Sentinel Article Archive for September 30
Loading posts from this day…
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 AbbottGuest 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.
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.
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
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. MishlerGuest 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.
- 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.
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.
Viewpoint | Women, get in line
Trump treats rules as restraints for other people, not for himself.
by Van AbbottGuest 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.
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.
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.
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 23
Sentinel Article Archive for September 23
Loading posts from this day…
Viewpoint | When faith becomes ammunition: The danger of sanctifying war
Religious faith can guide people through the horrors of war, but government power must remain accountable to law, evidence and constitutional limits.
by Van AbbottGuest Contributor
First the boat was destroyed, then two survivors were killed in a second strike, and now the men directing America’s wars want us to see such violence through the eyes of God. On Sept. 2, 2025, a U.S. strike destroyed a suspected drug-trafficking boat in the Caribbean. Two men survived and clung to the wreckage. A second strike killed them. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth later defended the operation, invoking the “fog of war” and saying the admiral who ordered the second strike had the authority to do so. The incident was not isolated. Trump’s maritime campaign has killed more than 223 people and destroyed 67 vessels as of 08/30/2026. The administration says those targeted are drug traffickers or narco-terrorists. But Americans have received too little evidence about who was killed.
The problem begins when faith becomes ammunition.
More than 223 dead. More than 67 boats destroyed. Still too few answers. Then came Hegseth’s prayer. At a Pentagon Christian worship service, the defense secretary prayed for “overwhelming violence” against people he said “deserve no mercy” and asked that “every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation.” Trump identifies the targets. Hegseth sanctifies the violence. Trump has supplied his own religious vocabulary. He called the rescue of a downed American airman in Iran an “Easter Miracle.” In threatening Iran, he warned that “all Hell” would rain down and concluded, “Glory be to GOD.” There is nothing wrong with a president praying for soldiers. There is nothing wrong with a defense secretary expressing faith. There is nothing wrong with thanking God when an American service member comes home alive. The problem begins when faith becomes ammunition. When military violence is presented as divine favor, when enemies become people who “deserve no mercy,” when destruction is wrapped in righteousness, religious language no longer merely accompanies government power. It begins to sanctify it.
...because war already gives human beings extraordinary power over life and death.
That should alarm Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists and every American who believes the Constitution, not theology, governs the use of military force. And the danger may not stop at the Pentagon. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation has reported receiving more than 200 complaints concerning religious comments by military commanders about the Iran war. One complaint alleged that a commander told troops the conflict was part of God’s plan, that Trump had been “anointed by Jesus.” Those allegations remain allegations. They should be independently investigated, not casually repeated as fact. But the allegation itself illustrates the danger. A soldier’s oath is to the Constitution. An officer’s duty is to lawful authority. A commander may pray with troops, but personal theology cannot become a military command structure. The American military exists to defend the nation, not to stage-manage prophecy. That distinction matters because war already gives human beings extraordinary power over life and death. A president’s authority to use military force does not include the authority to redefine killing as righteousness. Faith should strengthen those limits, not erase them. It should remind those who command force to distinguish combatants from civilians, use no more force than necessary, protect the wounded, accept surrender and seek peace when war has accomplished its legitimate purpose. Mercy does not mean surrendering to an enemy. It means recognizing that even war has rules. The Good Samaritan did not first ask whether the wounded man belonged to his tribe, shared his beliefs or deserved help. He saw a human being in the road and stopped. The Good Samaritan ran toward the wounded. A double tap makes the wounded the next target. Iran’s regime is brutal. Drug cartels are brutal. Neither fact gives the United States permission to abandon law, evidence or restraint. America can destroy legitimate military targets without declaring every enemy beyond mercy. It can fight terrorism without turning war into theology. It can defend itself without claiming God as a member of the chain of command. Congress should demand the evidence from the boat campaign: the strike video, the orders, the legal memoranda and the complete casualty record. Congress should also investigate reports of religious coercion or apocalyptic messaging inside military commands and make clear that American service members must never be pressured to confuse obedience to lawful orders with obedience to a commander’s private theology. The Constitution gives government enormous power to wage war. It does not give government the power to declare its violence holy. The Good Samaritan ran toward the wounded. America should remember that before the next target is declared righteous to kill.
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.
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.
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.
Guest commentary | Life lessons from the buffet, the highway and everyday kindness
Glenn Mollette offers a series of simple strategies for navigating life's highway, from slowing down and letting others pass to showing appreciation and treating people with kindness.
by Glenn MolletteGuest Columnist
Glenn Mollette
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 | The world keeps calling it a ceasefire while bombs still fall on Gaza
This opinion piece questions the legitimacy of calling the situation in Gaza a ceasefire while airstrikes and civilian deaths continue. The article argues that language surrounding the conflict has obscured the reality faced by families living under ongoing bombardment.
by Yumna Zahid AliGuest Commentator
A ceasefire means the firing ceases. That is not a sponsored conclusion or a political position. That is, in American English, British English, Australian English, Canadian English, Irish English, Nigerian English, and every other English spoken in every other corner of this earth, the literal definition of the word. So someone needs to explain, clearly and without the usual diplomatic fog, how Gaza is still being bombed while this so-called truce is in place.
When you call a bombing campaign a ceasefire, you are not just being inaccurate. You are providing cover.
The dead in Gaza do not care about your press releases. They do not care about your ties or your flags or your solemn faces at the podium. They weep over one outcome and one outcome only: whether the bombs stop. THE BOMBS DID NOT STOP. So everything else, the agreements, the statements, the carefully worded communiqués, the handshakes in front of flags, all of it was a hoax. A spotlight-ready, well-funded, internationally-endorsed hoax. And you are not supposed to applaud a hoax that ends with children dying. You are supposed to ask why it keeps getting cheered on. Honestly, this is not a ceasefire, and you need to stop letting them call it that. Because the moment you accept their language, you have already accepted their version of reality, and their version of reality is engineered precisely to make you feel like something is being done when nothing is being done. Words matter. When you call a bombing campaign a ceasefire, you are not just being inaccurate. You are providing cover. You are handing the people responsible a shield made out of language, and they will use it, and they have been using it, and people have been dying underneath it. Look at the logic and follow it all the way to the end. If a ceasefire agreement exists and strikes are still happening, then one of two things must be true. Either the people responsible for enforcing it are completely powerless, or they are fully aware and have simply chosen not to stop it. There is no third option. There is no innocent explanation hiding somewhere in the fine print. Both possibilities are a catastrophic indictment of every government, every institution, and every leader who stood in front of a camera and told the world that this agreement meant something. Pick whichever one you believe. Both of them mean Gaza was abandoned willfully, with criminal awareness. The people of Gaza are not living through a diplomatic complication. They are living through an active bombardment that is being conducted underneath the legal and moral cover of a ceasefire that was never real. A mother in Gaza tonight is not thinking about the negotiation timeline or the political complexities of the region. She is trying to keep her children alive through another round of airstrikes that are happening during an agreement the entire world signed off on and then apparently forgot about by morning. At some point, this stops being a failure of the process and becomes a defended feature of it. Failures get corrected. Things that keep happening over and over again, in the same way, with the same outcomes and the same silence from the same powerful countries, are not failures anymore. They are decisions. Well-fed, well-protected, and well-compensated decisions made by people who will never pay the toll they trigger. Gaza is not a negotiating paragraph in a treaty. The people there are not abstractions in a geopolitical equation. They are human beings who were told the bombs would stop and then had to watch the bombs not stop. And the very least the rest of the world can do, the absolute minimum, is refuse to call this a ceasefire when it so visibly, so grotesquely, so inarguably is not one. Because if we cannot even get the words right, we were never serious about getting anything else right either.
About the author ~
Yumna Zahid Ali is a writer and educator who spends her free time reading, analyzing literature, and exploring cultural and intellectual debates. When she’s not writing for global audiences, she enjoys reflecting on societal issues and using her voice to challenge inequities, especially those affecting women. She also loves diving into history, believing that remembering the past is an act of defiance and a way to hold power accountable.
Viewpoint | Republicans defend White House ballroom plan amid security claims
A proposed White House ballroom expansion is being defended by Republicans as a security measure, but critics argue the justification masks a costly luxury project. The debate has sparked broader questions about priorities, spending, and political messaging.
by Van AbbottGuest Contributor
Republicans now expect Americans to believe the greatest threat to presidential security is insufficient ballroom space at the White House. That claim insults common sense from the first syllable to the last. President Trump spends enormous amounts of time at golf resorts, private clubs, fundraisers, and sprawling luxury properties where security teams must defend open terrain, moving crowds, tree lines, beaches, roads, kitchens, docks, guests, staff, and endless unpredictable variables. Yet Republicans now insist the republic itself hinges on constructing a taxpayer-funded ceremonial palace in Washington. Apparently the assassins lurk near the appetizer table. Senators Lindsey Graham, Katie Britt, and Eric Schmitt push the argument with almost comic determination. They insist a massive White House ballroom will reduce risk because presidents can host events on secure grounds instead of traveling elsewhere. Trump echoes the sales pitch, portraying the ballroom as a fortress disguised as a banquet hall. The logic collapses instantly. If the White House is safest, why does Trump constantly leave it? If security is paramount, why normalize exposure on golf courses while demanding public money for chandeliers and gala space? If this project is indispensable, why did previous presidents survive without a taxpayer-funded palace wing? Because this is not about security. It is about spectacle. Republicans understand the power of the word “security.” The moment they invoke it, scrutiny softens, questions fade, wallets open. Security justifies everything. Security excuses everything. Security sanctifies everything. That is the lie. The proposal itself ballooned from a supposedly donor-funded improvement into a sprawling luxury complex whose total cost could approach a billion dollars once infrastructure, renovations, and security modifications are fully counted. The price grows, the promises shrink, the excuses multiply. First came the ballroom. Then came the “enhancements.” Then came the “necessary security infrastructure.” Washington always speaks softly before it reaches for the taxpayer’s wallet. And Republicans expect Americans to swallow all of it while lecturing working families about fiscal discipline. They preach austerity to workers, restraint to retirees, sacrifice to families. Then they sprint toward taxpayer-funded opulence the instant Trump wants a grander stage. The hypocrisy does not merely drip. It floods. A party that once howled about deficits now treats public money like confetti at a coronation. Citizens are told the nation cannot afford expanded healthcare, affordable housing, modern infrastructure, stronger retirement protections, or struggling public schools. Scarcity always governs ordinary Americans. Abundance always appears for the powerful. Not for schools. Not for hospitals. Not for citizens. For a ballroom. The symbolism could not be clearer if Republicans installed a gold throne beneath the chandelier. They are not constructing a security project. They are constructing a monument. A monument to excess. A monument to ego. A monument to the transformation of conservatism from a philosophy of restraint into a personality cult draped in velvet and gold. The ballroom Itself becomes an almost perfect metaphor for modern Republican politics. Ornate on the surface, hollow underneath. Loud, glittering, theatrical, expensive. A political Versailles where image matters more than principle and loyalty matters more than truth. They wrap luxury in patriotism. They wrap vanity in fear. They wrap indulgence in the flag. And still the contradictions pile higher than the marble columns they want taxpayers to finance. Assassins do not hide in White House banquet halls waiting beside the shrimp cocktail. Threats emerge during travel, motorcades, public appearances, outdoor recreation, and unscripted movement through unsecured environments. Every security professional understands this. Republicans understand it too. That is precisely why the ballroom argument feels so cynical. They are not selling protection. They are selling prestige wrapped in patriotic packaging, a palace marketed as policy, excess repainted as emergency. And that is what makes the ballroom lie so revealing. Republicans now demand that Americans confuse luxury with leadership, extravagance with patriotism, and a presidential palace with national security. The ballroom Is not protection. It is propaganda wrapped in gold leaf.
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.
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.
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.
Viewpoint | The costs of the Iran Conflict are rising, accountability is not
One month into a war the White House says is going well, this Viewpoint from Van Abbott argues the opposite — that the U.S.-Iran conflict is quietly eroding American economic strength, weakening global alliances, and repeating the strategic mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Guest Commentator
The war is not won. It is not even close. President Trump says otherwise. That claim is not a mistake. It is a necessity. Acknowledging failure would expose the truth this administration cannot afford to admit: one month into the conflict that began February 28 with Iran, the United States is poorer, weaker, and less secure than when it began. The costs are already staggering. Tens of billions of dollars have been consumed with little to show beyond destruction. Fuel prices have surged, driving up transportation costs across the economy. Supply disruptions from the Gulf are beginning to ripple through American manufacturing. These are not abstract figures. They are the early signs of a war that is eroding economic strength at home while delivering no measurable gain abroad.
A declaration of victory is required to sustain support, even when conditions on the ground contradict it.
Strategically, the damage is deeper. American positions across the Middle East have contracted, not expanded. Analysts suggest U.S. military bases have been damaged, evacuated, or destroyed. Intelligence relationships have frayed as allies question Washington’s reliability after erratic decisions and unilateral strikes. Adversaries are not retreating; they are adapting. Russia benefits from higher energy prices that help finance its war in Ukraine. China is moving quickly to secure alternative trade routes and deepen its regional influence. While the White House speaks of dominance, the global balance of power is quietly shifting away from the United States. At home, the consequences will not remain distant for long. War-inflation moves quickly and unevenly. Energy costs rise first, followed by food and housing. Wages lag behind. The administration describes these effects as temporary, but markets tend to recognize instability before governments admit it. Prolonged conflict will bring neither stability in the Middle East nor relief for American households. It will deliver sustained pressure on both. History offers a warning the country has ignored before. Iraq was presented as liberation and ended in strategic exhaustion. Afghanistan became a twenty-year effort that concluded with the return of the very forces it sought to remove. These were failures not of courage or capability, but of purpose and judgment. Iran now risks becoming the next chapter in a pattern the United States has yet to break. The deeper problem is political. This war cannot be easily concluded because it cannot be honestly assessed. A declaration of victory is required to sustain support, even when conditions on the ground contradict it. Information narrows. Public updates diminish. Official statements grow more confident as underlying realities become less certain. In that environment, the war becomes less a national undertaking than a controlled narrative. It is worth asking who benefits from that narrative. Defense contractors secure long-term demand, energy producers profit from volatility, and political allies avoid difficult votes. The burdens fall elsewhere, on service members, on taxpayers, and on households adjusting to rising costs. The longer the conflict continues, the wider the gap grows between those who bear its costs and those who shape its direction.
War tests more than military strength. It tests whether a government can tell the truth about what it is doing and why.
President Trump once promised to end “endless wars.” Instead, this conflict risks becoming one. It is sustained not by clear objectives but by the political cost of reversal. A war without defined success can always be extended. A war without accountability can always be justified. There is still time to limit the damage. Congress retains the constitutional authority to define and constrain the use of force. It can require transparency, set boundaries, and insist on measurable objectives. A free press can challenge official claims rather than repeat them. Citizens can demand clarity about costs, risks, and outcomes before accepting assurances of progress. War tests more than military strength. It tests whether a government can tell the truth about what it is doing and why. When that capacity erodes, the outcome is determined long before the fighting ends. Without accountability, the cycle will continue, draining national strength, distorting priorities, weakening alliances, and turning permanent conflict into a substitute for strategy and democratic consent. This war was never winnable under the terms on which it was sold. That truth will not come from those who began it, but from the public that is paying for it and will continue to bear its cost. Its consequences will outlast the last shot, echo beyond the last speech, and endure long after the final excuse has faded. The judgment they refuse to render will fall to the country they have led into war. Vote in November.
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.
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.
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.
Viewpoint | Has Trump gone too far? Respond at the ballot box if you think so
This commentary questions whether Donald Trump has exceeded acceptable limits through a series of political and policy decisions. It outlines concerns ranging from pardons and foreign policy to economic impacts and domestic governance. The piece argues that many Americans are now feeling the effects of these actions.
Mr. Trump pardoned hundreds of individuals convicted of attempting to subvert a lawful and secure national election by a violent assault on law enforcement officers. Did he go too far? In addition, he pardoned several individuals convicted of cryptocurrency manipulation. Gone too far? He and his family have received hundreds of millions of dollars with their blatant cryto-related business ventures. Has he gone too far? He has received a 747 jetliner as a gift. Gone too far? He has encouraged the unlawful removal of thousands of federal employees targeted by Elon Musk/DOGE. Gone too far? He has politicized various government departments (e.g., Department of Justice, Department of Defense, etc.) and demanded they follow his whims and desires, rather than uphold state, federal, and international laws. Has he gone too far? With his own hateful rhetoric he has encouraged ICE to brutalize innocent citizens and lawful immigrants, even allowing the murder of said American citizens, in addition to the deaths of immigrants held in federal detention centers. Gone too far? He has torn down the East Wing of the White House, without proper approvals, to be replaced by a hideous, gigantic ballroom. Has he gone too far? He has “added” his name to the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Gone too far? He has allowed two totally unqualified individuals (two real estate brokers) to negotiate extremely important treaties with Russia/Ukraine, Iran, and Gaza/Israel. Has he gone too far? He has disrupted important relationships the United States has with NATO and the European Union. Gone too far?
His “Big, Beautiful Bill,” has eliminated healthcare subsidies for millions of hardworking Americans
He has “pressured” law firms, colleges and universities, and media companies to “follow” his desire and eliminate DEI policies. Gone too far? He has instructed the Department of Justice to put forth criminal/civil charges against innocent political opponents without evidence of unlawful conduct. Has he gone too far? His name has appeared in numerous documents related to the Epstein files, including an alleged incident of sexual assault against a minor. Has he gone too far? In addition, he is hindering the full and complete release of all documents, files, videos, photographs, and other pertinent materials related to the Epstein investigation. Gone too far? Trump has “added on" additional taxes on imported goods, paid for by US citizens, by virtue of his imposed tariffs placed on products from foreign countries. Gone too far? His “Big, Beautiful Bill,” has eliminated healthcare subsidies for millions of hardworking Americans, as well as SNAP benefits. Gone too far? Trump’s “unnecessary” war with Iran has resulted in the loss of lives of US service members, caused chaos in the Middle East, and significantly raised the price of gasoline, heating oil, natural gas, fertilizer, and other petroleum-based products. Has he finally gone too far? Did he reach the tipping point…. yes. BUT why? For most Americans, all of the “misadventures” listed above, happened to other individuals/organizations and did not significantly/directly impact their own lives. However, as a result of his unjustified conflict/excursion/war, petroleum products NOW suddenly cost more and are rising on a daily basis - NOW, on a personal level, most Americans feel the “pain" of Mr. Trump’s foolish behavior. Ergo, too many Americans have been “asleep” during the initial stages of Mr. Trump’s second term. BUT, now suddenly “personally feeling” the pain of higher prices at the gas pumps, soon to be followed by higher prices for most goods relying on gasoline/petroleum products, we have begun to notice how “tainted” Trump’s tenure as president has been. Is there a remedy for his unrelenting toxic actions? Yes, the upcoming midterm elections, where Americans can elect candidates who care more about their constituents, than following the whims of Mr. Trump and his sycophants (“This year’s political candidates: carefully examine their party affiliation,” Storm Lake Times Pilot, 02/06/2026). So, we can reclaim our Democracy in the coming election, BUT only if we support worthwhile candidates BY VOTING! Maybe a new cohort of honest and law-abiding US Senate and House members can thwart any further “how far is too far” misadventures by Mr. Trump.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Editor's Choice
Tammy Walsh Scholarship Fund honors her legacy while helping SJO seniors
Sixteen years after Tammy Walsh’s death, her family and friends continue a tradition of honoring her by helping local students p...
