

Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it, struck the High Priest's slave, and cut off his right ear. The slave's name was Malchus. Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword back into its sheath.  Am I not to drink the cup the Father has given to me"?  John 18:10-11, NRSV

In one of the other gospel accounts of this moment, after Peter wields the sword, Jesus tells him, "No more of this" then touches the slave's ear and heals him.  And he tells the Temple guards, "Have you come out with clubs and swords as if I were a bandit?"  

According to John's account, Jesus had the power to resist arrest, and in fact, to completely overcome the Temple guard, contained in the spiritual power of his spoken word.  When he identified himself, according to John, the guards fell to the ground.  But to use that power to save himself would have been a complete rejection of who he was, and of his reason for existing.  He is the one who said, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the Sons of God," along with "Love your enemies and pray for those who despitefully use you," and "turn the other cheek also," to the one who hits you in the face first.  

So who is the enemy against whom the insurrectionists are fighting and where is there any justification in Christian doctrine or theology for joining it?  There is nothing in the politics surrounding the January 6th insurrection or the 2020 election that demands Christians deny their faith and act in a manner that violates their spiritual convictions, which would be the only justification for an act of civil disobedience.  But there is no justification in any Christian teaching for taking up arms and committing violence, especially against a civil government that protects their religious freedom.  

Is Civil Disobedience Ever Justified in Christian Doctrine? 

There's no record in the New Testament, other than the crucifixion of Jesus, which provides an example for acceptable civil disobedience by Christians to a government that is persecuting the church or forcing its members to violate their convictions and their faith.  Jesus didn't resist the civil authority, nor did he resist the religious authority of the Jewish Sanhedrin that asked the Roman government to carry out his execution on their behalf.  

Two of the early church's apostles, Peter and Paul, both provide clear principles instructing the church's relationship with civil government which, for almost all of their audience, was the Roman Emperor and his agents.  

For the Lord's sake, accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right.  For it is God's will that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish.  As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as  a pretext for evil.  Honor everyone.  Love the family of believers.  Fear God.  Honor the emperor.  I Peter 2:13-17, NRSV

Peter is specific about who the governing authorities are, and how Christians were to submit to their authority.  The emperor's authority was absolute, and the Christians had no say or voice in the decisions they made.  

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.  Therefore, whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement.  Romans 13:1-2, NRSV

Neither apostle makes an exception to this.  Paul's obedience to the law and his respect for the authority of the governing authorities was key to his ability to continue to preach the gospel.  He appealed to his Roman citizenship for protection against attacks from those who were seeking to silence him, submitted to the authority of the emperor, but was able to continue in his ministry in spite of a house arrest, because of the posture he took toward governing authorities.  

Both Paul and Peter were executed by the Roman government, though the scripture doesn't record either event.  But even in the record of those events, there's no rebellion or insurrection and they went to their death testifying to the veracity of their Christian faith by their obedience.  Their example was followed by the church which, during the various waves of persecution that occurred in the first two centuries of its existence.  In their obedience to the instruction of these two apostles, and to the example of Jesus, many Christians went to a horrible death, but their testimony was so visible, and so powerful, that by the time the persecution of the church under the Roman government ended during the reign of Constantine, Christianity had grown into the largest religious group in the empire.  

The Roman authorities that persecuted the church were not acting on God's behalf.  They were abusing the authority that God had given them.  Ultimately, as a result of that, God, in his own timing and according to his own will, turned that around to the benefit of the church.  Christianity became the most influential world religion as a result of the obedience of its adherents to these instructions.  At that point, the Emperors who ascended to the throne were professing Christians and it was that marriage of Christian faith with political power that let to the corruption of the church. 

Insurrection against the governing authorities by the church would have resulted in its demise.  Give that some thought at this point in the 21st century.

The other example of "civil disobedience" frequently cited in response to using these two passages from Peter and Paul as an argument against the Christian's use of violence is that of Daniel.  Noting that Daniel is an Old Testament prophet, who lived before either Peter or Paul made those statements, Daniel is still not an example that permits Christians to choose violent insurrection as a means of overthrowing a government they consider "unjust," especially if there's no evidence to support that claim. 

There are two instances in the historical record of Daniel which are cited as support for the "exception" to Peter and Paul's principles.  However, neither of those examples support that contention.   In both cases, Daniel, and the three Israelite young men known as Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, did not resist the authority of the king when it came to a law that they believed was unjust according to their faith.  They still submitted to the governing authorities.  Even if you think of this as allegorical rather than historical, there is no resorting to rebellion against the authority, or to force.  The response is to accept the consequences for disobedience to the civil law, and trust in deliverance from God.  

According to Biblical principle, even if a law handed down by the civil government was unjust, there is no justification at all for a Christian to participate in an armed, violent insurrection or, in fact, in any kind of attempt to overthrow the civil government.  There's been no abuse of the Christian church in America, of any kind.  Even if the premises of those who organized the January 6th insurrection had been accurate, there was still no justification for Christian participation in it.  Of course, the evidence has now been laid out and is known that the premise for the insurrection was a lie, and everyone involved, including the former President's inner circle of close advisors, his own children, his attorneys and he himself knew it.  

That makes it indefensible.  I hope those who claim to be Christians, and who carried those Christian symbols and flags into that seditious insurrection, have appealed to God for his grace and forgiveness, and did not misuse God's name in a manner that denies their acquital.  

 

We Are in a Political Crisis: Resolving it Won't be Easy

While the January 6th committee hearings are now underway, and that is a good thing, there are some observations that come with it that we must face realistically and plan for the future accordingly.  The fact of the matter is that a relatively large minority of Americans, as many as a third by most credible evidence, can be considered "extremists" in that they believe something that has been proven to be false, and they believe it strongly enough to be willing to use force to defend it.  

That is an extremely dangerous place to be.  It's the kind of situation that existed in Europe prior to both 20th century world wars.  It's existed in the United States in the past as well, in the decades that led up to the Civil War.  Extremism has embedded itself in social and cultural institutions, where it is almost impossible to eliminate or change.  It only needs a tipping point or, perhaps a better analogy, a carelessly tossed cigarette into the dry tinder to ignite the flames.  

The groundwork for the extremism that is causing this crisis has been laid for a long time.  When Richard Nixon was caught in lies, he blamed the media for being biased.  The very nature of conservativism requires withholding and suppressing information to protect itself from change, so of course, the media became a perfect scapegoat for Nixon's crimes.  But the difference back then was that there were very few media outlets that were willing to depart from sound journalistic principles in order to defend him.  That's one of the major differences between then and now.  

Democracy Dies in Darkness

That's the motto of the Washington Post, the "nation's daily newspaper" as it is sometimes called.  The extremist right considers the Post "liberal, left wing media."  That's one of many errors that is made by people who hold that perspective.  To say that tells me, a regular reader of both the Post and the New York Times that the individuals making that statement have never read either newspaper themselves, and have paid little attention to their contents.  

Both newspapers, which are primarily on-line media outlets these days, since their online readership is massively larger than their print circulation, follow strict journalistic principles which come as close to eliminating any kind of political, social or cultural bias in their reporting.  Their editorial position is a different story, but notice that I said their reporting is unbiased.  I've rarely seen a reporter from the Post fail to include all of the facts and all of the perspectives relevant to a news story and if they do, its because they missed something, not because they were deliberately trying to hide it from the readers.  

Reporting is kept separate from editorial and opinion sections.  Both papers have editorial writers and columnists who are sympathetic to conservative perspectives, though it is true that the majority of their writers take a leftward leaning moderate to liberal approach when expressing their opinion.  But the notable difference is that conspiracy theories, statements that cannot be fact-checked or verified for their accuracy, and intentional, deliberately misleading statements are not included in the editorials of the Washington Post or the New York Times.  And to conservatives, who only read and watch right wing media outlets, which are really nothing more than propaganda channels, see the factual perspective of the two big dailies as biased.  

Many conservatives have become far right extremists because they are in a media world that is in darkness.  They are being manipulated.  The driving force appears to be fear, generated by a lack of education or the failure to develop critical thinking skills, and a lack of ability to even tolerate people who don't share the same interests.  And while this is purely anecdotal, in many conservatives whom I know, their fears border on the edge of paranoia, thinking that there is someone or something out there always out to "get" them.  Their isolation inside a media bubble has created an "us vs them" perspective, with the "them" being an enemy who isn't entitled to the same rights because they are "unAmerican" by a hypocritical definition. 

Wasn't One of the Original Purposes of a Public Education System "Democratic Equality" Leading to Better Citizenship? 

American educators were able to see the connection between an educated society and the preservation of representative democracy.  Most people who came to America were motivated by the personal freedom that it offered.  Over time, they connected access to that freedom with abandoning the idea of a "ruling class" from European tradition and they realized that equal access to education would eliminate the social, cultural and economic inequities that perpetuated those ideas.  And it succeeded.  

The American Civil War played a big role in demonstrating the need for an educated electorate to prevent democracy from being distorted and captured by special interests.  The result was compulsory public education by the time the United States entered World War I.  And that has led to a measure of equality that strengthened the representative democracy by increasing the public's participation in it.  I believe that the influence of American education stabilized representative democracy, at least for most of the post war period, even though Vietnam, until the attacks on independent media by conservatives began to take a toll.  That, and the deterioration of public education, have brought us to this present darkness. 

Is it Even About Democracy Anymore? 

More than any other extremist propagandist in the media, Rush Limbaugh interjected idealism that runs counter to democratic values.  Limbaugh took the position that people aren't capable of ruling themselves and they need a more firm, authoritarian system to make sure that the things that are "right" are done, and the things that are "wrong" are avoided.  The bottom line for Limbaugh in measuring what was "right" was money, how to make it and keep as much of it as possible, avoiding giving any of it to the democratic government that will use it to pander to liberal, wrong ideas.  

The right talks about patriotism and the founding fathers and democracy like they own it.  But in fact, what they are advocating is not democracy, it is an autocracy in which there is a ruling class, based on ideology.  And if that sounds ominous, it is.  There is a mixture of ideology in there that has pulled the money interests, those who are aiming to enrich a small group of individuals by using government power, together with those who believe that America was originally destined to be a revival of white, Christian European culture, chosen by God and given the riches of an untapped North American continent as a blessing, and the Christian Dominionists and Reconstructionists who believe they are the forerunners of Christ's return and God's kingdom on earth.  

We got an up-close look at this in the insurrectionist mob that invaded the Capitol on January 6th.  One of the images that specifically got my attention was a banner with a Confederate flag and a Christian flag being used as a weapon to jab a police officer.  That mob is just a small sample of the work that right wing media has been doing for several decades, 

Free Speech Turned Against Democracy

So how is political poison like this neutralized under constitutionally guaranteed free speech?  

This won't happen overnight.  It is now as embedded in the far right as any political ideology has ever been in this country, going back to its early days, with the possible exception of the period prior to the Civil War, and then Reconstruction.  It's political opponents have been very patient, though there have been incidents which have flared up into violence, flash points which illustrate exactly why the time has come to wake up before there is another civil war.  

Free speech is a cherished core value of American democracy.  And it cannot be abused or sacrificed.  We just have to learn how to use it effectively to defeat what is an obvious attempt to subvert American values.  I don't believe America has run its course yet.  This won't be easy, but it's not insurmountable. 

We need to recognize that the injection of far right political ideology has its limits, and is waning.  It reached its high point in getting Trump in the White House for four years.  That, in turn, motivated the largest turnout of Democratic party votes in American history, over 80 million, from virtually every Democratic party constituency, and most independents, to get him out.  So the first step is to gather the strength of the ballot box again, in 2022, and put an exclamation point on 2020.  

It's Been Gift Wrapped Already--Make it Work!

Is that so unrealistic?  It has to be done, and opinions about who is in the White House don't matter, though the President we have is politically the best suited to carry out what needs to be done and that's why 80 million of us elected him in the first place.  Uniting the country has to be done under the rules and principles of its democratic constitutional government, and with the minority party playing the obstructionist card, holding the majority in Congress, getting the Senate past the filibuster obstacle and negotiating from a position of strength is the only language obstructionism understands. 

I hear the wailing, the despair, the rhetoric.  "It would take a miracle.  The party in power in the White House always loses the mid-terms."  But Democrats have had a lot of help.  Putin showed his true colors and attacked Ukraine.  There's definitely a way to stir up some angry voters, in spite of gas prices and inflation by sticking some labels on that and plastering photographs of a smiling Trump with his left arm around a smiling Putin.  This is an issue which has the support of well over 60% of the American people, so use it. 

Over 60% of the American people are against, against, seeing Roe v, Wade overturned.  At this point, I don't care who leaked Alito's papers (I'm convinced Ginny Thomas was responsible) that news lit a fire under a significant segment of otherwise sleepy voters.  Getting 60% support on a political issue these days is rare indeed, and yet here we are.  

In Uvalde, Texas, the logical progression of unbridled and out-of-control irresponsibility of a distorted perspective of second amendment rights led to the brutal, bloody massacre of nineteen children and two teachers, and the wounding of a dozen others, in an elementary school in a small town in rural South Texas, where things like that aren't supposed to happen.  Most of the bodies were mangled beyond recognition.  This is a direct result of legislation that is pushed by the far right and promoted by their propagandists.  Any objection to this becoming a political issue was nullified by the governor of Texas, who said, "it could have been worse," in his initial press conference.  How could it possibly have been worse?  

Support for increased regulation of gun ownership, especially limiting calibre and number of weapons that can be owned by one person, runs upwards of 80% of the electorate.  Eighty percent. 

And I could write a book about what can be gained from the January 6th hearings.  I know that there are a lot of Democrats who are throwing wet blankets on this, but at this point, any wedge for an advantage is a gift.  The whining and complaining of the right should be ignored and the focus maintained on the facts.  Gain all of the ground here that can be gained, there will be a lot of members of Congress who get called out in this and their Democratic opponents should get all the help necessary to keep this up front through the election cycle.  

Who is going to step up and take these wonderful gifts that are already significant advantages for Democrats among marginal Republicans and independents, and use them to motivate the 80 million voters who cast a ballot for President Biden in 2020 to go back and give him the tools he needs to finis the job?

Haven't we been accused of promoting the "cancel culture"?  Why can't we turn that effort toward the sponsors of Fox News, Breitbart, USA Radio, Newsmax and other right wing propagandists?  

This is one way I have of doing my part.  I was trained in Journalism in college, but I'm a blogger and I fall into the "editorial" category, not the news reporting category.  As you can see, I have a lot to say and I make a lot of relevant connections.  I'm not one to sit on the couch watching cable news, clicking my tongue at how bad the world is and I'm not letting this go.  Share this around, improve on it if you want, use it to prove points or to make conservatives angry.  I'm up for the debate.  I have the facts on my side and they can't clap their hands over their ears and pretent they can't hear me.

All Good Ideas are on the Table: This is How Politics Should Work

Advice from Bernie Sanders to Democrats: Change Course Before you Nosedive in November 

Open minds, a variety of diverse ideas and perspectives, listening to people who sit in a different place and have a different perspective.  How refreshing it is to write those words after decades of gridlock politics brought to us by the Republican Party.  I'll preface this by saying no one is perfect, and no one is the ultimate authority on what is or is not going to work in an election.  We've been surprised before, though we are at a point now where polling data and the predictions that go along with them are generally pretty accurate.  But even so, just accepting this information without acting on it, or working to do something that will make a difference, is silly and defeatist.  And considering what is at stake, which is the effective functioning of American constitutional democracy, everything it worth a try.  

Of all political perspectives and party positions, Democrats should know that all ideas do not have to be mutually exclusive. 

Concerned About the Possible Outcome of the Midterms?  Me, too. 

Since the Supreme Court leak of Justice Alito's brief, and the Uvalde Shooting, adding to a summer of televised hearings on the January 6 Trump Insurrection, my confidence in the Democrats ability to retain its control of Congress has increased significantly.  That, along with obviously diminished support for Trump-endorsed primary candidates in GOP primaries thus far, which seem to be hitting a ceiling somewhere around 30% of the vote, win or lose, makes me feel better than I did back in the winter.  The polling numbers, which are scrambled and not as clear as they usually are, indicate that voters aren't necessarily ready to hand control back over to a GOP that they pushed out in 2020.  

And while Trump supporting Republicans are hanging their hat on the "Big lie," his continued harping about it, including continued ways to try and figure out how to subvert the constitution and somehow get him back in the White House now, even though that's constitutionally and legally impossible and is not supported by the fact that the voters kicked him out, is a liability, not an asset to Republican candidates running for office.  Those who he has endorsed have eked out narrow wins in most cases, while many of his endorsees have been spectacularly defeated.  It's hard to win a general election when 70% of those who are likely to vote think you are lying and don't believe the lie you're pushing.  

My concern at this point is that I don't see much change in the Democratic party's strategy to bring all of this messaging in a way that will motivate voters to go to the polls in November.  Like Senator Sanders, someone whose opinion and perspective I consider and to whom I pay attention, I think the strategy needs to shift to a more effective method. The debate over Roe and the speculation of the Supreme Court's decision, the January 6th hearings, the gun control debate, and the Putin war against Ukraine are all issues now tilted in the Democrats favor.  And it looks like some secondary issues, especially Russian involvement in the 2016 election and the proof for collusion, will make the rounds again.  But it is clear that just letting issues make the argument isn't enough. 

Democrats Listen, Consider and Act

As I said before, different ideas about how to go about what is now a somewhat urgent political job with limited time, do not have to be mutually exclusive.  Of course, because this is the Democratic party, the concern over the ethics of what gets done is an important consideration, and I agree with that.  But the Democratic party is diverse enough that several paths to the same outcome are not duplicitous or deceiving.  

I think we need to listen to Senator Sanders, and Senator Warren, who has similar ideas and a similar perspective about how to do this.  I trust them both.  They are politicians, but their concern for those they represent and their lives shows in everything they do.  I think they're on the right track.  Point out that two obstructionist senators have stood in the way of the Democrats completing their agenda in the first year of the Biden Presidency and that change that the voters approved when they elected Biden is only going to occur if you give the Democratic party two more senate seats to plow around the obstructionists.  

That's easy to understand.  Senators Manchin and Sinema are household names which everyone knows because that's what the mainstream media has focused on rather than multiple accomplishments and achievements of the Biden administration.  A lot of frustrated Democrats who need motivation to go to the polls can relate to this because it has been the news media theme day after day.  So turn that around just a bit and state the obvious.  The Biden Administration will be faithful to its promises which will benefit the American people (i.e. you and your interests) when it has a fully cooperative Congress.  So give that to them. 

Works for me.  

Democratic Populism is Still Democratic

The last thing Bernie Sanders wants to see is a Republican dominated Congress.  He's made being an independent who caucuses with Democrats work because he is very practical in his politics, to the point where he can pick up votes from other independents and even Republicans because they get away from ideology and into practical matters.  There's probably not anyone more influential among the more progressive wing of the Democratic party except maybe Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, or Elizabeth Warren.  

There is no possible way the Republicans can get enough votes to win a majority of congressional seats, even with their gerrymandering, if they face a united Democratic party, as diverse as it is.  And that's the bottom line.  I'm in favor of doing what it takes to get there, as long as it isn't lying or deceit.  

Christian "Dominion Theology" Intersects with Right Wing Politics

The intersection of Dominion theology with right wing politics has created a movement within the Evangelical and Pentecostal/Charismatic branches of American Christianity that pushes churches to use Christian theology and doctrine to achieve political power rather than fulfilling the Christian mission and purpose apart from political power, which is what Christ and the apostles taught.  It is anti-Christian in its philosophy and actions, willing to set aside core principles of the Christian faith to gain political power and influence.  

That is why a man like Trump, an immoral, God-cursing, demonically-driven demagogue, is so popular among Evangelicals.  Trumpism tells Christian leaders that turning the other cheek and loving your enemies, which identify Christian character and are direct teachings of Jesus himself, are for suckers and they are hindrances to the kind of worldly influence and power that he is after.  Those who want to "get anywhere in the world," must get themselves into positions of worldly power in government, education, media, arts and entertainment, religion, family and business and that can't be done by loving your enemies or turning the other cheek.  Though that denies core Christian theology, they follow him.  

Understanding Dominion Theology in conservative branches of the Christian church would require reading several different authors on the subject.  Like most Christian theology, Dominion Theology branches out into differing interpretations based on the practical dividing lines that separate Conservative Evangelicals, primarily those who are Reformed or Calvinist, from Pentecostals and Charismatics, the latter of whom believe in the active presence of "sign gifts",  primarily speaking in tongues and faith healing. 

The Christian Reconstruction Brand of Dominion Theology 

A quick, thirty-minute read through of the Wikipedia description of Dominion theology will give you the general idea of the broad scope of the idealism that comes from this pseudo-Christian worldview. The "Christian Reconstruction" brand, which is more closely associated with the writings of R. J. Rushdoony in the 1960's and 70's, is found mostly among Calvinists and the conservative, Evangelical branch of the church. Rushdoony was a hard line, far right minister in the ultra conservative Orthodox Presbyterian church, which opposed "modernism" of any kind.  Ultimately, he created the Chalcedon Foundation which published a monthly journal defending his reconstructionist perspective, believing that American financial prosperity was a gift from God because it was a Christian nation and maintaining a covenant relationship with God, based on human righteousness, was the key to maintaining American power and strength.  

Turning the United States into a theocracy, which is what reconstructionists believe was the original intention of the founding fathers, with laws that legislate social practices mandating Christian doctrinal positions.  They believe that a government which implements "God's law" would be permitted to execute offenders not only for murder, but for idolatry, open homosexuality, practicers of witchcraft, anyone who "blasphemes" God or the Trinity, and rebellious youths.  They believe that God gifted the rich resources of the North American continent to Christians to establish a nation for his own glorification and as such a government and worldview improved society, making it more righteous,  it would usher in the second coming of Christ.  

The view is influenced heavily by Calvinism.  Jean Calvin, during the Protestant Reformation, set up governments that enforced his own interpretation of Christian behavior and obedience to biblical commands and laws and justified what appeared to be the opposite of what the gospel of Jesus said by appealing to the doctrine of predestination, which is the idea that since God knows in advance which human beings will be redeemed, he has chosen those who will respond to his offer of redemption.  Those who will not respond, which he also knows in advance, are already condemned, and are reprobate and unredeemable, destined for spiritual destruction.  So their execution is simply an exercise in God's will.  

It would be difficult to claim that the intentions of modern day Christian Reconstruction would be much different than Reformation-era Calvinists.

"Kingdom Now" Dominion Theology  

The Pentecostal/Charismatic brand of Dominion theology is primarily known as the "Kingdom Now" movement.  This is the belief that God is currently involved in choosing people who will work with him now to "take back" (ever heard that term before?) areas within the world that Satan "usurped" or took over were given over after the fall of Adam and Eve.  They believe that by putting certain "chosen" Christians in positions of worldly power and influence in government, education, entertainment, banking and finance and international relations, these individuals will be in position to implement the Kingdom of God on earth in this present age, replacing the flawed and "worldly" democracy and the will of the people with the will of God.  

They will also be in position to claim the wealth and power associated with being the alleged stewards of God's will and "Christian America".  Many of those associated with the Kingdom Now perspective are also part of the "Prosperity Gospel" cult.  Paula White, the self-proclaimed "prophetess", who Donald Trump claims is his "spiritual advisor," is a heretical, cultic prosperity gospel preacher.  That should explain a whole lot about his worldview.  Their god is wealth, the power that comes with it which permits those who have it to live outside the law without consequence, and material possession. 

Dominion Theology is not Christian

As a self-described Christian, once an Evangelical but now as one who rejects the use of that description because of its political implications, but who continues to believe in the gospel message of Jesus Christ, I reject any form of Dominion Theology as an aberration of Christian doctrine and as a theological heresy, and churches and church leaders who promote it, teach it in their churches and preach it in their sermons are heretics.  I've seen some Christian theologians refer to it as "pseudo-Christian" because it does incorporate elements of the biblical narrative, though they are incorrectly applied and interpreted.  

Acceptance of it is denial of the  "new covenant" instituted by Jesus who proclaimed that his kingdom, the "ecclesia" or the church, was "not of this world."  It is a means by which an elite group of self-appointed individuals acquire control of worldly power and wealth, not to bring about the Kingdom of God on earth, but to endow themselves with those things from which they would personally benefit. 

Those who promote Dominion theology, whether it is Reconstructionism or Kingdom Now, or "Seven Mountains", which is a variation of the Kingdom Now movement that believes Christianity should seek the worldl power that comes from dominating all social, cultural, government and financial institutions,  deny what Jesus and the Apostles said about the power of God, and the nature of his Kingdom.  Both Paul and Peter acknowledge that no power is held on earth except that which has been permitted by God, and that his will and purpose is being achieved in this age, as it has since the resurrection of Jesus, in the "Great Commission" of the church. To claim the use of worldly influence and political power as a means of establishing God's Kingdom on earth is to deny the very foundational principle of Christian faith.  It is using the very powerful influence of Christian faith as a means for a political faction to claim wealth and power for themselves.  

While I do not believe the New Testament book of Jude is a specific prophecy regarding those who promote Dominion Theology, I do believe it is a prophetic warning which aptly describes what is happening among some of the conservative branches of the Christian church in the United States. There is an intersection between various forms of Dominion Theology and right wing Republican politics.  Christian leaders in many cases have abandoned the spiritual Kingdom of God in exchange for the worldly influence of politics to achieve their ends, which are not consistent with the ends of the church according to Jesus.  

As Jude says, "For certain intruders have stolen in among you, people who long ago were designated for this condemnation as ungodly, who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."  

It's these abberant, heretical views, which came in on the coattails of Donald Trump, which explain how it is that millions of American Christians have submitted to the political leadership of a man who flaunts his immorality, particularly his adulterous affairs and his worldly image, denies any Christian confession of Christ, ridicules principles like turning the other cheek and loving your enemies as being the deeds of "suckers", "who indulges his own lusts, is bombastic in speech, flattering people to their own advantage."  (Jude v. 6)

This is a Prevailing View Among the Religious Right, and in the Republican Party

It is the aim of most forms of Dominion Theology to take over the government of the United States and "turn it back into the Christian nation that the founding fathers intended it to be."  The only problem with that aim is that the founding fathers did not intend for the United States to be a "Christian nation" and most of the principles written into our foundational documents, specifically the Constitution and its Bill of Rights were from influences of the Enlightenment, not the institutional, state-controlled church, or the small, scattered American denominations of it that existed at the time.  But historical facts have never stopped those who believe that the intentions of those who founded this country were to create a Christian theocracy of sorts, believing that the white Europeans who settled here were a new "covenant people" in the same way that Hebrews were the "chosen" people of the Old Testament, given the resources of the virgin continent of North America to establish the Kingdom of God on earth, in some form.  

The attempt to take over the government has already begun.  There are many Dominionists in all branches of the government.  They have been elected to public office, they have been appointed to the judiciary, including the federal courts.  Among the politicians who openly identify with and follow this Dominion perspective are Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachman, Sam Brownback, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and Rick Perry.  And while they have not openly identified as such, Marjorie Taylor Green, Lauren Boebert, Paul Gosar, Madison Cawthorne and Matt Gaetz all frequently use Dominionist rhetoric.  

Do I have your attention now?  

What Would America Look Like Under Dominionism? 

So all of those conspiracy theories, especially the basis for the whole Q-Anon theory, and all of the "Christian nationalism", which I more accurately describe as "white Christian nationalism," the tendency toward white supremacist influence, attacks on Critical Race Theory and the distorted criticisms of Black Lives Matter, do find common political and philosophical ground in Christian Dominion theology.  The impetus of the movement is toward what they claim will be taking America back to its Christian roots.  America's representative democracy was an Enlightenment influence, not a Christian principle, so overthrowing democratic rule is a key point of the reconstructed republic. Those who would become the government would be those individuals who claimed to be "on God's side" as he reclaimed the United States for his own Kingdom, redeeming it from Satanic control.  There would be no elections, no term limits and no recourse for redress of grievances.  

"Religious liberty" would become "Christian domination."  Only the perspective of the Dominionists in charge would have any kind of religious liberty.  Their religious principles would be taught in the schools, promoted in public institutions and in government.  "Liberal" denominations would either be restricted to their own venues, or outlawed, depending on who was in charge.  There would be little tolerance for any other religious perspective.  

The Constitution would become a vehicle for enforcing "Biblical law," a set of codes which would likely include literal interpretation and enforcement of the Ten Commandments and laws based on the religious beliefs of the dominant group.  Economic and social discrimination against people of color, which would include Latinos as well as African-Americans, Native Americans and Asians, anyone who was not of Caucasian, European descent, would face discrimination in educational and economic opportunity.  We already have a court system that is tilted against racial and ethnic minorities.  We would go back to the days of Jim Crow, and conceivably, to the days of the antebellum South.  

Things considered to be immoral by those who were in charge would become illegal.  Not only would abortion become illegal, but women who had one would be subject to arrest and trial on murder charges.  That's already being considered in some states.  Obviously, same-gender marriage would be outlawed, and where that would end is anyone's guess.  Any kind of sexual contact or activity between same-gender individuals would be illegal, and would be subject to the death penalty.  And what would you do with Trump and his older two sons, who are open about their sexual exploits and immoral behavior?  Well of course, they would be exempt. :-(

It's hard for some of the apologists for this perspective to argue that there's no intention to be racist or discriminatory, and that it is only reform of the Constitution, and resetting it to their distorted perspective of its original intended purpose that is their goal.  Most racism, especially the belief that the black race is destined for servitude, emerge from some of the Genesis narratives about the post-flood re-settlement of the world, including the "curse of Ham" nonsense, which is still pervasive among far right Pentecostal and Fundamentalist sects.  NPR: Slavery and the "Curse of Ham"

There is no "covenant" relationship offered in the Bible to any nation or country or  political entity in the world once Jesus offered his covenant and established his "ecclesia," or church.  His "kingdom," which he clearly described and defined, is spiritual, and the members of the universal church are connected to each other by their common acknowledgement that Jesus is the Christ.  There is no way for a country to be "Christian," only individuals can become disciples of Jesus and there is no provision for some kind of additional blessing to be bestowed upon a country based on the number of its citizens who acknowledge Jesus as their Lord and Savior.  

The United States is a Christian-influenced nation, in that Christianity, in multiple branches, is the predominant religious expression of its people, but there's no Biblical doctrine to support the claim that there's some kind of protection or benefit given to such a country. There is nothing anywhere in Christian doctrine in the Bible that offers any other nation or country in the world the same kind of theocratic, covenant relationship that God had with Israel in the Old Testament.  That covenant ended with the resurrection of Christ and the establishment of the church, which is the body to which the new covenant applies.  The church's commission is a spiritual one, not political or invested with worldly power. Since that is the core conviction of Dominion Theology, and that belief denies the Christ covenant, it makes those who believe in its principles heretics and churches they lead are apostate. (I John 4:1-3)

Intersecting with Trumpism

I doubt that the former President cares anything at all about turning America into a Christian nation.  He lives outside the law anyway, and if Dominion theology was established in the constitution, his immoral behavior and his lack of ethics would run counter to the governing philosophy.  But there is a mutually beneficial relationship between the two in that compromise and deal making get both the Christian nationalists and Trumpism to their ultimate goal of control and power.  

If the Christian nationalists and Dominion theology aim to create an America governed by biblical law, where does someone like Trump fit in?  The support for Trump among right wing political Evangelicals is a very strong, clear indication that they really do not have any trust in spiritual power, and that they are only after what can be achieved by worldly power and influence, which is one of the goals of Dominion theology and Christian nationalism.  The "Christian" and "biblical" aspect of their politics is only a means to an end, which is the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few.  As long as someone like Trump can help them achieve this goal, they could care less about his morality or his religious beliefs.  

Let Me Be Clear... 

Let me be clear:  While Dominion theology, reconstructionism, Kingdom Now theology and Catholic Integralism use Christian terminology and Biblical quotations, it is not, in any way, shape or form, true and genuine Christian faith.  I'll repeat that.  Dominion theology, reconstructionism, Kingdom Now theology and Catholic Integralism is not in any way, shape or form, true and genuine Christian faith. It is a demonic force, masquerading as an angel of light, distorting true faith and deceiving Christians into a subversion of their faith. It is a distortion of biblical theology, specifically eschatology or "end times" prophecy. 

"My Kingdom is Not of This World" 

Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not from this world.  If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews.  But as it is, my kingdom is not from here."  

Pilate asked him, "So you are a king?"

Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king.  For this I was born and for this I came into the world to testify to the truth.  Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice." 

Pilate asked him, "What is truth?" 

After he had said this, he went out to the Jews again and told them, "I find no case against him." 

John 18:36-38, NRSV

There is no need to stake out territory in this world, and reclaim it for God from satanic domination.  God is already in control of it.  The biggest temptation Jesus faced, more than once according to the Biblical narrative, was to elevate himself to a position of worldly power.  When he was tempted in the wilderness, it was the third temptation that he faced.  When confronted with his arrest and his trial, he was tempted to use his power to save himself.  His critics mocked him with that temptation. Many of those who clamored for his crucifixion were disappointed that the one claiming to be their Messiah wasn't going to use his power to free them from Roman rule.  It's pretty clear that the intention of Jesus was to keep his church from being corrupted by worldly power, not to use it to dominate the world.   

Had he resisted his arrest, he did indeed have the power, without having to call on any human assistance, to free himself.  But that would have completely subverted the purpose of his existence and it would have denied God's redemptive grace to humanity.  Dominion theology and all of its branches is a selfish aberration of Christian faith, a turn away from trust in the spiritual power of God, and toward the temptation of worldly power to achieve selfish ambition.  

Paul's prophetic words to Timothy, which were meant for his time and his place, are also relevant to our perspective: 

You must understand this, that in the last days distressing times will come.  For people will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, brutes, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to the outward form of godliness but denying its power.  Avoid them!  2 Timothy 3:1-5, NRSV

Do you see anything there that looks familiar now?  So do I.  

Christianity has never thrived when it was enforced by the power of the state.  It loses its essence and meaning immediately.  The new covenant, instituted by Christ when he empowered the church, was a spiritual kingdom.  It redeems and transforms lives.  Change and serving others are the result of a transformed life. The mission and purpose of the church is to testify to the redemption and transformation.  When Christianity is enforced, it loses its redemptive, transforming power and becomes oppressive.  

A nation cannot be "Christian."  Only individuals can be Christians.  And the influence of Christians on other people is a living and verbal testimony of faith.  Behavior is changed by a transformed life, not by force, intimidation or cultural dominion, which robs the Christian testimony of its spiritual power.  

There are Christians who see this for what it is, as a gross, misleading distortion of Christian faith, a use of doctrine, theology and identifying terminology that is deceitful and destructive.  I'm working to expose the lie.  

Thank you for reading and considering this honestly.  

Where's the Tyranny Requiring Ownership of an AK-15?

The tyranny that our founding fathers feared, and the reasoning behind the well-ordered militia, had to do with fear of monarchy.  At the time the constitution was drafted, after more than a decade of living under the Articles of Confederation, the possibilities existing for those who lived in the thirteen colonies that had just won their independence from Britain, to be returned to what they considered "tyrannical" rule, were very real.  All of the other major powers who controlled land in North America were monarchies.  Britain, France and Spain for the most part dominated the political scene and all of them were ruled by royal families.  So each of the colonies had their militia which, when they weren't quarreling with each other, were put in place to fight European tyranny. 

If there's still a fear of "tyranny" taking over in America, it would be reasonable for the term to be defined prior to making that determination.  For right wingers, it means anything that is done any time the left is in control of the government.  That's not real tyranny, since there isn't anything specific they can point to that comes close to the definition of the term but those who intend to use the term for their own political advantage don't let that little bump in the road slow them down.  Looking at real tyranny, in its whole context, including what the founding fathers believed it was, and what it means now, debunks the right's perspective.  

Timothy Snyder, in his book On Tyranny:  Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century, and who is a leading expert on the subject, says, "The founding fathers tried to protect us from the threat they knew, the tyranny that overcame ancient democracy. Today, our political order faces new threats, not unlike the totalitarianism of the twentieth century.  We are no wiser than Europeans who saw democracy yield to Fascism, Nazism or communism.  Our one advantage is that we might learn from their experience."  

What is Tyranny to the Extremists on the Right? 

They keep talking about it like it's real.  

Let's put this in perspective.  First of all, making a comparison to twentieth century European totalitarianism requires having knowledge of exactly what that was.  We know the names and where it came from, Fascism, which took root in Italy under Benito Mussolini, Nazism in Germany under Adolf Hitler and the Soviet-style communism under Lenin and Stalin.  They were different economic and political systems, but they were all tyrannical in their demands of total loyalty to the state and total absence of personal liberty, individual rights and freedoms.  Even those who were close to the dictators themselves, and who were loyal supporters did not have any liberty of conscience, and were never free to express any view that might have remotely been considered disloyal. 

Perhaps that's why the use of the term "fascist" has been applied to Trumpism.  There are multiple similarities in any political movement where individual conscience must be surrendered in exchange for loyalty to the leader. 

So what kind of "tyranny" are right wingers in this country experiencing that can be compared with twentieth century European totalitarianism, which is how the word "tyranny" is currently defined? 

Yes, that is the sound of crickets chirping in the dead silence that follows that question.  That's because there is no tyranny, by definition, that is being experienced in America today. None.  And as long as we have a representative democracy established by the constitution, there is no tyranny.  

Losing an Election is not Tyranny

Holding free and fair elections is actually the primary means by which tyranny is defeated.  In our constitutional democracy, political power comes from the people.  And elections are the primary means by which the people exercise their power.  

The stonewalling, grid-locked, uncompromising partisan stance that the Republican party has taken over the past thirty years is detrimental to the function of a democratic government.  The GOP is controlled by extremists, pushed by propagandists like Rush Limbaugh, Rupert Murdock via Tucker Carlson, and Steve Bannon, who use their influence to threaten politicians that don't comply or support their agenda.  There is a real threat of tyranny when those who control the wealth are able to use it as a means of subverting the will of the people.  There is not any recognition, among those who push this political view, of the rights of "liberals" who don't share their perspective.  

The closest America has come to tyranny since the Civil War occurred January 6th, 2021, when a mob organized by Trump tried to subvert legitimate election results to stay in power.  Had that succeeded, we'd have had real tyranny.  I believe our constitution is still strong enough, and the will of the people still powerful enough, in spite of Republican stonewalling, to have prevented that from ever being put in place, even if the disruptions had succeeded, because there are plenty of other safeguards in place to prevent that kind of subversive act from succeeding.  The founding fathers wanted to make sure there was no turning back.  

The 2020 election wasn't stolen.  Not a single allegation of voter fraud has been proven by the accusers.  In fact, what has actually happened, as a wave of "auditors" with no credentials descended on battleground states to look for fraud and waste millions of taxpayer dollars, is that the results of the election were confirmed.  In some cases, these "auditors" were fronts for the Trump campaign, such as the "Cyber Ninjas" in Arizona, who claimed to be able to detect bamboo fragments in the paper of ballots alleged to have come from China, one of the crazier conspiracy theories of the Trumpies.  Either no ballots with bamboo fragments were found, or they didn't have such equipment, but the few irregularities in the count that they did find were perpetrated by Trump supporters. Maybe that's why they quit. Ultimately, they quickly concluded, when the money ran out, that Biden really did carry Arizona.  

In fact, all of the various "conspiracies" about how the election was stolen from Trump, some of them oldies but goodies that have been around for a long time, some of them new accusations related to mail-in ballots and technology, have been debunked.  That doesn't change the minds of those who are convinced it happened, but when they keep insisting that they know, it is proof of their complete ignorance of the way elections are handled in this country.  It means they have no clue about the way ballots are secured and counts are handled.  I don't think anything I've ever seen has looked as pitifully stupid as all these Trumpies showing up where ballots were being counted, demanding to observe.  Clearly, they didn't know that there were already people there on their side for that purpose. 

Obviously, there's no restriction on gun ownership.  More Americans now own guns than ever before, and all of the whining and griping about Obama, and then Biden, wanting to take away guns was just whining.  Neither of them wanted to take anything away, all they want to do is enforce responsible gun ownership, which is something that we obviously do not have now.  That's also something a clear majority of Americans favor, so not having it, in whatever form it takes, means that the will of the people is being thwarted.  

Racial Equality and Social Justice is not tyranny.  Free speech and freedom of conscience is constitutionally guaranteed, just as much as the right to bear arms.  Being an American has nothing to do with being caucasian and speaking English.  Being American is living up to a specific set of ideals and values, regardless of the language spoken or racial or ethnic background of the individual American.  And that doesn't mean the cultural norms and values of the predominant racial group must be adopted in order for the minorities to be assimilated.  People have a right to their social, political, ethnic and religious identity and it does not have to conform to the majority.  

So Grow Up, You Damn Right Wing Snowflake!

Stop whining.  The "liberals" being in change has not affected anyone's civil liberties, least of all the right to own as many weapons of a full variety of calibre of firepower, which is the second amendment interpretation that the far right has chosen to implement.  It's certainly not my interpretation of the second amendment, so be grateful for the fact that if I were in charge, and had any say over gun ownership at all, I'd allow one hunting rifle, and one hand gun, provided a background check was passed, there was no prior criminal record, the owner had at least a high school diploma, and was at least 21 years of age and a six month waiting period had passed.  There would have to be a valid reason, such as being a member of the national guard or providing security for public events and venues, to own anything more than that.  President Obama and President Biden have been gracious and generous in what they have allowed.  

The country does not have to be made over on anyone's terms.  We endured four years of horrific incompetence under Trump, so the right wing can surely have the patience to endure government by the left, if that's really an accurate description of the Biden Administration.  The voters have spoken, and they have the right to be heard.  You still have the right to vote and have your vote count.  And stop whining about voter fraud that can't be proven and which did not occur.  That's a lie.  Repeating it over and over again and acting like it's true makes snowflakes out of those who claim it.  Stop being a damn, right wing snowflake, grow up and demonstrate a measure of maturity expected of an American.  Learn about democracy and how it works.  Grow up, for heaven's sake. 

Lowest Jobless Claims Rate Since 1969

Yet another accomplishment for the Biden Administration.   The lowest rate of unemployment claims since 1969 is now part of the record.  

US Jobless Claims Fall to Lowest Level Since 1969

And a record monthly budget surplus, not deficit, imagine that. 

Tax Revenue Boom Fuels Steep Budget Deficit Decline

That's just this week's news.  Mainstream media has, in some cases, given this reasonable coverage.  And giving credit where credit is due, they have done well in their coverage of the Uvalde shooting and its aftermath.  It is unfortunate that we are getting to know those 19 children and two teachers because of the manner in which they died, but their memory is being honored.  

The response that the people of Uvalde got from the President was, "We will do something."  The response they got from the governor of Texas was nothing.  

It's Not Just the Status Quo for the Biden Administration

I was listening to South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn on the Sunday Show today, and this gives me confidence that the Democrats do indeed know exactly where things stand and they also know where the messaging needs to be.  The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart is, in my opinion, the best of the Sunday political shows anywhere on  television.  Capehart called Representative Clyburn "politically brilliant," which agrees with my personal assessment of him and Clyburn spends about five minutes putting things into clear perspective, including declaring that the Biden administration not only knows what has to be done to get things in order, but in his words, "he will."  

It's worth the time to watch it.  It's one link in the video menu here: 

 Rep. James Clyburn on The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart, June 5th

I believe it, too.  

Two Big Republican Lies Bite the Dust This Week

Trump "Spying on Me" Case Falls Apart as Sussman Acquitted

Not a "Speck of Proof" in Sarah Palin's Libel Case Against the New York Times

Two Republican Liars Lose their Court Battles

Everything that comes out of former President 45's mouth is a lie.  Everything.  Even his breath.  

The accusation that his campaign was illegally "spied" on, going back to the Obama adminstration, which was nothing but a diversion to attract attention away from the reality that the Russians had helped Trump's campaign in a big way, fell apart this week as Michael Sussman was acquitted in the first case brought to trial by Special Counsel John Durham.  Sussman was the key to the whole accusation, so it is pretty clear that there's nothing to investigate.  Durham has had three years to come up with something, short of actually making stuff up, which is exactly what the former President did when he originally made the accusation.  He has less to go on now than he did when he started. 

Those Republicans who bought into this tripe are "suckers," to use one of the former President's favorite terms of derision.  It's so obvious that this was a diversion, and that there was absolutely no evidence to support the accusation, that even some GOP politicians, most notably Mitch McConnell, have gone to great lengths to avoid comment.  

The fact that the government has to go through the motions to finish all of this out, at a cost of millions to taxpayers, when anyone involved, including the attorneys on their side, know there's nothing there, is an insult to the justice system and to those of us who are watching this happen, wondering how some people in a major political party got to be so absolutely, bottomlessly stupid.  

Then There's Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin, sued the New York Times for libel.  It's hard to imagine that a former governor would be so ignorant of the law, and how the courts work, to file a lawsuit without any evidence to prove the case.  It's even harder to imagine what attorney would take the case, except for the money involved in what has to be some pretty fat legal fees.  

In Palin's case, not being a lawyer, and taking note of her political perspective, suing the Times might be something to do for political grandstanding or even just to try and get even.  But Palin resigned as Governor of Alaska because of the inordinate amount of money the state was having to spend because of her multiple ethics violations, largely related to her own incompetence as governor.  She interpreted Times reporting as a personal attack, as she did everything else, seemingly incapable of recognizing her own incompetence, lack of experience and personal abrasiveness.  

If Palin were a Democrat, the right wing media would label her as a "snowflake" for whining about something in a newspaper.  So the lawsuit was dismissed without any merit, which was followed by accusations that the judge was biased against her and did not conduct the case in accordance with the rules.  But the court record showed that everything had been done correctly and in order, and Palin had no evidence to support the further accusations.  

I've heard her called worse things than a snowflake. 

Republican Expectations:  Expect Favors from Republican Judges

In both of these cases, there's a clear expectation that judges will rule in favor of the politician, not based on the law, but based on the judge's political preference. FP 45 has openly whined about the fact that judges he's appointed to the federal bench don't seem inclined to do him favors when he needs them, especially when he wanted to throw out votes against him to make himself believe he actually won the election in 2020.  That appears to be the main theme of his judicial appointments. 

With Palin, it seems that she thinks they should rule in her favor because they like her and they are on her side politically.  The law is meaningless to people like this, so why is it that we think they're fit for office?  Neither of them had any political experience at all and it showed in their complete disrespect for the rule of law, and their complete ignorance of it, leading to incompetence, corruption and in FP 45's case, losing an election, in Palin's case, forced to resign.

Do people actually bother to look at this stuff?  Can they see this?  I don't understand why it doesn't matter and what they think the outcome will be when these people are in charge.  We'd be a walkover for a Russian or Chinese takeover.