The National Security Breach: Worse than I Thought

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

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

SIGNAL

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

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

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

THE BREACH

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

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

THE RESPONSE

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

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

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

Trump’s State of the Union Address: Some Good Points, but his Lies should Worry all Americans

In Donald Trump’s State of the Union Address on Tuesday evening, he was preaching to the choir. His MAGA base loved it. Republican leaders who were present got plenty of exercise as they stood up and applauded dozens of times during his 99 minute speech. He was disciplined in sticking to his text instead of his more typical going off script. He highlighted his “successes” and generally omitted his failed promises. Nevertheless, he made many claims that were totally false. I lay out some of the evidence below. I ask my readers, especially MAGA folk, to pursue the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If the following information is inaccurate in any detail, please let me know. If Trump communicated false information, please speak truth to power.

Trump – “The presidential election of November 5th was a mandate like has not been seen in many decades…. We won the popular vote by big numbers.”

The Truth – Trump truly won the election, but it was not a mandate. He did not even receive a majority of the popular vote, just 49.8% of those who voted. In fact, it was the smallest margin of victory since the year 2000.

Trump – “Now, for the first time in modern history, more Americans believe that our country is headed in the right direction than the wrong direction — in fact it’s an astonishing record, 27-point swing — the most ever.”

The Truth – “Thirty-four percent of Americans say that the country is headed in the right direction, compared to 49% who say it is off on the wrong track. When it comes to several specific issues, Americans are more likely to say things are off on the wrong track than going in the right direction: cost of living (22% right direction / 60% wrong track), the national economy (31% right direction / 51% wrong track), national politics (33% right direction / 50% wrong track), American foreign policy (33% right direction / 49% wrong track), and employment and jobs (33% right direction / 47% wrong track). Immigration policy is the only specific issue where more Americans say it is going in the right direction (48%) than off on the wrong track (39%).” (most recent Reuters/IPSOS poll)

Trump – “It has been stated by many that the first month of our presidency, it’s our presidency, is the most successful in the history of our nation. By many. And what makes it even more impressive, is that you know who number two is? George Washington. How about that? I don’t know about that list but we’ll take it.”

The Truth – We should be cautious when politicians (or anyone else) refuse to identify their sources. Who are the “many”? Where is the list? Was Trump really ahead of George Washington? According to the FiveThirtyEight average of national polls, only 46.1% of the U.S. citizens currently approve of the job Trump is doing, a decline of over 3% in these first six weeks of his presidency. (Donald Trump : Favorability Polls | FiveThirtyEight

Trump – “The United States has spent perhaps $350 billion on supporting Ukraine’s defense.” He also claimed that Europe has only spent $100 billion in aid to Ukraine.

The Truth – “According to the special inspector general responsible for overseeing the spending related to the war in Ukraine, Congress has appropriated or otherwise made available $182.75 billion for the overall U.S. response to the war since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. Of that money, about $119 billion has been for the direct benefit of Ukraine, including approximately $65.9 billion in military assistance…. According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, European countries have spent around $140 billion to back Kyiv, and pledged another roughly $120 billion to the cause.” (Shannon Kingston in Fact-checking Trump’s speech to Congress)

Trump – “Joe Biden especially let the price of eggs get out of control. The egg prices are out of control. And we are working hard to get it back down.”

The Truth – Egg prices rose under Biden. They have continued to rise sharply during Trump’s first six weeks. This is the same Trump who campaigned with the promise “I will bring down egg prices on Day One.” When I was a kid, we would hear the slogan “Boys make excuses, men make good.” I hear a lot of excuses coming out of the White House. Excuses need to be quite solid in order to justify failed promises.

Trump – “the next phase of our plan to deliver the greatest economy in history is for this Congress to pass tax cuts for everybody.”

The Truth – During his first administration, Trump amassed the largest federal debt in U.S. history, $7.8 trillion. This does not lead to “the greatest economy in history”. This debt was largely due to his tax cut that primarily benefited the very rich. It was not a tax cut “for everybody”.

Trump – Although barely mentioned in his election campaign, tariffs have played a large role in these six weeks of his presidency. He called tariffs a “beautiful word”, his “favorite word”. On Tuesday Trump proclaimed that due to tariffs, “we will take in trillions and trillions of dollars and create jobs like we have never seen before.”

The Truth – “The substantial tariffs that Mr. Trump is imposing on foreign products will raise revenue for the government. But total U.S. imports last year were about $3.3 trillion, meaning that tariffs would have to be incredibly high to generate the trillions of dollars of revenue that Mr. Trump claims.” (Fact-Checking Trump’s Address to Congress – The New York Times)

Trump – The specific special tariffs on Mexico and Canada (of 25%) were included in the written script of his address, but Trump (conveniently) skipped over these items in his oral remarks. Why?

The Truth – The conservative Wall Street Journal described these massive tariffs as the “Dumbest Trade War in History”. These tariffs took effect on Tuesday. In two days, the Dow Jones level fell some 1200 points (about 3% of its total value)! Mexico and Canada announced reciprocal, retaliatory tariffs. GOP leaders and the Big Three Automobile producers voiced their concerns to the White House. Faced with this bad news, Trump caved. On Wednesday he announced a one month “pause” on automobile tariffs with our two neighbors.

I could go on and on, but these lies are enough for now. The next big event is the budget that needs to be approved by Congress and signed into law by Trump. He says he wants a “balanced budget”. He has also promised not to touch Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This is impossible. Republicans plan on cutting $880 billion from Medicaid which would lead to the closing of hundreds of nursing homes across the country and additional pain for millions of our citizens. Readers, what should we do with all these lies?

Good News from the Global South: The Journal of Latin American Theology

Good News! The Journal of Latin American Theology: Christian Reflections from the Latino South has just published its newest issue (19.2). Why is this good news? Two decades ago, I helped to start this journal with the purpose of making available to English reading audiences some of the best Christian reflections coming out of Latin America. The journal does not focus on esoteric religious oddities. It brings to bear the teaching of Jesus to concrete issues that affect people around our world. If it contributes to genuine communication between and among the Global South and North, it is good news. If it helps to shed the light of truth on troublesome issues, it is good news. If it applies the practice and teaching of Jesus to today’s most difficult challenges, it is good news indeed.

Here are the article titles in this most recent issue:

Christian Faith and Climate Change
The Centrality of the Cross for Socioenvironmental Justice
The End of the World and New Creation: Approaches to and from John’s Revelation
Protestantism, Public Influence and Theological Education: Perspectives from the Political Ethics of the Kingdom of God
Christian Higher Education and an Evangélico Sense of Shame: A Case Study from Brazilian Politics
Protestant Presence in the Public Sphere: A Case Study of Brazil
Three book reviews, a film review, and two poignant examples of theopoetry

Readers who would like to access these articles can do so through the ATLA Religion Database published by the American Theological Library Association. The journal can also be purchased through the Wipf and Stock Publishers website: www:wipfandstock.com

Enjoy and be challenged by your reading!

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

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

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

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

Serious Questions Regarding Trump’s Nominee Pete Hegseth

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lack of experience in administering organizations

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

Allegations of Sexual Misconduct

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

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

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

Inconsistencies Regarding Women in the Military

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

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

Robert F. Kennedy: Criticisms from at least Three Constituencies

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

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

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

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

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

When Politics Becomes a Cult

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

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

Defending the Immigrant: Thanksgiving, Father Abraham, and Brother Jesus

The recent election reveals a lot about us in this country. Polls show that immigration was one of the most important issues and that up to half of our population would like to see millions of undocumented immigrants deported. If you are in favor of this massive deportation, I write this brief article with the hope of changing your mind. I appeal to your conscience, your sense of integrity, and if you are a religious person, your understanding of Biblical teaching.

Let’s begin with Thanksgiving. According to our national folklore, the first Thanksgiving took place in Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1621. Members of the Wampanoag indigenous people shared food (venison, bass, mussels) with the pilgrims. Whether it occurred exactly in this way is not that important for this post. What is important to remember is that on the eve of the European colonization of the Americas (by the Spanish, Portuguese, English, French, and others), these lands were under the stewardship of the indigenous people tribes. Not many Europeans asked the indigenous leaders for “permission” to occupy and settle in the land. In other words, they were “illegal” or “undocumented” immigrants, although they tried to justify their actions by affirming “manifest destiny” or other religious arguments. Others claimed that although their government was wrong, they were individually innocent. Over the next centuries, treaties were made…, and frequently broken. The result was that almost the totality of the land previously under the stewardship of indigenous people was taken by Europeans and their descendants. I am a descendant of those European colonists and a beneficiary of that unjust land takeover. Most of my fellow citizens are in a similar situation. It would be hypocrisy for me to glory in this pursuit of the “American Dream” of my predecessors and to deny other immigrants that same opportunity.

Our national history regarding immigrants has been quite checkered. Protestant immigrants from western or northern nations of Europe have been very privileged. Others, not quite so much. At various times, Italians, Poles, Jews, the Irish, Mexicans, the Chinese, and others have been scapegoated, as if they were the cause of all our country’s ills (as claimed today). Some suffered outright persecution and deportation. Of course, the capture and enslavement of Africans was our nation’s most horrific evil committed against foreigners. If we were honest, we would confess our national sins against immigrants.

Now, let’s turn to the Scriptures. “Father Abraham” is recognized as the founding patriarch of the three great monotheistic religions in our world: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. According to the sacred texts, God called Abraham to leave his father’s house to go to a distant land (Genesis 12). He became an immigrant “par excellence”. God told Abe that those who welcomed and blessed him would also receive the Lord’s blessing. Along the way, Abe made many mistakes. (Like some contemporary immigrants, Abe told some lies to save his own skin.) Nevertheless, people in other countries forgave him and blessed him… and Abraham became a blessing to others, just like God had promised.

Some will say that God’s promise to Abraham was quite specific and does not apply to immigrants today. Not true… at least not for those who want to follow the God of the Bible. The Scriptures tell us that all people, including all immigrants, are made in God’s image, and therefore, have immense value. Because immigrants are frequently subject to mistreatment (just like orphans and widows), God defends them and provides them with special protections (Leviticus 25:35, Deuteronomy 14:29, the entire book of Ruth the immigrant, and Malachi 3:5). The Lord Jesus is even more radical in his teaching: “I was a stranger, and you welcomed me… what you have done to the least of these my brothers and sisters, you have done to me” (Matthew 25:31-46). The way we treat an immigrant is, in fact, how we treat Jesus himself.

How should we treat the millions of undocumented immigrants in our midst? The overwhelming majority of them are working in gainful employment. Our economy, especially the agricultural and construction sectors, needs immigrant labor. It would suffer greatly if millions of immigrants were deported. Undocumented parents would be separated from their children, many of which are U.S. born citizens. A good solution would be to follow the contours of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, carved out by President Reagan and Congress. Let them regularize their legal status, pay a penalty, continue in their jobs, and most importantly, keep their families intact. A good first step would be to increase the pathways for legal immigration.

Let’s do better in the future than we have in the past!

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

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

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

Trump’s Plan to Eliminate the Federal Income Tax: Why would any Sane Person Support It?

Former president and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has recently floated the idea of eliminating the federal income tax. At first glance, this could be seen as a popular plan. I don’t know anyone who enjoys paying income taxes. Nevertheless, sensible people know that we have to pay our bills, as families and as a nation. The federal government annually receives $2.4 trillion dollars from the collection of personal income taxes, about half of the government’s budget. Common sense reminds us that if you cut your income in half, you must increase your money intake in some other way. Trump claims the funding shortfall could be made up with tariffs on imported goods (see below). Government leaders, including prominent Republicans, have repudiated Trump’s plan while others have suggested that Trump was just “kidding”. Trump responded in his recent interview with Joe Rogan on Friday that he was quite serious about his plan.

It is important for us to remember that during Trump’s presidency (2017-2021), the national debt increased by $7.8 trillion dollars, the largest increase in our country’s history! His idea of raising money by 10-20% tariffs on foreign goods is also quite flawed. Foreign companies and countries would not pay a penny to the U.S. government. The tariffs would be a “sales tax” paid for by U.S. importers who would pass on the higher costs to U.S. consumers! In addition, other countries might retaliate and impose their own tariffs on U.S. products, and thereby hurting companies in our nation.

His plan to implement massive deportation of immigrants is inhumane at a moral level. It is also economical lunacy. Many immigrants work for lower than a minimal wage. If they are deported, labor costs would dramatically increase, especially in the fields of construction, agriculture, and food services. Inflation would skyrocket.

23 winners of the Nobel prize for economics recently wrote a letter to the U.S. public in which they stated, “While each of us has different views on the particulars of various economic policies, we believe that, overall, Harris’ economic agenda will improve our nation’s health, investment, sustainability, resilience, employment opportunities, and fairness and be vastly superior to the counterproductive economic agenda of Donald Trump.”

We must also remember that many of his businesses (like Trump University) have failed. He has declared bankruptcy multiple times. He has also been found guilty of cheating on his payment of state and federal taxes.

Given this massive quantity of evidence, why would anyone of sound mind trust Trump with our nation’s economy? There might be some reasons for voting for Trump (although his lying, womanizing, felonies, racism, bullying, etc., disqualify him according to my conscience), his economic strategy is horrible,