There are some folks trying to pursuade Texans to vote for this up-and-coming candidate who looks like Howdy-Doody meets the Beaver.
The defense for this person is that the politician running against him is lying about him.
In honesty, we all know that all politicians misquote, distract, and play the political games in advertisement. They all do it. So, that is no defense of the candidate, to me.
But, this particular candidate is running as a ‘traditional democrat’, when he is anything but. He is a ‘new democrat’. And those are socialists/communists, and anything but moral.
Our morality is and has since the beginning been Scripturally based. We may quibble over details and semantics, but the core of the “Ten Commandments” is indisputably the foundation of our laws. This Doody Beaver is anything but moral, and his own words prove it:
Here are actual citations of his own words, and the problem they present, the truth about what his position really is:
Abortion and Scripture: “The idea that there is a set Christian orthodoxy on the issue of abortion is just not rooted in Scripture.” He has also said, “Jesus never talks about abortion. The Bible is silent on abortion.” In discussing Mary, he argued: “To me, that is an affirmation in one of our most central stories that creation has to be done with consent. You cannot force someone to create.”
“Jesus never talks about abortion”. Preposterous. “You have heard, “you will not murder…” Abortion is murder. Murder is the taking of innocent life without a just cause. At conception, the baby’s existance actually meets the very definition of life. The mother and father are both human, so the life they created together is a human LIFE. Taking that life is murder. Yeshua intensified the commandment, ‘You will not murder’; He did not do away with it. He clearly taught that murder is wrong.
His twisting Miryam’s becoming the vessel of the Messiah’s body as a blanket statement about consentual sex is simply blasphemous. God did not have an intimate, sexual relationship with Miryam in order to cause her to conceive. The Spirit of God performed a miracle.
People who overlook that are just derranged with madness, trying to fit this man into the long-established Judeo-Christian world view. It is absurd.
Homosexuality / same-sex relationships: On Joe Rogan, Howdy Doody said, “this idea that to be a Christian means you have to be anti-gay and anti-abortion, there really is no historical, theological, biblical basis for that opinion.” In another interview he said: “Abortion is never mentioned. Consensual same-sex relationships are never mentioned.”
He obviously says this based on the popular misinterpretation that the “New Testament” is now the ONLY testament. Yeshua said He did not come to abolish God’s “law”/Torah. Paul said that the Torah is Holy, and Just, and GOOD, and told lawyers and judges that he had never spoken against it, and that he was still an observer of it long after his belief in Yeshua. He even took measures in Jerusalem to prove this, by making sacrifices in the Jewish temple!
Yeshua never had to say homosexuality is wrong, because He came to minister only to the Jewish people during His earthly ministry, and it was completely understood in Israel at that time that homosexuality was wrong, because Leviticus 18 and other passages clearly defined it as perversion, and a detestable thing to God.
Jesus as a feminist: In a 2022 sermon he asked, “Did they teach you in Sunday school that Jesus Christ himself was a radical feminist?” He explained: “Jesus believed a woman is a full person, and that’s the definition of a feminist.”
That is not the definition of a feminist! “A woman is a full person”, this is just smoke and mirror tactics, a tongue-in-cheek way of saying that if you’re not a feminist, you’re dehumanizing women. But, feminisim actually dehumanizes women! Because human women were designed to be with human men, to be protected by them, to be lovingly doted over, provided for, and cherished. Most vows at the altar traditionally demand that of the betrothed during the marriage ceremony.
Feminism is a perversion of the feminine role in society, such that many ‘feminists’ are women who are not at all feminine! They actually despised beautiful feminine qualities, especially motherhood!
God described as female: In that same sermon: “Did they teach you in Sunday school that the Bible sometimes describes God as a female, calling her Sophia?”
His conclusion is a reach, and he’s using wordplay with grammatical gender.
The Hebrew word for wisdom, חָכְמָה (khokhmah), is grammatically feminine. The Greek word for wisdom, σοφία (sophia), is also grammatically feminine. Consequently, when Proverbs poetically personifies Wisdom, Wisdom appears as a woman.
But grammatical gender is not biological sex. A feminine noun does not make the thing it describes female. Hebrew uses grammatical gender constantly for things that obviously have no biological sex.
And Sophia is not a secret feminine name for God. It is simply the ordinary Greek word for “wisdom.”
So Proverbs does indeed portray Wisdom poetically as a woman. But that is quite different from saying that Scripture calls God a woman named Sophia. The first statement comes directly from the language and imagery of Proverbs; the second turns grammatical gender and poetic personification into a theological claim the text itself does not make.
In short:
חָכְמָה = Wisdom.
σοφία = Wisdom.
Both words are grammatically feminine.
Neither fact makes Elohim female.
That is grammar and personification—not a revelation that God’s name is “Sophia.”
Further, most everyone understands that Proverbs 3 is a picture of Yeshua as the embodiment of wisdom, and He is clearly masculine, a stone-working carpenter from Nazareth. A man!
Worship of Yeshua/Jesus: This candidate said in a December 2025 video, “Not once in the entire Bible does Jesus ask us to worship him.” He continued: “All he asks is that we follow him. Love like he loved. Love the outcast. Welcome the stranger. Feed the hungry. Heal the sick. Free the oppressed.”
This is the serpentine, devilish twisting of God’s Word. Yeshua is clearly worshipped in Scripture as the Divine Son of God.
That argument depends upon demanding one particular sentence—“Worship Me”—while ignoring what Scripture actually records.
Yeshua repeatedly receives worship and permits it.
After He walks upon the sea, His talmidim “worshiped Him” and confessed, “Truly You are the Son of Elohim” (Matt. 14:33). The man whose sight Yeshua restored confessed his trust and “worshiped Him” (John 9:38). After the resurrection, the women took hold of His feet and worshiped Him (Matt. 28:9), and shortly afterward His talmidim again “worshiped Him” (Matt. 28:17).
Not once does Yeshua tell them to stop.
That matters because when Cornelius falls before Peter, Peter immediately raises him up: “Stand up; I myself am also a man” (Acts 10:25–26). When John falls before an angel, the angel immediately stops him: “See that you do it not… worship Elohim” (Rev. 19:10; 22:8–9).
Yeshua does no such thing. He receives the worship.
More remarkably, the Father Himself says concerning the Son, “Let all the angels of Elohim worship Him” (Heb. 1:6). And in John’s heavenly vision, every creature offers blessing, honor, glory, and dominion “to Him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb” (Rev. 5:11–14).
Yeshua also declares that the Father’s purpose is “that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father” (John 5:23).
So, no, Scripture does not record Yeshua walking around saying the particular sentence, “Worship Me.”
It records something considerably harder to explain away:
People worship Him. He knowingly receives their worship. He never rebukes them for it. The Father commands the angels to worship Him. And Yeshua Himself says that the Son is to be honored just as the Father is honored.
America and Christianity: “America is not a Christian nation; it is a nation where you are free to be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Hindu, or a Sikh, or a Buddhist, or an agnostic, or an atheist.” He also says his Christian faith itself leads him to reject Christian nationalism.
Accusing people of “Christian Nationalism” is a serpentine way of passive-aggresively vilifying believers who also believe in America keeping its heritage.
Anyone that says that America was not founded on Christian principles is a self-deceiver. America was founded by Christians, with Jewish help [Hayim Solomon, et al]. America was founded for Christians, and for Jews, some of the earliest settlers in the colonies. But, it was not founded for Muslims, nor on any muslim principles. In fact, the Constitution is diametrically opposed to Sharia Muslim law.
That the founders were Christian is indisputable, and they wanted that faith to influence American politics.
It is fashionable to invoke Thomas Jefferson as evidence that Christianity had little place in the American founding. Jefferson certainly rejected traditional Christian doctrines and fiercely opposed a government-established church. But it is equally misleading to turn Jefferson into a man who rejected Christianity itself. He repeatedly distinguished between what he considered the pure religion taught by Yeshua and what he believed later religious institutions had added to it.
In 1803, while serving as President, Jefferson compared the teachings of Yeshua with the great philosophers of antiquity and concluded that Yeshua’s moral teaching was:
“the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man.”
He specifically praised Yeshua for extending morality beyond outward behavior into the human heart and for teaching a universal love embracing mankind as one family.
The following year Jefferson wrote:
“I consider the doctrines of Jesus as delivered by himself to contain the outlines of the sublimest system of morality that has ever been taught.”
What Jefferson attacked in that same letter was not the moral teaching of Yeshua, but what he regarded as its subsequent corruption by “priestcraft” and “kingcraft.”
In 1809 he again wrote:
“We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus, & no where will they be found delivered in greater purity than in his discourses.”
And in 1819 Jefferson described the religion taught by Yeshua as:
“the most moral and sublime ever preached to man.”
Jefferson’s religious liberty therefore should not be confused with hostility toward Christianity. His famous Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom begins with an explicitly theological proposition:
“Almighty God hath created the mind free.”
His argument was that because faith concerns the mind and conscience, government must not manufacture belief through coercion. Religious liberty was not presented simply as freedom from God, but as freedom grounded in the nature and purposes of the Creator.
This distinction matters. Jefferson did not advocate an established national church, and his personal theology departed sharply from traditional Christian orthodoxy. But neither did he envision republican liberty as requiring Christianity to be driven from public life.
Rather, Jefferson could simultaneously insist upon absolute liberty of conscience and regard the moral teachings of Yeshua as the “most perfect and sublime” moral system known to mankind.
And Jefferson was hardly alone in connecting religious principle with republican liberty.
John Adams wrote in 1813:
“The general Principles of Christianity”
were among the principles that united Americans in asserting and maintaining independence, adding that he regarded those principles as:
“as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God.”
George Washington stated the underlying republican principle plainly in his Farewell Address:
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.”
He then warned against supposing that national morality could endure without religious principle and declared:
“Virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.”
The picture that emerges from the Founders is therefore more nuanced than either modern slogan allows. They did not establish a national church, nor did they require citizens to subscribe to a single Christian creed. Religious liberty was fundamental to their republicanism.
But religious liberty is not the same thing as a secular republic in the modern sense of excluding religious conviction from public life.
For many of the Founding generation, the logic ran in the opposite direction:
Liberty requires self-government. Self-government requires virtue. Virtue requires a moral foundation. And for much of the founding generation, that moral world was profoundly shaped by Christianity.
Jefferson—the religious skeptic among them—still called the moral teachings of Yeshua the most perfect and sublime ever taught.
That fact should make us very cautious about projecting our modern categories backward onto the American founding.
Islam was nowhere to be seen in earliest America in any large number. Most early Islamists were African slaves. They were free to be Muslim, but the founders did not think their faith was equal to Christianity, at all.
So, the Founders’ commitment to religious liberty should not be confused with a belief that all religions were equally true.
They could vigorously defend the civil rights of Muslims while simultaneously rejecting Islamic religious claims and criticizing the historical example of Muhammad.
John Quincy Adams associated the establishment of Muhammad’s empire with “force and persuasion” and with “glory and plunder.” John Adams repeatedly placed Muhammad among historical conquerors when warning about the dangers of political and military domination.
Yet Adams also instructed his grandson to treat those of other religions—including Muslims—with “civility, candour, & respect.”
That distinction is crucial.
Religious liberty does not require religious equivalence.
A republic may protect a Muslim’s right to worship without declaring Islam and Christianity equally true. Indeed, several Founders who supported broad religious toleration simultaneously spoke of Christianity in exceptional terms.
Jefferson advocated liberty for the “Mahometan,” Jew, and unbeliever while describing the authentic teachings of Yeshua as the most sublime moral system ever taught.
Thus the Founding-era principle was not necessarily:
All religions are the same.
It was much closer to:
The government does not compel the conscience.
A man may therefore believe Christianity true and Islam false, argue vigorously for that conclusion, and nevertheless defend the Muslim’s civil right to disagree with him.
That combination—religious conviction without religious coercion—is an important part of the Founding-era debate over religious liberty.
What we have today, however, is a larger problem. Muslims are at such a number as to begin to want to subvert our Constitution. As soon as they do that, they should lose all liberty! That is treason.
Christian orthodoxy/religious authority: “Almost every debate Jesus is in is with the religious authorities of his time, directly challenging orthodoxy. Jesus was a religious reformer. Paul was a religious reformer. And so I think when we’re at our best as Christians, we are challenging religious dogmas and religious supremacy.”
This, again, is wordplay.
Yeshua certainly challenged the religious establishment of His day—and sometimes vehemently. He condemned hypocrisy, traditions that displaced commandments, burdens imposed upon others, exploitation associated with the Temple, and interpretations that obscured justice, mercy, and faithfulness.
But we should not confuse Yeshua’s opposition to man-made religious doctrine with opposition to the foundations of Jewish religious life itself.
Quite the opposite.
Yeshua was circumcised according to Torah (Luke 2:21). He went to Jerusalem for the appointed feasts (John 2:13; 5:1; 7:2, 10; 10:22–23). He attended synagogue on Shabbat “as was His custom” (Luke 4:16). He wore tzitziyot (Matt. 9:20; 14:36). He celebrated Pesakh with His talmidim (Luke 22:7–15). He acknowledged the Temple as “My Father’s house” (John 2:16) and defended its sanctity against those who had corrupted its purpose (Matt. 21:12–13).
Even when He healed a man with tzara’at [leprosy], Yeshua instructed him to present himself to the kohen and offer what Moshe had commanded (Matt. 8:4). He told His hearers that the scribes and Pharisees sat in Moshe’s seat and instructed them to heed what was properly taught [Torah], while warning them not to imitate hypocritical conduct and added doctrine (Matt. 23:1–3).
Most importantly, Yeshua explicitly denied that His mission was to abolish Israel’s Scriptures:
“Do not think that I have come to nullify the Torah or the Nevi’im.” Matthew 5:17
He then warned against loosening even the least of the commandments and teaching others to do likewise (Matt. 5:18–19).
So what did Yeshua oppose?
He tells us plainly:
“You leave the commandment of Elohim and hold to the tradition of men.” Mark 7:8
And again:
“You make the Word of Elohim of no effect through your tradition.” Mark 7:13
There is the distinction.
Yeshua did not condemn a practice merely because it was Jewish. He condemned human religious authority when it contradicted, circumvented, or obscured the commandment of Elohim.
Indeed, when discussing the “weightier matters of the Torah”—justice, mercy, and faithfulness—His solution was not to discard religious observance. He said:
“These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.” Matthew 23:23
That is hardly the language of a man attempting to dismantle Jewish religious life.
Yeshua’s criticism was fundamentally an argument from Torah, not an argument against Torah.
He worshiped the Elohim of Avraham, Yitz’khak, and Ya’akov. He quoted Torah as authoritative. He observed Shabbat. He celebrated the appointed times. He went to synagogue. He went to the Temple. He honored Moshe and the Nevi’im. He taught from the Hebrew Scriptures. And when challenged concerning religious practice, He repeatedly answered, “It is written.”
Yeshua was therefore not standing outside Israel condemning Judaism as a foreign religion. He was standing within Israel, calling Israel back to the purposes of the Elohim of Israel.
His strongest confrontations with religious authorities actually demonstrate the point: the standard by which He judged their traditions was the very Torah they claimed to defend.
He challenged their religion where it had become man’s religion.
He defended it where it remained His Father’s Word.
Christianity and other religions: Speaking about faith and idolatry, he said that the “radical message” he was describing belongs “not just [to] Christianity, but actually all of the world’s great faith traditions,” which he described as helping people relinquish earthly things and “put our faith in love, in each other, and in creation.”
This is borderline blasphemy. “They worship and serve the Creation”…
Doody’s definition of idolatry begins reasonably enough: putting our ultimate trust in money, status, or political power rather than in God is indeed idolatrous.
But then he makes a remarkable turn. He says that the great religions of the world teach us to let go of earthly things and:
“put our faith in love, in each other, and in creation.”
For someone appealing to the Bible to define idolatry, the last phrase is particularly striking.
Paul describes humanity’s fundamental idolatrous error in almost precisely those terms:
“They exchanged the truth of Elohim for a lie, and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator.” —Romans 1:25
Biblical faith is not ultimately faith in creation. Nor is it ultimately faith in each other. We are commanded to love one another, serve one another, care for creation, and recognize the image of Elohim in human beings. But none of those things is the proper object of our faith.
Our faith is in the Creator.
There is an equally serious problem with saying that Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and the other religions are merely different ways of “circling the same truth.” Yeshua did not describe Himself as one religious symbol among many pointing toward an unknowable reality.
He said:
“I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no man comes to the Father except through Me.” —John 14:6
The Apostles likewise proclaimed:
“There is Salvation in no other.” Acts 4:12
One may certainly respect people of other religions. One may defend absolutely their freedom to believe and worship according to conscience. But that is entirely different from declaring contradictory religions to be different languages describing the same divine reality.
The biblical message is not:
Put your faith in love, each other, and creation.
It is:
Love one another. Care for the creation. But put your faith in the Creator—and in the One whom He sent.
So, to find little things that make this candidate ‘palatable’ to middling voters is a dangerous game, and it shows us how far left the political pendulum has swung, largely due to the simple hatred of the current President’s person.
I am not a “MAGA” person. I vote only my conscience, according to God’s Word, and often I have to choose a ‘person’ who is not my first choice, because the other person is simply not representing anything righteous at all. That is the case here in Texas this fall. This person’s OWN QUOTES make it impossible for me to entertain voting for him. And that there are people even considering these ideas as easily overlooked is sad commentary on today’s voter and our political intelligence.