The Senate Judiciary Committee forwarded Todd Blanche’s Nomination to the Full Senate. Have they Lost their Conscience and their Spine?

Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee forwarded Todd Blanche’s nomination to the full Senate. Have they lost their conscience and their spine?

This was not a minor congressional decision of little importance. No, this is about our country’s top law enforcement official, the position of Attorney General and Director of the Justice Department. This decision is about the moral integrity of our potential Attorney General, the moral integrity of our Senators, and … our own moral integrity.

Todd Blanche used to be President Trump’s personal criminal defense lawyer and is currently the Acting Attorney General (in replacement of Pam Bondi, who resigned the AG position). The vote in the full Senate would probably take place this week and would make Blanche the permanent replacement for the Attorney General position. There are three major ethical issues at stake:

The 1.776 billion dollar “Anti-Weaponization-Slush” Fund (to compensate some citizens for alleged discrimination against them by the (Biden) Justice Department. This would include those who injured police during their participation in the January 6, 2021 insurrection in Washington, DC. These Americans were found guilty by juries of their peers.)
The exemption from an IRS audit for Trump, his sons, some of his friends and the Trump Organization. This is a special, unique exemption in US history. It essentially says that Trump and his friends are “are above the law”.
The Epstein Files. When she was Attorney General, Pam Bondi affirmed that Deputy AG Todd Blanche was the official responsible for implementing the congressional bill which required the names of the perpetrators to be revealed, and the identities of the victims be protected. Blanche did just the opposite and still has not finished the job. He also changed Epstein’s guilty friend Ghislaine Maxwell’s prison location to a “plush country club level” setting. This is, by far, Blanche’s most horrific ethical failure. The female victims (who have been truly heroic) deserve justice.

Two Republican senators (John Cornyn and Tom Tillis) who had been blocking Blanche’s confirmation for Attorney General gave him their blessing yesterday, after Blanche promised — in writing — to scale back the very lucrative deal (#2 and 3 above) the Department of Justice had cut with Trump. Legal experts agree that these written documents that Blanche signed are NOT legally binding.

The ethical dimensions of these three issues are not gray. We know what is right and what is wrong.

The date for the final Senate vote has not yet been fixed. Unless three senators (Murkowski, Collins, others?) find some courage and integrity, we the people of the United States have lost our way.

Ending the War with Iran is Getting Further Away…Trump’s Four Bad Options

Over the last 24 hours, the war with Iran escalated…again. Iran targeted American forces in Jordan. There were also attacks in Iraq, while a U.S. tanker was among two ships that caught fire in Egypt from being hit by Iranian drones. President Trump threatened to retaliate with heavy bombings which have occurred since yesterday. Perhaps to introduce some levity into the situation, the President said, “Now it is our turn.”

The war has reached a difficult juncture. The Memorandum of Understanding between Iran and the U.S. from last June led to a partially implemented ceasefire, but with no long-lasting results. It is obvious that President Trump wants the war to end. Multiple public opinion polls indicate that more than 60% of U.S. citizens do not approve of the war (due to ethical concerns, lack of progress, increasing gasoline prices, military deaths, expansion of the war throughout the region). What are Trump’s options?

Walk away from the war and claim victory. Trump can just bring the ships and troops back from the Middle East and claim that the war was “successful”. This is hard to square with reality. Gas prices over $4.00 scream from every gas station (due to Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz). This closure has provided Iran with more leverage, not less. There has not been any positive regime change. Iran still sits upon buried uranium reserves.
Let the war languish between escalating military strikes and fruitless ceasefires. This is not promising. Successful military strikes have not produced an end to the war. Iran has shown it can endure these attacks. Iran does not need to win, just to survive. This also involves a serious decline in U.S. reserves of ballistics, drones, and other military weapons. This option merely leads to another “endless” war in the Middle East.
Negotiate an end to the war with acceptable agreements on the difficult issues of nuclear proliferation and the Strait of Hormuz. These two issues imply that Trump has lost his strongest arguments. I cannot imagine Trump accepting these two concessions. Trump hates appearing weak.
Walk away from the war and admit that starting the war was a colossal mistake: ethical, economical, and military.

Athough this fourth option is the most honest and most courageous, I don’t believe our president is up to the task nor mature enough to do so.

The War with Iran: Trump and Hegseth want Money from Congress without Submitting to the War Powers Resolution

Earlier this week, Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair, General Dan Caine testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee. Hegseth and Caine attempted to defend President Trump’s $87.6 billion supplemental funding request for the ongoing U.S. war with Iran. The meeting was quite testy. Various Senators accused Hegseth of mismanagement of the war on several fronts. The hearing revealed several important contradictions in this war. The most obvious contradiction is that this war lacks the authorization of Congress.

Our nation’s founders, when they wrote our Constitution, made it abundantly clear that it is our Congress, not the President, who has the responsibility to declare war on foreign nations. They did not believe that one person, not even a president, should have the authority to lead us into a deadly war. If the president, as Commander in Chief, takes our country into an international conflict, he needs to get Congressional authorization for the use of the military through a War Powers Resolution.

A month ago, Congress tried to reassert its constitutional authority over military engagements by passing a resolution (H.Con.Res. 86) which directed Trump to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran. The resolution was agreed to by both chambers of Congress on June 23. Nevertheless, it was passed as a “concurrent resolution” which means it does NOT carry the force of law. Its primary purpose is to express Congress’s position and attempt to influence executive action under the War Powers Resolution framework. Just this morning, the House of Representatives passed a stronger resolution in which four Republican Representatives joined Democrats in voting for the bill.

Why are very compliant Republicans in Congress finally beginning to break ranks with President Trump over the war? The simple and true answer is that the war is not popular with the American people. Recent polls indicate that less than 30% of our citizens support the war. Its objectives were never presented to the public. Was it regime change? Was it to prohibit Iran from ever developing uranium based nuclear weapons? (By the way, didn’t Trump “obliterate” all of Iran’s uranium last summer?) Opening the Strait of Hormuz was NOT an original objective, because the Strait was not closed at the beginning of the war.

A most powerful reason is economical. Gasoline prices are again above $4 per gallon. Brent Crude oil passed $100 a barrel last night.

We need to continue to shine the light of truth wherever it is needed.

Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Rubio Disagree with President Trump over Tolls for Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. You won’t Believe Who Backed Down.

On Monday, President Trump announced on the Fox News program “Fox & Friends” that the United States was going to reinstate the blockade of Iranian ports and were “going to get paid for guarding” the Strait of Hormuz, adding that the United States “will be reimbursed, at the rate of 20 percent,” for all cargo that passes through the waters. This put the president in a bind with his inner circle, because for decades the Strait had been considered an international waterway and therefore, not subject to a toll by any country. Just last month on an official trip through the Middle East, Secretary of State Marco Rubio referred to the Strait: “No country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway. That’s existing international law. That’s the way it is in international waterways all over the world, and that’s the way we expect it’ll be here.”

Mr. Rubio made his announcement before he attended a meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council, a group of oil-exporting Gulf Arab countries. After the meeting ended, the United States signed a joint declaration of the Council affirming that the nations “rejected any tolls, fees or attempts to assert control over the strait.”

Vice President JD Vance affirmed a similar position on June 18 as he discussed a cease-fire deal between the United States and Iran that was aimed at reopening the waterway. During a press conference that same day, Vance affirmed, “We believe international waterways should be free of tolls.”

Later on Tuesday, President Trump made a complete reversal and announced there would no 20% toll. Instead of a toll, nations would invest in the American economy. What led up to this change of plans? Three explanations have been offered.

The 20% toll would be extremely costly for Arab oil-exporting countries in the region including allies of the United States.
Legal experts and the International Maritime Organization criticized the idea of a toll because such charges violate maritime law on international waterways. It would also appear hypocritical as Trump has repeatedly claimed that Iran had no right to charge tolls on ships going through the Strait of Hormuz.
Shipping companies warned that such a high fee would reduce traffic through the Strait. Experts predicted that the fee would increase global oil prices, potentially raising U.S. gasoline costs by 30–40 cents per gallon.

Vance and Rubio are not my favorite politicians, in part, because they are “yes men” and they do not have a reputation for telling the truth. Nevertheless, on this issue, they were right. I am glad Trump changed his position, whatever were his reasons. Submitting to international law is important, especially for Trump.

Cheap Patriotism: A critique from the Scriptures regarding exceptionalism and “love for one’s country”

The Fourth of July has come and gone and the theme of patriotism often appeared in our social media. Given that there are many, diverse uses and misuses of the topic of patriotism, I suggest that the Bible offers us surprising and helpful corrections.

One initial challenge before us is trying to define patriotism in a functional way. Most popular definitions use phrases like “love for one’s country”, usually suggesting that we should have a deeper love for our nation than we express toward other countries. We need greater precision with this kind of definition. We use the word “love” in a variety of contradictory ways. The object of our love frequently produces in us an extreme self-centered happiness as in one of my favorite phrases, “I love chocolate!”. Note well that chocolate can contribute to one’s happiness while at the same time not contribute to one’s health. This is a cheap, albeit common, use of “love” in English in the Unite States today. The Bible provides a sharp contrast to this cheapened use of “love”. Christians used the Greek word agape to mean seeking the multifaceted well-being of other people, usually at the expense of one’s own interests. It is self-giving rather than self-seeking. The object of agape is a person or a group of people, not things. Let us now look at an area where typical or traditional patriotism is not agape-patriotism at all.

Exceptionalism is the false belief that one’s group or country are God’s special favorites and therefore are ethically “above the law”. Although the Word of God describes the Jews as God’s chosen people, there is no place in Scripture that even hints that God does not hold them accountable for their actions. To the contrary! If Jews have more revelation about God, they are responsible to act more justly, not less. “To whom much is given much is required.” (Luke 12:48) John the Baptist warned people not to trust in their “exceptionalism” by claiming Abraham was their “father”. Like everyone else, they needed a deep conversion of repentance in which they would show by their actions that they had returned to God. (Luke 3:1-20 and Amos 2-3, especially 3:13-15)

There are many Christians in the United States who claim that our nation is exceptional, that is, God’s favorite people. This claim is not found any place in the Bible! Although many of our founders had a genuine deep Christian faith, many did not. Jefferson published a “Thomas Jefferson Bible“, in which he removed every reference to the supernatural or miraculous action. Jefferson and Washingtom, like many of our national founders, were more deists than Biblical theists, that is, their God was like a watchmaker who created the world, then left it “ticking” on its own. Regarding exceptionalism, God does not give a free pass to any ethnic or national group.

A cheap patriotism wants our country to “win”, usually with the defeat of others. The Bible has a better goal, harmony and shalom for us, but also for our neighbors (Matthew 22:37-39), and even for our enemies. Agape-patriotism can transform our enemies into our friends. I don’t approve of all of our decisions in World War II, but there are a few positive examples (such as our treatment of Germany under the Marshall Plan).

We need to correct the misuse of cheap patriotism words, like “allegiance”. Almost all who believe in a Creator God who is just (such as in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) would claim that their allegiance to their God is more important than any loyalty to a country. So what do we mean when we say “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America…”? Surely it means a lesser allegiance, a limited loyalty. But history reveals many problems. Followers of the great theistic religions agree that God said, “Thou shall not kill”. Nevertheless, there are horrible examples (Germans in the time of Hitler) who killed other human beings without any ethical qualms, and all in the name of a cheap patriotism or religious nationalism.

A cheap patriotism leads to a nation becoming more dominant or cruel. A genuine agape-patriotism leads a nation to become more like a city on a hill or a bright beacon of light and hope for all…no exceptions.

How Do You Spell “Vanity”? T.R.U.M.P.

Of course, the final verdict and evaluation regarding President Trump are still out. The consequences of his policies will not be known for decades to come. The majority of U.S. citizens (including myself) do not approve of Trump’s actions (tariffs, war with Iran, denial of climate change, weaponization of the government, treatment of immigrants, reduction in health care, just to name a few).

Nevertheless, an overwhelming majority of citizens would agree that Trump is the vainest of all the presidents we have ever had. His cabinet meetings seem like a praise fest to the leader of a cult. His appointment of people to important positions (like Pulte to direct the Department of National Intelligence) is based on fealty to him, not on experience or expertise. But the vainest of all is his attempt to put his name or picture on numerous monuments and/or government documents. Let me just identify some of the worst examples.

Trump’s picture on a future $250 bill. This proposal is not just an exhibition of vanity. It is also illegal. In 1866, Congress passed a law prohibiting the depiction of a living person on currency notes, bonds or securities. Another law clarifies that currency is minted in $1, $2, $5, $10, $20, $50 and $100 denominations. A $250 bill is not included.
Trump’s picture on U.S. passports. The new commemorative passport will begin to be issued in July. This decision is making waves as Trump makes history by being the first living president featured inside a U.S. passport. The inside cover will display Trump’s portrait alongside his signature and the Declaration of Independence.
Trump has proposed the construction of an arch between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery, without congressional approval. This arch would be more than twice as tall as the famous arch in Paris. Vietnam veterans are suing the Trump administration to halt the construction of the arch. The veterans argued that planned height — twice that of the 99-foot-tall Lincoln Memorial — would obstruct the view between the two hallowed memorials in a “disrespectful” manner. The president had been remarkably candid about the purpose of the construction. Last year, when asked who the arch was for, Trump said, “me”.
Earlier in his second presidential administration, Trump added his own name to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Last Friday, a federal judge ruled that the Center cannot be renamed without an act of Congress. The judge ruled that Trump’s name be removed from the building and its website within two weeks.

These and other acts of vanity are not helping the president. Polls show that each new proposal correlates to a drop in his approval rate. Citizens prefer that he work on the economy and affordability, not on his ego. More than scorn, Trump needs our pity. His wife, Melania, and others in his inner circle, need to lead him away from these ridiculous attempts at grandeur and towards the better path of true service of others.

It is healthy to confess one’s own sins and the mistakes of one’s elected officials. Did some Republican senators finally get a political conscience?

Last Thursday, rare events happened in both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives. Republicans in both chambers opposed President Trump’s policies and cancelled their voting procedure rather than delivera public rebuke of the president with their congressional votes. After a year and a half of being Trump’s yes’men and yes’women in his second term in the White House, these elected officials finally found the courage to say “No!”. The Hebrew Scriptures might help us understand what happened and how it could be transformed into healing for our nation.

We frequently think of confession as the acknowledgement and repentance of one’s personal sins directly to God or to a representative of God (like a pastor or priest). This usually takes place within a religious context, and I think this can be a good way to begin dealing with our moral mistakes. Confession is much healthier than ignoring our sins or pretending we don’t make moral mistakes.

Nevertheless, it is also healthy to acknowledge and confess the sins of one’s culture and one’s national leaders when they stray from the truth. The Bible highlights examples of believers who expose the sins of their society and their national leaders and call for repentance. Let’s look at the example of Isaiah, a significant prophet in the Hebrew Scriptures. Isaiah had a vision of God, especially God’s holiness. Isaiah became convinced of his own sinfulness. He cried out, “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.” (Isaiah 6:5) God forgave him and then sent him to speak the word of the Lord to Israel.

Sometimes it is not enough to critique one’s own culture. We frequently are so blind or so self-righteous we don’t want to admit our moral failures. We need someone to speak the hard truth into our lives and then lead us to repentance and confession. Nathan’s rebuke of “good” King David is an even clearer example. One evening David saw the beautiful Bathsheba bathing herself. He called for her to come to his palace and he forced her to have sex with him. As a result, she became pregnant. David tried many ways to hide his sin, but was not successful. Finally, he had her husband, Uriah the Hittite, killed by some soldiers. God sent Nathan to rebuke David. Nathan told him a parable about an evil man. When David recognized the horrible action as evil, Nathan told the King, “You are that evil man!”. (2 Samuel 12) David did repent and confessed his crime. He was forgiven by God and turned his life around.

Something similar happened on Capitol Hill last Thursday. The Senate was to vote on a sweeping immigration funding bill intended to bankroll Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol through 2029. The leadership then added two Trump-backed initiatives to the bill: up to $1 billion in Secret Service funding tied to security for his planned East Wing Ballroom, and a $1.8 billion to fund to compensate people who say they were victims of so-called political weaponization by the Biden administration. Because there were no safeguards on this weaponization bill, critics denounced it as Trump’s “slush fund”. What really riled up the Republican senators was the admission that some 1600 insurrectionists who attacked the capitol on January 6, 2021, were charged and convicted by juries of their peers, were later pardoned by Trump, but could be eligible to receive millions of dollars from the slush fund.

Senators who had been staunch allies of Trump in the past broke with him on this issue. Kentucky Republican Senator Mitch McConnell fumed, “_So the nation’s top law enforcement official (Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche) is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops?” He continued, this funding bill is “utterly stupid, morally wrong – take your pick.”

Louisiana Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, who had drawn Trump’s ire, has become a vocal critic of the President, joining together the problem of affordability with the “slushi-ness” of the funding bill. He complained, “People are concerned about paying their mortgage or rent, affording groceries and paying for gas, not about putting together a $1.8 billion fund for the President and his allies to pay whomever they wish with no legal precedent or accountability,”

Enough Republican senators expressed their disapproval of the slush fund proposal that voting on the bill had to be withdrawn until after the Memorial Day recess. Republican opposition to the president’s priorities goes way beyond this funding bill. Criticism is mounting against his war with Iran, the East Wing ballroom, his economic mistakes regarding inflation, his cover-up of the Epstein files, etc.

When faced with moral failure, confession and repentance are always healthier than trying to avoid the truth. May Republican and Democrat leaders rise to the occasion!

It is Healthy to Confess One’s Own Sins and the Political Mistakes of One’s Elected Officials. Did some Republican Senators Finally Get a Political Conscience?

When faced with moral failure, confession and repentance are always healthier than trying to avoid the truth. May Republican and Democrat leaders rise to the occasion!

Jesus Warned Against Public Displays of Religiosity: What Would He Think of “Rededicate 250”?

On Sunday the Trump administration joined forces with a certain sector of religious leaders to celebrate “Rededicate 250”, a gathering of “Christians” to remember the Christian roots of our country and to rededicate our nation to God.

The event was problematic on various fronts. Of greatest importance (for followers of Jesus), this event goes against the clear teaching of Jesus. Jesus hated the public display of religiosity for political, economic or personal gain. In his important Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warned against praying in public in order to be seen be others:

“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven…. And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (Matthew 6:1, 6-7)

Unlike Jesus, I do not usually have the ability to look into people’s hearts and discern which are sincere and which are not. But it is obvious that the leaders of this event wanted to be seen by others (televised, on internet, etc.) If hypocrisy was a serious problem in the time of Jesus, it is just as prevalent and dangerous today. Therefore, the warning of Jesus is timely and necessary.

A second problem with the event was its emphasis on “Christian Nationalism”. Christian Nationalism is a heresy that conflates the goodness of a sector of Christianity with the fallen actions of a nation or political party. In this Church/State alliance, the church is the junior partner that sells its soul and receives the blame for the evil actions of the state. Historical examples include Constantinian Christianity which “blessed” the wars of the “Holy” Roman Empire, the Spanish Inquisition and its persecution of “heretics”, and Hitler’s National Church, together with its promotion of Nazi ideals. Within the U.S. experience, there are many examples of Christian Nationalism, including Manifest Destiny and the war against Mexico, which Illinois Congressman Abraham Lincoln correctly denounced as Polk’s evil imperialism.

Another problem with the event was its content. Justice is a central theme in the teaching of Jesus and in all of Scripture because it fights against interpersonal sin and seeks the wellbeing of all humanity. If I am not mistaken, justice was not mentioned even once in the plenary messages and sermons in Sunday’s event. Neither was love for the most vulnerable among us. According to the Holy Book, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” (James 1:27) In our better moments, we Christians have served the orphans, the widows, and other vulnerable people in our midst. At other times, we have not. We have not always been led by America’s best virtues, but by its worst vices: selfish greed, apathy, and indifference.

Just as Jesus transformed the hypocrisy of public religiosity into true love for our neighbors, may we do the same with Sunday’s event!

New Book. Protest Music in Latin America: Politics, Faith and Social Justice

I am excited to announce a new book in which I am one of the authors. The book is titled Protest Music in Latin America: Politics, Faith and Social Justice and has been published by Routledge. It analyzes the Biblical and Christian roots of several songs of protest music in Latin America primarily in the 1960s through the 1980s. This was a team effort of Latin American and music scholars led by Professor Nestor Quiroa and included Wilfredo Canales, Marcell Silva Steuernagel and yours truly. Enjoy!