Irony in Trump's Choices to Serve in His "White House Faith Office"

Trump is staffing his newly created White House Faith Office, which I think is a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment of the constitution if it is taxpayer funded, or if it receives, rent-free use of office space, since it would then be an "established" endorsement of religion by government, with some interesting individuals.  On the surface, it may just look like the face of the extremism among conservative Evangelicals, mostly the "prosperity gospel" preaching and theology that isn't really Christianity by its own biblical definition, to which Trump and his love of money and power is attracted, because it offers him more than the "loving your neighbor", "turning the other cheek," and "repenting from your sin" brand of Christianity that he rejects openly, with vitriol.  

But there are some interesting contradictions here that point to the fact there is absolutely no genuine Christian support for anything having to do with Trump's far right wing extremism, and that the combination of far right wing Republicanism with ultra-conservative fundamentalist and Charismatic Evangelicalism is both a political and a religious cult, built on monumental hypocrisy. 

The Open Rejection of Women in Pastoral Leadership by Conservative Evangelicals is Something The Consider the Core of Their Orthodoxy 

The nation's largest Evangelical denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, recently went on a two-year tear through its congregations, for the purpose of exposing, and then kicking out, churches who had women on their ministerial staff serving in a role that used the title "Pastor."  At two of their annual meetings, the delegates from churches, known as "messengers", considered a motion to "disfellowship," the Saddleback Valley Community Church in Mission Viejo, California, from its membership.  An action to "disfellowship" means that the denomination cuts all ties to the church, stops receiving its contributions, and basically kicks it out of the denomination.  

Saddleback Valley, which is the largest congregation, membership wise- in the denomination, and was one of its single largest contributors, had offended by allowing three women to serve on its staff in the role of "teaching pastor."  They were not the senior pastor, they were under the authority of the church elders, all biblical as far as that goes.  But the Southern Baptist Convention has decided to hang its doctrinal hat on some obscure, literalist interpretations of the Apostle Paul, without using the filter of the gospel of Jesus, and declared that the "office of pastor" is reserved for men only.  

That conclusion is based on one phase, in a list of qualifications for the position of pastor, found in I Timothy 3:2, that is sometimes translated "the husband of one wife."  Of course, in the culture of the day in which the Apostle Paul wrote that phrase, marriage was not the same thing it is today, but the phrase is actually a prohibition against polygamists serving as pastors or "bishops" as the Greek word used is translated, not a probibition against women serving in that capacity.  Jesus, whom Christians accept as the most authoritative source on doctrine, says nothing to indicate that women are prohibited from any position of leadership in the church.  

And so Saddleback Valley was kicked out, because they, as a local and autonomous Baptist congregation, refused to follow a denominational edict that was not based on any biblical or ecclesiastical authority, and determined that its female teaching pastors were an asset to their ministry, and refused to change their title or demote them to a lower position.  Along with Saddleback Valley, Fern Creek Baptist Church, a Lousiville, Kentucky congregation with a female serving as its senior pastor, was dismissed.  As a result of that, a growing list of churches voluntarily severed their ties with the denomination rather than change the titles of the women on their church staff serving in a pastoral role.  

Irony or Blatant Hypocrisy? 

Those among the leadership of the denomination who are the most opposed to allowing women to serve in a pastoral role are condescending and critical of churches who engage in this practice.  They go so far as to claim that those churches are apostate, and are outside the circle of Christian orthodoxy, and are caustic and condemning in their criticism, in a way that is not reflective of the core values of the Christian faith.  

So I wonder how these individuals, among whom there must certainly be a healthy number of Trump supporters, are handling his appointment of a female senior pastor, Paula White Cain, who uses the biblical term "overseer," in Greek "Episkopos", or Bishop to describe her role as pastor of Story Life Church in Florida, a large, Charismatic church that preaches pure prosperity gospel.  Of course Trump, with his love of money, is attracted to that kind of gospel, which is more or less the antithesis of the Christian gospel that Jesus preached and taught.  

It makes me laugh to myself to think that some of these hard line fundamentalists, like those of the Jerry Falwell ilk, have to swallow this because Trump has done it and they can't utter a peep in opposition.  Well, they could, and if their claimed convictions were sincere, and their Christian faith were real, they would speak up.  They lose on at least three points here.  First, she is a female, senior pastor and executive director of a worldwide mission organization operating in about 150 countries.  So she is a female in leadership over ministries that these hardliners are claiming is heresy worthy of being kicked out of the faith.  

Second, she is, by their own very clear definition, a preacher of heresy herself, because she preaches the "prosperity gospel."  Most Evangelicals claim that gaining wealth and health is promised by God in exchange for obedience to a specific list of commands, which includes helping those serving as pastors and church leaders to become wealthy.  For most Evangelicals, this is false doctrine, an abuse of what Jesus and his apostles had to say about wealth and power.  But, apparently most of them are willing to compromise on this point, because, well, because their idol has made her his "spiritual advisor."   

Third, she is "Charismatic."  This is a branch of conservative Christianity that, according to the conservatives, steps away from use of the Bible as the final authority and revelation of God to the church, and depends on spiritual manifestations, like speaking in tongues, or faith healing.  White-Cain is also very heavily into "Seven Mountains" dominion theology, a Christian nationalist heresy that incorporates white supremacy and pulls in the use of obscure Old Testament prophecy skewed to fit a different purpose than originally intended. Most conservative Evangelicals reject the manner in which Charismatic Christians claim the Holy Spirit makes God's presence known.  

In short, White-Cain is exactly the kind of person you would expect Trump to place in a position of authority and importance.  And in any other circumstance, her presence would lead the fundamentalist, conservative Evangelical leadership to declare her a heretic, and condemn Trump for choosing her as a leader.  Is this a deliberate face-smack of the smirking, smiling, Evangelical sycophants who bow down to him at every turn, a way of asserting his influence over them by ignoring the things they are on record as considering tests of orthodoxy and appointing someone to be his closest "religious" advisor who embodies absolutely zero of the things they claim to value?  

Here is one thing of which I can be 100% certain.  There will not be one peep about this from any of Trump's conservative, Evangelical sycophants.  Not even an eye blink, or a knowing look will pass their composure.  And because of that, we can be 100% certain that any such Christian leader who claims to support Trump is, in fact, a self-serving hypocritical liar.  

No, You Really Can't Make This Stuff Up

If Trump were a devil-worshipper, most of his Evangelical sycophants would be playing the Rolling Stones' song, "Sympathy for the Devil" in their church worship services.  The selective application of what Evangelicals refer to as "biblical truth" is an inconsistency that undermines their credibility.  What makes it possible for the leaders to get away with this is massive ignorance among the members of their congregations.  Few pay attention to any of the details of issues such as this.  

The ignorance of biblical theology and doctrine among those who sit in the pews of Evangelical congregations when it comes to differences between those who preach and teach extremism, mainly for their own financial gain, is very high.  Few Evangelicals are even aware of who Paula White-Cain is, and those who are couldn't explain how her preaching themes are not consistent with the doctrine preached in their own church.  For a religious group that claims to value a literalist interpretation of the Bible, and who claim that its contents are infallible, and without human error, it almost seems the level of ignorance is deliberate, maintained to keep the cash flow consistent.

Personally, I don't think there are any boundaries here to prevent Democrats from exploiting this inconsistency and hypocrisy as a political issue.  These are church leaders who have chosen to incorporate the right wing extremism of Trump politics with their church's theology and doctrine, to ensure votes for Trump.  They shouldn't be able to object, on any religious or moral ground, when the hypocrisy and the heresy is exposed for political purposes.  

My background in an Evangelical church occasionally brings back flashes of verses from the Bible I memorized as a child, intended to provide guidance when there were "challenges" to my faith.  One of those verses popped up as I was thinking about all of this: 

But those who want to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruinand destruction.  For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and in their eagerness to be rich some have wandered away from  the faith and pieced themselves with many pains.--the Apostle Paul, I Timothy 6:9-10, NRSV

For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false, so tha tall who have not believed the truth but took pleasure in unrigheousness will be condemned. --the Apostle Paul, 2 Thessalonians 1:11-12, NRSV

 

  

Conservative Evangelical Leaders Leave No Doubts About Their Apostasy

Baptist News Global: Christian Groups Praise Trump's "Healthy Masculinity" and "Manifest Destiny Reborn"

"I don't intend to overstate.  I think we understate the case, because I think Donald Trump is the greatest threat to the world that we've seen in our lifetime.  He is a menace.  I believe he's against everything Jesus Christ teaches.  I believe he is cruel.  I believe he is evil. I believe he is Satan in disguise and I I'm not overstating that." --Mark Wingfield, Baptist News Global Executive Director in an interview on the podcast "Stuck in the Middle With You."  

The word "apostasy" comes from the Greek root word apostasia, which basically means to forsake or desert the faith that one formerly held.  It's a term that gets a lot of use within the boundaries of the various forms of Christianity that have been shaped by history.  In the United States, where Christianity developed in an atmosphere of complete religious liberty, with no political power dictating doctrine, theology or practice, the term has more often gained popular use when one group of Christians, who conclude that they are God's chosen people because of their doctrinal purity, and their adherence to a set of specific practices, or "commandments," criticize another group of Christians whose doctrine, theology and practice differs from their own.  

Looking at what has happened to the conservative, Evangelicals who have fallen victim to the idolatry and apostasy of Trumpism, there's not even a need to argue that their version of the Christian faith isn't an authentic or accurate one.  Their support for Trump is a denial of their own version of Christianity and their own interpretation of the Bible. Wingfield told the podcast interviewer, Bejamin Cole, "unwittingly supporting the antichrist."  

Unwittingly?  Trump's statements, beliefs, lack of ethical behavior and worldly, licentious immorality are defiant in their abject denial of anything resembling the Christian faith.  Every public act of his has been an explicit and deliberate violation of every characteristic of the Christian gospel Jesus laid down in the Sermon on the Mount, found in Matthew 5, 6 and 7, from his pathological lies and denial of truth, to his driven, wicked desire for vengeance against those not loyal to him, to his adulterous affairs and divorces so that he could marry the "other women," with whom he was having an affair, except Stormy Daniels, who he bribed to cover it up, because he couldn't afford the bad publicity in a run for the presidency.  His open denial of having done anything for which he requires God's forgiveness is a blatant refusal to accept Christian conversion, and a defiant act toward both God and the Evangelical leadership who serve as his willing sycophants.  And their support for him makes them apostates.  

So when some conservative, Evangelical like Gary Bauer, of the James Dobson Family Foundation, comes along and praises Trump without mentioning any Christian value or virtue, because those are not observable in Trump, he is telling us, very clearly, that he is apostate.  He, along with most other white, conservative, Evangelicals in the United States who overlook Trump's open denial of the Christian conversion experience, and his immoral, licentious, anti-Christian lifestyle, have abandoned the Christian gospel in favor of the gospel of Trump.  

This is How Unhinged Focus on the Family Has Become

These Are Not Virtues of the Christian Gospel

There's been nothing particularly "Christian" that would characterize anything having to do with Trump's second term, except the Christian nationalist themes that come with Project 2025, but those are not found anywhere in the Christian gospel, though they prompted a complaint from James Dobson Family Institute officer Gary Bauer that the left was characterizing and criticizing them as "Christian nationalists."   Bauer made the argument from absence of evidence, claiming the "other side," meaning the Biden Administration, was made up of "radical secularists, socialists and globalists," and that it promoted "tyrannical, decadent, perverse and ungodly" policies while ignoring the Constitution and "attempting to demonize Christians who love Jesus and America, calling us 'Christian nationalists.'" 

Prove those claims, Mr. Bauer.  And if the "Christian Nationalist" label is offensive, then don't adopt a Christian Nationalist political agenda like Project 2025.  

In fact, groups like the James Dobson Family Institute, the Family Research Council and Dobson's former ministry, Focus on the Family, are full-blown endorsees of Christian Nationalism.  The pseudo-Christianity that they preach rests on an intellectual assent to a specific set of doctrines, mostly theological commandments, that developed as the practice of the fundamentalist movements of the late 19th century, and the Pentecostalism of the early 20th, which abandoned Christian faith as a lifestyle generated by the spiritual transformation of a Christian conversion experience, visible in the values and virtues of the gospel, found in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, and in other places in the gospel accounts of the New Testament.  

In fact, Family Research Council's Jerry Boylan, a retired lieutenant general, advocates genocide in Gaza as a means of resolving Israel's "Palestinian problem." He has determined that the Palestinians have been "predestined" to be condemned, because of their refusal to acknowledge the existence of God, and to accept Christian faith and practice.  And because this has been determined by the will of God, they cannot be redeemed.  This is diametrically and fundamentally opposite the foundational principle of the Christian gospel, the sanctity of all human life created in the image of God.  Such a belief is defined by the Apostle John, in two of his church epistles, written in the latter half of the first century, using the term "antichrist."  

It's pretty clear, by observation, that there is nothing Trump or his followers support that resembles biblical Christianity, and all of it, in its self-declaring defiance, can be defined as "antichrist."  Most conservative Evangelicals, particularly those of the Pentecostal/Charismatic persuasion, get caught up in confusing and speculative "end times prophecy" scenarios, seeing "antichrist" as some historical figure or world ruler.  I don't believe any of that, but the term "antichrist" does have a clear meaning in defining philosophy, religion and actions that are the opposite of the Christian gospel taught and lived out by the example of Jesus.  And I think the political philosophy and principle, if you can call it that, of Trump's politics, including making right wing political extremism into Christian theology and doctrine, is most definitely antichrist.   

Neither the "healthy masculinity" that they credit to Trump, which is nothing more than psychotic misogyny, or the "manifest destiny reborn," provide any evidence of a connection between Trump and biblical, authentic Christian faith and practice.  And those conservative, Evangelical leaders, following the path of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson by leading their followers down the same path, are causing the apostasy of conservative, Evangelicalism in the United States.  

Change of Leadership is Necessary for America's Survival, and for the Democratic Party, Too

We just lost a major election that frankly, given the issues and the politics on each side, along with the qualifications, character and ability of the candidates, would have been a slam dunk thirty years ago.  The factors which brought us a second Trump term are not all the fault of Democrats.  We've lost our free press, billionaire ownership of the media, including once reliably "fair and balanced" sources, along with the ability to reach into most of the population with a clear message, no longer exists.  Those elements of our society which provide for an educated and informed electorate have disappeared.  And a renegade Supreme Court, bent not on strict constructionism, but on reforming and changing the Constitution's meaning from the bench, made it possible for money to buy election results through their Citizens United ruling several years ago.   

The cost of this election and owning a political candidate to one specific billionaire turns out to be about $300 million. 

But there are some things for which the leadership of the Democratic party must accept responsibility, and leadership which brought those things about, and the manner in which they continue to lead must be addressed.  Doing so is not bashing, it's the kind of discussion we need.  This needs to happen fast, in order for the party to be able to effectively limit Republican aggression, and Trump's gross mismanagement and abuse of the Presidency, put a stop to his abuse and dismantling of American Constitutional Democracy, and elect a Congress in 2026 that will shut him down.  

The Biden Administration accomplished some remarkable things.  But during a two year period, when we had a majority in both Houses of Congress, a sitting Democratic President and control of the justice department, we failed to deal with the single largest issue of the day, which was the act of sedition committed by Trump in organizing an insurrection to attack the Capitol on January 6th, and his subsequent illegal attempts to thwart the peaceful transfer of power.  

We had good, solid, experienced party political leadership, but not bold enough to take some risks that would have overcome the obstacles cited as excuses for not achieving his arrest and conviction, and prevented him from being eligible to run again.  "It would look too political," they said.  It was a risk that would require some innovative thinking to pull off, and some courage to carry out, in that some of our leaders might have had to risk the sacrifice of their power and position in order to see it through, on behalf of their constituents.  The old school, status quo manner of doing business precluded the boldness, and self-interest and self-protection precluded the risks and the courage.  

That's one big failure for which Democratic leadership must account.  The other was failing to recognize the transitional nature of Biden's Presidency, and the weakness within caused by perception of his age and ability to do the job.  Running the risk of a faltering, stumbling debate performance, combined with fewer public appearances getting media coverage that the press was giving to Trump, was a failure, and in the final analysis, it was a major factor which did cost Harris the election.  Democratic leadership, which allowed an embarrassing, month-long period of confusion, mostly negative media coverage, and open the door for Republicans to insert unfounded speculation and criticism , must be held accountable for this as well.  

Steve Schmidt: We Are Under Attack 

I take much of what former Republican political strategist and Bush and McCain campaign advisor Steve Schmidt has to say with a grain of salt.  I expect him to take off the velvet glove in his criticism.  But Schmidt has earned credibility for his recognition of the subversion of the GOP by Trump, and by his willingness to go out on a limb to express it, risking the loss of his position and power, which he did.  And he sees politics for what they are, and he recognizes the status quo bullshit with which some of the old line Democratic party leaders still do business, including Chuck Schumer.    

"Let us be clear what it is that is being stolen from all of us in plain sight without a fight."  

I will say this because it needs to be said, Steve Schmidt, the former Republican Bush-McCain strategist, a political independent even at this point, though he is an MSNBC contributor, is 100% correct.  These words are now out, incredibly, and I won't take them back.  Steve Schmidt got this right.  Go ahead, finish reading the linked article.  

Why Did We Lose an Election We Should Have Won Easily, With Our "Outstanding" Leadership?

We failed to prevent an "existential threat" to American Democracy from being able to run for office again, and we lost the election in which he ran.  Let's put that into perspective.  We lost an election to a con artist who had a track record of abject failure as both a businessman and as President.  We lost to an inarticulate, age-demented, corrupt, spectacularly immoral and indecent clown.  With the kind of leadership and experience the Democratic party brought to bear on the election, we still lost.  

The excuses are just more of the status quo political bullshit some Democratic party leaders think still works.  Well, when she lost, two years ago, Pelosi stepped down.  Oh, she still wields influence, but she recognized that, while she did a great job, her time had passed.  Chuck Schumer now needs to do the same. 

So it is that I'm looking at Steve Schmidt's words with some renewed interest, since he seems to have a better grasp on the reality of the situation than what's left of current Democratic party leadership, most of whom clearly didn't see what was coming, even though there were plenty of warnings, and in spite of the fact that when they had the advantage, and could have prevented this whole scenario during the first two years of Biden's administration, they didn't get it done.  

And that's not bashing Democrats.  That's just the truth. 

Let's take personalities and past political associations out of the equation, so we can look at this fairly.  This is an excellent assessment, it has the facts straight, and the conclusions  drawn and solutions offered are more than reasonable.  

Trump is an existential threat to American Democracy.  And yet, the actions of Democratic party leaders over the whole nine year period of time since Trump first was elected in 2016 do not always match the truth of that sentence.  For the most part, as Schmidt points out rather sharply, it is Chuck Schumer who characterizes much of the Democratic leadership's failure to see this coming, figure out how to deal with it, and successfully stop it.  

He's quite critical of Schumer, in a very negative way.  I think this paragraph is the best summation of criticism of Schumer, though there are several other Democrats who also bear some of the responsibility for acting the same way: 

"He is a fool being unmasked in the town square, where he stands naked pretending to fight back against something he didn't stop when he could have, and didn't see coming when he should have."  

I don't know if I would say that there are a lot of Democrats who didn't see this coming.  They did.  They just ignored it, hoping it would go away. They kept saying Trump was an existential threat to Democracy, but they placed far more value upon the preservation of their own personal political power, and avoiding the appearances of being "political" than they did on making sure Trump was removed once and for all as an existential threat.  And they've done nothing but make excuses for it when they failed.  

Let's put this in terms in order to understand how big of a failure this was.  A man who organized an insurrection, sedition by the correct definition of the term, for the purpose of overturning a legitimate election and overthrowing a legitimately elected American government, subject of a damning Congressional and FBI investigation in which every scrap of evidence turned up indicted him, was not prosecuted to the full extent of the law because the prosecution was grossly incompetent, did not make this prosecution a matter of urgency, and was defended in his incompetence by party leadership who failed to keep this in front of the American people.  

Trump's back, as corrupt as ever, now a convicted felon who got away with flaunting the rule of law because Democrats let him get away with it, and as Schmidt says, "while the Constitution is being singed by the flames of arsonists, Schumer has reached for an avocado and a Corona."  

Sharpness of the Criticism Aside, It's Time for Schumer to Step Aside as Senate Minority Leader

To be fair, Schumer isn't the only Democrat who needs to step aside and let some leadership that is not steeped in old school politics take charge of the attack on the Trump administration.  Republicans have always made messes, blockaded legislation and stopped progress of Democrats, even when they are the minority in both houses, because they use everything they have at their disposal to get it done.  They find every obscure motion or procedure they can use to delay, obfuscate, and oppose, and they make progress a frustrating and confusing tangle of legislative mess.  They get some Democrats to back down because of the trouble and risk involved in stepping forward.  

So we need some bold, risk takers who understand that if Trump really is an existential threat to Democracy that they claim he is, then there is NOTHING good coming out of his administration and there should be no compromise, or routine business involved in governing during his administration.  Every vote should be a resounding NO!, no confirmation should get through without major opposition and every process should be slowed down to the crawl, or stopped if possible.  

And anyone who crawls down to Mar-a-Lago for the purpose of "bi-partisan" compromise should be considered a full member of the opposition. 

Attention needs to be focused on every Democrat who is now the minority leader of every senate and house committee, starting with Senator Durbin on the Judiciary committee.  Are they capable of boldness?  Are they willing to take risks?  Will they abandon the ridiculous protocols which Republicans ignore and use to their own advantage?  If not, then step down and let someone else step in.  

We finally got a leadership change at the moribund Democratic National Committee, an organization that was virtually worthless during this past election cycle.  I'm more excited about David Hogg being vice-chair than I am about Ken Martin as chair, but that's because I really am not all that familiar with him.  He certainly accomplished a lot in Minnesota.  If he brings that kind of moxie to the DNC, it will be a good thing. 

A "Wake up Call", Which is What This is, is Not "Bashing" 

I'm a lifelong Democrat, and I believe in its core values, especially in promoting diversity, equality and inclusion, in the unity in diversity it promotes, and especially in its "big tent" philosophy that stands in stark contrast to the anti-American, anti-Patriotic, white supremacist, Christian Nationalist oppression of the Republican party, now run by right wing extremist Trumpism and the phony, subversive, fascist Heritage Foundation.  I'm not a "take my vote and go home" kind of American.  I'm a get involved, find the best place to be in effective service kind of voter.  

Party loyalty may seem to be a good thing, on the surface.  But it creates good-old-boys clubs, circles of exclusivity that are counter productive and prevent the cream of the crop in leadership from rising to the top.  We are where we are because of political party establishment's failures.  Country and Constitution need to be priorities, and willingness to sacrifice in order to preserve them the highest quality of our party leadership, not self-preservation and protection of power.  

And we'd better work fast, because Trump and his handlers sure are.  

Do We Want to Save America? Then We Need Leaders Willing to Sacrifice and We Must Get Behind Them and Help

So the first couple of weeks of the Trump administration are going just exactly the way we expected.  It has been an unmitigated disaster.  In fact, it is even worse than anticipated, with the unelected billionaire, Elon Musk, getting what he paid for out of his campaign contributions, in having a role in the federal government related to its spending.  Beyond that, the level of incompetence and corruption in those who Trump is naming for cabinet posts is unbelievably bad.  He hates this country, and he's doing everything he can to destroy it.  

Other than a few angry voices in the Senate, and a few here and there in the House, I'm not hearing or seeing anything from Democrats that is inspiring me to contribute, to get off my rear and volunteer, to go and protest, or to do much of anything.  I get emails, still some from the Kamala Harris campaign, in the last couple of days with Ken Martin's name on them and from a few scattered candidates running for house seats in Florida, long shots to take back the house and put an early stop to the madness that has taken over Washington. But I'm obviously going to have to self-motivate, because what I see from those in the party in positions of leadership is self-protection and self-preservation, hiding behind the excuse that because we are not the majority, there is nothing that can be done. 

The Republicans wrecked a lot of Democratic party plans when we were in the majority, and played their obstructionist role against Democrats who fizzled and crumpled under excuses.  We are in this nightmare because of a series of events in which Democrats lost their nerve, or weren't competent enough to use the power they had to bring about necessary change.  There was too much self-preservation mixed with status quo, old school politics, the result of which Roe was overturned, Trump was never brought to trial or convicted for sedition by inciting an insurrection, and we lost a razor thin Presidential election.  That's what a Republican minority, smaller than our current one, did to us.  So why is it that we can't find a way to do the same?  

I am directing the monthly amounts I was giving during the Presidential campaign to David Hogg's "Leaders We Deserve" network, or at least, I'm giving something to them.  Right now, that's one place I feel is worthwhile, and which may yield some results that I'm looking for.  I am sending a monthly contribution to Jon Ossoff, to help him win re-election.  But mostly I am waiting to try and find something worth the effort and the money, that will be aimed at stopping Trump in his tracks.  We are still a Democracy and the power is still with we, the people.  We have reached a threshold in our history where the conventional wisdom of, "Oh well, we lost, so let's just wait around until the mid-terms and see if we can make some changes then," no longer works.  If we take that approach, there will not be a democracy by the time the mid-terms roll around.  

A Little Personal Honesty

If there were any doubt that Trump was an existential threat to Democracy before he took office on January 20th, there's none now.  That being said, I can't understand any reasoning by Democrats in Congress that would open the door to cast any favorable votes for any of his nominees.  Sorry, that may not be status quo politics, but I'm done with that.  If the man is an existential threat to Democracy, then that is what he is, and there isn't anyone he nominates who should be getting a single vote from any politician who really believes that.  Those he nominates are also a threat.  

I sent an email, outlining my position in a very firm, but nice way to my member of Congress, and checked the box indicating that I would like for her to reply.  So far, five days later, which is after her own deadline, I had not received anything.  I don't really know if she's a "play the game, status quo" kind of Democrat, or whether she's interested in bolder leadership, and worrying more about the country than the potential of losing her seat in a district where Harris got 70% of the vote.  I hope she is the latter, or I will feel compelled to run against her myself, and I am, as I write this, making contacts to determine how to get started on this.   

My Senators are also getting a similar screed.  One of them is another status quo Democrat, Dick Durbin.  I try hard to be respectful here, because the Senator is 80, and has a long and distinguished record of service, but I don't think the Senator's perspective on how Congress operates is up to date, and I don't see the aggressiveness that will be necessary in a vital spot on the Judiciary committee.  I expect him, as I do Senator Duckworth, to vote down everything Trump at every opportunity in order to represent myself, and their constituents, fairly and objectively.   

The fact that there is a shred of Democratic support for any nominee this President puts forth is baffling and confusing to me, after all of the strong, sharp rhetoric about Trump being an existential threat to democracy, and especially after he organized and carried out an insurrection against the government by organizing an attack on the Capitol on January 6th.  No Democrat who lived through that experience should be compromising or giving way on anything, and the fact that this does seem to be happening is bitterly disappointing, disheartening and discouraging.  If the leaders we've elected to positions of responsibility in government aren't willing to show some resolve, then we need to elect new leaders, or step up and take the reigns ourselves, something I am perfectly willing to do.  

This Can and Must Be Stopped

I'm unconvinced that with the narrowest of margins in his favor in Congress, Trump, and his Heritage Foundation supporters, can't be stopped from implementing Project 2025.  We let the opportunity to prosecute this through the courts and the DOJ slip through, wasting days and opportunities, refusing to take things in hand because doing so "might look political," though that could not in any way be as bad as the reality we now face.  We can't waste our time with people who claim to be on our side who drag their feet and slow-walk things when fast action is the ticket to success.  

Trump is old, physically frail and demented.  In that there are plenty of advantages, if there's a willgness to take advantage of them.  Put the pressure on, make him look bad, keep up relentless attacks and he'll make plenty of mistakes and it will take a toll on his stamina.  

And the bottom line is that, while we mourn the death of the free press, where's the money lining up to buy a network that will promote the Democratic party and its narrative?  We have some sharp people on our side, analysts like Rachel Bitecofer, who, on a segment of the David Pakman show, pointed out the realities of the election just a couple of weeks before it happened, and offered a solution to turn things in the direction of Harris and Walz, even at a late point.  But she was ignored, and her prediction of what would happen if they didn't make the adjustments, basically a razor thin loss, came to pass. 

I've been told that my expectations are too high.  Well, so be it.  They are still my expectations.  They are consistent with what I observe and what I've been told.  Trump is an existential threat to democracy and he must be stopped.  They are right, whoever they are.  Here I am, willing to help do something about it. 

Called Out Because of Their False Doctrine, an Unprecedented Bill to Censure a Preacher by the House Reflects Their Own Political Bias and Religious Heresy

Baptist News Global: House Bill to Censure Preacher Assigned to a Committee Led by a Southern Baptist 

The sermon delivered by Bishop Mariann Budde at the National Prayer Service on January 21 continues to draw fire from conservatives, many of them Evangelicals who are enraged because a female, Episcopalian bishop preached core principles of the Christian gospel which, by their very nature, contrasted with the worldly, licentious, immoral, inhumane and un-Christian perspective of Trump.  I grew up in an Evangelical church, and even now, as part of that culture, as I listen to the whining and complaining over Trump's having been exposed to truth that he can't stand, a Bible verse pops into my mind: 

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

When I read passages like this from the Bible, I wonder how it is that the Apostle Paul could be so on target without ever having met Trump personally.  He describes Trump and his entourage perfectly, as if he were alive and recording events by observation.  They, of course, are blind to his character, because they have been deluded.  There's another passage, also written by the Apostle Paul, which I believe explains exactly why this collection of conservative Evangelicals, the Southern Baptists and Pentecostals and prosperity gospel heretics who make up Trump's religious apoligists, are not able to discern the truth or see the evil. 

The coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, who uses all power, signs, lying wonders, and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.  For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false, so that all who have not believed the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned.  [2 Thessalonians 2:9-12, NRSV] 

I'm not saying that these verses are a prophecy, predicting what we are seeing transpire in front of us now, but they are prophetic, in that they are accurate in their description of what we are seeing.  The truth was preached, in front of the President and Vice-President of the United States, neither of whom are actually practicing or professed Christians.  Because he was offended by the truth, so were his religious sycophants, whose support for him is a clear indication of the emptiness and insincerity of their own claims to faith.  

The Bishop's Sermon was Doctrinally and Theologically Correct

I've read some critiques of Bishop Budde's sermon written by some of those on the conservative and fundamentalist end of the doctrinal spectrum.  The problem they have is that her sermon, which cites references and uses both biblical and traditional support, is solidly anchored in the main core of the gospel preached and taught by Jesus, as recorded by the writers of the four gospels in the New Testament.  It must be infuriating for those who claim to hold a high view of the Bible, and who are caustic and vitriolic in their criticism of "liberal" Christians, like the Episcopal Church, to be put in a position of refuting doctrinal and theological points they themselves would have applauded if the exact same words had been spoken by a conservative Evangelical or prosperity gospel preacher. 

I'm on a roll here, with the Bible verses popping into my mind.  

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.  You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? [Matthew 7:15-16]

"Fruits" being their words, and their actions, the criticisms and the lengths to which these conservative Evangelicals are going to defend their idol because his ears had to hear something that pointed out the truth of his own immoral worldliness is evidence of their own hatred of truth.  The Bishop was impeccable in rendering the word of God and pointing to a specific example of its application.  That offended Trump, Vance, and their apologists.  In so doing, it exposed their own immorality and ungodliness.  Well, sometimes that happens when a pastor preaches truth in a sermon.  In the Southern Baptist church in which I grew up, a convicting sermon usually led to a long altar call.  At the National Cathedral, predictably, given who was in the congregation, it got a hostile reaction from the false prophets. 

Taking the step to introduce a resolution in the House of Representatives to censure the Bishop will not accomplish anything except to underline the hypocrisy of those who support the resolution.  Those who support doing this are showing us their lack of conviction, and if they claim to be Christian, it is a demonstration of gross hypocrisy.  They are setting themselves aside as the wolves in sheep's clothing, or as the Apostle Jude put it, they are intruders in the church, bringing in licentiousness and denying the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  They have found a new savior to worship and adore, and they are abandoning the one who actually preached and taught values. 

Conservative Evangelicalism is a Cult by Definition

Of course, it's no surprise that Trump was offended by a basic doctrinal principle of Christianity.  He is not only not a professing Christian, but has been openly defiant in his rejection of the Evangelical interpretation of a Christian conversion experience, claiming he has done nothing requiring God's forgiveness.  Those within his entourage, or within the Republican party, who chose to defend and support him, are also denying aspects of their own faith.  It's a choice, and they are accountable for it. 

I've read and heard a lot of critics of the Bishop's sermon from among the fundamentalists of Falwellian ilk, and the Charistmatic prosperity gospel preachers of Pat Robertson tradition, and they are way outside of the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy.  Their interpretation of the Bible, which didn't develop until the middle to late 19th century, doesn't take into consideration the interpretive standard of the words of Christ himself as the criterion by which all of the rest of the Bible is to be interpreted.  So they have developed a very legalistic religion, in contrast to the grace-based Christian gospel of Christ. 

But it appears that Trump is now the standard by which conservative Evangelicals interpret the Bible, and which dictates the practice of their Christian faith.  All of those things upon which Jesus placed primary importance as expressions of values held by those who professed faith in the Christian gospel, from the beatitudes, including peacemaking, mercy and seeking after righteousness, to loving one's neighbor, and loving one's enemies, along with grace, forgiveness and mercy, are not relevant or important to conservative Evangelicals.  It's what Trump thinks and says that are the gospel, not the Bible's writers.

And that has led us to this point, where Congress is considering a resolution that violates the first amerndment of the Constitution, the censureship of an Episcopalian Bishop, for preaching truth to power.  

I'll close here with a quote from Randal Balmer, an Episcopalian priest, university professor and author.  

The Bible I read tells of freedom for captives and deliverance from oppression.  It teaches that those who refuse to act with justice or who neglect the plight of the less fortunate have some explaining to do. But the Bible is also about good news.  It promises redemption and forgiveness, a chance to start anew, and with divine help, to get it right.  My evangelical theology assures me that no one, not even Karl Rove or James Dobson, lies beyond the reach of redemption, and that even a people led astray can find their way home.  

A "New Day" at the Democratic National Committee, or More of the Same Old Status Quo?

 MSNBC: Ken Martin Elected Democratic National Committee Chair

The fact that David Hogg has better name recognition than Ken Martin, and that I am more excited about his being elected vice-chariman of the Democratic National Committee may say something about how rank and file Democrats also view the recent change of leadership.  The Democratic National Committee is now entering what will be the single most critical period of its existence.  And as a lifelong, contributing member of the Democratic party, while I understand the role of the DNC is primarily raising funds and directing how they are spent, and Ken Martin seems to be a suitable candidate to manage that kind of operation, I think whatever else it can produce that is turned toward opposing the single most corrupt and incompetent President in American history must be done.  

The fact that Martin won, without the big endorsements of Schumer and Pelosi, is a big factor in his favor, as far as I am concerned.  The Democratic party has had a chronic disability when it comes to defining its messaging, making it clear and relatable, and getting it out.  Pelosi and Schumer, who have been excellent in their party leadership in Congress, haven't been nearly as successful when it comes to this aspect of party politics.  I like what Martin had to say about how he sees his role at the DNC, specifically, "My job is to go out there and define the Republicans."  That's pretty clear.  And so is "We will go on the offense against Donald Trump."  

Martin's tenure as the chair of Minnesota's Democratic Farmer-Labor Party during a time when the Democratic party actually expanded its majority in Minnesota politics, in spite of stepped-up Republican efforts to gain control of the state, is impressive.  Democrats win in Minnesota among constituencies and in places that are typically Republican in other places.  And the state party organization plays a large role in helping that happen.  Trump tried, and failed, to gain advantage there.  That alone is worth putting some trust in their state party leadership to help Democrats nationally. 

Maybe We Need to Be Asking a Little Bit More From Our Party Leaders

Not even two full weeks into the second Trump administration, and it has been nothing short of an unmitigated disaster.  In the face of that, we've had some Democrats back down, one even made a pilgrimage to Mar-A-Largo, and there's been a definite softening of the rhetoric, toning down the "existential threat to democracy" language, and crawling under well-placed rocks prepared in advance places in Washington, DC, for the purpose of self-preservation.  It's a milquetoast response to the peaceful transfer of power, compared to the manner in which Republicans faced off against the incoming Democratic congress and the Biden Administration in Jauary of 2021.  

That generated, from me, notice to my member of Congress and my two state senators that I personally would not tolerate compromise or "soft" opposition to the Trump Administration, and that if they wanted my vote in future elections, I needed to see some backbone, now.  My political contributions, at least for now, go to "Leaders We Deserve", the organization that now-DNC Vice Chair David Hogg leads.  Instead of protecting their own turf, and their own position, I need to see some Democrats willing to take risks and make some self-sacrifice because I think saving this Democracy is far more important than their getting one more term in office.  

One more term to do what? 

I'd like to see the DNC take steps to support groups like "Leaders We Deserve" and attach some quid pro quos to candidates getting funds for election campaigns, like their voting records on legislation that is Trump-supporting, or Republican party initiated.  The kind of action we need out of our Democratic party legislators involves more than just making some loud noise in committee hearings of which the outcome is a foregone conclusion.  So, a Democratic senator got loud with RFK Jr. So what?  It will take more than that to save this constitutional democracy.  

So I hope that Martin's tenure at the DNC is much more productive than that of his predecessor.  That's not much of a challenge, but this is where Democrats must improve, control the narrative, and figure out how to convince a majority of the electorate to vote for them.  And I'm hoping that David Hogg's presence will serve to push them into reality and force their effectiveness,  

The Importance of an Educated and Informed Electorate Now Missing From American Politics

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government.  But the Constitution, which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all.  The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.  

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract or awe regular deliberation and actions of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency.  They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the designated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests. 

However, combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled  --George Washington, First President of the United States, in his Farewell Address to the Nation. [emphasis mine]

America's Founding Fathers Were Visionaries, and They Did Forsee That "Unenlightened Public Opinion" Could Present a Problem 

George Washington addresses the issues that we are facing with this unconstitutional, incompetent and corrupt Trump Presidency as if he were observing them himself.  So it's not that the founders, when designing American democracy, writing and ratifying the Constitution, and establishing the Republic, did not forsee the possibility of a corrupt, criminal element, influenced by foreign powers and driven by money interests, gaining control of the government to serve their own narrow purposes and those of the other billionares who influence the politics.  Washington saw this as a possibility.  

They put plenty of safeguards in place, including making the Constitution amendable, not expecting a strict constructionist approach, but that as society and the culture changed, the Constitution could adapt to the change.  The safeguards in making those changes was wisely requiring two-thirds of the members of Congress to agree, and two-thirds of the states having to ratify their agreement.  The safeguard which the founders believed to be the best defense against "ill-concerted and incongruous projects of factions," a description which fits Trumpism perfectly, was "the power and right of the people to establish government."  

So Washington believed that an informed electorate, with the power and right of the people behind them, wouldn't elect a convicted felon, or a con artist, or a grifter, or a corrupt, known pathological liar, like Trump to any office where they had any influence in government.  An educated and informed electorate was, to the founders, a wall of protection to the Constitution against a subversive, and in this case, seditious faction.  

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is is a necessary spring of popular government.  The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government.  Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the fabric?

Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge.  In proportion as the structure of government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.--George Washington, First Farewell Address [emphasis mine] 

I can only conclude, based on Washington's perspective, and the fact that Trump, after a disastrous, corrupt, ineffective, failed first term in office, was re-elected, albeit by a razor-thin margin, not a mandate, that an "enlightened public opinion," otherwise known as an informed electorate, no longer exists in the United States.  

Washington pointed to other established institutions which he believed were essential to the preservation of the Constitutional democracy the founders established.  These include religion and morality.  The quotes that are cited here are part of a long narrative in which he concluded that the more partisan rancor existed, the less effective would be the government, and that the possibility existed for this to become so pronounced as to render government ineffective, or subject to tyranny.  

Public opinion, enlightened by "institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge," and of course, by a free press, the institutional church, of which Washington was a member, interestingly enough a congregation affiliated with the Church of England, and morality, which is defined by general public standards present in the culture, is the safeguard against demagoguery and tyranny.    

Three Reasons for an Ignorant and Uninformed Electorate

1.  Conservative Evangelicalism is a pseudo-Christianity that does not reflect or practice the core values of Christianity, which Washington considered essential for the support of democracy.

Washington mentions religion and morality as "indispensable supports" leading to political prosperity.  By his own experience and observation, he saw the influence of Christian values as a positive influence on the culture that would strengthen American democracy.  Loving one's neighbor produced a sense of community and mutual respect.  Washington himself was a professing Christian, a member of Christ Church, an Anglican turned Episcopalian church in Alexandria, Virginia and certainly weighed the influence of his own faith on his values and his moral character, as well as observing it in those with whom he had business dealings and personal relationships.  

This expectation no longer exists. 

The primary religious influence on Trump and MAGA is a cult with corrupted doctrine and theology infected by right wing extremism.  Even prior to the "licentious intrusion" of Trump [See the Book of Jude v. 4] and his acceptance by conservative Evangelicals, the errant doctrine of Evangelicals made them susceptible to theological error, turning the Christian gospel into a system of works by which one gains God's favor, denying the essence of grace, which is at the very core of the Christian gospel taught by Jesus.  

The cult of Evangelicalism in the United States, which includes the heretical Pentecostal and Charismatic groups who are behind much of the dominionist Christian nationalism that is written into Project 2025 and the Trump agenda, is an enemy of Democracy, since it does not place any value on values taught by Jesus, such as loving one's neighbor, and beyond that, loving one's enemies.  It divides humanity by creating a hierarchy of the "chosen", and is willing to compromise morality to embrace a leader who, even as he accepts their votes, completely and openly rejects their own version of Christian conversion.  

"Religion," in the form of conservative Evangelicalism, is now the major contributor to the ignorance of the American electorate.

2.  We have lost our free press.  

I'm not sure I can pinpoint where this actually occurred, but I do believe that there was a point, in my sixty-seven years of existence, when we actually had a free press.  I can remember politicians being fearful of the accountability to which the press once held them, and when there were multiple members of the news media who had earned a reputation for integrity, honesty, always reporting the truth, and especially for the impartial and fair manner in which they treated politicians, good and bad.  

But most of the media is now a for-profit, corporately owned entertainment business.  Commentators, editors and reporters who still have a measure of integrity and honesty do not have enough of an audience, in the plethora of podcasts, blogs, social media outlets and news networks, to carry enough weight to use in holding politicians accountable.  

The bottom line is now ratings and money, not in calling out the incompetence, dishonesty, corruption and what George Washington would have labelled "cunning, ambitious and unprincipled."  In fact, the American "free press" has taken a man whose crimes of cover-ups, sedition and attacks on the rule of law have been among the most egregious in American history, and have whitewashed him to the point of legitimizing his candidacy and his Presidency, both of which would never have happened in a nation committed to the rule of law, with a free press.     

3.  Our educational system is no longer equipped to be an agent of social reform.

It was the American education reformer John Dewey who envisioned the public education system as a means for the preservation of American democracy by providing the nation with an educated and informed electorate.  He also saw potential in an institution in which virtually all American children were getting their education, to use it as an instrument to bring about social and cultural reform, believing that education was the best weapon against chronic human problems like poverty and war.  By establishing a consistent philosophy of education in colleges and universities where teachers were trained, he succeeded in a few generations in making American public education among the best in the world, and in being at the forefront of social reform in addition to providing an educated and informed electorate. 

But we no longer think of our education system as a bulwark against ignorant populism that is an existential threat to democracy.  Our public schools are not equipped to teach the kind of critical thinking skills necessary to produce an informed electorate, or to support social reform.  So much of a school's curriculum objectives are mandates, aimed at avoiding controversy, and at preventing the free exchange of ideas that once made American schools the best in the world.  Social studies and political science requirements for graduation have been reduced, teachers are afraid of retaliation or termination if they dare expose students to progressive ideology leading to social reform.  

The results of the most recent election is proof that our public education system is no longer capable of producing an electorate that is informed or educated enough to avoid making costly mistakes that are potentially fatal to American democracy.  

We Will Have to Rescue Democracy Ourselves

The first two weeks of the second Trump presidency should have convinced anyone who might have been thinking otherwise that this is headed toward disaster.  Trump has always been an existential threat to American democracy and to the Constitution, and he is putting people in place in the executive branch who are going to chip away at every principle.  The Republican party already laid the groundwork for this and Democrats, with their old school, status quo politics, allowed it to happen.  Our voters don't turn out for mid-term elections, as a consequence, we've paid the price in terms of losing control of state legislatures everywhere. 

We have failed to prosecute the biggest crime ever committed by a sitting President, sedition, resulting in an insurrection and attack on the Capitol.  After that attack occurred, when we had a majority in both houses and a Democrat in the White House, we played the "business as usual card," giving Republicans the edge they wouldn't give us when they were in power.  There were voices calling for the breaking of the senate filibuster to enable Democrats to pack the Supreme Court, which would have been a bold move pre-empting the overturning of Roe, but more importantly, stopping the unconstitutional ruling on Presidential immunity.  

Why the justice department failed to use the power of the executive branch to expedite getting Trump tried and convicted is a monumental failure.  If he was  indeed an existential threat to democracy, then the risk of things looking "political" were entirely worth the ultimate outcome of shutting him out of government forever. 

We are sitting on the edge of ruin because of a lack of bold, risk taking based on conviction, rather than caution aimed at preserving personal power.  

The saving of American democracy now depends on the will and power of the people.  It is in our hands.  Are there enough Americans who care?  I don't know.  But we need to be willing to push our political leadership to their limits, and make them do their job.  We need to inform ourselves, from reliable sources, and reach out to each other when we see things going the wrong way.  

If it is to be, it is up to me.