A Welcome and Unexpected Turn of Events Tells the Tale of a Much Different Election

During my morning coffee break, while checking the news, I came upon two different sources announcing that the most recent New York Times/Siena College polling data shows Kamala Harris has shifted the national lead, and has equal, four point leads in the "blue wall" states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.  In fact, most news sources are now saying that Harris is in the lead, both nationally and in battleground states that would put her well past the 270 votes she needs to win.  The Times/Siena stood out because it has been particularly negative and sharp when it comes to criticism of the President, his administration, and his campaign.  

My interest in what the New York Times has to say about politics, which, I must admit, I have always taken with a grain of salt so to speak, evaporated almost completely during the 2022 mid-terms as they injected a somewhat gleeful tone into reporting that broadly hinted at the big red wave which was coming, the inevitable downfall of Democratic party Presidential administrations in the first mid-term after claiming the White House.  They depended heavily on the Siena College poll, citing it like it was as authoritative and accurate as a dictionary and thesaurus.  

Of course, the "red tsunami" never materialized, and turned out to be, as critics of the media called it, "the pink trickle."  Thanks to Michael Moore, who kept insisting that the mid-term shift wasn't going to be anything close to the traditional prognostications, and Nicole Wallace of MSNBC, who kept pinning pollsters to the wall to provide actual evidence out of their data that even justified the use of the term "red wave," I did enjoy some peace of mind during the week prior to the election.  I haven't taken the Times or it's Siena College Poll, seriously since then.

So when I saw the data put out by the Times, I am prompted to start thinking about what is happening in the Democratic party as something we haven't really seen before.  Memory does fade over time, but I can't think of any past election since the Second World War that would even compare to what we have been seeing happening over the past three weeks. 

We have gone from the shock of the President's unexpectedly muddled debate performance, on which Democratic party leaders were placing expectations that were far too high for change, even if it had gone well, to inexcusable confusion and chaos as money interests used high profile pressure to try and get the President to step out of the campaign, to overwhelmingly nominating Vice President Kamala Harris and Governor Tim Walz as the "ticket."  The uncertainty about how the party would go about nominating a candidate literally weeks before the convention without a clear path forward had many Democrats, including myself, in despair, believing that the way we were headed was guaranteeing a Trump victory.  That's all gone.  

I thought President Biden's record had earned him a second term, and I believe he'd have gotten it.  But that's all old news now.  What President Biden has earned is the admiration and respect of every Democrat in this country for an unprecedented and selfless sacrifice of what he had earned, and deserved, and for the leadership he continued to exercise, in the midst of chaos, in endorsing his Vice President in order to avoid wasting even more weeks of valuable campaign time on almost certain confusion and bickering over picking a nominee long after all the primary ballots had been counted.  That was the only way to make sure those fifteen million Democrats who supported the President during the primaries were not disenfranchised.  And I think, as these last three weeks have proven, it was the best possible move the Democratic party could have made in choosing a candidate.  

Guarded Optimism Doesn't Prohibit Thinking About Possibilities

The turnaround that has occurred since then has been miraculous and remarkable.  It is a testimony to the political savvy of the Vice President and her team, and to everyone who has become involved, that this has happened.  It's a testimony to the unselfishness and political experience of President Joe Biden, to make this decision in the first place, and then make sure the party coalesced around Harris before any time passed at all.  It worked.  

Like Tim Walz, I was a social studies teacher for 20 years before moving into administration.  I actually wrote the curriculum objectives for, and taught, a class for both high school and middle school students, to be taught alongside American History in election years, called "The Modern American Presidency," which looks at, and compares every election since 1932.  The class compares, and contrasts each election, looking at trends, similarities, differences, voter responses, what drives turnout or keeps people at home, and ultimately works to encourage students to register and vote when they are old enough, and to engage in the political process beyond that.  

If I were to teach that class this fall, it would be difficult to find anything in the past, going back to 1932, that compares to what we see happening now.  The partisan divide is so much sharper, and the radicalization of so many voters into impenetrable information silos has created circumstances which defy predicting what's going through people's minds and how they will vote.  

But there are a couple of things that have become much clearer over these past six weeks.  One is that there is a very large segment of the electorate which clearly recognizes the significance and scope of the threat Trump poses to American democracy, freedom and patriotic values. The other is that constitutional protections of individual frreedoms, the rule of law, and the values and virtues that characterize the American spirit are still very much present and evident in our society and culture.  

I don't want to sound overly optimistic, and get too far ahead of where things really stand.  But I think this election is shaping up to be much different than what we have seen as typical patterns in voting since 2000.  There are some margins along which staunch partisanship is breaking down, as Republicans in places where voicing their opinion can, and in some cases already has, cost them their position, speaking up against the total and complete collapse of values represented by the Trump campaign and his MAGA base.  

There's been a clear resurgence among Democratic party constituencies, evidenced by a burst of volunteers, money, mostly small contributions from millions of contributors, and in voter registration, that are setting records in terms of their rapid pace.  We've been talking about fixing a lag in minority voter support for the past two election cycles, 2016 and 2020, and that has rapidly closed during these past three weeks.  Major union endorsements, which have sometimes been less than enthusiastic, have come in unprecedented swiftness, especially the UAW, which is still a key to carrying Michigan, and the Culinary Workers Union in Nevada, which is key to carrying that battleground state.  

But it's just the overall enthusiasm of this campaign, and the unity which coalesced within days around Kamala Harris, that makes me think we may be looking at one of the largest popular vote and electoral majorities won by a Democratic candidate in an election this century.  I believe we are looking at margins along the lines of Obama's 2008 victory over John McCain, who had integrity and believed in values that escape Trump altogether.  

We've been damaged heavily by the polarization that has occurred, and by Trump's open use of racism and bigotry to divide and conquer.  I really hadn't realized, until he came along, how much reticent racism exists in this country, protected as it is in several cultural institutions, particularly the conservative, Evangelical churches.  So I'm not expecting a Johnson-Goldwater kind of election, in which there was a similar political climate.  

But I do think that the Harris-Walz ticket will comfortably clear the electoral college hurdle, and I think their number will get past Biden's 2020 figure.  The media claims that certain conditions have to happen and certain events have to trigger reactions to get to this place or that place as far as the vote turnout and results are concerned.  I think we have already seen some of this, even in the flip flop of Utah's governor Spencer Cox.  Clearly he has doubts about Trump, in spite of also having a weak will that can be exploited and bought.  But there are way more than the usual number of other similar Republicans dropping off the Trump train, including 21% of the primary electorate.  

Ultimately, though, I think the Harris-Walz campaigns themes, especially their joy, and their positive approach to the campaign, and their ability to ignite, activate and move Democratic party constituencies to action will be what wins this election, and it will win it big.  Of course, look at what they're running against.  That's a losing ticket if there ever was one, and they are showing out big time.  And while they do have the advantage of most Americans knowing that Trump is a con artist, a grifter, and, by definition, an antichrist, they also have the advantage of a message with a long list of political advantages which appeal to a clear majority of the electorate.  

"No One's Treading on You, Sweetie!" Where's the Tyranny?

One fall afternoon, back in the 1970's the small church in which I grew up was packed to the rafters on a Saturday afternoon for what was billed as an old fashioned "Gospel singing."  There were three or four local quartets, some soloists and duets, one featured group that had a television program and a regional audience, and some congregational singing.  It's a cultural thing, especially among Southern Baptists, among which this kind of gospel music was very popular in the 70's.  

During the intermission, the pastor stood up and got people's attention for an announcement.  Reading off a newspaper clipping from a publication called The Sword of the Lord, he told the gathering that atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair had filed a petition to have all religious broadcasting removed from the airwaves.  If you're old enough to remember, O'Hair was an activist who, in the early 1960's, succeeded in having publicly recited prayer removed from the public schools.  Her legal actions, aimed at the lax and sometimes non-existent enforcement of the "wall of separation" between church and state, a constitutional principle, were labelled as a war against Christianity by her opponents.  

The problem with this particular announcement, like so many other straw man issues knocked down by facts, is that it was not true.  O'Hair filed a lot of lawsuits, but never anything that fell outside the boundaries of protecting the constitutional guarantee of freedom of conscience and religious liberty for those outside the Christian religion.  However, news about that alleged petition had a much greater reach than a church full of gospel concert attendees on a Saturday afternoon.  By the time we heard it, it was already making rounds all across the country.  

One of the ten commandments is a prohibition against lying.  So why do Christians engaged in politics feel compelled to tell lies, and to spread them, if it is to their advantage? 

"Woe is Us!  This Country is in Such a Bad Place, With Evil Everywhere!" 

If you walk into just about any conservative church in America, Pentecostal/Charismatic, Evangelical or Fundamentalist, you are almost guaranteed to hear, from different people in different places, how bad the world has become, meaning the culture and society around them.  In many of those churches, the blame for this will be directly assigned to the Obama Presidency, or perhaps even the Clinton administration as the time when it started rolling downhill.   Some of them will say from the pulpit that politics isn't the answer, Jesus is.  But there are others who will tell you that God is behind right wing politics in order to bring revival and clean up the mess.  

And that's why he's picked a worldly criminal who denies he's done anything requiring God's forgiveness to lead the revival effort in the United States.  See I John 4:1-3 to find out what one of the Apostles calls someone who makes that claim. 

And that's the justification they claim for their desire to acquire political power and establish a "Christian nation," a dictatorship that equates Christian values with white racism.  "Our rights are being taken away," they claim.  "The left is 'trampling' all over our freedoms and flooding the world with evil," which, in their mind, justifies their taking over, by violent means if necessary, and making things the way they want them.  And abortion rights and gay marriage is behind the chaos.

I see just two problems with that.  One, liberals, the far left, LGBTQ persons, women, ethnic and racial minorities, atheists, agnostics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and Hottentots are all entitled to equal rights under the U.S. Constitution, the same rights to which those on the far right are entitled.  And two, a violent revolution to overturn the current government and constitution and establish a dictatorship under dominionist theology in order to bring about "revival," and as some believe, usher in the second coming of Jesus, would be a demonstration of evil worse than any perception of what is happening now, and completely the opposite of any and every value of the Christian gospel established by Jesus.  

But, Here's What I Want to Know...

Where have the rights of any conservative, Evangelical, white, Christian person in the United States been "trampled on" by anyone from the far left?  I can point to all kinds of examples where the rights and freedoms of LGBTQ persons have been trampled, and denied, and where they've been forced to accept choices that are not good for their own mental or physical health.  I could point to hundreds of volumes written about discrimination against blacks, Latinos, Asians, Eastern Europeans, and just about any other ethnicity that exists in America, or against the practitioners of religious faiths or philosophies that are not Christian.  

So if I'm going to be convinced that there is some kind of oppression against white, conservative, Evangelical Christians that justifies civil war and the destruction of the United States as we know it, I need to have that pointed out to me.  If I'm to be subjected to violence beyond my control, then I should be informed of a legitimate cause for inciting it. 

And I'll point out that I'm a white, male, past 50, raised in a conservative, Evangelical church (though I no longer claim that label), who, if all of these claims from the far right are true, should have experienced this oppressive trampling on my rights.  I belong to the demographic that is supposed to have "suffered" the most. And frankly, I can't say I've ever noticed it at all.  

That's because this is a deceptive, duplicitous, straw man argument.  

Chaos and evil have always been in the world.  It's no worse, or better, now than it ever has been.  Christians, specifically conservative Christians, claim that conversion to Christ is the answer to the world's existential problems.  In this country, we are now three generations into a very steep decline in membership, attendance and conversion experiences in conservative churches.  The majority of Generation X, Millennials and Gen Z have not converted to Christianity, because the church has spent its time trying to enrich a few of its oligarchs and hasn't focused on evangelism or church growth.  Those converted during the post-war period are now passing on.  And the leadership that is gathering those who remain into megachurches to hunker down and insulate against decline are more focused on their own kingdom building efforts than on winning converts to Christ.

So they're turning to political power, and a combination of dominion theology and post-millennialism, the belief that a "Christian nation" will make the world a better place in order to usher in the second coming of Jesus, to resolve the problems.  

They seem to be blind to the fact that they are often perpetrators of their own set of evil and chaos.  Southern Baptists, for example, trying to overcome mountains of misogyny, and a view of women as inferior, dependent and incapable of leadership, have more or less given up trying to resolve an extensive sexual abuse crisis among its pastors, church and denominational leaders that was exposed in the Houston Chronicle in 2019.  According to Baptist News Global, their leaders have more or less given up on any effective solution to the problem.  

Where's the Tyranny? 

The Gadsden flag, with its coiled rattlesnake and the slogan, "Don't tread on me!" was dragged out for use by the Tea Party movement, and it's been a right wing symbol of the imagined tyranny from the left, since then.  But the irony of this usage of it lies in the fact that the far right, along with conservative Evangelicals, are guilty of a lot of treading, but cannot point to any examples of genuine tyranny from their own experience.  

This is not a provocative question.  Where is the tyranny we keep hearing the far right wing whine about?

Turning to a leader whose political perspective is based on oppressing a part of the population for the benefit of the prosperous parts of it, who has no respect for the law, and whose ego and temperament cannot handle anything not going his way without a catastrophic meltdown, will not only not resolve any of the perceived problems, it will make them far worse than they already are.  We already had a four year taste of this incompetence and ignorance.  Another term would be disastrous.

 

Right Wing Politics is a Destructive Force Among America's White, Conservative Evangelical Churches

Wisconsin Watch: Extremist Religion and its Effect on the GOP

Salon: Head of Group Responsible for Project 2025 Threatens Violence if People Challenge Their "Revolution"

Pseudo-Christian Religion is NOT Biblical Christianity

The rhetoric coming out of the Evangelical political right is increasingly including attempts to find obscure passages from the Bible, specifically from the Old Testament references to ancient, theocratic Israel, to justify threats of political violence in the event of a Democratic party victory, especially in the Presidential election, and to push the agenda toward full-on Dominion theology, should Trump be elected and a Republican majority be seated in Congress.  The head of the Heritage Foundation, the group responsible for writing the draconian Project 2025, threatened violence if there was resistance to their efforts to start a "second American revolution."  

Those within American Evangelicalism who consistently repeat these kinds of threats, and continue to push dominion theology and Christian nationalism, by violence if they deem it necessary, are not Christian.  I use the term "pseudo-Christian," because they belong to groups that appear and act like Christian churches, but which preach a very different gospel than the one recorded as being preached and taught by Jesus.  They will point to obscure passages of scripture which they take completely out of their historical and cultural context and mis-apply to current circumstances as justification and proof for what they want to do.  

In the case of the Wisconsin pastor cited in the linked article above, dragging out a 16th century Protestant doctrine, the Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate, an "out," primarily to get past biblical prohibitions against resisting the authority of the civil government in order to "protect true religious practice."  What that meant was that "lesser magistrates," for example, Frederick III, Elector of Saxony, could protect someone like Martin Luther, from the Emperor, Charles V, who would have enforced the Catholic Church's verdict against Luther's protest.  

It's not a biblically justifiable doctrine.  In fact, it defies the principles laid out by the Apostle Paul in Romans 13:1-7 and the Apostle Peter in I Peter 2:13-17.  Those passages were put into practice by the church during the great persecution it experienced at the hands of the Roman emperors from the mid-first century until the reign of Constantine in the early 300's.  It also goes completely against every value and virtue taught by Jesus in the Christian gospel.  It's a justification for the use of political power to advance the mission and purpose of the Christian church, and from my perspective, an admission of their inability to recognize, or even acknowledge the presence of any spiritual power within the church.

Jesus condemned the use of violence.  He gives the blessing of being a peacemaker the high honor of being called "Sons of God," and gives further blessing to those who are persecuted for their righteousness.  He did not resist his own arrest and rebuked Peter for using a sword to attempt to defend him.  He notes that his kingdom transcends the temporal world, and is spiritual in nature.    

There is No Tyranny in the United States Against any Branch of the Christian Church

Claims by right wing Evangelical leaders that the church is subject to tyranny, specifically because of Democratic Presidential administrations, which started during the days of Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority, and Pat Robertson and his Christian Coalition, are among some of the more ridiculous claims made by these pseudo-Christians.  The fact of the matter is that virtually every branch of the Christian church in the United States, regardless of denomination or theological perspective, is privileged way beyond what should be expected in a country where the first amendment guarantees religious liberty and where there is no formal relationship between the church and state.  

State controlled churches, or church-controlled states, throughout the history of the Christian church and Western Civilization, were the most egregious examples of religious tyranny humanity has ever perpetuated on itself. The overwhelming influence of Protestantism in the United States, following the Second Great Awakening, led to Protestant churches being the recipients of all kinds of government favors, cutting around the wall of separation defined by Thomas Jefferson as a constitutional principle.  

There has never been even an inkling of any kind of tyranny at all, forcing or bending the will of the church to that of the state.  The removal of things like mandated public prayer and Bible reading from public schools is not tyranny, nor persecution.  That's simply an example of how the pervasive influence of Protestantism managed to get past the wall of separation. 

Nor is the extension of personal freedom, guaranteed by the constitution, to people who are not Christians, who practice no religion, who live their life doing things that Christians consider "sinful" any kind of tyranny.  The Bible does teach that human beings are created in the image of God, and are given a free will enabling them to make choices, including the choice of whether to worship God, believe in his existence, or not.  The presence of people who have made a personal choice to worship God and follow the Christian faith has nothing to do with what happens to the country in which they live.  In Christian theology and practice, there is no covenant offered to any country or nation by God.  

And while there is religious persecution of people in many places in this world, Christians being among those who are persecuted for their religious beliefs, Christians in this country are still privileged, not persecuted.  Railing from the pulpit about the evil in the world, about things Christians consider sinful, like sexual relations outside marriage, or abortion, is not an indication that there is any persecution or tyranny directed at the churches.  Far from it, white Christians, and the churches in which they worship and denominations into which they gather, are still among the most privileged American citizens.  

Attempts to Use Political Power to Achieve a Mission and Purpose Are An Admission of Failure to be Spiritually Connected

Removing prayer and Bible reading from public schools is not tyrannical.  Public schools are institutions belonging to the state, and the constitution makes separation of church and state quite clear, even though Christian influence, for over 150 years, pushed past that to have their way imposed on the schools.  

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," says the Constitution, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." 

If someone reading this can point to an example where the free exercise of religion has been prohibited in this country, I'd appreciate hearing about it, because I do not believe there is an instance where the circumstances would permit such an action being defined as tyranny.  On the other hand, I can point to multiple examples where there has been respecting the establishment of religion done by government, because of the influence of church leadership within the government.  

And yet, we have people on the far right determined to enforce their will by turning the country on its ear and handing it over to its enemies by starting a civil war, claiming religious persecution that does not exist, justifying violence with a religion that isn't Christian, but is more a form of idolatry.  How do we deal with this, before it happens, without violating our Constitution? 

I learned, from required semester hours in biblical studies at the small, Southern Baptist college I attended and graduated from, that the Bible can be twisted, taken out of context, and used to justify just about any evil someone wants to do.  The contrast between much of what I had been taught in the small Southern Baptist church I grew up in, by laypeople who were uneducated in both academics and the Bible, and which involved mostly verse memorization to prove presuppositions and a heavy dose of religious mysticism and superstition, and the systematic theology based on the historical, cultural and linguistic context in which the Bible was written, was so sharp, that it was difficult to tell they came from the same denominational origins.  It became impossible to discuss the Bible, and Christian faith, with my former Sunday school teachers, and pastor, because they considered everything I was learning at college as a "liberal distortion" of true Christianity.  

It is difficult to use reason, facts and evidence to counter pseudo-Christian religious superstition.  That's where we are here, now.  It's dangerous when someone thinks they are fighting on God's behalf and he's holding their coat-tails and cheering them on.  They think their mission is justified, and they are "taking the country back," though it never was where they want to go.  

"For certain intruders have stolen in among you," warned the Apostle Jude, likely the younger half-brother of Jesus, "people who long ago were designated for this condemnation as ungodly, who pervert the grace of out God into licentiousness and deny our only master and Lord, Jesus Christ."  

He was certainly prophetic.

Oh My! Do I Dare Say it? We Have a United, Enthusiastic Democratic Party Less Than 100 Days From the Election

We are less than a month away from one of the most chaotic periods of time that the Democratic party has ever experienced.  There were moments during those weeks when I was in despair, worried that we were heading over a cliff and handing the election to Trump by collapsing in on ourselves.  We know what's at stake, and we know exactly what another Trump Presidency would look like.  So do a majority of Americans, at least two thirds of them, if you really believe the polling data, who see him in an unfavorable light.  

Going back to that would be the end of the American Republic.  Government would no longer be empowered and accountable to the people.  That is the consequence that will result from electing Trump and there aren't many people, including most of his followers, who aren't fully aware of it.  And the weight of that pressure is what popped after Biden's debate performance.  Everyone is genuinely worried about the possibilities.  

Explaining What Has Happened Over the Past Month

It's not necessary to wait for some political commentator to put the facts together and explain what has transpired among Democrats during these weeks before the convention.  The fact of the matter is that there was a collective unity not only among Democrats, but among a sizeable group of independents, third partiers, even moderate Republicans, who do have full awareness of, and fear of, a second Trump Presidency, and because of news media muddling and confusion, of not actually having solid control of the political narrative with a clear message, and the relentless parade of false information fed into the mix creating doubts about the President's ability to lead for a second term.  His debate performance was the trigger for fear and panic.  

What has transpired is a testimony to this President's political experience, and to his commitment to putting service to the people above his personal career and political ambitions.  He's already reached the White House, a monumental achievement for anyone, and in this case, he put a stop to the abuse of the Presidency by Trump.  His achievements in office were remarkable accomplishments that, in different circumstances, warranted a shot at a second term.  

But his political experience also told him that the situation may have come to a point where it would be beyond his, and his campaign's, ability to control.  Any doubt at all about the potential outcome of this coming election, and any weakness which might affect down ballot races, had to be considered a priority.  The President did what he realized he needed to do to bring the kind of unity to the Democratic party that is necessary to win elections.  He set his own ambition and traditional political thinking aside, and made a decision in a way that guaranteed the party's unity and the launching of an enthusiastic campaign to keep the Presidency in Democratic party hands and save American constitutional democracy.  

Instead of opening the door to a free for all, he used his own political influence to back his Vice-President, Kamala Harris.  In so doing, he made sure that the party would quickly coalesce around the one candidate who would not have to start from square one, and he prevented a free-for-all that would have taken far too much time away from necessary campaigning, from potential splintering and splitting of the party, and would have given Trump valuable weeks to solidify his own position.  

This move united the Democratic party in a way that I have never seen it unite, even during a convention.  And it cut Trump off and put him on the defensive almost immediately.  The evidence of the devastating effect of this move on Trump's campaign is easily seen in the rhetoric coming from his tweets and statements, and the manner in which he has been conducting himself.  He's lost all control, to the point where his filthy and disgusting rhetoric is embarrassing many of his fellow Republicans, those who haven't quite adjusted to his coarse, insolence, devoid of any realistic political strategy or plan.  It's all name calling and false accusations, parroted by Vance, who doesn't seem to be capable of coherent communication. 

His rhetoric has also done as much harm to the unity of the GOP as Harris' campaign has done good for the Democratic party.  I've seen the list this week, in the Arizona Republic, of the in-state Republicans who are forming "Republicans for Harris" in that state.  It includes former state cabinet members, members of the state legislature, several county supervisors, election board officials in Maricopa County and the mayor of the state's third largest, and most Republican city.  It's a "Who's Who" among Arizona Republicans.  

And that's not just happening in Arizona.  

All of this is the result of President Biden's decision to put the needs of the country before his own career ambition.  It was his decision.  If he had not stepped down, he would have been the party nominee.  And to be honest, I think there's enough fear of Trump out there that Biden stood a good chance of being re-elected, maybe with a Congress under Democratic control, but not certain.  Nevertheless, the confidence level in the Democratic ticket is high, and voter enthusiasm is surging.  And President Joe Biden is the one who is responsible for all of this taking place.  

A Convention Launch Like No Other

What would normally be happening after an acceptance speech at a political convention is happening now.  Harris and Walz are headed out for appearances in battleground states where they will engage enthusiastic crowds in packed arenas in front of news cameras in population centers where the television market reaches more than half of the voters in each of those states.  I've always said that one of the big problems Democrats have in elections like this is controlling the narrative.  Well, by golly, if today is any example of what we're in for over the next weeks and months, we've got control of it, and it is in the hands of candidates who know exactly how to communicate it to the very heart of the center of the electorate.  

Look at what we've got on our ticket.  Two real Americans, both from middle class roots, where they had to find their way by their own hard work and achievements into their chosen careers, working their way up without benefactors, but with the support and encouragement of their family members.  A girl who grew up in a working class neighborhood of Berkeley, California, the daughter of immigrants who came to this country because of the hope and opportunity it offered, and a boy from a tiny town in Nebraska, a farm kid, also a hard worker whose career goal was to be, like his father, a teacher who earned the respect and admiration of his neighbors, and his students.  

And then, I say, look at what they've got on their ticket, and decide for yourself who really represents America.  

We've Been Given an Opportunity and Need to Take Full Advantage of it

We have a ticket that will have coattails.  And this would be the place where I would say that this will be a turnout election and we need to vote in numbers we have never seen before.  That should go without saying, though we have a younger generation that hasn't quite seemed to grasp the importance of going to those polls every time there is an election.  

But, this time around, with an opponent who tested the waters of how to steal an election in both 2016 and 2020, and who has learned how to be more effective than he was in those two attempts, we also need to prepare, in advance, as thoroughly as possible, for the attempts to steal this one that we know are going to come.  Whatever the worst case scenario might be, that's what we need to be ready to stop dead in its tracks.  They're not even being all that secretive about what they're going to do.  It's pretty clear a lot of people are aware of this, given Rachel Maddow's reporting and all of the renewed conversation about January 6th.  

This is a constitutional Democracy in which the government derives its power to govern from the people.  We must become involved at every level to prevent this election from being stolen from us by a proven fraudster, thief and con artist.  

And on the positive side, there is also a lot we can do.  Contribute.  Volunteer.  Make phone calls.  Knock on doors.  It's fun, really.  And that's how elections are won.  Our party has blessed us with the gift of candidates who know what they're doing and have a lot of success in serving the people who elected them.  What has happened is nothing sort of miraculous, in any political sense of the word.  

Oh my!  I feel so much different today than I did three weeks ago.

Case in Arizona's Cochise County Illustrates Potential Problems With Certifying the 2024 Election

Cochise County is located in the far southeastern corner of the state of Arizona.  It's a rectangular shaped county, almost square, bordering on Mexico to the south and New Mexico to the east, the eastern edge of the Tucson metropolitan area reaches into the county from the west.  The population of approximately 135,000 is very diverse.  Over half of the residents live in and around a major military base, Ft. Huachuca, and the county's largest city, Sierra Vista, with a population of around 50,000 includes the base.  The rest of the county includes the border town of Douglas, with about 17,000 population, the old mining towns of Bisbee and Tombstone, now dependent on tourism, and large swaths of farming and ranching areas, near the towns of Willcox and Benson, the latter of which has a fairly large Mormon population due to surrounding settlements.

Until the expansion of the military base at Ft Huachuca, and an influx of military personnel and a civilian workforce largely brought in from other military communities scattered across the country, Democrats were in the majority, and controlled the county and city governments.  But since the military base started using private contractors to provide services, replacing civilians employed by the government with civilians employed by private employers, the county has shifted to the right.  The southeastern third of the county, around the border town of Douglas and county seat of Bisbee, is predominantly Latino and predominantly Democratic party.  The ranching and farming areas are mixed, with some Latino population, but are mostly white and Republican, while the area in which most of Ft. Huachuca's employees live is Republican dominated.  

That also reflects the makeup of the county board of supervisors.  The supervisor district that is made up of the southeastern part of the county, and the towns of Douglas and Bisbee, always elects a Democrat as their supervisor.  The other two districts, one made up of mostly the city of Sierra Vista and Ft. Huachuca, elects a Republican as does the district covering the northern part of the county, mostly farming and ranching area, with some suburban spillover from Tucson, near the town of Benson in the northwestern part of the county.  

Cochise County, or at least most of it, falls within Congressional District 8, which was represented by Democrat Gabby Giffords, wife of Senator Mark Kelly, until the injuries she sustained in an assassination attempt forced her to step down.  Since then, two Democrats, Ron Barber, who was Gifford's chief of staff, and Ann Kirkpatrick, from Tucson, and two Republicans, Martha McSally and current congressman Juan Ciscomani, have represented the district.  A gerrymander by the Republican controlled state legislature just before the 2022 mid-terms removed the southeastern third of the county, containing most of its Democratic voters, from District 8 and put it in the district represented by Democrat Raul Grijalva.   

The 2022 Mid-Term Election Fiasco 

Republican Trump supporters were viciously angry over the fact that this long time Republican-leaning state had flipped to President Biden in the 2020 election.  It was a narrow win for Biden, but the lead he got from early voting, and a bigger than normal Democratic turnout helped him carry the state.  Certain that there had to be cheating, the state senate, not satisfied with two separate non-partisan audits proving that there was no fraud, and that the totals reported by the counties to the secretary of state were accurate, spent six million dollars on a fraudulent audit conducted by a firm called "the Cyber Ninjas," which claimed they could uncover ballots stuffed in the election from China, because of their bamboo fibers.  

It was nutcase stuff, and a comedy of errors, including mishandling ballots, recalibrating voting machines making them useless for future election counts, and millions of taxpayer dollars squandered to produce results that, if the time had been taken to be patient, would mirror those of the two previous audits.  Ultimately, when the state legislature decided not to ante up any more tax dollars, the Ninjas closed their audit and concluded that there had been no widespread voter fraud in Arizona.  

In the 2022 mid-terms, in spite of some gerrymandering done by the Republican legislature, Arizona's statewide elections fell to the Democratic candidates.  It was close, but Katie Hobbs was elected governor, Adrian Fontes was elected Secretary of State, Kris Mayes was elected Attorney General.  Only the superintendent of public instruction, a minor post compared to the top three, went to a Republican.  

The Republican gubernatorial candidate, Kari Lake, a rabid, vocal Trumpie, who thought Trump's endorsement put the election in the bag for her, was furious.  She launched lawsuits right and left, in the teeth of evidence showing the election was conducted fairly and the counts were accurate.  The balance of Democratic votes ensuring the victory came from the two most populous counties in the state, Pima, with a population of just over a million, and Maricopa, with a population of almost five million.  In several of the counties outside these two, local supervisors and election clerks followed a plan to delay certification of the vote, a move they thought would flip the governor's race to Lake, who lost by just under 20,000 votes.  

In Cochise County, the two Republican supervisors,  Peggy Judd and Tom Crosby, refused to accept the county results, claiming that the counting machines were rigged, in spite of the fact that Lake received the majority of the votes, as did Juan Ciscomani, the Republican who flipped congressional district 8.  While officials in several other counties which were holding back decided to follow court orders to certify their counts after audits showed their accuracy, Judd and Crosby ordered the county election clerk to hand count the 58,000 ballots, a procedure that was in violation of state law.  Facing a deadline and knowing this was against the law, the clerk refused, and resigned under duress.  

With the certification deadline approaching, Cochise county's refusal to certify votes was on the verge of disenfranchising all 58,000 voters, Republican and Democrat.   Without the margin he had won in Cochise County, Ciscomani would have lost the District 8 Congressional seat by 10,000 votes.  Lake's total margin would have been reduced by a further 10,000 votes and the state legislative positions, all involving districts which included voters outside of the county, would have gone to Democrats, flipping the legislature to Democratic control.  

Court pressure finally pushed one of the Republican supervisors, Judd, to vote with Democrat Ann English to certify the ballots, while Crosby held out.  The Secretary of State, who was also Governor-elect Katie Hobbs, accepted the ballot count.  But Judd's actions, along with Crosby's earned indictments for felony counts of failing to certify an election as required by law.  They were also the object of a lawsuit filed by the former county elections supervisor for the hostile work environment they had created for her.  

Consequences of the Abuse of Power

Had Hobbs, as secretary of state, certified Arizona's vote totals without including the 58,000 ballots from Cochise County, she would have been within the letter of the law.  She could have done so, and that would have benefitted her party in that it would have sent a Democrat to Congress from District 8 instead of Ciscomani and would have given three Democratic state senate candidates whose districts cross into Cochise County, narrow wins, instead of narrow losses.  It would have also altered the vote total for the state superintendent of public instruction just enough to give that job to a Democrat.  

So it is a testimony to her sense of fairness, and her commitment to the democratic process, to accept the county's votes when Judd finally voted to certify, a 2-0 vote with one abstention, from Crosby.  

These two Republicans determined to act unilaterally, in spite of a clear procedure laid down in the law, requiring them to do their job.  They kept insisting that the voting machines were not accurate, and demanding a hand count, even when they were shown evidence indicating that the machines were programmed correctly, and through several audits and tests that showed their accuracy.  And even though they had this proven to them, they kept listening to the voices of a handful of Trump supporters who kept egging them on.  

Being predisposed to believe conspiracy theories should disqualify persons from serving in public office, especially when elections are part of their responsibility.  And it appears that these antics will have done so to these two county supervisors, though it has caused a waste of taxpayer dollars and lots of time.  Both have been indicted and are awaiting trial in a state court that has come down hard on election denying tactics and lies.  Judd has determined not to run for re-election while Crosby, who narrowly won the GOP primary, may be convicted prior to the election, which would disqualify his candidacy, giving Cochise County two Democrats as supervisors for the first time since the late 1970's. 

Multply the Number of MAGA Republicans Who Are County Supervisors Across the Country to Get The Idea of How Much Trouble Certifying the 2024 Election Will Be if Harris and Democrats Get the Sweep That is Shaping Up

Marc Elias has issued a warning that these kinds of election shenanigans will result in lawsuits, and in prison terms for those officials who are in a position to mess with election results when there is no evidence suggesting the results are anything but legitimate.  Fear has been expressed, legitimately, that Trump's last ditch effort to steal the election if he doesn't win will go through these MAGA Republicans in counties where they certify votes.  

But elections are monitored.  Democrats, independents, and all kinds of poll watchers are part of the processs in every county.  When Trump filed lawsuits all over the place in 2020, he lost them all, in spite of the fact that most of the judges he faced were Republican appointees or elected Republicans.  He hasn't corrupted everyone in the justice system.  And in most states, like Arizona, the law is clear about when elections must be certified, and what happens if they aren't.  And if these two supervisors in Arizona have been convicted by election time, there's a nice example and a great deterrent to others who might be thinking about doing the same.  

This kind of anti-Patriotic, un-American dishonesty needs to be more than just defeated at the ballot box.  They need an overwhelming defeat, a landslide, for voters to communicate how sick we all are of this graft and corruption.  

Christian Churches Are Being Hijacked to Support Causes Outside of Their Christian Mission and Purpose

Evangelicals Promote Falun Gong -backed Movie, "The Firing Squad" 

Decades of influence from conservative, far right wing political elements is causing Christian churches in the United States to be distracted from their evangelistic mission and purpose.  They are being used for their financial support and their promotional ability which helps legitimize whatever cause is intruding on the church's ministry and mission.  

The result is an equating of anything identified as "conservative" with "Christian," when much of the ideology promoted by the conservative group is not Christian at all, and in some cases, is actually counter to Christian doctrine and theology.  

The linked article references a movie, backed by a group originating in China known as Falun Gong.  This group is considered "conservative," because it is opposed to communism, which is attractive to conservatives in the United States, especially Christian conservatives. 

But Falun Gong is not Christian.  It's philosophical foundations are based on Taoism and Buddhism, and it makes some rather strange, outlandish claims, such as the claim that aliens from outer space are trying to replace humans.  It follows the model put in place by Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church, functioning as a religious organization to capitalize on non-profit status and use terms that make it sound legitimately "religious" in order to attract supporters, especially with money.  It's leader promotes himself as a messianic, divine figure.  w

This film was first screened in the United States for Evangelicals attending a gathering of the National Religious Broadcasters.  It contains Christian themes, however, no connections were mentioned to Falun Gong as part of the promotion of the film, something BNG reporter Steve Rabey claims is "how politically conservative Asian religious groups come to the United States and exploit mass media to gain influence, legitimacy and money."  

And most of the Christians who help them do this are deceptively careful not to mention their association with what amounts to a pagan religious group, and uses their conservative, anti-communist politics to gain that legitimacy and support.  Not only is deception dishonesty, which goes against the principles of the Christian gospel, it is taking resources given to churches away from their evangelistic ministry.  

Part of the culture of conservative Evangelicalism in America that is a result of decades of far right wing extremist political influence, is the perception that associations are an indication of endorsement.  In this mindset, everything is connected.  When John Kerry was running for President, I knew conservatives who refused to buy Heinz products because his wife was a member of the Heinz family and to them, that constituted endorsement by the company of his candidacy.  

So with that kind of mindset, along with these groups being considered politically conservative, the presence of an evangelism campaign, called "The Million Souls Campaign," led by Jesse Connors, a graduate of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and a former spokesperson for Baptist-affiliated Liberty University, would appear to most Christians to be a complete endorsement of where the support generated by distribution and promotion of this film, is going.  And because its association with Falun Gong is being hidden, Christians are unknowingly supporting a non-Christian intrusion into their ministry.  

In Far Right Wing Politics, the Christian Label is Meaningless

The only motivation for doing something like this that makes sense is that those who are being deliberately deceptive know that there might be objections from some conservative Evangelicals, to giving so much money and support to what is essentially a pagan cult.  Their interest is not in Christianity, or the promotion of its gospel and the lifestyle that goes with it.  It is in using Christian influence to promote their own financial and political interests.  

That's what's been happening with much of conservative Evangelicalism in America for a long time.  Not very many Christians have objected to the use of their church's resources and influence on behalf of secular politicians who may share a few conservative principles with them, or who are willing to make deals to exchange some political actions for their votes.  The message that sends is that their faith practice and the value of their convictions is cheap, and can be negotiated away for something they want to gain politically that they think God isn't providing for them spiritually.  

The small, somewhat obscure book of Jude, likely written by the Apostle of the same name who also happened to be one of Joseph and Mary's sons, is an explicit warning to the Christian church about this kind of intrusion, bringing in licentiousness, discrediting the testimony of its members and diverting its resources and influence to their own interests.  Whether it's the Unification Church, Falon Gong or the MAGA cult, Christian faith and practice is not compatible with anything that denies the Christian gospel, even if it is politically or socially "conservative."  

The Answer to the Question, "How can you be a Christian and vote for Democratic Party candidates?

Since starting this blog, the question that is asked via comments and email the most has been, "How can you claim to be a Christian and vote for Democratic Party candidates?"  

My initial response to this question is, "How can you be a Christian and vote for someone who is the opposite of everything you claim to believe, like Trump?"  That rarely gets a response or an answer.  The most common response is, "He's the lesser of two evils."  And that's an excuse, not a reason, since, in conservative Evangelical doctrine, there is no such thing.  Evil is what it is, and there are no greater or lesser degrees of it.  And there is no political party that is exempt from the label by virtue of its political platform.  

Character is a qualification for the Presidency, in my personal opinion, and Trump's total lack of it, from any perspective, disqualifies him, especially when compared to the Democrats against whom he's run.  He cannot be trusted, and that undermines his ability to serve, regardless of the issues.  From a Christian perspective, a man who has mistreated and cheated and broken promises to the women he claimed to love, and married, is total disqualification.  Once was enough.  Three times is proof he is evil.  

Clearly, there is no expectation on the part of conservative, Evangelical Christians who support Trump that character is a qualification required for their vote.  And even though most of them are Christian nationalists in some form or another, being a convert to Christianity is also not a qualification they apply to Trump.  In fact, he has openly stated that he has never done anything in his life which requires God's forgiveness, which is a denial of the Evangelical interpretation of the Christian doctrine of conversion.  Denial is the only explanation coming from Evangelical leaders for following someone as a political leader whose character is a total disqualification based on their own standards for leadership.

Frankly, their willingness to support an evil man like Trump relieves me of any obligation to justify or explain my votes for Democrats.  That gives me the moral high ground when it comes to political choices, and because character is at the top of the list of my own consideration of qualifications when it comes to casting my ballot, that's my justification for voting for Democrats on the ballot.  It's been very clear, for the past eight years, which party's candidates have the character necessary for leadership and which party's candidates don't have any character.  All we get from Republicans is caving in on this issue when it comes to Trump.  

Two of the early church's leading apostles, Paul and Peter, made note that the church's obedience to the authority of the secular government, whose power came about as a result of the permission of a sovereign God, was important to its testimony about redemption offered by grace through Jesus Christ. There's no indication here at all that the church was to become engaged directly in the affairs of the state, though in that space, it would have been impossible to do so.  

Still, along with several places where Jesus declares the new covenant to be one between the individual  and God, while there's no restriction on Christians participating in civil government, there is a principle related to this responsibility and accountability that the church had in order to keep its testimony.   

Primary Considerations When Casting a Ballot

The Democratic party isn't perfect, no political party is perfect.  Voting for Democratic party candidates on the ballot does not constitute a personal endorsement of every single issue that they support as a party, nor does it mean I've signed on to the candidate's own agenda, which may vary from that of the party.  It's not very likely that I would be in full agreement with any candidate.  Some issues carry more importance than others, from my own perspective, and of course, there is always the possibility that I may vote for someone who's on the opposite side of one issue from me, but who is in agreement on something I think is more important.  

The single issue deal breaker for me, at this point, is election denying.  No matter what, I will not vote for a candidate who believes that the 2020 Presidential election was stolen or rigged.  

The protection of the constitutionally guaranteed liberties of all Americans is a primary issue for me.  That includes protecting the right to vote, and to make sure that every vote is counted.  And whatever it takes to make it easier to register and easier to vote, is also something I support.  That includes early voting and voting by mail, which has proven to be one of the most secure, safe ways to cast a ballot.  And I generally support a social justice agenda that includes awareness of rights being deprived on any basis.  

It is not possible to read Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, including the Beatitudes, or the general epistles of Paul, and not understand that being "woke" with regard to social inequalities, racial and gender discrimination, and the denial of rights to minority groups, is simply following the principles of the Christian gospel.  

My short list of issues includes:

• Medicare for all or a single-payer, nationalized health care system
• Reasonable, common sense gun control that includes background checks, restrictions on purchasing, eliminating of assault weapons, and gun-free zones including all schools, open shopping areas, sports events and public gatherings
• A standard "fair" tax rate that secures finances from those at the top who use more infrastructure, security and resources than those of us who pay for their development do.  
• Support for the NATO alliance, and for Democratic governments around the world.  
• Support for Ukraine's defense, as a nation attacked by an enemy, not one that started a war. 
• Continuing the Biden administration's policy of energy independence, and the manner in which he has handled the oil business, including selling off reserves at a profit, and replacing them at a lower price, generating billions in income.  

But What About Abortion Rights, and the Rights Given to Persons of LGBTQ Orientation?  

This is a far more complicated issue than far right conservative Christians think that it is.  To them, it's open and shut.  The Bible condemns abortion, because life begins at conception, so abortion is taking a life, which is equal to murder, an obvious and grievous violation of both Christian theology and the law.  That is the basis on which this has become a single issue for many Evangelical voters.  It's easy, when this is at the top of the priority list.  Just vote for the pro-life candidates on the ballot, and that's it.  

But it's not that simple.  

First of all, there isn't anywhere in the Bible where evil is evaluated as lesser or greater.  No moral ground has been gained by touting one's vote for Trump, because he's against abortion rights, but is an unrepentant sexual abuser, adulterer and rapist.  There's no winner in that argument.  Trump is also not personally opposed, by conviction, to abortion itself.  He's just in favor of making it a "state" issue rather than a federal issue, and he's never stated a personal or moral objection to abortion.  For him, it's a necessary position he has to take because conservative Evangelicals make up so much of his base.  It's not a conviction.  

Second, there's no biblical evidence for the declaration that life begins at conception.  The few verses scattered throughout the Bible, frequently taken out of context to justify a position, do not specifically say that life begins at conception.  There is a recognition of human personhood in the womb, in those few examples, but there's no conclusive statement that personhood and human identity are present in a newly fertilized egg.  

Third, the entire ideology centered around when life does begin, when it becomes sacred as opposed to being a cluster of cells, incapable of survival outside the womb, is religious in nature.  And that's a big part of this particular debate.  Outside of specific religious dogma, there is no conclusive evidence, or acceptance of the idea that human identity begins at conception.  So restricting access to it, by law, becomes an imposed religious belief, violating the freedom of conscience of those who are not adherents of religion.  Under Roe v. Wade, every Christian, Muslim or person of religious conviction had the right to choose to bear their child to full term.  The fact that those who practiced no religious belief, and accepted science as their authority now must comply with religious dogma in states that have completely restricted access to abortion rights are the ones whose constitutional rights have been violated.  

The bigger issue here is that this is not as simple as eliminating abortion as a means of birth control.  It is, more often than not, a decision made based on medical knowledge and circumstances that affect the health and well being of the mother, and in some cases, her ability to have children down the road.  These are not decisions into which the government should intrude.  And in our constitutional democratic republic, those who do not accept the religious principle that life begins at conception must take responsibility for their own decision.  It is not the business of the government, and it is not the business of anyone else.  

Using Government Power to Enforce Religious Principles is an Admission of Failure 

Let's set aside, for just a minute, the large number of abortions that are performed at the recommendation of doctors, to preserve the life of the mother, and consider only those that are performed for the purpose of birth control.  

If state law prevents a woman from making this choice, there's no religious influence or principle involved.  It's a matter of law.  She must either accept the cost and circumstances of going out of state to make this choice, or decide what the future looks like, in most cases without support or help, as to whether she can raise the child, wants to raise the child, or go through the birth and give the child up for adoption.  

One of the least likely sources of help and support for her in these circumstances will be any Christian church.  Yes, Christian churches do operate "Crisis Pregnancy Centers," though the number of these that exist fall far, far short of being able to meet even a fraction of the real need.  And the fact of the matter is that, beyond getting some diapers, canned milk and a few supplies, and a lecture and "we'll pray for you," they are not capable, or apparently willing, to meet the real needs that will occur over the course of the pregnancy term.  

Conservative Christians claim that there's a spiritual transformation that occurs as a result of the conversion experience which produces the virtues and values evidenced in the resulting lifestyle.  It would be reasonable, under that kind of doctrinal and theological construct, to conclude that a conversion experience would be key, not only in helping those women who were facing decisions about abortion because they lacked any support, by raising up people within the church to help with whatever would be necessary to save the life of the unborn child, including housing, food, a job, provision of medical care, but also in leading a woman to avoid the kind of situation in which an unwanted pregnancy occurs.  

And yet, in spite of having this power, or at least, claiming to have it, seeing this happen is rare.  Churches would rather spend their influence and their money on getting the government's power to enforce this particular conviction than depend on God's power and presence of his Spirit.  Had conservative, Evangelical churches and denominations in this country invested in this kind of ministry, it's hard to tell how many abortions could have been avoided.  

And I will also point out that what resources are available to help women who find themselves in these kind of situations are usually the result of a Democratic party majority in a state legislature somewhere, or of a ministry of a group like the Quakers, or one of the more liberal branches of Protestantism.  Social justice for women is "woke," and Evangelical Christians are absent from the ministry of compassion.  

I Vote for Democratic Party Candidates Because They Understand the Preservation of Constitutional Democracy 

So it's easy for me to conclude that there is no real substance or conviction in Republican claims that they provide the only consistent platform for Christians.  They make a lot of noise about it, but the price they must pay to gain the favor of the politicians who demand their loyalty is too high to pay, and keep the faith.  So they throw Jesus under the bus and follow the power.  They've lost their way, their vision, their mission and purpose, a fact demonstrated in the number of insurrectionists armed with sharp objects, zip-ties, clubs and other weapons headed into the Capitol on January 6th to take hostages, commit murder and overturn the civil government in violation of their own scriptures.  

That's neither Christian, nor patriotic American.  

The Democratic party upholds the constitutional protection of religious liberty, for all Americans, including those who want to be liberated from religion.  That makes it possible for me to follow my own conscience, and determine for myself, with spiritual discernment from prayer and the study of the scripture in its full cultural and historical context, how best to serve and worship God.