The Second Trump Presidency

At least we know that they will not make that same mistake again. Remember that Trump had promised his followers that they will never have to vote again.

Another effect of large tariffs is how the countries those tariffs are targeted against will react. As in sparking a trade war.Place high tariffs on a country's exports resulting in us buying less from them which reduces their income and they will reduce what they import from us. We saw that in Trump 1.0 when he arbitrarily raised tariffs on China, so China retaliated by not buying soy beans from us. That caused financial disaster for American farmers so Trump had to give money to aid the farmers. Of course, he boasted about that claiming that it was all paid for by China paying us billions of dollars in tariffs, but we know better; we know that we Americans paid every single cent of that farm aid package. A farm aid package that wouldn't have been necessary if Trump hadn't fucked up the balance of trade and sparked a trade war. Like he is eager do again!

Phat, we have already gone over all this before. Already been tried. Americans don't want to do that work.As I reposted in my Message 415 (10 Sep 2024) from my Message 534 (21-Jan-2019) -- the subject of Message 415 was the shortage of Americans with construction skills because of the decline of trade unions, the traditional schools for teaching those skills: Part of that report on the Fresh Mark meat packing plant included the town's unemployed whites complaining about those illegals taking jobs away from them, but when those jobs opened up after the ICE raid none of them applied for those newly opened jobs.During the campaign, Trump's racism was on full display, though maybe you needed to have grown up with a Texan to spot it -- growing up, my father's family had moved to Texas a few times. Like with some the Pat Robertson's double-talk during his presidential run, which went over the public's head whereas I, with my fundamentalist Christian experience, could see right through him -- let those with eyes to see and ears to hear watch and listen (it's from the Gospels, so you might not recognize the reference). When one speaks in code (eg, Jesus teaching through parables so that the masses couldn't understand whereas those with sufficient training could, which is why he then took his disciples aside to "teach them the mysteries of Heaven", which itself was a reference to the mystery religions in which public displays and ceremonies (The Outer Temple) were heavily shrouded in symbolism the meanings of which was only given to initiates into the religion (The Inner Temple) and which they were to keep a closely guarded secrets.To blacks, Trump infamously said that the illegals are taking away "black jobs". What are black jobs? Well, my father told me of how his mother, a white woman (his side of the family was predominantly Irish), had to wait until night time to sweep off the mud porch so that their neighbors couldn't see her "doing n***** work." That's what Trump meant by "black jobs": "n***** work".Those with ears to hear and eyes to see ... Already been tried and failed. Because that attitude ignores reality. Like a white person (I'm about 94% Celtic, BTW, and 6% either German or Jewish; we're not sure about that part with my sister insisting on Jewish while I want to see some supporting documentation) advising blacks that if they just do what the police officer tells them they will be perfectly safe. Our white experiences with the police are entirely different from blacks' experiences. That's just reality.We've tried attaching work to welfare and it has always failed. Of course, there have to be jobs. Also, especially for single parents, child care is either unavailable or costs more than they would earn. Plus, the way that unemployment benefits are set up, the moment you start working you stop getting those benefits. Even if they want to work (and most do), the system doesn't let them.IOW, the entire system would need to be reformed. But under Republican rule, those "reforms" would be completely detached from reality (consider the anti-abortion laws written by Republican politicians with zero medical knowledge that end up getting women killed in horrific manner). We've already discussed this, though it was mainly with Faith. Many do indeed pay into Social Security and Medicare. In order to cover their employers' asses, undocumented workers obtain fake Social Security Numbers (SSNs or "sosh" in military parlance -- our "sosh" was also our military ID number in all my 35 years of service, but that practice has been discontinued; it was only when I got my retiree ID card in 2011 that I first saw my new DoD ID number). Thus, their employers use those fake numbers to do all the required payroll taxes and income tax withholding, even though their workers will never get an income tax refund nor ever receive any Social Security or Medicare benefits. BTW, the undocumented workers who staff Trump's resorts have fake SSNs, but management confiscates and locks up their documents which is emblematic of human trafficking operations (for a few years, we had General Military Training (GMT) instruction in how to identify human trafficking operations). As the French say, "Nous sommes foutus" ("We're screwed." -- the German, "Wir sind beschissen" means we're shitted upon; most German profanity uses excrement so they don't understand when we refer to sex to express bad things). I agree, but the system has to facilitate that and it doesn't. While the Democratic tendency is to try to help them (admittedly perhaps too much), the Republican tendency is to just cut them loose and have them fend for themselves. Like when De Santis kidnapped through deception those immigrants already in the system seeking asylum (ie, not undocumented) and bussed them to New York City in the middle of December with the little children dressed in t-shirts and just dumped them out on the street.Part of Republican propaganda was the "issue" of immigrants in NYC being housed in hotels and being provided for in the interim. It's simple logistics that whenever you have a large number of people you need to provide shelter and sustenance (logistics is the bread-and-butter of the military, that and organization). It is also simple logistics that hotels are a prime source of shelter and that prime room rates do not apply when an agency contracts blocks of rooms. For example, when our return flight from Italy was messed up, the airline booked us into a hotel. I found the standard rates for single occupancy of my room and it was more than $600 (in 2018). Did the airline pay over $600 to put me in that room? To quote that great American philosopher, John Wayne: "Not hardly." An empty hotel room provides management no income, so deals at reduced rates will be struck. Immigrants housed by the government in a luxury hotel does not mean that the government had to pay full price for each room. Yes, and that's a given. They are ready and willing to do work that Americans refuse to do. That has been the story of immigrants for centuries.So why do the Republicans have such a huge problem about that? Do we? Really? So why do we keep telling them that we don't want them here? BTW, a little something about the restaurant trade.The economics of running a restaurant can be brutal. My father was a general contractor who would often put together new restaurants and he was the inquisitive type (probably where I got it from) who wanted to learn as much about a client's profession as he could, out of personal curiosity. The basic rule of thumb (AKA "heuristic") is that when you open a restaurant you need to start with enough capital to set up and survive for at least two years with making no profit. To say that they operate on a shoestring is padding their economic situation too much.And many restaurants depend on undocumented labor. That's just a simple fact of life. So at the end of the day, has that restaurant made enough to pay all its workers? Making payroll is a big bragging point for Republicans, but for so many businesses (Accounts Receivable look great, but that's cash coming in later not right now when you have to pay your employees in cash now not the promise of cash later) you often have to take out short-term business loans to remain solvent (that is from my Accounting 101 course in the early 70's, so it's neither rocket science nor brain surgery).But restaurants are more immediate; for them there's no such thing as Accounts Receivable, money that is coming in tomorrow. So what far too often happens, even in "liberal enclaves like Los Angeles", restaurant workers just do not get paid on time. They have to hold out and keep on working and hope that they will eventually get paid. And being undocumented, what legal recourse do they have? None. BTW, the Bracero program ceased to exist 60 years ago and lawsuits over farmers not having paid their Mexican workers are still working their way through our legal system.Yes, they want to work. Do we want to pay them fairly? To again quote that famous American philosopher, "Not hardly."

That same "issue" was just mentioned on Alex Wagner Tonight and the guest also mentioned Walmart.Several years ago on the radio I heard Ralph Nader discussing how Walmart operates. First, when they move into a town they negotiate that move with the city government in order to get "special incentives" including tax breaks, relaxation of zoning and other regulatory requirements. So, basically, they receive welfare from the local government.Then they work around labor laws to avoid having to provide healthcare and other benefits to most of their employees. Since they cannot qualify as a small company, they instead limit employees' work hours, making sure to keep them under the limit over which said employees would qualify for those benefits. Indeed, a very important part of new employee orientation training is to take the new hires through filling out the forms for applying for welfare, including food stamps and Medicaid.So they're working but they still have to go on welfare because they are not allowed to earn a living wage. You're a union man. How does that sit with you? Interestingly, Walmart can't pull the same stuff next door in Canada where they're doing just fine.Also, junior military members with families depend on food stamps in order to eat. Or are you going to claim that they don't work?The plan to give the wealthiest Americans yet another huge tax cut (and increase the national debt even more like Trump did the first time) involves throwing millions of people off of Medicaid and food stamps.Instead of that tired old right-wing bullshit of "work requirements for welfare", how's about trying "They're not asking for a hand-out, just a hand."

Yeah, ain't that the truth though?During the 2016 campaign, he kept boasting that he had a plan that would replace the ACA and it would only cost us $18 per month! Of course, he couldn't just present it then and there because Hillary would steal the plan from him, so we'd have to wait until after he won the election (like so many of his other promises, like having a brilliant plan to stop an armed conflict and save so many lives, but he'd only ever present it if he won so let those innocent people continue to die, which is also like the "hundreds of thousands" of Americans being killed by immigrants but he killed the bi-partisan bill that would have stopped that "slaughter" thus causing even more thousands to die until Biden was out of office).But then when he won in 2016, no plan. But he insisted that he did have a plan and would present it in two weeks. Two weeks later he pushed the date back another two weeks. Again and again and again. And still no plan was ever presented.Now EIGHT YEARS LATER, still no plan that would replace the ACA. Now it's "I have concepts of a plan". Eight years to work on those "concepts" and still nothing?What kind of low-grade morons would ever believe that there will ever be a Trump plan? Besides getting rid of Obamacare and replacing it with nothing?Reminds me of an old dirty joke from the late 60's (which has recently resurfaced as a lawyer joke, but I'll borrow part of that new build-up as per the Rabbi Kalir Theory of Joke Telling):

quote:

---

A woman who has been married three times visits a new gynecologist for the first time and he is astonished to find that she is still a virgin. So she explains:

​

The build-up to the punch line offers reasons for the first two marriages. They're both a real stretch and require us to suspend disbelief, plus after more then half a century I forget what they were, but here is what the recent version offers:

​

• Husband 1 -- REDACTED because it's the punchline of the 1960's original.
• Husband 2 was an engineer; he understood the basic process but wanted three years to research, implement, and design a new state-of-the-art method.
• Husband 3 was in marketing; although he had a nice product, he was never sure how to position it.
• Husband 4 was a psychologist; all he ever did was talk about it.
• Husband 5 was a stamp collector; all he ever did was… God! I miss him!

​

The new punchline is that Hubbie 6 was a lawyer, so she knew she would really get screwed this time.

​

The original punchline was that her last husband was the world's greatest salesman: he would spend all day selling her on how great it was going to be, but then never deliver.

---

That original punchline describes Trump to a "T". All he does is deliver a sales pitch but never delivers on any of his promises. All he does is sell us a bill of goods (AKA "a pig in a poke"). All talk and no goods.And his followers still have never caught on to his grift.

That's the point. His only concern is to make the big announcement of a product, but the actual delivery of that product is not his concern. He was there for the big announcement of each new Trump "enterprise", but from that point on he was MIA (except to collect his cut of the grift). He would be there for the ground-breaking of a new factory to bring back domestic jobs so that he could get the credit, but then he'd allow that work to be sent overseas; he got what he wanted.Related was his pressuring President Zelenskyi to announce an investigation into the Bidens, not to conduct any actual investigation.I think the expression is "all show, no go."Then compare Trump's plethora of "infrastructure weeks" in which he promised to build/repair infrastructure, none of which got past the announcement, to Biden just getting the job done. Of course, as we see the fruits of Biden's accomplishment, Trump will try to take all the credit. The lousy bum!

But does it really say that? For that, King James Version will be of no help, but rather you would need to go back to the "original Greek", but even that will not help since the original manuscripts do not agree. Plus, on top of that there's always fallible human interpretation and the work of editors who, as Edgar Rice Burroughs remarked, "would change even the Word of God."The key word there in Luke 2:14 for "good will" is ευδοκια, which can also mean "God's favor". But there's also the issue of case which determines how a word is used in a sentence. Some manuscripts say "ευδοκια", which is in the nominative case, but others have it in the genitive, "ευδοκιας", to indicate possessive. Which case you use makes a lot of difference.From Wikipedia's Annunciation to the shepherds:

quote:

---

After this, a great many more angels appear, praising God with the words "Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests." ...

​

Translational issues

​

The King James Version of the Bible translates the words of the angels differently from modern versions, using the words "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men". Most Christmas carols reflect this older translation, with "It Came Upon the Midnight Clear", for example, using the words "Peace on the earth, good will to men, / From Heaven's all gracious King."

​

The disparity reflects a dispute about the Greek text of the New Testament involving a single letter. The Greek text accepted by most modern theological scholars today uses the words epi gēs eirēnē en anthrōpois eudokias (ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας), literally "on earth peace to men of good will", with the last word being in the genitive case (apparently reflecting a Semitic idiom that reads strangely in Greek). Most ancient manuscripts of the Greek New Testament have this reading. The original version of the ancient Codex Sinaiticus (denoted א* by scholars) has this reading, but it has been altered by erasure of the last letter to epi gēs eirēnē en anthrōpois eudokia (ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία), literally "on earth (first subject: peace) to men (second subject: good will)," with two subjects in the nominative case. Expressed in standard English, this gives the familiar "Peace on earth, good will to men" of many ancient Christmas carols.

​

Even though some other ancient Greek manuscripts (and many medieval ones) agree with the edited Codex Sinaiticus, most modern religious scholars and Bible translators accept the reading of the majority of ancient manuscripts, translating as "on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests" (NIV) or "on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased" (ESV).

​

The Douay-Rheims Bible, translated from the Latin Vulgate, derives from the same Greek text as the original Codex Sinaiticus, but renders it "on earth peace to men of good will". In the New American Bible, this is updated to "on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests".

---

So, to follow the more ancient texts, that promised peace is not for all of us, but rather only for those whom God favors. Since Christian Nationals (of whom I suspect K.Rose is one) and MAGAts (which he has demonstrated himself to be) think, speak, and act contrary to Christian teachings (indeed, frequently in direct opposition to those teachings), they would find themselves to be excluded from God's favor ... please excuse me, they exclude themselves from God's favor. Thus the Soup Nazi would have to tell them, "No peace for you!"Sorry, guy, but it's not my call. Rather, it's yours. PSActually, I was thinking more about Christian Nationalists, Trump MAGAts, et al. as NOT being "men of good will", but rather nobody could ever possibly mistake them for being of good will. And hence their own mean-spiritedness excludes them from that promised peace.Thus the Soup Nazi would have to tell them, "No peace for you!"

But the Republican position is that having a child is not a choice. So how can you hold someone responsible for something over which they have no choice?Oh yeah. They're also Über-"true"-Christians, which answers that question.[voice=Emily Litella]Never mind.[/voice]

Yes, indeed. Among normal people.But you're a Trumpist and a MAGAt, so you don't care how you treat others. For you, cruelty is the point.And if you are a Christian Nationalist, then doubly so.Just be a Mensch, already!

And indeed, we have film of Pelosi on the phone pleading for the person actually responsible for security, Pres. Donald Trump, to call in the National Guard.And where was Trump at that time? Not MIA (missing in action), but rather sitting in inaction in front of his TV enjoying the news coverage of his rioters and refusing to take any action to stop it, including refusing to listen to his own staff's pleas for him to take action.Funny how MAGAts fiercely maintain their willful ignorance of the facts. And we've reviewed and discussed those videos (the second one taken by a rioter from behind which clearly shows her continuing to advance through the broken window before being shot in direct defiance of shouted orders to stop and retreat).Here is what I explained to meatpuppet9000 in Message 430 (04-Dec-2021): meatpuppet9000 did not reply, but instead continued to repeat his same stupid lie. When he repeated it in his Message 80 (23-Jul-2023) I reposted my earlier reply on the same day in my Message 88. Though I added: That time he did "reply", but only to try to change the subject.Ashli Babbitt was not murdered, but rather she committed suicide by cop:

Wikipedia:

---

Suicide by cop (SbC), also known as suicide by police or law-enforcement-assisted suicide, is a suicide method in which a suicidal individual deliberately behaves in a threatening manner with intent to provoke a lethal response from a public safety or law enforcement officer to end their own life.

---

Due to her over-a-decade of military training and experience in the same capacity of the cop whom she chose to provoke, she knew fully well and far better than most of the other rioters there how the cops would respond to her actions. Clearly a suicide-by-cop.The only alternative is that she died of terminal stupidity. And her inability to ever learn (referring to her 12 years of military training that just rolled of her back like water on a duck).Should someone be held responsible for her death? If so, then that would clearly be Trump who had ordered that riot to be organized as part of his planned insurrection. Even though meatpuppet9000 did say "commute" instead of "pardon", we cannot assume that he knows the difference.Perhaps we should also test his knowledge of tariffs.

Pure legalese.Prosecutions are based on the law and on the wording of the applicable laws. And legal definitions are based on the wording of the applicable laws. That is why, despite the rampant collusion reported in the Mueller Report between the Trump campaign and Russia (as I recall, about 70 instances described in detail in more than 120 pages) there were no indictments for collusion: there are no laws regarding collusion, nor is there even any legal definition for collusion precisely because there are no laws regarding collusion.New York law's definition of rape requires penetration with the penis. Forceful penetration with anything other than the penis does not meet the legal definition of rape, but rather must be covered by other laws. Without evidence that Trump had violated her with his penis, rape-as-legally-defined could not be proven, so they had to apply the less stringent definition of sexual abuse.So there's nothing mystifying about the judge's comments. The general non-lawyer population's concept of rape would not be restricted solely to penetration by penis, so the general public would consider what Trump had done to her as rape. However, what he had done could not be considered rape legally.Court trials are centered around legal definitions. That is why the only reason why Trump cannot be tried for treason is because the conditions for treason (eg, being at war) would not be met, even though what he has done and will undoubtedly continue to do is clearly treasonous.Since my son is now a lawyer, discussions and arguments with him will be no fun at all.

I was in CostCo today where I noticed something.They sell toilet paper (TP) in a large package: 5 packets of six rolls each for a total of 30 rolls. It seemed that almost every basket I saw had TP in it. And the big pile of TP was much smaller than usual.It seems as if everybody had learned a lesson the last time Trump was in office, so they're stocking up now in preparation.

The quick answer is that far too many Christians, especially those "true Christians", no longer follow Christian doctrine. Speaking for myself and, I'm certain, many if not most other forum members, I was raised as a child on Christian teachings, so we are well aware of what Christianity teaches. What passes for Christianity now has become unrecognizable.A couple months ago, Ed Babinski posted on Facebook this quote (as a graphic which I have transcribed here) of Russell Moore (I assume that Wikipedia reference to be to the same person); the original NPR interview cited is posted here:

quote:

---

In an interview with NPR, Evangelical Christian leader Russell Moore said that multiple pastors had told him disturbing stories about their congregants being upset when they read from the "sermon on the Mount" in which Jesus espoused the principles of forgiveness and mercy that are central to Christian doctrine.

​

"Multiple pastors tell me, essentially, the same story about quoting Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount -- [and] to have someone come up after to say, "Where did you get those liberal talking points?"

​

Moore added: "And what was alarming to me is that in most of those scenarios, when the pastor would say, 'I'm literally quoting Jesus Christ', the response would be, 'Yes, but that doesn't work anymore. That's weak.' "

---

 A few months back I heard a recommendation on YouTube (from Erika "Gutsick Gibbon") for this book, Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation by Kristin Kobes Du Mez. Since reading the first three of its 16 chapters (300 pages of text, 32 pages of small-font bibliography), my reading time was diverted to another book (US Navy Fundamentals of War Gaming), so this is from memory. The book goes through a history of the growth and development of that movement, so the first chapters were mainly to lay the groundwork. A basic thesis is that contemporary American Christians in the 20th Century were unnerved by social changes and Protestant men found themselves seeking a stronger and more "masculine" alternative to weak and "effeminate" traditional Christianity, something that they found in the rugged imagery of frontier cowboys especially as portrayed by Hollywood (which is where John Wayne comes in). Since that doesn't really tell you much, here are some descriptions from amazon.com (link given above with the book's name):

Description:

---

The “paradigm-influencing” book (Christianity Today) that is fundamentally transforming our understanding of white evangelicalism in America.

​

Jesus and John Wayne is a sweeping, revisionist history of the last seventy-five years of white evangelicalism, revealing how evangelicals have worked to replace the Jesus of the Gospels with an idol of rugged masculinity and Christian nationalism―or in the words of one modern chaplain, with “a spiritual badass.”

​

As acclaimed scholar Kristin Du Mez explains, the key to understanding this transformation is to recognize the centrality of popular culture in contemporary American evangelicalism. Many of today’s evangelicals might not be theologically astute, but they know their VeggieTales, they’ve read John Eldredge’s Wild at Heart, and they learned about purity before they learned about sex―and they have a silver ring to prove it. Evangelical books, films, music, clothing, and merchandise shape the beliefs of millions. And evangelical culture is teeming with muscular heroes―mythical warriors and rugged soldiers, men like Oliver North, Ronald Reagan, Mel Gibson, and the Duck Dynasty clan, who assert white masculine power in defense of “Christian America.” Chief among these evangelical legends is John Wayne, an icon of a lost time when men were uncowed by political correctness, unafraid to tell it like it was, and did what needed to be done.

​

Challenging the commonly held assumption that the “moral majority” backed Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020 for purely pragmatic reasons, Du Mez reveals that Trump in fact represented the fulfillment, rather than the betrayal, of white evangelicals’ most deeply held values: patriarchy, authoritarian rule, aggressive foreign policy, fear of Islam, ambivalence toward #MeToo, and opposition to Black Lives Matter and the LGBTQ community. A much-needed reexamination of perhaps the most influential subculture in this country, Jesus and John Wayne shows that, far from adhering to biblical principles, modern white evangelicals have remade their faith, with enduring consequences for all Americans.

---

AI Summary of Customer Comments:

---

Customers find the book thought-provoking and interesting. They describe it as an eye-opening treatise that charts the intellectual history of white evangelicalism. The historical content is insightful and well-documented. Readers praise the writing quality as easy to read, with well-articulated ideas and a scholarly tone. However, opinions differ on the evangelism perspective, with some finding it beneficial and others criticizing the theology.

---

Reviews:

---

“Du Mez makes it clear that she’s not criticizing from the ivory tower or explicitly from the left. A history professor at a prominent Christian college, the author of A New Gospel for Women, and a contributor to Christianity Today, she’s in an ideal position to expose the hypocrisy, crudeness, and chauvinism of the religious right.”
―Matt Hanson, The Baffler

​

“In her smart, deftly argued book, historian Du Mez delves into white evangelicals’ militantly patriarchal expressions of faith and their unwavering support for libertine President Donald Trump. Du Mez, a professor at Calvin University, clearly explicates the way the “evangelical cult of masculinity” has played out over decades.”
―The National Book Review

​

“It is impossible to do justice to the richness of Jesus and John Wayne in a short review, but one of the key points the book stresses is that as Christian nationalists, the vast majority of white evangelicals believe that our country’s flourishing depends on aggressive male leadership. The pervasive abusive patterns of white evangelical subculture replicate themselves on a large social scale in the Christian Right’s politics. Since understanding this will be crucial if Americans are to have a functional democratic future, Jesus and John Wayne is a book that America needs now.”
―Chrissy Stroop, Boston Globe

​

“A much needed and painstakingly accurate chronicle of exactly ‘where many evangelicals are,’ and the long road that got them there.”
―Tom Cox, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

​

“[A] book that’s ignited an enormous amount of argument and debate across the length and breadth of the Christian intelligentsia . . . Du Mez meticulously documents how―time and again―Christian institutions have indulged and often valorized aggressive hyper-masculine male leaders who proved to be corrupt, exploitive, and abusive. They weren’t protectors. They were predators.”
―David French, The Dispatch

---

I added this to support the observation that what passes as "Christianity" and "being a Christian" has changed greatly, such that what we have grown up to think as "being Christian" doesn't really apply anymore. Just for fun, as long as "Christians" are looking for a more masculine "Jesus", how could they go wrong with National Lampoon's Son-O-God comics (link from the bottom of the author's Wikipedia article? Good reading! Like with Shazam, when "nebbishy Brooklynite (thirty-year old Benny David) who still lives with his overbearing parents" says the magic word, "JEE-ZUZ!", he's transformed into the superhero, Son-O-God, accompanied by the Holy Spirit, a white dove who, according to a reader's letter-to-the-editor, used to shoot bullets out his mouth like a machine gun. Can't get much more über-masculine than that! Another clue to the answer you seek would be The Fellowship, AKA "The Family" (not to be confused with an authoritarian cult by that same name which has nothing to do with this subject). The Fellowship is examined in the Netflix documentary series, The Family. Over the decades they have insinuated themselves into Washington politics; they are the ones who organized the annual National Prayer Breakfast which serves as a networking event with national politicians.I watched it years ago, but what I remember, besides the cult-like structure which sucks in newly arrived congressmen to live with them, is that while nominally Christian, their "Bible" is not the Bible nor even the Gospels, but rather a small book simply titled "Jesus" (as I recall; watch the series) which expounds their non-biblical doctrine. This is key. Their doctrine does not extoll Jesus, but rather King David. Instead of being lambs, they are to be the wolves among the sheep ostensibly to protect those sheep (but I'm a bit hazy on the fine points there). The reasoning for extolling King David is because he was a bad man who displayed the opposite of Godly traits, but whom God used through whom to do His Work. The lesson is that we must place these bad men into positions of power so that God can do His Work through them. Another historic bad man who frequently comes up (including with Christian Nationalists) is King Cyrus of Persia whom God used to free the Jews from the Babylonian Captivity.Doug Coe took over The Fellowship from founder Abraham Vereide; from the Wikipedia article:

quote:

---

Leadership model

​

Jeff Sharlet stated in an NBC Nightly News report that when he was an intern with the Fellowship "we were being taught the leadership lessons of Hitler, Lenin and Mao" and that Hitler's genocide "wasn't really an issue for them, it was the strength that he emulated." He opined that the Fellowship fetishizes power by comparing Jesus to "Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, Bin Laden" as examples of leaders who change the world through the strength of the covenants they had forged with their 'brothers'".

​

In one videotaped lecture series in 1989, Coe said,

​

Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler were three men. Think of the immense power these three men had... But they bound themselves together in an agreement... Jesus said, 'You have to put me before other people. And you have to put me before yourself.' Hitler, that was the demand to be in the Nazi party. You have to put the Nazi party and its objectives ahead of your own life and ahead of other people.

​

In the same series, Coe also compared Jesus's teachings to the Red Guard during the Chinese Cultural Revolution:

​

I've seen pictures of young men in the Red Guard of China... They would bring in this young man's mother and father, lay her on the table with a basket on the end, he would take an axe and cut her head off... They have to put the purposes of the Red Guard ahead of the mother-father-brother-sister — their own life! That was a covenant. A pledge. That was what Jesus said.

​

David Kuo said that Coe is using Hitler as a metaphor for commitment. The NBC report said "a close friend of Coe told NBC News that he invokes Hitler to show the power of small groups—for good and bad. And, the friend said, most of the time he talks about Jesus."

---

In this paradigm, it does not matter in the least how bad and un-Godly a person Trump is. Just put him in a position of great power so the God can use him. They quite literally do not care how immoral and amoral Trump is.A Christian would care (or at least should care), but they do not and never will. Just because Trump's supporters say that they are Christians, doesn't mean we should believe them.

Worse than a cultural backdrop, more of a smokescreen. It gives them an excuse for their malfeasance and atrocities. And motivation for their declaration and waging of their culture wars against America. And justification for every wrongful and despicable act they commit "in service to God." As I've related, I received my fundamentalist training as a "fellow traveler" of the Jesus Freak Movement circa 1970. At that time they fixated on biblical literalism and inerrancy, demonology (eg, seeing demons at work everywhere, especially in cases of sleep paralysis), and the End Times. That last included a common pasttime of seeing prophecies of the impending onset of the Tribulation and trying to identify the Antichrist.They also taught that the Antichrist would seduce most Christians, but they would never fall for that trick! Ironically, the best candidates for the Antichrist are Trump and Putin (personally, I think Putin would be the Antichrist and Trump the Beast) who have seduced and recruited those fundamentalists. Despite glaringly clear signs that they would have immediately seen and seized upon half a century ago.For example, Trump's ear wound from the assassination attempt whose immediate and complete healing Trump dismissed as a miracle of his "incredible ability to heal". We got "reports" of his wound that half his ear had been blown off (from Donnie Jr.) and, despite a complete blocking of information (so much for K.Rose's promise of transparency from Trump), something about a 2-cm gash (about ¾ inch). Although the first photo showed a small band-aid on Trump's ear, for his next public appearance he had what looked like a feminine hygiene product taped over his ear (with the audience mimicking him that should have given Kotex windfall earnings), then after a few appearances carrying on that charade he showed up with no bandaging and no sign of any wound (which he "hanged a lantern on" by boasting of his good genes for healing).My fundamentalist training kicked in immediately and I remembered the fundie descriptions of the the Beast, for which I tracked down this passage from Revelation (my bolding included):

Revelation 13, KJV:

---

13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast
rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and
upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of
blasphemy.
13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and
his feet were as [the feet] of a bear, and his mouth as the
mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his
seat, and great authority.
13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death;
and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered
after the beast.
13:4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the
beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who [is] like
unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

---

How much the "true Christians" have blinded themselves to their own theology to follow Trump! That they have gleefully abandoned their faith in order to worship the Beast and Antichrist! Sadly, that is their only prophesy to have been fulfilled.

PBS had a two- or three-part series a few years ago detailing how the Nazis systematically disabled and subsumed the departments of government, especially the law enforcement and justice systems. The show's format centered around a government hierarchy chart.Sorry, I forget its title, but it played again a few months ago so it should play again ... unless the Trump Administration bans it.