Wednesday, November 11, 2026
Good morning (or is it mourning?)
A few days before the “Bluenami” cyclone that struck the USA one week ago, a flag appeared on our leafy street in Mt. Lebanon that, as it turned out, was a harbinger of things to come.
Though I was familiar with the popular progressive slogan “86 47,” I’d never seen it on a flag. And especially not on Hoodridge Drive, where people generally refrain from displaying political yard signs. There were none I saw this year in the runup to the midterm elections.
But a flag advocating the removal of President Trump—which is what “86 47” signifies—was indeed flying. Removal is the sanitized interpretation of what “86 47” means, but people who fly it know the real meaning: elimination by any means necessary, up to and including assassination.
My wife Louise and I stared at the flag when we walked past it as if an alien spacecraft had landed on our street, where we’ve lived for 37 years.
The courts have held that flying “86 47” flags is speech protected under the First Amendment. Included in that catalog of protected speech is posting signs in federal parks like “Trump raped little girls,” and “Kids, if your parents are MAGA, they love child rapists.” Both are insane references to the Epstein files, which no doubt will be reopened and relitigated once Democrats take back control of Congress come January 3.
By Election Day, when we walked by the house again, the flag was gone. Its purpose had presumably been served.
I CITE THIS FLAG AS EVIDENCE OF THE COARSE DISCOURSE that is, sadly, commonplace now in American politics. So common it shows up on a placid street like Hoodridge Drive.
Our politics were ugly in this just concluded election cycle. Neither party was immune to it. It was also the most expensive election in U.S. history, according to a nonprofit group that tracks campaign financing. The total sum spent is estimated to have reached a stunning $12 billion. As a point of comparison, the entire Federal Bureau of Investigation, including all its agents and payroll, costs taxpayers around $11 billion per year to maintain.
In Ohio, Republicans ran an attack ad against the Democratic candidate for governor which featured disparaging comments from her estranged mother, who hadn’t talked to her daughter, the candidate, in 50 years. The backstory hadn’t been sufficiently vetted before the ad ran. It turned out the daughter, Ohio Governor-elect Amy Acton, was removed from the mother’s custody at age 12 after her stepfather was charged with raping her.
In Alaska, where the Senate race is yet to be decided, the Democrats actually recruited a man with the same name as Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan, to run as “Decoy Dan.” This dirty trick may have worked.
The Democrat whose campaign orchestrated the scheme is currently ahead of the real Dan Sullivan by a mere 637 votes—far less than the 3,583 votes “Decoy Dan’’ tallied—pending the outcome of a final count, a probable recount, and a Justice Department investigation for voter fraud.
From my perspective, though, the “86 47” flag is symptomatic not just of Trump Derangement Syndrome but outright derangement. And moral rot.
We’ve gone from the silly pretense of virtue-signaling yard signs that were ubiquitous in Mt. Lebanon back in the Biden days such as “IN THIS HOUSE WE BELIEVE …,” to publicly advocating murder. Not a good trendline regardless of your political inclinations.
While the President’s critics would likely allege that this normalization of political violence stems from the normalizer in chief, I see the problem as far deeper than his free expression of opinions, and his obsessive social media habits.
Simply put, there seems to be no boundary that won’t be crossed, no matter how disgusting or unacceptable it is. And in the final analysis, morality is about maintaining absolute boundaries in a world that increasingly thinks there are none.
I came across a blood-red illustration of another decency boundary that’s been crossed while reading Nellie Bowles’ column TGIF two weeks ago, which I regularly peruse each Friday on the Free Press.
The shocking item described a “pretty college student” who did a very unpretty thing. She attended a Pick Up the Mic event on a college campus in Texas, picked up the mic, and said some of the most grotesque words I’ve ever heard.
Calling herself “Pamper Baby,” the student proceeded to gleefully read an inane poem which celebrated the murder of Charlie Kirk. She then audaciously invited her listeners to a “Squirt for Kirk” event on campus, at which the immoral participants would laugh and giggle while squirting fake blood at each other and presumably watching slasher movies before Halloween.
Nellie Bowles explained the context thusly in her column: “See, the funny joke [to Pamper Baby, not to her] is that after he was shot, Kirk bled profusely from his neck, his young body still pumping blood. If you think this is fringe or that she’ll be shunned, you’re deluding yourself.”
Christian Collins—whose Pick Up the Mic event for the Texas Youth Foundation was similar to the one at which Kirk was killed in Utah—commented on his ugly close encounter with Pamper Baby:
“At @UTSA for Pick Up the Mic, a student read a poem celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk with such glee, then told me I was brave to be out here without my neck covered. I told her I’d pray for her. This is the climate. We pick up the mic anyway.”
That strikes me as good advice moving forward in what may be a more hostile climate for Christians after our blue-wave Election Day.
Pick up the mic. Advocate for what you believe in. Don’t trade hatred with hatred.
The cost of Christian discipleship is steep as Jesus Himself said, and as Dietrich Bonhoeffer observes in his masterwork The Cost of Discipleship (which our couples Bible study group is reading right now): “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.” It was a prophetic sentence.
Resist the (huge) temptation to strike out at your enemies. Die to yourself. It’s a lesson I struggle with and have often not followed myself, as I tend to be combative when confronted with situations that threaten me or I find abhorrent.
So, I say this as much to myself as to you, dear reader: When you disagree with someone, calmly explain why.
Articulate your Christian convictions. Explain the biblical basis for your objections. And pray for those who oppose you—even with them, if at all possible.
THIS IS A RATHER LONGISH INTRODUCTION TO THE NEWS THAT REALLY ISN’T “NEWS” A WEEK after the event but is still top of mind following the “Bluenami” (shorthand for blue tsunami).
The election last week was a tidal wave on so many levels it is hard to fathom its entire scope and trajectory just one week afterward. The debris in its aftermath is everywhere. At first glance, one who isn’t cheering over the outcome—that would be me among many others—is tempted to throw in the towel and disavow politics altogether.
While I have done that very thing often in my life, I also now recognize that withdrawal is not the appropriate or optimal response.
Christians need to stay engaged and involved in how the world we occupy conducts its affairs. It is our clear biblical mandate, after all.
I’d also argue that it is exactly because we have receded from the public square that the void has been filled by noisy non-Christian perspectives and voices, resulting in cultural trends and governance that no doubt anger God.
A spokesman for Christian defiance when faced with depravity is Bonhoeffer, whose stand against Hitler and the Nazis cost him his life. “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil,” he wrote in the same masterwork cited above. “God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”
My Pastor Nate Devlin makes a similar observation in his new book God and His Household (which I just finished reading and highly recommend):
“The church’s place is in the center of the city, in the nation, and even in the world because the church is God’s engine of social change and reformation. Too often, the church retreats into pious ghettos. As the chaos of our culture becomes increasingly evident, the question that arises is this: Will the church take its rightful place in the culture?”
In other words, societal withdrawal—the so-called Benedict Option, examined in a book of that same name by Rod Dreher, another Christian writer whose work I esteem highly—is not what God commands of us.
THE OTHER REASON WITHDRAWING WOULD BE A MISTAKE IS THAT AMID THE DEEPLY DISAPPOINTING RESULTS, many ballot initiatives that championed conservative causes won broad support even in an election when progressives got many votes and most of the news media and social-media attention.
That’s important because it says that progressives advocating crazy policies may not enjoy the support they think they have, and will perhaps overplay their hands much as President Trump did.
“Overall, the [referendum] results … reinforce a theme that Democrats ignore at their political peril: Voters leaned left because they want a check on President Trump,” the Wall Street Journal editorialized, “not because Iowans, North Carolinians and Ohioans want Washington to raise their taxes, override their election codes, or outlaw private health plans.”
On its face, the election results were dismal. Republicans will now be the minority party in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Conversely, Democrats will have their largest numerical majority in Congress since 2009 when President-elect Barack Obama first took office, and the progressive onslaught began in earnest.
Though President Trump still maintains veto power over Democratic legislation, he is certain to be the target of reprisals, as will many of his allies. The Republican majority in the House yesterday rejected an impeachment proceeding against Secretary of War Pete Hegseth while they still have a very narrow majority of the votes. Once they lose that majority come January 3, Secretary Hegseth is sure to be in the crosshairs of his Democratic enemies, who despise that war against Iran was initiated.
Predicting an avalanche of retaliation, progressive Democratic Congresswoman Analilia Mejia threatened in this post: “We’re going to [issue] subpoenas like Mardi Gras beads.”
Happy Carnival, Congresswoman. What an apt metaphor!
Though I doubt the Congresswoman knows this—she’s from New Jersey, after all (I can’t resist dumping on my former home state)—Mardi Gras beads descend from ancient Rome and fertility festivals that were all the rage back in the first century. You know, at the same time Romans were fond of feeding their Christian enemies to lions in the Colosseum.
Anticipating the predatory two years that likely lie ahead, Mr. Trump on Friday said he is replacing his amiable White House chief of staff Susie Wiles with pit bull Stephen Miller, a trusted aide, author of his immigration policies, and his most combative defender.
As we all know, Mr. Trump won’t be fed to lions without a fight, which angers Democrats in the leadership of their party. They insist he tamely submit to being devoured.
In an interview on Sunday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, the Democrat from New York soon to become the likely Speaker of the House in January, called Miller’s elevation “an awful choice.” Mr. Jeffries told Jonathan Karl on ABC’s This Week that his selection rules out any potential cooperation with the Trump administration due to his “extremism,” as if compromise were ever a possibility.
“There’s not going to be any opportunity, certainly, to work with Stephen Miller and what he represents,” Jeffries said.
Though the President insisted in his first full-length interview since the election with 60 Minutes that “he was not on the ballot,” the results were clearly a referendum on him and his administration’s performance in the first two years of his second term, according to exit polling data.
Most voters said his tariffs hurt the economy, his immigration efforts went too far, his decision to take military action against Iran was misguided.
One would be mistaken to conclude, however, that voters rejected conservative principles and policies. They did not. Instead, voters who turned against Trump say they want results on the bread-and-butter issues they care most about, mainly affordability, jobs and the availability of housing.
In fact, polling from the advocacy group Third Way indicates that 55% of men under age 30 want Democrats to become more moderate rather than more liberal, and 67% want Republicans to become more moderate rather than more conservative.
A move to the middle, in other words. And this from so-called Gen Z “Zoomers,” who are not exactly known for their moderation. These are the same voters I wrote about in my election preview column three weeks ago.
Shifting loyalty among young voters was the biggest change last week from the election two years ago that propelled Mr. Trump to a second term. In the 2024 presidential race, Trump scored major gains among Zoomers who’d previously voted for Democrats. He split the cohort about evenly in 2024 with former Vice President Kamala Harris while carrying a majority of young men.
But last week, the Zoomers were fickle and didn’t stick with the GOP. More than 7 out of 10 young voters cast ballots for Democratic House candidates. Support for Democrats among Zoomer males and Hispanics in particular shifted more than 20 percentage points in just two years as shown in the graph below.
YET WHILE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATES WERE LARGELY DEFEATED EXCEPT IN FLORIDA, conservative measures paradoxically won wide support.
It was a red tsunami for top conservative causes.
This was strikingly evident on the transgender agenda that the leadership of the Democratic party has been strangely fixated on in recent years, and still may be. Old habits die hard.
“No matter how much the broad public abhors the promotion of transgenderism in all of its forms, the Democrats resist even the simplest moves to scale it back,” writes Hadley Arkes, professor emeritus at Amherst College and founder of a conservative think tank. “The passion for sexual liberation, with no constraints of nature, is baked into the Democratic DNA.”
Democratic leaders oppose any restrictions on surgeries and hormones for minors. They also favor males competing against females in sports; mandatory transgender education among first graders (like what happened in Mt. Lebanon Schools, which has since been enjoined by the U.S. Supreme Court); schools keeping parents in the dark about a child’s sex transitioning; and invasions of privacy and sexual assault in women’s bathrooms, locker rooms and prisons.
While support for these extreme measures may run deep in the Democratic DNA, the people spoke. Even in deep blue states, ballots were cast against trans activism.
In Washington state, voters approved Initiative 638, which bars biological boys from competing in girls’ K-12 sports. Democrat Governor Bob Ferguson opposed the initiative.
In Colorado, which has become ground zero for many legal battles supporting trans and gay rights, an incredible triple victory protecting children won passage: Proposition 133, mandating a life sentence without parole for child sex trafficking convictions; Proposition 134, requiring K-12 and college teams to be segregated by biological sex; and Proposition 135, protecting kids from irreversible sex-change surgeries.
The three Colorado measures were championed by a grassroots group Protect Kids Colorado, which gathered more than 500,000 signatures with over 3,300 volunteers.
Conservatives also won victories on sports measures in Nebraska and Arizona.
In Arizona, Democrats achieved the so-called political “trifecta,” giving them control over both chambers of the state legislature for the first time in 60 years and the governor’s office with the reelection of Dem Governor Katie Hobbs. But the same voters overrode her past vetoes of legislation that will finally extend sex-based sports and private-space protections according to biological sex.
Nebraska voters also approved a constitutional amendment barring boys and men from competing on school and college teams designated for girls and women.
Voters in nine states, meanwhile, also passed ballot initiatives strengthening voter identification requirements or explicitly restricting voting to American citizens.
Former solidly red states that went blue also imposed restrictions on taxation.
While voters in Iowa elected a new Democratic governor and senator, an amendment passed to the state constitution requiring a two-thirds legislative majority for raising income taxes on residents or businesses.
A similar story held in Ohio. While electing Amy Acton, the new Democratic governor and returning Democrat Sherrod Brown to the Senate, voters overwhelmingly ratified a constitutional amendment shoring up the state’s voter ID requirement.
Another former red state that went blue is North Carolina. But at the same time, two conservative amendments to the state constitution were approved: the first, cutting the maximum permissible income-tax rate to 3.5% from 7% previously, and a second measure strengthening voter ID at the polls.
And in California of all places, voters there defeated a proposed 5% one-time tax on wealth above one billion dollars, which was perhaps the biggest shocker of the entire election. “The outcome could hinder the wealth tax movement in California and across the country in future years,” the New York Times reported yesterday, no doubt with a tear in their eye.
This was no incidental achievement given that the vitriol directed at billionaires was extraordinary in this election.
Tesla and SpaceX owner Elon Musk, who headed the DOGE task force immediately after Trump’s return to the White House and donated nearly $500 million supporting Republican candidates, is certain to face greater congressional scrutiny in the months ahead, and an avalanche of subpoenas.
Below is Nellie Bowles’ humorous take last Friday on the situation Musk may face, which may not be all that funny.
She writes: “If I’m Elon Musk, I’m a little nervous today: For some reason, top liberals really want to arrest Elon Musk. Some seem to want him executed. … Here’s Scott Galloway [of New York University’s Stern School of Business] calling for Musk to receive the ultimate judgment: “We lined up the Rosenbergs against a wall. This is a traitor to the West, and he should be held to the same standards as every other traitor in the West.” Alright, then! (For the record, the Rosenbergs got the electric chair, not a firing squad, but I digress. Also, for the record, Prof G, if you’re running these things, I’d prefer the firing squad. Thank you in advance.)”
She continues: “Or here’s Wired [magazine], elevating the group that plans to doxx Elon Musk and hundreds of billionaire-linked homes. Doxxing homes. To be clear, that means making someone’s personal address public. Not finances, not political contributions, homes. The entire goal is to make these people fear for their physical safety.”
JAMES TALARICO, THE SENATOR-ELECT REPRESENTING MUSK’S HOME STATE OF TEXAS when the 120th Congress convenes on January 3, took direct aim at Elon in his victory speech on Election Night.
Talarico, the leftist Presbyterian seminarian who believes God is “non-binary,” pulled off what may be the greatest electoral heist in Texas history. He received 5.45 million votes—the most ever for a Democrat. By comparison, Joe Biden got 5.26 million in Texas in the 2020 presidential election.
Though Talarico will be one of the Senate’s most liberal members, his victory signaled the full crest of the blue tsunami. The spiritual home of American conservatism, Texas has been deep red for decades. Before a week ago, Texans hadn’t elected a Democrat statewide since 1994, and they not only elected Talarico.
Gina Hinojosa ousted Greg Abbott, the nation’s longest-serving governor, making history as the first Latino chief executive in Texas history. Democratic candidates won races for lieutenant governor, attorney general, comptroller, land commissioner, agricultural commissioner, railroad commissioner, and they claimed seven statewide judicial elections, including four seats on the state’s Supreme Court.
“We just took back Texas. And tonight we defeated Goliath,” Talarico proclaimed in his victory speech.
“We just sent a message to every billionaire mega-donor, every trillionaire mega-donor, every corrupt defender of this broken political system in this state, in this country. Power belongs to the people. The real fight in this country is not right versus left; it is top versus bottom.”
As results came in on Tuesday night, Musk wrote on X, “Guess my election-interfering space lasers didn’t work this time,” followed by a shrug emoji.
Though he jests, his predicament underscores what is perhaps the biggest unknown emerging from this election: How will Democrats govern?
Even in Texas, the blue wave may be a purple tornado. Like the storms that regularly touch down across the Texas plains stretching endlessly from Fort Worth in the east to Fort Bliss in the west.
This storm could be short-lived.
Voters are far more fickle now. Brand loyalty to one party is a thing of the past, especially among young voters.
One first-time Democratic voter in Texas who had never cast a ballot for a Democrat before summed up her ambivalence voting for one when she told the Free Press: “I hope I never have to vote for a Democrat again.”
In Texas and elsewhere, what Democrats do with their new majorities in Congress and state legislatures across the country is anyone’s guess. And the answer to the question could very well determine whether in Texas and elsewhere, this is a long-term climate change or a short-lived storm.
If it’s the former, the consequences would be profound. Without Texas, Republicans would have almost no chance of winning the presidency in 2028. The loss of the second most populous state in the country would be devastating.
Hence, a lot is hanging on the question of how Democrats govern and the policies they champion.
Will they aim high and actually govern in a way that wins allegiance from their new constituents? Or will they aim low and again champion the same crazy policies that got them tossed out in 2024? Stuff like DEI, transgender causes, abortion up to birth and on demand, defunding police, curtailing civil liberties, violating First Amendment rights, and enforcing vaccinations. Also retaliating against their enemies.
The opportunities for misbehavior will be less because of the checks and balances that for now remain at the federal level. Which is the way the Founders, in their genius, intended that it be.
Mr. Trump will be that check and balance (for perhaps the first time in his life). While Democrats will control Congress, even a lame-duck President can veto their mischief if it reaches his desk.
Overriding a presidential veto requires a two-thirds vote of the House of Representatives, which is 290 votes of 435, and 67 of 100 in the Senate. Democrats will have nothing close to either number. Significantly, this is the same margin required in the Senate to convict a President and remove him from office via an impeachment proceeding.
In addition, for all the legitimate concern about what progressives might do, moderate Democrats will far outnumber those on the hard Left.
Democratic Socialist representatives in the House have doubled their numbers, from four to eight. But the largest and fastest growing bloc within the House Democratic Caucus is a group called the New Democrat Coalition, which is projected to have 140 members in the new Congress.
“They are the clear majority-makers of this Congress and, by definition and self-description, they are moderates. A group willing to find common ground on contentious issues,” writes former Congressman Steve Israel in this illuminating column in the Wall Street Journal.
Israel knows this terrain well. He served as a New Dem moderate in the House representing New York on Long Island for 16 years until 2017. When he was part of the coalition, there were 43 members. There will be about 100 more New Dems now.
That of course doesn’t ensure policies will be enacted that Christians won’t find objectionable. But, ironically, it may be misbehavior in state capitals that is far more threatening. Pennsylvania is a very likely case in point.
For the first time since 1993, Pennsylvania Democrats will have a blue “trifecta”—control of the state House, state Senate, and the Governor’s office. That means the Dems in Harrisburg will have unchecked power to do pretty much anything they wish.
Though our reelected Governor Josh Shapiro is fond of portraying himself as a “moderate,” he is in reality far from it. Especially on the issues that are part of the Democratic DNA as mentioned above: their passion for sexual liberation.
Here’s a clip of Governor Shapiro welcoming Admiral “Rachel” Levine back to the Governor’s mansion in June for his fourth annual pride reception, courtesy of the Daily Wire, which had to obtain it through a public records request. Shapiro, who is said to be eyeing a presidential run in 2028, wanted to keep it under wraps to preserve his “moderate” reputation.
Watch his glowing remarks to the Admiral and judge for yourself if he’s actually a moderate.
Then there’s the subject of abortion. At a celebratory postelection news conference, Shapiro ticked off his legislative priorities, “what I can guarantee you we will get done.”
Funding mass transit, raising the minimum wage, building more housing, and of course: “We will make sure that women have a right to reproductive freedom here in this Commonwealth.” As if we didn’t have that already. The state constitutional protections he envisions will mean more lives lost to abortion.
“With a pro-abortion Governor and now a Democrat House and Senate, I lament the looming prospect of abortion being added to Pennsylvania’s Constitution, which could lead to 20,000 more abortions over the next several years,” writes Michael Geer, a past guest on our Scattered Seeds Podcast.
A former television journalist decades ago, Geer left the news business for good news to found the Pennsylvania Family Council, which fights in Harrisburg for religious freedom, parental rights, the sanctity of human life, and the future of Pennsylvania families like mine and yours.
Another fight that looms is the Governor’s push to convince religious groups to get vaccinated, including the Amish.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THIS, HOW THEN SHALL WE LIVE?
For starters, we should remember what Chuck Colson, a Nixon henchman during Watergate who became this country’s foremost lay Christian evangelist after his conversion, famously said about expecting salvation to come from any President, regardless of the party.
My friend and fellow elder here at Beverly Heights Art Flickinger reminded me of the Colson saying when he wrote in an email this week:
“We shouldn’t expect our Savior to walk off of Air Force One, and for that matter, neither will the Apocalypse (unless it’s AOC or Kamala). I don’t vote for the lesser of two evils anymore. My mind set is to vote for whoever can restrain the most evil.”
I also took wisdom from Pastor Nate Devlin’s message this past Sunday.
His preaching on the text from Acts 14:1-7 when Paul and Barnabas together entered Iconium coincided well with the events of the past week. God often does that, I have noticed.
Nate made the irrefutable point that politics is downstream of culture. And to change the culture, you must change what people worship.
“Idolators become like their idols,” Nate said.
“We’re divided politically because we no longer know who God is,” Nate said.
“God has called us to build unity,” Nate said. “Being the light, salt and leaven in the Kingdom of God is hard work.”
I observed firsthand that hard work in an email my wife Louise received from an unbelieving friend of ours in Germany immediately after the election.
The friend Gundolf wrote:
Hello Louise and Tom,
Today is Champagne Day.
Finally, after two years, there is positive news coming from the US.
Finally, many Americans said no to a narcissist, self-focused, irresponsible person. Some call him a despicable person for many, many good reasons.
You both lived (showed to us) your true values again and again and they were so far away and on the other side!!!
I always flipped out when I saw the Evangelicals, Christians and Catholics praying for him and especially with him. How could they publicly support a person with such values and with such a past?
Here is Louise’s reply (abridged and used with her permission):
Dear Gundolf,
Thank you for reaching out. I hope you are well.
I had a few thoughts to share about your reaction to the US elections.
What happened at the polls is typical of American politics. A two-party system that goes back and forth in order to drive straight(er). It really was a referendum on what people think about Trump—they agree with you. But it is possible that in 2 years they will wonder what happened to some of the good he did. … Americans are fickle and vote mostly with their pocket books.
I’m not sure you understand that most Christians I know who vote for Trump, and certainly pray for Trump and even pray for Trump winning, do so because he holds to the VALUES that they believe in.
I’m glad you are feeling more secure. Are you secure in your relationship with Christ? After all, in a decade or so, God willing, we will be with Him!
God is indeed good!!
Don’t drink the entire bottle of bubbly yourself!!
Cheers, Louise
Her remarks made me think of the flag on our street. Flags can be a symbol of division and hatred in a divided world. They can also speak truth into an unbelieving world.
Louise’s response was one small step in that direction—a flag of sorts, planted for Jesus.
May the flags you plant be for Jesus.
Until next time, be of good courage.