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.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MAY 19TH, 2024
FROM THE DESK OF DAVE SCHUMAN:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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 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.
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…
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.
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.
When you live in a small town that is two hours away from the nearest television station, has no local radio station, and a once or twice weekly newspaper that you’ve never read, how do you run a political campaign? Oh, sorry Sith Lord but you can’t go door-to-door here. If a property is posted and you trespass, the owner is within his rights to defend his property, Second Amendment style. Also, the voters do not get a sample ballot from election officials.
The cumulative effect of all the above is that yard signs and Facebook are the go-to ways to get your message out. However, who is the consultant, interest group, or candidate presenting you with campaign info? Usually, you never know unless they tell you or somebody outs your cute sounding grassroots name as a George Soros front.
Such is the case for the group North Idaho Republicans. From reading their website contents they try the tired and worn-out slogans of lower taxes, less government, and so forth but are they really? If you read the contents of attached articles and not the generic GOP talking points you will find that they favor lifting abortion restrictions, want more taxes and larger government, and favor trans children and other not Republican stuff. All the while they are saying they are the real and reasonable conservatives. Clearly a person cannot be both unless they are named Romney or Bush. Looking at this site its easy to smell the rats but when you try hitting them with the light of examination, they scatter like cockroaches when you turn on the lights.
Some enterprising people looked into the group and identified the participants behind North Idaho Republicans (NIR). Wow. This will blow your socks off. Of course, this info was so good that they had to make their own website just to expose the folks at NIR.
Big Boise money, Democratic activists, woke liberals & Never Trumpers are trying to steal your grassroots conservative, ‘Make America Great Again’ Kootenai County Republican Party. They call themselves ‘North Idaho Republicans’. Do you think the people below represent your values?
Folks, what you are about to read is remarkable.
Christa Hazel
Not only does she hate Trump, but she was the leader of Idaho Women for Biden.
The pull quote they use from the Coeur d’Alene Press is a real zinger.
Hazel . . . thinks Kamala Harris is one of the most qualified vice presidential candidates the country has ever seen.
The stuff from her Twitter feed is incriminating as well:
From 2020
A major reason I’m fired up, left the Republican Party & willing to work my ass off to elect @JoeBiden is because…
From 2024
… North Idaho Republicans like myself are proud of.
Do you get the chronology?
She was a neverTrumper in 2020 and quit the Republican Party to support Biden but is back now to campaign for RINOs.
Oh, on the North Idaho Republican website it says, “Christa Hazel is … a lifelong North Idaho Republican.” Yeah, sure. if your lifetime is as long as a slug and you believe in reincarnation.
The pull quote, again from the Coeur d’Alene Press is a real zinger.
Together, we can dismantle the outdated structures…that have hindered our collective progress.
Translation: we need to teardown the outdated Christian (Western) Culture because it hinders Marxist collective progress.
Damon Dajarky
Twitter posts by him are really damning.
We need a more balance of Democrats, and bipartisan politics in Idaho! Make the process more inclusive and diverse we need this in our state.
I have some very good Democrat friends who register as Republicans so they can participate in the primary process how is that fair to them.
He also is pro-transexual and hates Trump.
Jack Riggs
Jack has made it onto my blog before when he supported the false claims of racism related to the NCAA women’s tournament in Spokane. Damon Dajarky also supported the hoax claims to further his politics. Jack’s quote from the Coeur d’Alene Press might look familiar.
The empowerment of bigotry and racism threatens the very fabric of our community” (Coeur d’Alene) “ . . . these incidents are not just isolated problems. They remind us of the worst parts of our past, like the 1920s Klan.
Oh, better yet, Jack’s daughter is a partner in the Satanic Temple Idaho.
Trent Clark
Trent is the “bag man” or money guy behind North Idaho Republicans. He was a lobbyist and like others, supports woke ideology. He is a big supporter of illegal aliens and is on the Public Television board.
Marc Stewart
Marc is a rainbow warrior that hates Trump. No surprises there.
Russell Mann
Russell has a Twitter post that needs explanation.
Cheri Zao is a much better choice for conservative Idaho Republicans.
Why is this troubling? Well Cheri is Treasurer of the Kootenai County Democrat Central Committee. So how is she a better choice for “conservative Idaho Republicans”?
Conclusion
In conclusion, North Idaho Republicans is in fact run by Democrats, RINOs, and neverTrumpers.
Folks, there is a line between gossip and information. In recent revelations about candidate Stolley, that line may very well have been crossed.
Put another way, when we observe human behavior, and a person knows that he is being observed, doesn’t he change behavior just because he knows he is being watched? What happens when the observer is affecting the results they claim to be simply observing. When an observer becomes a participant and not just an observer, do they forfeit the right to claim to simply be observing?
Really, I’m not trying to confuse things. The observer in this batch of revelations has shown themselves to be a participant in the events which they are reporting. Does this participation invalidate their claims of being an objective observer? In this case, said person admits that they reported Stolley to the FBI over his mishandling of the child porn case mentioned in this post and a previous one.
Anyway, here’s the latest via our good friends at Facebook.
Community members are questioning Travis Stolley’s suitability for Boundary County Sheriff, citing concerns about his adherence to law enforcement protocols and ability to fulfill the duties of the office.
Allegations from 2019 suggest Officer Travis Stolley did not follow prescribed procedures in handling a case involving child pornography on an iPod.
* See documents in my comments below (must be on Boundary County Watchman comments not a shared post)
Following the 2020 Dr. Drake murder, questions arose about Stolley’s adherence to local, state, or federal procedural protocols regarding the use of gloves.
* Please see video attached for reference.
Further concerns arising from Stolley’s historical financial record, including a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy filing in 2014. Copies of this Bankruptcy Court filing is available on request.
These concerns seem relevant to any informed decision by the voters in selection of candidates for Sheriff and might bear on fitness for the duties of this elected office.
The above prompted a response by Stolley posted on Facebook.
I will start by saying this, Adrienne Norris is correct about the bankruptcy my family went through. As part of my interview process with the BFPD this was disclosed and discussed with Chief Bob Boone in 2014. He trusted me to overcome this experience and I have always been grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to serve our community.
It was one of the most humbling situations I have ever gone through. I knew going into this process these kinds of issues would be brought up, considered and discussed. I’m okay with you making decisions based on fact and totality of the circumstances. We are all a sum of our life experiences and this is part of my life story.
iPod/CSEM issue.
More important to me than anything else is the privacy of the individual(s) actually involved with this case. Their privacy needs protected as much as possible. I will not disclose specific details which may disclose personal information.
Can you imagine what it’s like to have someone bring up a mistake or bad choice you made when you were young over and over again?
I’ve spoken with the victims family and they want this to be left alone and have asked people to respect their privacy. Instead they were directly attacked by a select few on another social media site.
I know for a fact the victims family doesn’t think anything wrong or improper happened with the investigation. So why do people that don’t know or have the facts of the case keep trying to be a victim when they aren’t actually involved?
Victim blaming is one of the worst things I can imagine doing to someone. Bringing this up over and over keeps pressing an issue without any regard for the real victim in this situation, a young child.
I have explained to Adrienne Norris in person the truth of this, as I will do now. She chooses to either not believe me or not care about the facts and listens to someone who has an obvious bias.
Here are the facts
There 100% was not a crime committed. I did not confiscate any device because based on the information and facts provided to me at the time, there wasn’t a case to investigate. I had the device in my possession long enough to hand it to a parent of the juvenile. The content of the device was reviewed and no criminal activity was found.
Again based on the lack of evidence of a crime this was referred to the parent to handle. The parent handled the issue as any of us who are parents of teenagers in today’s society would, by being the parent.
If there had been evidence any explicit content had been shared at all, an investigation would have occurred. But that was not the case. The parent removed any content of their child on the iPod and left with the device.
Addressing the next part of Adrienne’s post in reference to Brian Drake’s murder case.
This was potentially an active threat scenario were it was a real possibility we could have located someone who had just taken the life of another person by use of a firearm.
We responded to a shots fired call, we located a deceased male and cleared the entire office building looking for a potential shooter/murder suspect.
We thought this person could be inside and possibly hiding behind any one of those doors or cabinets. Once we cleared the scene of any potential active threats a perimeter was set and investigators called.
The video referenced shows parts of us clearing the initial scene after we entered the building a short time after discovering the body. This building was a tactical nightmare to clear.
For info on the Brian Drake murder, see the following:
Oh, for those of you keeping score, this is not the only unsolved case in the area. Last summer a guy supposedly drove north of town, took a walk into the forest, and ended himself. Despite an intensive search, his body was never found. All evidence of suicide is circumstantial.
Stolley’s Facebook post ends on a less than positive note.
The reality is what happens in real life policing isn’t always like the movies. It’s fluid and often chaotic but we can learn from each experience and focus on professional training to improve. As Sheriff that will be a priority!
I’ve said this before and I’ll end by saying it again.
I’m not a perfect person or candidate. I do however care about the integrity of investigations and the wellbeing of our community.
In the above, Stolley seems to admit that not everything was done by the book but they had good intentions so that is what counts.
Conclusion
Folks, Stolley is a nice guy to talk with and he’d be welcome to a BBQ at my house (if I had a BBQ which I don’t) but I don’t think he’s ready for the big chair in the Sheriff’s Office. Youth and inexperience seem to be handicaps for Stolley that he has yet to overcome.
For readers in the once golden state, politics here seems more like running for high school student body president than a real office making important decisions. Such are things in a very small community.
In contrast to the sheriff’s race, lurking on the edges of campaigns for state legislative offices are characters that remind me of our good friends the Just-Us-Brothers. I will have more on these characters in an upcoming post.
Years ago, there was a song, “When I say ‘no’ I mean ‘maybe’, or maybe I mean ‘yes’.” While this might be good enough for former Republican Dominic Foppoli, it is not true of California’s Democrat controlled legislature. You see, in California you can’t find any Democrat NO votes. They literally don’t exist. I know they say YES to most spending and crazy social spending ideas, but literally everything? Are Democrats really in such lockstep that they never have a difference of opinion?
From 2017 to 2024, a group called CalMatters looked at one million votes cast by current legislators. These include all votes on the floor and in committee for the 2,000 or so bills introduced per session by the 120 members of both houses.
Using our new Digital Democracy database, CalMatters examined more than 1 million votes cast by current legislators since 2017 and found Democrats vote “no” on average less than 1% of the time.
Did you get that? Democrats introduced over 2,600 bills and only passed 1,046. That means only 40 percent of bills were approved by the legislature last year, but Democrats only voted NO on one percent of everything. How can this be? For those unaware, California Democrats have over two thirds of both houses of the legislature since 2019. This means that they have the numbers necessary to pass anything and easily override the governor’s veto if they wish.
Why? It’s not something they want to talk about. Democrats have had super-majorities in both legislative chambers since 2019, so most votes involve bills from their political colleagues. But the legislative leaders and lawmakers contacted by CalMatters declined repeated requests to explain a pattern that might appear like a rubber stamp for deals made out of public view. And it seems to be sanctioned by leaders.
“There’s only two fucking buttons on your desk: There’s a green button, and there’s a red button,” then-Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon told the California Labor Federation last year in remarks reported by Politico. “Ninety-nine percent of the time, the green button is the labor button. Ninety-nine percent of the time, the green button means you’re doing the right thing, and the red button means that you’re an asshole.”
Rendon’s office declined to comment or make him available for an interview.
Instead of voting “no,” the data, video and transcripts in CalMatters’ Digital Democracy project reveals that legislators will often decline to cast a vote. Lawmakers widely use the tactic as a courtesy to avoid irking fellow legislators who’d get upset if they vote “no” on their bills, but it’s a controversial practice that critics say allows them to avoid accountability.
“There are a lot of people who abstain and who years later will claim, ‘Oh, I was in the bathroom,’ or ‘I was gone,’ or ‘I was in a meeting,’” said Mike Gatto, a former Democratic Assemblymember from Los Angeles. “It provides them an excuse after the fact to claim that they were not there. I always thought that was cowardly, the opposite of courageous.”
Last year, at least 15 bills died due to lack of votes instead of lawmakers actually voting “no” to kill them.
The most notorious example was when a bill to increase penalties for child sex trafficking died in the Assembly Public Safety Committee because Democrats did not vote. After widespread condemnation, Gov. Gavin Newsom got involved, prompting some committee Democrats to apologize and re-vote on the measure that Newsom later signed.
At least three fentanyl-related bills also died last year due to Democrats refusing to vote on them, infuriating Regina Chavez, who advocated for the legislation. Her 15-year-old daughter, Jewels Marie Wolf, died from the drug in 2022.
“I personally am insulted, because I think everything should be on the record when you hold a state title,” she said. “That is what they signed up for to represent us.”
Chavez along with a group of mothers of youth who died from fentanyl learned about the prevalence of non-votes by exploring the Digital Democracy database.
In a glaring example they found, a bill had 22 bipartisan cosponsors and would likely pass if it reached the Senate floor, but it died in the Senate Public Safety Committee when the four Democrats — Nancy Skinner, Steven Bradford, Aisha Wahab and Scott Wiener — declined to vote by staying silent during the roll call. None of them responded to interview requests.
If you keep reading the article you will find that Democrats will punish other Democrats that vote NO on a bill. In their eyes, it’s better to remain silent than to remove all doubt.
Oh wait. This sounds just like Jim Woodward’s campaign against Scott Herndon. Saying NO to stupid ideas or spending is the cardinal sin for fake Republicans like Woodward. I plan to have more on Woodward’s supporters in a future article.
Lastly, thanks to California Political Review for bring this subject to my attention.
I can’t take credit for this idea but it might be time to say that the wheels have fallen off the Newsom Presidential train.
Whether Newsom is still alive these days — at least in a political sense — is a matter of debate. Heck, we half expect to see his mug on the back of a milk carton. And yet it seems only yesterday that the self-important Newsom was the subject of the political world’s most poorly kept secret: that he was being positioned to swoop in and replace his party’s deeply unpopular and embarrassingly incompetent 81-year-old president, Joe Biden.
Gavin Newsom isn’t dead just yet. But the combination of his own policy failures and the terrier-like stubbornness of Joe (and Jill) Biden is making it increasingly likely that the one-time heir apparent will be remembered by history as the error apparent.
Most of us like a David versus Goliath story, but when does David morph into Don Quixote?
There is comedy in the story of David and Goliath, but David ends it in short order. I’m thinking of the part when King Saul loans David his armor.
38 And Saul armed David with his armour, and he put an helmet of brass upon his head; also he armed him with a coat of mail.
39 And David girded his sword upon his armour, and he assayed to go; for he had not proved it. And David said unto Saul, I cannot go with these; for I have not proved them. And David put them off him.
I Samuel 17: 38 – 39
Saul, the King, tells David to wear his armor. David obeys and puts it on. After doing so, it’s clear to David, Saul, and everyone else that it doesn’t fit correctly and will be a hindrance and not a help in his upcoming fight with Goliath. Saul’s royal armor looks ridiculous on David. Instead, David decides to use his shepherd outfit, his everyday clothing, to battle Goliath.
Also, please note that David is only reluctantly approved to fight Goliath after presenting his credentials as a warrior and nobody else in the regular army stepping forward.
32 And David said to Saul, Let no man’s heart fail because of him; thy servant will go and fight with this Philistine.
33 And Saul said to David, Thou art not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him: for thou art but a youth, and he a man of war from his youth.
34 And David said unto Saul, Thy servant kept his father’s sheep, and there came a lion, and a bear, and took a lamb out of the flock:
35 And I went out after him, and smote him, and delivered it out of his mouth: and when he arose against me, I caught him by his beard, and smote him, and slew him.
36 Thy servant slew both the lion and the bear: and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them, seeing he hath defied the armies of the living God.
37 David said moreover, The LORD that delivered me out of the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the bear, he will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine. And Saul said unto David, Go, and the LORD be with thee.
I Samuel 17: 32 – 37
Prior to battling Goliath, David had experience, a proven track record, and volunteered when nobody else was willing to fight. Also, he was defending God’s honor and was already anointed as the future King of Israel. Also, the fight with Goliath would be a fair one, at least until it was over. It would be a “Mano-a-Mano” fight.
Now suppose David’s only combat experience was playing Call of Duty in his mom’s basement for the last five years. David’s favorite style of play was a sniper and he had never fired a gun in his life. David talks a good game and claims he could take Goliath with a paintball gun while blindfolded. Do you really think the modern David would last more than one sword strike by Goliath?
Somewhere between the Biblical account and the modern one, we’ve moved from bravery to mockery. Don Quixote fought imaginary enemies not real ones that could kill him.
Lastly, is a more modern take of a Don Quixote-like tale, Field of Dreams. The premise is if you build a baseball field in the middle of nowhere, “they” will come. There is no rational explanation for this, just a blind leap of faith.
What is a political campaign with an idea, strong opposition, and zero funding? This campaign, like Field of Dreams, is to get “it” on the ballot and we will win because “they” will vote for it. Proponents believe in such a campaign even though it has never worked before, but they reason that our cause is so just, it simply must win.
Ok, now I will tell you that the campaign is in California and the topic of said ballot measure is overturning the State’s policy on transgender youth.
The windmill alarm is going off. I agree with the idea but if you think the rainbow mafia is going to roll over and let this happen then you are in windmill land. Oh, you are anyway because gay people in California get electrical power from windmills and drive Teslas.
Here’s the news story from the LA Times.
Supporters of a proposed November ballot initiative wanted the all-important title of their measure to reflect their beliefs, a name like “Protect Kids of California Act.” But Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta saw things differently when his office chose the name signature gatherers must use: “Restricts Rights of Transgender Youth.”
Among its provisions, the initiative in question — which has not yet qualified for the ballot — could require schools to notify parents if a child changed gender identification unofficially or in schools records, such as a roll sheet.
With a May 28 deadline to submit signatures — and 25% of the way to the goal —initiative backers must use the state’s description, which they say is hindering their effort. They have sued the state, claiming the initiative was “branded with a misleading, false, and prejudicial title” A hearing is set for April 19.
My first thought on seeing this headline is that Karen England or someone of her ilk is running another fundraising scam on the backs of parents that care about this issue. Like the seven or so recall efforts against Governor Gavin Newsom, this will end not only in failure but in encouraging the transgender agenda to go even further to the Left as no meaningful opposition exists in California.
Second, there is no meaningful amount of money behind this effort. Unless a few billionaire types willing to be cancelled on the same level as Donald Trump get involved, this measure will go nowhere. It used to cost about 3 million dollars to qualify a ballot initiative in California. In the last few years, Democrats have erected further barriers to getting something on the ballot and I suspect it costs even more now. An actual ballot measure campaign would cost north of 30 million to have any chance of getting this passed. Sorry, but in my mind, no amount of money could push this measure over the finish line.
Third, most churches will not involve themselves in this issue. They did nothing when these laws were being passed so why would they act now? I know the allegedly conservative church that I attended in California (which was the largest congregation in the nation in their particular denomination) never did anything on this issue, or abortion, or marriage (since Prop 8), or euthanasia. On paper they were prolife and in favor of traditional marriage, but nothing was ever said from the pulpit that would offend anyone’s sensibilities on these issues. They never once challenged the congregation to stand up for any moral issue in California. In fact, I know a family that had a kid in the congregation go trans and neither the kid nor his parents ever met with the pastor about it and the kid was never put up on charges. The pastor sat on the sidelines; apparently glad he didn’t have to get involved in that mess.
I wish that such a ballot measure would get passed in California but there’s not a snowball’s chance that it might happen. Oh, and even if it did pass, it would be invalidated by some Liberal hack judge before noon on the day after the election. Then the proponents would need another four or five million to litigate it. If the US Supreme Court upheld the law, then the Democrat legislature would have to enact legislation to put the ballot measure into legal force. This will never happen.
Such an effort is tilting at windmills. The hearts of the people in California are too hard and too evil for such an effort to succeed. Ditto for the Christians living there. The vast majority of churches in California won’t support any limitations to the transgender agenda. They believe our society is supposed to get worse. If it gets bad enough, then Jesus will Rapture them away. For them to oppose evil is to defer “the end times.” They will allow any evil to happen as long as they believe it will hasten “the end times.” The rest of the churches just pray in vain that they will be left alone. Such congregations just want to run out the clock as most of the gray-haired folks hope to go to their reward before such evil affects them personally.
I recently made a statement that being transgender simultaneously violates about five of the Ten Commandments. In this post, I would like to see if I can prove the statement. I will use the approach of the Westminster Catechism. Each of the Commandments simultaneously prohibits something and encourages its opposite.
Being transgender violates the First Commandment.
First Commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Anyone embracing transsexuality denies God and places themselves above Him. Transsexuals despise God for making them as they are. They demand the right to fix God’s mistake in making them the wrong gender. Claims that God makes mistakes are in fact a denial that he is God and sovereign over His creation.
Being transgender violates the Second Commandment.
Second Commandment: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Since mankind is made in the image of God, any attempt to desecrate an image bearer of God is a violation of the Commandment. Transsexuals wish to remake a person made in God’s image into something they were not created to be. They are thus ungrateful and despise the express will of God. Transgender people worship themselves and deny worship that rightly belongs to God.
Being transgender violates the Third Commandment.
Third Commandment: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Transexuals malign and scorn God for His work of creating them in a way that such people deem to be defective, in error, and shameful.
Being transgender violates the Fourth Commandment.
Fourth Commandment: The fourth commandment is, Remember the sabbath-day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath-day and hallowed it.
The Fourth Commandment reminds us to be thankful to God for His creation and preservation and setting aside one day in seven to show Him gratitude. How can a transexual do this if that person is ungrateful for how God has made them? Such a person is always sitting in judgement of God not submitting to Him.
Being transgender violates the Fifth Commandment.
Fifth Commandment: Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
Transgenderism violates this Commandment because they are a sterility cult. They do not believe in the continuity of God’s covenant people; instead, they glory in mutilating their bodies to prevent procreation and thus, prevent the teaching of God’s statutes to the next generation. Transexual beliefs are a punishment from God not the result of His blessings. Honoring your father and mother is a biblical prerequisite to long life. Rejecting the example and gender role models of your godly parents is to repudiate God’s created order.
Being transgender violates the Sixth Commandment.
Sixth Commandment: Thou shalt not kill.
Being transgender is a form of covenantal death. It violates the Dominion Mandate to be fruitful and multiply. It is generational suicide. It is a direct attack on an image bearer of God.
Being transgender violates the Seventh Commandment.
Seventh Commandment: Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Being transgender is adultery because it is following after false gods and false religion. In the Old Testament, adultery was a frequent charge against the nation of Israel when they followed after false gods. Proof of this following after false gods is the fact that transgender people change their name when joining the transgender cult. This changing of one’s name is an acknowledgement that they are following after another god. In many cases they are renouncing their Christian name and taking on a trans name instead.
Being transgender violates the Eighth Commandment.
Eighth Commandment: Thou shalt not steal.
Transgender people steal from themselves, their families, and members of the gender they aspire to become. They defraud themselves by acting upon lies they choose to believe. They steal heirs from their parents and their family. They rob people around them by pretending to be what they are not and can never become. They steal what does not rightfully belong to them. For example, biological boys playing in women’s sports deny women opportunities due to them under false pretenses.
Being transgender violates the Ninth Commandment.
Ninth Commandment: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Being transgender is a form of defrauding your neighbor for pretending or passing yourself off as something you are not. Claiming to be a woman when you are a man or a man when you are a woman. This is clearly a false witness. Transgender people also try to defraud children with lies that girls can have a penis or a man a vagina. This is an abomination of God’s created order.
Being transgender violates the Tenth Commandment.
Tenth Commandment: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.
Being transgender is coveting the traits and sexual organs of another person. It is wanting what cannot be rightfully yours. It is also a repudiation of the blessings that God gave you when He created you.
Conclusion
So, yep, I was conservative in my estimation. Being transgender is a violation of all Ten Commandments. Oh, and God doesn’t grade on a curve. You either keep all ten or are guilty of violating them all. The wages (what you have earned and deserve) of sin (failing to uphold God’s standards) is death but the gift of God is Jesus Christ our Lord.
