Democrats Cannot Afford to Turn the Israeli-Hamas War in Gaza Into a Single Issue Vote

One of the most important political arguments Democrats have advanced, since the unequivocal distaster of the Trump Presidency is that the President of the United States does not have unilateral power, or as Trump has fallaciously argued, "blanket immunity" do do as he pleases, including determining American foreign policy, and then acting on that determination without Congress.  

Trump was completely ignorant of the Constitution, as were the majority of his followers, and the results were an unmitigated disaster of a Presidency that left the United States with more debt added in four years than all 44 of his predecessors had added in 240 years, more than a million dead Americans because of a pandemic that his bungling incompetence made worse than it needed to be, an economy wrecked because of his ignorance, and our NATO alliance and foreign policy in a shambles.  And that's all due to his belief that he had immunity and unilateral authority apart from Congress and from the people. 

In spite of all of that evidence of what happens when a President oversteps the boundaries set by the Constitution, there is a small group within the Democratic party who are putting pressure on President Biden to take the same kind of unliateral steps in order to pressure Israel into stopping its attack on Gaza.  There have been efforts in primary elections to push people to protest the fact that he hasn't gone as far as they think he needs to go by casting ballots for "uncommitted" delegates rather than electing delegates the President needs to win the party's nomination for President.  

Putting The Issue in Perspective 

If the intention of those using the primary votes as a means of "getting the President's attention," or protesting his position on the Israeli-Hamas war, that's one thing.  But there needs to be a whole lot more clarity from those who are doing this regarding their message, and their intentions.  And if the message they are sending is an ultimatum, that if he doesn't do exactly what they think he ought to do, they will not vote for him in November, then they are making a grave mistake that they will come to regret fairly quickly if Trump wins the election in November.  

Those who articulating the content of these protests are all over the place in their messaging.  What is their ultimate aim?  Are they genuinely interested in stopping the bombing and the attacks that are killing civilians, including women and children, in Gaza, or are they more interested in punishing the President because he's not doing what they think he should be doing?  Frankly, from much of the rhetoric, including from Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, of Michigan, it sounds more like they're interested in political gain for themselves, and they're using what's happening in Gaza as a means to get it.  

If they really are interested in helping the people of Gaza, then they need to communicate that.  There needs to be an acknowledgement, first of all, that in order to achieve this end, they absolutely know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, they must turn out, like all other Democratic constituencies must turn out in November, and re-elect President Joe Biden.  Because if he is not re-elected, Gaza will become a desolate ruin, its 2 million residents will become refugees scattered all over the world, or shoved out into the Sinai to become some other country's problem, and anyone who stays behind will be bombed into oblivion.  That's what Netanyahu and the far right in Israel want, and that aligns perfectly with what Trump wants.  

They also need to acknowledge, and understand, that the President cannot unilaterally determine American foreign policy toward Israel.  There's a considerable amount of misinformation, much of it deliberately intended to create confusion, about this.  Biden cannot cut off an appropriation of either weapons or money to Israel without going through Congress.  If he could do that, don't you think he would be funnelling as much money and aid and weapons to Ukraine as he could get on available shipping?  Democrats in Congress passed articles of impeachment against Donald Trump, the first time, for his attempt to withhold congressionally-appropriated funds for Ukraine, to use as a bribe.  

I think the protesters, to demonstrate some political knowledge and experience, and avoid the appearance of being as ignorant as the MAGA crowd is on just about every political issue, need to acknowledge everything President Biden is doing, along the lines of what they have been asking, and give him credit where credit is due.  I realize that it is difficult to dig this stuff out of the news media.  But that's what political awareness does.  Before opening one's mouth, to insert their own foot, these protesters need to know what they are talking about, and what the President has already done that they are demanding.  The pressure from the United States has led to considerable reduction in bombing and destructive attacks, and to Israel's opening of the Erez border crossing for increased volume of humanitarian aid.  

The President has put considerable pressure on Netanyahu regarding cease-fire negotiations, and in allowing humanitarian aid to reach Gaza.  And by the way, who's providing that humanitarian aid?  It's not coming from Antarctica.  Protesters seem to have little idea of the fact that the President, on a daily basis, is pressuring Netanyahu and the Israeli government to back off what now appears to be much more than just an operation to root out Hamas and prevent further attacks occurring from inside Gaza such as the one on October 7th.  Netanyahu, angered by the American abstention that allowed the UN Security Council resolution on a cease fire to pass unanimously, cancelled his scheduled trip to Washington as a result.  Isn't that the kind of pressure these protests are asking for?  

Changes do not happen in an instant.  In addition to the United States, most of Israel's financial and military support comes from NATO countries.  As expected, our President is leading, and NATO countries are following, the pressure on Israel to change its practice because of the civilian casualties, the damage being done, and the looming humanitarian crisis that is developing.  Israel cannot afford to lose NATO support, and Biden has been the key in pointing this out, and warning that this is the direction where things are headed.  Don't take my word for it.  There are media sources, including several MSNBC commentators, who have been providing this information.  

Those who are protesting all of this shouldn't show their ignorance through unreasonable demands, pressuring the President to do what he constitutionally cannot do.  Something else that they need to consider, and publicly acknowledge, is that Israel has every right to defend itself against Hamas.  The October 7th attack was, in every way, as evil and inhumane as Israel's response has been.  Yeah, I know, this animosity, fighting and brutality has a much longer history that goes back well before October 7th.  But if that attack by Hamas had not occurred, what's happening in Gaza now would also not be occurring.  The United States is not the only country in the world that recognizes Israel's right to exist, or Israel's right to defend itself.  

Making This a Single Issue in November Would be a Disaster for the People of Gaza

So, if those organizing these protest votes are genuinely interested in relieving the humanitarian crisis, protecting the civilian population of Gaza and working toward a peaceful resolution of the issues that will allow both Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace, staying home in protest because the President isn't doing what they think he needs to be doing won't achieve any of that.  It will, in fact, achieve just the opposite.  

It appears, again from what can be filtered out of the media's back page reports, that Netanyahu's government is feeling the pressure, and is in danger of facing an early election that, if the more reliable sources are correct, has the potential to topple him.  Any America, and more specifically, because of our political position, every Democrat, needs to understand that Israel is a sovereign nation, is diplomatically recognized by the United States, and is a full military ally, something that has been established by the procedures outlined in our Constitution, not by unilateral action by a President immune from congressional action or popular oponion.  It's hypocritical to resent, and use legal means to oppose foreign interference in our elections, but advocate for the United States to directly interfere in Israel's sovereign affairs.  

On this issue, the differences between the Biden Administration, and a possible, future Trump Administration are as clear as they can be.  There is no political option for antisemites who want the destruction of the Israeli state, so that's not even up for discussion.  Gaza's future as part of a two-state solution that has been on the table for resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since the 1940's, rests with a Biden victory in November.  And I believe its hope for the end to this war, and a peace treaty that leads to a more stable government, rebuilding of its infrastructure and economy, and some hope for the future for its young people also depend on Biden remaining in office as President of the United States.  

A Trump victory, resulting from protesterrs who support Gaza staying home because of misinformation, or because they don't understand politics doesn't mean their demands are always met, will result in the complete destruction of Gaza.  Not only has Netanyahu been very clear about his opposition to the two-state solution, which includes making refugees or prisoners out of Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank, and continued bulldozing of Palestinian property to make room for Israeli settlements, and for Israel's seizure of Gaza's mineral wealth, but Trump has been very clear about his support for Netanyahu's position.  Trump also has his Christian nationalist supporters encouraging him to support the destruction of Gaza.  Take him seriously when he says he's going to do something.  

That's what your "protest" vote, and making this into a single political issue that will keep you home, or lead you to vote third party, or to support Trump in November will accomplish.  So I ask you, make it clear.  Is this what you want?   

Lawmaker's "Prayer" Turns Into Sermonette Displaying Ignorance of Christian Faith

Arizona Mirror: Lawmaker Calls the US "Unrighteous" Because of LGBTQ People and Non-Christians

Arizona State Representative Lupe Diaz, leading a "prayer" to open a session of the state legislature in Arizona, instead took the opening to preach a sermon.  That happens sometimes.  Diaz is also the pastor of a church in a small town and there are times when I've heard pastors, who have been invited to pray at public events, take the opportunity to preach a sermon instead.  

The content of Diaz' sermonette prayer provides some insight into the theological and doctrinal errors now being made by many Evangelical Christians affected by far right wing politics, leading toward a heresy known as Christian nationalism.  Christian nationalism includes the idea, completely unsupported by any scripture reference from the Bible, that God has engaged in a covenant relationship with the United States in the same way he did with Israel in the Old Testament, and that God will judge America as a "nation" if it does not make Christianity the primary influence over its government and society.  

There is no place anywhere in the Biblical record where God promises nations that the more Christians have control over their government, the more they will be blessed.  Nor is there any place where God promises any nation or country or political unit, some kind of blessing of special protection for using their government to enforce Christian morality, values and virtues.  And there is no place where he indicates that the presence of sinful behaviors among the population of a nation will lead to his withholding his blessing, or bringing some kind of disaster upon them in the same way he did with ancient Israel.  

Ancient Israel did believe they had a covenant relationship with God, and the historical record of that covenant, complete with prophetic warnings of their disobedience, and coming disaster as a result of their failure to hold up their end of that covenant, which required them to reveal the presence of God to the pagan world around them, is the Old Testament.  But, Jesus was the Messiah, and his coming was the fulfillment of the covenant that God had with Israel.  He even says so himself, in Matthew 5:17, a claim for which he would eventually be condemned by the religious leaders and crucified.  

Where Diaz, and many other Evangelicals who lean toward Christian nationalism, miss the boat is ignoring the context and the words of Jesus himself, which constitute the interpretive criteria for all of the rest of the Bible.  

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good , and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.  For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have?  Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others?  Do not even the Gentiles do the same?  Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."  Matthew 5:43-48, NRSV

Jesus didn't offer a covenant to any country or nation.  He offered his covenant, salvation by grace through faith in himself as the promised Messiah, to everyone.  And the blessings attached to this covenant are individual blessings.  They are not given for individual righteousness, as can be seen from his illustration here, noting that rain falls on the righteous and unrighteous, and the sun rises on the good and the evil.  So in terms of the physical world, God doesn't bless Christians by letting it rain on their field during a drought, but not on a non-Christian's field as a punishment for their unbelief.  Blessings in the Christian gospel are spiritual benefits, not physical or financial, lest we get to thinking that prosperity is always a sign of God's favor.  In the Christian gospel, it isn't a sign of anything spiritual.   

Jesus reserved the kind of condemning, critical language Diaz applied to transgender persons, including all LGBTQ, and the "unrighteous" non-Christians, for the religious leaders of his day, mainly the Pharisees, but also the Sadducees, who made up the ruling council of the Sanhedrin.  When it came to the "unrighteous", those whom the Bible calls "tax collectors and sinners," because tax collectors were seen as traitors to their faith and their race, and even more unrighteous than other kinds of sinners, Jesus invited them to dinner, talked to them, encouraged them, prayed for them, hung out with them and loved them enough to give them the opportunity for redemption and reconciliation to God through the experience of conviction and acceptance of his gospel message. 

The Pharisees asked his disciples why he did this.  He responded, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.  Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'  For I have come to call not the righteous, but sinners.  [emphasis mine]

Looking at who Jesus spent his time with, and the content of his ministry and his preaching, it's pretty clear he would take the exact opposite position from the one Diaz expressed in his prayer, er, sermonette.  I wonder how Diaz plans to carry out a ministry of evangelism among people he has judged as being dark, unrigheous and evil.  As a minister and pastor, his forgetfulness of what scripture actually says about the nature of humanity is inexcuseably lacking in wisdom and discernment, and in the mercy and grace that he offers. 

"None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.  All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."  Romans 3:10-12, ESV 

"For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God."  Romans 3:23, ESV

"None, no not one" and "all",  includes Diaz, and the rest of the judgmental Republican hypocrites in the Arizona legislature.  The only difference between Diaz, and the LGBTQ people he condemns, is that he, as a Christian, claims to be a forgiven sinner, and he believes they are not forgiven.  But make no mistake here, doctrinally, what they have in common is that they are all sinners, at least, as far as this particular apostolic statement is concerned.  And nowhere in the Christian gospel, or in the words of the church's apostles recorded in the Bible is there authorization for those who claim forgiveness to condemn those who don't.  It's not there.  You'd think a pastor would know this.  

Nor did Diaz come to forgiveness based on his own righteousness.  He is in the same boat with everyone else, his own character being that of an unrighteous sinner.  In order to be righteous and justified before God, he had to borrow someone else's righteousness, because that is not something he could come up with on his own.  And needing the righteousness of Jesus in order to be forgiven leaves absolutely no room for those who claim this to judge anyone else.  Jesus makes that very clear. 

"Judge not, that you be not judged.  For with the judgment you pronounce, you will be judged, and with the same measure you use, it will be measured to you.  Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"  Matthew 7:1-3, ESV 

Diaz' responsibility, and that of other Christians who claim to be forgiven sinners and believers in Jesus, is not to condemn at all.  It is to evangelize, to set a visible example of what living according to the Christian gospel looks like, and testifying to their own conviction of sin, repentance and forgiveness leading to their own conversion.  After hearing Diaz' disparaging, condemning remarks, what LGBTQ person would be able to discern spiritual conviction, or even want to consider Christianity?  The manner in which many Christians vilify, condemn, criticize and hate those who are not Christians, makes it difficult to see how they could convert anyone, or why anyone would want to convert.  

From the words of Christ and the Apostles in the New Testament, that kind of attitude was one of the things Jesus set out to change.  The sermon on the mount is full of Jesus' saying, "You have heard that it was said...but I say to you..."  Jesus dined with and fellowshipped with tax collectors and sinners.  He promoted racial and ethnic reconciliation, emphasizing his intention with multiple examples in which the Samaritans figure prominently.  He rescued a woman about to be stoned for adultery, and then offered her redemption and reconciliation.  He confronted self-righteous political and religious leadership by pointing out their hypocrisy and their theological error, and their resentment of his ministry to the common people.

The Bible does not teach that nations are judged and condemned when Christians don't outnumber non-Christians and don't dictate or control the government.  Nor does it teach that Christians, by being more numerous and by using the government to control the behavior of those they consider evil and unrighteous, determine, in any way, whether God views the country as "righteous" or "unrighteous."  A country cannot be collectively redeemed, only individual people can experience spiritual conviction, repent of their sin, and receive the grace of God that forgives their sin with the sacrifice of Jesus.  

Perhaps if Pastor Lupe Diaz would follow the example of Jesus, love the people he now condemns and hates, treat them with gentleness and respect, and sit down for a meal and a conversation, he would at least be being obedient to the faith he claims to believe in and follow.  And something might actually come of that.  Even if it doesn't and they part company, hatred and condemnation aren't part of the relationship.  

"If anyone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.  And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother."  I John 4:20-21 ESV 

Christians in this country are as free as they have ever been to practice their faith, preach their gospel, go about their ministry and do whatever they think is necessary to win converts to the faith.  No one can point to any kind of persecution or restriction on the practice of Christianity in America that even resembles persecution.  No one in this country is being jailed for preaching the gospel, or whatever version or interpretation of it that they choose, or for attending a church service.  Being a member of a church does not subject one to status of a second class citizen.  If anything, Christians in America today experience far less persecution for their faith than the adherents of any other religion in this country.  There is religious persecution here, but Christians have never been subject to it, and are not now subject to it.  There is no argument or evidence to support any other contention.  

But people are leaving Christianity behind in this country, in significant enough numbers to cause some alarm.  How can that be, if there is complete freedom and no real persecution?  It's because of attitudes like this one, exhibited in public by a Christian pastor who also serves as a state Representative, on the floor of the state legislature.  Hatred and contempt, and singling out a small minority on which to blame the "ills of society" is not how Jesus intended his church to win converts.  And that has come about by ideology that has intruded into churches via far right wing politics and the cult surrounding Trump.  Evangelical churches aren't declining because of persecution, they are declining because of heresy that is causing them to become apostate.  I suggest reading through the book of Jude to get a good idea of what this looks like from a Biblical perspective.  

This is an egregious example of what is transpiring as Evangelicals abandon orthodoxy in favor of right wing politics.

Good News for President Biden in the Real Polls

The turning point for President Obama in his 2012 re-election bid was his nomination acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention.  Polls, which up to that point had favored Mitt Romney, some by as much as 6 points, shifted quickly as the result of the convention "bump" and Romney had to play catch-up from that point on.  He wasn't successful and Obama was pronounced the winner before midnight on election night when he was declared the winner in Ohio.  

It's been interesting watching the media, and their manner of handling polling data in this election.  No matter what happens, the needle doesn't seem to move, according to them.  It's a dead heat, a horserace, Trump up by one, by four, leading in all six battleground states, even though not all of the polling data has shared that conclusion.  No matter what happens, the numbers don't change.  Or, when one poll, especially if it's the New York Times/Siena College poll, it gets national attention while another poll, Emerson or Quinnipiac or YouGov, or the Washington Post shows almost exactly opposite data over the same period of time.  

Can Polls Be Manipulated?

I believe they can be.  So does Jen Psaki and Nicole Wallace.  So I am in good company.  

Most polls are operated by for-profit media outlets.  So the obvious question would be, "Who stands to benefit by manipulating polling data?"  When it goes in Trump's favor, that would be the obvious answer. Although the campaigns have their internal polling, which doesn't get disclosed, it is possible that what's visible to the public might have an affect on how people vote, whether they turn out, or even on how a campaign presents its candidate.  

Can billionaires, who support Trump, have a bearing on the polling data that is reported?  And how about the Russians?  If I were an attorney, I'd be using both of those options to make a case for reasonable doubt.  Or, are we simply looking at outdated polling methods that don't produce reliable results?  All of those are legitimate possibilities.  

Polls tend to "tighten" prior to an election and it's been my theory for a long time that this is to keep legitimacy when they've been exaggerating numbers to puff a candidate.  If polls are significantly off from the actual results of the election, and outside the margins of error, trust in the data is eroded.  Also, when claiming their own accuracy, pollsters and the composites who speak in terms of odds, not exact numbers, need good numbers to "prove" their accuracy.  But even some of the post-election articles written by pollsters about how right they were are exaggerations or outright falsehoods.  It's hard to access most of their data post-election to prove otherwise, so we have to take their word for it.  

There was a bump in the polling data for President Biden following his State of the Union address.  Depending on the poll, it was a decent shift, and most of the available data now shows him leading in the "battleground states."  I tend to think he probably has been all along, and the guesses made by the pollsters in Democratic voter enthusiasm have been off.  Not only that, but while Trump has been bogged down in court, the President has been everywhere, touting his achievements and pointing to his successes.  And now that it's clear that Biden vs. Trump is the election we have, people are paying attention and Trump himself is helping drive down his numbers with his outrageous rhetoric.  

Voters Are Providing Insights Into How the Electorate May Cast Their 2024 Ballot for President

At the moment, while I still believe there's been polling manipulation from somewhere on the Trump side of the campaign, because those numbers seem to be his personal nourishment and encouragement, and he exaggerates them as bragging points in his speeches, there is evidence that the polling data may be off by a fairly significant amount.  Real polls are now showing up all over the place in the form of primary elections, and special elections.  

It's hard to poll primaries, since candidates shift and things change quickly, but if I were going to take a look at primary results and get a perspective of "voter enthusiasm," if I were advising the Trump campaign right now, I would be panicking.  In actual voter exit polls, and in the ballots Republican voters are casting, the presumptive nominee of the party, a former President and one who has been the clear front-runner since the start, is not getting anywhere close to the number of votes he needs to demonstrate a level of voter enthusiasm anywhere close to what the current President is getting.  

Even after dropping out of the campaign, Nikki Haley and Ron Desantis continue to get percentages of the Republican vote from voters who tell exit pollsters they're not voting for Trump.  He can't afford to lose any votes, and win the electoral votes he needs, but he's losing 20% of his own party right now.  It doesn't matter in a state he has no chance of winning, like New York, Connecticut or Rhode Island, but what he didn't get in Wisconsin last night was significant.  And that's a pattern that has repeated itself throughout the primaries, and is being seen in the exit polling. MSNBC is underlining the significance of what's going on, and a couple of CNN reporters have mentioned it.  

The Trump campaign has obviously noticed it.  He's now promising his Evangelical constituents the favored religion status they've always thought they deserved.  Clearly, he thinks that's where he needs to shore up his support, and that's where he's leaking votes.  So they believe the exit polls and are watching the primary results, in spite of claiming that they're huge victories.  Haley is no longer running, and is not a threat to his nomination, but she got 12% of the vote in Wisconsin last night, in spite of his making an appearance and holding a rally at a half-filled venue in Green Bay.  

I can read between the lines.  

Other Measurements Show Biden on Track for Re-Election

Skewed polls are one thing.  Money is quite another.  President Biden is so far ahead of Trump, in terms of both total number of donors, and amounts of money raised, that it is both an indication of voter enthusiasm and of his ability to win what many think will be a close election.  And let's just be honest here, putting Lara Trump in as co-chair of the RNC is a sign of just how panicked Trump is over this one particular aspect of the campaign.  What we now know is that Trump does not have the financial resources to finance his own campaign, or pay his legal bills.  A lot of Republican congressmen and Senators are also panicked, as they see little prospect of drawing from the RNC for their own re-election campaigns.  

Let's not pass over the significance of this aspect of the campaign.  The number of people who financially contribute to a Presidential campaign is a direct measurement of the level of voter enthusiasm.  Factor that in to a few polls and see how the numbers change.

Here's another huge difference.  Two former Democratic Presidents, both popular with Democrats and independent voters, are engaged in big, visible roles in Biden's re-election campaign.  Both Obama and Clinton are front and center, helping with a huge haul of donations this past week and making appearances, with the President and on his behalf, among constituencies the Democrats feel need a little bit of encouragement.  

How many former Republican Presidents, or for that matter, former Republican candidates for President, are out on the campaign trail on Trump's behalf?  The only other living former Republican President has indicated he will vote for Biden, again.  The former Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, has openly declared he will not support Trump.  

Put that in your "voter enthusiasm" pipe and smoke it.  

Out on a Limb, or a Safe Prediction? 

I'm not a political analyst, or a poll data specialist.  I'm an ordinary American who taught high school civics and American History for half my career, and have been in school administration for the other half.  I'm not in the business of predicting elections, though from my former students' perspective, I was pretty formidable in coming up with an accurate prediction in all but one past election.  I missed 2004.  But so did a lot of other people.  

So I don't mind going on the record.  I think voter enthusiasm, in contrast to what the mainstream media wants us to believe, is on President Biden's side.  I think he's going to get a bigger turnout of support than he did in 2020, and I think he's going to increase his electoral vote tally.  Looking at how some of the senate races are shaping up, especially in Texas and Florida, I would not be surprised to see one of those states go blue.  The Biden campaign seems to have enough confidence that they can win Florida to invest some campaign financing and time in that state, and they're setting up a headquarters like they would in other battlegrounds.  It looks like they might also have an even chance in North Carolina, and I predict he'll increase his margins in both Georgia and Arizona by another half a percent.  He'll bury Trump in Michigan and Pennsylvania, win by more than 50,000 in Wisconsin, take Nevada by 5% and win a squeaker in Ohio.  He loses nothing he won in 2020. 

House Speaker Mike Johnson Served as Dean of a Law School Named After Baptist Denominational Leader and Alleged Sexual Predator

 Baptist Press: Abuse Allegations a Blight on Pressler Legacy

AP story on Johnson's Failed Term as Dean of the Pressler School of Law at Louisiana College

Current Speaker of the House Mike Johnson is an Evangelical Christian from Louisiana, a member of o Cypress Baptist Church, a large congregation in Benton, Lousiana.  In August of 2010, he was named the founding dean of the Pressler School of Law at Louisiana College, a school owned by Louisiana Southern Baptists.  The school never opened, and Johnson resigned in 2012.  The college's president, Joe Aguillard, blamed the school's failure on Johnson's resignation.  

But there's a little bit of a back story here.  The Pressler School of Law is named for Paul Pressler, a now-retired Texas appeals court judge, known as one of the "architects" of the Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention, a ten-year denominational political effort to "restore" the denomination to its "conservative roots" by political maneuvering to elect a series of presidents with appointive powers to ensure that only theological conservatives who believed in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible would be appointed as trustees to the denomination's entities and seminaries.  This would ensure that the professors who were hired, and the missionaries who were appointed, all held the doctrinal belief in biblical inerrancy and infallibility.  

The Conservative Resurgence considered itself crusaders against liberalism in the denomination.  The other "architect," Paige Patterson, was President of the tiny Criswell Bible College in Dallas, belonging to the First Baptist Church there.  Eventually, as a result of his work on behalf of the "resurgence," he was rewarded with being elected President of the SBC, and as President of two of the denomination's theological seminaries, Southeastern in Wake Forest, North Carolina, and Southwestern, in Ft. Worth, Texas.  For his part, Pressler was given a seat for eight years on the powerful Executive Committee of the SBC, and then, for eight more years, as a trustee of the International Mission Board.  

I'm not aware of a direct connection between Johnson and Pressler, though Johnson served as a trustee of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission at the same time Pressler was active in denominational bureaucracy.   Southern Baptist leaders are finally coming to accept evidence from at least two lawsuits pointing to Pressler having been involved in incidents of sexual abuse of young men, including from the youth group of the church that he had once led, and associates from the law firm in which he was a partner with an attorney named Jared Woodfill.  

Johnson has kept silence on his tenure at the Baptist law school, and hasn't commented on the evidence of sexual abuse coming from the settled lawsuits against Pressler.  That seems strange, for a high profile politician like Johnson, whose conservative views are far right hard line, especially against LGBTQ persons.  I would think he'd want to clear his record of any possible association with the Pressler name, especially considering the nature of the allegations, the evidence which includes the leadership of Pressler's church, First Baptist of Houston, acknowledging his inappropriate behavior and taking disciplinary action which eventually caused him to join a different church.  

Southern Baptist leaders have been very reluctant, and very slow, in acknowledging the allegations against Pressler.  The lawsuit brought against him also named the Southern Baptist Convention as a defendant, as well as Paige Patterson, the other architect of the Conservative Resurgence.  Patterson was eventually dismissed as a defendant, but the SBC executive committee was a contributor to the settlement, along with Pressler's law partner, Jared Woodfill.  Woodfill recently lost a primary election for a state senate seat, even though he had the endorsement of some high powered Texas Republicans, including attorney general Ken Paxton.  Johnson might have need to be somewhat concerned about the political fallout that can potentially come from situations such as this.  Voters, even in conservative Texas, don't appear to like, or want to endorse, hypocrisy.  

But we see this sort of thing from Republicans all the time.  They're hard liners against LGBTQ persons, and want to deny them the same rights as other Americans.  But when one of their own is involved in a sexual abuse scandal like this one, they go into radio silence, and won't let integrity get the best of them.  The speaker missed an opportunity here.  And while he may not have had any association with Pressler, his name will be associated with the failed law school at Lousiana College.  

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back in Southern Baptist Handling of Their Clergy Sexual Abuse Crisis

Baptist News Global: Twelve Steps the SBC Should Take Now to Address Clergy Sexual Abuse

The linked article is authored by three survivors of clergy abuse in a Southern Baptist church and the fourth, David Clohessy is the former director of SNAP, Survivor's Network of those Abused by Priests.  

The three Southern Baptist survivors of abuse who helped author this article have concluded, after three years of trying, the Southern Baptist Convention is still not successfully dealing with this crisis.  While all three of them have spoken out about their own abuse, and the difficulties they encountered in their various churches following the revelations of what happened to them, the denomination itself did not step up with any real appearance of action until The Houston Chronicle and The San Antonio Express-News broke the story in 2018.  

While those investigations were met with a reaction of surprise, and horror at what had happened, they threw the convention body, made up of "messengers" who are delegates elected by each affiliated church, into a flurry of actions that have led to a private, outside investigation by a neutral legal firm, a set of recommendations including development of a ministry to recovering victims as well as a proposal to establish a data base of credibly accused abusers so that they will not be able to move from one church to another, under the cover of "local church autonomy."  More than half of those who have been involved in sexual abuse in a Southern Baptist church went on to serve in at least one other church, and have multiple abuse accusations from members of several churches. 

Resistance at Every Step From the SBC Bureaucracy

The governing structure of the SBC is a holdover from the remnants of the old Confederacy.  Each church is an independent, autonomous body, and can effectively cooperate with, or ignore, the denominational structure as it chooses.  Each church calls their own vocational ministers and is responsible for ordination, sets its own doctrine and theology in place, and governs its own business and ministry.  It is affiliated with the denomination for the purpose of cooperating in a missions enterprise and in theological education provided for its pastors and missionary personnel.  Theoretically, the executive committee, and the denomination's officers, have no ecclesiastical authority over any church.  

Theoretically.  

In practice, they have, since a movement known as the "Conservative Resurgence" came to power in 1989, become much more ecclesiastical in demanding that churches accept narrow interpretations of Biblical doctrine in order to remain "in friendly cooperation," and churches are manipulated by the threat of being disfellowshipped, or kicked out of the denomination, if they deviate too much from what is accepted.  The claim is that this isn't "ecclesiastical authority" doesn't hold water.  Being in friendly cooperation is a manipulative threat held over the "independent, autonomous" congregations to coerce their agreement.  In the past, that threat usually caused churches to get back in line.  But in recent years, more of them have chosen to leave than to comply, some of them quite publicly and even proudly take the exit ramp.  

Failing to adequately and biblically deal with ministers who are credibly accused of sexual abuse within a church is a reason for the credentials committee of the SBC, the group with the authority to investigate and remove recalcitrant congregations, to declare a church "not in friendly cooperation."  But that is far less likely to happen than a church being kicked out for calling a female to serve in a ministry position with a job description that makes her a "pastor."  

Ever since the two Texas newspapers made millions of Southern Baptists aware of the scandal going on in their denomination, their investigation limited to a small segment of the denomination turned up a scandalously huge number of reports of clergy abuse in local churches, there has been resistance from the bureaucratic side of the denomination, and the supporters of its leaders, to taking any kind of action that would acknowledge there was a problem and that something needed to be done about it.  Instead, what has happened is that those victims of abuse in SBC churches who dared speak up have been vilified, in some cases had the circumstances turned around onto them, making them responsible for getting raped and abused, refusing to provide any comfort or ministry as a result of what they endured, and in several high profile cases, publicly shaming and blaming the victim for coming forward, and accusing them of being agents of Satan bent on attacking "God's men" in the pulpits of churches.  

And there are those in the bureaucracy who are moving heaven and earth to prevent the denomination from acknowledging that there is a problem and doing anything about it.  The delegates to the annual meetings, known as "messengers" from the local churches, in the first couple of years after the revelations of the scandal were made public, took several votes to over-rule the bureaucrats by sheer majority votes.  This resulted in the resignation of about a fourth of the executive board, along with the executive director of the board at the time.  But that change hasn't yet produced the kind of results victims were hoping to see.  

In this conservative, Evangelical denomination, where right wing politics has infiltrated the doctrine, theology and practice of many churches, victims are turned into attackers, and any victims advocates within the denomination are labelled as "woke liberals," whose intentions are to use the #metoo movement to infiltrate churches with feminism and liberal theology.  These anti-Christian accusers and their attitudes and accusations make attending annual SBC gatherings an endurance contest by victims who keep showing up in the hopes that their presence will prompt real change.  

So far, their perspective on what has been achieved is less than nothing. 

Victims Have Some Proposals for the SBC to Hear and Consider

The SBC bureaucrats have a real problem listening to people who know more about something from experience than they do.  They act like they have been given "immaculate perception" when it comes to denominational matters and their actions are equated with the inerrant, infallible scripture in which they claim to believe.  There's an arrogance that becomes very ugly and un-Christlike resistance to anything that appears to challenge their power or influence.  The victims of abuse in Southern Baptist churches, many of whom show up at the annual convention to continue to remind and encourage messengers to do the right thing, and work to stop this abuse, have endured grievous attacks that make their presence almost unbearable for them, as many of them have publicly testified.  

To use a biblical term from the book of Revelation, I believe that this sexual abuse issue, and the manner in which the leadership of this denomination is handling it, is causing God to "remove their lampstand" from its place.  The SBC is experiencing monumental, unprecedented membership and attendance decline, more than 25% in less than a decade, more than the fractured United Methodist Church has experienced.  I think there are two things responsible for this, one of them is their close association with a worldly insurrectionist politician who worships a god of materialistic greed, and their treatment of those among them who resisted and told the truth, and the other is the manner in which they are handling this sexual abuse crisis.  

Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.  Jesus, the Christ, Matthew 24:40.  

What they've done to Jesus is throw him under the bus.

MAGA, Trump Made a Mockery of Christianity a Long Time Ago; The "Trump Bible" is Just Another Humiliation for Christians

Salon: Trump Bibles Make a Mockery of Christianity 

As the news about the "Trump Bible" spreads, someone posted on social media that there's some real irony in Trump selling Bibles containing American foundational documents that he completely ignored while planning and conducting an insurrection against the United States, in order to deny the peaceful transfer of power, provided for in one of those documents.  He's put everything he ignores into one volume.  

Well, I thought that was funny.  

Then there's the thought that Christians raise millions of dollars every year to have Bibles printed in order to distribute them as widely as possible, translated into as many languages as possible, and that any genuinely Christian billionaire would be giving Bibles away, not selling them.  But here we have Trump, who is a make-a-buck opportunist when it comes to selling just about anything, profiting off the King James translation, because it is copyright free, and using the proceeds to pay legal expenses, including for defending him against rape, insurrection, stealing classified documents, intimidating election workers and trying to steal a presidential election.  I'm pretty sure there are plenty of authoritative words in that Bible against everything he is using it to try to defend.  

If you need a Bible, you can get a nice one for free, from just about any church in America.  If you buy this one, you're helping make a mockery out of the faith you claim to believe in.  Frankly, this borders on blasphemy.  It is, at the very least, peddling the gospel for profit, something Jesus condemned, in his words which are recorded in that very Bible.  

It's pretty clear that Trump doesn't believe anything in either the Bible, or America's founding documents.  In spite of the conservative Christian sycophants he has attracted, he has yet to provide any confession of Christianity that fits the conservative doctrinal narrative when it comes to a Christian conversion experience.  All his Christian sycophants want you to believe he has had a conversion experience.  But he can't get past the first point, which is experiencing conviction of his sinful nature, and repenting, or turning away from it.  In multiple interviews with far-right religious media persons, including his own "spiritual advisor," Paula White, his response to the question about his conversion is to claim he has his own religion and his own belief about God, and then, to declare that he has not done anything in his life that requires asking God for forgiveness.

That's a flat out denial of Christian conversion, according to the conservative, Evangelical doctrine of salvation by grace through faith.  It's impossible, in their interpretation of the conversion experience, to be "converted" without first experiencing spiritual conviction of sin.  Clearly, by word and by deed, Trump has not had that experience.  And that makes his right wing, conservative Evangelical sycophants liars and hypocrites.  

Hypocrisy That Knows No Bounds 

The Baptist Review: Five Principles for Pastors in an Election Year

I've linked this article from the Baptist Review to illustrate just how hypocritical the Christian political right has become over the course of their involvement in politics.  This particular author, Nathan Finn, is a Southern Baptist, a professor of "Faith and Culture" at North Greenville University, the Southern Baptist answer to Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina, and also is teaching pastor at a megachurch nearby, First Baptist Church of Taylors, South Carolina. He is also a "Senior Fellow" for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC [ERLC] and for the Land Center for Cultural Engagement, all of which identify him as a far right winger in terms of both doctrine and politics. Among Southern Baptists, he's one of those denominational "leaders" who manages to exercise influence on several levels, a "finger in every pie kind of guy," I like to call them.  In the provincial, backward manner in which Southern Baptists operate, there are quite a few of these "influence  peddlers."  

If you link The Baptist Review, here's a word of caution.  The content of other articles is all drawn from the same ideological and religious perspective, and there are few citations of evidence to support most contentions.  There's also an inherent assumption that the reader is already familiar with all of the cultural innuendo and references to a Baptist world that bears little resemblance to the real world, even in terms of how that is engaged.  

Predictably, if you look at points 3 and 4 in his article advising pastors on how to handle an election year, he ignores the character of candidates, and emphasizes the issues.  In other words, we are getting the standard, hypocritical party line of the far right, because they are running a number of candidates, the one at the top of the ticket in particular, who have no character to speak of.  

"Your preferred candidate may let you down by breaking promises, changing his mind, making unethical decisions on other matters or otherwise demonstrating a lack of character," he says, in a very general, nebulous manner, "But the issues themselves will still matter."  And basically, that means there is just one issue that matters, against their lack of value for any other.  In that interpretation, lying, adultery, rape, white supremacy, fraud, and the blasphemous denial of the Holy Spirit's conviction are all side issues compared to the one, of which they have no realistic understanding.

He left out the fact that "your preferred candidate" may try to start an insurrection against the government because he didn't like the election results but had absolutely no proof they were "rigged" or that it was "stolen," resulting in the injury of dozens and the deaths of five people. That the preferred candidate lies through his teeth, going well beyond "otherwise demonstrating a lack of character" and  is on trial for an attempted coverup of an affair with a porn actress while his third wife, with whom he had an affair while married to his second wife, with whom he had an affair while married to his first wife, was pregnant with his youngest son.  That this preferred candidate is a serial adulterer, admitting to affairs with women on all three of his wives with "hundreds," according to his own bragging estimate.  

He also left out that there are issues associated with this preferred candidate that no Bible-believing, Conservative, Evangelical Christian, nor any patriotic American, should be even remotely considering supporting.  Endorsing his affinity for a combination of a white supremacist, Christian nationalist America is heresy from a Christian perspective, and treasonous from a patriotic perspective.  

He also failed, in every possible way, to provide even one connection to a single principle from the Christian gospel that would permit a sincere, practicing Christian to even consider casting a ballot for such a worldly, anti-Christian, anti-American candidate.  Finn also ignores the fact that the entire religious political right wing took the exact opposite position when fellow Southern Baptist Bill Clinton was running for President.  Character was all that mattered to far right wing Evangelicals then.  The issues, for them, especially a roaring economy, they easily ignored while focusing on, well, on many of the same sins and shortcomings that they now completely ignore and blithely dismiss when it comes to Trump.  By clear and concise definition, that is hypocrisy.  

Perhaps Finn's most egregious obfuscation of the issue is found in point 4, where he tells pastors to "Make a distinction between jagged-edge issues and straight line issues."  What he means by "jagged line issues" have to do with what the Bible says about things like tax rates, immigration policy, or, deliberately included, racial injustice.  Let me translate for you.  Ignore the Bible's clear teaching on the values and virtues of the Christian gospel, because they are subject to individual interpretation.  But of course, the "straight line issue" is abortion, and in his thinking, that's the bottom line which excuses both bad character and ignoring the virtues and values of the gospel.  

The point that Finn misses completely is that the United States Constitution does not allow for any "establishment" of religion, including Christianity.  He ignores the fact that this first amendment principle was the key to setting the church free from any state control or interference and allowing it to minister and evangelize in America with a degree of success it has experienced in only a few places in the world, and at only a few times in its history.  Establishment of a state church was deliberately avoided, and the fact of the matter is that if any American citizen who practices a different religion than Christianity, or who is not a Christian or a practitioner of any religion, has their freedom violated by laws which impose distinctively Christian principles upon society, then the Christians of America are also at risk of losing their religious liberty.  

And if an anti-abortion position is the only issue that draws a Christian voter to a candidate, in a sea of worldly, evil, anti-Christian behavior and declarations, then the character needs to be repudiated, in favor of casting a vote for the other candidate who has a realistic chance of winning the election, in spite of a difference of opinion on this singular issue, especially if that candidate supports all of the other issues that are derived mainly from Christian virtues and values, such as treating immigrants with dignity and providing refuge for them, and for establishing racial justice.  

How can a congregation trust anything their pastor says if he ignores the character of a particular candidate, while only preaching a small sliver of the Christian gospel?  How can you admonish a congregation to be truthful and have integrity while promoting, with passion, a political candidate who can't utter a single truthful word, brags about his lack of integrity and denies that anything he does is sinful in the eyes of the god he believes in?  

I think that says it all.

Why Do We Allow This?

Many Americans pay little attention to anything beyond their own little corner of the country, much less to what is going on around the world.   The political polarization we are experiencing cuts through everything, including any thought of being part of an international community that reacts to what happens here because it will, somewhere, at some point, have an affect on their lives.  

So it is hard to ignore the reactions from around the world, especially from countries with whom we have been allied in common causes, and with whom we share much history and cultural background, regarding our presumptive Republican Presidential nominee.  The founding fathers are rolling over and over in their graves and tombs at any thought of their constitutional protections of freedom of conscience, and free speech, would permit this former President, and current candidate, to say and do the things he does without any consequence at all, and ostensibly, without any loss of support. 

Is the Polling Data Being Manipulated? 

I say ostensibly, because I'm having increasing difficulty believing the poll numbers as they are being reported.  I know that anecdotal evidence doesn't prove a thing, but I live in a building with a couple hundred other Americans over 55 years of age, and even though it is in a precinct in a county and state that are heavily Democratic party voters, the majority of the known Republicans in the community are openly declaring they're not going to vote for Trump, and the rest have entered radio silence on the subject.  I try to be open minded, and avoid conspiracy theories, but someone, somewhere, with a lot of power and money is manipulating the poll numbers to his advantage.  The Russians are the first thought that comes to mind, and there are plenty of other American billionaires who would greatly benefit from another Trump presidency who are right there behind them.  

Most of the mainstream media is lost in space.  We have clearly passed into a generation of news media reporters and commentators who may be decorated with degrees from prestigious colleges, but who can't come up with an intelligent thought of their own based on critical thinking and looking at and analyzing facts.  It's become a game of chasing each other down, of what's hot and what's not, what's trendy and what isn't.  The dress code has changed, watching reporters on the scene somewhere, who seem to be more into either accentuating their figure, or physique, and advertising the hottest clothing lines and hair styles than reporting the news.  Clearly, they're being manipulated into these entrenched themes, that Biden is too old, the Democrats are in disarray, the party is fracturing, and changing the record after the fact when they get something wrong.  

It makes me wonder what our public education system has been doing for the last 40 years.  It's missed the boat on critical thinking skills.  

And without a determination of who is actually doing the manipulating, it's obvious the science of conducting political polls has, since 2020, entered a period of error and miscalculation unlike anything we've seen in about 50 years.  But the conversation is also being manipulated.  Media reporting has become an exercise in chasing trends, not in finding and reporting facts.  Reporters just look at what news seems to be trending and that's what they follow.  There's no effort being made at all to come up with a real "scoop," as it was once called.  The mainstream media is more or less just getting its information from social media. Or so it appears.

Committing Crimes and Running Wild 

We do have a mechanism in this country for determining what falls outside the boundaries of freedom of conscience and free speech.  One of the remarkable things that we have in our American democracy is a high degree of tolerance for differences of opinion, or, at least, we once had that degree of tolerance in other times.  The boundary, defined by the law and determined by legislation and the courts, in a balance of power, is where one's speech and conscience become destructive to those democratic principles in which it is allowed to exist, and crosses over into someone else's inalienable rights.

Some actions should be obvious.  

Threatening to assassinate those responsible for legislating and enforcing the law is off limits.  Attacking the system itself, with the intention of overthrowing it, goes completely against any precautions that were taken to prevent such actions from occurring, and was one of the things that the founding fathers were very insistent upon writing into the constitution.  The very clear boundary line on American freedom of conscience has been the place where expression interferes with the rights of another American.  And the Trump insurrection on January 6, 2021, clearly crossed that boundary.

We can see, in the words, and actions, of Trump, and his sycophants, that this boundary line has been crossed with the intention of inflicting permanent damage and overthrowing democracy completely.  That is obvious.  What's frustrating is that many of those whom he incited to participate in a violent insurrection intended to overturn the constitution's guarantee of the peaceful transfer of power have been brought to justice, or some form of lenient justice, but he, the one who incited it, and who continues to inflame and incite rebellion against the United States, hasn't been touched and, because of who he is and how slow and cumbersome the system becomes when people with money and influence are involved, it increasingly appears that he will be able to buy enough delay to avoid justice completely.  I'm not counting on ever seeing him go to prison for anything he's been indicted for as a result of January 6th, or the documents or the 2020 election.  

So, we have a clearly deranged, demented, hostile, corrupt and rebellious politician not only not facing justice for the crimes he committed, but walking around in the very freedom that the democracy he desipses is providing him, mocking it, threatening it, and facing no consequences for his actions while those who are responsible for carrying out justice are working hard to delay it long enough to avoid a confrontation.  And what that looks like to the rest of the world justifies their fears over their own security.  

It's not a matter of not having the mechanism to deal with this.  It's a matter of those who are responsible for dealing with it not having the will or the fortitude to do it.  It's a matter of having created a legal system on top of a justice system that is geared for delay, to increase the profiteering around access to it.  The system separates the will of the people from their ability to hold those responsible directly accountable.  It has figured out how to neutralize the effects of the ballot box to preserve its income stream.  

Resolving the Problem 

What it's going to take, now, at this point, is for someone who has responsibility for administering justice to get the kind of courage that will be necessary to stop the delays and the obfuscation, and move forward as quickly as possible.  It appears that Fani Willis, Fulton County, Georgia's district attorney, is taking steps to do this, using both the law, and public pressure.  I have few doubts about Jack Smith's motivation, but he needs a ramped up, fired up, passionate attorney general behind him who is willing to bring the influence and pressure of the Presidential administration to bear, to get things moving again.  

Instead of backing down from required bonds, deliberately scheduling delays or fobbing the job off on someone else, judges who are involved need to do their job.  And if they don't then they need to feel public pressure leading to either the fortitude and courage they need to muster to do it, or to get out of the way, resign and let someone else who wants to work do the job. 

In the long run, when we win a Congressional majority and re-elect the President in November, which I believe we will succeed at doing, we need to put some teeth in the law, put a legal stop to the endless mud bog of obfuscation and delay in the justice system, and make it much more efficient and effective in enforcing the law.  The Democrats in the Senate need to end the silly filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, get rid of lifetime appointment to the federal bench and fill the judicial seats with the most liberal, far left wing judges they can still find.  And that needs to be in the first 100 days.  

The courts are not going to help us, and they're not going to listen.  We need to create the kind of public pressure that forces them to make the right choices.  To do that, we can't sit home on election day, and we have to stop giving credence to distractors like RFK Jr. and Jill Stein, who offer nothing and have no chance at doing anything except helping Trump win and self-defeat their own agenda.