Category: Uncategorized

The Transactional Relationship between Musk and Trump has Come to an End

The “special relationship” between President Donald Trump and the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, has come to the end of the line. On Wednesday night, Elon announced that his assignment as a “special government employee” at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was ending. On Friday that decision became official as the president gave Musk a farewell celebration in the White House. Of course, Trump tried to “spin” the story by claiming Musk’s actions as very successful. Read on for the “rest of the story”.

They had a transactional relationship that had hardly been created “in heaven”. Therefore, when they were no longer useful to each other, it was time to call it quits, although they have done so rather amiably.

As head of DOGE, Musk led the crusade to make huge reductions to federal spending. (I do applaud the attempt to move towards a balanced budget. It is Musk’s methods that I criticize.) He infamously appeared on stage with a chain saw and promised to cut out waste, corruption, and fraud from federal agencies. He originally predicted he would save $2 trillion, but in fact, the savings are closer to $150 billion. Even these “savings” lack documented evidence. Some of his cuts, like the hollowing out of USAID, were unbelievably cruel and caused the premature, unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of malnourished and sick people all over the world. Other agencies saw the number of their employees decimated with a chain saw with no rhyme nor reason, instead of the needed precision of a scalpel. For example, his cuts included the federal employees who were responsible for overseeing our atomic energy program. These workers had to be rehired within days. Some of his cost-cutting firings have caused more loss in federal income than the dollars that were saved. A prime example is the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) whose personnel numbers were cut in half during the tax season. Not only did this cause significant delays in the processing of tax returns, a reduction in the availability of taxpayer assistance services, and problems with the implementation of recent tax code changes. It will also greatly reduce the number of audits performed on those suspected of trying to cheat the system. The amount underpaid by these cheaters is measured in millions and perhaps billions of dollars, which will now not be collected.

Most of Musk’s indiscriminate cuts are tied up in the courts. The Trump administration is facing a lawsuit for violating federal privacy laws for giving DOGE access to systems that contained personal information on millions of Americans without their consent. The payments for these legal fees will be astronomical. For all of these reasons, Musk’s approval rate in national polls have fallen to about 35-38%, several points below Trump’s. Consumers have also shown their displeasure by boycotting Tesla cars. Sales have fallen significantly this spring not only in the United States, but also in Canada and by a whopping 50% in Europe.

Nevertheless, Musk is rich enough that he didn’t need to hide his opinions. He hated to be a “yes man”. He publicly feuded with members of Trump’s cabinet. He recently pointed out that he disagrees with the Trump agenda on some key issues. For example, he criticized the “big, beautiful budget” bill for increasing the national debt by about $4 trillion which is directly opposite to the goals of DOGE. As this bill has moved to the U.S. Senate, it now depends on the courage (or lack thereof) of Republican senators. Will they increase the debt by giving beautiful tax breaks to the very rich, while at the same time cutting benefits to Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, and Veterans? Musk is gone, but there still is time to correct some of his mistakes.

Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Budget Bill”: Are Republicans Gaining the Whole World of Wealthy Donors, but Losing Their Soul?

This past week Republicans in the House of Representative passed President Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Budget Bill”. It is really big, but is it beautiful? It is a megabill that funds a laundry list of items on the president’s agenda. It now needs to go the Senate, where it will likely be modified and then returned to the House for “reconciliation”.

Budgets are moral documents, insofar as they represent one’s priorities. It is appropriate to raise moral questions about this legislation. Will this budget bill help or hurt most Americans, but especially our poorest citizens? Is it beautiful or is it selfishness disguised as efficiency?

What might Jesus of Nazareth say about this big, beautiful budget bill? Jesus (revered as the Son of God by billions around the globe, and as a great moral teacher by many others) taught a lot about money and economics. He warned that human greed is deceitful and destroys true life. He raised a probing question: What does it profit a person to gain the whole world, if they lose their soul? (Mark 8:36) If many people are losing their soul, their conscience, their compassion for others, this loss of our soul will be felt by “the least of these” that Jesus loved so much.

Jesus also warned his followers that human rulers usually lord it over their fellow citizens, while at the same time, they lie about all the “good” they are doing for people. (Luke 22:25) Therefore, we the people need to be diligent and discern the truth from the propaganda misinformation that comes at us from both sides of the aisle. I would like to “forward” Jesus’s question to the Republican members of the House of Representatives. Although they claim this bill would do so much good, if it hurts our neediest neighbors, are we losing our soul?

Since both Republicans and Democrats tend to spin information for their own advantage, what sources can we trust? I suggest the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It is nonpartisan. Both Republicans and Democrats love the CBO when it backs up their claims, but they both hate it when it reveals their distortions and disinformation. (“Figures never lie, but liars do figure”) The CBO is the closest thing we have to an impartial “referee” in Congress. The predictions below are the estimates of the CBO based upon the budget bill as currently passed in the House of Representatives.

The most significant items in the bill are (1) the renewal of the Trump 2017 income tax legislation scheduled to end this year; (2) cuts in Medicare and Medicaid benefits; (3) cuts in food stamp benefits / SNAP.

  • Democrats claim that the legislation favors the very rich whereas Republicans affirm that the budget bill is beautiful for all citizens, especially the middle class and the poorest people.  The CBO estimates that, due to the provisions of this bill, the wealthiest 10% of the population will see a 4% increase in their wealth next year. The CBO predicts the poorest 10% of our people will see a 2% decline in their income next year and a 4% drop in the following year.
  • President Trump promised not to cut Medicare or Medicaid benefits. The CBO predicts over $800 billion will be cut from these programs. Republicans claim most of this is due to waste, fraud, and the removal of “dead people” on the list who are currently receiving benefits. The CBO denies these claims. It sure seems to me that Trump broke his promise and would sign this legislation.
  • The CBO claims that the “big, beautiful” bill will add to our national debt by at least $3.3 trillion. Republicans don’t like this prediction and they claim the CBO (the official referee) underestimates the growth in our economy.  During his first term, Trump predicted his economic plans would not add to the debt. He was very wrong. His supporters seem to forget that Trump increased the national debt by $7.8 trillion during his first administration (the highest jump in any four-year term).
  • There are major changes in health care, especially in Medicaid and “Obamacare”. The CBO predicts that 13 million Americans would no longer have health insurance. Here again, Republicans don’t like these figures and they claim the CBO is “wrong”
  • Food stamps (the SNAP program) currently serves one-in-eight Americans each month. This bill would cut $230 billion over ten years, literally taking food out of people’s mouths.
  • Some of the provisions of the bill do help low wage earners (for example, no taxes on tips). Nevertheless, these are mere “crumbs” compared with the lavish deductions given to the very rich.

As I affirmed at the beginning of this post, budget bills are moral documents that should be evaluated by their (estimated) consequences. I choose to use the criteria taught by Jesus: What happens to the “least of these” among us? According to his standards, this bill does not seem very beautiful. In fact, it is quite ugly.

Walmart Exposes Trump’s Big Tariff Lie: “Foreign Countries Will Pay The Tariffs”

Economists and ordinary citizens agree that Trump’s tariffs are taxes paid to the US government by US retailers who then pass on these tax costs to US consumers in the form of higher prices. No mechanism exists for foreign countries to pay these tariffs. Nevertheless, President Trump has repeatedly claimed that foreign nations will pay for the tariffs. Just yesterday, Karoline Leavitt, the White House Press Secretary told reporters that Trump “maintains the position that foreign countries absorb these tariffs.” All Americans know this is a lie. The recent exchange between the president and Walmart officials clearly demonstrate that it is a lie.

Last week, Doug McMillon, the chief executive of Walmart, said that the large retail company would be forced to raise the prices later this month on many of the products they sell. He affirmed that Walmart could no longer absorb all the tariffs imposed on foreign imports. They would be forced to pass on these higher costs to their customers. Immediately Trump berated Walmart on social media. On Saturday he posted that Walmart should “EAT THE TARIFFS” and not pass on these higher expenses to their customers in the form of higher prices. His own words reveal his lies. He does not say here that foreign countries should pay the tariffs. He knows they cannot do so.

His command to Walmart is unbelievable at a much deeper level. He has repeatedly railed against socialist governments (and others) for interfering in the “free markets” of capitalism. But this is precisely what he is doing. As the main spokesperson for the federal government, he is trying to tell a private company how to run their business. He is telling them to go against basic economic principles like the law of “supply and demand” and the “bottom line”. As far as I know, Trump is not accusing Walmart of violating any federal law. He just hates the fact that economic realists (like Walmart, Mattel, Target) are putting in plain view the insanity of his tariff policies. There might be moments (like hoarding necessities in the midst of great need) when public officials should urge companies to keep prices low. This is not that moment. Trump just wants to hide the truth about his unwise tariffs.

In unguarded moments, Trump himself has let the truth slip out of his mouth. Just last month, he was pressed by a reporter about possible empty shelves and higher prices in stores. Answering before he thought about his response, he acknowledged that “children might have two dolls instead of 30 dolls,” and that these dolls might “cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally.”

We are reminded in the Good Book that we will be judged by our words and by our actions. Judgment day might be coming this summer in the form of higher prices.

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).

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.