Commentary |
Stunned at the polls, populist blowout sets stage to repair Trump's damage the past two years


American voters rejected Trump’s billionaire-backed politics and attacks on working people. The world is watching as the country repairs its civic infrastructure.

Protestors motivating voting
Photo: Edmond Dantès/PEXELS


by Peter Certo
OtherWords

For years, Americans have been viciously divided according to race, religion, immigration status, and gender identity by politicians dead set on making us fight each other rather than them. In a year where real people’s struggles were impossible to ignore, that effort fell short.

It’s hard to overstate the scale of Democratic victories in this year’s midterm elections.


Trillionaire Elon Musk spent over $400 million alone, more than George Soros has spent on elections his entire life...

Voters broke for Democratic candidates by margins scarcely anticipated by even the party’s rosiest polls — often in deep red states and congressional districts that few seriously thought were competitive. Democrats will now control a commanding House majority and hold a significant edge in the Senate as well.

This was a decisive rejection of Trumpism — and it happened on a significantly tilted playing field.

Before the election, Trump-aligned justices on the Supreme Court gutted what remained of the Voting Rights Act, only the latest in a series of rulings limiting fair access to voting and representation. At Trump’s urging, Republican-led statehouses unleashed an unprecedented flurry of mid-decade gerrymanders designed to maximize their partisan advantage and disenfranchise their critics. Billionaires poured vast sums into races — and trillionaire Elon Musk spent over $400 million alone, more than George Soros has spent on elections his entire life.

And that’s not even getting into the concerns, often stoked by leading Republicans themselves, that the administration would try to cancel results, deploy National Guard or ICE agents to cities, or otherwise meddle in the election.

None of it was enough for voters who’ve spent years now watching events in their lives spin out of control.

Trump’s tariffs made life miserable for farmers, manufacturers, and consumers while his allies slashed safety net programs to fund tax breaks for billionaires. The war in Iran, which Trump launched shortly after promising no new wars, sent the price of fuel skyrocketing.

Lawless ICE agents terrorized immigrants and citizens alike and shocked the conscience of people across the political spectrum. And a data center boom spiked power bills and disrupted communities across the country, all to power a technology CEOs vowed to use for replacing people’s jobs and surveilling their day to day life.

In the races that mattered most, populist candidates spoke to these concerns directly.

Candidates who backed data center restrictions and moratoria flipped red governorships and/or Senate seats in Ohio, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, and beyond — while voters directly passed their own local moratoria in dozens of communities.

In Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed defeated a shockingly Islamophobic opposition by focusing relentlessly on taking U.S. foreign and domestic policy alike back from billionaires. In Maine, Troy Jackson toppled longtime U.S. Senator Susan Collins by embracing his working class identity and supporting Medicare for All. And in a state that became emblematic of ICE’s abuse, Peggy Flanagan ran away with a victory in Minnesota calling to “rip ICE apart.”


... hold corporate price gougers accountable for raising the cost of groceries, health care, and rent.

But to sustain these gains, these winners — and the leaders of their party — will need to follow through on the promises voters entrusted them with.

In the two years Trump has left, Democrats will need to be held accountable to claw back the enormous funds Trump and the GOP have set aside for ICE and Pentagon and put them back into programs to make sure struggling Americans have food and health care — areas which are only set to see further cuts as more provisions of the “Big Beautiful Bill” take effect.

They should embrace their powers of investigation not only to crack down on the administration’s unprecedented corruption, but also to make tech CEOs answer for foisting AI and data centers on Americans and to hold corporate price gougers accountable for raising the cost of groceries, health care, and rent. And they’ll need to rapidly repair our civic infrastructure to get money out of politics and put ordinary people back in it.

If our next leaders can’t deliver as promised, the politics of scapegoating will come roaring back. It won’t be easy, but the voters are watching. And this November they spoke loud and clear.


Peter Certo Peter Certo is the communications director of the Institute for Policy Studies and editor of OtherWords.org.




TAGGED: Democrats need to be held accountable, Newly-elected leaders must deliver on promises made, support Medicare for All, rip ICE apart, America has been divided, Supreme Court gutted Voting Rights Act

Commentary |
Victory, until further notice


President Trump says the war ends when he says so. January's new Congress must demand an end to his war with Iran.


by Van Abbott
Guest Contributor


Donald Trump announced in March that he had won the Iran war, and he has been revising the ending ever since.

Before the midterm elections, Trump wanted every Republican contest to be about him. “So what I really want you to do is pretend, please, that I’m on the ballot,” he told supporters in August. After Republicans suffered major losses, he offered a different explanation: “I feel that I wasn’t on the ballot, and there was nothing that could be done about that.”

Trump had asked voters to treat congressional ballots as a referendum on his presidency. When the verdict disappointed him, he rejected the premise he had promoted. He wanted the credit, he demanded the loyalty, he rejected the consequences.


Adversaries can simply wait, because a president who declares victory on demand has already shown how little the word costs him.

Politico’s Dasha Burns questioned him about the contradiction. Trump acknowledged telling supporters to imagine him on the ballot, then blamed the candidates: Voters “didn’t like the candidates in most cases.” He remembered perfectly well. He needed another excuse.

That is not forgetfulness. It is a method.

An election excuse costs Trump some pride. A war costs the country far more.

On November 3, in an interview with CBS News, Trump again blamed Republican losses on his absence from the ballot. In the same interview, he declared that the Iran war would end “when I say it’s over, basically. It’ll end when I say it ends.”

The contrast is revealing. He accepts no responsibility for an election outcome, yet claims personal authority over the ending of a war.

Americans deserve to know whether the war is over, whether victory has been achieved and what the president's promises actually mean.

Troops and their families cannot plan around a war that is both won and ongoing. Allies cannot judge a commitment that changes with each interview. Adversaries can simply wait, because a president who declares victory on demand has already shown how little the word costs him.

On March 11, Trump declared, “We won,” adding, “In the first hour it was over.” On June 8, he promised to “declare total victory” within two weeks. By late September, the victory supposedly achieved had become a victory still approaching: He was predicting victory very soon.

Already won became winning soon, and over became almost over.


The new Congress takes office January 3. Its responsibility is to reassert the constitutional authority it has ...

Trump kept the triumphant tone while changing the tense. Americans were left to reconcile statements he would not reconcile himself.

On October 30, he said the war was “going to get wrapped up soon.” On November 2, asked whether he was considering strikes after the midterms, he answered “no,” Reuters reported. On November 3, he told Fox News: “If we have to, we’ll have to.”

Military circumstances can change. Presidents can reconsider. But reconsideration requires an explanation, not an expectation that earlier assurances have disappeared.

Trump announces victory, postpones its arrival and claims sole authority over its definition. A war cannot be ended by editing the president’s description of it.

The election excuse and the war declarations expose the same operating rule: Trump’s words impose obligations on everyone except Trump. Supporters must imagine him on the ballot. Candidates must absorb the defeat. The public must accept victory as accomplished, imminent or dependent on his next announcement. His authority remains absolute; his accountability remains negotiable.

Voters delivered a Democratic wave on November 3, giving Democrats control of both chambers of Congress. The new Congress takes office January 3. Its responsibility is to reassert the constitutional authority it has allowed the president to exercise largely unchecked.

With the blue wave mandate, Congress must hold public hearings and require administration officials to explain the contradictions. Put the president’s earlier declarations alongside his latest claims. Force a vote on whether continued military operations have congressional authorization. Use the power of the purse to fund American troops while refusing an open-ended commitment to a war with no measurable definition of victory.

If Trump vetoes congressional action, let him explain why one man's judgment should supersede the constitutional responsibility of 535 elected representatives.

Trump declared victory in March; now he says the war ends when he says so. Neither declaration answers the question Congress must put to him:

If America has won, why is it still at war?

The Congressional Democrats in charge must demand an end, not accept another declaration. A president can announce victory, but he cannot make it real simply by saying so.


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.





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.


The Sentinel On This Day |
October 21


Five reasons to head to the Mexican Caribbean, healthy hearing tips, and how to help indoor plants survive in shady rooms are just some of the stories we published on this day in the past. In sports, St. Joseph-Ogden breaks IHSA soccer records. These stories and more below.

Sentinel Article Archive for October 21


Loading posts from this day…



TAGS: Judge blocks National Guard deployments, seven indoor plants for your home, Hispanic advocates mobilize for upcoming mid-term election, spend winter break in the Mexican Caribbean, Unity football playoff opponent named, SJO football host Carlinville in 2023 IHSA playoffs, St. Joseph-Ogden soccer team breaks IHSA record

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.





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: 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

The Sentinel On This Day |
October 14


Today we learned about a St. Joseph resident who sent care packages to troops. We told you about five Urbana players qualifying for state in tennis, and new rules for energy assistance from the Trump administration. These and more stories from October 14.

Sentinel Article Archive for October 14


Loading posts from this day…



TAGS:

The Sentinel On This Day |
October 13



Unexpected expenses can turn a dream remodel into a financial headache, No Kings rally was another call for citizen engagement and preservation of American constitutional rights, and gut reactions to a terminal illness diagnosis can vary widely. These topics and more covered on this day.

Sentinel Article Archive for October 13


Loading posts from this day…



TAGS: SJO baseball coach Josh Haley coach of the year, SJO finishes in top three at conference meet, Unity volleyball outlasts Pontiac, tribal nations in Illinois get power to control burials, 2025 No Kings Protest recap

73% support Democrats' affordability agenda as costs remain high


Rising grocery, housing and health care costs remain a concern for Americans, with a September survey finding that 60% want President Donald Trump and Congress to prioritize affordability.


by Teri Dee
Public News Service


INDIANAPOLIS - Political pundits paint Indiana as a traditionally red state but Hoosiers and much of the nation are focusing on another color: green.

Consumers said they remain burdened by high grocery, housing and healthcare costs, and worry about paying their home heating bills as winter approaches. A Navigator Research survey from September revealed 60% of Americans want President Donald Trump and Congress’ unwavering attention on affordability and lowering common expenses.

Chris Fleming, spokesperson for the group Americans for Affordability, said people are just trying to stay afloat.

"Everyone is talking about how expensive things are and how they're having to make choices on whether or not they're going to buy a certain meal for dinner or are they going to put gas in their car all the way," Fleming observed.

The survey showed Americans’ dwindling faith in the rollout of Trump’s 2024 campaign pledges to enrich consumers through tariffs and tax cuts. Respondents said one reason behind the lack of confidence is last year's federal mega-bill and associated cuts to social programs, along with a less than ideal environment for jobs and the economy. The Indiana Business Review reported the state’s labor force grew less than 1% this year and unemployment could reach 4.5% next year.

In Indiana, one candidate is looking to change political history. Democrat Beau Bayh is running to become the next Indiana secretary of state, an office Republicans have held since 1994.

Tina Tang, director of polling and analytics for Navigator Research, explained what is holding people back from fully embracing change.

"The top reason was actually they don't trust Democrats to deliver, or there's not enough information yet on the agenda," Tang explained. "Some of the top pieces of opposition here isn't necessarily because 16% of Americans are opposed to lowering costs, it's that they don't trust leadership to be able to deliver this agenda."

Among poll respondents, 73% support Democrats’ affordability agenda, while 25% oppose it or are unsure. Despite widespread support for Democrats' affordability agenda, only around 54% said they believe there is a chance it will be implemented in the next few years. Despite Democrats’ trust advantage on costs, the poll noted many people’s distrust of either political party could be a hindrance to party dominance.




TAGGED:

Viewpoint |
Republicans should be campaigning on wages, housing, health care


The Jack Smith smear reveals a larger campaign of corruption and revenge says guest columnist Van Abbott.


by Van Abbott
Guest Contributor


When Sen. Eric Schmitt called Jack Smith a “total dirtbag,” he was offering an insult where evidence should have been.

Schmitt came to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing prepared for a televised execution. He implied that Smith had lied under oath and secretly met with Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. The centerpiece was a basketball game Schmitt presented as evidence of Smith's deception.

Then the basketball game turned out not to be the game Schmitt thought it was.

Schmitt claimed Smith had attended an Atlanta Hawks NBA game in Atlanta on February 3, 2024. Smith had actually attended a women's college basketball game between Iowa and Maryland in College Park, Maryland. Schmitt had confused the Hawkeyes with the Hawks.

The supposed perjury evidence disappeared with the correction.

Schmitt established neither perjury nor conspiracy, nor did he show that Smith's investigation of Donald Trump was corrupt.

He called Smith a dirtbag.

The strategy was simple: smear, spectacle, retaliation. The charge lands first; evidence… arrives too late.

And the victims are not imaginary.

David Hearn, a former Olympic canoeist, was charged with felony destruction of government property after being accused of damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. Prosecutors later received evidence that the damage resulted from a botched contractor installation. The Justice Department moved to dismiss the case. On October 1, a D.C. judge went further, dismissing it with prejudice and preventing prosecutors from bringing the charge again. The judge cited the “exceptional circumstances” and the government's previous errors.

A citizen should not need a judge's permanent protection from a prosecution.

The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia is more disturbing still. A federal judge dismissed federal human-smuggling charges after finding that the prosecution was brought to punish Abrego Garcia for successfully challenging his wrongful deportation. The judge described the evidence as reflecting “an abuse of prosecuting power.”

These cases involve different people and allegations. But they raise the same question: What happens when challenging the government makes you a target of the government?

Law and order means evidence before indictment, due process before punishment and equal justice before political loyalty. It does not mean selecting a target first, constructing a narrative second and searching for a charge last.

So why the appetite for vengeance?

Look at what it protects.

The Trump administration is surrounded by continuing questions about conflicts of interest, presidential self-dealing and the influence of wealthy interests. One example is difficult to dismiss as ordinary political fundraising. In 2025, top purchasers of Trump's $TRUMP cryptocurrency were invited to a private dinner with the president. Unlike conventional campaign contributions, purchases of the Trump-linked cryptocurrency could directly generate profits for Trump.


The person demanding answers becomes the target.

That is not merely access to a politician. It is access connected to an asset from which the president's family profits.

And the money-for-access model has continued. In 2026, another Trump-linked crypto venture offered investors who locked up $5 million in tokens for six months in what the company called “guaranteed direct access” to members of its business-development team.

But they illustrate why transparency matters when presidential power and private financial interests occupy the same room.

The administration's response to criticism has too often been deflection: attack the reporter, attack the watchdog, attack the judge, attack the prosecutor. If the accusation cannot survive scrutiny, change the subject.

Questions about power are answered with attacks on the questioner. The investigation becomes the scandal. The investigator becomes the villain. The person demanding answers becomes the target.

Corruption and retribution are not separate problems when the machinery of government can be used to distract from questions about how power is being exercised.

Each ethics question gets a new enemy. Each demand for accountability becomes “persecution.” Each investigation into presidential conduct becomes an opportunity to investigate the investigator.

The result is politics in which spectacle replaces scrutiny and loyalty replaces accountability.

Republicans should be campaigning on wages, housing, health care, retirement security and the economic dignity of working Americans. Instead, too much of their political energy is consumed by enemies, insults and investigations of those who challenge the president.

Fear is cheaper than governing.

So the next time a Republican senator calls someone a dirtbag, listen past the insult.

Listen for what it is meant to cover: the unanswered question, the missing evidence, the undisclosed favor, the money changing hands.

Because when an insult becomes the evidence, the person being smeared may not be the real target.

The real target is accountability itself.


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.





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.


The Sentinel On This Day |
September 30



Sentinel Article Archive for September 30


Loading posts from this day…



TAGS: St. Joseph-Ogden sports, Prairie Central volleyball defeats Prairie Central, Case Chlebek survey shows support, 2025 Illini Prairie football predictions, thinking before you vote

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.


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.




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


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.


Critical thinking and the responsibility of voting in 2026


oursentinel.com viewpoint
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.

oursentinel.com viewpoint
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.


Campaign buttons
Photo: Marek Studzinski/Unsplash

Critical thinking, verifiable information and a willingness to question assumptions are central in responsible voting. With the 2026 midterm elections approaching, your first obligation is to support our overall “capacity for justice,” and vote for those who will dedicate themselves to fighting against injustice.

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.



Loading latest story ...


| Most recent articles

Loading recent stories ...


Illustrious - Showcases and the stories behind Illinois’ most iconic high school gyms

CHICAGO - On a quiet Saturday afternoon in January 2012, at the Oak Park-River Forest field house, a simple thought refused to leave Vincent Johnson alone.

Covering a girls basketball game for the Oak Leaves, Johnson found himself looking beyond the box score and into the bones of the building itself. The space was overwhelming in the best way. Big. Empty. Striking. The field house - massive, architectural, overwhelming in character - was alive with echoes. The gym itself demanded his attention.

Microplastics and our water: What families should know

Statistics show if that if you’re not filtering your water the right way, your family is likely consuming microplastics.

An overwhelming 94% of U.S. tap water is contaminated with fragments of plastic pollution called microplastics, and bottled water does not fare ...

How good is your next steak? Look closely at the marbling

A premium steak makes an impression before it even reaches the grill. Fine streaks of fat run through the muscle, creating the visual pattern known as marbling. Those delicate flecks do much more than make a steak look appealing. They influence flavor and tenderness and affect how the beef performs over high heat.

Marbling plays a major role in the experience people expect from premium beef, but understanding it takes more than looking for the fattiest steak in the case. The amount and distribution of intramuscular ...


| Home Improvement

Loading recent stories ...



More Sentinel Stories