Can the Media's Hype of the 2024 Election Be Taken Seriously?

The coverage of the election of 2024 is a sensational drama, being played out between internet podcasts and information sources and the business of 24 hour network news cycles.  Developments and scoops occur on an almost hourly basis, with banners running across the bottom of screens.  Whatever theme that seems to be attracting attention that day gets repeated at the top of every hour and the beginning of every change of program.  On one side, different commentators and consultants try to outdo the other channel's coverage while on the other side, the whole emphasis is different because the viewership is not able to handle balance or fairness, and everything is biased to their perspective.  

The impression that we are given is of a close rerun of the 2020 election, polls shifting back and forth as the GOP makes it clear Trump will be renominated, and the Democrats go with Biden.  Trumpies are planning violence at their candidates insistence that he's not being treated fairly, third party candidates and independents are being given a huge share of media time, far beyond what their support warrants, and the fact that the GOP's presumptive nominee faces 88 indictments and is now on trial, giving all kinds of fodder to the sensationalism.  

But, is that a realistic perspective of what's actually happening?  

My own observations, based on past experience, on having watched politics for a long time, and on a stretch of having taught it, among other social studies subjects, leads me to make the observation that things are probably not quite the way the news media makes them seem.  I've thought, from the very beginning, that the polling data is not accurately reflecting the way people plan to vote, something that has been effectively confirmed in the primary elections held so far, where pollsters are scratching their heads trying to figure out, or cover up quickly, how they have missed the mark, in some cases very badly.  

I'm OK putting my view out there, and allowing it to be evaluated by the results on election day.  There are, of course, variables and factors for which I have no way to account, but that's OK.  I think I'm pretty close, and I can explain why I think so.  If I'm wrong, I'll say so.  It's on the record here.  

Enthusiasm for Trump is Clearly Down

In every possible way voter enthusiasm can be measured, it's clear that enthusiasm among Republicans for Trump's candidacy is way down.  Whether it is the anecdotal evidence observing that his rallies aren't drawing the crowds they did in 2020, or that along stretches of roadway in "Trump country" that were littered with his banners, flags and yard signs in places like Southern Wisconsin or Western Michigan at this point in the 2020 election cycle are virtually empty of evidence he's even running, it's clear from the GOP primaries that a significant segment of Republicans aren't supporting him, continue to not support him even after all his opponents have dropped out, and are planning not to support him in November.  That's showing up in primary elections everywhere. 

Even in the face of protest votes being organized by those who are protesting Israel's attack on Gaza, Biden's showing among Democratic voters is much more enthusiastic.  The numbers are holding in spite of the fact that he's the presumptive nominee.  The differences, from 20% to 25% in most places, are pretty obvious, baffling pollsters who use their news media flunkies to try and defend their polls and downplay their mistakes.  Voter enthusiasm is a big factor in polls predicting election outcomes and that may explain why there's been a shift in the data lately.  

Republican voters are telling the pollsters they're not supporting Trump, they want someone else, and they'll not vote for him even if he is the nominee, if he has been convicted.  I don't expect a lot of honesty here until we get close enough to the election that it will look like a mistake if they get it wrong.  Trump cannot afford to lose 10% of the GOP vote, out of the more than 30% he has lost across the primary season.  The media pays a whole lot more attention to the much smaller percentage of Democrats, basically fewer than 10%, who are protesting by voting "uncommitted."  The other announced candidates together aren't getting enough votes to swing the percentages.  

Do a couple of drives across Trump country, in the absence of yard signs, banners or flags, mean a lack of enthusiasm of support for Trump?  

I made a couple of drives across the southern part of Wisconsin in 2020, in late spring, and noticed Trump signs, banners and flags along the way.  There were Biden banners and signs too, but the Trump signs were proportionate to the support he got in those counties.  I made that same drive, Kenosha to Madison, two weeks ago, and there's nothing.  I didn't see one sign, banner or flag for Trump, though I did see several Biden-Harris signs, and a scattering of bumper stickers.  Nor did I see any Trump evidence along the roads in western Michigan, when I spent a couple of days there during the early part of last week.  The Biden campaign is running ads on local television, during the local news.  From Trump, nothing.  

And I think there's a media bias against Biden that's deliberately avoiding factoring in the enthusiasm that is showing up among Democratic party voters who, in spite of the foregone conclusion of his nomination, are still turning out strong.  The uncommitted vote notwithstanding, his percentages and numbers are significantly better than Trump's.  There are over forty polls feeding data into the various composites, and while they're all over the place, a fact that legitimately questions their accuracy, the Democratic party has, during the Biden administration, finished an unprecedented mid-term election performance and has won the most impressive string of off-year and special elections since well before the turn of this century.  

The Media Misses a Lot of Potential Coverage

Joe Biden is the President of the United States.  Donald Trump is a former President with a record of mostly failure and incompetence during the four years he spent in office.  But he's a social media celebrity, an invention of his own worldly image.  And the current crop of reporters and news media commentators, raised on social media with a phone in their hand at all times, don't know how to cover the Presidency.  So Trump, who does the most ridiculous and outlandish things, and makes the most controversial, and idiotic remarks gets almost all the attention.  

If Biden got the kind of coverage from the mainstream media, forced to report on everything he has accomplished as President, and appeared on television in sensational reports as often as Trump, he'd have buried his opponent in despair by now.  Contrasted with the previous administration, which achieved very little in terms of beneficial legislation, and whose policies wound up creating high unemployment, high inflation, supply chain problems and kicked the can down the road on its tax increases for the middle class to fund the tax cuts it created for the wealthiest of the wealthy, the Biden Administration, left to resolve those problems, not only did that, but got some major initiatives of its own through Congress. 

But where's the reporting been on those achievements?  We know as much about Biden's age, his speech impediment and his personal health, as we have known about any President's, mostly in a way intended to be critical and damaging.  But how much do we know about all of the infrastructure repair, which I see in multiple places every day, noted by signs showing how much of the money for the project is being paid for by federal dollars, or about how he resolved supply chain problems, or about how his economic policies have dealt with the inevitable inflation caused by a booming economy flush with paycheck dollars from workers who are being paid a living wage and who are on the job?  

What we know is everything that happened along every step that Trump took on his way to the courthouse.  We know about every derogatory and disparaging statement he has made about judges, attorneys, their families, and their social media posts. We know when he tweets idiocy in the middle of the night on his failing social media network.  We know when he falls asleep in the courtroom and when he passes gas.  And while the more we know, the more disgusted we should be with this man who has nothing but contempt for people who aren't like him or aren't loyal to him, and that he thinks his followers must be the world's stupidest people, it's not like any of this is worth the space it takes up or the time it takes to read it.  

I'd rather hear from Joe.  

And that's why I have serious doubts that much of anything we're hearing is worth listening to.  

What I Think We're Going to Find Out

I have little hope that Trump will ever be held accountable for any of the massive crimes he has committed, including sedition and inciting an insurrection against the United States.  If that decision had been left up to me, and to most of the rest of the American people, he'd have been in jail for about two and a half years now, with no hope of ever seeing the outside again.  But justice in this country never interferes with the lifestyle of people like that.  They get away with everything, and so will he.  

What I do think will happen is that President Biden will comfortably win the 2024 election.  He'll carry all the same states he did in 2020, expanding his margins of victory in Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin and Michigan, he'll pick up North Carolina and Florida, and has a good chance of adding Ohio.  He'll get a Democratic House of Representatives by a comfortable margin and he'll have a senate in which he won't have to worry about the whims and whines of Joe Manchin or Kristen Sinema.  

I don't think that's just wishful thinking.  I think that's a fairly accurate analysis, based on doing some digging, applying logic and listening to the few independent media sources who seem to be on the ball when it comes to finding out what is really happening.  It seems, by observation, that Trump has lost more than he can afford to lose from his party, whether their current, out of touch leadership is willing to admit that or not.  He already lost independent voters, and isn't doing anything to get them back.  His campaign of retribution and vengeance is even turning off some notable conservative, Evangelical support.  He has to increase his base to win, not decrease it, and with the electoral college relic still a factor, he has no place to go to make things any different than they were in 2020.  

And no, those who are protesting the war in Gaza will not turn to Trump when they don't think they're getting their way with Biden.  There might be a few of them who will, out of frustration, say something like that, which sensation-seeking reporters love to report.  But most of them are intelligent enough to know that if Trump gets in there, their own lives will be in danger in this country, and Gaza's and the West Bank's Palestinian population doesn't stand a chance.  

So be smart.  Ignore the mainstream media's attempts at ratings.  Dig out the truth and watch what happens.   

 

Right Wing Trumpism is a Denial of the Christian Gospel

 "I am your retribution."  

These words have become one of the main themes of Trump's campaign for the Presidency in the 2024 election.  He is clearly running, not for the benefit of any group of Americans, including his own base, but to use the power of the Presidency to avoid prison for crimes he has committed, and to get revenge against those who crossed him during his four years in office and who assisted in his losing the election in 2020, something his lack of character and a good dose of psychosis won't allow him to admit.

That's a novel approach to a political campaign.  It offers nothing, really, to those who support and follow him, because it's not about them, its about him.  Does he really have the kind of contempt for what appears to be a shrinking base that keeps cheering these ridiculous remarks at his rallies?  Because that's what it looks like.  Is it just political rhetoric to get votes?  Or is it really the trauma of an electoral defeat in 2020 that fractured his ego and drove him to commit sedition and incite an insurrection against "We the people," empowered by the Constitution?  

It is Taking His Evangelical Christian Supporters Into Heresy and Apostasy 

Far right wing politics has gathered a lot of support from among the white, conservative, Evangelical branch of American Christianity for a long time.  What that support has become during the Trump campaigns is taking many of those Christians and their churches down a path to the complete destruction of their biblical mission and purpose, leading them to a doctrinal heresy that is separating them from the core values and doctrines of the Christian gospel, and causing them to deny Jesus, the Christ, an apostasy beyond imagination.  

There's been a lot of debate, among this white, Evangelical constituency, of the "lesser of two evil" choice in Presidential elections for quite a while now, with a very singular definition of "evil" being applied to candidates who support abortion rights.  It's been more difficult to bring in support for the recognition of constitutional rights for those of differing sexual orientation or gender identity, since there is a sizeable segment of the Republican party that doesn't see how denial of those rights accomplishes anything when it comes to their long since abandoned "family values" rhetoric, but generally, that's been the standard they've used to justify voting for candidates who don't always reflect their lifestyle or their theology.  

At one point, the personal lifestyles of political candidates were at the top of the list of evidence that the Democrats they didn't want to support were the greater evil.  They used the example of former President Clinton until it lost meaning, and until some of their own favored GOP politicians turned out to be just as scandal prone.  The man who led the push-back against Clinton, under the "family values" theme of "Contract with America," Newt Gingrich, turned out to be just as morally bankrupt and selfish as they claimed Clinton was.  So the "greater evil" has, for the most part, always been the push for support for the pro-choice position, when the GOP's own fallen politicians turned out to be worse than Bill.

Then There is Trump

Some of the same critics of Clinton who emphatically declared that Christians who supported him were denying their own claims to the faith are now some of the more visible, vocal supporters of Trump.  There's really no distinction made anywhere in biblical doctrine that defines evil in greater or lesser terms, but there's little comparison between Bill Clinton and Donald Trump when it comes to worldliness and moral bankruptcy.  Clinton has been repentant, personally and from a Christian perspective, and even though his critics downplay it, belittle it or flat out ignore it, he has also made restitution that is a demonstration of his sincerity, and acknowledged his faults.  

Trump has openly and repeatedly denied his need for any kind of repentance from the womanizing and worldly behavior that he has made his identifying brand, and has made the denials directly to some of the Evangelical "leaders" who support him and desperately want to claim he's been converted.  So, since they can't really do that, they give him a pass, risking their credibility every time he says or does something that demonstrates his lack of a genuine Christian conversion experience, including his open denials of the Christian gospel and of Jesus Christ himself.  

"I have my own idea of God," and "I've never done anything that I need to ask God to forgive," are among his many statements that, when measured by the biblically recorded Christian gospel, are open denials of being Christian that a six year old in a Baptist Sunday School class can recognize as being anti-Christian.  

"I am your retribution," is an open denial of one of the basic principles of the Christian gospel, one of the core doctrines at the heart of both Christian conversion and evangelism.  

"But I say to you who listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.  If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from anyone who takes away your coat, do not withold even your shirt.  Give to everyone who begs from you and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again.  Do to others as you would have them do to you."  Luke 6:27-31, NRSV. 

This same teaching is also found in Matthew's gospel.  And where does "I am your retribution" fit anywhere into that?  

There are many principles found in the biblical record that are not easily discerned when it comes to their place in the individual practice of Christian faith, in spite of the fact that American Christianity, including conservative Evangelicals, have an abundance of pastors, Bible colleges, theological seminaries, and divinity schools who think they've found the answers others haven't, and fight with each other over who really professes truth and practices true faith.  This is one of the more difficult principles to accept, though Jesus makes it very easy to discern and understand, because it goes completely against human nature, and it's not visible among the warring factions and sects of the American church.  Many Christians find it difficult to love each other, much less love their enemies and if, according to Jesus, they're not even able to do that, it's no wonder they think an antichrist is a better political candidate than a sincere Catholic.  

But, to make it perfectly clear, Jesus didn't make any exceptions to this principle.  It's as clear as every other core principle which makes up the body of the Christian gospel, the new covenant in Christ.  So, from a Christian perspective, when a politician says, "I am your retribution," it means that those who think he is are following him, and not following Jesus.  

Christian Supporters of Trump Must Pick Up and Carry His Baggage

So, be honest.  If Trump is a Christian's retribution, then that Christian has failed to acknowledge and practice this basic, core principle of his or her faith.  And it means that all of the other evil that goes along with Trump, his adulterous affairs, his pathological lying, his cheating, the hatred and vitriol he spews against those he perceives as disloyal to him, also belongs to those who support him and accept this rhetoric.  There's no way around it.  And there's no Christian theological or doctrinal argument that can be made from biblical evidence to support this position.  

Jesus told his disciples and followers, "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me."  So, in Christian practice, following Trump as retribution is denying Christ as redemption.  And it is not taking up a cross, it is taking up the adulterous affairs, greed that perpetrates dishonesty in business dealings, pathological lying, and all of the worldly evil that Trump claims as his identity.  

The support this man receives as a candidate for this nation's highest office is evidence that many conservative Evangelicals are no longer sincere Christians, if they ever were, but in believing what amounts to heresy, are in a state of apostasy.  

It's Time to Pack the Supreme Court

The political nature of the Supreme Court is telling us that the time has come for the Democrats in the Senate to pack the court with justices who are committed to the rule of law.   Impeachment and removal of corrupt and incompetent justices like Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Neal Gorsuch is the best way to go, but with the sharp partisan wall that now exists in Congress, getting a two thirds majority would require Republicans voting with integrity instead of by their politically driven opinion, and there aren't enough Republicans with integrity left, if any at all, for that to happen.  

So, packing the court with more justices, by amending the Judiciary act, is the only recourse.  

Democrats Must Have the Political Stamina and Strength

It may take some pressure from constituents to get it done, and it will take some boldness on the part of Senate Democrats but it must happen.  To get the act amended will take using the very narrow senate majority to break the filibuster and then to appoint the judges who will change the course of the court.  It must be done.  Where the weak links are located, and we pretty much know who those people are, pressure needs to be applied to make sure they get on board and vote with the rest of the Democratic party.  

Everyone in Congress clearly has a price.  Find out what it is for those who are needed to move this forward and make it happen.  This is one of those times when the President and the Vice-President can use their bully pulpit and make something happen.  I don't know that they will, both have been in the Senate and both seem reluctant to change its outdated way of doing business.  But those old majority plus rules are just a disadvantage for Democrats now.  Republicans, if they were in charge and wanted this, would do it in a heartbeat.  So why not?  

This is also a place where the President can make some strides in gaining support among progressives in his own party.  There's not a better way to ensure progressive influence for a generation to come than to nominate judges for the federal bench committed to that particular perspective.

Can It Be Done?

Yes.  

The Senate must break the filibuster first, which will allow for majority votes to pass legislation, not two thirds.  Then, it must amend the Judiciary Act to increase the number of seats provided for on the court.  Once the filibuster is broken, it only needs a majority vote to do so.  This means that Sinema or Manchin must be convinced to get on board, so that the VP can cast the deciding vote.  

Once amended, the President can appoint judges to fill the vacant seats.  We hope those would be liberal, left leaning, progressive and young.  The Supreme Court cannot stop the process.  

The key is for Democrats to gain, and keep a majority in both houses of Congress in order to keep a future Republican congress from doing the same thing.  So the other question that must be asked is whether the risk is worth it.  And whether the current Democratic leadership, including President Biden, is willing to see this move forward and push it.    

Is It Worth the Risk Taken to do This?

The only requirement, after the legislation is amended, is for the President to make the appointments, at least, that's all the Constitution requires.  The hearings in Congress are just to campaign for their vote.  But if we know the outcome of this in advance, we can dispense with the debate and move right on to the appointment.  We need enough judges to over-ride a conservative majority and neutralize their shenanigans, ruling on the law instead of with political bias.  They need to be young enough to be around for a while.  And they need to have a record indicating that they are willing to make bold rulings that benefit the American people over narrow, self-interests.  

The risk is that down the road, inevitably, there will be another President who wants to buttress his political perspective with the court's power, so another political court made up of a majority of Republicans could come along.  And the fact that taking this risk is now part of the discussion may be an indication that public opinion is beginning to think the Supreme Court cannot be reformed and cannot ever again be an objective body.  On the other hand, this could be a dash through the flames, something necessary to stop a fascist oligarchy from taking hold, and once the country comes back to its senses, it won't be necessary.  

Will we ever come back to our senses?  You tell me.

In a legal system, justice system and government that is committed to cumbersome procedures which make it difficult to do anything quickly, this can be done fast enough to stop the current chaos and confusion of the Roberts court, and save the rule of law before this court destroys it.  With the vote of Vice-President Harris there if necessary, this could be done in a matter of a month or so.  Whether it will be, or whether it would even be considered, is uncertain.  I'm just adding this voice to those who are now calling for it to happen.  

Visionary leadership requires taking bold, courageous steps to make things happen which sometimes result in saving the country from disaster.  And this is one of those steps.  

If the three Trump appointees were really interested in preserving the court's integrity, and in enforcing the rule of law, they would have recused themselves from this case.  The fact that they haven't completely discredits them as attorneys and judges.

A Values-Focused Faith Produces a Plan for Israeli-Palestinian Peace

Quakers Propose Israeli-Palestinian Peace Plan 

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God.  Matthew 5:9

The biggest difference between Quakers and conservative Evangelicals is in how they live by their faith.  Evangelicals tend to be doctrinal purists, and, in spite of vehement denial, focus their belief in Christian conversion on getting all the details of a convoluted, twisted set of doctrinal standards and theological beliefs right.  Then that leads to God's acceptance and forgiveness.  

The Quakers, on the other hand, leave doctrine and theology up to the individual Christian.  They believe conversion is the spiritual connection that occurs when "that of God within," that part of human existence that is created in God's image, connects with the spirit of God, uniting the believer with both God, and with others who believe.  And that leads to a faith that is focused, not on "getting it right," but on living by a visible set of values, found in the Christian gospel, which define one's life, and which give it mission, purpose that includes valuing, caring about and loving all other people as fellow human beings created in the image of God, and making human existence better.  

The core values defined by Quakers are derived from the same biblical text Evangelicals claim to believe.  These values, which, when lived out, define one as Christian according to Quaker doctrine, and include simplicity, peace, integrity, community, equality and stewardship.  It's easy enough to find several Quaker sources that will define and explain those values.  But I want to focus on the values Quakers are bringing into this particular discussion of resolving the long, ongoing conflict in the Middle East, caused by opening up Palestine to Jewish immigration following World War 2 and the Holocaust.  Personally, I think what they have to offer here is not only worth considering and implementing, but I think it has the potential to work, provided a similar set of values is instilled within, and observed by those who are directly involved.  

It's Time to Set Aside Those Whose Rhetoric Ends in Violent Failure, and Listen to Those Who Have Experience and Success in the Application of Peace, Equality and Justice

"For centuries, Quakers have worked for peace," according to the April 12th article by the American Friends Service Committee.  "This mission is a practical expression of the nonviolent message of the gospels, 'Love your neighbor as yourself''."

It's not like this is some outside group making a political statement on the Israel-Gaza war.  The Quakers are there, starting refugee work in Gaza in 1949, and are still there, along with the West Bank and in Israel.  They've operated a school in Ramallah for 150 years, which, according to the AFSC, was one of the first educational institutions to provide education for Palestinian women, and have a meeting house in Ramallah as well.  So, the AFSC, as a Quaker voice, have first-hand knowledge of of the entrenched inequality, violence and injustice that has persisted in Palestine for decades.  According to the committee, they have known that violence would eventually result from desperation, and have been there every time it has, with relief, and with the application of the values of equality, peace and justice.  

You could say that, when it comes to the Middle East, Quakers are "woke."  And that's a good thing, because the hatred and violence that is advocated by those who are critical of, and opposed to this kind of societal wokeness only makes the problems worse.  Being woke is the only hope there is to resolving them and to bringing peace.  

So the Quakers are speaking with first hand knowledge, from a position that has a foundation undergirded by real values that are actually practiced, and not just talked about, and from the experience of having actually helped to bring about peace, equality and justice in those places where they've been able to minister and apply the resources available to them.  They speak with authority.  And instead of listening to those whose vision for both Israel and the Palestinian people always end in violence and have failed over and over, maybe it is time to listen to those who actually value peace, equality, and justice, and have the integrity to be consistent in their application.  

The Quaker Peace Plan Will Work, But it Will Take Commitment, Time, Resources and Integrity

So what's different about what the Quakers are proposing that gives this the potential for success? 

First of all, there is recognition and acknowledgement that the situation which has been created has produced violence from both sides of the conflict.  It's not just the immediate situation, prompted by the October 7th attack on Israel, that is at the core of the violence which is taking place.  Problems caused in a place where three different religions have a focus on the "sacredness" and importance of the geographic location go back to even before the time when the restrictions on Jewish immigration were set aside and the state of Israel was established.  This solution addresses the root causes, and it is based on a very honest assessment of those causes, rather than on the typical finger pointing and the political and religious bias that contributes to the violence and hatred.  

Second, this plan includes neutralizing the religious and political bias that is at the heart of Middle Eastern terrorism and violence.  It will take the empowerment of leadership committed to doing this to make it work.  There is a clear recognition in the plan that identifies those who have the power to make this plan work, and what they must do in order to achieve this, including the Israeli government, Hamas and other armed Palestinian groups, and the governments of the Western Allies.  Rather than attempts to de-legitimize each other, blame each other or get some kind of advantage, this plan assigns equal responsibility for using the power they have to make things happen.  The research they've done on how possible it is for each of those groups to do what they are required to do is remarkable.  

A Lot to Ask

This plan is not advocating for a cheap, easy peace.  There is a recognition of sacrifice required from all parties.  Hamas, and other Palestinian militant groups born out of the tangle of Middle Eastern politics, must deny their own nature, and hold those who have committed human rights violations, or who broke the law, accountable.  This means they must take responsibility for the October 7th attack by bringing those responsible to justice.  That's a gigantic ask, but a necessary one if peace is to be achieved.  

Likewise, Israel must release Palestinian political prisoners, and it must recognize independent, autonomous Palestinian territory, which means giving up settlements in the West Bank and extending full civil rights to all Palestinians who are in its own territory.  The Western Allies, specifically the United States and the United Kingdom, must assume responsibility for backing these policies, treating Palestinians and Israelis equally, supporting and helping enforce the ICJ restrictions on Israel and basically guaranteeing the original two-state solution.  

I would add to this that it means a full denial of mistaken, errant Evangelical eschatology which basically states the belief that Israel is entitled to all the land and the Palestinians should be run off, because they're not entitled to it, even though they've lived there for thousands of years. This belief is based on some convoluted, false connections between the Old Testament covenant, the book of Daniel in the Old Testament and the book of Revelation.  It's pretty clear that this misinterpretation of biblical prophecy is neither accurate, nor is it "infallible," because it has helped produce violence and hatred, and has contributed to a problem rather than resolving it.  That's clear evidence, from any Evangelical perspective, that it's not God's will. 

Eliminating the Profiteering on War and Destruction 

One of the points made by the AFSC, as part of the direct and immediate action taken by the Quakers themselves is to "Divest from corporations profiting from militarism, including the occupation of Palestine."  

By including this particular statement in their overall plan, the Quakers have identified one of the root causes of war in the world today.  Someone benefits from this, through the sale of arms and equipment required to wage war.  They have a vested interest in keeping this war going and they have placed a lower value on the life of some human beings than they have placed on the dollar amount in their bank account.  To get to that point in one's thinking requires the complete abandonment of any values, and shutting down the cash flow is not only an action advocating for peace, but one of the quickest ways to get there.  If the warring parties only have enough weapons to defend themselves, and not enough to wage an aggressive war, the fighting would end long before anyone has to come around to a more peaceful way of thinking.

Protesting United States aid to Israel is not equal to undermining the existence of Israel.  As surely as Iran and Russia have helped provide weapons for aggression to Hamas, what the United States provides for Israel has enabled this extensive invasion of, and destruction of Gaza.  If either group only had enough weapons for their own defense, and not enough for an invasion or all out war, this would be over by now, and we'd be at least one step closer to peace.  

This Plan is Not Perfect

The plan is based on a belief in the equality of human life, on the exercise of free will, and in a dependence on something, whether it is a higher power, or just human intellect finally figuring out the futility of injustice which only leads to violence, destruction and death.  It also involves the use of existing international law, which has worked to resolve the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the years, and which has proposed solutions which the major western powers have either not enforced, or modified to suit their own politics.  

There are Jewish and Palestinian voices calling for peace and expressing a willingness to have it.  Those voices need to be supported and strengthened by those who have power and influence and can support their initiatives and their desires for peace.  

I think one huge part of this involves the United States getting hold of itself, and figuring a path out of the confusion and chaos we are now experiencing as one of our political parties has lost itself and its American patriotism, and is contributing to the chaos and instability that causes these violent flare-ups for the purpose of advancing their own political causes.  We currently have a Supreme Court that is willing to let the rule of law fall into ruin, and politicians who favor a Russian autocracy because it has the potential of taking away power from their political enemies.  This same kind of autocratic fascism plunged the world into disaster in the 20th century and that's where it is headed now, if we don't do something to stop it.  

Thank you to the Quakers for having the virtue to allow values to speak truth to power.  I hope power is listening and willing to make the commitment. 

 

I Don't Get It, Either

 Christians Object to Alan Ritchson Calling Trump a "Rapist and a Con Man"

If you've never heard of Alan Ritchson, you're not alone.  Ritchson is an actor who plays an ex-military police officer turned vigilante in an Amazon Prime series.  That's not really my kind of entertainment, though I've seen advertising and video clips for the series.  But I picked up really quickly on the article, linked above, in the Huff Post.  It was who Ritchson is, and what he said that got my attention, mainly because he said what I've been saying for years now, and the reaction, predictable and typical of the kind of behavior exhibited by many American Christians who can't tolerate disagreement or dissent with their perspective.  

Ritchson, a Christian, in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, expressed confusion over Christians who support the former President.  

"Christians today have become the most vitriolic tribe," said Ritchson in the interview.  "It is so antithetical to what Jesus was calling us to be and to do."  

If he'd made that statement from the pulpit of a church, and I was in the congregation, I'd have given him a hearty "AMEN!", applause, and a standing ovation.  Contrary to popular perception, I think there would be quite a few other members of the congregation who would join in and support that position.  

"Trump is a rapist and a con man," he said, "And yet the entire Christian church seems to treat him like he's their poster child and it's unreal.  I don't understand it."  

Neither do I.  

"The Most Vitriolic Tribe" 

Christians, especially those who identify as conservative, fundamentalist, charismatic or Pentecostal under the broader banner of "Evangelical," have always had a tendency to be vitriolic. The divisiveness that has always existed among the various sects that have developed in the Christian church, especially since it became absorbed into the political system and produced "divine right" monarchies that set the world on fire and had it in perpetual warfare for centuries is part of the culture of American Christianity too.  

This has become particularly evident through the development of what I call a "populist" form of Christianity, based on doctrine and theology developed by literal renderings of King James translations of the Bible, rather than with any context or idea of the intentions of the Bible's original authors.  Protecting their turf and attempting to expand the capacity of the collection place has led to all kinds of pronouncements from the various preacher personalities who encouraged their followers to condemn anyone whose "jot or tittle" didn't hit the same spot on the paper, and most conservative and fundamentalist Christians know exactly what that means.  

And yet, for all of the claims of belief that the biblical text is inerrant and infallible in its "original autographs," (none of which exist now) this vitriolic divisiveness and system of denominations and sects along lines of doctrinal and theological interpretation, and church practice, is not a model of the Christian church that is found, authorized, or otherwise instructed anywhere in the Biblical text.  In fact, the conduct, language and treatment of each other, especially among the more conservative sects of American Christianity, runs contrary to every single virtue and characteristic of Christian followers of the gospel of Jesus Christ taught and modeled by Jesus and his apostles.  

So it is not surprising that a man who promotes a personal image of ungodly worldliness, including openly denying any personal need for a conversion experience has found a following among people from which his fascist politics can carve out a pseudo-religious base and separate itself from true followers of the Christian gospel in such a distinctive, characteristic way. 

One of the Christian church's pre-eminent apostles, Paul, characterized the marks of true Christians in his epistle to the church at Rome, of all places, the first Christians who really faced direct opposition and persecution from the emperor.  Considered as a group, the Trump-supporting, far right wing, political Evangelicals do not exhibit these characteristics, and can be characterized as both pseudo-Christian, and apostate. 

"Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor.  Do not lag in zeal, be ardent in spirit, serve the Lord.  Rejoice in hope, be patient in suffering persevere in prayer.  Contribute to the needs of the saints; extend hospitality to strangers."  Romans 12:9-13, NRSV

Treating Trump Like Their "Poster Child" 

In grasping at straws to try and justify their support for an evil man who denies the very core principle of Christian conversion, I've heard some pretty outlandish statements that require twisting Bible passages and examples well beyond recognition, or original author's intention.  One is to point to the Old Testament example of King David, claim that David wasn't perfect but God still used him as a mighty leader of Israel.  

According to the Biblical account, that is true as far as it goes.  But the problem is comparing Trump to David.  There is no legitimate comparison here.  There are two huge differences that pose insurmountable obstacles making the comparison bogus.  First, every time David messed up, God brought him to conviction and to justice.  He didn't get away with anything.  Ultimately, his ability to be the leader God wanted him to be was impaired by his imperfection, and he had to settle for less than what God had planned as a result.  Whenever Trump is approached by a Christian leader, for a "softball" explanation of his conversion experience, he denies that he has ever done anything requiring God's forgiveness, and claims that his own idea of who God is doesn't require that kind of repentance.  

Second, David was repentant when confronted with his sinful actions.  His acknowledgement of his sin, which, in some cases, wasn't always immediately forthcoming, was always followed by repentance and by obedience to whatever act of restitution was required by God.  That's what made him a great leader.  Trump never acknowledges mistakes, never demonstrates repentance, always proclaims that whatever he does is right, lies to cover up what he has done, and that's what makes him a terrible choice for President, and the exact opposite of the kind of leader Christians, given the opportunity to choose their nation's political leadership, should cast their votes to support and elect.

The more conservative groups among Evangelicals have become doctrinal and theological "turf protectors."  They've set finite boundaries for the purpose of judging the veracity and sincerity of other Christian and evaluating their eternal worthiness by whether or not they "preach it like we preach it."  Trump has invaded their space with a similar attitude, and has figured out that they are only interested in political power to advance their own causes, and are specifically focused on abortion rights and restrictions on persons of LGBTQ orientation.  They completely miss the point of the grace provided in the gospel, which is its whole foundation.  

It's inconsistent to make abortion rights, under the banner of "the sanctity of human life," as one of just a few top political issues, but stand behind the politics of Trump and his embrace of Christian nationalism, which advocates war and murder of people opposed to their particular worldview.  Trump does not believe in the sanctity of human life, and it's not that hard to come to that conclusion.  It happens every time he opens his mouth. 

Calling it Out 

There are Christians, even within the conservative, Evangelical community, who see all of this for what it is.  Like Alan Ritchson, they are calling it out.  They do not see how someone could be familiar with the Christian gospel, and the Bible, and not see the inconsistency of supporting someone who deliberately chooses to live and set his political agenda outside of the boundaries of acceptable practice when it comes to the Christian gospel.  Growing up in church, taught in Sunday school, listening to the preaching, the contrast between the practice of the Christian gospel and support for Trump should be obvious and easy to discern.  But when people make Christianity what they want it to be, rather than letting it be what it was intended to be, this is what happens.  

A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: Election Denying Former Congressman Leads Family Research Council's "Election Integrity" Effort

 Election Denier in Charge of Christian Organization's "Election Integrity" Effort

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.  Exodus 20:7

Election deniers are liars.  It's as simple as that.  

In all of the wailing, hollering, gnashing of teeth and whining about the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election, the one thing that was missing from all of the claims of "massive election fraud", ballot tampering, and improperly programmed counting machines was credible evidence.  Multiple audits, including "forensic audits," investigations, even a laughable episode with a group known as the "Cyber Ninjas," who wasted about $6 million, including a significant amount of taxpayer dollars, found nothing irregular or out of place, to indicate that the few minor errors here and there, which are part of every election, were part of some nationwide conspiracy to cause Trump to lose. 

Lies told by one well known national network wound up costing them hundreds of millions of dollars in a legal settlement they lost when their false accusations against the company that manufactures the ballot counting machines turned out to be lies.  And make no mistake about it, every word about a fraudulent election in 2020 is a lie, and needs to be called that.  

What Would You Do If You Caught Your Pastor in a Lie? 

I learned, the hard way, what trusting someone just because they are the pastor of a conservative church that brands itself as "Bible-believing" can cost.  I grew up in a Southern Baptist church, and I know that in a culture where one's true self cannot be revealed out of fear of persecution or rejection, or loss of reputation, lying is commonplace.  I also know that it is possible that the man who preaches from the pulpit every Sunday, imparting what he claims to be the "inerrant, infallible, written word of God," can be prone to telling lies, either because of ego, or for self-preservation, or to use the power of the pulpit to rally support for a cause that otherwise goes unheeded.  

The kind of support that a pathological liar, like Trump, gets from conservative Christians tells us all we need to know about the value that some churches, and their pastors, place on integrity and honesty, and it's not much.  They will make all kinds of excuses, trying to sound Biblical, to try and justify lying by claiming that the results of electing a pathological liar as President of the United States was somehow a good thing, in spite of his many very bad character flaws.  

So, while some people might find it surprising that the Family Research Council has chosen an insurrectionist, election-denying former Georgia congressman as the leader of their "election integrity" effort, I'm not surprised.  It's this kind of phony posturing that is characteristic of Republican, and Christian hypocrisy when it comes to far right wing politics.  

Jody Hice is a former Georgia Congressman, a former pastor of Southern Baptist churches, one of the members of congress bent on overturning the will of the people by voting against accepting the results of the 2020 election, and objecting to accepting Georgia's 2020 electoral votes.  He nullified any claims he has to being a man of integrity when he accepted Trump's endorsement in his 2022 failed effort to "primary" Georgia Secretary of State against Brad Raffensperger.  Apparently, Georgia voters recognized this, because Hice lost by double digit margins to Raffensperger.  

Even if it is secular politics, for an ordained minister of the Christian gospel to accept the endorsement of a man who openly denies his own acceptance of, and need for that same gospel, is a denial in and of itself of the spiritual power and the truthfulness of that gospel.  To put this same man in charge of "election integrity" for a far right wing political lobby is like putting a wolf in charge of the sheep, or a fox in charge of the henhouse.  

"These are grumblers and malcontents," says the Apostle Jude, in his short, but powerful epistle. "They indulge their lusts, their mouths utter bombastic nonsense, flattering people to their own advantage."  

And in reality, the book of Jude does provide some insights, from its first century prospective, into exactly what a Christian church looks like when it has been infiltrated by the ungodly, who "pervert the grace of God into debauchery and deny our only Lord and Master Jesus Christ."  

How Can an Election Denier be In Charge of "Election Integrity"? 

There's no denying that there was an attempt to subvert the results of the 2020 election, but it was not done by miscounting votes or stealing ballots.  It was done by people like Hice, who used their elected position as an attempted wedge against the will of the people, believed and acted on "the big lie" claimed by Trump, of "massive voter fraud" that he was unable to prove without a stitch of evidence.  So it is laughable that this former Republican Congressman and former Southern Baptist pastor is the Family Resource Council's choice to head up its effort on election integrity.  

That's a job where being a liar would be an asset.

Advice From a Former Reagan-Bush Assistant Policy Writer: "There's "One Problem" Which is Why Democrats Must Replace Biden at the Convention"

Douglas MacKinnon in the Hill: "This One Problem is Why Democrats Must Replace Biden at the Convention" 

First of all, let me point out that the opinion writer of this piece, Douglas MacKinnon, was a writer in the White House for Presidents Reagan and H. W. Bush, and a former special policy and communications assistant at the Pentagon during the last three years of the Bush administration.  So that puts a clear context on how he's reading the "signs" that are telling him Democrats have a problem that will require replacing Biden on the ticket in order to win the election in 2024.  

This is more of the same theme of "younger, more progressive voters are abandoning Biden," and "his age is a problem," and "RFK Jr.'s challenge is a big problem," and "even though he won by 7 million votes in 2020, it was actually less than 50,000 when you count what he won in the swing states," and "the uncommitted vote is a sign of a bigger problem," that we've seen from Republican commentators for a while now.  I've included it here because it can give us a look at what the other side is thinking, in terms of how they see the election shaping up, or because putting out this kind of deliberately misleading information that runs along some of the theme lines that we've seen in the media up to this point might affect some election campaign strategy.  

My guess is that The Hill included this for a few laughs, or for a few talking points, given the rest of the content that appears there daily.  I think it's just worth looking at how MacKinnon labels "one problem" by breaking it down into three problems, and tackles each one with misinformation and incorrect assumptions. 

What should we expect, from an old fashioned, outdated Republican commentator from five Presidential administrations back?  And if the sign of an uncommitted vote in Democratic primaries is a problem that should require Biden to step down, then shouldn't the sign of a much larger percentage of Republican primary votes going to candidates besides Trump require him to step down? 

A "New, Improved, Highly Focused Trump Campaign" 

Yes, the author seriously used these words to describe the current state of the Trump campaign, which is obviously in disarray (yes, I did use that media term on purpose!), suffering financial deprivation and which bears no resemblance in any wa to any of the terms used to describe it, except, perhaps, highly focused.  Trump's theme is not new, nor is it improved.  He harps, for hours on end, about the big lie, the proven falsehood that the election of 2020 was "stolen from him."  That's where most of his rally speeches go, in their rambling, infused with moments of confusion and dementia, such as confusing Nikki Haley for Nancy Pelosi, sounding like he is running against Obama instead of Biden, and a new one that I noticed in the media a couple of weeks ago, seemingly forgetting his geographic location when he makes his rally speech.  

This week, more confusion on an issue that is predictably going to cost the GOP seats in the House and Senate, and very likely all of the electoral votes of the battleground states they need to win, along with those of several other red states.  We got a rambling, incoherent version of his perspective on abortion, that contradicts the position the GOP has taken since Roe v. Wade was issued by the Supreme Court.  If that's "highly focused," then the GOP is in an incredible amount of trouble on this issue.  

And in fact, they are.  

I hope a lot of Republicans who are involved in their party's campaign strategy are satisfied that what they are seeing from Trump is "new, improved, and highly focused."  I strongly encourage them to keep this up, and continue to run their campaigns this way, especially the Trump presidential campaign.  Don't change a thing, please continue this strategy right up until the convention, and then really come out with more improvements and high focus along these exact same lines.  

"The Populist, Independent Campaign of Robert F. Kennedy Jr."  

So far, aside from an initial sort of "flash in the pan," RFK Jr., and I'm going to call him that, hasn't picked up much in the way of traction.  In fact, his campaign is having difficulty meeting the minimum requirements to get on state ballots, having landed on seven, at this point, well behind their goal of being on all 50 by now.  This has been a gaffe-fest from the very beginning, and it doesn't appear that will get under control any time soon.  Apparently, he does not have anyone helping him avoid putting his foot in his mouth.  

Openly stating that the purpose of his campaign is to try and stop Biden from getting re-elected, which is admitting he's not in it to win it, is not exactly the way to excite potential voters and move them to the polls in November.  And indeed, voter enthusiasm is not one of the higher numbers some of our more illustrious and confused pollsters are finding in data that is all over the place when it comes to RFK Jr.  What they have found is that he's not really taking very many voters, if any, away from Biden, but looking at both primary election turnout, and vote totals on the GOP side, he does seem to be cutting into Trump's support.  

Let's use Wisconsin as an example.  As MacKinnon points out, Wisconsin is a very important swing state, and one which Biden only narrowly won by just over 20,000 votes in 2020.  So, of course, if RFK Jr. can cut into that margin, it potentially could swing the state to Trump.  But, let's look at the numbers and see what they tell us.  

Biden got 87% of the Democratic vote, with 8% going to "uninstructed" and just 3% going to Dean Phillips from next door, the other "officially announced" Democratic candidate.  MacKinnon says that the 12%, which adds up to about 60,000 Democratic votes, could be fatal to Biden's hopes of getting the state's electoral votes if he loses those voters in November.  

But keep looking.  Biden got 511,845 votes, quite a turnout from a party in which there was no contested race.  Trump, in the Wisconsin primary, got 476,355 votes, from Republican voters, about 35,000 fewer than Biden got, an improvement, if you want to make a rought comparison, of 15,000 votes over the 2020 general election.  A full 21% of Republican voters in Wisconsin cast a ballot for someone other than Trump.  Clearly, Democrats in Wisconsin are more enthusiastic about supporting Biden than Republicans in Wisconsin are about supporting Trump, and there's a much larger pool of potential Republican voters for RFK Jr. to draw from than Democrats. 

But RFK Jr. has one big problem MacKinnon doesn't mention here, and that is in order to continue his campaign, he must actually open his mouth, do interviews with reporters and make speeches and campaign appearances.  And that, for him, appears to be a huge problem, since his support has done nothing but dwindle since reaching it's high point right after he announced he was running.  By the time the nominating conventions roll around, at the rate he's been losing support, it will be zero percent.  

"Biden is Seen as Yesterday's News to Far Left and Liberal Young Voters"

It is clear that the Biden campaign has expressed some concern about its progressive, liberal, young voter constituency.  This is not a group that has ever turned out in high numbers for elections, especially mid-terms, though they sure did break their records during the 2022 mid-terms, on behalf of Democratic candidates.  And there is some work to do to convince a larger number of these voters to turn out, get used to the political reality that candidates, even of the same party, don't always line right up with every single issue, and understand the danger that a second Trump presidency would pose to the United States, as well as to every single political position they value and consider essential.  

There is no evidence provided anywhere by MacKinnon to support his claim that 10% of young, liberal, progressive voters have "turned their backs on Biden."  And if that's the case, then I can conclude, and suppport with evidence, that far more conservatives, at least 25% if the exit polling is credible, have indeed turned their backs on Trump and will not vote for him in November, according to what they say.  There is nothing anywhere close to that number among the young, liberal progressive constituency of the Democratic party.  What these voters are doing, by casting an "uncommitted" or "uninstructed" ballot is giving the Biden campaign the issues it needs to adjust in order to win their vote.  

I will also point out that neither Trump nor RFK Jr. have anything at all to attract these young, liberal progressive voters to their campaign.  And in order to win, that's what they'd have to do.  The two biggest issues for young, liberal progressives are reproductive rights and freedom for women, and a cease-fire and resolution of the Israel-Gaza war that involves freedom and self-determination for the Palestinians.  They're not saying, "I disagree with Biden on these issues so I'm not voting for him," they're saying "Listen to us!"  For a young liberal voter who believes reproductive freedom is a right, or who supports a peaceful, just, two-state solution for Palestinians and a cease-fire and end to the Gaza War, Trump offers absolutely nothing to earn their vote.  Biden is able to offer everything.

Irrelevant Political Rhetoric From a Different Time and Place

Viewing the current political situation from the perspective of Republican politics of the Reagan-Bush era provides some amusing nostalgia, but it's not realistic, and it ignores the real issues of the politics of this time.  If there's a candidate who should step down for the sake of his party's ability to get back in the White House in November, it's the one who is facing over 80 criminal indictments, most of them felonies, most of them identifying him as anti-democratic, anti-constitution and outright anti-American.  

And if the leadership of the Republican party was genuinely interested in preserving American idealism, democracy and freedom, and conscientious when it comes to our reputation as the world's leading superpower, they would take the necessary steps to make sure that Donald J. Trump was removed from campaigning for election to the highest office in the land.  If they cared about the future and prosperity of this country, and about average Americans who get up, and go to work each day to make sure that the freedom we have is preserved and kept for eternity, they would find another candidate, and prevent a single state from entering Trump's name on the ballot.  They would become vocal in their apology to the American people for this criminal mistake they have perpetrated on all of us.  

And because they are not doing this, we, the American people, will take this matter into our own hands.  We will make sure Donald J. Trump never becomes President of the United States, or holds any elected office, ever again.