Viewpoint |
U.S. sanctions helping the rich & powerful escape justice

President Trump is dismantling the International Criminal Court to protect himself, his allies, and Israel. We shouldn’t let him, say Jordan Liz.

by Jordan Liz
OtherWords

The Trump administration recently announced a series of sanctions intended to “dismantle” the International Criminal Court (ICC) “brick by brick.”

Let’s be clear: These sanctions are not meant to protect U.S. citizens. The Trump administration is trying to destroy a key pillar of international justice to shield themselves and Israel from any accountability.

In December 2025, a Trump administration official claimed that the administration was pressuring the ICC to amend its founding document to ensure that it can never investigate President Trump or his top officials. It also demanded the ICC drop its investigation of Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and formally end a probe it began in 2020 (and suspended a year later) of possible crimes committed by U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

...the ICC cannot probe ICE shootings of people in the United States ...

If the ICC did not meet these demands, the Trump administration threatened to sanction the court itself. With these latest sanctions, the administration has made good on those threats.

Neither the U.S. nor Israel are party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that originally established the ICC. The court therefore does not — nor has it ever claimed to — have general jurisdiction over crimes committed by citizens of those countries, including servicemen, police officers, border patrol, ICE agents, or elected officials.

What the ICC does claim is jurisdiction over offenses committed in any territory party to the Statue — including by citizens of non-member nations. So while the ICC cannot probe ICE shootings of people in the United States, it can rightfully investigate Israel’s genocide in Palestine and U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan. Both Afghanistan and Palestine have joined the Rome Statute.

Since Iran is not a member of the ICC, the Trump administration’s possible war crimes there — including bombing a girl’s school, a sport center, and residential buildings — are beyond the court’s scope. The same applies to Cuba.

... the solution is not simply to dismantle the ICC ...

Notably, while the Trump administration emphasizes the alleged abuses of the ICC, it offers no alternatives to the high court. This is intentional. Whether it’s dismantling the ICC, withdrawing the U.S. from over 60 international organizations, or threatening to annex U.S. allies, the goal is the same: to destroy international law and replace it with the law of “might makes right.” To create a world where Trump and his allies can pillage and plunder as they see fit without repercussions.

It’s a remarkable achievement that the ICC exists at all. The fact that over 120 parties agreed to voluntarily submit themselves to an accountability framework that puts global welfare above the personal ambitions of leaders is a triumph of democracy and international relations. That is worth defending.

Of course, the ICC is far from perfect. While it has accomplished some noteworthy feats, humanitarian groups like Amnesty International have rightly criticized the ICC’s selective approach to global justice.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, the court moved with unprecedented speed and launched its largest operation ever to investigate possible war crimes committed by Vladimir Putin and his government. But the same body deprioritized its probe into U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan and decided not to investigate UK war crimes in Iraq.

These are serious problems that must be addressed, but the solution is not simply to dismantle the ICC — especially if the alternative is to submit ourselves to the whims of the most powerful nations or billionaire-led bodies like Trump’s Board of Peace.

What we must do instead is empower global institutions to not only punish those who commit heinous acts, but to work together to ensure that those who are wronged receive restitution — and, ultimately, to ensure that crimes against humanity never occur again.

About the author ~

Jordan Liz is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at San José State University. He specializes in issues of race, immigration, and the politics of belonging. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.

What do you think?
Whether you agree, disagree, or want to build on the ideas in this piece, we’d love to hear your voice. If you have an opinion you’d like to share — on this topic or any other — you can find our submission guidelines here: Sentinel submission guideline.

We welcome a wide range of viewpoints and would be glad to consider your perspective for publication on OurSentinel.com. . Send your letter or commentary to editor@oursentinel.com and help keep the community conversation moving forward.

TAGS: The International Criminal Court isn't perfect, Trump wants to destroy international law, ICC has no jurisdiction over the US and Israel, Trump doesn't want to be investigated

Viewpoint |
Citizens and neighbors are fighting data centers, the government is fighting its people

Trump's EPA wants to let Big Tech build data centers without notifying local communities -- and to start before their permits are even approved.

Photo: Albrecht Fietz/Pixabay

Trump administration quietly relaxing environmental rules to facilitate the development of data centers in rural America to avoid pushback from residents who don't want industrial polluters near their communities.

by Jim Hightower
OtherWords

To cope with the imminent danger posed by today’s arrogant, profiteering AI billionaires, President Trump says the only thing America needs is a “STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT!”

Well, yes — let’s try to find one of those!

The president we have now is quite the opposite. Take the politically explosive issue of massive AI data centers suddenly intruding into thousands of communities across America, sucking up people’s land, water, electricity, and democratic control. Even red state MAGA conservatives are in furious rebellion against what amounts to a corporate sneak attack on millions of us.

Where’s the president when we really need him? He’s plotting with the tech invaders to publicly trash those who are rebelling against the tech giants, and deploying autocrats to rig the rules to silence us opponents.

For example, Trump’s EPA administrator Lee Zeldin is now decreeing there’s no need for local communities to be notified that a data center is moving in on them — nor should there be a public comment period on air pollution issues.

This means that residents’ first notice that a sprawling data center will be built next door will be the roar of bulldozers. Worse, Commissar Zeldin wants to let data center billionaires start building their acres of polluting facilities before permits are approved.

Also, this MAGA bureaucrat insists that such massive facilities be reclassified as “minor” air polluters, like a car repair shop or local laundromat.

Zeldin has also unilaterally reframed the purpose of the EPA. He’s declared making the United States “the artificial intelligence capital of the world” one of the EPA’s five central priorities.

That’s not the priority of any regular person I know. While real people are fighting data centers, this government is fighting the people.

About the author ~

OtherWords columnist Jim Hightower is a radio commentator, writer, and public speaker. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.

TAGS: data centers want reclassification from EPA, Jim Hightower commentary on data center development, data center development bypass local control, red state republicans against data centers

Letter to the Editor |
Dark Fun: Seinfeld joke misses moral mark

Cruelty was made to feel like camaraderie, and Palestinian suffering was made to seem like a fitting subject for laughter says one Sentinel reader.

Dear Editor,

At comedian Jerry Seinfeld's recent show in Chicago, an audience member shouted about Gaza, "Twenty-two thousand Palestinians who are children now are killed with our taxpayer money, and you're making jokes?!"

The comedian then began dancing on stage and mockingly declared, “I am a racist. It’s a genocide. I’m into it,” before saying, “I’m gonna find out how much your ticket was, and I’m sending it to Israel.”

Seinfeld, an outspoken supporter of Israel, previously stated, “I don’t care about Palestine,” and that "It doesn't exist."

In their journal article, "Genocidal Enjoyment: On the Weaponization of Joyful Cruelty and 'Dark Fun' during Israel’s Genocide in Gaza," sociologists Raúl Pérez and Charles Thorpe define genocidal enjoyment as “the weaponized use of joyful cruelty in the service of state violence” against a dehumanized community.

One example cited is the propaganda channel, “72 Virgins-Uncensored,” which was operated on the social media platform Telegram by members of the Israeli Defense Forces' Influencing Department. Its target audience was Israeli citizens, and the channel showed videos and posted photos celebrating and mocking the death and abuse of Palestinians.

According to the authors, genocidal enjoyment bonds soldiers and supporters through shared pleasure, reinforcing moral hierarchies and portraying the targets of state violence as moral outsiders.

Seinfeld’s actions demonstrated genocidal enjoyment. Cruelty was made to feel like camaraderie, and Palestinian suffering was made to seem like a fitting subject for laughter.

Terry Hansen
Grafton, WI

Terry Hansen is a retired educator from Grafton, WI, who writes frequently about climate change and on human rights. He lives in Grafton, WIsconsin.

We welcome a wide range of viewpoints and would be glad to consider your perspective for publication on OurSentinel.com. Send your letter or commentary to editor@oursentinel.com and help keep the community conversation moving forward.

Viewpoint |
All profit, no principles

Trump offers Russia a diesel lifeline as reports link Moscow to Iranian targeting of American forces.

by Van Abbott
Guest Contributor

Americans are being asked to pay for fuel from a government reportedly helping Iran locate American forces and endangering American lives.

President Trump announced more than 300,000 metric tons of Russian diesel for markets after temporarily lifting sanctions on Russian fuel. He calls it relief for Americans facing high prices. It is a gift to Moscow wrapped in American hardship.

The relief will be small. That cargo equals roughly 2.2 million barrels, about half a day of U.S. diesel demand. For Russia, the transaction brings fresh revenue, restored access to markets and a precedent for escaping sanctions.

The law may not permit it, either. Republican Sen. Tillis says the arrangement may be illegal, and a bipartisan Senate statement says the administration neither consulted Congress nor provided the explanation required by statute.

Congress should demand the legal justification, commercial terms and expected benefit to Moscow. Who collects the proceeds? What enforceable concession has Putin made?

In March, The Washington Post reported that Moscow was supplying Iran with targeting information, including the locations of American warships and aircraft. Reuters later reported a Ukrainian intelligence assessment of Russian satellite surveys of Middle Eastern military sites, and two sources said imagery had been shared with Iran.

None of this proves Moscow directed individual attacks. All of it demands an answer. Why reward a government reportedly helping an adversary find American forces?

Meanwhile, Trump has pressed Ukraine to stop striking the Russian refineries that sustain Moscow's war. Reuters, citing a person familiar with the situation, reported that Washington threatened to cut intelligence sharing and weapons procurement if Kyiv refused.

American intelligence becomes leverage against the victim while Russian intelligence reportedly aids those who threaten Americans.

Protect the refineries, restore the revenues, pressure the victim. That is a remarkable definition of American strength.

Fuel is how Russia pays for this war. Sanctions on its energy revenue were meant to shrink the budget behind the missiles and drones aimed at Ukrainian cities. Waiving them tells allies who bore the cost of enforcement that American resolve was seasonal, and tells Moscow that pressure can be outwaited.

Trump has since announced an energy ceasefire. Zelenskyy said Ukraine would hold its fire if Russia reciprocated, but the Associated Press reported continued Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy sites. A declaration is not an agreement, and an agreement is not a concession delivered.

The familiar defense is that Trump is negotiating. Then show the exchange. A reciprocal halt to energy attacks could protect civilians and deserves support. Unilateral restraint on Ukraine, coupled with fresh Russian sales, deserves rejection. Negotiation requires something from the other side. Otherwise, “deal” becomes a flattering word for surrendering leverage.

Some Republicans understand the danger. Sens. Collins, Murkowski,Tillis and Curtis joined Democrats in demanding that Trump reverse course.

Sen. Barrasso defended the arrangement as relief for consumers, farmers, ranchers and truckers. Those Americans deserve affordable fuel. They also deserve an honest accounting of the security cost.

This is not an isolated concession. Trump's deference to Putin has repeatedly produced ceremony, promises and headlines without the corresponding results.

In August 2025, Trump welcomed Putin to Alaska with a red carpet and military flyover despite an International Criminal Court arrest warrant over the alleged unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children. Trump sought a ceasefire and left without one. Putin received the ceremony; Ukraine received no halt to the fighting.

The questions reach Trump's family, too. ProPublica reported that Russian oligarch Kremlev, who has close ties to Putin, paid hundreds of thousands of dollars toward Trump Jr.'s Bahamas wedding celebrations, including a private-island rental. The couple acknowledged the gift, and Kremlev later said Trump Jr. repaid him.

A gift does not prove that policy was bought. But the circumstances demand documentation: Why was it offered, and what records substantiate the repayment?

Congress has the power to obtain answers. It can subpoena the transaction's terms, hold hearings and force a vote. Republicans need no theory, only the willingness to judge a Russian lifeline as harshly as they would if a Democratic president had authorized it.

Cheap diesel cannot justify rewarding a government reportedly helping Iran locate American sailors and pilots. Americans deserve relief at the pump, but not at the price of their security.

When Putin profits and American forces face the risk, the question is not whether the deal is cheap. It is who is paying the real price.

About the author ~
Van Abbott is a long time resident of Alaska and California. He has held financial management positions in government and private organizations in California, Kansas, and Alaska. He is retired and writes Op-Eds as a hobby. He served in the Peace Corps in the late sixties. You can find more of his commentaries and comments on life in America on Substack.

Editorial |
Secret NDAs and data centers: Why Illinois needs government transparency

Secret nondisclosure agreements between government officials and private data center developers are raising questions about transparency and the public's right to know. An editorial argues Illinois should prohibit such agreements when officials are conducting the people's business.

by Sentinel Editorial Team

Elected government officials should be barred from signing nondisclosure agreements with private companies when performing official duties for their city, office, department or the state. I don't know about you, but the idea of an elected official signing a nondisclosure agreement with the sole purpose of working behind the backs of the people who elected them and whom they represent seems shady.

Tolono, and now Mahomet, have been targeted by data center developers. In both cases, when the community learned that its elected officials were doing them dirty behind closed doors and through nondisclosure agreements, the response and uproar have been significant.

According to KUTV, a survey published in August by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania found that 61% of U.S. adults oppose data center construction in their area — a 12-percentage-point increase over four months.

It is only logical that you don't need to hide projects that are good for the community. So why proceed with negotiations for a project the public will object to — and behind their backs?

Let's be clear: Elected officials and members of government should not be able to legally sign NDAs with private companies when doing the people's business.

Bills to ban NDAs for data centers have been introduced in several states, including Michigan, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Ohio. Frankly, Illinois needs to do the same.

In an article published July 8, 2026, by Deanna Noël of Public Citizen, she describes several instances where NDAs have been used by data center developers and technology companies to keep communities and elected officials from learning about plans for proposed facilities until key approvals, subsidies or permits have been secured by the companies. Developers and shell companies do the dirty work, hiding the identity of the actual company that will eventually occupy the facility.

In that article, Noël's research showed that in Virginia, home to the world's largest concentration of data centers, 80% of localities with proposed or existing data centers have NDAs in place.

Sad.

Over in Mahomet, the data center developer modus operandi was running smoothly and quietly until Dani Tietz of the Mahomet Daily caught wind of rumors that a tech company was interested in building on land just outside the village limits. Her story, which ran a week ago, brought to light how three village officials signed NDAs and engaged in preliminary negotiations on a development deal worth $17 million that had started 10 months earlier.

The developer, Clean Cloud Energy, wants an area of about 340 acres of farmland in unincorporated Mahomet Township, west of Champaign. The property is outside current village limits but falls within Mahomet's extraterritorial jurisdiction under the village's planning and subdivision authority. Tietz, investigating further, put together a thorough outline of Clean Cloud's methodology and a timeline of its efforts for a possible Mahomet facility.

Days later, Mahomet citizens rallied together and began fighting the proposed facility while demanding further transparency. It recently came to light that if Mahomet annexes the proposed site, Clean Cloud Energy can evade a Champaign County-enacted 12-month moratorium on large-scale data centers — those with 10,000 or more square feet of processing area.

This is the pushback that data centers and developers fear, justifying their use of contractual hush agreements.

The Illinois General Assembly needs to pass legislation that prohibits public employees and officials from signing NDAs. The law should impose individual civil penalties not only on the employee or official individually but also on each representative of the company executing the agreement. Finally, the bill must require advance public notice in communities whenever local governments take action on a development application, including rezoning, tax incentives or utility use.

It's clear Illinois, like other states, needs strict transparency laws to protect families and their communities from overly ambitious village board and council members engaging in discreet negotiations with private companies.

TAGGED: Illinois data center transparency laws, nondisclosure agreements and data center development, Mahomet Illinois data center controversy, government NDAs and public transparency, Illinois data center development negotiations

Viewpoint |
Everything else is just stuff

Glenn Mollette has a few really nice suits in the closet. Unfortunately, it is taking longer than he has hoped to lose ten unwanted pounds so they will fit. Should he sell or give away the suits?

by Glenn Mollette
Guest Columnist

Glenn Mollette

A few years back my wife’s parents passed and the time came to sell their house. The house was nice and had nice furniture. When the house sold a lot of their belongings ended up on the street for anyone to carry off. Even though there were children and grandchildren, no one had room for most of her parents’ stuff. A number of pieces of furniture were put into use by family members, but so much of went out the door to parts unknown.

Chances are you have an attic, basement, garage or closets filled with stuff. Stuff can be clothes, furniture, collections, memorabilia and more. Where will all this stuff end up? Most likely it will be hauled to a garbage dump or possibly to some non-profit who will make it very profitable. When a non-profit sells your old sofa, table or clothes they come out pretty good because they have nothing invested except some labor and building costs. That makes it very profitable for them.

I am not knocking any non-profits because some do some great charitable work. Some pay their Chief Executive Officers big salaries. You have to make choices as to where you donate. What happens is that so many people become so desperate to get rid of their stuff that they don’t have the time to care about how it is sold or used. The main goal is to clean out the garage or storage building.

We will all experience this on some level. We will be responsible for disposing of someone else’s stuff or someone will dispose of ours. I really don’t want family to have to do that but often we don’t get to choose. What we might consider doing is being proactive today. Clean out one closet, one shelf, one section of an attic and put it where we want. Most likely this could be a dumpster, but it might be to someone who could use it for the time being.

My wife and I bought my dad a jacket for his birthday and he got to wear it about three months before he died. My brother-in-law ended up with the jacket because it was a good fit. He wore it for several years before he died. I think it is satisfying if we can pass on something that someone else can use for a while.

If you have stuff that you have not used or worn in a couple of years then what is the point of it taking up space? I do have a couple of suits I have held on to because, if I can just lose ten pounds, I will be able to wear them again. Sadly, it sure is taking me a long time to lose the ten pounds, but maybe eventually I will.

We can’t take anything with us when our lives end. We came into the world with nothing and we leave with nothing. Living in peace with God and man is the best we can do internally and externally. Everything else, is just stuff.

About the author ~

Glen Mollett is the author of 13 books including Uncommom Sense, the Spiritual Chocolate series, Grandpa's Store, Minister's Guidebook insights from a fellow minister. His column is published weekly in over 600 publications in all 50 states.

Viewpoint |
Is taxpayer-funded public information becoming political promotion?

Van Abbott questions whether a $20 million DHS media campaign featuring President Donald Trump crosses the line from taxpayer-funded public information into political promotion.

by Van Abbott
Guest Contributor

While terrorists plot, hurricanes strike and traffickers exploit the border, the Department of Homeland Security is spending $20 million on television advertising that puts Donald Trump at the center of the story.

Government has a legitimate duty to inform the public. It can explain how families obtain disaster aid, warn communities about threats, guide travelers, help victims report trafficking and recruit qualified public servants.

Public information serves citizens. Political promotion serves politicians.

The White House calls them public-service announcements.

On September 19, money was moved into a U.S. Customs and Border Protection account designated for “commemorative events.” The next day, according to ABC News, CBP awarded a $20 million contract to LMD Agency, a Maryland advertising firm, for a “National Media Campaign” (public records do not fully describe the campaign). Days later, Trump-centered television advertisements began airing.

The money moved fast. The contract came faster. The ads arrived loud.

The advertisements look remarkably like campaign spots. They feature Trump prominently, employ dramatic imagery, celebrate his vision of America and echo themes from his political messaging. As reported by The Wall Street Journal, the White House calls them public-service announcements. Critics, including lawmakers and ethics experts, see something very different.

There is a simple test.

Would DHS have produced and purchased these same advertisements if someone else occupied the Oval Office?

If not, taxpayers deserve to ask why their money is being used to promote the person who occupies it.

Government can tell Americans what their government is doing; it should not tell Americans how to feel about the person doing it.

Taxpayers are not Trump's campaign fund.

And this is not an isolated incident.

The $20 million campaign follows the much larger $220 million DHS advertising operation featuring then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. That campaign included cinematic footage of Noem on horseback before Mount Rushmore and generated scrutiny over no-bid contracting, politically connected firms and the use of public money to build a cabinet secretary's public image.

Noem defended the advertising as border-security messaging. But border security does not require a cabinet secretary to become the star of a cinematic production.

The face has changed. The governing habit has not.

The pattern reaches further back.

During Trump's first term, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma used outside communications consultants whose work included raising her public profile and arranging media opportunities. The HHS inspector general later found that CMS had failed to administer the contracts in accordance with federal requirements. Democratic congressional investigators separately documented nearly $6 million in spending involving consultants who helped promote Verma's profile and personal brand.

The public should know who conceived the messages, who selected the vendors, what alternatives were considered, who approved the spending and whether the White House directed the content.

And Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's taxpayer-funded “Madison Dinners,” as reported by the WSJ, generated congressional scrutiny over whether government resources were being used to cultivate political relationships and a future political network.

The faces change. The agencies change. The public pays.

Republican Sen. John Kennedy recently called the $220 million Noem advertising campaign “masterclass dumb” and made a broader point that applies here: no public official, including the president, should use public money for private advertising promoting himself.

That principle should not depend on party.

DHS should disclose every contract, invoice, media-buy schedule, production budget, audience analysis, vendor communication, approval memorandum and legal opinion associated with the Trump and Noem campaigns. The public should know who conceived the messages, who selected the vendors, what alternatives were considered, who approved the spending and whether the White House directed the content.

The question is not whether LMD Agency knows how to buy advertising. It is whether DHS had any business buying this advertising at all.

An inspector-general review should begin, but Congress cannot simply hand the matter to the agency's internal watchdog. DHS Inspector General Joseph Cuffari told Congress in March that the department had “systematically obstructed” his office's work, including by restricting access to information needed for investigations.

Congress should hold public hearings, compel testimony from DHS officials, contracting officers, vendors and relevant White House personnel, and direct the Government Accountability Office to examine the transfers, contracts and compliance with appropriations law.

Congress should follow the money, expose the paper trail and demand an answer to a basic question:

Why is an agency created to protect Americans spending millions of their dollars promoting one American?

Homeland security means stopping terrorists, guarding the border, responding to disasters and protecting the nation.

It does not mean putting the president in the spotlight and calling the spotlight public service.

TAGGED: DHS taxpayer-funded advertising, $20 million CBP media campaign, Trump DHS advertising campaign, government spending and political promotion, taxpayer-funded political advertising

Critical thinking and the responsibility of voting in 2026

Drawing on Reinhold Niebuhr’s observations about justice and democracy, John Mishler asks readers to consider whether they are critical thinkers or blind followers when making decisions at the ballot box.

by John M. Mishler
Guest Contributor

American Reformed Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr once opined “…….Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.” Is there a direct connection between acknowledging Niebuhr’s prescient words and being/becoming a responsible individual when voting? Yes.

However, why utilize this connection now, prior to the upcoming 2026 midterm elections? Because the final results of these most important local, state, and national elections will determine if “We the People” have the “capacity for justice” or an “inclination to injustice.” How does one determine if they are a responsible voter within the context above? Simple: truthfully answer the following questions.

Are you a critical thinker or a blind follower? Yes or No.

Do you wholeheartedly support “We the People,” “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” and our Constitution? Yes or No.

Do you believe in justice/equality for all? Yes or No.

Is wealth inequality eroding Basic Human Rights? Yes or No.

Should we have suitable restrictions on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and data centers? Yes or No.

Do you believe in verifiable or alternative facts/conspiracy theories? Yes or No.

Would you knowingly support corrupt officials? Yes or No.

Do you believe climate change/global warming is a hoax? Yes or No.

Do you support Freedom of the Press? Yes or No.

Should we initiate equitable/fair tax legislation for all citizens, both rich and poor? Yes or No.

Should we have a king/dictator or a legally-elected president in the White House? Yes or No.

The central and most crucial answer to being/becoming a responsible voter is whether or not you have the ability/desire to think critically, namely, to “go outside the box.” “connect the dots,” study, read, ask relevant questions, possess doubts, rely on verifiable facts, be curious, have discussions with others, utilize common sense, problem-solve, prognosticate, and evaluate. All these tasks require time, dedication, and an inclination to query one’s responsible role in our society.

If you are a critical thinker, and prior to completing your 2026 midterm election ballot, you possess the skills to understand the concepts of “We the People” and “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” and, therefore, to fully appreciate the framework of our Constitution. In critically evaluating said Constitution, you will be able to fully embrace the notions of justice and equality for all. On the other hand, if you are a blind follower, you will allow MAGA enablers, pod-cast hosts, influencers, and right-wing newscasters to flood your phone and computer with lies, misinformation/disinformation for you to follow without questioning the validity and/or source of such information.

Being a critical thinker will allow you to read, study, and discern the eroding influence of wealth inequality on Basic Human Rights. Employing these same proficiencies, you can differentiate between verifiable versus alternative facts and debunk conspiracy theories. Therefore, you will not be a blind follower.

As a critical thinker, the pros and cons of AI and data centers can be discussed in light of what benefits society as a whole, rather than be a vehicle to enrich selfish entrepreneurs. The ability to think critically will also allow one to ascertain and detect the “appearance of corruption", which can and does provide an unfair advantage when utilized to influence elected officials. Ergo, only a law-abiding president deserves to be in the White House, and not a king. If you are a blind follower, you may not be able to identify corruption, especially if it is not discussed openly and objectively within systems you employ to receive your “news."

Most importantly, as a critically thinking responsible voter, your first obligation is to support our overall “capacity for justice,” by identifying candidates who share this sacred conviction and will dedicate themselves to fighting against an “inclination to injustice.” If you are a blind follower, are you differentiating between justice and injustice?

Lastly, at times, It is rather difficult to be a critically thinking responsible voter, but supporting the "capacity for justice” to save our democracy will be well worth your effort.

About the author ~ John M. Mishler was a former Associate Vice Chancellor for Research and Professor of Basic Life Sciences, Medicine, and Pharmacology at the University of Missouri. He currently resides in Harpswell, Maine.

Viewpoint |
Women, get in line

Trump treats rules as restraints for other people, not for himself.

by Van Abbott
Guest Contributor

Seven stalls for women in a ballroom built for hundreds is no design flaw; it is a floor plan for male privilege.

This is not merely a fight over an oversized vanity project. It is a portrait of how Trump sees women: welcome in the room, useful to the image, never equal in power, access, or dignity.

The early ballroom plan reportedly allotted women only seven stalls. Someone measured the room, assigned the space, approved the priorities, and decided whose time mattered. Men enter. Men move. Women wait. The result is not neglect. It is a decision.

When the first architect reportedly objected to the bathrooms and to building-code concerns, Trump’s reported reply was blunt: “I am the code.”

That sentence explains more than the ballroom.

Trump treats rules as restraints for other people, criticism as insolence, and accountability as persecution.

Women reporters know it well. He called April Ryan a loser. He told PBS correspondent Yamiche Alcindor she had asked a racist question, then told her not to be “threatening.”

He mocked CNN’s Abby Phillip for what he called a stupid question. He branded CNN’s Kaitlan Collins a “nasty person,” scolded her for not smiling, told her she “shouldn’t be covering” him, and later labeled her a “sleazebag.” The names change. The method never does.

His hostility reaches Black women, brown women, and white women whenever they ask questions he cannot control. Black women hear their competence questioned. White women hear their looks and their right to report attacked.

Every woman who refuses to flatter him becomes the story. The questions were never the problem. The women asking them were.

The contempt extends to women who accuse him. More than two dozen have publicly accused Trump of sexual misconduct over several decades. Most allegations have not been litigated or proved, and Trump denies wrongdoing. But the pattern is not imaginary, and it does not vanish because he calls every critic a liar.

Consider E. Jean Carroll. A civil jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming her, and a second jury imposed tens of millions of dollars after he kept attacking her. He was not criminally convicted, and jurors did not find rape under New York’s particular statutory definition. They found abuse and defamation. That is a verdict, not a rumor.

The Epstein files pose a sharper question: why did Trump’s Justice Department, now led by Attorney General Todd Blanche, fight to keep raw FBI material hidden? In 2019, a woman told FBI agents that Epstein introduced her to Trump when she was between 13 and 15 years old, and that Trump sexually abused her and struck her.

Trump denies wrongdoing. The allegation is uncorroborated, unlitigated, and unproven in any court. Those limits matter. So does what came next.

Blanche’s department withheld related interview records as duplicative and resisted releasing the handwritten notes behind the FBI summaries. A federal judge ordered it to submit redacted and unredacted copies for confidential review, rejecting the argument that disclosure was unnecessary.

The notes may prove nothing. They may expose inconsistencies, corroborating leads, or details the formal reports omitted. The public does not know. That is the point. Americans deserve to know why an administration led by the accused man fought to keep the raw record hidden.

Secrecy is not exoneration.

Women know this bargain: speak up, risk humiliation, hear powerful men deny everything, then wait while evidence vanishes behind locked doors. The same hierarchy runs through the administration. Women have lost ground in senior roles, and departures of female Cabinet officials and appointees have concentrated authority in male hands. Each exit narrows the circle of voices willing to tell him no.

At the Pentagon, hostility toward women in combat has become policy. Pete Hegseth has pressed physical standards built on male benchmarks, telling women they must keep proving they belong in roles men inherit unchallenged. Standards should be demanding, match the job, and protect the troops. Standards engineered to push women out are exclusion disguised as strength. Trump chose Hegseth, empowers Hegseth, and owns the outcome. A country does not grow stronger by shrinking women’s space, silencing their questions, and hiding the records. It grows smaller, meaner, and afraid of the truth.

Seven stalls, one floor plan, and a president who calls himself the code: men get the space, women get the line, and accountability waits outside the door.

TAGS: Trump ballroom renovation ignores building codes, new Pentagon PFT standards raised for women, DOJ hides Epstein files despite orders, Donald Trump holds contempt for women who challenge him

Viewpoints |
The weather change is here, take hold of this new season

Fall has arrived and Glenn Mollette laments on the changing on the seasons. Sometimes life changed with a phone call or just a text message can change life as you know it.

by Glenn Mollette
Guest Columnist

Glenn Mollette

Fall has arrived. This is not earth shattering news but very welcome news if you have been living in 95 degree plus heat. For those of us who have we are welcoming cooler temperatures. Autumn can be several weeks of happy weather but by the time it ends we know what follows – winter. We aren’t always that excited about winter, but it’s okay, it’s another season.

Mainly, let’s be happy to experience a new season. New seasons bring new days and new opportunities. Life is different in every season of life. Life is filled with seasons. We have weather seasons gut we have life seasons. If we are fortunate we have many seasons. How many Fall seasons have you lived to enjoy? Twenty? Fifty? Maybe even 90 or more. They go by quickly. The long hot days have been a grind but looking back they passed by quickly.

Life goes by quickly. Soon we will be celebrating Christmas, we hope. We should enjoy each of these rapidly passing seasons. Childhood, young adult life, middle age years and our senior years. We hope to experience them all and stretch out as long as possible.

Enjoy your season of health. Health and our daily peace with God are our most valued resources. Regardless of how much money you have you won’t enjoy it much without you’re your health, We value and treasure our health. Taking care of ourselves must be a top priority. Casting all restraints to the side is not a good idea. Pouring a little sand occasionally in your car’s fuel tank is never a good idea and neither is occasional garbage in our bodies. We all do it some. Some do it every day and get by with it a long time but none of us can forever.

The seasons of life can change at any given moment. Sometimes life changed with a phone call or just a text message. The news can be good or bad and our entire direction of life is changed regardless if we are ready,

Ecclesiastes chapter three talks about seasons. This biblical passage tells us there are many of them.

“To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven. A time to be born and a time to die. A time to kill and a time to heal, a time to break down and a time to build up. A time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance. A time to cast away stones, a time to gather stones together, a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing A time to get and a time to let go; a time to keep and a time to lose; a time to keep and a time to cast away.”

Read the rest of this good chapter sometime today or this week. For reflection and mediation.

Every season has it ups and downs. Take hold of this new season with all that we will learn, experience and enjoy.

About the author ~

Letter to the Editor |
Public officials should stop using hate rhetoric

Writer implores politicians to treat Muslims Americans with the respect and dignity they deserve.

Dear Editor,

Muslim Americans are our neighbors, coworkers and fellow citizens. They are entitled to the same full place in our national community as every other American.

Yet Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-WI) has said that Islam “does not comport with modern Western thought” and that, when practiced as written, it is “a violent religion.”

That rhetoric is not isolated. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) wrote on X that “Every single Muslim holding public office in America is a trojan horse and a threat to national security and the republic." Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) likewise posted that “Muslims don’t belong in American society.”

These statements do more than criticize particular ideas or policies. They portray an entire religious community—including families, students and public servants—as inherently suspect and outside the national “we.” That is precisely the danger Holocaust survivor Herbert C. Kelman warned against in his essay, “Dignity and Dehumanization.”

Kelman wrote: “The central lesson that I have learned from the Holocaust is that we must never allow any people, any human group, to be excluded from our moral community.” For Kelman, a moral community is one in which people recognize obligations to one another.

Public officials should reject language that casts millions of Americans as threats because of their faith and instead affirm the equal dignity and safety of Muslim Americans.

Terry Hansen
Grafton, WI

Terry Hansen is a retired educator from Grafton, WI, who writes frequently about climate change and on human rights. He lives in Grafton, WIsconsin.

Viewpoint |
U.S. sanctions helping the rich & powerful escape justice

About the author ~

Viewpoint |
Citizens and neighbors are fighting data centers, the government is fighting its people

Letter to the Editor |
Dark Fun: Seinfeld joke misses moral mark

Viewpoint |
All profit, no principles

Editorial |
Secret NDAs and data centers: Why Illinois needs government transparency

Viewpoint |
Everything else is just stuff

Viewpoint |
Is taxpayer-funded public information becoming political promotion?

Critical thinking and the responsibility of voting in 2026

Viewpoint |
Women, get in line

Viewpoints |
The weather change is here, take hold of this new season

Letter to the Editor |
Public officials should stop using hate rhetoric

More Sentinel Stories

On This Day

Photo Galleries

Varsity Snapshot

Top stories this year

About the author ~

More Editorial Viewpoints

More Editorial Viewpoints

Related articles to read:

More Editorial Viewpoints

More Editorial Viewpoints

More Editorial Viewpoints

More Editorial Viewpoints

Related articles to read:

More Editorial Viewpoints

More Editorial Viewpoints

Related articles to read:

More Sentinel Stories

On This Day

Photo Galleries

Varsity Snapshot

Top stories this year