Trump’s “Yes Men” and “Yes Women” Are Not Serving the President Well

The President of the United States, as well as many other persons in authority (presidents of organizations, CEOs, etc.) frequently choose people to surround them as advisors and members of their cabinets. These advisors are often selected because they will tell the president what he WANTS to hear, not what he NEEDS to hear. The Good Book offers some valuable, albeit unexpected, advice on the quality most needed in advisors: truth telling. We are to stop telling falsehoods and to start speaking the truth to each other (Ephesians 4:25) in all areas of life, including saying tough truths to elected officials of one’s own party. The Book of Proverbs in the Hebrew Scriptures tell us, “You can trust a friend who corrects you, but kisses from an enemy are nothing but lies.” (27:6) Being corrected is not fun. It hurts…our pride at least. But it can restore us to the right path. A good friend tells us what we NEED to hear, even when we don’t like it.

If President Trump has any good friends, surely they should be found within his closest advisors (Vice President Vance, Marco Rubio and the rest of his Cabinet, House Speaker Johnson, MAGA leaders, etc.). In this brief post, I ask where are Trump’s advisors regarding the war with Iran and regarding his arrogant actions of vanity. If he has any good friends, they seem to be AWOL.

The War with Iran

During his election campaign, candidate Trump made some important promises. He pledged to not take us into any new war, especially an “endless” war in the Middle East. Many voters agreed with this new kind of “peace” Republican candidate. Trump broke his promise. Three months ago, together with Israel, our junior partner, Trump launched a war against Iran. There was no imminent threat. It was a war of choice. A few MAGA celebrities (like Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene) tried to remind the president of his broken promise. World leaders, including the Pope and NATO allies, attempted to speak truth into the ears of the president, but he would not listen. It is reported that VP Vance tried to persuade Trump not to go to war with Iran, but it looks like he did not try hard enough. The voices of the “yes men” (like Hegseth) were too loud. Did any in his cabinet anticipate the Iranian closure of the vital Strait of Hormuz? If so, they didn’t speak up. Did anyone anticipate that NATO allies would pursue their own national interests? Did we consult with them before we went to war? No. Did anyone tell Trump that military superiority does not necessarily mean winning the war. No. Did anyone seek a declaration of war from Congress? No.

The war is not going well, in spite of the cheerleading Hegseth. It took years for the American people to finally disapprove of the wars in Viet Nam and Iraq. It has taken less than three months for Americans to come to the same realization about this war with Iran. Although Trump, as Commander-in-Chief, is ultimately responsible for taking us into a misguided war, he should have selected truth-tellers for his advisors, not lying sycophants.

Vanity of Vanities

A vast majority of Americans, including those who support Trump, acknowledge that the president is a very vain person. It is reported that he considers himself in the company of the greatest rulers of human history: Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Napoleon. It is no wonder that some of his presidential actions have nothing to do with national security or economic affordability and everything to do with his own vanity…and these actions are not popular with the U.S. people.

The president has proposed the construction of a 250-foot-tall arch to be located at Memorial Circle, near the entrance to Arlington National Cemetery, at the other end of the Arlington Memorial Bridge. The arch would be more than twice as tall as the Lincoln Memorial. Trump bragged, “I’d like it to be the biggest [arch] of all,” even larger than the 164-foot-tall Arc De Triomphe in Paris. Only 21% of Americans support the construction of the arch, whereas 52% oppose it, with the remainder being unsure.

Back in July 2025, Trump announced the construction of a 90,000-square-foot ballroom off the East Wing of the White House and promised “it won’t interfere with the current building.” By October, demolition started on the century old structure. The ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll finds that more than half of Americans, 56%, oppose tearing down the East Wing to make way for a ballroom, with 28% in support and 15% unsure.

Two months ago, the U.S. Treasury Department announced that President Trump’s infamous signature would appear on future U.S. currency. This would be a first for a sitting president, as no previous U.S. president’s name has ever appeared on money. North Americans oppose printing Trump’s signature on paper money instead of the treasury secretary’s by a wider margin than either the ballroom or the arch: 68% oppose it while just 12% support it. Another 19% say they aren’t sure.

If these initiatives are designed to contribute to the president’s lasting legacy, they are not working. They reveal the illusions of grandeur of a “little man” or worse, a person whose mental capacities are sliding off the rails.

Where are Trump’s true friends who should tell him such actions are not appropriate of a great statesman? Perhaps, he doesn’t have such friends who will speak the truth to him. At the very least, there are Republican pollsters who make their living by interpreting the polls. Where are they when Trump needs them?

Mr. President, remove the liars from your Cabinet and replace them with persons who will tell you the truth.

Pope Leo and Secretary Hegseth on Christianity and War: Which One is Closer to Jesus?

In the last several days, the Christian faith has been appealed to as a major motivation for the War with Iran. Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth sees the war against Iran as a conflict between Islam and Christianity. In a recent briefing at the Pentagon, Hegseth quoted a verse from Psalm 144: “Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle.” This is in line with his Christian Nationalism, a defective version of Christianity. I believe that this nationalism is a distortion of the gospel message because it conflates the teaching of Jesus with the goals of national or international governments. It is a heresy. It began to permeate Christendom with the “conversion” of Constantine and has reappeared at various times in history (the Crusades,[i] the Spanish Inquisition, the conquest of the Americas, Manifest Destiny, Nazi Germany, and on and on). It is a betrayal of the message that Jesus taught and demonstrated. Jesus taught love for our enemies, not hatred. He told his disciples not to take revenge against their rivals, he told Peter to put away his sword, for those who live by the sword will die by the sword. He taught that “an eye for an eye” should give way to generous love. (Matthew 5:38-42).

Pope Leo XIV waded into the public debate in his Palm Sunday mass: “Brothers and sisters, this is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war,” Leo said. “He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them.” In a special blessing at the end of Mass, Leo said he was praying especially for Christian believers in the Middle East who are “suffering the consequences of an atrocious conflict. In many cases, they cannot live fully the rites of these holy days.”

Although I strive to follow Jesus, I am not a Roman Catholic. Nevertheless, I think Leo XIV was right on in what he says about Jesus and war. Jesus never approved of war in the Gospels. Our Lord denounced the “rulers of this world” who committed great evil yet claimed it was good. We are NOT to follow their example. (Luke 22:25-26). Jesus showed his followers a better way. The early church sought to be peacemakers and denounced war as an expression of greed. For the first three centuries, up until the time of Constantine, the church was almost universally pacifistic. They affirmed they would die for their faith, but they would not kill for it.i

Some have tried to harmonize Christianity with war through Just War Theory, a series of criteria that must be met before a war is “justified”. The war against Iran utterly fails to meet these criteria: (1) freedom for the Iranian people could be a “Just Cause” but this goal was quickly abandoned; (2) “Formal Declaration” was not met because Congress never gave the legally required authorization nor did the United Nations; (3) “Civii[an Immunity” was not respected as shown by the bombing of the girls’ school in which over 150 little girls were killed; and (4) “last resort” was not followed as the United States broke off the diplomatic negotiations that Trump himself had labeled as fruitful.

Therefore, during this Holy Week, I invite those who claim the name of Jesus for war to reread the Gospels to see what it means to follow the Prince of Peace.

[i] Decades ago, Wheaton College (a conservative Christian academic institution) eliminated the Crusader as their mascot, rightfully deeming it a bad symbol for Christianity. Campus Crusade for Christ eliminated “Crusade” from their name for the same reason. Secretary Hegseth has two Crusade tattoos on his body.

Trump’s War with Iran and End Game Options: They are Quickly Slipping Away

Trump’s war with Iran has now passed the two-week mark. The U.S./Israeli military dominance has been quite evident, as expected, and they now virtually control the airspace over Iran. Although the United States has taken out many of Iran’s ballistic missile launching sites, the Iranian forces have proven to be resilient. Through their use of mines, they have essentially stopped the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. Gasoline prices in the U.S. have risen by more than 60 cents a gallon, and the international price of Brent crude oil has soared to over $100 a barrel. This war has not been very popular in the United States with only about 40% of Americans in favor of it (this is the lowest rate for conflicts in the last eighty years). This has been due, in part, to contradictory reasons for the war that the White House has offered: regime change, the fear of imminent attacks, human right violations, the threat of developing nuclear weapons, etc.

Secretary of Defense Hegseth has claimed the end of the war will depend on President Trump, who has confirmed this by saying “it will end when I feel it in my bones”. Nevertheless, the presidential options are quickly diminishing, There are essentially three exit strategies. (1) A negotiated peace in which each side “saves face” by agreeing to commitments they probably won’t keep. Given that Trump has demanded “unconditional surrender”, his pursuing this option is quite unlikely. (2) Trump could declare “victory’ and then just walk away. This end game has taken place in previous military conflicts, but here it would have quite negative results. Oil production and the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz would still be reduced for months or even years, and could lead to a worldwide recession. Russia would be the “winner” due to increased oil revenue. In addition, Iran would also continue to control their nuclear stockpiles. Or (3) the conflict drags on, requires the presence of U.S. “boots on the ground”, and turns into an “endless war’ that Trump campaigned against. His MAGA base could possibly abandon him and he might not finish his term in office.

Trump is largely responsible for these reduced options. Blinded by his quick “success” in Venezuela, he was too proud to pay attention to the advice of his intelligence community, which warned against going to war with Iran. This was a war of choice, not of necessity. He did not seek nor did he obtain war authorization from Congress which is required by the Constitution. And he still hasn’t addressed the American people on why we needed to go to war. When oil prices skyrocketed up, he shrugged it off and said this would bring in more revenue to the U.S. Treasury, given that we are net exporters of oil. Perhaps the most damaging has been his nonchalant attitude towards the death of thirteen American soldiers, of at least 1300 civilians killed in Iran, including the 150+ little Iranian girls killed in the U.S. attack on their elementary school. At first, Trump denied it was an American attack, but then grudgingly admitted it. His comment, “people get killed in wars”, shows a lack of basic human compassion.

The Good Book says that pride goes before a fall. May the president humble himself before he causes the deaths of even more people. Although the off ramps are negative, it is time to end this war of choice.

The War with Iran: Trump 1.0 vs Trump 2.0. Which Version Should We Believe?

Donald Trump 1.0, before his second presidency which began in January, 2025, held a radically different position regarding the United States and potential wars than he (Trump 2.0) has held during the first thirteen months of his second term in the White House.

When President Trump was on the campaign trail in 2015/2016, 2020 and 2024, he repeatedly claimed:

He had always opposed the war in Iraq.
Therefore, he would never lead our country into another “endless” war, especially in the Middle East.
Wars with the goal of achieving regime change were incredibly “naïve, dumb, and reckless”.

During his first presidency, Trump largely kept his promise regarding wars. His second term has been just the opposite. He has ordered military strikes on seven countries around the globe (eight, if we count the attack yesterday on Ecuador). Those nations are Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Venezuela and Nigeria. He has not asked for nor received Congressional authorization for those military operations (our Constitution gives the Congress the responsibility to declare war).

These facts raise the obvious question: which version should we believe, Trump 1.0 or 2.0? The current war with Iran is particularly difficult because a variety of conflicting goals have been offered by the White House.

Secretary Hegseth affirmed the war was not about “regime change” although he said the “regime has changed” and Trump 2.0 told the Iranian opposition to rise up and take over their government, because “we have your back”.
Trump 2.0 stated a goal was to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapon and ballistic missile capability, but Trump already “obliterated” their nuclear stockpile in June 2025, right?
Trump 2.0 affirmed another goal was to take out Iran’s current and future leadership. This is a long-term proposal and sure sounds like “regime change” to me.
Trump 2.0 said another goal was to destroy Iran’s navy, although this goal was not even mentioned in the first days of the war.
House Speaker Mike Johnson had a more difficult task. He knows that legally it is Congress that declares “war”. So, although Trump 2.0 and Secretary Hegseth have repeatedly referred to our operations in Iran as “war”, Johnson has called them merely a “military operation” which would not violate the Constitution. This war is war, regardless of Johnson’s semantic tricks. A war by any other name is still a war.

One of the biggest problems is that Trump 2.0 has not even sketched out an “end game”. There are two basic options. Either he leaves a functioning government in place (nation building and boots on the ground) or the US leaves Iran with a leadership vacuum that falls into civil war in the nation and a spiraling out of control war in the region.

A thousand deaths have already taken place in Iran, including more than 150 girls and teachers from an elementary school. Each human being is precious and killing innocent girls is criminal.

Even before he ran for the political office, Trump knew that some presidents launch wars to unite our country in support of a failing presidency. In October 2012, weeks before Obama was re-elected, Trump falsely predicted, “Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin — watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate”. Given that Trump’s current approval rate is lower than Obama’s ever was, is Trump’s war in Iran a last-ditch attempt to save the legacy of a failing, desperate president?

How do we square Trump 1.0 with the 2.0 version? It cannot be done. Staunch Trump supporters have become some of his most vocal critics. Tucker Carlson gets the last word about this war: “it is disgusting and evil!”

Trump’s Troops Capture Venezuelan President Maduro. Does Might Make Right?

Overnight, U.S. troops entered Venezuela and captured President Nicolas Maduro and his wife and flew them out of the country under U.S. custody. They are to stand trial in the United States. This military maneuver came as a surprise to many, both inside and outside of Venezuela. Civilians died, but the number of deaths is still unknown. There is no doubt that this attack reveals U.S. military supremacy, but that is not the major issue. The main question that must be answered is the following: “Does might make right?”. All major ethical systems would answer with a clear “No!”

Let’s be clear. Maduro was a thug. Although he had previously been elected President of his country, it also seems quite evident that he stole the most recent election. His Vice-President Delcy Rodriguez has claimed that she is running the country according to the Venezuelan Constitution. Some of the opposition affirm that it should be Edmundo Gonzalez who really won the election. Others suggest it should be Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado. It remains to be seen who the Venezuelan generals will support. It is likely there will be fighting in the streets with many deaths. My hope and prayer are that the Venezuelan people will determine their own national destiny.

Nevertheless, I raise serious questions for the Trump administration.

According to the U.S. Constitution, Congress must authorize acts of warfare. Trump did not seek nor obtain this authorization. Neither did he even inform the bipartisan “Gang of 8” before the attack. Article 2 of the Constitution is an exception which grants limited war power to the President but only if U.S. personnel are under “actual or imminent” attack. Under no stretch of the imagination was this condition met.
Trump did not appeal to the United Nations for authorization. In fact, the President of Colombia has already asked the UN Security Council to intervene. Will the U.S. (a founding member of the UN) even acknowledge that it violated the UN charter?
Trump gave a campaign promise that he would not take our country into war, especially to bring about “regime change”. Hegseth and Rubio made the same promise to our Congress last month. Trump does not seem to understand the complexities of Venezuela’s internal polarization. Does he have any clue about the “day after”. Did candidate Trump lie to his MAGA base?
Just War Theory affirms that wars should never be waged in order to obtain the natural resources of another country. Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves. To what extent has this oil motivated Trump’s military attack?
According to the polls, Trump is the most unpopular president of the last hundred years. Over 60% of Americans disagree with his policies on the economy, health care, ICE detentions, and tariffs. Does he hope our people will rally around a president at war with a “cheap patriotism? A genuine love for one’s country seeks truth, justice, the rule of law and peace that comes from national righteousness.

I ask all people of good will to ask and answer these tough, but necessary questions. “Might makes right” is an immoral heresy that should be rejected.

Ukraine Again: An Evil Dictator (Putin), a Weak President (Trump) and No End to the War

On Sunday Ukrainian President Zelensky met with President Trump at Mar-a-Lago to discuss steps to end the four year old war by Putin’s Russia on its weaker neighbor. Both Trump and Zelensky claimed that “progress” had been made. Even while negotiations were going on, Putin was continuing the bombing of civilian areas in Ukraine. Trump then talked to Putin by phone and affirmed the strange claim that Putin wanted Ukraine to “succeed”. Later, Putin alleged that Ukraine sent drone strikes at one of his personal residences in Russia. Trump became very angry when he heard about these strikes, although he did admit that these strikes could be fictitious.

You probably see many holes in this narrative…and rightly you should. We have seen this script acted out (with a few variations) for four long years. We have been on a roller coaster ride of ups and downs where hopes of a peace are raised and then dashed to pieces…again and again. I am tired of hearing the same lies over and over. Let’s shine the light of truth on two specific individuals.

Putin is an evil aggressor who invaded Ukraine. He is guilty of war crimes. He is not a man of peace. And in no way does he want Ukraine to succeed. He claims he wants peace but he does not sit down with Zelensky to have genuine negotiations. His demands for concessions (land, no NATO membership or protection for Ukraine) are ridiculous that none of us would accept. An honest appraisal of Putin would conclude that he has “played” the White House and continues to do so.
Although Trump likes to bully his rivals and subordinates, in fact, he is a weak president. He has never stood up to Putin (nor to any other authoritarian leader like China’s Xi). He praises Putin at every turn. “Putin did not start this war,” “Putin wants to end this war,” and “Putin is a man of peace.” Nevertheless, we have seen the evidence. Putin will never end this war because of any supposed “goodness” in his heart. He will only agree to a peace deal when war becomes too costly. Economic sanctions need to be levied against Putin until he is forced to negotiate. Mr. Trump, don’t blame our European allies. Work with them to apply economic pressure upon Putin. Do not enable him any longer. In short, become a true leader.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I Applaud President Trump for (Finally) Waking Up and Seeing the Evil of Putin

During his first term, Donald Trump and Russian “President” Vladimir Putin had a relationship of mutual praise. Trump admired Putin for being a “strong leader”. Trump justified Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, by asserting that Biden’s weakness had, in effect, “invited” Putin to invade. Trump lamented the loss of life in the war in Ukraine and campaigned that he would end the war on “Day One” by bringing Putin to negotiations. Regarding Putin, Trump affirmed five months ago, “I believe he wants peace, I mean, I know him very well. Yeah, I think he wants peace.… I trust him on this subject.”

Even though Trump’s envoys favored Russia in the preliminary peace talks and Trump humiliated Ukraine’s President Zelensky in their White House meeting, Putin didn’t cooperate in good faith. Although Putin said he wanted peace, what he really wanted was to take over control of all of Ukraine. In an unguarded moment, Trump admitted he was getting “played” by Putin. Something significantly changed a few weeks ago. Trump started to wake up. He began to see Putin for who he really was: a murdering tyrant and an aggressor. In a press conference, Trump was asked a question by a female reporter. Noting her accent, he asked her where she was from. She replied, “Ukraine”. She added that her husband was still in their home country. Remarkably, Trump seemed to show sincere empathy for her situation. He began to perceive the tragic reality about Putin that many saw a decade ago. Did Marco Rubio whisper the truth into his ear? Maybe.

After days of expressing anger with his latest phone call with Putin, Trump erupted at a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday. He said, “We get a lot of bullsh*t thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth. He’s very nice all of the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.” There’s a bill going through the Senate that would apply economic sanctions on Russia that has the overwhelming support of Republicans and Democrats. The president seems to like the bill as long as it doesn’t tie his hands.

Where should we put the emphasis? That Trump woke up to the truth regarding the evil of Putin OR that it took him so long to wake up? I am just glad that he seems to be awake now. Perhaps we are a bit closer to peace in Ukraine. PS. On Monday, Trump will give a major address on Russia.