Review Peter Leithart Against Christianity

Opening remarks:

This is another book recommended by Andrew Torba in the back of Christian Nationalism. The book is five chapters long and weighs in at about 150 pages. It was published in 2003. My recollection is that the guys at Berean Church in Sandpoint quoted one sentence from the book out of context and then threw Leithart under the bus as a heretic.


This book is like CS Lewis’ Mere Christianity in that it has lots of thought-provoking stuff and is trying to get readers to think outside of established categories about the Christian faith.

I cannot hope to “convince” readers or “prove” anything here, since I have certainly not provided enough argument or evidence to compel agreement. I hope instead to hint at, gesture toward, trace, or sketch what may be a fresh approach to the (mainly ecclesiological) issues I discuss, more to change readers’ angle of vision than persuade. (page 7).

Leithart is dissatisfied with the self-imposed limits that we as believers have allowed the secular world to impose on us. He feels strongly that we are all too willing to allow our faith to be boxed-in as a private affair between us and God and that we generally are unwilling to engage the world around us.

The Bible gives no hint that a Christian “belief system” might be isolated from the life of the Church, subjected to a scientific or logical analysis, and have its truth compared with competing “belief systems.” (page 14).

Though it has roots in the patristic period, Christianity in its more developed form is the Church’s adjustment of the gospel to modernity, and the Church’s consequent acceptance of the world’s definition of who we are and what we should be up to. Christianity is biblical religion disemboweled and emasculated by (voluntary) intellectualization and/or privatization. (page 17).

He places Christianity in one corner and in the other is the Church. The Church is both an assembly of believers (ecclesia) and a government (polis). The Church is a multi-language nation.

My complaint is more fundamental: we have accepted our liberal opponent’s account of who we are and no longer see that the gospel an is inherently political announcement, nor that the Church is an inherently political community. (page 38).

Leithart would find the notion of “me and Jesus is a majority” as laughable. The Church gives a believer purpose and meaning within a community.

Leithart argues that saving faith in Christ is not like “adding Jesus to my life” but is a completed surrender of my life and a completed adoption of Christ’s.

Conversion does not simply install a new “religious” program over the existing operating system. It installs a new operating system. (page 16).

Leithart concludes his book with ideas such as these:

Renouncing Christianity thus entails embracing Christendom. (page 136).

Suppose the king is a liberal who tries to police the boundaries of the Church, telling the Church where it can and cannot speak, what it can and cannot do. In that case too, a clash is inevitable and, again, kings have a herd time winning such battles. …

On the other hand, if the Church appears preaching Christianity, the king is entirely capable of stealing the rhetoric and story and ideas of the Church to buttress his power. … Or, political powers may simply force Christianity into the private sphere—shoving ideas back into the brain and Christianity back into churches. Churches in the grip of Christianity will hardly blink when the liberal king tells them that that have to confine themselves to thinking pious thoughts. (page 149).


Folks, this was written in 2003 but sounds like a perfect description of the total failure of the clergy in all denominations when confronted in 2020 with the Covid 19 order to shutdown all church worship and scatter the flocks of Christ. We, as believers, accepted the liberal lie that the Church was “non-essential” to our way of life and virtually ever minister, not only in the United States, but all of the West, complied without question. I can number all the churches in the United States that did not shutdown during Covid on one hand and still have fingers left. This is a huge indictment of the moral failure of modern churches.

The failure of churches during Covid is exactly the point Leithart is trying to make with this book. We have abandoned Christendom and replaced it with a pious, personal, and ineffective philosophy called “Christianity.”

The same moral failure lamented by Leithart will be played out next weekend when our community hosts its first gay pride event. Instead of protesting, local churches numbering as many as 13 congregations, will be holding a picnic at the fairgrounds as a “family friendly” alternative. They are expecting a crowd of 1,000 people at the event.

Except for one person that calls himself a street evangelist, nobody plans to be at the event to share Christ with these folks. I specifically asked my church leadership in the loudest voice that I could, why do we refuse to share Christ with these people? I said that we need more people in front of the venue protesting than they have attending it.  Essentially, I was told that homosexuals are not “the elect” and that they should be ignored. Folks, if you ignore cancer, does it simply go away or spread? I submit to you that sin is a cancer, and it will spread like wildfire if not halted in its progress. To this end, I bought 100 tracts to hand-out at the event, and I will not be participating at the picnic.

Leithart’s book is worth a look. I suggest having multicolored highlighters and going through it two or three times to really get a feel for his arguments. This book is asking you to think outside your preconceived categories and view faith in Christ in terms of the early church not categories given us by the pagans that gave us the Enlightenment and modernity.

Israeli Journalist Calls for Gaza Genocide

Some person identified as a conservative journalist named Daniel Greenfield just called for the extermination of everybody in Gaza. He is from Israel of course.

Greenfield further hashes this out, saying, “There are no civilians in Gaza. The vast majority of the population supports Hamas or some Islamic terrorist movement. Only a tiny minority opposes Islamic terrorism and wants peace.” He concludes:

“Hamas can’t be defeated by waiting until its terrorists take off their civilian clothes and put on uniforms. Hamas are the civilians. They are the ones holding the hostages. The only way to free the hostages and defeat the terrorists is to destroy the terror culture in whatever form it takes.”

In Brief: There Are No Civilians in Gaza

As stated previously on this blog, the land area known as “Gaza” will be depopulated, the only question is will: “The West” take in two million refugees or will Israel just level the place?

If Trump wins, will it matter? Could it be over by then?

With Joe Biden in charge, look for this to be described by the American media as a mostly peaceful final solution.

Petra 50th Anniversary Tour

Petra was in the area last Friday night and I decided to go see them. They last toured about ten years ago.2024 is their fiftieth anniversary. Their first album was released in 1974. I have a copy of the LP and the CD.

Their concert was across the border in Creston, Canada. Since moving to north Idaho a year ago, I have never driven into Canada. I’m the only one in the family with a valid passport, but since my wife is out of town, so I decided to go.

Two weeks ago, I bought a VIP pass for $75 (Canadian). The pass was for an event starting at 5 PM. We were given a poster to get autographed and also allowed to get autographs on another item.

The following is a recap of my adventures that day.

I got up just before 7 and did my morning chores. My wife and I were on the road at 8 AM. At 10 AM we did our Costco run in Coeur d’Alene. We tried to do a Costco run the previous Friday but were not allowed into the building because somebody in the area decided to try moving a power pole with their car. They succeeded in knocking out power to parts of the town including Costco. Oh, inside the building they have a whole section of generators for sale but whatever.

We then went to Rathdrum for lunch at a dive called Nadine’s. They have a salad that faintly resembles the Yucatan salad from Dos Coyotes. Then I dropped my wife at the airport in Spokane and by 1 PM I was returning home to walk the dog and then headed to the concert. In preparation to go to the concert I got my passport and my copy of the first Petra LP. Yep, a vintage 1974 album titled “Petra.”

Near my house, we have two border crossings: Porthill and Eastport. The Porthill crossing is closer but closes at 7 PM. It used to be open longer but since Covid the hours have been shortened. I crossed at Porthill. It was easier than I thought. I was asked if I had any firearms or ammo. I replied, “No.” I was asked about my business and how long I would be staying. I told the man that I was going to a concert. He replied, “Oh, you’re going to see Petra?” I replied, “Yes.” I was then allowed into Canada.

Please understand that I was somewhat apprehensive to do this because all my other trips to Canada were to Victoria. In Victoria they drive on the wrong side of the road just like in England. Thankfully this part of British Columbia is like driving in the US except they use the evil metric system.

Creston is a small town of a few thousand people. I was very surprised that they landed a Petra concert. Just before the venue, I found a Dairy Queen, likely the only fast-food joint in town, and ordered a chicken sandwich. I then arrived at the community center and ate most of my dinner in the car. It was a multi-use facility.

The VIP event started about 5:15. The event was really laid-back. I told them that I was there for the VIP Petra event, and they let me in. The people running the VIP portion of the event had no list of names as to who had paid for the VIP pass, they just took me at my word and let me in the room.

Shortly after I got my pass, the band members, five in all, entered the room and were seated at one end. The band members were never introduced by name.

Bob Hartman (middle) John Schlitt to his right

It turns out that only one guy was an original member of the band. What years the others joined was never discussed. A question-and-answer period was held first. Most of the time was spent recounting the story of how John Schlitt came to replace Greg X Voltz as lead singer of the band. The story was not told by John, but the only remaining guy from the original band, Bob Hartman.

John was lead singer for a 1970’s rock band called “Head East.”

John got caught up in the rock n’ roll lifestyle and got so messed up on drugs that they fired him from the band. He hit bottom and “got saved” as they say in Evangelical circles. He then finished college and did geology and mining stuff in Utah for a few years. He thought he was done with music until Petra happened. The whole answer was about 20 minutes long, so I really am giving you the thumbnail version.

Oh, the one question that was deflected concerned whether there would be a live album recorded on this tour. The band equivocated on this idea. Folks, based on what I’ve been seeing, the live album will be recorded in Oklahoma City on July 26th.

Following the Q & A session, the autograph portion began. The band members signed whatever was presented to them. Besides my original Petra LP, there were backpacks, ball caps, and CD covers. I was surprised that I was the only one with an LP. The Petra LPs are being re-released along with remastered CDs by Boone’s Overstock and Girder Music.

As people were getting autographs, they had a person assigned to take photos of each person or group going through the line, so you got a personalized photo with the band. As of this writing, the photos are not on Facebook yet.

At the conclusion of the VIP event, I went out to my car and put my treasures in the car. I then went into the concert venue. Being that I’m in Canada, would it surprise you that the venue was on the floor of the local hockey rink.

The one question I almost asked was concerning the song, “God Gave Rock N’ Roll to You.” Per Wikipedia, it was originally done by Argent in 1971. Petra changed some lyrics and did it in 1977 and again in 1984. KISS did their own variation of it in 1991 for the movie Bill and Ted’s Bogus Adventure.

Having some time to kill, I looked at the merchandise for sale and Petra had zero music for sale: only shirts. I learned from the guy at the table that only merchandise manufactured in Canada was allowed to be sold at the concert. Also, they could not accept any form of payment except cash or PayPal. Even with international data roaming activated on my phone, I was unable to download the PayPal app. It’s probably been at least ten years since I tried using PayPal for any type of transaction, so I don’t even know if I still have an account with them. NAFTA be damned, international commerce is a pain in the rear.

The warm-up band came on stage about 7 PM. They were never introduced. I researched their name, it was “Revival.”

The band performed about seven songs. Their last song was a cover of “Jesus Freak.” Per Wikipedia, the song was originally done by DC Talk. I have heard it before and have a cover of it done by Larry Norman.


People say I’m strange, does it make me a stranger

That my best friend was born in a manger

Jesus Freak

Revival finished their set about 7:40. It was then announced that there would be break and Petra would take the stage at 8 PM.

Sure enough, Petra took the stage at 8 PM and played for an hour and a half. Some of the folks really got into it, singing and dancing, and occasionally clapping to the music. Other folks watched with less visible enthusiasm. I would say that the crowd was about four to five hundred people and most of the audience was between 40 to 60 years old.

The overall playlist was much like Petra’s Farewell CD with some other songs added. Also, the rock and acoustic medleys were longer. John Schlitt’s vocals were remarkable good; especially since the guy is probably in his seventies. He looks like an older version of Christopher Lloyd’s “Doc Brown” from Back to the Future.

Christopher Lloyd “Doc Brown”

Bob Hartman’s guitar solo was much the same as Farewell.

As I said previously, the band was never introduced but I think the other band members are:

Greg Bailey – Bass, cello, backing vocal

Cristian Borneo – Drums

John Lawry – Keyboards, keytar, backing vocal

Attached are some photos of the concert.

Following the concert, I hit the road and went to the other border crossing at Eastport. I must say that it was odd driving down unfamiliar mountain roads at nighttime with the speedometer at 100. After about 40 minutes, I finally arrived at the crossing back into the United States.

I was instructed to turn off my engine and then was hit with a barrage of questions. As best as I can remember they included the following:

  • Was there anyone else in my car?
  • Did I have over $10,000 with me?
  • Did I have alcohol or tobacco products?
  • Did I have any fresh fruit or vegetables?
  • Where was I coming from?
  • Where was I going?

I felt really unwelcome to be entering the US. Perhaps I should have answered in Spanish, it might have been quicker to be allowed into the country. It might be that I was the only person in a while the guy had a chance to talk with, I don’t know but he finally let me go. I walked in the door about 11 PM.

Now I just need to find a few frames for my autographed stuff.

Book Review Christian Nationalism

Thanks to the Berean Church in Sandpoint Idaho and Politically Active Christians Political Action Committee (PAC PAC), I have had to start reading a few books to refute their claims about Christian Nationalism not being Christian. In their two-hour presentation they mention but never quote Andrew Torba and his running mate, Rev. Andrew Isker. The only thing they reference in their presentation are three books in the Recommended Reading list at the back of Torba’s book, Christian Nationalism.

Back when I was a Roman Catholic, I learned that there are sins of commission and sins of omission. Berean purposely commits the second in their presentation. They mention that Torba and Isker recommend a book on Christian Nationalism by Stephen Wolfe but omit the part that the book is “forthcoming”. This implies that Torba and Isker are aware the book is in the publishing pipeline, but “forthcoming” says to me that they haven’t seen it in its final form. Looks like I get to spend some money at Cannon Press in the next few weeks so I can pick up three or four more books on the issue. Like I really need more books in my reading que. (I’m reading my fourth book this week which just happens to be by Gary DeMar and is not related to the present topic.).

Berean also omits a book by Gary DeMar and skips most other people on the Recommended Reading list. I know for a fact that Gary DeMar does not like the label of “Christian Nationalist”, but he says that he understands what some people are trying to say by calling themselves that. He thinks it is the wrong label to use. This fact is also absent from the Berean presentation. You would think that when Torba and Isker recommending a book by a guy that doesn’t like the label “Christian Nationalist” that fact would be a relevant point in their presentation.

The full title of the book by Torba and Isker is Christian Nationalism: A Biblical Guide to Taking Dominion & Discipling Nations.

Christian Nationalism is a movement of rebuilding, reformation and revival. We are not trying to overthrow the existing state or even necessarily earn positions in the highest levels of power. We don’t need to because we are playing the long game and are busy building things that matter. … So that is exactly what we are building: a parallel Christian Society.

A glaring omission in the Berean presentation is that they never deal with the issue of Dominion. Berean never cites any Bible verses on what they think a Christian’s role should be in our culture. They only say that Christian Nationalists are wrong but offer nothing in its place. As Gary North used to say, “You can’t beat something with nothing” but at the end of the day, that’s all they offer. Defeat and retreat are not a winning strategy or a biblical one either.

Torba’s Christian Nationalism is essentially an optimistic and post-millennial view of history that is offered as an antidote to the poison of premillennial dispensational defeatist theology that permeates most churches in the West. The bottom line is that Jesus isn’t coming back for a few thousand more years so given that, what legacy do you plan to leave for the next few generations. Torba says we should be planning at least seven generations into the future. Play the long game and Christians will transform society. We need to “take some turf for Jesus” as Gary S Paxton used to sing.

One of the most important tasks for the Christian Nationalist is overcoming the idea that the world is going to end very soon. The Pilgrims and other settlers who came to found a new Christian nation were not doing so because they expected the world to end any minute now. They did so because they were aware of the promises that God has made in His Word, that:

All the ends of the world shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you. (Psalm 22: 27-28.)

And that:

“the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.” (Hab. 2:14.)

Torba also advocates for a variation of the strategy found in one of my all-time favorite books, “How the Irish Saved Civilization.”

Create parallel economic structures that showcase the difference between Christian culture and “the world”. Saint Patrick did this when he wished to convert a city. He set up a Christian community next to the city he wished to convert to show unbelievers that the followers of Christ had a better way to do things. Torba says that the current world system will collapse, and Christians need to be ready to step-in and help rebuild society after that happens.

The biggest complaint I have is that Torba doesn’t adequately footnote his books. There is no index of Scripture quotations, no index of topics, no index of people mentioned, and few if any citations of people quoted in his books.

For example, in Christian Nationalism, Torba quotes David Chilton several times but never says where the quotes are from. I was a friend of David’s and I recognize the quotes but please don’t ask me which book or lecture is being quoted.

All heathen cultures have been statist and tyrannical, for a people who reject God will surrender themselves and their property to a dictator. (I Sam 8: 7-20.)  — David Chilton

Only one chapter in the book has any footnotes at all and that is the last chapter documenting that the original colonies were all founded as Christian outposts (colonies or nations) sanctioned by the British and under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Torba claims to be taking the Great Commission of Jesus literally and wanting to disciple all nations.

There is an abundance of biblical evidence for Christ’s present reign over heaven and earth. And the strongest is in the Great Commission (Matt 28: 18): “And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.’ Jesus is reigning already. He doesn’t have some authority over this world, He has all of it.

This is mainstream Christian theology. Sadly, many Christians just don’t believe in it these days; hence the mess we are in. Torba also does his best to make the push for Christian Nationalism open to Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians. You might say his slogan is, “If Jesus is your Lord, welcome on board.”

The most controversial chapter in the book is his refutation of the phrase “Judeo-Christian.” The “Judeo” is not based on the Old Testament but on a rejection of Jesus as Messiah and thus incompatible with Christianity. His comments are spot-on concerning this issue.

Talmudic Judaism is a new religion made up by those who rejected Jesus Christ. It is not the precursor to Christianity; it postdates it. By using the term [Judeo-Chirstian] we are reinforcing the idea that their religion is just like ours except they don’t believe in Jesus yet, when in reality it is a new religion formed out of the total rejection of the Son of God.

Oh, I got my copy of the book from Amazon. It was one of those print on demand books and my hard cover copy is 70 pages long. Yes, I’d recommend this book.

Voter Response for Splitting the Vote

In photo above, Mike Franco hurls cell phone at Spencer Hutchings.

Post election consequences.

Just when you thought it was safe to resume your life again, things take a turn into the Twilight Zone.

Enter one, Mike Franco. Mike is a member of PAC PAC. PAC PAC is the Politically Active Christians PAC. PAC PAC is the same group that I blogged about last week that did the seminar on Christian Nationalism not being Christian.

It seems that Mike was not happy that Spencer Hutchings and Jane Sauter split the conservative vote. Their combined vote total was more than incumbent Mark Sauter got in Tuesday’s election. So, Mike went to Spencer’s place of business and proceeded to assault him and some guy named Dan Rose.

The best part is that it was captured on video.

Today, a man that is reportedly a member of the Politically Active Christians (PAC PAC) entered a local gun shop bitter and enraged over the election results from earlier this week.

Mike Franco has been arrested by Bonner County Sheriff’s office pending multiple charges, including assault, battery, destruction of property, and likely more charges.

Two victims were taken to the hospital, including Spencer Hutchings, owner of Sheepdog Supplies Gun Store, and Dan Rose, currently an independent candidate for State Senator. Hutchings is a former candidate against Franco’s chosen candidate, another PAC PAC member.

BREAKING: Recoil from This Week’s Elections

You can’t help but wonder if Republican candidates would be less inclined to split the vote if more people like Mike gave them a piece of their minds.

Oh, both PAC PAC and Bonner Votes (Bonner is the county just south of mine) are run by the same group. Both URLs are linked to the same PAC PAC video.

Please note that the assault shown above was at a gun store. I don’t know if that’s a criminal enhancement in Idaho but I’m sure it would be in Elk Grove.

Sheriff’s Election and other Results

Before getting to the results, I need to recount the Stolley campaign’s last round of dirty politics.

Travis Stolley

Last Sunday (05/19/24), Travis Stolley’s minions dumped another set of documents as a hit piece against Dave Schuman. This trove of goodies was literally twenty years old. Like a good media report, they not only gave you the goods but then told you what you were supposed to glean from the information. They allege that Dave once had a drug dog. Said dog, failed his certification in sniffing out street pharmaceuticals in 2004. Supposedly the dog was used two years later in relationship to an arrest. They claim this was illegal.

Please note once again that whoever was Sheriff at the time kept Dave on the payroll. Folks, based on all the information that has come out in this race, it has never been the Sheriff’s policy to keep good records of law enforcement activity. This begs the question as to whether it is standard operating procedure to not enforce the law or is there an expectation that some families get preferential treatment in this county?

Another thing repeatedly mentioned at the debate and subsequent candidate forums is that drugs are a big problem in the county; however, nobody can recall the last time anyone was arrested for dealing drugs. Is law enforcement here just expected to look the other way? Our county is on the border with Canada and has two different border crossings. Don’t you think it would be in some criminal enterprise’s best interest to have a friendly Sheriff in their pocket? Just wondering.

Anyway, Tuesday was the election. Dave Schuman came in dead last. Second place went to John VanGesen. Travis Stolley—who hasn’t been at a campaign event in a good six weeks—came in first with over fifty percent of the vote.

Locally, three candidates put their names on the ballot and then hid in Joe Biden’s basement until the election was over, all three won. Travis Stolley for Sheriff, Jim Woodward for State Senate, and Mark Sauter for State House of Representatives. Woodward beat a first term incumbent that had defeated him in the previous election.

In the next week I will be getting my hands on the voter rolls and expect to find that the Democrats (Democrats here run as Republicans) have been ballot harvesting absentee ballots. This is illegal in Idaho, but the ends justify the means as long as the right guys win; just ask any Democrat.

In the only open seat for State office, Cornel Razor beat Chuck Lowman. Cornel owns the Army Surplus Store in Sandpoint.

Cornel Rasor

The result of my ballot was uncontested.

Sheriff’s Election: Dave Schuman Issues Response

Folks Dave Schuman issued a press release yesterday. Here it is in its entirety. Please note that I’m not putting this in block quotes because it’s too darn long. FYI I’ve also seen it online as a three-page Word document.



Shortly after I announced my candidacy a complaint was lodged questioning my integrity based off of statements made during my political campaign. That in itself should tell you that the complaint is politically motivated.

Majority of those very same statements, made during a previous campaign 8 years prior were not complained about then. You might want to ask; “Who would benefit by shaming Dave Schuman”?

The complaint ranged from my job descriptions listed on my resume for my assignment with the Boundary County Sheriff’s Office.  A job description that I copied and pasted, written by the county. The fact that the present administration opted not to use me to the fullest definition of that job description does not make the job description invalid, or shows any misconduct on my part.

I quoted statements passed onto me from a past supervisor of mine, Undersheriff Tim Day, as to the success of the Drug Task Force that I worked in for a number of years. Again, not an issue on me.

Every part of the complaint would be first line supervisor corrective actions needed,  at best. That was never conducted.

Instead the complaint was sent to Idaho P.O.S.T (police academy) launching an investigation, also causing a personnel action.

Based on the investigation being initiated the current Sheriff did the proper thing and placed me on administrative leave.

Being a county employee on administrative leave undergoing a personnel action, disclosure of all the facts were limited. A step that often is used to stiffel  the truth

Given the fact that I met my requirements for retirement and I am a candidate for Sheriff that supports clarity and the U.S & Idaho Constitution,  I retired,  last day being 31 March  2024. My highest certification I obtained in Idaho is a Masters level.

My retirement gave me the ability to clarify a lot of things.  The only thing I cannot comment on is the P.O.S.T Investigators final report. My retirement is also in line with the motto I have conducted throughout career. That being “Do The Right Thing, Even When Not Popular. “

The reasons I can’t comment on the final report are:

* I don’t know all steps taken.

* I am not the author of the report.

The timing of this complaint is very suspect,  especially when I have never been counseled for such actions in an 44 1/2 year career.

I have a proven track record in regards to sound Constitutional decisions resulting in zero payout. Both as a line officer and a leader. It is not buzz words to me. The  Constitution’s core promises of equal protection under the law to all.

Depending on the outcome of the election on 21 May 2024 will dictate what further action is required in regards to the complaint.

Recently a local news outlet published 1/2 of this story after telling me that they wouldn’t do such a thing without the complete facts being presented. We are still awaiting a final report from the Idaho Police academy. Due process is a must.  That’s not happening here. No criminal acts were depicted in the complaint,  but those that are jumping on the bandwagon sure are trying to paint a different picture without facts. Some might call that slander.

I have a long history of protecting others.  It feels very different to be viewed that I need to defend myself.  Fact is I have done nothing wrong, this is an attempt to slime me and torpedo our campaign.

In regards to past leadership facts that are conveniently omitted by my some are:

* By the command structure of the Boundary County Sheriff’s Office there are only 5 , on paper Supervisory positions.  Being:

– Sheriff

– Undersheriff

– Patrol Sergeant

– Detention Sergeant

– Dispatch Supervisor

Additional information omitted is:

My past duties makes me tailored made to be Sheriff of Boundary County.

My, on paper,  leadership experience shows in excess of 17 years with U.S Army, supervising U.S.A Citizen & Foreign Citizens,  U.S.A military & Foreign military. In both combat and non-combat situations. I received many accommodations and decorations,  ranging from a Meritorious Service Medal down to a Service award.

As a Platoon Sergeant for the majority of my military career I directly lead 32 Military Police Service members,  very similar to the size of BCSO. Primarily taking care of military installations, population equal to that of Boundary County.

I have managed multi millions dollar plus budgets and multi millions dollars plus accountability and serviceability of equipment. But that is played down by some.

Not being a bean counter or Commander of my own desk and being an active participant of the day to day line officer activities in Boundary County is what the role of an effective Sheriff is for our community.

I accept the fact that not everyone shares my vision,  but I will not accept a person or persons that insist on trying to con our community.

I might not always make you happy,  but you will always receive the truth.

It is unfortunate that the ridiculous political actions being conducted at a National level have trickled down to our County.

I know Boundary County.  I have lived it, worked it, protected and fallen in love with it and hope as Sheriff I will be able to help make our County shine in a positive light and the undignified actions of others are decreased.

I have have a proven history of honesty and integrity.  I have never violated anyone’s civil or constitutional rights.

My name is Dave Schuman, and I am running for Boundary County Sheriff.

End of press release quotation.

Folks, tomorrow is election day here and this race is looking to be a barn burner.

Review of Presentation Claiming Christian Nationalism is Not Christian

Note: in the ten minutes (or less) that it takes you to read this, I saved you from wasting an additional two hours of your life watching the video that I reviewed. My notes were made as I watched this video, so they are jumpy.

Here in north Idaho, there is a church that is preaching against Christian Nationalism. This is not too remarkable to me since many claiming the name of Christ are not really Christians, but this instance is different. Why? Because this congregation controls a political action committee. This PAC has been a tool wielded against conservative Christian candidates. Since they have interjected themselves into the public square, I had decided to critique their claims.

Before I begin, I have a few comments.

First, there is no such thing as Christian Nationalism. This term is a strawman constructed by the Left to hammer conservatives and Christians. There is no leader of Christian Nationalism because there are no dues, membership, or anything else. It’s just a label that Liberals use to pigeonhole folks that they don’t like. Christian Nationalism is a category of people that the Left wish to dismiss in much the same way as dog excrement on the bottom of their designer shoes.

That being said, many conservatives and Christians have decided to “own” the label. For those ignorant in history or who spent too much time in public school, the name “Christian” was coined by the opponents of Jesus as a way to insult and belittle His followers. Instead of fighting the label, the Church decided to own it and thus were OK to be called something intended as an insult.

Anyone can claim to be a Christian Nationalist or called that by anyone that wishes to belittle them or be dismissive of their views of a conservative. The term itself has little to no context or content. However, why let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?

Lastly, some folks call themselves Christian Nationalists just to get a rise from the Left and folks at places like the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League.

Some Christians don’t like the label because it is an inaccurate summary of their beliefs.

Anyway, The Berean Church in Sandpoint Idaho has managed to construct a two-hour presentation on the evils of Christian Nationalism. What follows will be a few comments on their presentation. The video is bookmarked in two locations.

Berean Website

The presentation is given by three individuals. Parts I and IV are by a black gentleman that is not identified, the next portion is given by the pastor, Michael Kohl, and a third part is by another fellow. Parts of the audio are faint and hard to understand. The video was posted to YouTube on Jan 19, 2024.

Kohl graduated for Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia which is Presbyterian and also attended the Reformed Episcopal Seminary (Philadelphia). He was in the Presbyterian Church In America (PCA) a somewhat liberal Presbyterian denomination, and has also worked in Brethren and independent Churches. The church’s statement of faith is the Five Protestant Solas with no elaboration.

Part I

This presentation begins with a PowerPoint slide Understanding the backdrop.

The four bullet points which are explained in more detail later are:

  • What is the term Christian Nationalism?
  • Who are the thought leaders of modern Christian Nationalism?
  • Mapping out the Christian Nationalism operation
  • Discovering how it matters to Idaho

First up is a video clip which is a promo for Rob Reiner’s movie attacking Christianity, God and Country. By-the-way, this turkey really bombed at the box office so don’t feel bad if you never saw it. Oh, Reiner hates Christians and always has.

My Comment on God and Country

The Hollywood reporter says of the film:

And, as the film points out in exhaustive detail, Christian Nationalism is very much a political, rather than religious, movement. The movement posits that America is a Christian nation and that the founders intended it as such. It seeks to roll back feminism, LBGTQ rights and abortion, and to either introduce Christianity to public schools or substitute them with private Christian schools funded by vouchers.

‘God & Country’ Review: A Bracing, Rob Reiner-Produced Primer on the Dangers of Christian Nationalism

Any rational Christian believes all the things lamented by the Hollywood Reporter.

Back to the presentation

The presenter then critiques the Reiner promo and then steers people to Wikipedia for a definition of Christian Nationalism. He says he doesn’t like Liberals critiquing Christian Nationalism but then uses them as a source to do so. This is circular reasoning. He then keys on the names Andrew Torba and Nick Fuentes because they are mentioned by Wikipedia.

First up is a critique of Nick Fuentes. The clip shown is Fuentes talking of tearing down inclusive forces and kicking the Republican Party in the butt. I can tell you what’s probably coming next because Nick mentioned the word “white” and that is the racism card. In the context of DEI, Nick is right to say white people, and doubly so if they’re male, get screwed by the Democrat quota system.

I resumed the clip and Fuentes says he wants to drag the Republican Party back inside the doors of the church. FYI in the early years of the Republican Party, the Republican Party was called the Episcopal Church at prayer. The anti-slavery movement was largely a Christian one and was instrumental in the foundation of the Republican Party.

Then the presenter goes to Vincent James Foxx. Online, he goes by Vincent James. Vincent is a Republican and a self-identified Roman Catholic.

My comments on Vincent James

Vincent spends most of his podcasts talking against illegal immigration, discrimination against white people—a rection or pushback to those pushing DEI—and he points out the part played by prominent Jewish people in promoting the tearing-down of our institutions. He is not anti-Semitic, but against Jewish people born in America that have more allegiance to Israel than America. He makes it clear—if you listen—that he doesn’t hate Jews as a group be disagrees with wealthy Jewish people that teardown others to get special advantages for themselves and their allies. Rarely does he talk of Christianity except as it is affected by things like the recently adopted federal bill which gives special protections against anti-Semitic speech. This bill adopts language defining anti-Semitism which was written by a Jewish special interest group. It prohibits speaking against Zionism and makes the biblical account of Jesus’ crucifixion illegal. Yet, it got the full support of Zionist Christians but makes essential parts of the Gospel illegal to say. I think we will have more to say about Dispensational, premillennial theology before this presentation is concluded but we will see.

Back to the presentation.

The presenter plays a clip of Vincent being sarcastic and over the top talking about Christian Nationalism rolling back liberal social policy. Oh, but the presenter doesn’t really acknowledge that James is being sarcastic but takes him literally which in reality is taking him out of context. Folks, you don’t get thousands of followers online without some showmanship in your presentation. Vincent James has about 70 thousand followers on his Bitchute channel. He is on Rumble and several other places as well.

After a quick clip of James, the presenter goes on to some guy named Dave Reily. Dave Reily was recently hired by the Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF). IFF is not a part of Christian Nationalism they lean libertarian, so I don’t know why it matters.

Somehow some of these guys are Facebook friends or something like that or they reposted a meme that someone put online so now they are all part of some great conspiracy. This is really a stretch.

Switching gears slightly we then go to Andrew Torba of the website Gab. Gab is a site dedicated to free speech. It is intended to be a safe haven for Christians and other that don’t wish to be censored by BIG Tech. Vincent James has a page on Gab which is where I first come across him. Torba wrote a book on Christian Nationalism that sounds like mash-up of parts of How the Irish Saved Civilization and Christian Reconstruction.

In this book, Torba has a recommended reading section. The presenter cherry picks three guys, Doug Wilson and two of his fellow travelers in Moscow Idaho. Please note that he ignores everyone else on the list.

My Comments on Berean’s Treatment of Andrew Torba

This entire presentation of over two hours never once quotes from Andrew Torba or his book on Christian Nationalism. Nor does it quote from anyone else writing on the topic. I suspect because Torba is repackaging Theonomy and Christian Reconstruction, whereas Stephen Wolfe’s book is on political theory. Political Theory is what should be but normally omits how to get there. The reader is left with the challenge of how to implement the ideas presented.

Back to the presentation

Also, please note that we have crossed the line from Roman Catholic to Protestant people. Torba, Wilson, and others have a much more biblical and higher view of Scripture and how it should be applied to public policy than Vincent James and others.

Wilson then gets attacked by the presenter for one line in one book that Wilson wrote. Folks Wilson has written hundreds of books, articles, and other documents. Look, He is a prolific writer. I know that Wilson has many supporters and detractors but to dismiss him outright on the basis of one sentence is sloppy and disingenuous.

Oh, here is the offending statement.

But breaking covenant occurs because of unbelief, lack of faith, and because of lack of good works.

Whether this is related to James and the faith and works debate is not stated since we are denied context for the quotation.

Then the presenter goes after Peter Leithart for this quote which is never put into context.

Salvation must take a social form, and the Church is that social form of salvation, the community that already (though imperfectly) has become the human race as God created it to be, the human race that is becoming what God intends it to be. The Church is neither a reservoir of grace nor an external support for the Christian life. The Church is salvation.

This sounds like a variation of St. Cyprian, “No one can have God for his Father, who does not have the Church for his mother.”

Whatever larger point Leithart is making is never given. As Walter Martin famously said, “A text without a context, is a pretext, usually for error.”

On the basis of this quote, the presenter expects us to dismiss Leithart too.

Stephen Wolfe wrote “The Case for Christian Nationalism.” Many of their PowerPoint slides have the first name spelled a “Steven” not “Stephen.”

Drum roll, and the single pull quote from his book is:

I am not calling for a monarchial regime over every civil polity, and certainly not an autocracy, though I envision a measured and theocratic Caesarism—the prince as world-shaker for our time, who brings a Christian people to self-consciousness and who, in his rise, restores their will for good.

Again, this quote is presented without context. I can think of several possible and contradictory understandings of this quote but without context, we don’t know what the point of it really is. However, it really begs the question as to whether civil government should be based on God’s law or men’s. Ultimately these are the only two possibilities.

Wow. Surprise. We actually get a second quote from Wolfe. Presented again without context or elaboration.

Many claims in the book will worry many American conservative Christians. I’ve said that political governments can suppress false religion, establish a church, even require people to attend church. I also wrote about a ‘Christian prince,’ which is not the sort of political title one would find in America. I will not walk back those claims.

The presenter expects us to be shocked at the quote but should we really? First, we have no context for the above statement. However, I know that parts of it are easily proven true. Let’s look at a few parts of the above.

Politics can suppress false religion. Two examples. The United States outlawed the Mormon practice of polygamy. Currently, many are trying to outlaw displays of Satanic worship in public schools—especially as clubs on elementary campuses—and displays in public places. Plurality does have limits; especially, in a nation founded on Christian values. Oh, and don’t forget that all law is moral and an establishment of someone’s religion.

A State can establish a church. Yep, this is also a true statement. The majority of the 13 colonies had state sponsored churches when they ratified the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution only prohibits establishing a national church. Ditto for test oaths. Tax money also went to state sponsored churches to pay their clergy and other church expenses.

Requiring church attendance by citizens might be more problematic; however, it would not surprise me if the Pilgrims and other early settlers had such a requirement. Again, what is the context?

As for the “Christian Prince.” We are not given any context, however, my first thought is of Machiavelli’s book “The Prince.” Other ideas might include Constantine or a Trump-like figure that used Scripture as his guide to rule.

The presenter does not analyze this statement, just mocks it and dismisses it out of hand.

Congratulations. You have now endured about 38 minutes of this presentation.

Part II

With a horrible, stutter of the video, we then get a new presenter, that I assume is Pastor Kohl.

We will now get a theological critique of Christian Nationalism… well maybe.

Rev Kohl starts with a definition of Christianity or says he will, then takes a detour of sorts thru the book of Romans. He tries contrasting the Apostle Paul versus Stephen Wolfe, but Wolfe is not given in context, just one sentence, again without context. Then he goes back to Genesis and talks about Abraham.

At this point Kohl slaps Doug Wilson on a quote dealing with baptism. Again, there is no context. I wonder if Wilson advocates infant baptism while Kohl does not. And who cares? What does this have to do with Christian Nationalism? Probably nothing.

On one of the slides, Kohl has Abraham’s son Isaac spelled as “Isac”. Another minus point for Kohl.

Then he jumps to Wolfe again with a series of quotes on nationalism that seem varied. As usual, they are presented without context. Then he jumps to Moses and quotes some stuff about his wife who may have been black. I’m not sure of his point. I think that Kohl is trying to build a foundation that Christian Nationalists are all racists. Hope he’s better than that. He is on a rant about groups and factions. I will wait and see where this goes.

Now he pulls a quote from Wolfe that says the invisible church and the visible church are the same group. Again, no context so I don’t know if there is more to this than stated. We also don’t know what Wolfe’s church affiliation is so we don’t know if we are defining terms the same way or differently? Lastly, as a practical matter, we don’t know the difference between the visible and invisible church, God is the one that sees men’s hearts and knows who is truly save not us.

The next Wolfe quote is:

But public heresy has the potential to harm other’s souls by causing doubt or distraction or by disrupting public peace. The magistrate, who must care for the souls of his people, may act to suppress that heresy.

In my mind, I think of claims that homosexuality, abortion, or transgenderism are biblically ok. This would be heresy that casts doubt and disrupts the public peace.

Kohl mocks this whole statement but by what standard does he expect us to be government if not the Bible?

Kohl rants on about the visible vs invisible church and that Christian Nationalists have this wrong as a way for them to lord power over the rest of us. He states this as fact but never proves it. The scholarship used to construct this presentation is really poor.

As I stated at the first, there is no leader of Christian Nationalism. It is a strawman invented by liberals. Some of us are ok to own the label instead of demanding a new or different one.

Kohl tries to make out fellow believers as Judaizers. He again spanks Doug Wilson on baptism. Based on the quotes cited, Wilson believes that baptism is membership into the covenant and thus a sign of one’s salvation. This is not a radical Christian view unless maybe you are a Baptist which Kohl doesn’t appear to be. Children that are baptized are treated as believers as long as they walk in the faith. Baptized children are presumed saved. They have covenant membership and should be allowed access to the Lord’s Table, Holy Communion, or whatever you want to call it. As they get older it is assumed that they will make the faith their own via a decision, confirmation, or some other act. If they don’t then a time may come when they are not longer covenant members in good standing.

There it goes, “Judaizers were the original Christian Nationalists.”

Kohl says, Christian Nationalists believe in Jesus plus something else as the basis of salvation and that is why they are wrong. I find this troublesome because he has produced zero quotes that this is the case. He hasn’t tied salvation to any sort of political movement. It’s all smoke and mirrors.

Kohl’s Three Card Monty lost the pea a long time ago, but his listeners are supposed to be in awe because the cups are still being shuffled about.

This presentation is empty of substance. The only point he has made so far is that there is a difference between the visible and invisible church and Mr. Wolfe might be shaky on that point. To me it’s a secondary issue.

I’m an hour and twenty minutes into this thing and I have yet to hear what Christian Nationalists want to do in a political way that is at variance with the Bible or why they are objectionable. Furthermore, what is the Berean Christian Fellowship’s more biblical alternative?

Mercifully it is intermission. I’m taking a pit stop. We have one hour remaining in this presentation.

Last I checked, I was a Christian Nationalist if I believed that my rights came from God and not government. Berean Christian Fellowship has done nothing to change that definition.

Part III

This section is presented by a third person. Again, none of the speakers have been introduced.

The presenter is promising to give a history of Christian Nationalism. He references the Roman Church and pulls a quote from Leithart that sounds rather Roman. I quote only the latter part:

… so there can be no Church without sacraments. Since there can be no salvation without the Church, since indeed, the Church is salvation, there is no salvation without the sacraments.

I can see why some might object to this statement, but what does it have to do with Christian Nationalism? The Church is the Bride of Christ so there is a sense in which this is true. Also, the Church is charged with administering the sacraments. Yes, technically salvation is thru the sacrifice of Christ but all those saved by Him are part of His Bride the Church. Again, without context, I feel that this quote is being manipulated by the presenters.

The next section is some history on the Reformation. In the midst of this topic, the presenter interjects another quote by Wolfe. Again, without context. The word “who” in this quote (below) could refer to God or the prince. I can’t tell which, but it makes a huge difference in the meaning of this sentence.

The prince enlivens laws not as an agent of coercion but as the divinely sanctioned vicar of God who binds conscience to just applications of natural law, as one who directs public reason.

The reoccurrence of “the prince’ makes me harken back to Machiavelli. It is worth asking if Wolfe believes Machiavelli’s The Prince was a serious treatise of politics or a satirical document. The former is the view of most academics, but the latter is my position on this work.

The presenter bashes the idea of the prince also being the spiritual leader of the nation. Whether Wolfe advocates this or is just mimicking Machiavelli or this is in a different context altogether is unknown. I think the presenter is trying to equate Wolfe’s ideas with an Anglican view of Christianity where the king is both political and spiritual head of the nation. The U.S. Constitution prohibits this from happening by outlawing a national church. King Saul (and later David & Jesus) exercised the offices of prophet, priest, and king at the same time. This is not the American system but is clearly a biblical idea.

The presenter then quotes some fellow named Dan Fisher for writing,

“[preachers] had been laying the groundwork for the [American] revolution by preaching for years that believers could not separate their religious convictions from their political positions and actions.”

Folks isn’t that what Christian Nationalists are advocating? Religious convictions should not be separated from their political positions and actions. In other words, your faith should be reflected in how you live your life the other six days of the week. What’s wrong with that?

Oh, the last sentence of the pull quote by Fisher is:

It was clear they saw no contradiction in mixing politics and religion.

The presenter keeps going back to Wolfe’s book and contrasting his view with other writings. Folks, it’s really dumb to do this. Who says they are followers of Wolfe? I’ve never met anyone who even knows who he is. I have looked at lots of videos by Vincent James and read stuff by Torba and Wilson and never heard of Wolfe or his ideas mentioned. This is a longform strawman presentation where we get to spank Wolfe like a piñata.

Finally, he gets to his point, “the American Revolution was a violation of Christian Nationalism.”

His thesis is that King James of England was a Christian Nationalist, and the Pilgrims were fleeing to American to escape Christian Nationalism. To these guys at Berean, Christian Nationalists want to destroy our country and establish a monarchy in its place. Sorry, I only met one guy in my life that ever wanted a monarchy in the United States, and he died last year.

Now the presenter is claiming to go to the Bible to see what it says about government. Oh, the time counter is at one hour, 47 minutes. Wanna bet they call themselves a Bible church?

Their first assertion is, “Political power comes ultimately from God but practically from the will of the people.” The presenter goes to the writings of Moses where Moses sets up the rulers of tens, hundreds, and thousands. Then to Saul and then David. He is trying to claim that the Old Testament political system was a republic like ours’.

He then goes to quotes, again and again by Wolfe, concerning the prince. I think it’s clear that Wolfe is not talking specifically about America and how it should be governed but it is an update to The Prince or written in much the same style as a political theory book.

Finally, two hours in, we get to Romans 13, a favorite home to heretics and antinomians that really believed the two-weeks-to-flatten-the-curve BS. After a cursory mention of the passage, we go to secular political theory with Hans Eysenck’s Theory of Government. Oh, another misspelling on their PowerPoint slides as his last name was spelled “Eyseneck”.

In the name of fairness, I went to the fount of all authority in political matters, at least for these presenters, Wikipedia. There I learned that Eysenck forged much of the data used on his work, and no one has been able to replicate key parts of it. The data used for his political information was manipulated as well. Then the presenter goes to several other charts on politics in rapid succession. A biblical model of how we should be governed or what the rules should be followed is no where to be seen. With ten minutes remaining, he gets to a model of American government that emphasizes four points:  the rule of law, limited government, government does not control access to God, and salvation is individual.

Part IV

Wow, with eight minutes left we get another part and another presenter. (same guy as Part I.)

This part is on Leftists and features only James Carville saying Christian Nationalists are a greater threat than Al Qaida.  The speaker then states that regular Christians are caught between the Leftists and the Christian Nationalists.

Berean’s Conclusion

  • Christian Nationalism in not Christian or American
  • Christian Nationalism is not the answer to our problems.
  • Christian Nationalism is just another flavor of tyranny.
  • Have an answer based on biblical principles on which our nation was founded.

Berean Church has carefully cherrypicked Christian Nationalism to make a case that can’t really be made. If they were honest then they would have dealt with Torba’s book on Christian Nationalism as well as Stephen Wolfe’s. Dominion is not mentioned at all in this presentation even thought it is found from the earliest pages of Genesis to Revelation.

Berean Church says that Christian Nationalism is not the answer, but they never offer any alternatives. They are silent on what the Bible says a civil government should do. Should we infer that God doesn’t care?

Again, Berean Church uses pull quotes from one book to try to make their case about all Christian Nationalists. Their claim that all people calling themselves Christian Nationalists advocate for tyranny is ridiculous. Even the things that they quote from Wolfe don’t support that claim. If the Biden and Obama administrations prove anything, it’s that you don’t need a monarchy to live under tyranny. Ditto for Canada and Australia.

Knowing biblical principles on how our nation was founded are great but when folks around us deny the authority of Scripture and the church is silent on today’s social and cultural issues then what good is that? How does the Bible speak to our problems now? Again, Berean Church is silent.

The words of Gary North, R.J. Rushdoony, and others are echoing in my mind, you can’t beat something with nothing. Or if you prefer, the question posed in the 1970’s and 80’s by Francis Schaffer, How Should We Then Live?

Sorry, but I don’t see Christian Nationalism as a quest to force a monarchy onto the United States. I see it as a call for Christians to bring biblical answers to bear on the real world instead of Christians hiding it their pews hoping to be raptured so they won’t have to reap what they have sewn. Christian Nationalism is a call for the Church to get off its butt and redeem the time because the days are evil.

Andrew Torba signs every email that he sends with the words “Christ is King.” He does not advocate for the United States to be ruled by a king because we already have a king, and his name is Jesus. Torba does want Christians to be free from being cancelled by the Left and advocates that we have parallel structures that are truly free of censorship. This is similar to what Saint Patrick did to evangelize Ireland.

Vincent James does not advocate for a monarchy in the United States. However, he does advocate for people to have the same rules for their friends and enemies. He despises double standards; especially, when he is a member of the group being singled out for discriminatory treatment. I think he would agree that men should be judged by the content of their character.

I do know that Doug Wilson once interviewed Andrew Torba on his podcast. Torba has co-authored two books with Rev Andrew Isker. The books are Christian Nationalism: A Biblical Guide For Taking Dominion And Discipling Nations and The Boniface Option: A Strategy For Christian Counteroffensive in a Post-Christian Nation.

I have read the Boniface Option. It is short, whitty, and has a large dose of sarcasm. It calls for men to be men and laments the societal decay of our nation.

I’m not a follower of anybody critiqued in this presentation except Jesus and they didn’t have much to say about him which is sad. My views on the Bible were formed before there was such a thing as Christian Nationalism and, in some circles, they are even more controversial. The Bible says, “For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” Let’s start with that statement and work together as we are able instead of trying to manufacture new ways to unchurch each other.

9B News Nukes Dave Schuman with October Surprise

Liberal website 9B News launched a scathing attack on Sheriff’s candidate Dave Schuman just six days before the election. They called him a liar, manipulator, fraud, and worse. The basis of the attack was supposed to be based on a Freedom of Information Act disclosure that the author admits he never totally read but then somehow blows up to the point that Hunter Biden could be nominated for sainthood.

While there hasn’t been time for an in-depth, thorough reading of the documents and no official investigative findings have been made public…

Schuman’s credibility as a peace officer formally questioned

OK. Stop right there. The author hasn’t read the FOI information thoroughly. Furthermore, the author is not making the FOI request available as part of his article. In other words, there is zero corroborating evidence to back up the claims in this article.

Folks if you really have the goods on Dave Schuman then put them out there. What happened to “we report, you decide”? Clearly reporting the news is not enough, they have to tell us how to interpret it too.

The timing of this really stinks.

Per the article, the county prosecutor wrote a letter to the Idaho Peace Officer Standards and Training Academy. All we have as the basis of this article is an accusation. Schuman has always maintained that he was set-up by supporters of Travis Stolley.

If you recall, Stolley was flamed for not prosecuting an incident involving photos of a girl’s privates being emailed to an out of state adult. It is wrong, but in this county, deputies are given wide discretion on complaints and frequently do not document complaints or their outcome. This has been a constant gripe of candidate Jon VanGesen.

Low and behold, look at this line from the article.

Attached was a pages-long memorandum of record reference Ben Apo as regards allegations of conflict and financial discrepancies in reference to American Legion Post 55 and and Seniors Center that were never turned in for prosecution though there were concerns of potential crimes committed.

The pot here seems to be calling the kettle black. It is clear that the current sheriff might be a nice guy, but he doesn’t run a professional crew. Please note that both Stolley and Schuman have the same boss. It appears that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

The article also attacks Schuman for being a liar concerning several matters without any substantiation: except one specific.

“I am attaching a letter regarding my concerns regarding Deputy Schuman’s veracity pursuant to Giglio,” prosecuting attorney Andrakay Pluid wrote. By calling the question, she is telling the court she cannot trust this officer to testify in a court of law sufficient to maintain the integrity implicit in the pursuit of justice.

“The Brady and Giglio precedents require police officers to be especially careful to avoid any actions or statements that could compromise their credibility,” the Nevada law firm GGRQM explains on their website. “The prosecution is legally required to disclose any misconduct or compromising information regarding the witness to the defense attorney, who will then use it to impeach the law enforcement witness on the stand. The end result can be the loss of what would have been a strong case.”

While murky to the layman, the principles in Giglio and Brady go to the heart of jurisprudence and the fundamentals of due process. An officer “Giglioed” or Brady listed won’t go to jail, but won’t be trusted to testify in a court of law. Worse yet, any testimony given in their career becomes suspect and open to challenge. For all practical purposes, their effectiveness as a peace officer ends.

Folks this is a thermonuclear charge to level at Schuman but is never substantiated in the article. Again, no supporting documents or an actual copy of this letter has been made available to the public. Furthermore, Schuman is under investigation for something, but no findings have been released.

The article also drops this accusation, again without specifics.

Allegations of falsified canine training records and of falsified personal training records; of false statements released to the public to bolster his campaign for sheriff.

Ok dear readers, let me ask one question.

Put yourself in Schuman’s shoes for a second. You are running for office. You know that you are under investigation by your employer. The things you are accused of would disqualify you from serving in the office for which you are running. If these accusations were found to be true, it would ruin your reputation. Given the above, why would you stay in the race?

Folks, Schuman either thinks he is not guilty, or he is trying to pull off one hell of a bluff. I’ve seen him at several events over the past few months and his public speaking has gotten much better. He sure seems to believe that he is the best guy for the job and doesn’t back down from a fight.

My response to the 9B article on Facebook was thus:

If these assertions are true, Dave Schuman should have withdrawn from the Sheriff’s race. So either he thinks that he will be found innocent or he’s holding two duces, threw everything into the pot, and is bluffing that he has a full house.

Since Dave gets to live amongst us after this race is over, I think it likely that Dave believes he will be found innocent. We won’t know the whole story until the report is issued.

That people are willing to condemn him without all the facts in hand less than a week before the election is more of a reflection of your character than it is Dave’s. Lastly, lest you accuse me of being a blind follower of Schuman, a different candidate’s sign is in my front yard.

Meanwhile, Travis Stolley is hiding in the basement and not doing any public appearances. He refuses to go to any candidate forums. His last public event was over a month ago. This is odd behavior for the guy blessed by the good ‘ole buys in the county. It seems presumptive that Stolley has this in the bag.

The Facebook thread on this article has some comments that smear Schuman even more. (Please note that they are from a group that requires membership so I can’t figure out how to link them to this post.) Currently there are over 100 comments, but these go way beyond what was on 9B. This seems to be an example of a “whisper campaign” otherwise known as gossip.

[Dave Schuman’s] certificates were on file at the sheriff’s office and they just came up missing, supposedly by a computer crash at the sheriff’s office. How convenient

Dave had three certifications that were lifetime certifications. These were before the county started supplying training through whomever, and those trainings were to be updated yearly. By law, those records have to be kept for 10 years before purging them. It was 17 years ago Schuman was a K9 officer.

So, if the county is saying Dave was not certified to be a K9 officer, but they allowed him to do drug stops and arrest people for drugs, then they were in the wrong. Now suppose the county wanted to push this, don’t you think everyone that was arrested would have a legal recourse on the county? It would probably bankruptcy our county and those in charge would probably go to prison.

That’s the latest chapter on the sheriff’s race. Oh, 9B News is endorsing Travis Stolley. No surprise there.

Double Trouble in Idaho House Races

The political divisions in Idaho are very different from those on the Left Coast. We get to vote for two representatives in the Idaho House.

For those in Elk Grove or other parts of Gavin’s domain, image that each Senate district had two Assembly members living within those same boundaries. Every two years you get to vote for two Assembly members. Such is the case in Idaho.

In my case I live in Senate District one. Thus, we have two House members on the ballot, House 1A and House 1B. House 1B has no incumbent running but House 1A has a Liberal RINO type incumbent guy versus two conservatives. In addition, the incumbent and one of his conservative challengers both have the same last name. A website that I could swear sounds a lot like the work of Aaron F Park, is claiming that the candidates with the same last name used to be man and wife—which seems to be a false accusation.

Last week I attended the 1B debate and this week I attended the 1A debate.

Here’s my comments.

1B is Chuck Lowman vs Cornel Rasor. Prior to the debate, I knew nothing about either guy other than Cornel runs the Army Surplus store in Sandpoint Idaho.

Cornel Rasor

Cornel was clearly the more conservative guy on the platform. Lowman used several talking points put out by the North Idaho Republicans (NIR) group. In fact, he said very little that can’t be found on the webpages of NIR.

Lowman used three talking points from NIR as the basis of his campaign. First, he wants to loosen restrictions on abortions in Idaho. Secondly, NIR is pushing the corollary to their abortion narrative that Idaho has a doctor shortage that is the direct result of abortion restrictions. Somehow doctors like killing babies and doctor shortages are the result of medical professional fleeing pro-life states.

Chuck Lowman

By-the-way, this is B.S. It has more to do with rural areas having less patients in a doctor’s service area, thus less services to bill. When most doctors are carrying close to a million dollars in student loans when they completed their training, it doesn’t pencil-out unless they live in a larger population area where they can bill more services. They need a larger population base to get out from under their burdensome student loans. It’s simple economics not abortion restrictions.

Thirdly, Lowman is pushing for more governments spending; especially, for government schools. Lowman just wants more money thrown at the schools not targeted spending or results-based metrics for the spending.

Lowman used NIR talking points but without enthusiasm or conviction. I felt like he was not forthright in what he believed but saying what he thought he was supposed to say.

Cornel Rasor was more focused on the Constitution and emphasized limited government. What he said came from a firm conviction on what is the right and proper role of government. He came across as less likely to be subject to outside influence than Lowman. Lowman lacked core values.

I left the event convinced that Cornel Rasor was the better candidate.

Since the debate, I’ve often seen Lowman signs in the yards of Democrats and Left leaning people. I view this as confirmation that my impression of the debate was correct.

The second debate was for House seat 1A. As expected, incumbent Mark Sauter did not appear. Mark doesn’t know the difference between a boy and a girl so expecting him to campaign and defend his record, or lack of one, is not surprising.

This left the event to challengers Spencer Hutchings and Jane Sauter. I was told that both were conservative and that seems to be the case. Spencer owns a gun store and is pro-life. Jane is a mom of seven (if I got the biography correct) and homeschooled her children. Jane is clearly an evangelical Christian and began her opening remarks with a biblical explanation of the Old Testament’s Deborah. (See the book of Judges.) Spencer said that he had formerly been a Mormon but that was his only mention of anything religious during the entire evening.

Jane Sauter

In her opening, Jane also took a few shots at Spencer Hitchings concerning the Bonner County Central Committee and his time as their Treasurer. Jane is endorsed by the group and not Spencer. Clearly some history that has not been well publicized is lurking in the past.

A question that has been used in each debate concerns polygamy. Polygamy is outlawed by the Idaho Constitution, but the legislature has never enacted any laws to prohibit the practice. It has been claimed that some folks in my county have multiple wives. Part of the complaint is that said women are collecting benefits from the welfare system so that the dad doesn’t have to support his brood. This allows him to impregnate even more women without responsibility.

Spencer Hutchings

Men impregnating women and then letting the government foot the bill is really nothing new. It’s been a fixture of the Great Society since 1964 but I guess when Mormon sects do it then it’s a problem.  

Oh, on that subject, Jane Sauter said that one of her kids had met a girl that had over 149 siblings (brothers and sisters for those readers in Rio Linda).

After the debate, my wife and I still can’t make up our minds who to support. However, I did think it interesting that prior to the debate my wife had collected one of each item from Jane Sauter’s information table but after the conclusion of the debate, she returned them all to the information table.

Sample Ballot (partial)

Two conservative challengers versus an incumbent Liberal means that the 1A vote will likely be split and the incumbent wins. Thus, maybe it doesn’t matter who we support except in our own conscience.

The one question that I have that nobody seems interested in researching is what was the voter registration of Chuck Lowman and Mark Sauter prior to them moving to Idaho? I’d bet a meal at your local In-and-Out Burger that they were probably not Republicans.

Anyway, the election is a week from today. We will see how things turn out.