Confirmation of Some Really Difficult Truths

Common Dreams on Charlie Kirk's Legacy

Baptist News Global: On Charlie Kirk, Selective Outrage and a Church that Refuses to Tell the Truth

The first time I heard the name Charlie Kirk, it was in reference to one of the Turning Point USA gatherings being held in Phoenix.  What attracted my attention was the fact that Don Trump Jr. was one of the featured speakers.  I have little interest in what Don Jr. has to say, but what caught my attention to this particular statement of his was his open denial of a core principle of the teachings of Jesus Christ.  I mean, these people spend an awful lot of time helping keep a good sized segment of conservative Evangelicals, most of whom know very little about biblical Christianity and can't distinguish the cultic views of Christian nationalism from biblical truth taught by Christ, in the dark.  

Speaking at one of Charlie Kirk's Turning Point USA rallies in Phoenix, Arizona on December 19, 2021, Don Jr. said, "We've turned the other cheek, and I understand, sort of, the Biblical reference--I understand the  mentality--but it's gotten us nothing.  Ok? It's gotten us nothing while we've ceded ground in every major institution in our country."  

To say that a core principle of the Christian gospel, taught and put into practice directly by Jesus, in its context, as a means of demonstrating the sincerity and veracity of one's Christian faith, has "gotten us nowhere," is blasphemy, by any Christian or biblical definition.  The fact that this remark, which Don Jr. has repeated since, is included in a Turning Point rally is a demonstration of Kirk's apparent approval of it, or of his fear of directly confronting anything a Trump says.  Along with the other long running themes of Turning Point USA and of Charlie Kirk, this is just one of hundreds of pieces of evidence that identify him as being part of a white supremacist, Christian nationalist cult, the result of blending the right wing political extremism of Trump with conservative Evangelicalism.     

The Common Dreams article I linked above does a great job of outlining exactly who Charlie Kirk was, by his words and deeds.  He was a political strategist, or a political fundraiser who made sure he took care of himself with many of the dollars Turning Point raised. He was willing to lie to make a point in a political debate, as he deceived conservative Evangelicals into an embrace of a political philosophy and perspective that is mutually incompatible with their own theology and doctrine.  A prophet of right wing Trumpism, Kirk, willing to lie as openly and readily as Donald Trump, is an indruder in the church, as the Apostle Jude describes in his very short, but clear epistle in the New Testament, just before the book of Revelation.  

Kirk's mostly errant and distorted doctrine and theology made him a pseudo-Christian more inclined to the heresy of Christian nationalism, with a hint of white supremacy, than any kind of defender of the Christian faith.  There was some of that blended in, but mainly for the political advantage that it provides.  Those kinds of fringe comments, which he makes all the time, wouldn't be there at all if his interest was actually Christian faith and practice, and not right wing politics. 

Anyone like me, raised in a Southern Baptist church, with a higher education background that included Biblical studies, theology and Christian education at the undergraduate and graduate level, knows this about Charlie Kirk.  Some admit they have little in common, and mostly disagree with everything Kirk says.  But, pay attention and know this, that no one on the left who disagreed with Charlie Kirk would approve of his assassination.  

Assassination is Not the Left's M.O. When it Comes to Political Debate and Opposition

It's hard to find someone on the political left, especially among its articulate leadership that is equipped for debate, who thinks assassination is the best way to eliminate one's enemies.  That's not how the left does things.  What you get from the left is exactly what we see, a genuine reaction of shock, horror and sorrow over yet another senseless death as the result of politically motivated violence.  The lies being told about motives behind other recent assassinations, including of Democrats in Minnesota, are a disgrace and a black stain on Kirk's character.  Justifying threats of violence, including murder, against one's political enemies is as close to pure evil as any human being ever gets.  

It's been one of the most difficult lies conservatives have ever had to craft, that this assasin somehow morphed from being as far to the right in an insulated, ultra-right wing Mormon community as one could get, to becoming Charlie Kirk's assassin over basic philosophical differences because he had been radicalized by the left.  There's no pathway that exists to get Tyler Robinson from the far right wing, Trump endorsing and approving white Mormon family from which he came to being far enough to the left to want to take Kirk's life because he no longer was in agreement with him.  

So what that means is that Kirk's assassin, Tyler Robinson if they caught the right guy, has moved even further into the more extremist part of the far right where killing public figures with whom you no longer agree is dogma.  That the theme of the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the Groypers and other right wing extremists who see eliminating their ideological enemies as a mission from God. 

Another Round of Social Media Disconnection

I'm frustrated, angry, and disappointed.  I grew up in a Southern Baptist church and while I can't really explain it, I began to distance myself from the folk religion that passed for the Christian gospel and Christian practice in that congregation.  I can't really point to what it was inside of me that led me to the understanding that what I was taught in that church growing up was not the truth, but was a very distorted faith practice that resented those who had an education, resisted any kind of theological or doctrinal perspective that did not line up with what they considered to be conservative Biblical orthodoxy and seemed to get some kind of satisfaction out of attacking their religious enemies, which included all of those they identified as "the lost," along with the Christians in other denominations who didn't exactly follow their interpretation of the Baptist Faith and Message.  

I learned from being around intolerant people that it's not possible to even think their minds can be changed, and all that's going to come from trying is an argument that will end in being rejected and called a name because bending to their will is their only objective.  When I broke with that particular church, it followed an argument that I'd had with the pastor.  He got angry because I wouldn't back down, and then, because I made the first move in rejecting what he was telling me.  I was dating his daughter at the time, so that meant the end of that relationship which was just as well, since she was as pig-headed, dogmatic and stubborn as he was.  

Now I'm seeing others that I know, from my days in conservative Evangelicalism, and from some conservative Evangelicals I've met since, make Charlie Kirk some kind of martyr for the cause.   Arguing back, like I would once have been tempted to do, is a waste of time and effort, not something that would change any minds, something I no longer feel responsible to do.  I am explicitly and absolutely against any kind of political violence, including this particular assassination.  I don't care how bad the ideas or impractical, or false is the doctrine and theology.  He had the right to tell us who he was and what he believed, as we have the right to disagree, and I disagreed with just about everything he said publicly.  

So now, I must also step away from anyone who believes that Charlie Kirk told the truth and is a worthy spokesperson for the rights of human beings.  He was a white Christian nationalist, and his ideology, with its touch of racism and bigotry, was a pseudo-Christian influence, mutually exclusive of orthodox Christianity,  And the sooner the world sees this, the better.  

 

Are There Religious Implications Involved in Today's Political Assassination of Charlie Kirk?

These are just some random thoughts that have popped up as I have read through, and heard some of the news stories related to today's tragic shooting death of Charlie Kirk.  Regardless of what people thought of him, and it's pretty clear he was a polarizing figure, with an in-your-face kind of approach to his hard-line, right wing political views, political violence of any kind, directed at anyone, should never be considered acceptable for any reason.  It is the one method of opposition that never succeeds in achieving its goal.  

The Location of the Shooting Has Some Significance, Maybe More Than We Might Think 

It happened in Utah.  What most Americans generally know about Utah, and associate with it, its that it is the headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and has the highest percentage of population of its members, also known commonly as "Mormons," than any other state.  So people might find it unusual that such an assassination would occur in Utah.  

It happened in Orem, a town that is really part of a larger metro area connected to Provo, where Brigham Young University is located, the center of the LDS church's education program.  Provo and Orem, along with some smaller "suburbs," make up a single metropolitan area where the percentage of Mormon residents is among the highest of any other place in the state of Utah.  While half the population of Utah is made up of members of the LDS church, the Provo-Orem-Spanish Fork area is over 70 percent LDS.  So the Mormon population there would include those who have a higher level of theological conviction and education, and a deeper involvement in the LDS community, which is anchored by the church.  

Utah also happens to be one of the easiest states in which to buy a gun, and has a high percentage of residents who are gun owners.  

Stick with me, some of this might actually be worth considering when it all adds up.  

Utah Valley University, where the gathering was taking place at which Kirk was shot, is the largest state university in Utah, primarily a commuter school with an enrollment of over 45,000 undergraduates, 10,000 more than either the University of Utah, or Brigham Young University.  Even though it is a state university, it is likely that the number of LDS students enrolled there is well over half the total, given the fact that most of its students commute from the Provo-Orem-Spanish Fork area, which is Utah's second largest metro area.  

So what would attract a group of predominantly Mormon students to a gathering where Charlie Kirk, who is a conservative, Evangelical Christian, is the speaker?  From a theological and doctrinal perspective, being Mormon and being Evangelical are mutually exclusive.  Evangelicalism as a whole treats Mormons as a heretical cult, one of the worst in terms of deceiving people away from true Christian faith, at least, from their perspective.  Mormon leaders and theologians are open in their caustic criticism of Evangelicals.  In fact, it is a core doctrine of Mormon faith that Joseph Smith was informed directly by the Angel Moroni, who appeared to him and revealed the location of the "golden plates" he allegedly translated into English as "The Book of Mormon," that all of the followers of all of the other Christian churches that were in existence were wrong, that they were liars and did not have the truth.  

Did I mention, that's a core doctrine of Latter Day Saints theology. 

So it is common ground in conservative, right wing politics that brings Mormons together with conservative Evangelicals.  But not on every single political point, either.  

Shared Perspectives But Different Outcomes in White, Christian Nationalism 

The Latter Day Saints have a Christian nationalist perspective that declares themselves to be the chosen people of God for the purpose of one day being the government of the United States.  It is their divine will, included in their prophecy, that God has ordained them to take over the government, using the vast resources and power of the United States to convert the rest of the world to Mormonism.  Everything they do, from temple rituals to having well over the average number of children, is built around this belief.  And there is no room in this Mormon perspective of Christian nationalism, for the heretics of the Evangelical right.  

Likewise, the dominionism of white, Christian nationalism that dominates some branches of conservative Evangelicalism considers all Mormons as heretics who will be put to death when they are given rhe righteous rule of American, as God's chosen people.  Kirk got a crowd of almost 100% white college students to a rally on Utah's largest university campus.   For the most part, the shared politics keeps religion out of the discussion, and Kirk's speeches are generally not overly laced with either Biblical references or Christian theology.  

But one thing is clear.  There can't be two "chosen peoples" destined to rule America, and thus, the world.  For Mormons, the purpose in doing this is to turn the rule of the world over to the Mormon God, who procreates spirit children in need of human bodies.  For Evangelicals, the purpose of their Christian nation is to eliminate all of God's enemies in order to usher in the Second Coming of Christ.  With, of course, all associated benefits, including acquired wealth, going to the church leadership. 

Is it possible that an LDS hard-liner, distrustful of Evangelicals because that's ingrained in their theological instruction from their pre-school days, took advantage of a casual, less secure atmosphere at an open air rally in a place that was obviously easy to access, and got at Kirk for his theological and doctrinal incompatibility with the Latter Day Saints?  

That discovery would not surprise me. 

I doubt that the shooter was some frustrated, angry left winger.  That's been rare, at least in the most recent plague of politically motivated shootings and violence we've seen in this country in recent years.  Disaffected Proud Boys or Oath Keepers are right wingers, not left wingers.  Left wingers abhor gun violence.  Even those who tried to get at Trump were politically on the far right.  

Well, it's a theory.  

My heart goes out to Charlie Kirk's wife and children.  This was senseless, tragic and cruel, and it is the kind of behavior that has no place in American Constitutional Democracy, or as any part of any faith that wants to align with the gospel of Jesus Christ.  

The Means We Have to Take Back Our Constitutional Democracy

There's been some silence here for a while.  And that's been deliberate.  

It's hard to write about politics and about what's going on while watching the constitutional democracy that our founding fathers sacrificed to build, and patiently promoted, waiting until people were able to see the value of a better way of doing something, taking some risks, with bold moves that they didn't know would be accepted or rejected, disintegrate along with the remnants of our free press, liberty of conscience, religious freedom and above all, the high value of human existence that created all of this in the first place.  

Over the Labor Day weekend, and since, there were more protests, as it seems the crowds taking to the street are getting more vocal, louder, and more specific in what they are protesting against.  The media takes note of them, not giving them anywhere near the kind of coverage protests used to get when they were directed against the Vietnam War, but then, that was a cause that our media, most of them, supported.  Few of those who work in the media now could pass an eighth grade constitution test.  And I know, because that's a class I taught for years, to hundreds of students.  

Constitutional Means to Make a Change

The founders left us with just a few possible means to make a change in government between elections which were designed to be the free exercise of the will of the people.  They didn't really account for the fact that the level of trust and integrigy that was required for the electorate to make good decisions when it came to choosing the nation's political leadership would ever be undermined by enough ignorance and corruption to make a bad choice.  

But that's what's happened.  

The place where such change is most difficult to make is the place where, in our present situation, it is needed the most.  The Supreme Court is at the root of the problem.  There's been enough bribe money and influence distrubuted to get enough justices, those who were appointed because they showed some kind of moral or ethical weakness, or a lack of integrity and trustworthiness, to rule in favor of the ability of billionaires and billion-dollar profiteering corporations to corrupt the electoral process by taking all of the restrictions off campaign contribution amounts.  The ruling, called the "Citizens United" case, has made it possible for members of the House and Senate, members of the Supreme Court, and just about anyone else in electoral politics, to be bought by big money without accountability. 

Frankly, I don't have to prove any specific claims here.  It's so visible, the evidence is in what these justices have done, and what the politicians who were elected by big money are doing in exchange for the sale of their integrity and character, that their words and deeds are full of evidence of the way they're poisoning our country.  

We, the people, are left with a very narrow, virtually impossible Constitutional way to make the kind of changes in government that are necessary to preserve constitutional democracy in America now.  What we actually have at our disposal is the pathway to impeachment and removal from office, of six incompetent Supreme Court justices along with a President, Vice-President, House Speaker and President Pro-Tempore of the Senate.  And we're pretty convinced, given the partisan alignment of Congress, and the unwillingness of the majority party to act with integrity and honesty, that this is an impossible pathway.  

It is also not very likely that the 25th Amendment can be used to get Trump out of the White House, though if anyone actually wanted to make a legal case, based on evidence for doing so, they'd have enough to remove him a dozen different times.  

Protests, marches, the voices of literally hundreds of thousands of marching citizens in the streets, is not even making a blip on the radar inside the GOP.  There's a good reason for that.  Nothing ever comes of it.  There are marches, speeches, protests, crowds and turnouts that are impressive in their size and scope, but in and of themselves, aside from the rhetoric, and creating awareness of the problem, they have had zero effect in moving the needle toward a reasonable conviction of the President, six justices, most of the cabinet and the congressional leadership, who are grossly incompetent in their leadership of the United States.  

At the end of the day, heading home, the sun comes up the next morning, and there's no follow up.  It's pretty clear that the kind of public pressure needed to change votes in Congress, wake some Republicans up to reality and get this President out of the White House, leaving enough time left to either stop the progression of the destruction of American democracy or start putting it back together, is not resulting from the protests.  

So what really is the point, if that's not it? 

Figuring Something Out

I've just started to figure out that many of the difficulties Democrats have had during times when we've been the ones in power are of our own doing.  We make things harder for ourselves by not taking the party line like the GOP does, no compromise, this is it.  I realized this when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House following the 2020 election.  We had the chance, during that two year stretch, to get a lot of things done, including getting billionaire money out of elections once for all with the overturning of Citizens United.  

And no, we did not have a supportive majority on the court.  But the amendment of the Judiciary act, bumping up the number of Supreme Court Justices could have been an  "in your face" proposition.  A risky but bold move to break the filibuster, and pack the court, would have changed everything on this side of 2024.  Not only would we have been able to see Citizens United overturned, and strict rules placed on campaign finance, but we could have saved Roe.  And an added benefit would have been the ability of the court to clear out all of the blockades Trump was putting up regarding his own indictments and sent him to prison, disqualified from ever running for office again.  

It wasn't Republican opposition that stopped all of that from happening.  It came from within our own party.  

We can't keep doing business this way.  What we do now must either count toward restoring Democracy, and stopping Trump, or we will never have another opportunity, even as we have squandered so many.  We can't squander this one.  Individual political careers are secondary to the restoration of American Constitutional democracy under a renewed Democratic party.  The midterm election in 2026 is just a start.  

 

Chicago Doesn't Need the National Guard to Enforce the Law

The idea of calling out the National Guard to supplement the police force in major cities is a populist misconception that goes back to the days of the Vietnam War protests in the 1970's and civil rights unrest in the 1960's.  The only thing that calling out the National Guard achieved in those days was to push the level of violence higher than it already was, and it culminated in the shooting deaths of four unarmed students and the injury of nine others at Kent State University in Ohio in 1970.  Calling out the National Guard to put down protests hasn't ever been successful.  So trying to turn them into law enforcement officers is also headed toward being an unmitigated disaster.  

So far, it's just been a political threat by an unhinged, demented, incompetent President to get at two of his biggest political enemies.  It's not about the crime, since Chicago's crime rate, which has been steadily coming down over the past four or five years, isn't anywhere near the level it is in the cities on the top ten list for violent crime.  It wasn't about crime in Los Angeles, either.  He has the National Guard picking up trash in Washington, D.C.  Otherwise, they wouldn't have anything to do there, either. 

My wife and I have lived here eight years, just now reaching retirement age.  It was a deliberate choice out of four different job offers we received for this last stage of my career and with most other factors being equal, we chose this job offer primarily because of its location.  Finding housing in the city isn't easy, but we had some help, and landed in a reasonably priced, fairly spacious condo in a building for people who are past 55 years of age, on a bus line ten minutes from an "L" station.  Until COVID hit, I rode the bus and train to and from work, without incident, because it takes 15 minutes off the commute.  

After I got comfortable with the ride and the schedule, I discovered that the "L" and the bus connections are the best way to get around, and not have to worry about traffic or parking when I have a doctor's appointment.  And it works well when we want to go out for dinner downtown.  I'm just now getting back to doing that, after driving for a while during the pandemic.  I've never felt unsafe, or insecure, and I've never been uncomfortable, either riding, or at the station getting off and waiting for the bus.  Those times we've done this at night, the trains and busses are full of people coming to or going from sports events, the theaters downtown, dining out or heading to the airport.  

There are high crime areas in the city, as in any large American city, and for a while, there was a problem in a few Chicago neighborhoods with a high percentage of homicides by shootings, including some drive-by incidents and some multiple street incidents.  Much of that was leftover from an neighborhood where a lot of abandoned housing was pulled down around 2015, and in pockets that are within proximity to the Indiana state line, where guns are much more readily available than they are in Illinois.  

Comparatively, I lived in Houston, Texas for over 20 years.  I was a victim of several crimes while living there.  Our apartment was broken into and robbed during the day, in spite of us having an alarm connected to the apartment office, though the police were never called.  My car, parked in the designated, and gated, parking lot of the apartment complex was broken into twice.  Once, the glass of a side window was broken out and the car's stereo system was removed, and the second time, they forced a lock open, and apparently tried to take the car, messing up the ignition switch, but couldn't get it started before a security guard came along and chased them off.  

We also had a window broken out of a car in a mall parking lot in Springfield, Missouri, damage done in order to get an empty purse that had been only partially shoved under a seat.  

None of those crimes could have been prevented by the presence of the National Guard in any of those cities.  

Tonight, we are seeing posts and news reports about shootings in Chicago over this Labor Day weekend.  Well, of course, given the size of the city, and the easy access to weapons just across the state line in Indiana from the south end of Chicago, where a lot of this violence occurs, with gang activity in that part of the city, there will be shootings, especially on holiday weekends when the booze is flowing, too.  But, it's not just Chicago where this is happening.  In fact, this particular Labor Day weekend has been particularly brutal in places like Houston, Miami, St. Louis, Memphis and Jacksonville, and we aren't hearing about Trump sending the National Guard to any of them.  There's not much they could do here, either, unless they are willing to go door to door through some of those southside neighborhoods and collect all of the firearms.  

And the violence is worse on the Indiana side of that state line, at least up here in the northern part of both states.  If there's a place where National Guard patrols on the streets might actually do some good, by simply keeping the criminal element out, it would be Gary, Indiana.  Indiana needs gun control legislation, based on their violent crime statistics, much worse than our Chicago.  

Calling out the National Guard has never been successful in lowering the crime rate.  There's a good reason for this.  They're not trained in law enforcement.  They are quite helpful providing extra hands after a natural disaster.  They're well trained military units whose service in war zones has been effective and appreciated by the regular army troops they are helping.  Law enforcement in this country is not carried out by the military tactic of simply shooting people who are suspected of committing a crime.  American values are based on our experience of living under the tyranny of a king, so we developed a justice system based on the principle of innocent until proven guilty.  

Real American Patriots would never order military troops into the streets to enforce the law at the point of a gun.   

Let's Tell the Truth

Sending in the National Guard to Chicago is a dig at Trump's political rival, Illinois Governor J. D. Pritzker.  Oh, there may be some resentment there, too, about the fact that Chicago took in and is hosting most of those who the governor of Texas, Abbott, sent up here last year by bus, helping them find jobs, which most of them have, and wait out their assylum petitions.  Chicago is, of course, doing what Texas can't and won't do, in proving just how much more patriotic and American we are.  

I've met some of these people.  They're nice, many of them are young couples with families they love and want to keep safe, which is why they risked the trip to get them here.  

Sending the National Guard into Washington, and taking control of the police force there hasn't changed that city's declining crime rate one bit.  It was already lower than it had been in a decade, largely due to the efforts of the Biden administration.  Trump has the National Guard pick up trash, but really, there's not much they're able to do that contributes to lowering a crime rate that is already on the way down because the city's police department finally got some resources it needed to combat the root problems of high crime.  

Compare crime rates across the country during Trump's first term in office to Biden's, and the difference is notably significant.  Well, that's what happens when the government invests in law enforcement.  We should, since we claim to believe in the rule of law, but Trump never would.  Biden did, and it made a difference.  Maybe not to those who are ignorant of facts, like most of the MAGA crowd, but they're not there to actually witness the difference anyway.  I am living in Chicago, and I love it, feel safe, and I can tell the crime rate is going down without Trump's help.  

We need leaders who can see through the thin veneer of Trump's calling out the National Guard to Washington, and to taking control of the police.  A mid-term election is coming up.  I think he will use these tools to keep Democrats from taking the seats they apparently are going to win back in the House and Senate, in a big way.  That ends the MAGA, Heritage Foundation 2025 agenda.  He's told us a thousand different ways and a hundred different times he's going to rig and steal elections in his favor.  

Maybe we should believe him?  

Who is Actually Defending American Constitutional Democracy Against Trump?

"America is like no other country in the world,"  

"That could never happen here."  

And yet, what we are seeing develop, before our very eyes, is a dictatorship using the very limits of government that are provided by the Constitution, subverting the freedoms that it guarantees.  And some of the safeguards that we thought we've always had in place to prevent this from happening have eroded away.  The Supreme Court is corrupt, and has been turned into just one more partisan branch of government with six justices hand picked by the Heritage Foundation.  Did we ever think we would see the day when we would let one political party actually steal a seat on the court, by preventing the other party from nominating someone because it was too close to an election, and then, turn in a gigantic deceptive hypocritical act by stealing another one by letting a lame duck make an appointment just months before another election?  

Or, perhaps more significant, that no one saw it coming, even after one of the far right's talk radio prophets, Rush Limbaugh, laid out this plan years ago, and then pushed and promoted it from behind his microphone.  

Elections have consequences.  One of the steps in this process was the slow, steady push from the right to get control of state legislatures.  Democrats can turn out in big enough numbers to elect candidates like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and Joe Biden in those big Presidential election years, but they have made a habit of ignoring the midterms, off years and state level elections, and as a result, they let Republicans get control of most of the governorships and state legsilatures, where congressional district lines are drawn and where state court justices are appointed, or nominated for election.  

Each of the last three Democrats who have served as President, going back to Clinton, lost control of Congress after the first two years of their term in office, and never got it back.  As a result, we lost the ability to appoint at least two more justices to the Supreme Court, and the GOP has blocked or slowed down hundreds of others.  The result is that we have one of the most corrupt Supreme Courts we have ever seen, and one of the most partisan, whose rulings have pushed the Heritage Foundation's right wing Christian nationalist agenda right along.  

Combine that with a lack of boldness, and risk-taking on the part of Democrats, who still think that playing by old school political protocols will make the idea of compromise work for them, and we are right here now, with a demagogue in the White House, a grifter, con-artist, pathological liar and convicted felon who is the tool being used to subvert and destroy American democracy.  We can't even be certain, after eight years of his babbling about rigged and stolen elections, that this last one is an accurate representation of the "will of the people."  

Most of our news media, which is a billionaire owned corporate industry now, and hasn't been a free press for most of my adult life, doesn't challenge the corruption, and often doesn't even report it.  Those who swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, because they were elected or appointed to the office and responsibility they hold, are content to protect their own turf, and aren't interested in taking the bold risks that are neccessary to set things straight, and are simply observing years of dedicated commitment to ensuring "the pursuit of happiness" go right down the drain.  It will take years to undo the damage that has been done up to this point. 

And patriotic Americans who love this country because of the freedoms it guarantees to its citizens, and for providing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in a way that no where else in the world does, have to sit and watch it be dismantled, while it seems that there isn't anyone in a position of power, who swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, who is doing everything they can to legally try to get this demagogue out of the White House.  

Some People Deserve Credit for Taking a Stand

There's no doubt that this President has not only challenged the limits of Presidential constitutional authority, but he has broken it.  We've all heard it from his critics.  They know.  And yet, people who have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution are doing little more than pointing it out, complaining about it and letting it go otherwise.  No one seems to know who has the authority to to anything effective, or they are lacking the boldness to take the risk to call it out and try to make it happen within the rule of law.  

I deeply appreciate some individuals in the media who have become the unlikely, but most prolific and accurate defenders of the America that most of us know and love, and want back.  I'm going to give credit to them, because they are among the few who are still carrying this torch, and who don't appear to be backing down in the face of this fascist attack and this grifting, corrupt, demented dictator in the White House.  

A lot of people think of Stephanie Miller as political comedy, more than political commentary, and in spite of everything that is happening, she has kept up the ability to laugh at things, when appropriate, and when that is the way to handle something that just can't be handled any other way.  In addition to telling the truth, and putting things in their exact and correct perspective, she brings a measure of sanity and lightheartedness to what is becoming a really bad time.  Every day that I turn the radio on, and hear her show start up on my way to work, is a day of assurance that free speech still exists and I know I am going to hear something I need to hear to get through the rest of the day.  

Thom Hartmann is a serious commentator who doesn't soft-pedal the bad news and who, through the wide variety of people who call in and comment on his program, tells it like it is.  It's bad news, here's exactly what is happening, no exaggeration, that's the way it is, and here is what we can realistically do about it.  If some of our political leadership on the left had taken seriously the comments they've heard him make, along with the backing of those in his audience who are the people out here in that experience, they might actually be taking a few more risks to protect what we have before we do lose it all.  There are those with the power to take this away from us, and they are doing it, and knowing that should be motivation to take the steps we need to take to stop it.  Thom's not afraid to let people say what's on their mind, and from that, understand there are possibilities and we have hope. 

When my alarm goes off at 6:00 a.m., the radio stays on and tuned in to Richard Chew on Chicago's WCPT talk radio.  Richard is another commentator, a local guy, who also tells it like it is, doesn't mince words, and is bold enough to let us know that facing down fascism is not only possible, but necessary, and it can work.  I think one of the most empowering things we have, as opposition to the Trumpism that is destroying everything that is American freedom, is the experience that black Americans have had in fighting against white supremacy.  That kind of bigotry is a core element of the MAGA movement and of the Heritage Foundation brand of Christian nationalism.  That's a strength that I believe will prove to be neccessary in any successful elimination of MAGA extremism from this country.  

We are fortunate, in Illinois, to have a state legislature that insulates us from a lot of MAGA craziness, and a governor in J. B. Pritzker who is one of the few politicians, along with California governor Gavin Newsom, that have the boldness and are willing to take the risks to stand up to Trump and his fully incompetent administration.  Politics being what it is, they are, of course, open to allegations that what they are doing is politically motivated by personal ambition, rather than patriotism.  But the fact of the matter is that defending everything that this country once stood for is risky, when it comes to politics, and if their motivation was only because of personal ambition, they would not be taking the political risks, and in fact, the potential risks to their own personal safety and that of their families, if they were only concerned about advancing their own political career.  They're both wealthy enough to live comfortably otherwise, and not bother with it if it didn't mean something more to them.  

Where we need the coordinated effort is in Democratic party congressional leadership.  Frankly, being resigned to being in the minority combined with "we can't do anything about it" is not a strategy that is going to work to save this country.  It's election season as usual, with appeals to give money, give more money, and give some more money to my campaign.  Well, let me tell you, as a Democratic party voter, my small, but regular monthly giving has been redirected to a few places where it seems to be more effective in combatting the real danger at hand than in simply supporting the old status quo.  David Hogg and Leaders We Deserve is a worthy political cause as far as I'm concerned.  And Bernie Sanders, who has seen what this is and has been fighting it as long as anyone is also getting part of my small monthly gift.  

Take a look at what the people I've mentioned here are saying, every single day.  They are telling it like it is, and they have the facts to support what they're saying.  This is what the American free press now looks like.  This is who is actually defending American Constitutional Democracy against the demagogue in the White House.  

James Dobson, Republican Political Organizer and Activist, and Psychologist, Dead at 89

James Dobson, the child psychologist whose book and media business led to the founding of Focus on the Family, has died at the age of 89.  On the surface, the business he built, advocating for parents to use authoritarian force-feeding methods which he claimed were supported by principles of the Christian gospel, to control behavior and instill values in their children, looks like many other para-church ministries that derive their income from contributions of Christians and the sale of their over-priced products.  But the manner in which Focus on the Family operated, and used its influence and its reach into American media, identifies it more clearly as a political action committee, an organization aimed at recruiting members and raising money for Republican party candidates who claimed to be supporting the "family values" agenda pushed by Dobson.  

No doubt, he was, and will remain, an icon within conservative Evangelicalism, at least among those who have been radicalized to turn their faith into a political weapon.  His methods were controversial among professionals in the field of psychology.  He brought in a segment of the population that heard from the pulpit of their church on most Sundays that modern psychology was not to be trusted, because it "subverted the word of God," and is based on principles discerned from scientific research, and from successes in dealing with psychological disabilities and the emotional issues that come from them.  

Like most other para-church ministries which rely on faulty conservative Evangelical theology and doctrine when it comes to accurately interpreting and applying what is found in the Bible, usually distoring its historical context or missing it altogether while wandering frequently over into the Old Testament world to retrieve principles and conclusions which Jesus completely re-interpreted in the context of the Christian gospel, Dobson's model was not consistent with the core principles of Christianity.  

Driven by Politics Rather Than Christian Theology and Principle

Dobson used his influence and his following to promote Republican party politics.  That this was the main point of Focus on the Family is difficult to challenge, given the amount of time and money that this pseudo-Christian ministry spent on supporting Republican party candidates for office on some nebulous "family values" platform.  When it came to "family values," many of the candidates Dobson supported, and used his influence to help his own cause were hypocrites, since their behavior was anything but consistent with any kind of definition of "family values," especially not the high moral standards of Christian faith and practice.  

It is support for Trump that exposes the hypocrisy of Dobson, and of everyone who tried to associate the GOP with "family values."  Trump's moral bankruptcy is shocking even to a completely secular worldview.  The total lack of a conscience, and the open rejection of basic Christian theology, especially with regard to the Christian conversion experience, which Trump vehemently denies as being necessary to his own faith, should be appalling to serious Christians.  Supporting Trump and his politics is mutually exclusive of true Christian faith and practice.  It is not possible to be both Christian and MAGA.  

And that certainly defines the ministry, and the legacy of James Dobson.  

Democrats Who "Get It"

The Republican party abandoned commitment to the will of the people, compromise, integrity and trust as a way of conducting itself as a political party during the Reagan administration.  Pushed onward by its own media outlets, and commentators like Rush Limbaugh, the Republicans have consistently been trying to make government fail for more than four decades.  They have taken advantage of Democrats who still believe in those old tools of Democracy.  The comparison has been made that this is like Democrats bringing a knife to a gunfight.  That's about the size of it.  

So last week, after Gavin Newsom made a blistering post that mocked Trump, calling him out for his hipocrisy in pushing for congressional seats by gerrymandering in Texas, which amounts to breaking the law if the Constitution still is the law, Scott Jennings, conservative Kentucky columnist and close political operative who helped Mitch McConnell carve out his dynasty, got all twisted up over the fact that Newsom proposed to do the same thing.  It seems that Jennings thinks it is perfectly fine, and expected, for a hard core conservative like Greg Abbott, to push for gerrymandering congressional seats in Texas but it is a political scheme when Newsom decides to do the same thing?  

Newsom gets it.  And when Democrats wake up and take action that doesn't follow their normal adherence to decorum and politeness, and they call things like they see them, it makes Republicans angry, and they don't know exactly how to handle Democrats who fight back.  Newsom's mocking criticisms of Trump, which nail his character flaws, dishonesty and his incessant, pathological lying, are outside the boundaries of political decorum.  

So what?  Trump's are too. 

Trump does things that are, from a political perspective, unethical, devious, and sometimes unconstitutional and illegal, except for the fact that he gets a pass from a judge here and there in the court system who he appointed and who operate under the corrupt impression that their primary responsibility is to return the favor, rather than uphold the law.  So he gets away with it.  

So, if that's the way it is, then there shouldn't be a problem with Newsom doing it too.  All's fair, right? 

Maybe Newsom is motivated by a possible run for President, maybe he's just frustrated with the way politics are going, and I really couldn't care less.  After seeing Democrats in Washington retreat behind their fences, to protect their own turf, make sure they get their paychecks and pensions, and taking the approach of hunkering down and seeing if they can survive the next three years, I prefer Newsom's approach.  If they're protecting their turf, then they're not looking out for my interests.  So I'll ignore the fundraising appeals, and put my money where it might actually do some good. 

And I would suggest that the turf protectors look around.  I'm not alone, by any means.  There are millions of voters just like me, frustrated to no end by political passivity that has opened the door to a second Trump presidency which was fully and completely preventable.  We can see the Democrats who "get it."  

The Texas Legislature's Democratic Party Delegation

Talk about taking bold, but risky political moves, the Texas Democrats who fled the state and took refuge in Illinois, Massachussetts and New York in order to break quorum and prevent Republicans from passing legislation to gerrymander the state really earned that reputation.  If these people had been serving all of us in Washington, back in 2020, when we had majorities in both houses, we would have been able to pack the court, overturning Citizens United, the ridiculous Presidential immunity ruling, restored Roe and set the country back on the track where judges serve as court officers, not as legislators. 

This group has probably done more for Democratic party morale than anyone else since Trump took office for the second time.  It's the kind of act of defiance that convinces people of the seriousness of the wrong being done by the other side.  And it works.  There is nothing illegal, in Texas law, about breaking a quorum, a procedural rule that can be used exactly this way, and would have been at some point by Republicans if they had been facing a similar situation.  They've done worse, in Texas.  

These Democrats get it.

David Hogg and "Leaders We Deserve"

I had high hopes for the DNC when they chose David Hogg as assistant chair.  But it sure didn't take long for the establishment to get rattled by someone who was willing to be bold and take some risks in order to win elections and get things done.  That's apparently not the M.O. of the DNC, which seems to be stuck in the trend of rewarding longevity and propping up the old line status quo.  How dare some younger person who hasn't been a fixture and a name in Congress come along with ideas to win elections that actually work!  

My enthisiasm over the moribund DNC was short lived.  Ken Martin, an establishment guy who wants to pander to the establishment, managed to find a way to push Hogg out.  But that's probably best for everyone involved, especially Hogg who will no longer be dragged down by the albatross of the DNC.  He'll get more done on his own, while they continue to push papers and twiddle their thumbs and remain irrelevant. 

David Hogg gets it. 

Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio Cortex and "Fighting Oligarchs" 

These are two Democrats who have always "got it."  Call them populists, Democratic Socialists, or liberals, it doesn't matter.  They have a realistic view of politics, they understand the opposition and the social agenda that it pushes, and they can see where that wouldn't be to the advantage of the American people, so they are bold in their actions, which are risky.  I'd say the foot traffic to their rallies is evidence of the popularity of their views among working class Americans, since that's who they are talking to, and for whom they are advocating.  

I'd vote for either one of them, for any office on my ballot.  As much as I like Hillary Clinton, I'm sorry, in some ways, that Bernie didn't win that nomination.  We'd never have had a Trump Presidency if that had been the case.  

Bernie sure knows the oligarchs.  Perhaps one of the least accomplished, dullest, useless members of the Senate is West Virginia Senator Shelley Moore Capito.  She is the daughter of a former Republican governor, Arch Moore, and she has nothing in common with the people of West Virginia who elected her except that she was born in West Virginia.  She got her education at an elite private school, Holton-Arms, in Bethesda, Maryland, and her college degrees from Duke and the University of Virginia, along with being a member of the elite Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority. 

Bernie recently held a jam-packed rally in Wheeling, West Virginia, appearing with the loud, rude, bold, risk-taking Senate candidate Zach Shrewsbury, a marine corp veteran from a coal mining family, who represents real West Virginians.  This is a long shot for sure, but Bernie is popular in West Virginia, ironically, and Moore-Capito has been an absolute zero on issues that have affected West Virginians recently, including the loss of medical care and hospital closings in rural counties, and she backs Trump, who has basically turned his back on the coal mining industry.  

Bernie gets it.  So does Zach Shrewsbury.  He's laying it on the line and has nothing to lose. 

I don't think I can recall anyone being mentioned as a potential Presidential candidate, or running mate, as young as Ocasio-Cortez.  But these are different times.  Conventional wisdom would suggest she pair up with some establishment candidate and take it from there, but I'm not so sure that an establishment candidate gets us where we want to go.  Then, there's the speculation that being a woman was the one thing that created just enough of a narrow window to defeat Kamala Harris, so Ocasio-Cortez has the same problem.  I'm not buying that.  

AOCs record shows us she's a thinker when it comes to politics.  There are ideals and a political position, far to the left by American standards, which she represents.  But she understands how government works, and she understands that she is a representative of those who elected her, not the other way around. She represents one of the most economically, socially and ethnically diverse districts in the country.  It's the communication that's important, she knows how to talk to people and convince them she's listening to them.  That's a gift.  

Her presence, "Fighting Oligarchs," is what the younger voters want to see.  They're not interested in the protocols or in keeping the status quo.  She gets it. 

Sometimes, I Wonder if They Get Me?  

I'm a long time Democrat.  I cast my first Presidential ballot for Jimmy Carter in 1976.  I've been a contributor since 1980, and I've served as a delegate to county and state conventions, and to three national Democratic conventions, where I proudly cast my ballot for Michael Dukakis, and Bill Clinton twice.  

We are in a Constitutional crisis that is getting worse with every day that goes by.  We have a weak minded, demented, morally bankrupt, corrupt, grifter in the White House who has no ability to be President of this country, and who is using this office for his own benefit. It's not just his bad politics that are destroying the country, it is his incompetence in dealing with the day to day duties of his office that are killing it.  

Unfortunately, looking ahead to the future , we should be able to see that we cannot endure until there is a chance to make a change at the ballot box.  This man is engineering the means to steal elections, and it is likely that he already has done so.  He led an insurrection against the Capitol, an act of sedition, that has gone unpunished, and he pardoned the other conspirators and perpetrators.  He stole classified documents from the White House and its hard to tell what he did with them.  He's unfit to be President.  

The Democratic party establishment had the means to keep him from ever being elected again.  But the attorney general that President Biden selected wasn't even competent enough to get this guy into court one time.  There was never any real pressure applied, and we couldn't get anything effective done in this regard even when we had control of both houses of Congress, because he didn't want the situation to look too political.  

That's where you lost me. 

Don't worry.  I'm not voting Republican.  I'm just not voting for, or financially supporting, any Democrats who were part of that status quo crowd back in 2020 who wouldn't break the filibuster to let Biden pack the Supreme Court to make sure Trump paid for his crimes, and that Citizens United was overturned.  Oh, yeah, and we would get Roe back. 

I'm not voting for or financially supporting any Democrat I see who isn't getting behind resistance to Trump and taking some real steps to raise the level of pressure to force some Republicans, as impossible as it may seem, toward impeaching and removing Trump from office, now, not later on.  Marching and speaking at protests is nice.  Actually taking a risk and doing something bold would be remarkable for an American policician these days. 

We need to get rid of Trump, legally, legitimately, quickly.