MORAL AND FINANCIAL COST OF WAR

People are outraged, confused, incredulous, perplexed, and demoralized. They are feeling helpless because they are unable stop the administration from waging the president's senseless, calamitous conflict with Iran. President Trump and key cabinet members make a point of insisting that our military incursion into Iran should be described as alternatively either a full fledged war or as something else, more euphemistically palatable. Although we constitutionally are not officially at war, because only Congress has the power to declare war, the consequences of our invasion point decisively at war-time activity. Furthermore, under international law and rules of warfare, a military attack is only recognized and legally justified as an act of self defense against armed aggression, or when authorized by the U.N. Security Council. A legitimate objective of warfare must be to stop a major wrong, defend the innocent, push back invaders, or restore peace - not to gain land, economic advantage, power or be used as a diversion from an uncomfortable preoccupation with domestic politically damaging issues. So, constitutionally, internationally, and certainly morally, this war ought to be considered illegal. President Trump continues to depict the conflict as a military action that is "small potatoes." His justification remains that "Epic Fury," as the conflict has been branded, was necessary as a preemptive action to insure that Iran would never be able to obtain a nuclear weapon capable of threatening Israel or U.S. cities, even though he claimed in 2025 , after completing operation "Midnight Hammer," that this specific objective had already been accomplished. While politically the introduction of confusing language may convince some that the action remains minimal and short of war, for the vast majority of our population the consequences of aggressively perpetuating this conflict, now in its 6th month, are inescapable. Trump's casual, callous comment dismissing the ongoing military conflict with Iran as "small potatoes" and "not a big thing for the United States," as he did during an Oval Office exchange earlier this month, won't sit well with families directly affected by the 18 U.S. military fatalities and 800 plus wounded service members resulting from the conflict thus far. According to the Pentagon each casualty affects at least 10 immediate family members, which does not even include friends, neighbors and other associated individuals. Add to these between 3,400 and 6,000 Iranian casualties, including 1,400 civilians, and the extent of the calamity already resulting from this senseless, unjustified and unnecessary war becomes clear. Not a big thing? Small potatoes? Aside from the growing human cost, the economic repercussions are rapidly increasing and threatening to get out of control as well. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that since the war started on February 28, its price tag already totaled $43.6 billion, and is increasing by $3 billion a month. Others have estimated the cost to be closer to $100 billion. In addition, the expense of replacing munitions has reached $21.6 billion, spread out over missile defense interceptors, cruise missiles and other munitions. Rebuilding these supplies could, reportedly, take five years, and might leave us in an uncomfortably weak defensive position. According to Brown University's Climate Solutions Lab, the added fuel cost for U.S. families already hit $100 billion, while, according to the CBO, inflation will at least increase by 0.5%. All said, to pay for the war, each household should expect to see their annual expenses minimally increase by $1200. This figure includes direct energy price hikes, transportation inflation, higher borrowing costs and military spending burdens. Trump insists that this is an "inexpensive price to pay" for his "relatively little war." In an attempt to minimize the apparent cost, he likes to compare the expense of his war with what we spent on Vietnam during the 8 years of our combat presence in that country. Between 1965 and 1973 we spent $168 billion on that conflict, which amounted to approximately $2 billion per month. This compares to the $7 billion we are currently spending each month. Recognizing significant budgetary shortcomings, the Defense Department has already requested Congress to provide it with an all time high $1.5 trillion military budget, which include an additional $95 billion for the war. Again - small potatoes? The numbers don't lie. We will all be confronted by the economic consequences of this military conflict. Some of us will doubtlessly even experience much more dire, personally devastating, outcomes. President Trump may continue to adjust his rhetoric to mask shifting strategic realities, manage domestic political fall-out and redefine unmet military objectives as victories, while moving between demanding unconditional surrender and striking a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Many, if not most of us will continue to wonder: "why?" What are we getting out of this senseless, illegitimate, morally and economically deficient show of bravado? Midterm elections are fewer than 50 days away. A great time to raise these questions and confront our outrage, incredulity and feeling of impotence. Theo Wierdsma

RASPUTIN RESURFACES

During an interview with the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph in August of 2025, Laura Loomer, one of President Trump's fan based advisors discussed her growing informal influence inside political circles and staff decisions. She proudly intimated that one of her friends had commented that she sounded like Trump's Rasputin, confessing that she "somewhat embraced the comparison regarding her impact." The reference points to Gregori Rasputin, the controversial Russian mystic who held immense influence over Tsar Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra during the final years of the Russian Empire. Laura Loomer is one of a few powerful, close, informal, unelected advisors guiding President Trump's administration and staffing decisions. She is a far-right political activist, social media influencer and on-line provocateur known for spreading conspiracy theories (including claims about 9/11) and anti-Muslim rhetoric with frequent access to the West Wing. She holds no official government function, but she considers herself a purity or loyalty enforcer. She has been involved in the removal of numerous staff members and official actions across various federal agencies. Another informal advisor whose ubiquitous presence by Trump's side who has been conspicuous and raising questions is Natalie Harp. Harp acts as a deeply loyal aide who works out of the Oval Office as Special Assistant to the President. She facilitates day-to-day interactions, and travels with the president. She has a regular seat on Marine One. She was one of the lucky few joining Trump inside a catering container to be whisked out of Turkey under threat of attack by Iran. In the book "Regime Change" Trump was quoted to assert that "she is the only one who loves me as much as my wife." She regularly signs her letters to the president "with all my heart, Natalie." Encouraged by their, presumably unsolicited, fan club like behavior, Trump's female confidants have rankled supporters and opponents alike. Political leaders frequently rely on advise from informal consultants. To a surprising degree they often rely on the advice of unelected, unaccountable and sometimes shady individuals who could decisively shape their ideas and direct their actions. John Adams' wife Abigail reportedly gave her husband a massive amount of political, moral and domestic advice throughout their lives; President Andrew Jackson had his Kitchen Cabinet, composed of an informal group of trusted friends, journalists and political allies who advised him from 1829 to 1837; Woodrow Wilson had Colonel House; Nancy Reagan acquired astrologer Joan Quigley, hiring her to influence President Reagan's travel and meetings schedule; Hitler had Eva Braun; Mao Zedong had Zhang Yufeng; Francisco Franco relied on Admiral Luis Garrerro Blanco; Putin depends on Vladislav Surkov, "The Grey Cardinal of the Kremlin", and so on. While official cabinets and staff provide structured, formal policy advice, informal networks offer agility, a direct pulse on the electorate, candid feedback and unfiltered advice. Nonetheless, academics like Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, Senior Associate Dean for Leadership Studies, and Steven Tian, Director of Research at the Yale School of Management are quick to caution us about increasingly more powerful unofficial advisors. Leaders are often outmaneuvered by their own trusted advisors as the leader becomes increasingly reliant on those subordinates. Close consultants might get giddy with power and lose the focus of their mission. An example of this happening would be the French Revolution, which morphed from a democratic movement to the "Reign of Terror" which led to the execution of more than 17,000 people. And some advisors might feel enticed by rapacious self-gain and profiteering under the guise of reform. Aside from these significant concerns, "Rasputin" seems to have made his reappearance in plays, songs and in stories recounting the mysticism surrounding this historical figure. A question that seems to keep popping up during relevant discussions is: "Is Rasputin's curse also alive again?" The curse refers to the famous legend that the Russian mystic predicted the violent fall and execution of the Romanov royal family shortly before his assassination in December 1916 ... Some things to consider. Theo Wierdsma

CLIMATE CHANGE TURNS LETHAL

Daily newscasts have become powerfully redundant. Observers have to strain to ignore the impression that the world is on the cusp of rapidly disintegrating. Southern Europe, Northern and Western U.S. and Southern Canada are suffering from uncontrolled wildfires. This year alone, fire fighters have already responded to 48,000 wildfires that have burned more than 6.5 million acres across the country. In January, wildfires killed at least 31 people, destroyed more than 18,000 homes and structures, and burned more than 57,000 acres of land. During the past two decades the frequency and intensity of the most extreme wildfires more than doubled. By mid 2025 floods in Texas killed 137, with 117 of its inhabitants losing their life in Kerr County alone. Storms dumped an amount of water greater than the daily flow of Niagara Falls in just a few hours, raising the Guadalupe River by more than 20 feet. Extreme weather is becoming the new normal. Rising global temperatures add more energy and moisture to the atmosphere, turning once rare climatic events into frequent severe realities. Hurricanes are growing more powerful as global temperatures rise because these storm systems draw their energy from warm ocean water. Wildfires burn longer and wider, growing in size, ferocity and speed. Extremely hot temperatures are constantly rising. July this year logged the highest temperatures ever recorded in the U.S. Temperatures in Death Valley even reached 130 degrees in 2020 and 2021. According to the World Health Organization, an estimated 175,000 people die from heat related causes each year. The European Mortality Monitoring Network recorded around 16,000 excess deaths across multiple European countries in a single week. And the horrific statistics continue their destructive paths. Governments are facing a significant increase in loss of life, coupled with a tremendous drain on financial resources. Between 97% and 99% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that human activity is causing global climate change. Multiple peer reviewed studies examining scientific literature and direct surveys confirm this overwhelmingly global consensus. The World Health Organization estimates that between 2030 and 2050 climate change will result in 250,000 additional deaths each year from factors like heat stress, malnutrition and malaria. However, recent attribution research actually suggests that historical warming may have already killed millions, and that future projections run significantly higher. The World Economic Forum projects an additional 14.5 million deaths worldwide by 2050, driven directly by climate induced health crises, with flooding and droughts acting as primary triggers. The approximate cost related to damages from weather and climate disasters in the U.S. between 1980 and 2025 will reach $2.95 trillion - a burden our government is more than likely not ready for. Being unprepared to cope with predictable future disasters is not insignificantly influenced by an unhealthy skepticism of core climate science exhibited by a significant segment of our population. Roughly 35-40% are global warming skeptics, 14-15% of U.S. general public completely deny that global warming or climate change is happening, while 22-28% acknowledge that the planet is warming but reject that it is primarily due to human activity. (Center for Climate Change Communication - July 2025). The issue at stake is not science - the evidence is omnipresent - it is politics. The upper echelon of our government is deliberately spreading scientifically unsupported misinformation, presumably to protect the economic well being of stakeholders. Consequently, many efforts to remedy the predicted consequences will prove to be ineffective. In March of 2020,the United Nations published a list of myth busters about climate change. It is useful to reiterate these: 1. "Climate has always changed - this is natural." While earth's climate changed in the past, current warming happens in decades, instead of thousands of years. 2. "Scientists do not agree on global warming." Over 97% of climate scientists agree that human activities are heating the planet. 3. "Cold weather and snow disprove global warming." Weather is short term local conditions. Climate is long term average. 4. "Carbon dioxide is plant food, so more is good." Plants need CO2, but excess emissions trap heat and surpass what global plant life can absorb. 5. "The sun causes the earth to warm." Solar output shows minor cyclical changes that do not match the rapid temperature spike since the 1800s. 6. "A small temperature rise is harmless." Even a 1 to 1.5 degree Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) global change shifts weather systems, melts icecaps, and raises sea levels dangerously. 7. "Renewable energy is too expensive." Wind and solar power cost the same or less than fossil fuels in most of the world. 8. "Climate models are not reliable." Computer models accurately predict temperature trends and match decades of observations. 9. "Animals and plants can just adapt." Rapid habit changes outpace the survival and migration speed of many species, causing extinction. 10. "Too late to do anything, so why try?" Every fraction of a degree reduces damage. Cutting emissions now still protects future stability. As long as the veracity of climate change continues to remain disputable among stakeholders, chances are that governments will have difficulty reacting pro-actively to future disasters. British scientist Stephen Hawking, because he feared that humanity might not reverse environmental damage in time, published an unusual suggestion. He advocated for space exploration and colonizing other planets as an insurance policy for the human race. Theo Wierdsma

25TH AMENDMENT ASSUMES CENTER STAGE

At a July 8 NATO press conference President Trump claimed that the Islamic Republic of Japan had shot 111 missiles at aircraft carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. During that same press conference our president repeatedly referred to Ukraine President Zelensky as President Putin. These utterances were some of the more recent erratic comments by Mr. Trump that prompted a growing concern about his mental health, leading some to suggest that the time has come to invoke section 4 of the 25th Amendment of our Constitution and remove him from office. Mental health professionals and critics argue that the increasing incoherence and loss of impulse control exhibited by our president are signs of potential degeneration. Verbal missteps and rambling monologues have fueled ongoing debates. While some analysts attribute the changes to a long-standing, unique, rhetorical style that resonates with his base, experts in psychology and medicine have raised alarms over what they view as a clear deterioration in language skills, overall coherence, and exhibition of attention deficit disorder. More than 70,000 mental health professionals signed petitions and open letters organized by groups like "Duty to Warn" warning about Donald Trump's psychological fitness and potential dangerousness. This movement has run parallel to smaller, focused statements by senior medical experts submitting formal warnings to Congress. (Psychology Today, Nov 17, 2025). A group of 30 senior doctors specializing in psychiatry or mental health entered a letter into the Congressional Record on April 30 of this year, entitled: "Medical concerns about President Donald J. Trump and his fitness for office." They argue that the president is mentally unfit, showing signs of cognitive decline and should be removed from office. And, as far back as 2017, Bandy X. Lee, a forensic psychiatrist, violence expert and president of the World Mental Health Coalition, edited a book containing essays by 27 psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health professionals describing the "clear and present danger" that President Trump's mental health poses to the "nation and individual well being." They generally observed a distinct shift from concise, logical speech to rambling tangential digressions, including a linguistic and cognitive decline indicating various exhibitions aligned with a variety of forms of Alzheimer's or dementia. While for many invoking the 25th Amendment of our Constitution appears to be a rational, albeit political resolution of this fairly well documented problem, its application is neither simple nor universally endorsed. Section 4 of the Amendment stipulates that "If the Vice President and a majority of the President's cabinet believe the president is physically or mentally unfit to do their job, they can inform Congress in writing, immediately making the V.P. the "Acting President." If the president disagrees, they can attempt to take their power back, but Congress has the final say. Given the current composition of Mr. Trump's cabinet, this maneuver does not appear viable. In fact, it has never been used successfully. Over the years, numerous resolutions have been introduced to mandate a procedure for medically and psychiatrically evaluating a president who is suspected of being unfit to perform their duties. However, none of these attempts have been successful. In general, psychologists and mental health professionals remain deeply divided over Donald Trump. While many experts point to traits aligning with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), and some have organized petitions arguing that his behavior poses a threat, other prominent professionals vehemently disagree. They contend that evaluating public figures from afar violates the American Psychiatric Association's "Goldwater rule," a guideline enjoining psychiatrists from professionally diagnosing someone they have not personally evaluated. They contend that political action should be addressed through the ballot box rather than through psychiatric diagnoses. (Psychology Today). Theo Wierdsma

REVIVING RED SCARE RHETORIC

More than three decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, a U.S. president is again casting the threat of Communism as one of the biggest issues facing American voters. At rallies and campaign-style speeches across the country this summer, President Donald Trump is increasingly portraying Democrats as Communists, betting that his message will sharpen the ideological contrast heading into November's midterm elections. Even though polls continue to show that voters remain mostly concerned about the economy, the cost of living, and Mr. Trump's aggressive military posture internationally, most recently displayed during his unabating war with Iran, Republican strategists consider these losing electoral issues for the party. Some are beginning to see recent primary victories of young Democratic Socialists as an opportunity to transition the narrative equating Democrats, Democratic Socialist and essentially everybody contesting MAGA rule as Communists and reviving the Red Scare propaganda which dominated much of the political propaganda during the 20th century. The "Red Scare" was a deliberate government and media campaign used during the early 20th century and the Cold War to stoke an intense fear of Communist subversion. By portraying leftists, labor organizers, and minorities as threats, it fueled widespread xenophobia and mass civil liberties violations. The first Red Scare (1917-1920) was triggered by World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution. It demonized striking workers and immigrants, connecting legitimate labor struggles with "radical terrorism as threats to American society" incited by foreign agents. The government capitalized on these fears by passing the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, legally n in B criminalizing disloyal or anti-war speech. Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer used this climate to conduct the "Palmer raids," arresting and deporting thousands of suspected radicals without warrants. Following World War II, the rise of the Soviet Union and the Cold War, anti-Communist fear reached a fever pitch, resulting in what is commonly called as McCarthyism. Congressional committees like the "House Un-American Activities Committee interrogated writers, actors, and directors. Publications like "Red Channels" essentially destroyed careers by accusing hundreds of professionals of harboring pro-Soviet sympathies - often without evidence. Faced with potentially devastating electoral outcomes as the result of the upcoming November elections, President Trump took a page from the politically successful "Red Scare" campaigns of the 20th century, and revived its rhetoric by framing the political landscape as an apocalyptic battle between "common sense" and "hardcore, godless Communists." This strategy aims to rally his conservative base ahead of the mid-terms and combat progressive Democratic - Socialist victories. He has equated Democrats to Communists, conflating mainstream Democratic policies with Marxism, while portraying left-wing extremism as an existential threat to the American way of life. In his Independence Day speech at Mount Rushmore he actually made the point that "the Communist menace is a mortal threat to liberty. A person cannot be a Communist and a patriot." It is a fact that, recently, Democratic Socialist candidates have significantly increased their representation in our electoral politics. Candidates endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) have won 35 primary elections so far this year, building on 250 DSA members holding elected public office across 40 states. The organization reached 120,000 dues paying members, marking the largest Socialist organization in U.S. history, surpassing the Socialist Party of America's 1912 peak. However, equating the organization and the Democratic Party with being Communist, and labeling them existential threats to American values smacks of empty revisionism. Communism as a political force no longer has the electoral pull it once had. Even in generally more receptive European countries its strength currently registers in the low single digits. President Trump's empty rhetoric can't be described as anything more than campaign propaganda designed to revitalize a fear palpable during much of the last century. It can no longer point to viable existential threats we ought to be concerned about. In reality his new campaign amounts to a "Hail Mary" pass, containing manipulative, hollow language created to bypass critical thinking and trigger strong emotional responses. We won't know until November 3 if his approach is successful. Some of his Republican followers might well be persuaded to overlook the substantive foundation of what they are asked to believe. For the rest of us, be aware! Empty propagandistic rhetoric has a proven, often successful, track record. Theo Wierdsma

FIFA AND PATRIOTISM ON FULL DISPLAY

With the 4th of July and our nation's 250th anniversary right around the corner, tradition dictates that we will erupt in patriotic fervor. However, given our increasingly divided country, the intensity with which our citizenry is expected to approach our cultural celebration this year may well be diminished or even controversial. This is not meant to suggest that, in general, people are less patriotic today than they were in the past. It merely presumes that, given current political schisms, for many, our definition of what we understand the substance of how we should express our patriotism differs markedly from that of our national leadership. "Patriotism" simply refers to the love, pride and devoted support of one's country. Key characterizations include nationalism, loyalty and allegiance. It does not mean unquestioned obedience to national leaders, hatred of others or an excuse to ignore the nation's flaws. It is not a mythologized spectacle that celebrates our nation's promises while ignoring historic and current injustices. However,a significant segment of our citizenry has lately accused our current national leadership of promoting substantially exactly much of the latter. Consequently, our exhibition of patriotism at large might well be diminished in intensity as a result of our growing political divide. Dominant objectives of patriotism include uniting diverse factions under shared values, fostering national unity by giving a population unity of purpose, and, in the process, promoting a sense of civic responsibility and inspiring citizens to actively support and improve their country. However, lately we appear unable to rally around widely shared objectives to accomplish anything close. Freedom 250's flagship event, "The Great American State Fair" on the National Mall, was kicked off by a campaign-style rally from Donald Trump who is scheduled to deliver another on July 4. This has drawn criticism for turning a national celebration into a political event, prompting at least seven Democrat-led states and multiple musical acts to pull out of the affair. Adding to the controversy, the U.S. Mint plans to issue a 250th commemorative gold coin bearing Donald Trump's likeness. Beverly Gage, a Yale University historian, observed,"The very idea of celebrating has become political and partisan. What is striking about our moment is how widespread the pessimism seems to be." A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that one in five Americans will not celebrate Independence Day. Many are grappling with fundamental questions of whether partisanship has fractured voters to the point of questioning if there still are unifying principles or whether partisanship has superseded patriotism. This state of affairs could be depressing, if not for the coincidentally well-timed concurrence of the unifying exhibitions of support for national soccer teams during the FIFA world cup. While by no means comparable to our traditional history-based celebration the world cup offers an exciting unifying distraction for many of us to grab on to. The competition unites the world by transforming a shared global passion into a universal language that transcends borders, politics and cultures. It literally brings billions of viewers and fans together, fostering international camaraderie and mutual respect. It brings nations together by bridging cultural divides creating vibrant hubs where supporters from dozens of countries proudly wear their colors, share traditions, and celebrate side by side. Notably, even though the Trump administration attempted to make participating challenging for them, even Iran fielded a national team, which played their group-stage matches in Los Angeles and Seattle. No other sporting event compares in size. The global stage commands massive viewership, uniting roughly half the world's population to watch a single shared event, connecting strangers everywhere. The exuberance associated with the world cup could serve as a timely replacement for the wanting intensity traditionally linked to our national independence celebration. The sport transcends our political divisions and helps unite us in support of a national endeavor. Theo Wierdsma

IS CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM RESHAPING GOVERNMENT POLICY?

The Establishment Clause is the first of two religion clauses in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This clause forbids our government from establishing an official religion, and also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another, preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion. As a general matter, the Supreme Court has long recognized that the Establishment Clause's prohibition of laws "respecting an establishment of religion" not only prevents the government from establishing an official religion, but also bars other types of support "respecting" an establishment. The "Establishment of religion " clause, at a minimum, means that neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church, neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. (See e.g. "Everson v. Board of Education " (1947)). In short: the Amendment appears to have been firmly cemented in constitutional law. Enter the Trump Administration, Project 2025 and Christian Nationalism. Christian Nationalism is a political ideology which advocates for a legal and cultural fusion between Christianity and a nation's government. In the U.S., it's adherents believe the country was founded on Christian principles, that the government should actively promote these values, and that Christianity should hold a privileged place in public life. It excludes some Americans following other religious traditions, or those who are not religious at all. The explicit aim of Project 2025, which has guided much of the early work of the Trump administration, is to infuse biblical principles across the federal government. Calls to protect Christianity, make America more Christian, and align this country with the Bible are all common phrases associated with Christian Nationalism. It is generally understood that conservative Christians behind this point of view form the bedrock of President Trump's Republican support. A prominent, though awkward, focus of the movement's pursuit of it's objectives has been it's insistence on removing the concept of empathy, a deeply rooted Christian value, from our government's decision making process The conflict surfaced prominently during Mr. Trump's high profile clashes with Pope Leo XIV, which centered on questions of empathy and leadership, specifically sparked by the Pontiff's vocal opposition to the war in Iran, mass deportation and military conflict. The debate over empathy has become a prominent focal point for many Christian Nationalists. The latter's critique is rooted in some specific ideological, cultural and theological beliefs. Among others: The fear of moral compromise - the thought that untethered empathy can blur the lines between right and wrong, that fully identifying with someone's pain might lead to condoning or validating actions the Bible defines as sin - i.e. LGBTQ+ rights, abortion access, etc.; Priority of objective truth - the believe that truth, defined by biblical scripture must always take precedence over feelings, which may replace scripture as the ultimate moral guide; and "Woke politics"- the thought that empathy may be weaponized as a progressive political tool. The Trump administration has gone "all in" in support of Christian Nationalist ideology, and has actively worked to expand religious expression in public life and loosen restrictions on faith organizations. Some key policy and cultural actions include: establishing Executive branch task forces like the White House Faith Office, the Religious Liberty Commission and a task force to eradicate anti-Christian bias. Efforts also include targeting LGBTQ+ and gender identity issues, curbing abortion access and engaging in cultural battles with universities, the Smithsonian Institution, and Public Broadcasting all the while singling out opposition to DEI programs. These moves, while celebrated by the religious right, eroded the separation of church and state. To some the growing prevalence of Christian Nationalism in our government is innocuous, harmless. However, the movement's objective no longer simply focuses on the defense of liberty, it targets the accumulation of power. As such, it endangers constitutional values, impregnates governmental policy, and provides a justification for the lack of empathy in our government's pursuits. It is using its enhanced influence to impose its will on Christian organizations it identifies as "woke" or opposed to President Trump's agenda, as exemplified by its role in defunding religious groups that have been providing life saving care to many of the most vulnerable people in the world. If we are not careful, while we appear intent on demolishing a theocratic regime in the Middle East, we could end up gradually easing into the semblance of one right here. Theo Wierdsma