I Think Senator-Elect Fetterman is on to Something Here

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "Every County, Every Vote"  

For almost a decade, I lived in rural Butler County, Pennsylvania.  I know exactly how it feels to be a Democrat in a county where two thirds of the registered voters are Republican.  Enthusiasm for voting in local elections or state legislative races where the outcome is a foregone conclusion is hard to work up.  Candidates for statewide office on the Democratic party side never hold events in the county, to see them in person requires driving into Pittsburgh.  

During the 2020 presidential campaign, Trump held a rally at the airport just outside of the county seat of Butler.  It was apparently a memorable event, where hundreds of attenders were brought in by bus, and left waiting in the cold for hours, or having to walk back to where they'd parked in freezing weather.  I remember reading an article with several interviews in the local daily, and an older man told the reporter, "I voted for him (Trump) in 2016, but I'm not voting for him this time.  I thought things would change.  But for me, nothing really did."  

Democratic voter turnout, even in statewide elections, can be suppressed by the fact that no one is running on their side of the ballot in state legislative races, or even in some of the congressional elections.  In almost a decade, only two candidates for statewide office ever held an event in the county to rally support among Democratic voters.  Josh Shapiro did in 2016, running for Attorney General, and again this time around while running for Governor.  And John Fetterman did this year, running for the Senate.  

That's Exactly What I Would Expect From Fetterman

John Fetterman was the mayor of Braddock, a "suburb" just southeast of Pittsburgh, lying along the Monongahela River in an economically depressed, former manufacturing and industrial section of the metro area that has more than its share of blighted neighborhoods and run-down buildings.  Fetterman could have started his political career anywhere else besides a tiny, rarely noticed borough of fewer than 2,000 population.  But they're his kind of people, and as mayor, he put in tireless effort at revitalizing the former steel mill town that included setting up a not-for-profit company to revitalize buildings and houses, establishing youth programs and generally fighting malaise and apathy in a dying, decaying town.  

The town is still not much to look at, and still has abandoned buildings and blighted areas, but business has slowly started to invest there, the population has stabilized and there's no doubt that Fetterman's work as mayor made the community a better place to live among most of its residents.  That's what good public servants do.  That's also a big part of why he campaigned everywhere, working to motivate Democratic voters in areas where they're a minority, to vote.  

And they did. 

Democrats Should Take a Page From His Playbook

I know campaigns are tiring, visiting a dozen places a day, continuous speeches, and candidates want to make the most of their appearances.  The volume of voters live in the suburbs and the cities.  And it seems a lot more practical to spend time and money on places that can deliver a maximum number of votes.  But conceding the rural areas to the Republicans means losing a lot of potential votes that can make a real difference in places like Pennsylvania, where the balance between suburban, urban and rural voters can turn the results of an election.  

Fetterman's vote totals in places like Butler County are an improvement over Democratic performance there in either of the two most recent Presidential races, and almost equal to Senator Casey's performance in his 2018 landslide.  He got high percentages of the vote in Philadelphia, which is essential to any Democrat's chances of winning in the state, as well as in Pittsburgh and Allegheny County, and the other urban areas in the state including Erie, Allentown and Harrisburg.  But his vote totals across the state, including rural counties, was better than Biden's 2020 performance in 56 of the 67 counties in the state.  In some cases, it was better by several percentage points.  It could very well be said that Fetterman won the election on the strength of the vote from Rural Pennsylvania.  

While most rural areas and small towns lie within television media markets, and are reached by television ads, it's hard to tell what a visit to a community might do for a candidate. Trump convinced a lot of voters who used to support Democrats that he cared about them, not by doing anything for them, just by holding a rally near their home and echoing their common complaints for an hour and a half speech.  Fetterman, whose political record includes actually doing things for people, helped demonstrate that this works and it's relatively inexpensive to pull off.  He did it in spite of his struggles after his stroke, and he won.  

Instead of "The Apprentice," It's Now "The Biggest Loser"

 It's still early, votes are still being counted and we don't have any idea at the moment of which party will control which house.  I'm prepared for the possibility that the GOP will eventually wind up with a house majority, though there are still races where unexpected vote totals are leaning toward Democrats and the forecasters keep adjusting their GOP numbers downward as early votes and mail-in ballots are counted.  

But there are some things that are really clear after last night.  And yes, my mood is such that these are worth pointing out and pondering.  And celebrating regardless of how everything eventually shakes out. 

This was a referendum on the sitting President.  And regardless of which party winds up controlling either house, the Biden Administration was affirmed by the outcome of this midterm.  Biden got a solid 45% job approval rating out of the exit polling, not great, but better than his predecessor's mid-term rating by 8 points and quite an improvement over the low numbers some polls indicated during the early part of this year.  Against some of the toughest political issues for Americans, inflation in particular and gasoline prices, and a non-stop barrage of fear mongering based on a crime rate that has actually been dropping, the results of this midterm election affirm the direction and progress made by the Biden administration. 

This was a referendum on election denying, conspiracy theories and insurrection.  The former President inserted himself onto the ballot of this midterm election and he lost, big time.  Endorsees that he appeared to help the most were the biggest losers, making me wonder if "The Biggest Loser" is now a Trump media production instead of "The Apprentice."  His election deniers lost to a group of savvy women in Michigan, in a wipe-out of Republican challengers who were involved in some of the more despicable attempts to overturn the election.  Pennsylvania, where it appears Democrats may control the state legislature for the first time in decades, was also a smack-down.  

Christian nationalism lost.  Fascism lost.  Racism lost.  And while it remains to be seen how long it takes some Republicans to realize what happened and separate themselves and the reputation of their party from extremists, it's clear that almost everything the MAGA movement stands for is a minority position, even among Republicans.  Now someone has to have the integrity and presence of mind to call this stuff out and send its supporters packing.  

Whether some Trumpies will see it as such, Dr. Mehmet Oz's concession of the Pennsylvania senate race is also a concession that there was no "massive voter fraud," and that there never has been any.  He knew he lost in a fair and free election.  Even Republicans are now acknowledging that if they don't get off the election fraud claim bandwagon, they are going to lose big in 2024.  

Trump lost again.  The hangover that the GOP has been experiencing since they first nominated him for President still goes on.  I can't help but think, looking at how the counts on many of these house races are continuing to frustrate Republicans, that if he had decided to announce his candidacy for President in 2024 before the midterm elections, stepping on candidates in his own party, we would now be counting how many seats Democrats gained in both houses.  

This midterm has made it quite clear that Trump doesn't have the kind of support he would need to get back to the White House.  If he decides to run, he will lose.  Regardless of where these midterms wind up, that much is crystal clear.  Trump is the biggest loser.

Maybe now we can get back to the give and take, compromise and negotiation way democracy is supposed to work.  I'm not holding my breath, but if the Republicans do take the path that they were shrieking about prior to this election, they will be setting themselves up for a huge defeat in 2024, and they don't have control of the state houses or secretary of state positions they would need to suppress the vote.  The evidence of what the voters would do to them is sitting right in front of them.  

If Republicans don't work with the Biden Administration on the big issues of the day, like inflation and crime, and back off their hardline stance on abortion, they will lose big in 2024.  They are going to have to work with President Biden and the Democrats to resolve the inflation problem, and to deal with the crime problem.  They're fortunate to have an experienced President in office who knows what he is doing.  They have offered no solutions.  But the problems now become theirs.  If they try to undo Biden's accomplishments, they lose.  If they don't resolve the inflation problem, they lose.  If they try to shove through their agenda of investigations and impeachments, they lose big time.  

The people have spoken and they didn't say what Republicans wanted them to say.  So if the GOP doesn't get off its shrill extremist agenda, including all of its planned investigations and impeachments, they will set themselves up for a huge 2024 loss.  The fact that, at this point, more than 24 hours after the polls closed, there's still no certainly about control of Congress, should change the tone and the agenda of both houses.  If it doesn't it's pretty clear the Republicans will pay heavily for that failure. 

The Supreme Court Lost.  Justice Samuel Alito and his five colleagues who decided to abandon their integrity, make their word worthless and render the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade are largely responsible for the huge Democratic voter turnout.  They lit this fire and in spite of pundits trying to damp it down and claim it was "fizzling out" it showed up at the polls in virtually every state, enough of a majority in many places to turn a potential "red wave" into a puddle, as I heard one journalist call it. 

Voters are demanding a non-partisan court that respects the rule of law, not one that does political favors for the President who appointed them.  This court is now a liability for the GOP that they can't control.  Their Dobbs decision did more for getting women to register and vote than anything else has done in the past 30 years.  Other extremist positions they may take will also motivate voters to elect Democrats, especially progressives who want to change the judiciary act, term-limiting justices and packing the court.

I have every confidence that the Biden Administration will adjust as necessary and for the good of the country, to continue to be an effective advocate for the people over the next two years.  It's obvious that this administration, working with the Democratic party across the country, got the messaging right.  The Republicans can do the same, make adjustments, realize that the polarization and political animosity was rejected by the voters last night, clean up the corruption in their party, drain the Trump swamp and move ahead.  They'll never get my vote, at least, not in any way that I can tell, but they do have this choice and I think this midterm is an indication that if this extremism doesn't go away, Republicans may never win another election.    

Comparing Republican Rally Crowds to Democratic Rally Crowds

 MSN: Half of Trump Rally Crowds, Which Aren't All That, Leave 30 Minutes or Less Into His Speech

And the proof is on Twitter, amazingly enough.  

While Trump, Dr. Oz and Doug Mastriano were clustered around the open door of his plane at an airport in Latrobe, where perhaps 1,500 had gathered, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Josh Shapiro and John Fetterman were speaking to a crowd estimated at around 13,000 in the Liacouras Center on the campus of Temple University in Philadelphia.  No one left that one early.  

Trump places great value on comparing the attendance at his rallies to Democrats, denying the fact that his gatherings have been shrinking considerably, because they're just too numerous and too long for the attention span of the crowd he draws.  Rarely when I see a note on social media from someone who has attended one show pictures of the crowd.  He blames the news media for deliberately not showing the crowd but they're instructed not to take pictures and are escorted out when they do.  

In Latrobe, Pennsylvania, in a heavily Republican county this past Saturday, at an airport, the organizers set up about 1,500 chairs, which didn't completely fill, though people did stand around in the spaces behind the seats.  But reporters who managed to capture pictures showed a lot of wide open space and not all that many people.  The press section was largely empty, because they've quit coming to be abused.  It seems that he thinks the size of a crowd is a measurement of the size of the vote, even though the largest venue in an area could only hold a fraction of the actual number of voters.  This one wasn't even close.  

And in response to his statement, "Can Joe Biden draw this kind of a crowd," well, yes, at just about every stop he makes. 

Failing to Speak Truth to Power, the Political Far Right is Now Making a Mockery of Conservative Christianity

Baptist News Global: Speaking Truth to Power Means Denouncing Lying Politicians and Their Preachers

The intrusion of secular, extremist, right wing politics into some of America's Christian churches has caused apostasy.  That's exactly right, many conservative churches are apostate, because they've allowed right wing politics to change the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and they've thrown Jesus under the bus.  They no longer preach and teach a gospel of redemption by grace through faith in Christ, they teach redemption by voting for the person they've declared to be right.  

The traveling band wagon called "Re-awaken America Tour" is making a mockery of conservative Christianity.  It appears intended to do so.  The involvement of both Eric Trump and Don Jr., who spend their time trying to convince Christians that all of this "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies" stuff preached by Jesus won't get you any worldly benefits, makes the whole think a big tragedy.  Tragic, because Christians actually show up for this clown show and believe the lies it is spreading.  

But this is really an epidemic that is doing great damage to the testimony of the churches and pastors who are involved in it.  There was a ten minute discussion on Scarborough Country on MSNBC this morning about how those Christians who are aligned with extremist right wing politics have lost their identity as Christians, the virtues spoken of in the scripture are no longer visible in their actions.  Joe Scarborough brings to the table a background of experience in the Baptist faith tradition as an Evangelical himself, from a religious perspective, anyway.  

Bringing up Lauren Boebert's remark that if Jesus had an AK-15, he wouldn't have been crucified as an extreme example of this slide into worldly oblivion--and that's not an exaggeration, by the way--says that people are noticing and that Christian churches and leaders are losing their testimony over politics.  Boebert is an extreme example, a woman who demonstrates sheer ignorance of both constitutional history in her failure to recognize that Jefferson and Madison wrote separation of church and state into the constitution deliberately, with clear rationale and reason, and failure to understand that, even if she were "joking," if Jesus hadn't been crucified, there would be no Christian faith because his sacrificial death is the foundational principle on which Christianity rests.  The only reason she gets votes is because of pathetic loyalty and profound ignorance among those who vote for her.  Christians who do so deserve double blame for the apostasy they have caused.

I never belonged to one of those "liberal woke" mainline Protestant churches before, but what I'm seeing now tells me a whole lot about what appears to be some major differences.  Differences which are distinguishing them as a much truer, complete, accurate representation of Christ's body than the Evangelical branch is showing.  Conservative Evangelicals make a huge deal out of testing the sincerity of others by requiring adherence to belief in the Bible's inerrancy and infallibility.  However, when it comes to practicing its principles or testifying to its truthfulness, their actions deny that they believe a word of it.  On the other hand, mainline Protestants don't require strict adherence to a doctrinal position on the scripture, but in this political hothouse, they elevate loyalty to Christ and glorifying God over who they support at the ballot box. 

As was noted on Scarborough Country this morning, Evangelical Christians can't seem to avoid a victim mentality.  They are always the victim, there's always someone out to get them, an enemy that must be fought to give them legitimacy.  Well, of course, there's their belief in the spiritual existence of evil, in the person of "Satan" who, in Christian tradition is a fallen angel, and to some, the personification of evil in the world.  But their use of his person in any modern context is relative to the moment.  The Bible's writers provide a consistent definition of evil, and in several places, they warn the early Christians about its intrusion into their churches.  And yet, in spite of their verbal adherence to "Biblical fidelity" they are blind to this intrusion of it that even the liberal, secular news media recognizes.

It's been very strange to see an institution in which I once had complete trust, become so unstable and untrustworthy.  I was always taught that a Christian didn't have to say that they were to be recognized as such, but now, politicians and church leaders who identify themselves as Christians can't be identified by their neighbors as abiding in God by their love (I John 4).  That's what happens when you abandon the gospel and throw Jesus under the bus to be loyal to a political perspective that only uses and never gives back. 

It IS Morally Wrong for Christians to Vote for Republicans

Baptist News Global: "Should 'Real' Christians Really Vote Republican?"

When Lying Becomes a Virtue

Using labels to identify one's Christian faith can be difficult these days.  Terms that were once exclusively associated with a specific doctrinal, theological perspective or broader denominational orientation now have political meanings.  I dropped the term "Evangelical" from my self-description, preferring to use just the term "Christian," though that also carries some political baggage as well.  I was raised in a denominational tradition which taught that its doctrine and practice of the faith made it "closer to God" than other traditions.  They didn't really teach that others weren't Christians, like some conservative Evangelical groups do, just that they were better Christians.  

It took a long time to throw that off.  Ironically, it was earning a master's degree at a graduate school affiliated with the denomination itself that helped me get past that exclusivity and develop an understanding that the Christian faith was intentionally inclusive and, narrowed down to its core beliefs, is really defined by just one salient point which is the confession of Jesus as the Christ.  There is a lot of other baggage attached to that, in multiple phrases that begin with, "You can't be a Christian if..."  How Christians vote has always been in the background, but now, it's a core doctrine of the faith.  It's not found anywhere in the Bible, but that has never been an obstacle for conservative Evangelicals who want to make a point.  They are masters at twisting Bible passages out of their context and original meaning.  

It should not be surprising that, among the multiple denominations and groupings, and thousands of independent, non-denominational churches of American Evangelicalism, there is a whole lot more bickering, fighting, finger point, and accusations of heresy and apostasy over everything from whether women can be pastors to what kind of clothing is appropriate to wear to church, to whether using recorded instrumental music to accompany singing in worship is "bringing the devil into the church."  But what is remarkable, against that backdrop, is the fact that if someone is a Republican, they will be accepted even if they belong to what Evangelicals consider a hell-bound "cult."  They will call the pope the "vicar of Satan" and the Catholic Church the "whore of Babylon" (I'm not exaggerating, there are many Evangelicals who do this) but will invite Catholic clergy into their church if they're an anti-abortion Republican.  And then, the next day, in a discussion about faith, they'll trash the pope and declare the church apostate. 

Priorities.  

My List Looks a Lot Like the One In BNG

I registered as a Democrat in 1976, voted for Jimmy Carter and have never looked back.  I was raised in a working class family, my Dad was a union man and his roots went back to Roosevelt.  Democrats are not perfect, make mistakes, get off track, have trouble with messaging and can fall into the trap of letting political ambition drive their actions.  But I've never felt that, when it came to things that were important to me, they didn't have my back and from a political perspective, Democratic politicians have always represented my interests.

Even though I am an adopted child, I've never really been sucked in by the idea that abortion should always be the bottom line in voting, and electing politicians who are in favor of abortion rights means supporting "baby killers."  No, it doesn't.  I absolutely does not mean that at all. In an accurate interpretation of Christian faith, every person is accountable before God for their own life, not someone else's.  We do not have the kind of insight and "immaculate vision" to see into other people's lives and judge their circumstances and their convictions.  It is within the means of our capability to resolve the problem and lower the numbers of abortions without sending women caught in untenable circumstances to prison and without interfering in the moral right every woman has to make that decision. There are men who should also be involved and accountable, you know.  

My morals and my Christian values do indeed determine my vote.  I won't vote for a pathological liar who has demonstrated absolutely no capacity whatsoever to recognize truth or do anything with it if he does.  He lives in a fantasy la-la-land.  And I won't vote for someone who has no ethical or moral compass, cheats in business, on his taxes and thinks people who handle their finances like responsible Americans are "losers" and "suckers."  Nor will I vote for anyone who supports him, or any of that ideology, which is anti-American, anti-democratic and anti-Patriotic.  

I will not vote for an election denier.  If they don't believe in free and fair elections, why are they running anyway? 

I will not vote for anyone who believes in conspiracy theories.  In particular, I will always vote against anyone who, in any way at all, references the lying, scam of Q-Anon as a source.  I think any human being who buys into that is morally and educationally bankrupt.  

I won't vote for anyone who doesn't see the need for comprehensive gun control legislation with enforcement teeth in it.  We've proven, over and over that this does not violate the right to bear arms and it can be done.  School shootings are especially heinous to me.  And Christians, especially Evangelicals, should be particularly sensitive to this, given that Biblical doctrine is strong and certain in its condemnation of violence and elevates peacemaking to divine status.  

I won't vote for any racist, anyone who espouses any kind of white supremacy theories, anyone who sees ethnicity and color as some kind of deficiency or disability. 

No anti-immigration politician will get my vote.  

No one who is against corporations and the wealthy paying their fair share, an equal percentage according to income, of taxes will get my vote.  

I vote against idolatry, and against radicalization, which has happened to a large part of the Republican party.  They follow a politician who has elevated himself to the place God should be, and demands exclusive loyalty.  It's not possible to give any loyalty to God in that political party, it can't be shared.  God, and Christian faith, are just tools to be used to make weak-minded people think that those values are at stake when they're clearly not.  

Christianity in a Democracy 

When the church's early Apostles, Peter and Paul, wrote to Christians about how to view government, it was the Roman Empire that set the context for their words.  And in spite of that, they still taught that it was a Christian virtue to follow the law as an example of faith.  In a democracy, where the will of the people is the driving force behind the law, and Christians have an opportunity to participate by voting is it really possible to be "morally wrong" when choosing candidates to elect to public office?  

Yes, I would say that it is, when those candidates advocate for government that would eliminate the rights of individual citizens.  We're instructed to live peaceably and under any government that is in authority over us, but with the privilege of choosing our own comes the privilege, and obligation, to protect the right that we have to worship freely and not have our churches directed by government authority, rather than by the movement of God's spirit.  

No candidate is perfect, and so applying some kind of moral standard to those running for office will always fall short.  Those are personal preferences, and we're all entitled to them without being judged for it.  But at the core of the conspiracy theories and the calls for Christian nationalism, and the authoritarian, anti-patriotic, constitution-hating Trump, is a moral issue that makes voting for anyone who supports those candidates morally wrong.  

Insights into What's Going On With Arizona's "Immigrant Problem"

Arizona Rancher Says Immigrants on his Property are a 24-7 Problem,

An Arizona rancher gave some insights into the "illegal problem" in an interview with a local daily newspaper in Cochise County.  The ranch he owns is located just north of the Mexican border, in the San Pedro River valley, near the small community of Hereford.  The San Pedro River is unique in that it flows north, from its source in the mountains near the mining town of Cananea, Sonora about thirty miles south of the border, into Arizona between the Cochise County towns of Bisbee and Sierra Vista.  Normally, it's a small stream, a vital water source in the desert, and supports cattle ranches scattered all over the valley. 

The San Pedro Valley has always been a place used by migrants to enter the United States from Mexico.  I grew up in the San Pedro Valley, not too far from where this particular ranch is located.  Every ranch and farm in the area has, at one time or another, used the labor of migrant workers who come from Mexico, and many of them still do.  When my family lived in company housing, next door to a small ranch, we knew the migrant workers there by name, and they mowed lawns in our neighborhood for additional money.  In all honesty, if it weren't for the labor of those migrant workers, who are in the United States without documentation, most of the ranchers in Cochise County, and elsewhere in the southwest, would be out of business.  

The newspaper in which this interview was published, the Sierra Vista Herald-Review, is the only daily in Cochise County.  It is based in Sierra Vista, a small city adjacent to the county's largest employer, the U.S. Army at Fort Huachuca.  Few residents of Sierra Vista or the communities where the majority of residents work at Fort Huachuca, are culturally connected to the rest of Cochise County, including the ranching culture.  So it is possible for a conservatively oriented media source to use this as a political issue, stoking fear and drumming up support for their preferred politicians.  The newspaper has recently introduced a section they call "Border" for which they produce articles aimed at keeping people "informed" about local immigration issues, with, of course, a conservative bias.  

Inadvertent Compliments and a Report About the Effectiveness of Biden Administration Border Control Measures

Of course, early in the interview, the writer points to the rancher's dislike of President Biden.  But then an interesting thing happens.  In an attempt to point to a border crisis that is out of control, the author actually documents the effectiveness of Border Patrol efforts to catch immigrants crossing the ranch property, and also documents that the immigrant problem in the San Pedro Valley was "much worse in previous years" than it is now, the rancher's words.  

In capturing immigrants crossing this ranch property, the Border Patrol is working closely with the Cochise County Sheriff's department in the kind of cooperative effort with law enforcement that Republicans insist the Biden Administration isn't doing.  And the apparently well-funded Border Patrol has placed sensors all over the ranch property, which alert them to the presence of immigrants, who usually come in pairs or groups of three.  Immigrants don't cross the border at the point where the river crosses, even though it is easier to do so because of an opening allowing water to pass through, because of the high amount of surveillance.  But apparently, the surrounding ranches all have the sensors.  

The rancher in the interview also notes that the number of immigrants coming across his property now is lower than it has been in the past.  Really?  So under the previous Presidential administration, there were more immigrants coming across the border?  Twice as many?  And the Border Patrol didn't have the sensors or equipment to stop most of it, as they do now?  

Also, the rancher notes, there has been property damage.  Mainly, the issue is cutting fences.  He's lost several cows due to their wandering out of the property and onto a nearby highway.  Or, they wander down into the river bottom, where it is hard to get them back out.  No mention is made in the article of the crime rate increase in Cochise County as a result of this influx of immigration.  That might be because the crime rate has not increased.  Not at all.  It's probably safe to assume that apprehended immigrants are included in the arrest records, and some of the lead car drivers who get caught are part of that.  But immigrants crossing the border are not factoring into the arrests in the county for violent crime, robberies or even misdemeanors.  

The rancher voiced the common complaints of Republicans about immigration.  "The federal government does little to support the Border Patrol and its mission of protecting the county's borders," he said.  So expensive surveillance equipment, sensors on remote ranch property, a doubling in the number of officers working in Cochise County and an overall increase in the Border Patrol budget, which is now twice as much as it was during the Trump administration, is "little support"?  

And apprehending most of the 100 immigrants each day on this single ranch, within 5 miles of where they crossed the border, isn't success in achieving the Border Patrol's mission and purpose?  Then what would be success?

A Sign of Things to Come and Clues About Resolving the Problem

The writer makes note of the diversity found in the country of origin of those crossing into the United States.  Mexico is still the largest source of immigrants, but other Central and South American countries are factoring into the picture, most notably Venezuela and Nicaragua.  When one of the core values of your country is being a haven for the oppressed, and it happens to be on the same continent as countries where people are being oppressed, tormented, terrorized and even sold into slavery because of political and social upheaval, and the ravages of poverty, some will try to escape to a place they believe will offer them a better life.  And they're willing to risk their lives to do it.  

Let's be honest.  Other than those whose ancestors are the original native Americans, the rest of us are here because our ancestors saw America as a haven for the oppressed and risked their lives to get here. It has nothing at all to do with the conspiracy of "replacement theory," in which I am sure both the publisher of the Herald Review and the rancher featured in the interview believe, indicated by their approach to this piece.  

Resolving the immigration problem is much more complicated than equipping the Border Patrol with more officers and more high tech equipment, though this seems to be successful in apprehending most people who are crossing the border illegally. One thing about which the county sheriff is correct, is that this does have the potential to turn into a real humanitarian crisis.  And if that is the case, then do we trust the Republican party and its politicians to be in charge of it and resolve it without further oppression and torment of the victims of whatever political upheaval is causing it?  

I don't. 

Let's See Some Real Christianity in Practice

God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God and God abides in them.  Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness on the day of judgement, because as He is, so are we in this world.  

Those who say, 'I love God' and hate their brothers or sisters are liars for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen cannot love God whom they have not seen.  The commandment we have from him is this:  those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also.  

These words were written by the Apostle John to a group of Christians in a church he doesn't specifically identify, but they are applicable to all of the church.  The specific reference is from the book of I John, chapter 4, verses 6-18 and 20-21, but the whole narrative in this part of his epistle lays out this essential doctrine of the church and points to what Jesus taught as a visible demonstration of Christian faith.  

The attack on Paul Pelosi was just one more in a series of events that has given Christians in this country a chance to show their true colors.  Believing in God means reflecting the virtues and values that, for Christians, are an inherent part of their faith.  The phrase "as he is, so are we in this world" is not just a collection of nice words, it's a core principle of Christian faith.  For those who believe that all humanity is a creation of God, in his image, it is a demonstration of that faith and belief to reflect that image.  

The term "brothers," which can be translated "brothers and sisters", does not mean only other Christians, as some interpret it.  It is a reference to people who live in community, neighbors, those who live and work in the same community.  John says "God is love," and reflecting his image to the surrounding community was the primary means by which Christians testified to their belief in, and love for God.  It isn't possible to love God and hate people, at least, not in any Christian context or practice.   

What Real Christianity Would Look Like Right Now

After the attack on Paul Pelosi, those political leaders who claim to be Christians should have been the first on their feet to condemn the attack, just as they should have been to condemn the attack on the Capitol on January 6th.  That doesn't equate to agreeing with the opposing political party's views.  It does mean being a human being who believes in God and desires to reflect his image.  I have not seen anyone from the extreme right of the GOP even talk about "thoughts and prayers," much less give anyone reason to think they believe in God by reflecting his image.  

In the political realm, that would mean ranking Republican leadership who profess Christian faith standing shoulder to shoulder with Speaker Pelosi, and President Biden, in public solidarity, condemning not only the attack on the Speaker's husband, but all political violence, publicly calling it out, calling for an end to it and taking action and leadership in a bipartisan way.  Instead, what we have is silence, tacit approval or open hostility, making the attack either the butt of jokes or regrets that it wasn't more cruel and inhumane.  Votes and political support are more important to them than this core value of Christian faith and practice.  

I'm not judging anyone.  I'm merely pointing out the contrast between what we are seeing from conservative American Christianity and what the Apostle John says about what Christianity should look like, written in what conservative Christians believe is the inerrant, infallible word of God.  I believe that what we are now seeing is an intrusion of those who "pervert the grace of God," in the same way that the Apostle Jude warned the early church about similar kinds of heresy that leads to apostasy.  The kind of Christianity that is being reflected in those who embrace extremist right wing politics doesn't look anything like what the Apostle says it should look like.  

And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.  All who obey his commandments abide in him, and he abides in them.  And by this we know that he abides in us, by the spirit he has given us.  I John 3:23-24, NRSV

It's either there, or it's not.  And I'm not seeing it from those who give the most lip service to their piety.

We Did See This From Democrats, Regardless of Religious Preference or Practice

The "whataboutism" changing of the context that Republicans have made the core of talking points to deflect attention away from their faults points to Democrats "doing the same thing" when it comes to Black Lives Matter and the violence that erupted following the murder of George Floyd.  I have a pretty clear, short, to-the-point answer to that deflection.  

No they didn't.  

Condemnation of the violence in Minneapolis, and in other cities where it erupted afterward, was quick and virtually universal from Democratic politicians.  It came from the Mayor of Minneapolis, the Governor of Minnesota and both of its Senators immediately.  Calls to stop the violence came from the leaders of the Black Lives Matter organizations immediately, even before Republicans could raise their hands in holy horror.  And help, real help, financial help, came not only from the support of Democrats in government, but it came from everywhere.  

But where was the Republican support, not only in providing for those people who lost their businesses in the violence, but for George Floyd, who was murdered?  Whatabout that?  

That's probably not a good example for Republicans to use.  Those who were hurt the most by Floyd's death and those who have suffered the most under decades of systemic racism were the loudest voices for peace, calling out those who took the opportunity to be destructive and standing for perfect love that casts out fear.  That included the leadership of the Black Lives Matter movement.  

And some Christians saw this in them, and stood by their side and said so.  Take a look and listen carefully to what this pastor, speaking at George Floyd's funeral in Houston, Texas, had to say about it. 

Houston Pastor Steve Wells Stands With the Floyd Family Against Violence and Racism

The church in America needs more pastors like that, and less pseudo-Christians who only use their faith as a means to get votes.  

Standing with the Speaker and the President Against Violence

We are taking a stand beside Paul and Nancy Pelosi, beside all of the members of Congress who had to live through the horror of January 6th, beside the children of Robb Elementary School, Sandy Hook, Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School, Virginia Tech, and the now too numerous to name schools where students went to class and lost their lives for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  We are standing beside George Floyd, and all of the other victims of law enforcement violence and racism.  

We stand against violence of any kind, and for peace.  Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God, said Jesus.  And while we may vehemently disagree with the politics of others, we would stand with anyone who has been the victim of politically-motivated violence.  It is a sin that separates us from the love of God, and silence in the face of it is inhumane and anti-Christian.