Tag: Politics

The Billionaire Tycoon Les Wexner. From New Albany, Ohio to the Epstein Files: Silence is Complicity.

On Wednesday I turned on the morning news (WSNOW). It had a reporter located on a sleepy downtown intersection in New Albany, Ohio, the town where I grew up in the 1960s. At that time, New Albany was a small farm town that was becoming a suburb of Columbus, the state capital. A few decades later, the town was transformed even more and became one of the wealthiest suburbs in the state through the Midas touch of real estate tycoon and CEO of Victoria Secret, Les Wexner. Corn fields were bought up and transformed with mansions, estates, and fabulously manicured golf courses. For some, Wexner was synonymous with wealth, prestige, and the elite class. For others, he was the death knell of the good old days of small-town America.

On Wednesday, Wexner was being deposed in his Ohio estate by the U.S, House Oversight Committee. The purpose of the deposition was to clarify his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, the man who ran the criminal human trafficking of young women and children. Wexner opened the deposition with a pre-written statement in which he admitted that he was “duped by a world-class con man” in Jeffrey Epstein, but he did not witness, condone or enable Epstein’s crimes. Although Wexner did not utilize the Fifth Amendment to avoid difficult questions, his answers were frequently vague, and he attempted to downplay their relationship. in fact, he gave Epstein power of attorney over his own finances.

In their public statements, the Congressional Representatives were quite explicit in their criticism of Wexner. Stephen Lynch (Massachusetts) affirmed, “There is no question in my mind, given the evidence so far, that Les Wexner knew about this and failed to stop it and gave Epstein license and the ability to commit these crimes.” Congressman Robert Garcia (California) said there wasn’t any doubt Epstein would not have been able to commit the crimes he was accused of if it were not for the $1 billion he received from Wexner: “There’s no Epstein Island, no Epstein plane … Mr. Epstein would not be the man that he was without Les Wexner.” Wexner was labeled a co-conspirator, but the Department of Justice failed to follow up the case. No one should be above the law, not even the rich and famous.

Wexner is now 88 years old and his memory is not as good as it used to be. Nevertheless, it is just too easy and convenient to claim we “did not know” what was happening to our vulnerable neighbors. In this case, hundreds (perhaps thousands) of young women and girls were raped and sexually assaulted. (Everyone within Epstein’s circles knew what was happening.) These women were victims, but they have now become courageous heroes for their pursuit of truth and justice. They have shown us that we are, indeed, “our neighbors’ keepers”.

Silence is complicity. Let us raise our voices for our neighbors, near and far, who have no voice.

Trump Claims “Republicans Should Take Over the Voting” in at least “15 Places”. This would be a Dangerous Violation of the Constitution and a Further Sign He is Losing his Grip on Reality.

President Trump has made another outlandish claim which distracts attention from the 3 million newly released Epstein files, but which also shows a growing break with reality. In an interview with the “podfather” Don Bongino, Trump advocated, “The Republicans should say, ‘We want to take over, we should take over the voting, the voting in at least, many, 15 places.’ The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting,” (Readers might recall that Bongino was recently the Deputy Director of the FBI but who resigned from his post to return to his podcasting gig.)

Trump’s proposal is clearly in violation of our national Constitution, which explicitly states who is responsible for managing these elections.

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof…” (Article I, Section 4).

The Constitution can be amended, of course, but only by Congress, not by the President and certainly not by any political party.

Why is Trump making this absurd recommendation? I believe it is due to his ego and his unhealthy obsession with the 2020 presidential election. For the last five years, he has repeatedly affirmed without any evidence, that he won that election in a landslide. For his claim to be true, he had to win the election in Georgia, which he lost by 12,670 votes. He requested an official hand recount of the votes. In fact, there were three recounts and Trump lost in all three recounts with similar results. Georgia’s Governor and Secretary of State are both conservative Republicans and repeatedly have confirmed that the Georgia election was free and fair, and that Trump lost. What is worse, the president called the Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, and attempted to steal the election by trying to get the Secretary to change the count. (this call was taped and is easily accessible). Trump’s own Attorney General, Bill Barr, told him he lost and should give up his allegation of voter fraud.

It is sad when anybody begins to lose touch with reality. This is happening to our president (ex. he confused Iceland and Greenland eight times in a recent important speech.) The best thing we can do is to correct these mistakes and help the person face reality. Those supporters who are “enabling’ Trump in his  false allegations are not helping him nor our country. There might be valid reasons to support Trump, but repeating his false allegations about 2020 voter fraud is certainly not one of them.

Trump, Venezuela and the “War on Drugs”

Let’s speak clearly. The United States does have a drug problem! Provisional data from the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics indicate there were an estimated 80,391 drug overdose deaths in the United States during 2024. By far, the deadliest drug is fentanyl, which annually causes over 70,000 overdose deaths. Nevertheless, it is not Venezuela that moves fentanyl into the U.S. It is China via drug cartels located in Mexico.

The deadliest drug that comes into the United States from South America is not fentanyl. It is cocaine, made from the coca plant. Venezuela does not grow much coca. The biggest growers of coca and the countries that export the most cocaine to the U.S. are Colombia, Peru and Bolivia.

From September until the present, the Trump administration, via the Secretary of Defense Hegseth, has struck more than twenty small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, killing over 80 civilians. The government has alleged that these boats were smuggling drugs into the United States, but have not provided an ounce of proof. It is highly unlikely these boats were smuggling drugs into the U.S. for a variety of reasons: Venezuela exports oil, not drugs; a drug smuggler would fill up the limited space in his small boat with drugs, not passengers; no drugs have been retrieved from the crippled boats; and the survivors from the September 2 strike were struck and killed in a second strike, rather than provide eyewitness account of the purpose of their boat’s cargo.

Just yesterday, the U.S. military seized a large Venezuelan oil tanker and has maintained possession of it. When asked by reporters what would happen to the oil, President Trump said, “We would keep it.” These actions ordered by the Pentagon are clearly military actions of warfare. According to the U.S. Constitution, unless there is an actual attack on the United States, only Congress can declare war. We are not at war with Venezuela. Therefore, the strikes against these small boats, including the death of more than 80 civilians, and the seizure of the tanker, were definitely illegal and probably acts of murder. If the Pentagon has valid evidence, it should make its case to Congress…immediately. In addition, the U.S. should take its case to the United Nations Security Council because these military actions have taken place in international waters.

So why are Trump and Hegseth making up bogus claims of alleged drug shipments from Venezuela? Probably to distract us from real issues like inflation and health insurance prices.

This is an ethical and legal test for our current administration and our Secretary of Defense. Will they pass the test? I doubt it.

In the Midst of Our Deep Polarization, We Desperately Need to Develop our Spiritual/Political Discernment Skills

Almost everyone agrees that we are living in the most profound polarization in the United States since the Civil War. New issues emerge every day that divide us. Here is just a sample of the most recent topics:

  • U.S. Air strikes on boats off the coast of Venezuela: legitimate defense against drug trafficking or war crimes ordered by Secretary of Defense Hegseth?
  • A video in which six Democrat elected officials urge soldiers to not obey illegal orders: a helpful restatement of the military code or an act of sedition that merits death?
  • Common vaccines administered to children cause autism and other severe problems: dangerous non/scientific myths pushed by RFK and others or gospel truth?
  • Opening protected land to new oil drilling: A boost to the economy or a rapid, dangerous increase in global warming?
  • Massive tariffs leveled against most of our trading partners: a necessary leveling of the playing field or a factor contributing to an increase in inflation?
  • The legal case against James Comey: a necessary action to pursue justice or a personal vendetta of a childish president?
  • The best college football team in the country: Ohio State or Indiana?

In the midst of competing claims, how can we discern what is true from what is the noise of propaganda? Although it is hard work, there are steps we can take to cultivate our moral/political discernment skills.

Most of us like to think that we are “open-minded”, at least I am open to the truth. There is an academic exercise that helps us test our openness. Every semester at the last institution where I taught (Whitworth University) we would team-teach a course on “Worldviews and Public Policies”. We would ask the students to choose a policy and analyze it, by completing the following steps.

  1. Articulate a public policy (example-the morality and legality of the war in Iraq according to Just War Theory), your position on the policy and how your own worldview (ethics, ideology, etc) applies to the policy. Describe the strengths and weaknesses of your position. What major sources do you use to justify you position? How do you know they are reliable?
  2. Articulate a rival position regarding the same policy and defend that position and why some people are attracted to that position. What main sources are generally utilized to defend the rival position? Are they reliable? Why or why not?
  3. Very important – What evidence would you be willing to accept as sufficiently strong to get you to change your position? (If students did not answer this question, it suggests they were not as open-minded as they thought.)
  4. If you would change your position, would that require other changes in your life (example -reconsidering what “patriotism” means)?

There are additional “common-sense” suggestions for healing our national divide:

  • Be humble. Your rivals might be right and you might (occasionally) be wrong.
  • Double check your facts.
  • Don’t exaggerate the truth (even use hyperbole and sarcasm sparingly).
  • Think outside the box.
  • Find common ground.
  • Acknowledge bits of truth wherever they are found.
  • For those in the U.S., the Constitution is the rule book.
  • The courts are the referees. If you think they are wrong, appeal to a higher court, but don’t ignore them.

May we bring a small bit of healing to our country!

Trump Has Had a Terrible October… The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

October has not been good to President Trump. He has implemented many policies that are ethically deficient and economically disastrous. With just a few days left in the month, here are the good, the bad and the ugly.

The Good

  • Before I dive into the long list of bad events in Trump’s October, I will mention the one (semi) positive action of his presidency: he deserves credit for brokering a ceasefire in Gaza. Nevertheless, he was premature, naïve and arrogant in labeling it as an “everlasting peace” The ceasefire has held…barely but the president does seem to be trying to follow through on his commitments. He sent the top people in his cabinet to Israel last week: Special Envoy Witkoff, VP Vance, and Secretary of State Rubio. When israel’s Knesset voted in favor of annexing parts of the West Bank, Trump said “Never”. I hope he keeps his word about the Gazans having “self-determination”. This sounds like a “2 state” solution, at best, or at the very least, a permanent international peace council that guarantees stability in Gaza. (the latest bad news is that Israel has renewed heavy bombing in Gaza.)
  • If Trump would use his “art of the deal” skills to broker a just, lasting peace in Ukraine, I might even support his Noble Peace Prize quest.

The Bad

  • George Santos was one of the most despicable members of the House of Representatives in recent history. He was elected to the House in 2022 and was sworn in as a member in January, 2023 but evidence soon surfaced regarding his lack of integrity. Santos admitted to having lied about his education and employment history, and his disclosures about his business activities, income, and personal wealth were sketchy at best. Furthermore, he had not disclosed his criminal history or the existence of lawsuits against him. Following an investigation by the House Ethics Committee and a federal indictment, the House of Representatives (including half of the Republicans) voted 311–114 to expel Santos on December 1, 2023. He pleaded guilty to wire fraud and identity theft in August 2024. He was sentenced to 87 months in prison, but had only served three months when President Trump commuted his sentence a week ago. Although presidents have the authority to pardon federal prisoners and/or commute their sentences, there was no good reason for Trump to show him leniency (except for the fact that both are frequently guilty of lying).
  • “It’s the economy, stupid.” This phrase was coined by James Carville, a strategist/advisor for Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign in 1992, but it aptly applies to the highest priority for most American voters. Trump made the economy his most important theme in the 2024 campaign. He repeatedly promised that he would “lower prices” on groceries, housing, energy, etc. Note carefully: this means an inflation rate of below zero. Last week, even during the government shutdown, the Bureau of Labor Statistics revealed that inflation rose 0.3% during the month of September for an annual rate of over 3%. This is slightly worse than the inflation rate during the last year of the Biden presidency. Nevertheless, many Americans “feel” that inflation is much worse. Coffee prices are up 20% and beef is up 15%, American voters might be more forgiving if the president at least made some effort to lower inflation instead of his obsession with tariffs (=tax increases) or bailing out Argentina (see below).
  • “Don’t cry for me Argentina.” Out of the clear blue, Trump offered the Argentina government a $20 billion “bailout” now, with a promise of another $20 billion in the near future. This has no relationship with making America great again. Rather, it seems to be due to Trump’s friendship with Argentina’s austerity president Javier Milei. This bailout has raised opposition from two of Trump’s traditional supporters: farmers and ranchers. and they are angry. Trump’s tariffs on China prompted them to stop all purchases of U.S. soybeans. Now they are buying soybeans from Argentina. The president then aggravated his supporters even more by buying tons and tons of beef from Argentina to bring down meat prices for American consumers.
  • The Federal Government shutdown is now the second longest in US history. The Democrats blame the Republicans…and vice versa. Furloughed Federal employees are working without pay. Air travel is reduced as many air traffic controllers are calling in sick. The SNAP food program runs out of funds on November 1st and 42 million recipients (children, women, retirees, and veterans) will no longer be eligible to receive food. The USDA has blocked release of contingency funds which were designed to cover shutdowns (funds already authorized by Congress). Back in 2013, businessman Trump said that a government shutdown is due to the president’s lack of leadership, because a strong leader would bring all the key players into a room and negotiate a fair deal. The American people agree with the earlier Trump and generally blame the damage caused by a federal shutdown on the person in the White House.
  • President Trump has flirted with the idea of running for a third term as president. The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution prohibits a person from being elected to the presidency a third time. Even the Speaker of the House Johnson has grown some backbone and now confirms the Constitution’s prohibition of a third presidency. Many are seeing Trump’s flirtation with a third term as covering up his fear of becoming a “lame duck” president so early into his 2nd term.
  • The national polls reveal the country’s growing discontent. Trump won the presidential election last year with slightly less than 50% of the popular vote. As he began his presidency, the polls showed he had an approval rate of about 54-58%. Those same polls now show his approval rate ranging between 37 and 42%. After his disastrous debate performance with Trump last year, former President Biden’s weak approval rate was the same as Trump’s is today.
  • This brief analysis of bad news could continue for quite a while. To keep it short, here is just an additional listing: a judge’s ruling against ICE in Chicago, the on again/of again trade/tariff talks with China, Trump is still getting played by Putin as the war in Ukraine goes way past Day One,  getting sued by 25 states over SNAP, having to shake up the leadership of ICE, the warlike strikes against boats off of Venezuela and Colombia without getting authorization from Congress.

The Ugly

  • President Trump has repeatedly declared that he would not object to the Jeffrey Epstein files being released to the public. At the same time, he has doggedly fought against their release. Through Speaker Mike Johnson, Adelita Grijalva has been blocked from being sworn into her seat in the House because her vote would force the files to be released. All of this has led to speculation that the files have some horrible “dirt” on the president. The people deserve to know the truth…even if it is ugly.
  • The Big Beautiful? Ballroom. In the midst of the shutdown when many are not receiving their paychecks and their kitchens are bare, Trump initiated the destruction of the East Wing of the People’s House in order begin construction of the White House Ballroom which would seat 999 guests. He had promised it would be adjacent to, but not touching, the East Wing. He lied. The East Wing is now totally gone. Its destruction symbolizes the more serious destruction of our democracy. Truly ugly.

Let’s hope the news gets better after Halloween.

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!

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)

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.”

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?