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:

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.
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.
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.

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.
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.
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

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.
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.
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?
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!

Mr. President, When the Courts Rule Against You, Do Not Throw a Temper Tantrum. File Your Appeals, Then Trust and Obey.

One week ago, three airplanes, supposedly containing immigrants belonging to Venezuelan gangs, took off from U.S. territory and flew to El Salvador where the passengers were placed in a huge, infamous prison in that country. These deportations took place under the alleged authorization of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (which has only been invoked during wartime). Federal Judge James Boasberg, concerned that due process had not taken place, ordered that the planes not take off, or if already in the air, that they turn around and come back with their passengers to the U.S.

Mr. President, you threw a temper tantrum, more like a spoiled three-year old brat than someone who aspires to be a “great president”. Rather than dealing with the evidence, you labeled Boasberg as an “extreme leftist lunatic” (even though he was first appointed by Republican President Bush). You called him a “rogue” who should be impeached (although as you know an impeachment needs 67 votes in the Senate).

For your information, our government has three co-equal branches: the Legislative, which makes the laws and has the power of the purse; the Executive, which executes the legislation (here, “executes” means “implements”, not “kills”); and the Judiciary, which interprets the law and applies the penalties when violations take place. The Judiciary is like the umpire who calls “balls and strikes”. The courts don’t always get it right, but the beauty and wisdom of our government is that citizens can appeal the decisions they don’t like and take them to an Appellate Court, or all the way to the Supreme Court.

To be honest, your administration has not complied with Judge Boasberg’s orders. The judge has demonstrated great patience by extending additional time to your staff to provide the basic information regarding when the planes took off and landed, and when your administration became aware of the orders. Your administration is stalling and defying the court. Then yesterday, you came out and said you never signed the document invoking the Alien Enemies Act. Who forged your signature?

Mr. Trump, you swore to defend the Constitution. Do not, by your actions, allow our country to fall into a constitutional crisis. File your appeals if you wish. Trust the process. Obey the court orders.

The War in Ukraine: A Bit of Hope, but is Trump Getting “Played” by Putin?

Yesterday, U.S. President Trump and Russian “President” Putin had a lengthy (roughly two hours) phone conversation with the goal of ending the war in Ukraine. I do not fault Trump with reaching out to an authoritarian world leader who is guilty of war crimes (according to the International Criminal Court). I do raise concerns about Russia taking advantage of Trump’s lack of leverage in these negotiations. These conversations already have a history, including Trump’s meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky in the White House and talks between Russian and U.S. envoys. In these preliminaries, Trump has made several unnecessary and unhelpful concessions to Putin:

Trump falsely accused Zelensky of starting the war and Trump defended Putin against charges of being the aggressor (in the UN vote)
Trump affirmed that Russia would be awarded some land in eastern Ukraine
Ukraine would not be allowed to join NATO

By giving up these concessions up front, the United States has lost its leverage in these talks.

The Good News: Yesterday, Putin agreed to a 30-day limited cease-fire in which Russia would stop strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure as long as Ukraine did the same. Putin also agreed to a significant prisoner exchange for later this month.

The Bad News: Putin did NOT agree to a complete 30-day cease-fire. To advance the negotiations, the U.S. cannot provide additional military assistance or intelligence information to Ukraine. Ukraine cannot send more troops to the front. These and other demands are totally unacceptable to Ukraine (and to our European allies).

The Results: Putin gives the impression that he is open and eager to end the war. In fact, he is stalling. Every day the war continues, Russia takes more territory. Trump’s peace initiatives will not be successful, because Putin is not acting in good faith. It sure looks like Trump, the author of “The Art of the Deal”, is getting “played” by Putin.

What can Trump do? He must regain leverage over Putin. He should impose new financial sanctions on Russia. These sanctions can be used as “bargaining chips” which can later be withdrawn if Putin removes his unreasonable demands.

The War in Ukraine: A Bit of Hope, but is Trump Getting “Played” by Putin?

Trump falsely accused Zelensky of starting the war and Trump defended Putin against charges of being the aggressor (by siding with Russian, North Korea, etc. in the UN vote)
Trump affirmed that Russia would be awarded some land in eastern Ukraine
Ukraine would not be allowed to join NATO

By giving these concessions up front, the United States has lost its leverage in these talks.

Republican Leaders (like Marco Rubio) and Putin, the War Criminal: An Unholy Alliance

Three years ago, Russian “President” Putin ordered thousands of his troops to invade their neighbor Ukraine which had done nothing to provoke Russia’s attack. This invasion is a fact. During these three years of bloody warfare, over a million soldiers from Russia and Ukraine have been killed or seriously injured. Even worse, Putin has attacked Ukraine’s civilian population causing death and destruction. Roughly a third of its 41 million population has been displaced from their homes.

Yesterday, Europe brought a Resolution to the United Nations General Assembly to condemn Russia for its invasion. Like similar resolutions in the past, the world joined together to condemn Russian and its War Criminal “President”. What was different this time was that our United States Ambassador to the UN, obeying Trump’s command, voted against the resolution. We joined the “Axis of Evil” nations in defending Putin. I was not surprised by Trump’s action. Just last week, he lied to the US people, falsely affirming that the war had been started by Ukraine.

Nevertheless, I was stunned and deeply saddened by our Republican leaders who defended Putin. For example, where is Marco Rubio? He spent his long public career denouncing the expansionist goals and war crimes of Putin and his country. Eight years ago, Senator Rubio grilled Rex Tillerson, who at that time was Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State. Rubio wanted to make sure that Tillerson would publicly denounce Putin as a war criminal for his unlawful invasion and takeover of Crimea in 2014. During these eight years, Putin has not changed. He has not had a moral conversion. Putin is far guiltier now than he was back then. It does not take much intelligence to see that Putin now has much more blood on his hands. Marco Rubio, now our Secretary of State, has changed. He has lost his conscience and sold out his soul. He has bowed the knee and kissed Trump’s presidential ring. So have most Republican leaders. It only takes an ounce of courage to speak the truth. Apparently, Republican leaders don’t have that ounce.

Elon Musk’s Freeze on USAID Funding: Either He is Stupid or He is Evil (Part 2)

A week ago, I wrote a post for my blog titled, “Elon Musk’s Freeze on USAID Funding: Either He is Stupid or He is Evil”. I was glad to see that the article raised a lot of discussion. I thought it would be worthwhile to update and develop my thoughts in this Part 2.

Update

In that first article, I listed several groups of people who would suffer great harm due to Elon Musk’s almost total freeze of USAID funding: disease, homelessness, hunger, and death. (None of my readers have challenged the accuracy of my statistics.) A federal judge ordered a pause on the freeze and that the funding be restored. The Trump administration then rescinded the Musk freeze, but the funding has not yet been substantially restored. In fact, a judge has ruled that the administration has “defied” the court order. Meanwhile, vulnerable people in our own country and around the world are continuing to suffer (through the lack of funds for Meals on Wheels, World Relief, etc.).

I argued that this suffering was unnecessary. The Musk staff (DOGE) could have audited the books of USAID and rooted out any waste or corruption BEFORE freezing the funding. This is what Musk should have done. He should have calculated the potential damage before he made his decision. If he didn’t do the proper calculation, he would have been careless or stupid. If he knowingly understood the probable consequences of his decision, and intentionally pursued it, his action would be evil. I use the word “evil” carefully. The Bible teaches that “the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil”. (I Timothy 6:10) I am defining evil deeds as those intentional actions that unnecessarily cause damage/harm to other people. Recent actions by Musk and his staff provide even more evidence that there is a “root of all kinds of evil” where the love of money trumps the love for people.

Haste Makes Waste

During the past two weeks, Musk has led a crusade to fire thousands of civil servants in various federal agencies (IRS, USDA, FAA, National Park Service, FTC, etc.). The alleged purpose was to rid the national government of wasteful spending and corruption, but specific accusations are lacking. Not only are the lives of these civil servants turned upside down, real damage is also being done to our country.

For example, last week Musk/DOGE fired 325 highly skilled workers of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) which is under the control of the Department of Energy. Musk and his staff apparently did not realize that these employees were the guardians of our country’s nuclear weapons. On Friday, Rob Plonski, a deputy division director of NNSA alerted our country to the gravity of the situation: “We cannot expect to project strength, deterrence, and world dominance while simultaneously stripping away the federal workforce that provides strategic oversight to ensure our nuclear enterprise remains safe, secure, and effective”. The damage has been done, but the negative impact will continue: “The consequences will be felt now and for years to come since these are highly qualified, largely STEM-trained personnel with a commitment to national security,” When Trump became aware of this awful mistake, he immediately rescinded Musk’s firing order. I used to believe Musk was quite savvy in business issues, but no more. His astute business reputation is being eroded day by day by his careless decisions to gut federal agencies.

The Strains of the Musk/Trump Relationship

Elon Musk’s approval rating (38%) is much lower than Donald Trump’s (46.6%), but Musk is getting more media attention than the president. Trump does not like this. Many of my readers have seen the clip in the White House where Musk is standing and speaking with his son perched on his shoulders. Meanwhile, Trump is sitting behind his desk and seems quite bored. Which one is the real president?

The White House is issuing enigmatic, mixed messages which attempt to bring Musk down a rung. “Musk is a senior advisor to the president,” Joshua Fisher, director of the White House Office of Administration, said in a declaration filed this week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. “In his role as Senior Advisor to the President, Mr. Musk has no greater authority than other senior White House advisors. Like other senior White House advisors, Mr. Musk has no actual or formal authority to make government decisions himself. Mr. Musk can only advise the President and communicate the President’s directives.” So, is Musk the head of DOGE or is he not?

In addition, it is very evident that given his vast holdings of $400 billion, any major decision he makes is potentially a conflict of interests (TESLA, Starlink, and others). Nevertheless, he has not disinvested from these holdings nor has he stepped down from his companies, even though he is a “special governmental employee” of the current administration. The White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated, ““If Elon Musk comes across a conflict of interest with the contracts and the funding that DOGE is overseeing…Elon will excuse himself from those contracts.” This essentially affirms Musk would police himself. Polls show that the majority of Americans don’t believe in Musk’s honesty nor that he would recuse himself.

As Musk’s decisions continue to negatively impact people, his approval rating will continue to drop. I predict Trump will distant himself from Elon. It is doubtful that Musk will last the four years.

An Exhortation from the Word of God for Donald Trump…, and for Us

“Do not think more highly of yourselves than you should.” So wrote the Apostle Paul (Romans 12:3) around 55 AD to the followers of Jesus in the city of Rome. Although most Christians in the first century were poor and without much social power, this was not universally true. Rome was the capital of the Empire, and the Roman Empire was the most powerful empire of its day. It ruled the world with violence, arrogance and pride. Their citizens generally looked down upon their neighbors and considered others to be inferior human beings. It is tragically true that arrogance is contagious and that some of the Christians in Rome had also been infected with this pride. Therefore, the apostle exhorted them to re-evaluate themselves more carefully, more soberly, and more humbly. It shouldn’t be so difficult to acknowledge this pride, personally or nationally, but it is.

The United States is the richest, most powerful nation the world has ever known. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to equate might with right, or wealth with justice. The Bible frequently points out that wealth and power have been accumulated through violence and oppression (James 2:6). Politicians, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, proclaim that the United States is the best country in the world. This might make us feel good…, but it is not true. Our European ancestors acquired this land stewarded by indigenous nations through warfare and broken treaties. They wickedly enslaved Africans and became rich off of the labor of the slaves. Waves of immigrants came to out country seeking the “American Dream” and a better life for their children. Some saw their dreams come true, but others were grossly mistreated. In the Mexican American war, we acquired half of Mexico’s territory. Abraham Lincoln denounced this war as most unjust. I could go on and on, but this is enough to reveal some of our national faults.

Donald Trump, soon you will be sworn in as our 47^th president. Many will say that you are the most powerful man in the world…and maybe they are right. But do not think more highly of yourself that you should. You also will have to give account to God for your actions. Even presidents must bend the knee before the King of Kings. God does not ask you to enable the rich to become richer. He has other criteria. He told a Jewish king the message “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” (Proverbs 31:8-9). Mr. Trump, I suggest that God will use similar criteria for you.

Serious Questions Regarding Trump’s Nominee Pete Hegseth

Donald Trump won the presidential election in November. His victory was decisive even though it was not the landslide that he has claimed. (In fact, his margin of victory was lower than every presidential election since 2000.) As President-elect, he has the legal right to nominate qualified candidates for his Cabinet and other top posts in his administration. The Senate has the responsibility to meet with the candidates and then to “advise and consent”, in effect, to approve or reject each one. The process involves a hearing with the appropriate Senate committee which explores whether the person is qualified (in terms of experience, integrity, judgment) for the position. This is followed by a vote of that committee. If favorable, the nomination is forwarded for a vote by the entire Senate. Many of his nominees are having their committee hearings this week.

Some of Trump’s nominees will sail through this process. For example, Senator Marco Rubio has been nominated to become the next Secretary of State. Although I disagree with some of Rubio’s policies, he is very qualified for the position and will receive bipartisan support. He will probably have more problems with Trump himself (regarding Russia’s war with Ukraine and personality issues) than with Democrats.

A more controversial nominee is Pete Hegseth. Trump named him to become the next Defense Secretary and to supervise the extensive Department of Defense (DOD). This is the largest department of the federal government with some three million employees and an $849 billion budget. His hearing before the Senate’s Armed Services Committee took place on January 14 and was seen live by millions of citizens.

I have some serious questions regarding Hegseth. There are at least three procedural anomalies:

Previous presidents have fully vetted their nominees with the FBI. This has been done to reveal any “skeletons in the closet”. Trump chose to bypass this procedure regarding Hegseth and most of his other nominees. Why?
Most hearings permit two or three rounds of questions by its members. During the Hegseth hearing, only one round was permitted. Why?
In the past, before they have their hearing, nominees have met individually with senators of the appropriate committee, both Republicans and Democrats, to answer specific questions the senators might have. Hegseth chose not to meet with Democrat senators. Why?

In addition, the following are areas that warrant honest, thorough evaluation of Hegseth’s qualifications.

Lack of experience in administering organizations

The DOD has three million employees. Hegseth has never administered an organization with more than a few dozen paid employees. Does he have the management experience to lead the largest department in our federal government? This is not an ideological debate between conservatives and liberals. This is a technical question regarding administrative experience and preparedness.

Allegations of Sexual Misconduct

In 2017, Hegseth was accused of sexual assault. Although he denied it and affirmed that their sexual encounter was consensual, he paid the woman a confidential settlement. She is willing to meet with the Senate committee to confirm her allegation. She should be released from the confidentiality aspect of this settlement so that the truth sees the light of day.

Even his own mother, Penelope Hegseth, accused him of mistreatment of women. She wrote him in an email, “I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around and uses women for his own power and ego. You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth.”

In the hearing, he was repeatedly asked whether specific allegations of sexual assault (and drunkenness on the job) were true or false. He repeatedly refused to answer these questions with a simple “yes” or “no”. He claimed that these were “anonymous allegations that were part of a smear campaign”. Many of these allegations were not anonymous. Hegseth should have answered. His refusal to respond suggests that he was guilty.

Inconsistencies Regarding Women in the Military

In the recent past, Hegseth has frequently affirmed that women should “straight up” not serve in combat. In his hearing, he tried to modify these affirmations without disavowing them completely. He hid behind new affirmations of the military’s lowering of standards in order to meet quotas for women in the military. Women on the committee who have served in the military (including Senator Tammy Duckworth who defeated me in a congressional race back in 2006) refuted his affirmations about the lowering of standards.

There are many additional areas that need honest evaluation. May the nominee provide us with honest responses.

Robert F. Kennedy: Criticisms from at least Three Constituencies

President-elect Donald Trump has nominated the people he wants to fill out his Cabinet. This is appropriate because he won the presidential election in November. (His claim of a landslide victory is false. He won 49.81% of the popular vote compared with 48.33% for Kamala Harris, the smallest margin of victory since 2000.) According to our Constitution, the President nominates candidates, and the Senate examines them and then approves or rejects each one, based upon their background, expertise, policies they would pursue, and their moral character. Some of his nominees are well qualified and should sail through the Senate. Nevertheless, other nominees are quite controversial and will probably not get confirmed. Most have not been properly vetted. Some, like Matt Gaetz, will withdraw their nomination or suffer the embarrassment of being rejected by the Republican controlled Senate. One of the most troubling is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who himself was a candidate for president, then threw his support to Trump. As compensation for his “loyalty”, Trump named him to become the Secretary of the powerful, sprawling Health and Human Services Department (HHS). He told RFK to “go wild” on health. Perhaps he is too “wild”. He has received sharp criticisms from at least these three constituencies.

The Medical Community – If he is confirmed, Kennedy would oversee 13 federal agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. RFK is so controversial because he has made many affirmations that are contrary to scientific evidence. For example, he is known as an “anti-vaxxer”, who urges people not to get vaccinated. He has claimed (without proof) that the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine causes autism. He has just petitioned the FDA, through his lawyer, to revoke approval of the polio vaccine. The Salk polio vaccine has protected an estimated twenty million people from getting this dreaded disease. This past Monday, 77 Nobel laureates, from the fields of medicine, chemistry, physics, and economics wrote an open letter to the Senate, urging its members to reject the RFK nomination. The letter states that “placing Mr. Kennedy in charge of HHS would put the public’s health in jeopardy and undermine America’s global leadership in health science”.

The Pro-Lifers – Some pro-lifers are realizing that Trump’s support of pro-life issues was largely transactional. He manipulated them and he is not a true believer in their cause. An early indication was the platform of the Republican party. Trump promoted a change in the abortion plank which watered down its wording which had endured for decades. Now, the President-elect has nominated Kennedy to head up HHS. RFK has been pro-choice on abortion, yet he tried to walk that back when he was courting Republican voters. Significant pro-lifers are raising their voice against RFK. For example, former Vice-President Mike Pence wrote, “I believe the nomination of RFK Jr. to serve as Secretary of HHS is an abrupt departure from the pro-life record of our administration and should be deeply concerning to millions of pro-life Americans who have supported the Republican Party and our nominees for decades.” He added, “On behalf of tens of millions of pro-life Americans, I respectfully urge Senate Republicans to reject this nomination and give the American people a leader who will respect the sanctity of life as Secretary of Health and Human Services”. (Here I am not weighing in on the morality of abortion; I am just reporting that Pence sees the RFK nomination as a betrayal of the pro-life movement.)

Corn Farmers – RFK has been quite outspoken regarding the dangers of high-fructose corn syrup. He denounces that our high consumption of this corn syrup in many food products has been the major factor in childhood obesity and other illnesses. (The medical community largely agrees with RFK on this issue.) In one of his promo videos, he affirmed that high-fructose corn syrup “is just a formula for making you obese and diabetic”. The political controversy swirls around what he might do about corn syrup and how this might negatively affect the jobs of farmers. As Secretary of HHS, he could urge the elimination of farm subsidies for corn production. This would be devastating for rural farmers (rural folk are some of Trump’s most solid supporters). Senators from corn producing states have raised the alarm. Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican from Iowa, said, “I may have to spend a lot of time educating Kennedy about agriculture”.

U.S. Senators, you are responsible for seriously evaluating the experiential and moral fitness of each nominee and their mental judgment. Next week, Kennedy will be meeting with many of you. Please, do your job of serving the citizens by being rigorous in your evaluation of RFK.

When Politics Becomes a Cult

When we think of a cult, we usually focus on a relatively small group of people who are under the “spell” of a manipulative religious leader. Nevertheless, there are moments when political movements and politicians demonstrate cult like tendencies. Hitler had a powerful spell over much of the German population. Dictators frequently have such power over many of their citizens. I recently did a google search for characteristics of cultic leaders which revealed the following traits with brief descriptions in parentheses. I urge you to study these characteristics and evaluate if any current leader comes to mind. If you are under the influence of such a leader, have the courage to break free.

Grandiose idea of who he is (exaggerated self-importance)
Excessive admiration demands (narcissistic cravings)
Exaggerated power sense (rule-breaking confidence)
Boastful about accomplishments (showy self-promotion)
Unlimited success fantasies (delusional aspirations)
Exploiting others financially (financial manipulation)
Hypersensitivity to perception (concerned with image)
Center of attention craving (distracting behavior)
Blind, unquestioned obedience (demanding loyalty)
Arrogant behavior (haughty attitude)
Ignoring others’ needs (selfish disregard)
Best of everything expectation (material superiority)

The Matt Gaetz Nomination: Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, your Christian Values are at Stake

A week ago, President elect Trump nominated Congressman Matt Gaetz to become the country’s Attorney General. Like other nominations, this process moves to the Senate so that the nominee can either be confirmed or rejected. Usually, the House of Representatives has nothing to do with this confirmation process, but in the Gaetz process, it does. Why? Gaetz is a very controversial nominee for many reasons. He does not have significant experience in prosecution of legal cases, a must for the position of Attorney General. Gaetz was largely responsible for getting rid of previous House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. In addition, he was being investigated by the House Ethics Committee for a wide range of allegations: violating sex trafficking laws, sharing inappropriate sexual images on the House floor, using campaign funds for his personal use, and accepting bribes! He has denied committing these crimes. The House Ethics Committee (composed of five Republicans and five Democrats) was moving forward last week to make public the results of their investigation. Trump then nominated Gaetz for the position of Attorney General. Gaetz abruptly resigned his position in the House (which was not required for nominees). He hoped the potentially damaging investigation report would never see the light of day. The current Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, now appears on the scene. First, Johnson confirms that, in his position as Speaker of the House, he has no role in the Senate process. Then, he meets with Trump. Johnson then immediately states that the House Ethics Committee’s report should be buried.

Johnson is very open about his faith in Jesus Christ. That is appropriate. Nevertheless, those of us who claim to believe in Jesus must strive to follow the Lord’s teaching. Jesus claimed to be the Truth and urged his disciples to speak the truth, promote the truth, and live out the truth. Mr. Johnson, by trying to bury the investigation report on the allegations against Gaetz, you are suppressing the truth. If Gaetz is innocent, he will be vindicated. If he is guilty, the Senate needs to know the facts before they vote on his nomination. Leading senators, both Republicans and Democrats, have demanded to see that report. I am a fellow follower of Jesus, and I urge you not to continue your suppression of the facts. Your values as a Christian are at stake.