The Pencil

A few months before we moved to Arizona, I was scurrying back to my car in the middle of a cold Fall rain shower—the kind that is a harbinger of coming winter, which we would soon be avoiding—when I spotted a pencil balanced against the curb. As a writer, I rarely use pencils, but because I am a writer, such things always provoke a storm of ideas.

How did the pencil end up there? Who did it once belong to? What words came from it? Why was it so perfectly balanced against the curb?

Such is the mind of a writer.

But a desire to escape to the warmth and safety of my car forced me past the pencil and the thoughts from my mind.

Fast-forward to our arrival in Arizona. We settled in, eager to explore the many hiking trails in the surrounding desert. One day, I slipped behind the others, my camera in hand, capturing images of the stunning landscape.

As is my habit, I also scanned the cactus and surrounding bushes for signs of rattlesnakes, scorpions, or tarantula spiders.

While the lack of live creatures disappointed me, something more intriguing caught my eye: a pencil sticking straight out of the sand.

I was miles from the trailhead, in the middle of the Saguaro Desert, with little sign of human habitation other than indistinct footprints in the sand, and a pencil sat in the middle of my path.

I was reminded, for this is how my mind works, of another such encounter with a pencil in an unexpected situation.

The questions flooded back from my memory of the last chance meeting. How did the pencil end up there? Who did it once belong to? What words came from it? How did it end up in a desert?

I bent down, picked it up, and put it in my backpack. A pencil needs a desk, and it seemed I was its only hope then. I’d always regretted not saving the one against the curb.

During the rest of the hike, the pencil faded from my memory, except when we were done.

As we loaded the backpacks in the car, I asked, “Hey, did you guys see the pencil in the trail?”

The looks of “oh, oh, he’s had too much sun” answered my question. And the subtle eyes telegraphing incredulity were not lost on me.

Ah well, I had rescued the pencil and would rehome it in my desk where, most likely, someone would look at it after I died and laugh about my strange habits of holding on to such things.

When I returned home, I emptied my pack and put the pencil in the bottom drawer of my desk next to the spare keyboards, memory sticks, and digital recorders.

And I gave it no more thought.

*****

Two days later, as is my habit, at 5:00 A.M., I rose from bed to write. I found a handwritten note with a story idea on my keyboard. Now, this was nothing unusual. I have hundreds of notes in places I may never remember, and I often make notes when a spark of an idea arises in my mind.

But I didn’t remember writing this one…and it was written in pencil.

Now, not remembering writing the note was also not unusual. I often get these ideas and scribble things I can’t recall doing. But this was in pencil; I never did that because I didn’t have a pencil.

Or do I, a voice said in my head.

I pulled open the bottom drawer where I had put the pencil, but it wasn’t there. I pulled out all the keyboards and assorted electronics, found two pieces of Mentos, which I kept for later consumption, and emptied the drawer.

No pencil.

Hmm, I could have sworn…then I opened my top drawer. There sat the pencil wrapped by an elastic band to the stack of index cards I used for notes.

I was confused. Perhaps I had gotten too much sun and didn’t remember putting the pencil with the cards. It might be something I would do, trying to find a way to use the pencil as a tip of the hat for writers who existed before the world of computers and word processing programs.

Ah, well, no matter. I tucked the pencil back in the drawer, reread the note, decided it wasn’t such a great idea after all—which happens more often than not—and dove back into my current novel project.

The next morning, I received another note. The words were bolded this time, and little faces looked at me. Once again, it was in pencil.

I do not believe in ghosts or things from the great beyond, but this bordered on weird. I considered one of two possibilities: Alzheimer’s or a dream.

The dream was easy to eliminate; I was clearly awake on this second day of seemingly anonymous pencil notes appearing on my desk. Alzheimer’s remains a possibility, but how would I ever know?

So, I dug into the trash and reread the original note. In this second review, the idea did have merit. But raw ideas aren’t stories. Writing is hard; there are millions of ideas for good stories—few become great stories—but all require effort.

If all it took was a good idea, everybody would be a writer. Ask any writer how often they have heard, “I have a great idea for a story. You write it, and we can split the sales.”

I answer that it’s like asking me to provide all the materials and build a house based on your plans, and then you’ll live there.

Thanks, but I’ll pass.

But back to the story idea. I opened a new Word doc, typed in a working title—knowing it would change—and started writing. And the story just poured out. By the end of a couple of hours, I had several thousand words.

I guess inspiration comes from the most unexpected sources. A pencil was somehow asking me to write a story. Or so it seemed. But I am a sceptic at heart, albeit with a strong helping of optimism, so I still wasn’t sure.

I would give it another test.

I took the pencil, put it inside a locked fireproof safe, put the safe in my garage with a table saw placed on top. If magic was afoot this would surely reveal it.

I’d like to say I didn’t sleep that night, anticipating being astounded when a note and the pencil once again waited for me in my office. But it was not to be. My desk was its usual mess with notes in my own hand about my newest book and that was about it.

I resigned myself to the world of reality sans magic and went back to writing.

Come the weekend, another hike was planned. This one involved a circuitous route through a narrow canyon and vistas of the distant mountains south towards Tucson.

I’ll admit, along the way I had an eye out for any writing implements laying in my path, but it was just the usual furry bundles of coyote scat, the occasional feather from a roadrunner, and pawprints of a mostly domestic dog variety.

Making my way back to the car, I slung my pack of my shoulders and tossed it into the car. Being a bit deaf I didn’t hear anything hit the ground but my wife did.

She bent over, picked something up, shook her head, and turned to face me. “You dropped this,” she said, handing me a pencil.

I almost didn’t take it as I tried to hide my shaking hand.

“You just can’t resist picking up junk can you?” she said, walking over to the passenger side of the car and climbing in.

We didn’t talk much on the way home. Not really unusual after a strenuous hike, but for me I was calculating the chances of another pencil lying on the ground and what I really had dropped was still back there.

I didn’t want to believe the alternative.

As we pulled into the garage, my heart started to race and I stepped on the brakes a bit too enthusiastically.

“What the hell?” my wife said.

“Sorry, a bit overtired and I slipped.”

But I didn’t look at her when I spoke. I was focused on the table saw back in the spot before I placed it on the fireproof safe, which was no longer there. Trying to avoid giving my wife concern that I was going insane—she already suspects it to some degree—I tried to slow my steps instead of dashing into my office.

Holding the door for her, we made small talk about dinner plans and chores for the afternoon. I begged for a few moments to write some “notes” about things I had thought about while hiking, something she has grown accustomed to, and strolled nonchalantly to my desk.

PLEASE FINISH THE STORY

A notecard stared up at me, with the pencil resting with its tip at the midpoint of the line, like an arrow giving directions at a detour. As an afterthought, I looked in the safe just to be sure, no pencil.

So here’s the story…

Want more? Let me know by comment, message, text, smoke signals, or whatever way work for you…depending on interest I may reveal the pencil’s story…

JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services. Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publishing dreams into reality. info@jebwizardpublishing,com

Here’s some music to read by or wait until the end, the link is there as well.

In my quest to understand the movement toward a Christian Nationalist Government, I have arrived at a quandary. Those who would have us follow this path insist that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and, as such, the template for a perfect and moral society.

The implication is that without religion, guided by the wisdom of the Bible, we cannot possibly have a moral code.

To paraphrase many others who’ve contemplated this, when you try to argue from a position of moral superiority that religion is a necessity for morality, you frighten those of us who are atheists. The fear comes from your admission that the only thing keeping you from a killing and raping rampage is a text of questionable origin from pre-literate people who believed epilepsy was demonic possession and that burning a male bull without any blemishes is a “pleasing aroma to the LORD. … sweet savor unto the LORD.”

But what version of the Bible? This begs the question, how many versions of the Bible are there?

Well, I’m going to tell you.

Fifty-six (English) versions are commonly used today, and more than four hundred fifty versions have been found in research. The Bible has also been translated from and into more than 7000 languages, of which twenty-three are spoken today by more than 50% of the population.

Setting aside the issue of translation confusion—we’ll get back to that later—what English version (this is America, after all) should we rely on, and how can we be sure it is right?

We have two choices. We can compare passages from each of them and see if there are differences, or we can ignore the issue because it goes against that inerrant part.

However, there is another option available: the GBA version of the Bible, which stands for God Bless America. This version has been endorsed by DJT and Lee Greenwood, two well-known theologians.

I wanted to use quotes from this version, but I couldn’t convince myself to spend the $59.99. The website says none of the money goes to the Presidential Campaign but… (Pssst, the “licensing fee” through CIC VENTURES LLC goes right into his pocket, bless his heart.)

We now have at least fifty-seven versions to choose from.

Relying on a series of quasi-historical works written originally in Ancient Greek and translated into Latin, French, Spanish, German, and English as a source of moral and secular guidance for the country and the world is foolishness.

Joe Broadmeadow

I decided to pick one of my favorite Bible quotes to compare the different versions. I am willing to bet those of you who have been to church ain’t never heard good ‘ole Reverand Bob or Father John read this from the pulpit.

Ezeikel 23:19-21   Line 20 is the good part.

Here’s the Authorized King James (AKJV) version

19 Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt. 20 For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses. 21 Thus thou calledst to remembrance the lewdness of thy youth, in bruising thy teats by the Egyptians for the paps of thy youth.

I must say this: If the priest had read this passage when I went to church, every other adolescent boy in that church and I might have paid more attention (and wondered how to get to Egypt.)

But I digress.

I’ll pick a few of the alternate versions to illustrate my point.

Here’s Ezeikel 23:20 in other translations in common use.

Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

Yes, she lusted after their male prostitutes, whose members are like those of donkeys and who ejaculate like stallions.

Easy to Read Version (ERV)

She remembered the lovers who excited her there, who were like animals in their sexual desires and abilities.

God’s Word Translation (GWT)

She lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose semen was like that of horses.

Common English Bible (CEB)

20 She lusted after their male consorts, whose sexual organs were like those of donkeys, and whose ejaculation was like that of horses. 21 She relived the wicked days of her youth, when the Egyptians touched and fondled her young and nubile breasts. *

(*I included line 21 from the CEB since it reads like a soft porn romance novel.)

I think I’ve made my point. Relying on a series of quasi-historical works originally written in Ancient Greek and translated into Latin, French, Spanish, German, and English as a source of moral and secular guidance for the country and the world is foolishness.

The violence, slavery, genocide, templates for disciplining your wives, stoning guidelines, and rapine condoned in the Bible lends itself to nothing other than an interesting semi-historical read. You are on a dangerous path if that is the template for government or morality.

Psalms 144:1

Bless the Lord, my rock,
    who taught my hands how to fight,
    who taught my fingers how to do battle!

It hardly sounds like a peaceful tradition.

Within the text, there is some of the most beautiful writing ever accomplished by humans.

Ecclesiastes

there is a time for everything,
    and a season for every activity under the heavens:
2     a time to be born and a time to die,
    a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3     a time to kill and a time to heal,
    a time to tear down and a time to build,
4     a time to weep and a time to laugh,
    a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5     a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
    a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
6     a time to search and a time to give up,
    a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7     a time to tear and a time to mend,
    a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8     a time to love and a time to hate,
    a time for war and a time for peace.

But one cannot pick and choose what suits you and ignore what contradicts.

There is one document we can rely on and have for almost the entire time of our existence: the Constitution. There is only one version, and it works.

Morality, empathy for our fellow humans, and adherence to acceptable conduct are the outcomes of evolution and natural selection. What helps a species survive flourishes; what threatens a species is selected out.

Putting our “faith” in a book with myriad versions and subject to many interpretations is a dangerous path. Religion is best kept private, not offered as a blueprint for secular government.

And lest I be accused of focusing on the Old Testament and ignoring the New Testament, no worries. That’s part two.

Author’s Note: A fond bon voyage to Daniel Dennett, writer, philosopher, and promoter of rationality in the face of religion who passed away recently. His writings and debates have been enormously influential throughout the world. He will be sorely missed.

JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services. Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publishing dreams into reality. info@jebwizardpublishing,com

“If you reveal your secrets to the wind, you should not blame the wind for revealing them to the trees.”
 Khalil Gibran

Two can keep a secret forever if one is dead and the other dies shortly after. (A variation on a Benjamin Franklin quote.)

As a people, we have become consumed by the idea of conspiracies or the belief that they exist and are quite impenetrable. For the past four years, we have endured a never-ending stream about a conspiracy that stole the 2020 election, the “China” virus and the associated vaccine conspiracy, and the opening of the border floodgates for the “great replacement” conspiracy.

I thought it might be helpful to put a context on precisely what would happen for any of these to exist, let alone succeed. Wouldn’t the “common knowledge” of a conspiracy’s existence negate its success?

But let’s assume for the moment that these conspiracies exist.

The Department of Justice has 113,114 employees, including the FBI, US Marshalls Service, BATF, and DEA; eight levels of lawyers in Criminal, Civil, Antitrust, Tax, Civil Rights, Environmental, National Security, and Justice management; and 94 US Attorneys’ Offices for the federal judicial districts.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has 10,639 employees responsible for dealing with epidemics, chronic health issues, and episodic health issues for the federal government.

There are 18,478 employees in the National Institute of Health (NIH) responsible for medical research and other tasks.

There are 10,987 employees at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) responsible for evaluating and approving drug treatments.

There are 300 employees at the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

One hundred fifty-three thousand five hundred eighteen employees could—and at least a significant number would have to—participate in these conspiracies and keep this a secret for this to succeed. It is ludicrous on its face.

Let’s take an easy one: the COVID-19 vaccine and the “China” virus. For there to be a conspiracy, members of these agencies, CDC, FDA, and NIH, would have to be involved. Between these three, there are 40,104 employees.

Let’s be conservative and say only 5% are involved in this action. Over 2000 people would have some knowledge and participation in the conspiracy. Two thousand people would have to exhibit behavior contrary to human history and keep silent. Remaining silent while over one million Americans died, all for the profits of big pharma or inducing mind control to the population.

Really?

Two can keep a secret forever if one is dead and the other dies shortly after. (A variation on a Benjamin Franklin quote.)

Author

For the biggie, the stealing of the election—as if over a million dead Americans aren’t enough— the numbers are even higher, 113,414 employees who could hear about the conspiracy. If we use the same 5% criteria, 5600+ employees are actively participating—and keeping silent— in the conspiracy.

The whole concept is not only laughable but also impossible. With the easy accessibility of social media and other means of anonymously posting information, there is no realistic scenario under which such conspiracies could arise, let alone succeed.

Anyone who has worked in government for even a short period will tell you there are few secrets kept. Human nature pushes against secrecy.

Those who promulgate such dangerous lies betray their country, fellow Americans, and personal integrity for selfish political purposes. History will ostracize those who spread such idiocy for their cowardice and moral turpitude.

Anyone who buys into such nonsense without taking even the briefest moment to consider the plausibility of such conspiracies is a sucker.

A lie repeated often enough does not make it true; it makes it provender for fools. It is as if reality is so troubling that they prefer the lie.

JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services. Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publishing dreams into reality. info@jebwizardpublishing,com

We’ve all heard people say it: she’s dancing with the angels, or he’s back with the love of his life, or some such line when someone dies.

But is that reality? Is that what heaven would look like?

This is something that always troubled me. I’d have to restrain myself from asking, do you believe that?

When I was a young boy, my grandfather said the angels were bowling whenever there was thunder. It made perfect sense to me at five or six years old. Of course, the reality was different. But many of us still carry that concept of heaven. Perhaps the angels aren’t bowling, or maybe they are, but the part that troubled me is what it all would look like.

When I die, what would the people who went before me look like if this concept of heaven is correct (and, of course, the considerable assumption they’d let me in)?

If there is a pearly gate, a fence must connect it. Why would heaven need a fence? Who are they trying to keep out? And how long would an infinite fence be? The very question is a contradiction. An infinite-length fence has no definitive length.

But let’s leave that question aside and go to the heart of the matter. My grandfather died when I was 12 years old. I remember him as a kind, funny guy who appeared very old. He was sixty-five when he died, three years younger than I am today. If we were to meet in heaven, how would he recognize me? What would he look like to me? Would he be as I remembered him, or would he be the young man who married my grandmother, dancing away on the clouds?

Would my mother be the same as I remembered her when she died, or would she be the young woman I remember from growing up? Or would she be the young girl, the first-born for my maternal grandparents?

Is this all just stories we tell ourselves to make the loss of others more tolerable, or is there an element of truth in it?

Think about it for a moment. What would you want to be like in heaven after you die? Assuming you lived a normal life and made it to seventy or eighty years of age, what would you want to be like when you arrived in heaven?

If I were to say I wanted to be as I was at nineteen, then I would not be the person who became a father or grandfather. If I said I wanted to be as I was when I died, then many of the people from earlier times in my life wouldn’t know me.

Perhaps we tell ourselves these things because we fear the possibility that this is indeed “all there is.”

The mental image of grandparents, parents, friends, who have passed away enjoying eternity in heaven gives us comfort that we will see them again.

But it also gives us an excuse to waste those limited moments we have in life on what may turn out—I would say I am certain of it—to be a false hope.

We have memories to remember those who are no longer among us, and the memories we make with those still here are what we will leave behind. That is why life is precious and we need to live every moment.

And, if you think about it, what fun would it be bowling against perfect beings? Do they ever miss a pin?

I’ve never been much of a bowler and would think there’d be more creative endeavors to enjoy should there be a heaven, but embracing this life, these moments, the time we are here is a better way to slide into eternity.

And relive the memories occasionally. If you remember, they are never gone.

Here in Arizona—the land of diamondback rattlers, scorpions, and a rejection of daylight savings time—we have achieved another milestone: time travel.

Unfortunately, we can only go back to 1864, but it is a start.

As I am sure you have heard, the Arizona Supreme Court, in a 4-2 decision, ruled a law from 1864, before Arizona was even a state, is the law of the land and imposes an almost total abortion ban. There are no exceptions for rape or incest.

Thus, we find ourselves in a time warp.

I suppose we can next expect the same four Justices reapplying the law of rape as it was on the books during the same period under the Howell Code. The wise gentlemen of 1864—all white, male, and landowners—who wrote the legislation found this to be the most applicable definition of rape.

“Section 47, of the Howell Code defines rape as “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will.” It also specifies penalties for having “carnal knowledge of any female child under the age of ten years, either with or without her consent.”

Perhaps you should re-read that in case you missed the part that says a “female child under the age of ten” and joins it with the phrase “with or without her consent.”

Let that percolate for a moment. As long as the ten-year-old female says, “Sure, I’d love to engage in sexual intercourse with you, Mr. Jones, since you and my dad have been such close friends for over forty years”—under the same code as the abortion statute now the law of the land—everything is okay.

This opens a new market for Epstein-like entrepreneurs and opportunities for young girls to meet the (older) man of their dreams. And let’s men corral young “women” before these gals get educated, uppity, or “old.”

And it can all be legal.

“No, actually the woke culture will only end when Christian woman act like Christian woman. Their egos and conditioning are way past the point of men leading them to any solution.”

No citation or attribution, just a warning that people like this walk among us

Such logic—which can only come from what must be ED-suffering old white men who can no longer charm or satisfy women—is their only avenue to control them.

As to the lone woman jurist who voted with the majority, she is deferring to her role as a subservient Christian woman following the lead of the patriarchal mandates of faith. She is not alone, the attitude is not uncommon among many here in good old Arizona and elsewhere.

Don’t believe me? Here was a response to another piece I wrote about the Judeo-Christian push to replace secular government. https://joebroadmeadowblog.com/2024/04/06/a-christian-nationalist-nightmare/

I will mask the name, not because they are likely to be embarrassed by the 14^th-century attitude but because they won’t be. Here’s the quote with the unedited grammar intact,

“No, actually the woke culture will only end when Christian woman act like Christian woman. Their egos and conditioning are way past the point of men leading them to any solution.”

So, you see, the whole problem in this country is women have copped an attitude that they are equal—some go as far as believing superior, ha-ha— to men and do not recognize they need a man to show them the way.

Thus, three men and a woman have turned the clock back to the 19^th century in Arizona.

Every morning, when I look at the headlines in the Arizona Republic, I expect to see an announcement about when the Inquisition will resume. After all, it worked in the past. And, with a little luck, we can improve our time travel capability to go even further into history, resurrecting the laws enacted by the Puritans and seeking out the witches among us.

Meanwhile, you might want to keep an eye on your ten-year-old daughter. She might be the consenting type.

JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services. Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publishing dreams into reality. info@jebwizardpublishing,com

Courtesy of Someone Named Lucy

…Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly
A girl with kaleidoscope eyes…

Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Lennon & McCartney

Almost fifty years ago, on November 24, 1974, a remarkable discovery happened in the Afar region of Ethiopia.

Dr. Donald Johanson, a paleoanthropologist, and Tom Gray, a doctoral student, found a right proximal ulna (right forearm) of what Johanson immediately recognized as a hominid. They soon discovered more bones of what would turn out to be a 3.2-million-year-old ancestor to humans whose scientific name was Australopithecus Afarensis.

But the world would know her as Lucy, or in the local dialect of the Ethiopian people who inhabited the region, Dink’inesh meaning “you are marvelous.”

This past Thursday, we had the pleasure of hearing Dr. Johanson talk about finding Lucy and the implications of this remarkable discovery at a symposium sponsored by Arizona State University. For those who may not know this, Dr. Johanson is a Beatles fan.

At dinner, the night of the discovery, they discussed what to call “her.” Someone suggested “Lucy” from Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds; the name stuck. It is infinitely more poetic than Australopithecus Afarensis, although I like the sound of Dink’inesh.

The latest edition of Science magazine has Lucy, imagined by a paleo-artist, gracing the cover. One cannot help but be in awe looking back 3.2 million years into the eyes of our ancient ancestor.

Dr. Johanson is now eighty years old and an engaging and entertaining speaker. The most important thing he said was not about the scientific value of his discovery or the success and fame that followed but that he considered it a privilege to bring solid evidence of our shared lineage to the world.

We share 99% of our DNA with our genetic cousins, the Chimpanzee and 100% of our DNA with our fellow Homo Sapiens.

We are all descended from that same genetic tree. Each of us carries within us the DNA of our forebears, and we should embrace this commonality rather than focus on what amounts to little more than surface differences.

It would be a better world.

JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services. Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publishing dreams into reality. info@jebwizardpublishing,com

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

Colossians 2:8

While I am not, by nature, one who sees conspiracies behind every action—something that seems like a national pastime in this country—one can argue about an agenda-driven element in America with all the hallmarks of an insidious conspiracy: the quest for a Christian Nationalist government.

Those who would bring this about emulate all the elements of conspiracy; they have a “stake in the venture,” are using both overt (lawful) and covert (unlawful) means to achieve their goal, and their intent is to subvert the government of the United States to their singular purpose.

This would derail the clear intent of a separation of church and state. It is a drive to create a Christian based government with secular powers to support only Christian institutions and policies. (The nod to the Judeo aspect would soon be discarded as a necessary but temporary accommodation while seeking governmental power and control.)

The stated intent is a government whose sole purpose is to support Christians and their success in the afterlife. There are several indications of such: some subtle, some overt.

One of the most overt is their support of a Presidential candidate, a Svengali-like individual, with dubious connections to any religious faith or history of adherence to a religious doctrine. The candidate portrays (and compares himself to) a savior as he hawks various products.

The examples are notorious. One is the march to Lafayette Square after the forcible removal of protesters for a photo op while holding an upside down copy of the Bible. The second, and infinitely more troubling, is a sales pitch for the “God Bless America Bible” that Mr. Trump says is his favorite book. (This from a person who had to be given picture books for his PDB.)

Some see this as just another example of Trump’s nature as a carnival barker hawking snake oil. It is not. It is a not so subtle message to those who embrace the concept of Christian Nationalism. Elect me and I will help you achieve your goal.

The self-described devout former President obviously never knew the phrase “In God We Trust” replaced the original motto “E Pluribus Unum” in 1956. It was first used on Union coins during the Civil War to encourage Union troops but not on all currency until 1957, and in 1954, to improve the Pledge of Allegiance, Congress added the words, Under God.

This hardly seems like something the founding fathers envisioned or started. And that turns out to be correct. This whole Christian nation/nationalism/tradition can be traced to the original evil: greed.

Now, what evidence do I have of this conspiracy? In addition to the actions of their latest version of a savior, their own words, taken from their manifesto and written by a leading spokesman for the cause, clearly show the intent.

In the book The Case for Christian Nationalism by Stephen Wolfe, Wolfe maps out the reasons, history, and methods to achieve what he says is the destiny of the United States.

Now, before you assume Mr. Wolfe is some high school dropout who leads a church of lunatics in a shopping mall, dances with rattlesnakes and heals with the power of Jesuuuussssss, understand that he has a Ph.D. from Louisiana State University and did postdoc work at Princeton. He is an educated, articulate individual whose writing is concise, compelling, and frightening.

I’d encourage anyone interested in this phenomenon to read the book. But here are some of the more startling excerpts.

Here, Wolfe quotes Althusius in Politica.

“[I]t is inborn to the more powerful and prudent to dominate and rule weaker men, just as it is also considered inborn for inferiors to submit.”

Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 73). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.

And it goes downhill from there.

“Martial virtue is, therefore, a necessary feature of masculine excellence, and effeminacy is no less a vice in a state of integrity than in a postlapsarian world.”

Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (pp. 76-77). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.

Nothing could be clearer than these gems.

To be sure, I am not saying that ethnic majorities today should work to rescind citizenship from ethnic minorities, though perhaps in some cases amicable ethnic separation along political lines is mutually desired.

“The idea that “diversity destroys unity,” as Althusius wrote, was well recognized in the Christian tradition.”

Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 146-149). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.

Christian men, and while he claims otherwise, the tone of the book leads one to conclude he means predominantly white men, need to run the government, and women need to obey. This is evident in his argument that it is justified to prevent outsiders from diluting society, including other Christians.

“Indeed, the chief aim of Christian nationalism is ordering the nation to the things of God—subordinating the secular to the sacred in order to orient it to the sacred. The claim that the Gospel is mainly about eternal life does not preclude the Christianization of civil institutions and laws or the improvement and correction of civil life by appealing to Scripture. Nor does it preclude the civil support and protection of true religion.”

Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 105). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.

And, according to Wolfe and those who support the goal of a Christian nation, the one true religion is Christianity. But enough with the academic approach. Let’s look at the real foundation of all this Judeo-Christian hysteria.

As I said in the beginning, it all boils down to greed.

These references to God, on our currency, in the motto, and the Pledge of Allegiance are all recent additions. They came during the rise of anti-communism and the specter of nuclear war, a final Armageddon. They wanted to differentiate us from the godless communists.

President Eisenhower, a devoutly religious man, incorporated many biblical quotes in his speeches, beginning with his inaugural speech.

“We who are free must proclaim anew our faith,” Eisenhower insisted. “This faith is the abiding creed of our fathers. It is our faith in the deathless dignity of man, governed by eternal moral and natural laws.”

Kruse, Kevin. One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America. Basic Books. Kindle Edition.

Later, at the first of what would become a tradition, the National Prayer Breakfast, the President said.

“The very basis of our government is: ‘We hold that all men are endowed by their Creator’ with certain rights,” the President asserted. “In one sentence, we established that every free government is embedded soundly in a deeply-felt religious faith or it makes no sense.”

Kruse, Kevin. One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America. Basic Books. Kindle Edition.

Americans, who were, at the time, a majority Christian and religious, embraced the call. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and other business organizations seized on it to counteract the Roosevelt New Deal, which they saw as stealing profits from the pockets of industrialists.

“”…cultural diversity harms civil unity, for it undermines the ability for a community to act with unity for its good.”

Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 200). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.

Roosevelt had couched his New Deal as a secular example of how the government cared for the people.

Then came the Reverend James W. Fifield, Jr., who gave a speech at the NAM meeting that resonated with businesses. He told them the government was to blame for all society’s ills, particularly the retreat from religion.

“Over the preceding decade, these titans of industry had been told, time and time again, that they were to blame for the nation’s downfall. Fifield, in contrast, insisted that they were the source of its salvation.”

Kruse, Kevin. One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America (p. 7). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.

“With his speech at the Waldorf-Astoria, Fifield convinced the industrialists that clergymen could be the means of regaining the upper hand in their war with Roosevelt in the coming years. As men of God, they could give voice to the same conservative complaints as business leaders, but without any suspicion that they were motivated solely by self-interest.”

Kruse, Kevin. One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America (p. 7). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.

Fifield, to use a term common within organized crime, showed them a way to let religious leaders, Christian religious leaders, become a “beard” for industry. And President Eisenhower, who so aptly warned the country of the growing military-industrial complex, became their unwitting spokesman.

But again, don’t take my word for it. Read the books, these and others, and decide for yourself.

Religion is a practice that is best kept personal and private if embraced at all. It is not a course for our government to follow.

“Attributing intentional, humanlike agency to forces of nature rendered those forces more coherent to ancient peoples; all creation myths and origin-of-our-people myths contain strong elements of this. The entire Judeo-Christian worldview is no exception. It is based on a narrative of the universe having a purpose, created by an anthropomorphized intentional being, with epic battles between good and evil.”

MD, Lewis, Ralph. Finding purpose in a Godless World: Why We Care Even If the Universe Doesn’t (p. 68). Prometheus. Kindle Edition.

The quest for a government based on Christianity, which proponents see as worthwhile no matter the means to achieve it, is the country’s most dangerous challenge. Because, like all religions, they are a creation of man’s innate desire for something after death. Everything secular should be subservient to the higher purpose of life after death. And given the opportunity, those who see a Christian nationalist government as desirable will soon strip away any sense of freedom in the country except from those who adhere to the dogma.

And those in charge will be male and white exclusively.

Remember, in Wolfe’s own words.

“…cultural diversity harms civil unity, for it undermines the ability for a community to act with unity for its good.”

Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 200). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.

More importantly, if Christian Evangelicals are willing to hoist a flawed and fraudulent “savior” such as Donald Trump upon us in their quest for dominance, can you imagine what they would do if they succeeded in controlling the entire government?

It would make Orwell’s 1984 seem like nirvana.

JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services. Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publishing dreams into reality. info@jebwizardpublishing,com

During a recent exchange on Social Media critical of a piece on my blog (https://joebroadmeadowblog.com/2024/03/28/in-simplest-terms-why-never-mr-trump/), I encountered the usual nonsense and vitriol. But I was also challenged to answer questions about perceived policy actions by President Biden and his supporters.

While the “questions” were framed as to be about Mr. Trump, the implications were obvious. It is one of the beautiful aspects of language that we can write one thing while conveying an entirely different message. Subtle and effective

At the time, I deferred my answer under my new policy of not wasting precious time responding to the irrationality of the idiocy of political discussion on such platforms. Since I find most responses, in the words of Shakespeare’s Macbeth,

“It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

Shakespeare, Macbeth

Yet, this more rational and  nuanced response came from someone I have always respected as a professional. I worked with him for many years when I was a police officer he was with the A.G.’s office.

From my perspective, I find individuals like him most troubling to reconcile. I struggle to understand their positions not in opposing Mr. Biden but their willingness to vote for Mr. Trump despite the outrageous actions of the former President to overturn a legitimate election and incite an insurrection.

If it were just a policy difference, I could accept that. However, one cannot ignore the former President’s actions just because he says things that suit one’s personal beliefs. Even if some of his policies were effective, you cannot ignore his actions. Richard Nixon did some effective things, but Watergate was grounds to exclude him from office.

We have a more significant responsibility to the country and our future and respect for elections is key.

But I was asked me a series of questions. At the time, I did respond “no” to all of them and resumed enjoying the moment. But I thought about the origin and evolution of such ideas and decided it merited a more in-depth answer.

This will preclude the overwhelming majority of those who prefer childish memes and alternate “facts” from reading it since it exceeds two sentences, but so be it.

Thank you to those of you who will read it through. For those who disagree with my response, which is what makes this country great, I’d be happy to post your response on the blog. It is not that one party has all the correct answers; it is that together, we can arrive at a solution.

Mr. Trump has turned politics into a zero-sum game and put our democracy at risk.

The tone of the questions implies that Mr. Biden has committed these violations. I beg to differ but admit my initial answer was partially wrong. But that is the danger of debate on social media: little time for developing ideas. My original answer was no, Mr. Trump did not do all these things. That was not so much wrong as incomplete in many ways, and here is the clarification.

Did Trump try to deny you your right to vote for the candidate of your choice?

Not personally but in essence, yes, he did. By promulgating—and continuing to proclaim—false statements lacking any evidence that the 2020 election was fraudulent, Mr. Trump would deny the American people their choice of Joe Biden as President.

And, more troubling, his spreading of uncertainty through this false narrative sparked criminal acts against poll workers and those who are the foundation of our election process. Don’t take my word for it, read all the court cases or, if you prefer a single source of proof, try the book Disproven by Ken Block.

Did Trump try and have his political opponents removed from the ballot?

Political campaigns are often hard-fought blood sports. The abuse and attacks on the opposition are nothing new. But this question itself is disingenuous.

The underpinning of this question is that the Biden administration, through the Department of Justice, conspired with various state attorneys general to indict Mr. Trump. Just take a moment to consider what that would involve: hundreds, if not thousands, of well-respected, career Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Assistant Attorneys General, Trial Judges, Appellate Judges, FBI agents, state and local law enforcement, paralegals, and court clerks all working in concert to subvert justice.

Anyone who has ever spent five minutes in a meeting at a prosecutor’s office would know such a vast conspiracy would remain secret just for the time it takes to speed dial the local news reporter.

And if someone “knows” this can happen, or has happened, during their time in such a capacity, then shame on them for not raising the issue when they were involved.

Did Trump try and imprison his political opponents?

Not yet, but he has openly stated a plan to do that. Lock her up seems obvious on its face. In a recent interview with Glen Beck he said,

Beck said: “Do you regret not locking [Clinton] up? And if you’re president again, will you lock people up?”
Trump said: “The answer is you have no choice, because they’re doing it to us.”

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/you-have-no-choice-trump-tells-glenn-beck-he-will-absolutely-lock-people-up-if-returned-to-white-house/

Did Trump open our borders to 10 million+ illegal aliens?

No, he didn’t open the borders. The borders have always been open, and it would have a chilling effect on the economy to “close” the border. Millions of people cross the Mexican border annually, most do it legally. The better question is, what did Mr. Trump, and by extension, Mr. Biden, do about illegal border crossings?

The border issue has been a persistent, if fluctuating, problem for decades. It is a complex problem. There is more to preventing illegal immigration than “closing” the border. As a nation, we have always embraced a humanitarian approach. But there need to be limits.

The problem preceded Mr. Trump. Yet, for all his bluster about closing the borders, he did nothing. In his first two years in office, he had a Republican Congress and could not pass significant legislation.

Not one Mexican peso paid for anything.

The vaunted wall was a failure before it started and then abandoned.

Mr. Biden, on the other hand, did not open the borders either. He returned us to a more humanitarian course, much to the dismay of those who see “foreigners” as the enemy and buy into the nonsense that the majority are criminals. And while crossings have increased under Biden, so have apprehensions and deportations.

Biden also worked with a bipartisan group of Senators and Congress members to craft a bill which would address the issue. A bill endorsed by the Border Patrol union. Republicans in the House, at the behest of Mr. Trump, fearing such a bill would boost Mr. Biden in the polls, voted it down.

Did Trump conspire with the news media to censure your speech?

He gets another no on this one.

He is such a proponent of free speech that he is consistently “free” with the truth, crafting a message targeting the raw, unsophisticated emotions of those who cannot or will not look beyond Facebook, Twitter, Fox News, or Breitbart for political information.

He’s also a big proponent of free speech to attack judges’s families.

But again, the implication is that Mr. Biden did. No, he did not.

I am not a lawyer, but I understand the breadth and limitations of free speech. One cannot yell “Fire” in a crowded theater. And while the analogy is tired and outdated, it still applies. Although the trend in recent decisions by this conservative majority court seems to chip away at such freedom.

If one publishes something as fact and it poses a danger to individuals or groups, it is comparable to yelling fire in a crowded theater. I do not think the government should be in the business of determining what that is, certainly not under any concept of prior restraint. A better solution, one that has worked for years addressing an entity’s unwillingness to address dangerous issues, is litigation.

Let lawyers file suits against the platforms and writers who promulgate dangerous false statements, and let a trial decide the validity.

Did Trump conspire with social media platforms to censure your speech?

See above and nope, neither did Biden.

Did Trump try and mandate what type of vehicle you can drive?

This one stumped me. If one narrows the question to “try, ” the answer is no. But let’s explore the “hidden” agenda. Did President Biden commit the same intrusion? Also no. I bought a car a few years ago, but nobody told me what I could buy.

I never saw one FBI agent, black helicopter, or TSA (Tracking Sales Auto) agent manipulating the process. Due to government intervention, I was required to buy a car with airbags, seat belts, safety glass, catalytic converter, and other safety and pollution control devices. Still, other than that, I was free to buy whatever I wanted.

(P.S. I hope my next car will be a self-driving, solar-powered electric model. I am going to buy whatever one has a built-in coffee maker. As a side note, drive-up lanes should be illegal. Might help those addicted to fast food shed a few pounds.)

Did Trump get us involved in any new wars?

This is easy, nope. We already had a couple of spares with lingering and never-ending commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq courtesy of a previous Republican administration. Our time there was so long that a service member who enlisted in 2001 could have served their entire career there and retired with a pension without an end in sight.

This is not the forum for a discussion on the conduct of those wars, but Mr. Trump didn’t start them, nor did Mr. Biden. 

However, suppose the implication is our involvement in Ukraine is a “new” war. In that case, there is a powerful argument that Mr. Trump’s negative effect on NATO and his fundamental misunderstanding of the necessity for its survival opened an opportunity for Putin to push Russian aggression to the border of a NATO country (Poland) because of the instability.

But don’t take my word for it; read what Mattis, Pompeo, Tillerson, Coats, McRaven, Votel, or Allen say about Mr. Trump’s dirge of geopolitical insight and inability to understand complex matters. Or, take the word of Mr. Putin, which is your choice.

I will concede one thing here. Mr. Biden is wrong to continue supplying weapons to Israel absent a ceasefire. Despite the heinous acts of Hamas, no rational person can justify the continued devastation of Gaza as a reasonable military response.

Final note.

There is one way to ensure Mr. Trump never commits any of these acts…but you already know the answer.

JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services. Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publishing dreams into reality. info@jebwizardpublishing,com