Some of the same polling data that those opposed to Trump are celebrating, watching his job approval rating fall to levels below where it was during his first failed term, is showing the Democratic party members in Congress getting a 29% job approval rating, with only 7% "strongly approving" of the job they are doing. That kind of puts a damper on a celebration, huh?

Well, what did you expect?

It's hard to put a finger on just exactly where it was that things turned south, but if I were a professional polling analyst, and I was interested in truth, not just projecting a political image, I'd be looking into what transpired around the time of Biden's first debate with Trump, and the fallout that happened afterward. The image that Democrats have built for themselves has never really been sharp, clear and focused, but that was a disaster of epic proportions. We looked like the GOP for about six weeks, with shadowed influence built around money interests calling the shots and trying to run the show.

That's when I realized that the hope we had placed in the fact that mountains of evidence had been produced and that Trump had finally and actually been indicted for his massive crimes would wind up coming to nothing. I realized, when the Justice Department and the attorney general Merrick Garland went completely silent after a tremendous congressional investigation made the case for proving Trump's guilt as the seditious inciter of an insurrection against the Capitol, that this was going to come to nothing.

And look, I get it. Trump was the insurrectionist, inciting violence for the purpose of overturning the results of an election he clearly could not prove was "stolen" from him. The Republicans are the ones who have basically pooped their brains out and turned into walking zombie yes men, lacking the will or the patriotism to serve their country as anything but a shill for a con artist.

But when Democrats had the chance to stop this from happening, they chose to give the old status quo, politics-as-usual, give-and-take, compromise and dealmaking that the GOP abandoned during the Reagan Administration one more try. That was the safe route. We got the rhetoric, "Trump is an existential threat to democracy." But nothing was done about bringing him to justice. Excuses were made about Republican justice appointees and the delays he made in his trials that stretched cases out for years, a travesty in a system where the rule of law is supposed to be the way things are governed.

Palm Sunday, in the small Baptist church in which I grew up, was just the Sunday before Easter. The Baptist tradition followed by most of the members wasn't big on the events of the Christian calendar, except Easter and Christmas, we didn't cover the pulpit with the various colors representing the different seasons of Christian tradition, our pastor wore a black suit, with a black tie and a white shirt, and the only thing different about Palm Sunday was that we sang the typical crucifixion hymns and left church in a somber mood.

So, did anyone go to church on Palm Sunday? Maybe to a non-denominational church, where it seemed to be a cute thing to gather all of the younger children in a room off the side of the sanctuary, give each one of them a palm branch and have them come in, adding a little kick to the emphasis of the day. Or maybe worship was more formal at a mainline Protestant or Catholic church, where there was a processional, during which the clergy marched in with the palm branches, waving them around while other clergy carried incense burners and others sprinkled holy water on the worshippers in the pews.

Most of us in the United States went to church after the news of the Russian bombing attack on the Ukrainian city of Sumy had already been circulated. In fact, I heard about it on my way to church, on MSNBC's satellite broadcast. I thought to myself that there would not be a single worshipper anywhere in the United States who would be sitting in their church that morning, worried that a foreign enemy's drone would sent a bomb through the roof, while some of our fellow Christians in Ukraine were dead, because that had happened to them while worshipping in their church on Palm Sunday.

It made me angry. I'm enraged that this happened, that historically, people who are even more closely aligned in ethnic culture and especially in the same Christian tradition could attack their brethren without even giving it a second thought, that such an incredibly evil act could reach right inside a Christian church, and have American Evangelical supporters of Trump try to brush it off, excuse it, justify it or simply ignore it as insignificant. That makes them as evil as those who did it.

In the late 70's and early 80's, though some very useful television evangelists, like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and a little known Texan by the name of James Robison, they managed to take over the leadership of most of the conservative, Evangelical branch of the American church, using abortion on demand and gay rights as the "evils" against which they needed to fight. This constituency, made up of ultra-conservative fundamentalists and Pentecostals, had a tendency to avoid participating in what they called "secular" politics, but their leadership, over time, convinced them that they were called by God to save the country from evil by voting against liberals who just wanted to destroy things.

That added, to the treasury and the power base of the Heritage Foundation, a significant constituency and it provided a religious endorsement for their right wing extremism, though the message, morality and ethics of the Christian gospel did not phase the Heritage Foundation's agenda, which bears no resemblance at all to any known practice of the Christian gospel.

Setting aside the core principles of the Christian gospel in order to benefit from the power of secular politics has become the M.O. of the Heritage Foundation and its Evangelical allies. They are getting the political power and money that they have always had at the center of their pseudo-Christian agenda.

This is what we are fighting against. Can someone point me to an agenda driven, money raising, media powerful foundation of equal influence and effect on the Democratic party's side of American politics?

The Republicans, with their Heritage Foundation Project 2025 plan book being followed to the tee, have been running amok, doing exactly what we were warned they were going to do, and that was make Trump dictator and impose a Christian nationalist regime to control the United States.

We were warned. It's been written about, reported, good grief, copies of this draconian, anti-Democratic piece of trash have been circulating around for a while not. We knew it was coming. Nothing was done from November to January, to develop a plan for resisting it and opposing it and making it difficult for Republicans to implement. "Woe is us," is the cry, "They have a razor thin margin on both houses."

Nothing was done from January, through February, into march, except the activism of Senator Sanders and Representative Ocasio-Cortez. I can't donate much, but that's where all my donations are going right now. That seems to be the only place where there is some good being done. They sure helped draw attention to the crisis, and we are finally seeing people out in the streets. But that's not going to be nearly enough.

Tim Murphy's observation on Saturday's mass protests against Trump's actions and policies is a great narrative on the subject, one of the best I've read. You can read it too, by clicking the link above. He does a great job characterizing the feelings of protesters, and pointing out that this is a movement that exists everywhere, that opposition to Trump's second term in office is widespread and condemning.

It's a pity that this wasn't happening prior to the election, when it would have made a real difference. But, as Murphy observes, most people think the first time around wasn't nearly as bad as what we have seen, and a lot of people just didn't believe it would go where it has so quickly. So it is that we have what we have.

What is the goal of the opposition? Protests are design to put forward the idea that a chosen political course of action is not popular, and needs to be reconsidered. For someone like Trump, who will never be influenced by protests or opposition, and who doesn't have the ability within himself to compromise on anything, the question goes back to the purpose of the protest.

The size and scope of the turnout shook the Republican party's Congressional leadership to its very core. They, of course, won't admit it, but it's not really much of a secret at this point. If that was one of the goals of the protesters, it was achieved. What the result of this will be, short term or in the long run, is anyone's guess.

The Constitutional options are limited:

Impeachment and removal, which seems highly unlikely. However, it was Republican pressure on Nixon, after the Watergate scandal broke, threatening removal if Congress did impeach him, that got him to resign. We seem to be a long way off from that kind of pressure coming from enough Republicans to force him out by resignation.
Invoking the 25th amendment, also unlikely given that many of those in the cabinet are his own hand-picked sycophants who don't see his insanity, or do see it but want to use it for their own advantage.
Putting enough public pressure on him to get him to resign on his own. I don't see this as a realistic possibility. Trump is emotionally incapable of seeing mistakes he makes. He has been the worst President in history, by far and away, worse than even poor James Buchanan, whose lack of leadership actually caused the Civil War, or John Tyler, who succeeded William Henry Harrison after just 31 days, and whose term can be characterized as one of the most anti-Constitutional, anti-patriotic times in history, except for Trump. Tyler managed to alienate himself from the entire electorate, and both major political parties in just four years.

So, considering the options, what is the goal of the opposition?

It is a difficult word to define, but as an adjective linked to the noun "threat" and used in reference to Trump as a politician, the meaning is clear. The manner in which Trump operates as a businessman, and subsequently has operated as a politician and President of the United States makes him an existential threat to American democracy. He has no understanding of the Constitution, and no appreciation for the values it embodies. He's a demagogue who demands personal loyalty, not patriotism, from his followers. His god is the dollar, and he's made it clear that while he loves Evangelical votes and support, he won't convert to their brand of Christianity, preferring the prosperity gospel cult, from which he chooses his "spiritual" advisors.

But we are now well beyond defining Trump as an existential threat to democracy. He has proven this statement to be true.

So what do we do about it?

Trump was re-elected in spite of the fact that he has been convicted of sexual assault, and indicted for inciting insurrection and stealing classified documents. Our justice department failed, over a four year period during which the politics were favorable, to bring him to trial. There are multiple reasons why our system failed, but it was mainly because when the threat needed to be evaluated and considered for what it really was, it wasn't taken seriously. And when the obstacles to a resolution became apparent, the party in power was not willing to use its power to remove the obstacles.

We are seeing a systematic implementation of Project 2025. Everything Trump is doing is related to following, in some fashion, the steps they have outlined to gain control of the government before they put their full blown agenda into place. They've been delayed along the way by some pushback, mainly through legal channels and gaps in the federal judiciary where they did not control the judicial appointments. And they are somewhat handicapped by the fact that Trump had his own agenda for who he wanted in certain cabinet positions, so there are some non-Project 2025 appointees, like RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard, who are more Putin tools than Heritage Foundation hacks.

More than at any time during my lifetime, our nation needs a vibrant, independent free press. Today, carrying out that mission, one guaranteed by our Constitution but under direct assault by our current president and his administration, will require courage and inevitably entail personal risk. I want to personally say a heartfelt “thank you” to the stalwart journalists who are keeping us informed and illuminating the daily threats to democracy we are experiencing.

We the public are going to need to stand behind you and honor your work as sentinels and protectors of our democracy. Together with us, you are also going to need to stand behind your colleagues. We must all be ready to speak out and act when even one of you is targeted by the authoritarian leaders and denied access, censored, jailed, deported to foreign prisons, or worse.

Such anti-American actions against the press, spurred by a leader who calls the media the “enemy of the people,” are no longer unimaginable scenarios in our country today. Some attacks have already occurred. And more unlawful actions against members of the press are surely coming.

It was a dream I had, from the very first time I ever visited this city, which didn't happen until I was well past 50 years of age. This is a place that pulses with life, a huge, densely populated, culturally diverse, center of culture and economic life of the American Midwest, Chicago. It's the place political conservatives love to hate, with a long history of Democratic party dominance, due in part to its base of organized labor and more recently, because it was the place where former President Barack Obama got his political start.

It's political history has been colorful, to say the least, and often criticized. But let's remember, America is still a democracy, and Democrats are popular here because they are a grass roots political movement that relies heavily on popular support and on getting things done for the people. It's not easy getting elected in Chicago, and it is even more difficult after election, especially for high profile office holders, partly because expectations are so high.

I choose to live here, and am planning on retiring here, or at least, close enough to visit regularly.

It is a working class, union-based political stronghold of the Democratic party. The municipal government operates off of a tax base provided by almost 3 million residents, and one of the largest corporate business communities in the country. Taxes, which we all love to complain about, run 1.52% for households, less than the fourth largest city in the country, Houston, and about average of other big cities. I've lived in Houston, too, and for the tax dollars I pay in Chicago, we get a while heck of a lot more. Our schools are better, for one thing, our crime rate is lower, and if I don't want to fight the traffic here, which is, I will admit, worse than Houston was, I can use public transportation, combination of the bus and the "L", and get to where I'm going in a half hour or less.

In one of his pointless, senseless, rambling, demented monologues, Trump got triggered to make comments about the possibility that he would seek a third term. In a demonstration of the poor quality of education received by some journalists in this country, some reporters picked up on this theme and it was one of multiple Trump news items that popped up for a while. Reporters put the news out there as if it were something of significance, and as if Trump mentioning it makes it a possibility.

Of course, the various deceitful ways that they were talking about a "third term," like having another body in the oval office elected as President who just gives deference to Trump and lets him run the country, is along the lines of what they were talking about. But that's about as realistic as the possibility that he could actually run for, or serve, a third term. That cannot happen unless the Constitution is either amended, or destroyed.

It's an ego booster. In Trump talk, there are "some people," a nebulous group whom he wants us to believe is representative of "the American people," and who are really just his own sycophants, who might have brought this up. Getting around the rules is an obsession with this guy. No one is talking about how to make it possible to get Trump a third term, in fact, well over half of "the American people" are talking about how to shorten his time in this term by a considerable amount.

So why is this popping up in the media everywhere, as if talking about Trump ten times a day is not already a waste of time?

Some Democrats, those who have also been baffled and frustrated by the irresolute stumbling of their party leadership, were an active part of the Saturday protests and rallies. Of course, with so many different locations, it's hard to tack the involvement of everyone who was out there. But from accounts I've read, most of the speakers were activists, authors, local leaders who aren't necessarily office holders. The Democrat who represents the state legislative district in Illinois, where I live, didn't even show up at a rally.

So, while it is difficult to imagine the Democratic party as part, but not the whole, of a Trump opposition movement, that's exactly where we are. And in order to defeat Trump, getting him out of the White House by whatever non-violent, constitutional means is possible, even forceful public opinion that convinces enough Republicans to force his resignation, it's probably going to take more than the Democratic party leadership is actually willing to do, in the long run, to bring this about. Democrats didn't use the tools they had available to them when they had the power in their hands, not to stop Trump, not even to save their holy grail, Roe v. Wade. Now that they don't have the tools, they've turned to fundraising appeals using this as a backdrop.

This is a grassroots movement. It's the evidence of a landslide election the Democratic party could have won if it had stuck to, and clearly communicated its message. It's the sign of a political shift that is coming, one that may eventually be identified as the Democratic party, but with a new set of leaders. Attempts to let the focus get distracted off into side issues won't be allowed by this movement. The Democrats can't advance their complicated policy platform now, anyway, so the focus must remain on the most effective course of action, and that is stopping Trump from completely demolishing the country.

There's progress, and movement in the right direction. But it has to come quicker and form faster if it is to be effective in stopping Trump.

If this is the beginning of a new politically progressive movement, slightly to the left, that will appeal to a lot of constituencies both parties have been unable to reach, then it's a good thing.