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:

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?
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.
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.
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.
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:

Herod the Great, like many politicians today, combined lies with false piety.
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.
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?

Trump and Democrats Drop To All Time Lows in Approval Ratings: What Should They Do?

According to the Gallop poll released last week, President Trump hit an all-time low in approval ratings. Only 37% of Americans approve of Trump’s performance in his second term. Even on his best issues (immigration, tariffs, national debt) his poll numbers are negative. As a political party, the Democrats find themselves in a similar situation. A Wall Street Journal poll shows that 63% of the American public view the Democrat party unfavorably (the Republicans polled slightly better). I don’t believe Trump and party leaders are suffering low ratings due to their moral righteousness or great policies. No, they are due to their ethical and political failures. Everyone needs a deep dose of repentance, a significant change in attitude and actions. I respectfully suggest the following areas that merit attention.

President Trump

Stop your lying – You have a troubled history with the truth. You dilute and distort it with multiple falsehoods. Some of your lies might play well with your base, but they are not true. For example, let’s look at your comments on tariffs. Tariffs are essentially taxes. You have frequently claimed that billions of dollars will flow into our country as foreign countries pay the cost of the tariffs/taxes. That is a lie. Foreign countries do not pay the tariffs that the U.S. government charges on imported goods. Foreign companies do not pay the tariffs. U.S. companies (think Walmart) pay the money. This is an additional cost added to the product. Walmart might absorb some of this cost, but to maintain their profits they need to pass on the major part of these costs to the consumer. (Even my beloved Hershey‘s Chocolate has recently announced a double digit increase in their prices.) Let me summarize. Mr. Trump, neither foreign countries nor foreign companies pay for your tariffs/taxes. American companies and we, the consumers, pay these taxes. Stop lying about your tariffs.

Some of your lies are just plain weird. Two weeks ago, you told a story about your uncle, John Trump. He was a beloved professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). That part is true, but then you fabricated a tall tale that linked your uncle with the late terrorist Theodore “Ted” Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber. You claimed that your uncle taught Kaczynski at MIT and that he told you Kaczynski was a good, although arrogant student. The truth is that your uncle died in 1985 and Kaczynski was not publicly revealed as the Unabomber until 1996. In addition, there is no record of Kaczynski ever studying at MIT. Your fluid movement from reality into delusion seems to be a psychological/mental liability rather than an asset. I suggest you get help to stop these delusions.

Admit your mistakes – We all make mistakes because “to err is human”. Many people have difficulty in accepting responsibility for their actions, but you seem to have a lot of trouble in acknowledging your mistakes. Given the power of the presidency, your mistakes are amplified and can cause great harm to millions of people. For example, you promised to cut waste and fraud from the federal government, but Elon Musk/DOGE used a chainsaw instead of the necessary scalpel. The gutting of USAID, with the resulting stoppage of medicine shipments and the rotting of food at ports around the world, has caused the premature deaths of tens of thousands of women and children. Hundreds of essential federal workers (ex. meteorologists) have been fired which increased the loss of life in the recent floods in Texas. Mr. President, be mature enough to take ownership of your decisions and these tragic results.

Mr. Trump, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t take credit for the positive aspects of the economy and, at the same time, blame Biden or Powell for the negative results. Six months into your presidency, you “own” this economy. If inflation continues to rise, you are responsible.

Your initial evaluation of people (both friends and foes) has been quite flawed. That is why you fired a record number of cabinet members during your first term in office. Your current cabinet has people who are woefully unqualified (like Hegseth and Gabbard). You praised the Russian “president” Putin for being an honorable, strong leader. What a naïve, horrible opinion! You should have listened to Marco Rubio who denounced Putin as a tyrannical authoritarian with the blood of thousands of Ukrainians on his hands. Mr. President, acknowledge your naïve mistake, and use economic sanctions to bring about a just, lasting peace in Ukraine.

Democrats

Learn from your mistakes – It was not so much that Trump won the 2024 presidential election (with under 50% of the vote), but that the Democrats lost it. By and large, Democrats went too far in emphasizing gender issues at the expense of bread-and-butter economic topics. Take for example, the issue of trans women competing in girls/women sports. Many Democrats felt they had to defend the trans women even though they knew they had an unfair advantage in body size, strength and speed over “biological women”. Many voters were persuaded more by “what is fair” than by “what is politically correct”. Democrats need to relearn the wisdom of the old advice, “it’s the economy, stupid”. For the 2026 mid-term elections there are many economic issues that are of vital importance to voters due to the one Big Beautiful Bill: 10 million Americans will lose their health insurance, hundreds of rural medical clinics and hospitals will close, and food will be taken away from mothers and children. This will done in order to transfer funds from the poor and middle classes to the wealthy. Democrats, raise your voice for those who have no voice!
Make unlikely alliances to defend freedom and democracy – As the old adage affirms, politics makes “strange bedfellows”. Marjorie Taylor Greene is not my favorite kind of politician. She is an inconsistent, extremist firebrand who says weird stuff that I do not share. Nevertheless, she does have guts. Recently, she had the courage to denounce Israel’s actions in Gaza for what they truly are: genocide. She uncovered Netanyahu for who he really is: a politician with blood on his hands who has used war to in a failed attempt to bolster his sagging poll numbers among voters in Israel. Democrats, work with MTG to stop starvation in Gaza. Work across the aisle to apply economic sanctions on the murderous Putin. Work with Republican MAGA representatives in order to bring transparency to the Epstein case and to bring justice to those young women who were victimized in his sex trafficking atrocities (and by his friends, regardless of how important they might be).

We the People

We need to promote the truth, whatever the cost – more than pledging “loyalty” to a political party, or even to a president, we need to be people of the truth who seek the common good. May we rise to the challenge of this high civic calling.

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.

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!