Author: lindyscott99

Da’ Pope: A Gringo Pope as an Antidote to the “Ugly American”

The political novel The Ugly American was published in 1958 by William Lederer and Eugene Burdick. Both authors were Navy veterans, and both were disillusioned by the content and style of U.S. diplomacy in Southeast Asia. They wanted to reshape diplomatic efforts by changing the conduct of North Americans who spent a lot of time overseas (military personnel, businesspeople, tourists, and others). They coined the phrase “the Ugly American”, which describes the typical North American overseas who does not learn the local language nor study the local culture. The ugliness is expressed in expecting/demanding that the nationals speak English with the American, even in their own country. The ugly American has little knowledge about the local culture or politics. The ugly American usually demonstrates an abundance of ethnocentrism and believes our “North American” way of doing things is always the best way. In summary, the ugly American is arrogant, disrespectful and unteachable. This novel had a significant impact in its day and is partially credited for the creation of the Peace Corps by President John F. Kennedy.

Fast forward seven decades. Last week, the Roman Catholic Conclave of Cardinals surprised almost everyone by officially selecting Cardinal Robert Prevost to become the new pope. Prevost immediately chose his new name, Pope Leo XIV. The surprise is the fact that he is the first U.S. citizen ever to be elected head of the Catholic Church. (Full disclosure: Although I am a follower of Jesus, I am not a Roman Catholic. Therefore, I do not ascribe to the special status that “popehood” holds for most Catholics, I do recognize his position as the spiritual and moral leader of 1.4 billion Catholics around the globe.) I suggest that the new pontiff might be a healthy contrast and antidote for the disease of the “ugly American”.

Although he was born and raised in Chicago (home of “Da’ Bears”), Prevost spent more than two decades of his adult life in the South American country of Peru. He served the poor as a priest in the city of Trujillo and in the rural areas that surround the city. He learned to speak fluent Spanish and the language of the indigenous people.  He loved the people and respected them as “greater than himself”, and as a result was well beloved by them as a man of “goodness, grace, humility, mercy, and faith”. He even chose to become a Peruvian citizen (holding dual citizenship of both Peru and the United States. More recently, he has lived in Rome and served the church in many official capacities. He earned the respect of many Cardinals and overcame their understandable reluctance to elect an American as pope.

Prevost adopted the name Leo XIV, giving a nod to Leo XIII, the nineteenth century pope who defended in the encyclical Rerum Novarum “the rights of workers to a fair wage, safe working conditions, and the formation of trade unions, while affirming the rights to property and free enterprise, opposing both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.” It is likely that Prevost will generally continue the positions of Pope Francis.

From what I know of the new pope, he seems to be a sincere follower of Jesus who will set a good example of how not to be an “ugly American”.

Trump’s Confusing Conversation with the Canadian Prime Minister: Perhaps Trump’s Obsessions Reflect a Mental Health Issue

Declining mental ability in older adults is a delicate issue. I address it in this post with a great deal of caution. As years go by, I acknowledge that my mind is not as sharp as it used to be. Mental decline affects Democrats and Republicans alike. Last year, I raised questions about Joe Biden’s mental acuity long before he decided not to run for re-election. It is only fair that I raise similar concerns about President Donald Trump.

Some of the most common expressions of mental decline are loss of memory, mispronunciation or misuse of words, and the fossilization of ideas. Biden’s and Trump’s verbal gaffes are common and have been ridiculed by late night comedians (especially by Stephen Colbert). These can be funny, but are usually not very serious. The fossilization of ideas is much more significant, especially in those who are in positions of authority. It is observed when people are apparently stuck in a mental rut. They are seemingly unable to break free from their old ways of thinking. This mental decline is colloquially captured in the phrases “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks” and “we’ve always done it this way”. On at least two issues, Trump exemplifies this problem: Canada and tariffs. During his meeting with the newly elected Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney on Monday, his fossilized thinking on these two topics was clearly evident.

Canada: Our 51st State?

For several months, Trump has referred to Canada as our 51st state. This might have been seemed to him as “funny” or “cute”, but it is not. (This was reinforced by his referring to the previous Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as “Governor”.}  There is no positive effect to calling Canada our 51st state. He repeated the phrase and belabored it at length in his meeting with Carney. The phrase is demeaning. It is bullying. It implies that Canada is not a true nation. It suggests that our northern neighbor is worth less than 2% of the United States. In their recent election, Canadians rallied around the Liberal candidate Carney as the “Anti-Trump”, and as a result, they voted Carney into power over his Conservative opponent.

Trump’s advisors have told him to stop using the phrase “the 51st state”. It is damaging to our relationship with our long-standing neighbor and friend. It shows the moral poverty of our president… or his mental decline.

Tariffs

Trump has been fascinated (obsessed?) with the “positive” benefits of tariffs for over three decades. Somewhere along the way, he heard that tariffs were good. In the best-case scenario, a precise tariff might be useful to protect a country’s weak industry (ex. Car production). Let us be clear. Tariffs are taxes paid by importers, and then passed on to consumers. Economists are nearly unanimous in affirming that Trump’s tariffs will cause a sharp increase in inflation. 75% of U.S. citizens (including Trump supporters) believe they will increase the price of goods. CEOs of the large retail chains have warned Trump of higher prices and empty store shelves. The Dow Jones Index does not like tariffs and it shows. Trump’s Liberation Day brought a huge slide in the stock exchange.

Can Trump overcome his failing obsessions? I hope old dogs can learn new tricks.

Trump’s Lying Disease is Contagious: Several Outbreaks Among His Cabinet

President Donald Trump’s addiction to lying is notorious. He made 30,573 significant public lies during his first administration. Trump 2.0 is maintaining this daily pace. Here are a few of his most recent falsehoods.

  • Trump’s commitment to reduce the costs of groceries, gasoline, rent, etc. was the biggest political factor in his electoral victory last November. The president promised a new “golden age” for the American economy. Nevertheless, polls that came out as his regime reached its 100-day mark all show that voters are not happy with the lack of progress achieved on reducing inflation. It is appropriate for the president to comment on current economic data. It is wrong to lie about it. Last Thursday, he said gas prices “hit $1.98 yesterday in a couple of states.” That wasn’t true according to information from AAA. No state has an average gas price below $2.70 per gallon. The national average is $3.17 per gallon.
  • On the campaign trail, Trump had promised he would reduce the price of groceries on “Day One” of his administration. On Thursday he claimed that grocery prices “were down”. That was also a lie.  Average grocery prices in March were up about 0.49% from February, according to the federal Consumer Price Index, which was the biggest month-to-month jump since October 2022.
  • When asked about a possible recession, Trump reluctantly acknowledged that children don’t need thirty dolls for Christmas, maybe just two, and just five pencils, not over a hundred. So, what is it? The best economy ever…or get ready for empty shelves?
  • Readers are aware of the Kilmar Abrego Garcia story. He is the man in Maryland who, due to an “administrative mistake”, was illegally deported to El Salvador for imprisonment. The Supreme Court intervened and voted (9 to zero!) that Trump must “facilitate” his return to the United States. Trump and his staff responded that it was out of their control. The decision was in the hands of the Salvadoran president, Nayib Bukele. Even the most ardent MAGA supporters knew that Trump was blatantly lying. How could the president of the world’s most powerful country not pressure a friendly small Central American country to return a prisoner, especially given the fact that we are paying El Salvador millions of dollars to house our prisoners? More recently, in an interview with ABC’s Terry Moran, Trump admitted that he could make a phone call to Bukele and get Abrego Garcia immediately returned.

Trump’s addiction to lying seems to be contagious. The tendency to lie is a disease that is spreading throughout his cabinet. Here are some key figures in the Trump regime who have fallen victim to the lying disease.

  • Pam Bondi is our country’s Attorney General. Last week (on April 30) she claimed that in President Trump’s first 100 days in office, drug enforcement officials had seized millions of pills and thousands of kilos of fentanyl, thereby saving “258 million lives” in the United States. This figure is “incredible” (as in the sense of being “unbelievable”) because it would be equivalent to 75% of our U.S. population.
  • Elon Musk, Trump’s choice to head up the Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE), had claimed on the campaign trail that he would save $2 trillion by cutting wasteful government spending. As recently as March 27, 2025 on Fox News he lowered this estimate to $1 trillion. Then a month ago, at the April 10 cabinet meeting, he affirmed, “I’m excited to announce that we anticipate savings in FY 26 from reduction of waste and fraud by $150 billion.” I guess he thinks changing the “t” in trillion to a “b” in billion is a small change that wouldn’t be noticed by most voters, when in fact, the real savings are a miniscule percentage of what he originally promised.
  •  The GDP report brought the bleak news that Trump’s policies had thrown the economy into reverse, turning the 2.4 percent annualized GDP growth of the last quarter of 2024 into a 0.3 percent contraction in the first quarter of 2025. It ended nearly three years of steady expansion. Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro was gushing in the midst of his lies when he announced that the report was “very, very good and quite encouraging … huge, literally off the charts … good, strong news … all things are good. So we felt really good about that number.” In another three months we will have another GDP report. If it is equally “good”, we will officially be in a recession.

As my wise dad used to say, “figures never lie, but liars do figure.” Therefore, Democrats, be careful what air you breathe. The lie disease is spreading, especially in D.C. Cabinet members, get some courage. Truth and integrity are more important than a fake “loyalty”.

Christianity in the White House: We Need Less Spirit of Constantine and More Spirit of Jesus

On Good Friday of last week, the New York Times published an article “Christianity in the White House” written by their columnist Ruth Graham. She narrates the growing presence and influence of Christian leaders, especially evangelicals, in the White House. Her article is primarily descriptive. In this post, I first summarize the article. Then I describe some historical examples that were similar. Finally I raise questions about whether this influence is more positive or negative.

Summary of the Facts

Over two decades ago, then President George W. Bush established the White House Faith Office. During these first one hundred days of his second administration, President Trump has expanded the prominence of this Faith Office. It is now located in the White House West Wing (albeit in the basement). It is led by Trump’s spiritual adviser, Paula White-Cain and by Jennifer Korn. Their main stated purpose is to reduce hostility against Christianity and other faiths, by creating an American version of “a Church-state alliance. They point to the fact that prayers in the White House do not need to be generic, but can now be prayed in “the name of Jesus”. Nevertheless, their goals go way beyond “religious topics”. These include issues of gender and sexuality. They take pride in Trump’s executive orders that claim there are only “two sexes,” male and female.

The Faith Office has sponsored multiple briefings and listening sessions for Christian leaders. They deal with foreign relationships, trade and tariffs, education, etc.  Rev. Samuel Rodriguez affirms that these sessions give Christian leaders unprecedented access to Trump’s staff.

Now we turn to the teaching of Jesus regarding secular rulers.

Jesus and “Secular Governments”

Jesus was quite aware that human governments exercise a special temptation for his followers.  Many people are attracted to power. “Then the apostles began to squabble among themselves. They were arguing about which of them would be the greatest. Jesus said to them, ‘Kings of other countries use great authority over their people. Leaders of those countries want people to say good things about them. You must not be like that. The most important person among you must become like the least important person. The person who is your leader must become like your servant.’” (Luke 22:24-26)

Some observations:

  1. Those who follow Jesus must use great discernment to distinguish between “true goodness” from the more common “fake goodness” of many rulers who claim they are doing good for their subjects…but are not.
  2. By exposing the hypocrisy of kings and other rulers, Jesus expects his followers to rise above the idolatrous loyalty and fawning so typical of governments, because disciples of Jesus are called to serve a higher authority: the true and living God.

Historical Examples of Church/State Alliances

Throughout history there have been numerous examples of an alliance or “marriage” between secular rulers and religious leaders or causes that are perceived as “useful” for those rulers. The classic example is the “Holy” Roman Empire. Early in the fourth century A.D. there was a power vacuum in the Empire. four Roman generals began fighting and vying for the position of emperor. At that time, Christians and churches were expanding rapidly throughout the empire in spite of being frequently being persecuted. Although they were almost universally pacifistic and refused to take up the sword, their moral support could be useful to the generals. According to tradition, General Constantine had a vision in the night in which he saw a cross in the sky together with the words “with this cross you will conquer”. Although this vision is widely regarded today as mythical, Constantine defeated his rivals and became emperor. He changed the Church’s status from “illegal” to “tolerated”. A few decades later, Christianity became the official religion in the empire. Although there were some positive results of this alliance such as the creation of “sacred music” and Christian art, there were other devastating consequences. Freedom of religion was eliminated as the people of the empire were forced to accept Christianity or at least to go through the motions. Many followers of Jesus abandoned their Biblically based pacifism. They became Roman soldiers and did not heed the Biblical warning that “those who live by the sword will die by the sword”. The tragic truth is that the empire distorted Christianity more than the church positively influenced the Empire. The fall of the Roman Empire was largely due to its own inner corruption rather than as a result of foreign attacks. This corruption seeped into the church as well. Powerful clerical posts were sold to the highest bidder. Luther was correct in denouncing these moral failures of the papacy.

Two more recent examples merit some mention. During the 15th and 16th centuries, weak Popes made deals with monarchs in Spain. The Spanish Inquisition emerged. This permitted the monarchs to punish Jews in their lands and to wage war against the Moors with “God’s blessing”. Later, they and their Portuguese counterparts waged savage wars upon the indigenous inhabitants of the Americas. This was truly a continent-wide holocaust executed in the name of the God of the Conquistadores. Valiant voices of protests emerged, like Bartolome de las Casas.

In the twentieth century, Hitler was enabled to carry out his horrific attempt to make Germany great again by the acquiescence of the state church. Millions of Jews, Polish, gypsies and thousands of others made in God’s image “disappeared” and were massacred, all in the name of God and his chosen Aryan race. (God’s blessing appeared on the belt buckles of the German soldiers.) Here again people (like Bonhoeffer) arose to protest against this idolatrous alliance.

Concerns About Our Contemporary Situation in the United States

In light of lessons learned from history, I have questions about the presence and “access” of some Christian leaders in the White House.

  • It is well known that President Trump boasts about his transactional relationships (“I give you something, you give me something”.) These religious leaders gave Trump political support during the elections of 2016, 2020, and 2024, and partially due to their support, 80% of white evangelicals voted for Trump. What did they get in return? Invitations to go to the White House and to offer up prayers in the name of Jesus do not come close to “do justice and to walk humbly with your God”.
  • Paula White claimed she had received messages from God (prophecies) that Trump would win the 2020 election. Trump did not win that election. This makes her a false prophet. This is quite serious, as sincere Christians might believe, and act upon, her false prophecy.
  • Franklin Graham heads up the international Christian ministry, Samaritan’s Purse. His father was the famous evangelist, Billy Graham. Franklin was an outspoken supporter of Trump since 2015. In the Musk/Trump gutting of USAID a few months ago, Samaritan’s Purse received an exemption, and as a result, continued to receive millions of dollars. It seems to me like a transaction based on favoritism. Was it?
  • Trump has a difficult relationship with the truth. He frequently wanders far from it. Christian leaders in the White House could perform a valuable ministry to him if they had the courage to confront his lies. A very big lie has to do with the war in Ukraine. We all know that Putin started the war by invading Ukraine. But now, in his “peace talks”, the Trump administration claims Putin to be a “great man” and that it was Ukraine that started the war. Paula White and Franklin Graham, have you confronted Trump about this lie?

Jesus told his disciples, “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.” (Matthew 5:13).

Why Would Anyone Trust Trump on Trade and Tariffs? (Part II): Goals, Instability, Possible Corruption and Unjust International Trade

A week ago, I posted a brief article, “Why Would Anyone Trust Trump on Trade and Tariffs? ‘BE COOL’ Is Not an Adequate Answer”. In that post, I raised serious questions about President Trump’s six corporate bankruptcies and the huge national debt increase that took place during his first presidency. I also explained that tariffs are, in fact, taxes paid by import companies (not the exporting companies nor exporting countries), and the costs of these taxes are usually passed on to consumers. In today’s post, I want to add some other issues: goals for tariffs, the negative effects of “on again / off again” tariffs, possible corruption, and explore who has benefited from unjust international trading.

Goals for Trump’s Tariffs

  • One goal for Trump’s early tariff on Canadian goods was to punish that country for allowing great quantities of fentanyl to enter into the United States and contribute to drug addiction in our country. This is a bogus argument. According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, only 43 pounds of fentanyl were intercepted coming from Canada into the U.S. last year. This is less than 1% of all interceptions (of which the overwhelming majority come across the U.S./Mexico border).
  • A more repeated goal or motivation is to make the tariff so high that companies will move their production to the United States. They hope that by avoiding the tariff, their products will stay cheap enough to avoid a decrease in their sales. This probably won’t happen for the following reasons. Some products (like coffee or bananas) cannot be economically grown or produced in the United States. For manufacturing jobs, the cost of labor is much cheaper in some countries (China, Mexico) and this comparative advantage makes it still more economical to produce in foreign countries (even including the tariff) than in the U.S.
  • The transition to production in the U.S. usually involves a significant investment of capital. These investments are risky if the tariff rules are subject to the presidential whims of “on today” and “off tomorrow”. The flow of capital requires a certain degree of stability not yet demonstrated by Trump’s trade negotiations and policies.
  • Another more reasonable goal for tariffs is to promote ”national security”. Why should the U.S. allow rivals/enemies (China) have control over the production of components (like semiconductors) that are essential for military weapons or the high tech utilized to obtain sensitive intelligence. This has led to opposite policies: (1) Semiconductors are so important that the president needs to carve out an exemption from tariffs for them, thereby guaranteeing their continued production and availability, at least in the short run; OR (2) Semiconductors are so important for our national security that we need to ensure their production occurs within our country. This can only done if we have high tariffs on them and thereby making it more economical to produce them here.
  • Trump is right when he affirms that international trade is sometimes unfair. He is wrong when he affirms that the U.S. is always the victim. A personal anecdote illustrates his error. I was living in Mexico in 1976. At that time the U.S. dollar was pegged at 12.5 pesos. Wealthy investors caused a run on the banks by buying up these “cheap” dollars. The Mexican government had to slow down this run on the banks and did so by devaluing their currency to a 24 peso to the dollar rate. Overnight the purchasing power of my dollars almost doubled whereas the ability of my Mexican friends to buy American products was cut in half. I personally benefited from the devaluation. My Mexican friends were the victims. What happened at an international level? Americans began buying more Mexican (now cheaper) products and Mexicans bought fewer products made in the U.S. Although this was seen as a trade “deficit” (from the U.S. point of view), in fact, Americans were beneficiaries of this dramatic weakening of the peso. Similar devaluations took place in Argentina, Brazil and much of the Global South with the corollary huge increase in inflation in those nations. These frequent devaluations have been pushed by the IMF, the World Bank, and others. The world winners have mostly been the United States and other countries in the Global North. Through decisions way beyond my control, my fellow Americans and I have benefited.
  • Insider trading takes place when some investors have advanced knowledge of some decisions which might greatly affect the rise or fall of stock indexes and then use this information to buy or sell certain stocks to make personal gains. This is morally unfair.  President Trump’s 90 day “pause” on the reciprocal tariffs led to an historic skyrocket rise in the Dow Jones index. Did any of Trump’s friends have and utilize advanced knowledge about the pause? An independent investigation will reveal the truth. Given that officials in Congress and the Cabinet do have access to confidential economic information, all such officials should be barred from buying/selling specific stocks while they are serving in public office.
  • Handing out tariff exemptions is a highly lucrative business worth billions and billions of dollars. A week ago, Trump carved out exemptions on some electronics from China. Later, his economic advisers stated that these exemptions will be placed in a special “semiconductor bucket”. Do any of the president’s big donors control companies that will receive these exemptions? If so, this is corruption. Congress must grow some backbone and exercise its responsibility to oversee tariffs.  

One of the greatest strengths of our nation includes the checks and balances codified in our Constitution. The Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary are co-equal branches of our government and are an essential component of those checks and balances. For the wellbeing of our country, may each branch do its job. This applies to issues of tariffs and trade raised in this post.

Why Would Anyone Trust Trump on Trade and Tariffs? “BE COOL” is Not an Adequate Answer

Why Would Anyone Trust Trump on Trade and Tariffs? “BE COOL” is Not an Adequate Answer

This has been a chaotic week for the U.S. economy. Late in the afternoon on Wednesday, April 2, President Trump announced sweeping tariff hikes across the board with all of the United States trading partners (except Russia). The president proclaimed this “Liberation Day” in which he would level the economic playing field, by applying reciprocal tariffs on goods imported into the U.S. equal to the percentage that countries impose on our exports. (The conservative Cato Institute sharply criticized the administration for inflating the percentages. For example, Trump claimed that India imposed a 52% tariff on U.S. goods, although the real amount was 12%.) The Dow Jones fell 1679 points, a 4% decline. The NASDAQ fell almost 6% and the Standard and Poor sank 4.8%. On Friday, they continued their decline. Over the weekend, national and international stock exchanges continued to crash. Leading economic advisers predicted that a recession was more likely than not. This past Wednesday morning, Trump tweeted “BE COOL” trying to persuade investors to start buying stocks and not to continue the sell-off. The situation became even more dire. Retirees saw their savings decline by over 10%. By noon, Trump knew he had to do something. He announced a ninety-day pause on almost all of the tariffs. (Some say, “he flinched”, or “he caved”, or “he retreated”. The Dow Jones which had been down a thousand points skyrocketed, and set a record for the largest turnaround in a single day. People hoped that the surge would continue yesterday (Thursday). It did not, because a China – U.S. trade war still looms on the horizon. China has imposed a tariff of 125% on U.S. products whereas Trump has placed a tariff/tax of 145% on Chinese items. The Dow Jones sank another 1000 points.

Trump’s tragic history with businesses – Anyone who knows the history of Donald Trump, the businessman, should not want him to be the CEO of our national economy. Although Trump has never filed for personal bankruptcy, he has filed for chapter eleven corporate bankruptcy on six of his companies:

  • 1991: Trump Taj Mahal
  • 1992: Trump Castle Hotel & Casino
  • 1992: Trump Plaza Casino
  • 1992: Trump Plaza Hotel
  • 2004: Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts
  • 2009: Trump Entertainment Resorts

Apparently, Trump has not learned from these mistakes. In fact, he does not even admit that they were mistakes. He claims these were savvy business practices. He personally did not lose much money…, his stock owning partners had colossal losses. These bankruptcies do not include the now defunct Trump University in which Trump was ordered to pay $25 million to the students who were swindled.

Some Trump supporters like to refer to his first presidential term (2017-2021) as a wonderful economic “success”. Nothing could be further from the truth! During that administration, Trump increase the national debt by $7.8 trillion. This was the largest increase in the national debt ever by a president in a four-year period! (Whether individually or nationally, irresponsible people can be “successful and happy” if they don’t have to pay the bills.)

Where Do We Go From Here?

This economic crisis is not due to a Covid 19 pandemic nor due to a natural disaster. This came about due to the irrational decision by one man, Donald J. Trump… and his “yes men” (like convicted trade adviser Peter Navarro). Elon Musk has repeatedly called Navarro a “moron”. It remains to be seen which man, Musk or Navarro, will win this squabble and which one will have to leave.

Trump is enamored with tariffs and has been for a long time. The overwhelming majority of trained economists disagree with Trump. Tariffs are taxes which are paid by importers, who then pass along these added expenses to the prices for consumers. Tariffs go against the logic of “comparative advantage” of free market capitalism. Tariffs are a form of protectionism which rewards inefficient national industries. This is why conservative economists oppose tariffs. On this issue, liberal economists agree with their conservative counterparts.

The trade war will probably continue until either the U.S. or the Chinese economy approaches the breaking point, because the Chinese and Trump are very stubborn. After pronouncing the beautiful economic benefits of tariffs, it is extremely difficult for Trump to walk back this policy and now to acknowledge it was mistake. But if inflation starts rising dramatically and/or if we enter into a recession, his supporters will demand he reverse his tariff policy. Maybe Trump and the Chinese can reach an agreement on a low reciprocal tariff. Let’s hope so.

I urge my MAGA friends and readers to examine the facts and to evaluate Trump by the consequences of his economic actions.

Pastor Niemoller Spoke Truth to Power in the Time of Hitler, and in Our Time as Well: First They Came for….

Pastor Niemoller Spoke Truth to Power in the Time of Hitler…and in Our Time as Well: First they Came for ….

Martin Niemoller was a German theologian and Lutheran pastor during the time of Hitler. Early in his adulthood, he was a national conservative. Like most German Protestant ministers, he supported conservative politicians who opposed the Weimar Republic.  He voted for Nazis in 1924, 1928, and again in 1933, thereby welcoming Hitler’s rise to power in Germany. He even praised Hitler for beginning a “national revival”. Nevertheless, he changed his opinion of the Nazis due to Hitler’s discrimination against Jews generally, and against Christians with Jewish ancestry. (Niemoller himself had to acknowledge aspects of antisemitism in his own thoughts and actions.). In 1934, Niemoller, together with Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Karl Barth and other pastors founded the “Confessing Church” that increasingly criticized the Nazis for their racism and persecution of the Jews. In 1937, Pastor Niemoller was arrested. He spent much of the next eight years in detention and concentration camps. He is quite famous for the following illustration that he would frequently utilize in his sermons.

“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.” (There are many versions of this quote. This rendering of the original appears on the United States Holocaust Memorial.)

This famous quotenwas a dramatic speaking of truth to power. It defends our common human rights, even of those persons we disagree with. It was important to shout out this truth against the backdrop of Hitler’s tyranny. It is also important to emphasize this truth today in our politically charged climate. I trust Brother Martin does not mind that I borrow some of his words.

First, they came for the undocumented immigrants, and I did not speak out – because I was not undocumented (although some of my ancestors obtained lands in the U.S. without having permission from the true indigenous owners of those lands).

Then they came for vital USAID programs and employees, and I did not speak out – because I did not live in a refugee camp having fled from war.

Then they came for international grad students (with valid student visas), and I did not speak out – because I was a U.S. citizen.

Then they came for federal workers, and I did not speak out – because I was economically comfortable.

Then they came for (fill in the blank). Will I speak out?

Elon’s (Love of) Money Can’t Buy You Love…Nor Many Votes: A Case Study From Wisconsin

On Tuesday, people went to the polls in Florida and Wisconsin. In Florida there were two special elections to choose replacements for Representatives Matt Gaetz and Michael Waltz who had resigned their positions in the House of Representatives to join the Trump cabinet. (In fact, Gaetz’s bad reputation led to his withdrawal as the nominee for Attorney General, whereas Waltz has become Trump’s National Security Adviser.). Both districts (#1 and #6) are predominantly Republican in which Trump won by over 30 percentage points last November. Both Republican candidates won their races, each by a margin of fourteen percentage points. As a result, Republican control of the House of Representatives is slightly improved. On the other hand, these two elections are warning signs for Republicans. A decline in their margins of victory from over 30% to just 14% is a clear indication of buyer’s remorse. Polls conducted this week show President Trump’s approval rate has slipped to 43%, his lowest level since the inauguration. As his widely unpopular tariffs take effect, inflation will increase and a recession is looming on the horizon (as I correctly predicted in an earlier posting on this blog site).

A more dramatic disaster took place in Wisconsin. The principal election in that state was to choose a replacement for a position on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court. Technically, this was a non-partisan race. The party initials (D) and (R) did not appear on the ballot. Nevertheless, party preferences were quite clear. Trump and most Republican state leaders endorsed the conservative candidate, Brad Schimel. Democrats largely supported Susan Crawford, the progressive candidate. Wisconsin is a “purple” state with almost an equal number of registered Republicans and Democrats. Biden won the state in 2020, but Trump won in 2024 by a margin under 1% of the vote. The election was quite important because it would tilt the Supreme Court, especially on the redistricting of the state’s federal districts for the U.S. House of Representatives.

The race was also the most expensive judiciary election in U.S. with a total of over ninety million dollars spent by candidates, and political parties and donors from within and outside the state. The richest person in the world, Elon Musk, took a special interest in the race and donated twenty million dollars from his personal wealth for the Schimel campaign. He proudly offered $100 to any voter who would promise to oppose “activist judges” and he wrote out checks for a million dollars to two lucky winners of an ideological contest. (This money for votes scheme was even more egregious than JFK’s giving away of two-dollar bills back in 1960.) Musk even made a personal visit to Milwaukee over the weekend to campaign for Schimel. His money and visit proved to be toxic. The liberal candidate Susan Crawford won the election by a wide margin (55% to 45%). Even more important than the issues (redistricting, abortion, etc.), the election turned into a referendum on Musk and his money involved in politics. In her victory speech, Crawford claimed that she ran against the wealthiest man on earth…, and she won.

The National Security Breach: Worse than I Thought

A week ago, news broke that a serious security breach of U.S. intelligence had taken place. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had disclosed war plans in a group chat to 18 senior members of the Trump administration. This took place on SIGNAL, a commercial app platform. Participating in that chat were Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President JD Vance, the National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, the head of the CIA John Ratcliffe, and other senior officials. The information contained “operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing”.  Part of the breach happened because Waltz had inadvertently added a journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg, to the chat list. Of course, Goldberg, a private citizen, did not have security clearance.

The fallout has been striking. Recent polls indicate that 74-76% of American citizens believe this breach was “serious”, including 60% of all Republicans. The daily drip, drip, drip of mistakes are contributing to the growing lack of public trust. Faced with this problem, the White House wants the issue to disappear, and hopes the public just “forgets” the breach. On the other hand, Democrats want a thorough investigation to take place and necessary consequences to be applied. The following is my attempt to summarize the facts as we know them so that my readers can make up their own minds.

SIGNAL

SIGNAL is a commercial app. It is portrayed as a fairly safe platform because messages are encrypted from the source phone, and then kept encrypted throughout the transmission until they reach the receiving phone. Many people who work in the federal government, both Republicans and Democrats, utilize SIGNAL for ordinary transmissions.

The government has issued many warnings against using SIGNAL for sending sensitive, classified information for the following reasons:

  1. The transmission is encrypted and, therefore, fairly secure. Nevertheless, the source phone and the receiving phones are vulnerable to attack and hacking. These phones must also meet high security criteria.
  2. Federal security laws require that sensitive, high-level communication be retained for posterity. SIGNAL is programed to erase the contents shortly after the chat conversation has ended. This means that SIGNAL must not be used for the transmission of classified intelligence. All senior officials are made aware of this restriction.
  3. Each person on a chat must be aware of the identity of all the other participants on the chat in order to fulfill security requirements. If there is any breach, participants should immediately raise an alarm and communicate the breach to the person who organized the chat.

THE BREACH

Everyone knew that SIGNAL should not be used to transmit sensitive, classified information.

  1. National Security Adviser Michael Waltz made a big mistake of adding journalist Jeffrey Goldberg to the list of recipients, thereby violating security criteria. Waltz has appropriately admitted that he was responsible for the mistake.
  2. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth introduced the highly sensitive “operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing”.  According to the Department of Defense’s own definitions, intelligence on imminent military strikes is designated “Top Secret”. Hegseth clearly violated security norms.
  3. It appears that some of the participants were using their personal phones for the chat. These phones are susceptible to hacking and their use is a clear violation of the security guidelines. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff was in Russia during the chat. There is concern that the phone he was using was vulnerable to Russian surveillance.

THE RESPONSE

  1. Last Monday Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg published brief segments of the chat text in the Atlantic. These did not compromise sensitive intelligence, but were sufficiently explicit to demonstrate that he had mistakenly been admitted to the chat. At first, the White House accused him of lying. Hegseth accused him of being a deceitful “so called journalist” who peddles lies. Trump called him a “sleazebag”. Goldberg responded that his integrity (and the integrity of the Atlantic) were on the line and that he felt goaded to publish the entire transcript. He made the appropriate agencies aware of his plans (the White House, the CIA, the DOD, etc) in order not to put U.S. military personnel in danger. The CIA made a request to omit an identification and Goldberg complied with their wish. The text was then published in the Atlantic and is now available for everyone to study. The text shows that in addition to military plans, sensitive derogatory comments were made about our European allies, and a disagreement between Vance and Trump was made public.
  2. After the incendiary White House attack on Goldberg as a liar backfired, the official line has been to deny, deny, deny. They have minimized the seriousness of the breach: as if no classified intelligence had been communicated. A few voices were raised in protest. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the breach a “big mistake”. Republican Senator Roger Wicker, chair of the Armed Services Committee, was even more explicit. He signed onto a letter to the acting inspector general at the Department of Defense for an inquiry into the potential “use of unclassified networks to discuss sensitive and classified information, as well as the sharing of such information with those who do not have proper clearance and need to know.” I invite my readers to study the entire transcript and decide for themselves whether the contents should have been designated as “Top Secret” or not.
  3. Our relationship with allies has been damaged. Israel provided much of the intelligence information that Hegseth shared on a non-classified platform. They and our European allies have stated they will re-evaluate what kind of intelligence they will share with us in the future. Are we a trustworthy ally?
  4. The Wall Street Journal reported that “Waltz has created and hosted multiple other sensitive national security conversations on Signal with cabinet members, including separate threads on how to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine as well as military operations.”

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Given that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe the breach to be serious, I agree with Senator Wicker that, at the very least, the Department of Defense Inspector General conduct a thorough investigation of the breach. They should also assign penalties if warranted. I would prefer a bipartisan investigation by the Senate Armed Services Committee, which would probably be more balanced and just. May the truth win out!