Category: Uncategorized

The Shutdown Blame Game: Why the Republican Argument Does Not Persuade Me PLUS My Modest Proposal to End the Impasse

The federal government shutdown is now entering its fifth day with no end in sight. The lines are clearly drawn. The Republicans  demand that Democrats pass the Continuing Resolution (CR) to re-open the government for seven weeks. If the government does not re-open, no negotiations will take place over health care legislation. The Democrats want health care discussions to take place now before any re-opening of the government. These include: (1) the restoration of Obamacare subsidies that are due to end on December 31, 2025; and (2) the restoration of Medicaid, Medicare, and other benefits taken away by the “Big Beautiful Bill” legislation. Meanwhile, only “essential” workers are on the job. Non-essential workers are temporarily furloughed until the government is re-opened.

The Republicans blame the Democrats for the shutdown and Democrats blame the Republicans and President Trump. I freely acknowledge that neither I nor any human being can be 100% objective in our analysis regarding who is to blame, but I submit the following evidence for why the Republicans seem to be more guilty (the six national polls that have asked this question reveal that the American people blame Republicans more than Democrats for the shutdown by 15-20%).

Evidence:

  1. The Republicans control the White House and both chambers of Congress (the Senate and the House of Representatives, albeit by razor thin majorities). How can they blame the minority when they have all the control?
  2. The Republicans did not include the Democrats in any discussions of the “Big Beautiful Bill” because they did not need to do so… EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT our governmental predecessors in their wisdom, required that sixty Senators must approve certain resolutions, including the one before the Senate now. This was to ensure broad, bipartisan support for our government and its spending of tax dollars. From the beginning, the Republicans were well aware of this 60 Senator rule. Even so, they made the choice not to be bipartisan and try to bully the Democrats into submission and acquiescence at the last moment. Republicans need to accept responsibility for their choice.
  3. Republicans accuse Democrats of trying to get Medicare and Medicaid benefits for undocumented immigrants. Federal law prohibits undocumented immigrants from receiving these benefits and there is no Democratic proposal to change the law. Therefore, this Republican accusation is a bald face lie. If justice were on the side of the Republicans, they would not need to resort to such obvious lies.
  4. Project 2025 sketches out how the White House should “take advantage” of shutdowns to justify the illegal massive firing of federal workers, especially in Departments Trump does not like (ex. Education). He has also halted billions of dollars in funds (already approved by Congress) for projects in states run by Democrats (Illinois, New York and California). During his 2024 campaign, Trump denied any knowledge of Project 2025, because it was perceived by many Americans as being too extreme. Nevertheless, its chief architect, Russell Vought, served in the first Trump administration and is currently the Director of the powerful Office of Management and Budget. Trump is now fulfilling Project 2025 “to a Tee”. It seems quite clear that Candidate Trump lied to the American people regarding Project 2025. He does not lament the pain that the shutdown is causing. This was his plan.
  5. President Trump claims the shutdown provides an “unprecedented opportunity” for him to hack away at pieces of the federal bureaucracy he does not like. It has also provided him with opportunities to try to ridicule his opponents (perhaps to get revenge for losing his Free Speech fight with Jimmy Kimmel). Trump posted an AI generated video in which he tried to ridicule Hakeem Jeffries with a Mexican sombrero and moustache. Trump was widely criticized by politicians from both sides of the aisle for this failed attempt at humor. Vice President Vance was asked for his opinion. He said he thought it was “funny” and that “the president’s joking and we’re having a good time”. The importance of the shutdown merits greater seriousness by the president who should perhaps leave the comedy to Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert.

My Modest Proposal To End the Impasse

Let’s now turn from who is to blame to how do we achieve a just end to the shutdown. On the surface, it looks like there is no fair way to end the shutdown. Republicans won’t negotiate health care while the government is closed and Democrats won’t open the government unless health care reforms take place first. Successful mediators know that leaders on both sides must be able to “save face” with their constituents. They must be able to point to some political victory for their base. A possible solution exists because the Democrat demands are two pronged: (1) the restoration of Obamacare subsidies; and (2) the restoration of Medicaid, Medicare, and other benefits taken away by the “Big Beautiful Bill” legislation. If the Democrats separate their demands into two packets, reasonable Republicans might agree with them. I propose that Democrats and Republicans negotiate NOW the restoration   of Obamacare subsidies. This is less expensive than the Big Beautiful Bill legislation and is fairly easy to reach an agreement: just extend the “sunset” of the subsidies for one year until the end of 2026. If this is passed NOW, Democrats can THEN vote for the Continuing Resolution and end the shutdown, provided that Republicans agree to negotiate the BBB benefits during the next seven weeks.  

Democrats could claim a victory in that they have restored the Obamacare subsidies and a (good faith) promise by the GOP to negotiate the BBB benefits. Republicans could also claim a victory in that they have re-opened the government, and that the major chunk of negotiations (the BBB benefits) will take place only after the shutdown is over.

How will the restoration of the Obamacare subsidies be paid for? I do not recommend raising the national debt! I do propose reducing the tax benefits for the very rich. Several months ago during the BBB discussions, even President Trump recommended this reduction. Will the adults in the room identify themselves and get the government back to work!

Director of the Office of Management and Budget Russell Vought, Where Is Your Faith?

    You  claim to be a follower of Jesus. This is a serious commitment. This means that your allegiance to Jesus should be higher than any allegiance you pledge to President Trump or to any other human being. I respectfully suggest that you are failing in your allegiance to Jesus, especially in the areas of truth and grace. In your position as Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), you must provide honest counsel to the president regarding our federal budget and other economic items. Fair enough. Nevertheless, in your meetings with the president this week, you recommended Trump to permanently lay off many thousands of federal workers. You know that it is illegal to use a government shutdown as an excuse to fire federal workers. In previous shutdowns, a distinction has been made between essential workers and non-essential workers. Essential workers continue laboring on the job. Non-essential workers are “furloughed”, that is, they do not report to work during the shutdown, and after it is resolved, they return to their jobs, together with back pay for the time they were “off”. This is a temporary situation during the shutdown. There is NO legal basis for the permanent firing of workers. You can try to get these firings mired down in the courts, but in your heart, you know this is wrong. The well being of hard-working people and their families is at stake. President Trump has gleefully and vindictively announced he will use these layoffs to punish Democrats. I no longer expect any truth from President Trump, but I do expect truth and grace from fellow followers of Jesus.

   You did not learn the “virtue of lying” at Wheaton College where you earned your bachelor’s degree and where I was a professor for 12 years. Our institution had its flaws, but it did not teach Christians to lie or to seek revenge. I expect you to stand up for the truth even when your GOP colleagues are spreading blatant lies. Speaker of the House Johnson and Vice-President Vance have blamed Democrats for the shutdown and have accused them of wanting to give Medicare benefits to undocumented immigrants. This is a lie, because federal law prohibits these immigrants from receiving these benefits.

Spreading these lies and promoting vengeful firings will not lead to a just resolution to the shutdown. I expect better from you.

If Comey is Found “Guilty”, He Should Go to Prison; If Comey is Found “Not Guilty”, Trump, Bondi, and Patel Should Resign

“The clearest way to understand the extraordinary nature of the indictment on Thursday of James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, is to offer up a simple recitation of the facts. An inexperienced prosecutor [Lindsey Halligan] loyal to President Trump, in the job for less than a week, filed criminal charges against one of her boss’s most-reviled opponents [James Comey]. She did so not only at Mr. Trump’s direct command, but also against the urging of both her own subordinates and her predecessor [Erik Siebert], who had just been fired for raising concerns that there was insufficient evidence to indict. At the same time, the Justice Department has also ordered prosecutors to investigate George Soros, a billionaire Democratic donor whom Trump has targeted for financing left-wing groups. The moves dispense with the decades-old norm that the agency should be free from political interference.” (quoted from NYT reporter Evan Gorelick’s piece)

In its vote to indict, the grand jury judged that the evidence it heard indicated that there were reasons to believe that Mr. Comey might have committed a crime. The two counts of that possible crime were (1) lying to Congress, and (2) obstruction of justice.

Shortly after the charges became public, Comey made his response. “My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldn’t imagine ourselves living any other way. We will not live on our knees, and you shouldn’t either. Somebody that I love dearly recently said that fear is the tool of a tyrant and she’s right. But I’m not afraid and I hope you’re not either. I hope instead you are engaged. You are paying attention. And you will vote like your beloved country depends upon it, which it does. My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system and I’m innocent. So, let’s have a trial and keep the faith.”

This is serious, especially now when our nation is divided more than at any time since the Civil War. For the healing of our country, our politicians and “public servants” should back up their actions with their careers. If Comey is found “Guilty”, he should not appeal, and therefore, he should go to prison; If Comey is found “Not Guilty”, Trump, Bondi, and Patel should resign from their positions.

First they came for the late night comedians, but because I am not funny, I did not speak up.

First they came for the late-night comedians, but because I am not funny, I did not speak up.

They came for the Ivy League universities, but because I went to a “state school” in Appalachia, I did not speak up.

They came for the big corporations, but because I am not a rich CEO, I did not speak up.

They came for immigrants who arrived here recently, but because my ancestors came from Western Europe over a hundred years ago, I did not speak up.

They came for the homeless, but because I have a nice place to live, I did not speak up.

They came for those on Medicaid, but because I have “better” health care, I did not speak up.

They came for all kinds of minorities, but because I am a well off, white guy, I did not speak up.

They came for the “least of these” siblings of Jesus, but because I don’t like to be with the least or lowest, I did not speak up.

There is a time to be silent and a time to speak up. Now is the time to speak up!

(The structure for my words borrows from the piece “First They Came…” by German pastor Martin Niemoller who valiantly spoke out against the evils of Hitler)

Florida and Vaccinations: Balancing the Common Good and Personal Freedom

Last Wednesday, Dr. Josepf Ladapo, Florida’s Surgeon General, together with Governor Ron DeSantis, promised to repeal a half-dozen vaccine mandates controlled by the Florida Department of Health and Governor Ron DeSantis and that the Florida Legislature would work to repeal other vaccinations required by state law such as polio, diphtheria, rubeola, rubella, pertussis, mumps, tetanus and other communicable diseases. I watched Dr. Ladapo give his announcement on television and at first, I was impressed. He said, “Every last one of them [the mandates] is wrong and drips with disdain and slavery. Who am I to tell you what your child should put in their body? I don’t have that right. Your body is a gift from God.”

I am a strong believer in individual freedoms, and his message resonated with my beliefs…, at first. Upon further reflection and research, I now believe Dr. Ladapo is making a serious mistake for the following reasons.

  1. Every state in the nation requires children to receive vaccinations before they can attend public school. There needs to be a high rate of compliance in order to guarantee public safety (above 90% to provide “herd immunity” against measles). Nevertheless, states (including Florida) already provide parents the option to apply for a vaccine exemption based on a variety of reasons (religious, philosophical, etc.). These exemption applications are almost always approved. Today, 5.1% of school age children in Florida are exempted from receiving the mandated vaccinations. Far from being “slavery” as Ladapo claims, these vaccination mandates are a reasonable balance between the common good and personal freedom.
  2. Even though he is a medical physician, Dr. Ladapo does not seem to understand his role very well. Most medical doctors do, in fact, tell their patients what they should put in their bodies. Every time a doctor writes out a prescription, the patient has the option to follow or not to follow the physician’s recommendation. (There is an important semantic difference between “should” and “must”. “Should” is usually used when appealing to a person’s conscience. “Must” usually involves laws and potential punishment.)
  3. A helpful parallel can be seen in the issue of drinking alcoholic beverages and driving a car. I am of legal age where I have the freedom to drink alcoholic beverages, even to the point of getting drunk…in my house. I also have the freedom to drive my car on public streets because I have a valid Illinois driver’s license. But I DO NOT have the freedom to drive if I am at the same time under the influence of alcohol. There is a reasonable restriction of my individual freedoms if my abuse of those freedoms present a danger to the common good.
  4. A reputable study from last year showed that infant mortality rates have dropped over the last 50 years and access to vaccines brought those rates 40% lower than they would have been otherwise. Surely Florida, and the rest of the nation, can find a way to balance the common good of vaccine mandates and individual freedoms of exemptions. The current vaccine policy in Florida does NOT to be repealed.

Jesus and Immigration: Would He be Welcomed into the USA?

Most of us are familiar with the Biblical narrative of the Wise Men (or Magi) who journeyed from the East to worship baby Jesus with gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. We are not so aware of important ethical, political truths in the narrative. I find at least three important lessons in this passage (based on the verses in bold type).

Matthew 2 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born.“In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written:“‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.’” Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.” After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshipped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route. When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.” So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

Here are three important truths from this passage:

  1. Herod the Great, like many politicians today, combined lies with false piety.
  2. The Wise Men practiced civil disobedience and did not return to Herod when they became aware of his deceit and his desire to kill Jesus.
  3. Egypt had an immigration policy sufficiently benevolent to welcome the refugee family of Joseph, Mary and Jesus.

In this post, I would like to hone in especially on immigration policies. On the one hand, every country has the “right” to establish and implement their policies regarding immigrants and refugees. Nevertheless, I believe this is a qualified “right” with ethical dimensions. If there if is a just God, along the lines of the Judeo-Christian traditions, both individual and national actions (including immigration policies) will be evaluated according to God’s justice. Even in secular societies, immigration policies are treated as serious ethical decisions. Our nation’s history reveals both welcome and rejection of immigrants and refugees. At times, we have lived up to Lady Liberty’s call, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost, to me. I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door.” Sadly, there have been stains on our past when we have closed our doors to foreigners, or worse, oppressed and scapegoated them (the Irish, Jews, Africans, Mexicans, Chinese, etc). We are currently living in a difficult time for immigrants. Millions are leaving their home countries in search of a better life, peace, religious or political freedom. Many are fleeing persecution, war, or famine.

I urge all people of good will to raise their voices in defense of immigrants. This is especially relevant for those who claim to follow Jesus. If Mary, Joseph, and baby Jesus made their way to our southern border, would they be welcomed? I would hope that, at the very least, they would be given the chance to explain to an immigration officer why they are seeking asylum.

Last week, a former student sent me the following poem penned by his father, Don Bemis. His poetry vividly portrays our current challenging situation.

Once in Donald’s royal city stood a lowly garden shed,

Where a mother laid her baby in a cardboard box to be his bed:

María was that mother mild; Heh-sus did she name the little child.

In a palace in the royal city, great king Donald thundered from his lair;

Sent his troops to seek out and eject those persons for whom he did not care:

Not for him the poor and lowly, only those who called his mission holy.

Thirteen men in balaclavas surged around the garden shed,

Took the crying mother and the baby, tased the father while he pled:

Woman and babe sleep on Fort Bliss floor, man to prison in El Salvador.

Now in Donald’s royal city everything is pure and strong,

And his followers are not confronted by suggestions that they might be wrong:

Let the foreigners all perish as we celebrate with those we cherish.

“Treat the foreigner who lives among you as you treat your native-born.”

“Love the Lord with all your being; love your neighbor as your own.”

“Lord, when did we not serve thee?” “When you did not serve the least of these.”

The Smithsonian Museums and a Necessary Debate about Our National Sins: We Need to Face our Painful Past

An important debate is swirling around our country. It was triggered by President Trump, but the controversy goes back thousands of years. It is a debate about human nature and ethics, about good and evil, and about what we should do if, whether individually or collectively, we have committed evil.

People and cultures influenced by the three great monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) ground their moral code in the nature of God. According to these faiths, humans are special beings created in God’s image, able to choose between good and evil. Most adherents of other religions, as well as agnostics and atheists, also have a sense of right and wrong. Traditionally, committing an evil act was called a sin, but that word is not so common today. It is not just a change of words, but also how we view ourselves and our actions. Back in 1973, a psychiatrist, Karl Menninger wrote a book called Whatever Became of Sin?, in which he argued that our modern world was shifting away from the concept of sin. It was being replaced with terms like illness, dysfunction, or mental disorder. He suggested that this shift would result in a gradual reduction in accountability for our actions.  Behaviors previously considered as sinful would now be excused as normal consequences of our biochemistry (nature) or our environment (nurture). 

This lack of accountability now permeates our society. We either blame others for our errors, or we reclassify past sins as now morally neutral or necessary. This is a re-writing of history and is taking place today right before our eyes. An important example of this took place last Tuesday. President Trump ordered his lawyers to conduct a review of the Smithsonian museums because their description of the history of the United States was too negative, and they focused too much on “how bad Slavery was”. He continued, “The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been — Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

This is Trump’s rewriting of his own description of the Smithsonian portrayal of U.S. history. Trump had previously praised the Smithsonian museums, including the National Museum of African American History and Culture, which he toured during his first term as president. “I’m deeply proud that we now have a museum that honors the millions of African American men and women who built our national heritage, especially when it comes to faith, culture and the unbreakable American spirit,” Trump said during remarks at the museum in February 2017. Later that month, Trump said the museum “tells of the great struggle for freedom and equality that prevailed against the sins of slavery and the injustice of discrimination.”

Why did Trump make this complete about face? Here are some possible reasons:

  1. Trump wants to distract the U.S. people from paying too much attention to the Epstein files.
  2. Trump wants to deflect criticism of his failed diplomacy attempts to bring peace to Ukraine. Putin has yet to make any concessions (such as a temporary ceasefire) and the Russian leader is slow-walking bilateral or trilateral peace talks. Is Putin playing him again?
  3. Trump wants to draw attention away from the rate of inflation that is starting to rise due to his tariffs.

Whatever his motivations, Trump is not alone in minimizing national sins and exaggerating national virtues. Rulers from long ago (Egyptian Pharaohs and Roman Emperors) and in more recent times (Hitler, Putin) have appealed to a cheap “patriotism” in attempts to justify their evil actions. The British claimed their imperial expansion was “beneficial” for their colonies. George Washington and other Revolutionaries saw through the hypocrisy of these claims. Prior to the U.S. war with Mexico (1846-1848), Illinois congressman Abraham Lincoln brought legislation before the House of Representatives which denounced President Polk for taking our country into an immoral, imperialistic war against our neighbor to the south. Evidence demonstrated Lincoln was right, but the citizens of his district did not re-elect him to his House seat.

Jesus warned about rulers who cover up their evil deeds and falsely claim they are seeking the well-being of their subjects.  “The kings of this world lord it over their subjects; yet want the people to address them as ‘Doers of Good’ (=Benefactors). But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.” (Luke 22:25-26)

It is not just rulers who deny their own evil deeds. It is quite common for most of us to ignore or minimize our sins, whether they be personal or national. Almost two thousand years ago, the Apostle John wrote, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” John continues with the remedy, “But if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (I John 1:9-10) Justice requires that we seek reconciliation with those we have damaged and that we pay compensation that is appropriate.

Some of us are sensitive to “individualistic” sins, like drunkenness or sexual infidelity, but are not nearly as attuned to social or national sins. Nevertheless, religious Scriptures deal with both individual and national sin. For example, the prophet Amos denounced the national/social atrocities of Israel’s neighbors. The Syrians, the Phoenicians, the Ammonites, the Moabites, and others were guilty of slavery, expansionist warfare, and the oppression of foreigners. The just God would bring judgment upon those who committed such evil acts. You can almost hear the Jews cheering as Amos railed against his nation’s neighbors and enemies and announced their impending judgment. But being God’s “chosen people” did NOT mean that Israel was guiltless. If anything, it means the Jewish people are probably more accountable for their actions because they have received more of God’s revelation. Therefore, Amos turns his attention to Israel and Judah. (Amos 2:4-16) He denounces their idolatry, their oppression of women via prostitution, their corruption, and their cruel mistreatment of the poor. Yes, social sin is real, and can be just as bad as individual evil… or worse. Yes, slavery in our country was truly atrocious and evil. If many of the slaveowners were “Christians”, their faith did not sanctify their actions. It merely added “hypocrisy” to their list of sins. The supposed “exceptionalism” of the United States does not justify nor sanctify our national sins.

Of course, I was not alive during the time of U.S. slavery. It ended nine decades before I was born. Nevertheless, some of my ancestors were slaveowners. Some of the inheritance I received (property, money, education) was due to the sinful exploitation of slaves. What should I do to make restitution? I’m just beginning to take some small steps.

Just as it is impossible to overemphasize the horrors of the Holocaust, I believe it also impossible to give too much importance to the horrific sins committed in our national slavery. Slaves were beaten and killed. Families were separated. In most cases, slaves were not allowed to learn how to read or write, nor to get married, nor to own property, nor to vote. The Christian faith they heard was heavy on “Slaves, obey your masters” and weak on “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free”.

The presidential order quoted at the beginning of this post criticized the Smithsonian for showing “how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been”. This is the epitome of hypocrisy. I, and many of my fellow citizens, celebrate the resilience of those who endured slavery, and we are deeply impressed by the great accomplishments of Black Americans in all fields of endeavor. Two examples are the Tuskegee Airmen and Jackie Robinson of baseball fame. Nevertheless, Trump has previously ordered the removal of these two outstanding examples from governmental agencies because they are “bad” expressions of DEI. Mr. Trump, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t criticize the Smithsonian for omitting great black achievements and also order the removal of these examples from government agencies. Your blatant hypocrisy is damaging the moral education of our nation’s children.

Esteemed readers, do we know who we are and where we are going? An article in the Smithsonian Magazine tells us part of the purpose of its National Museum of African American History and Culture. “It was to help a nation understand itself — an impossible task without the full recognition of the horrors of slavery.” Some truths are quite painful, but they are necessary for our own self-understanding. If we learn from these painful truths, instead of trying to bury them, we are on the path of growing up.

Grading Trump on His Performance in the Summit: Using His Own Criteria, He did not Pass the Test

I give President Trump credit for organizing and attending the summit with “president” Putin. But giving Trump a grade on his performance at the summit, Trump failed the test.

Here are the criteria that Trump himself provided for evaluating the summit.

  • When the Putin-Trump meeting was first announced, it was hailed as a major breakthrough. Nevertheless, in the days leading up to their talk, the White House lowered expectations. A three-hour meeting in Alaska would not immediately end the war in Ukraine, but it would be considered a “success”, if Trump could arrange a “second meeting” in which he would moderate and Putin and Zelensky would settle their differences. No such “second meeting” has been announced nor appears on the horizon, but Zelensky is scheduled to come to the White House on Monday. Hope springs eternal?
  • This week Trump did affirm to Bret Baier of Fox News that, at the very least, a successful summit would result in a ceasefire. No ceasefire has been announced…yet.
  • Trump said there would be a joint press conference in which he and Putin would field questions from the international press. The press gathering lasted only 12 minutes, no questions were allowed, and the session was abruptly ended. Putin then turned the tables on Trump by giving him an invitation to meet the next time in Moscow.
  • Although Trump said they had a very productive meeting, no specifics were provided. Later, he conceded, “we haven’t gotten there”.
  • Even Trump’s supporters were disappointed in his performance. Fox News Senior White House Correspondent Jacqui Heinrich offered a brutal, eye-witness assessment of the awkward and confusing joint press conference fiasco. “We were told we would have an opportunity to put questions to both leaders after a joint press conference in the event the meeting went well enough that they could set the stage for a second meeting, And President Trump said if that didn’t happen, he was likely to call off the joint presser and just address the media solo and send people home. Neither of those things happened. And what was really stunning to me as someone who has been in a lot of these press conferences was a few things that were very unusual,” she said. “You had Putin come out and address the press first. We are on U.S. soil here. And that left the media scrambling to get their headsets in. Usually, it is the leader of the country — the host country of a summit that speaks first and addresses. Putin started off in Russian. And we all had to get our heads set on and listen to him rattle off the diatribe about the history of the U.S. and Russia. The way that it felt in the room was not good,” she reported. “It did not seem like things went well, and it seemed like Putin came in and steamrolled, got right into what he wanted to say. And got his photo next to the president and then left. Of course, that is only the piece of the picture that we have right now, and certainly President Trump, who is the host and who is, the president, would not want to, I think, enable something that would make him look weak.” Contrast her analysis with Trump’s grading himself as a perfect 10.
  • Putin did not make any concessions. Is he still “playing” Trump, by pretending to be open to peace negotiations, but not willing to follow through? James Stavridis, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, called Putin’s handling of our president a “rope a dope” experience.

Although Trump did not pass this mid-term exam, he has not totally failed the course. If he studies harder and works on his negotiating skills (such as using economic pressure to force Putin to make concessions), he can still get a passing grade. In fact, if he brokers a deal between Putin and Zelensky that Ukraine finds acceptable, I might even consider supporting his desire of winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

Trump will Meet with Putin: Strong Prayer for a Weak President

Donald Trump is scheduled to have a summit meeting tomorrow with Russian “president” Vladimir Putin to discuss ways to end the war in Ukraine. Although I applaud Trump for meeting with the Russian leader, I do not hold out much hope for this summit. Ending a needless war that has killed thousands of people (both soldiers and innocent civilians) is a noble, valiant goal. But to be totally truthful, Trump is in a weak position before a formidable foe. Trump himself has lowered the expectations for their meeting. He now calls it a “listening” event which might lead to a second more important meeting. In spite of being the president of the most powerful country in the world, and in spite of all his bravado and bullying, Trump is quite weak. Here’s the evidence:

  • Trump’s irrational praise of Putin – over the last decade, Trump has praised authoritarian rulers all over the world, both present and past (China’s Xi, Hitler, etc.) Trump has been quite lavish in his admiration for Putin. In his book “Time to Get Tough,” Trump wrote, “Putin has big plans for Russia. He wants to edge out its neighbors so that Russia can dominate oil supplies to all of Europe. Putin has also announced his grand vision: the creation of a ‘Eurasian Union’ made up of former Soviet nations that can dominate the region. I respect Putin.” Yet in his more thoughtful moments, Trump has recognized that Putin has “played” him.
  • Trump’s weakness with the Truth – I do not intend any cheap criticism of the president, but he has had a troubled relationship with the truth. Just two weeks ago, he didn’t like the job report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Instead of admitting responsibility for his failed economic policies, Trump fired the BLS director. He claimed he won the 2024 election in a landslide. In fact, he received less than 50% of the vote. These are just two examples of how the president invents a false reality instead of dealing with the real world. I believe, as Jesus said, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free”. If Jesus was right, then Trump’s preference for untruths means he is neither very free nor powerful.
  • Trump’s exaggerated estimation of his own abilities – The president campaigned on ending the war in Ukraine on “Day 1” of his presidency. That did not happen. He also claimed he would bring inflation down below zero percent. He was wrong. The July inflation report that was issued this past Tuesday shows the annual core inflation rate moved up to 3.1%. Realism and maturity demand that we all have a sober estimate of our own abilities. Trump is weaker than he thinks.
  • Trump’s approval rate is underwater. Most major polls place his approval ratings between 37% and 44% with his disapproval ratings much higher. He is down even on his stronger issues, like immigration and the economy. His weakest areas refer to his handling of the Epstein files, his policies regarding tariffs, and the “Big, Beautiful Bill” tax legislation.
  • Trump’s concessions to Putin do not bode well for the summit.  Trump has already conceded everything but the kitchen sink which greatly harms Ukraine. Most democracies in the world consider Putin to be the guilty invader of its neighbor Ukraine. Putin is a pariah and is prohibited from even visiting their countries. Nevertheless, Trump is elevating Putin on the international stage, by granting him a summit on U.S. soil. They will be talking about Ukraine’s future, yet Ukraine’s president Zelensky was not even invited to participate. Trump has announced a “swapping” of territory (readers beware: Ukraine would give up land to Russia, not vice-versa). Ukraine would not be able to join NATO…and on and on and on. Later, if Zelensky does not accept these concessions, he is the “problem”, not Putin.

Given these varied weaknesses, many Americans believe it would take a miracle for the summit to be successful. True peacemaking needs divine intervention and this includes “strong” prayer. The emphasis is on the word “strong”, not the questionable religiosity of the phrase “God bless America” that many politicians use to close their political speeches. No, strong prayer does not ask God to bless our fallen plans and actions. Strong prayer can happen because the All-Powerful, All-Wise God invites fallen people to humble themselves and become active participants in making human history through their prayers and their actions. The Apostle Paul encouraged fellow believers to pray for all persons, especially for kings and those in authority so that people could live in peace. (I Timothy 2:1-3).

There is a certain amount of mystery regarding prayer. Does it depend on God? Yes, of course it does. Does it depend on those who pray? Yes, to some extent. Does it depend on those who are prayed for? Yes. Somehow their human wills need to become aligned with God’s will being done on earth as it is done in heaven. Humility is essential. People need to humble themselves in a variety of ways.

  1. People who don’t agree with Trump need to humble themselves and to pray for a leader they perceive as wrong.
  2. People who do agree with Trump also need to humble themselves and to pray that their president repent of his arrogance and especially his political sins that harm the world.
  3. Trump needs to humble himself and to ask God to show him ways to become a better peacemaker and wisdom and courage to promote a just peace.
  4. Putin needs to humble himself and to repent of his invasion of Ukraine and the thousands of human deaths he has caused.

Readers:

  • If you consider yourself a person of faith, pray and live out your faith with love, justice and grace.
  • If you do not see yourself as a person of faith, may you live your life according to your highest ideals.
  • If any of the information I mentioned is inaccurate, let me know.

Gerrymandering and the Mess in Texas: Are there any Adults in the Room?

The attempt to change the boundaries of the federal congressional districts in Texas has set off a political firestorm across the nation. At the beginning of each decade, after the national census results are tabulated, a process of redistricting frequently takes place. Given that there is migration within the country, usually from states in the north and northeast to states in the south and southwest, it is common for northern states to lose a congressional district or two, and the receiving states to increase the number of their districts. The goal of redistricting is to maintain a similar number of people in each district (to the best mathematical degree that is possible). This is based on the facts of the census and there is not much controversy at this stage.

Within each state, the boundaries of the congressional districts are also re-drawn in order to guarantee that each district has an equal number of people. This is where gerrymandering enters the picture. In U.S. politics, gerrymandering is “the practice of drawing the boundaries of electoral districts in a way that gives one political party an advantage over its rivals (political or partisan gerrymandering) or that dilutes the voting power of members of racial or ethnic minority groups (racial gerrymandering).” Let’s look at a typical purple state with one million voters in which there is an equal number of Republicans and Democrats (500,000 voters each party). Let’s assume the state has ten congressional districts. “Fair” districts would have roughly 50,000 voters from each party, therefore making each district competitive. Acknowledging that rural voters tend to favor Republicans and urban voters prefer Democrats, one would expect each party to win five districts, or at most six. What might happen if typical gerrymandering occurs? Let’s suppose the boundaries are drawn in such a way that in eight districts, party A has a 60,000-40,000 edge over party B, but in the two remaining districts, party B has a 90,000-10,000 edge. Although in the state, each party receives 500,000 total votes, party A wins 8 districts and party B just 2 districts. Throughout our history, both major parties have taken advantage of this “gerrymandering unfairness”. Democrats have practiced gerrymandering…so have Republicans. Therefore, some states now have laws that require the boundaries to be drawn by non-partisan organizations or approved by the state’s Supreme Court. Even so, there exist questions about fairness. If a political party wins 60% of the vote in a state, should they get 60% of the congressional seats? Or through gerrymandering, should they get 90% of the seats? Today I hear more politicians arguing for partisan gain instead of the common good. Where are the ethical adults in the room?

Here Texas enters the fray. In the midterm elections, the party that does not control the White House generally makes a strong comeback and picks up dozens of seats in the House of Representatives. This spells disaster for Trump whose approval rate is under 40% in most polls and who has an extremely slim majority in both the House and in the Senate. Trump has urged the Texas state legislature to gerrymander their districts in order to give Republicans a pick-up of five congressional seats. There is not even an attempt to hide their partisan goals. The fact that this is 2025 (and not at the beginning of a decade) shows they have no regard for the facts of the 2020 census. This move violates the historical norms of our political redistricting. Democrats in Texas have physically left their state to deny Republicans a quorum. Republicans have countered with legal actions, including calling in the FBI (although no federal laws have been broken). Nationally (and naturally), Democrats have threatened to fight “fire with fire” in blue states (like California and New York) where they can re-shape districts and turn them from Republican to Democrat control. This same tit for tat action is threatened in red states. We might easily descend into political chaos.

Where are the adults in the room who will address this issue with reason and a sense of fairness. When will “the common good” be considered? Will the adults in the room stand up and rise to the occasion?