have smart president whereas in the past we have had dumb presidents …
Adapted from the opinion piece How Much Humiliation Can JD Vance Take? By Dana Milbank (April 7, 2026 NYT) Where Mr. Milbank writes:
While anonymous White House officials let it be known that the vice president was skeptical about the war in the lead-up to the invasion, Mr. Trump has cut off that route of escape, saying Mr. Vance was “maybe less enthusiastic about going, but he was quite enthusiastic.” Mr. Vance is reduced to maintaining that war is OK now because “we have a smart president whereas in the past we’ve had dumb presidents.”
Mr. Milbank is referring to a scene in the Oval Office that was reported in Buzzfeed by Curtis Wong who writes:
The heated exchange between Vance and RealClearPolitics reporter Philip Wegmann went down at an Oval Office press event, during which Wegmann pointed to reports of the vice president’s skepticism on Operation Epic Fury while asking if he was “completely on board with the current war” in Iran.
“Look, I think that I know what you’re trying to do, Phil, you’re trying to drive a wedge between members of the administration, between me and the president,” Vance said. “What the president said consistently, going back to 2015, and I agreed with him, is that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon.”
“We have taken this military action under the president’s leadership,” he continued. “I think all of us, whether you’re a Democrat or Republican, should pray for success and pray for the safety of our troops.”
When Wegmann pointed to Vance’s “past statements,” however, the vice president doubled down.
“I think one big difference, Phil, is that we have a smart president, whereas in the past we’ve had dumb presidents,” he said. “And I trust President Trump to get the job done, to do a good job for the American people and to make sure that the mistakes of the past aren’t repeated.”
It should be understood that when the current vice president said this, he was standing next to the current president.
You can’t make this stuff up.
The current vice president is a relatively young man.
made it very clear not what he thought … someone else is always to blame
Nathan Admonishing David by Rembrandt van Rijn – Metropolitan Museum of Art
Adapted from the New York Times opinion piece, I missed the part about the Divine Right of … Presidents? )April 19, 2026) by David French where Mr. French writes:
He [That man currently in office] posted an image on Truth Social that depicted the president as Jesus healing a sick man, with worshipers looking on in adoration, a flag of the United States waving in the background and mysterious figures floating in the sky.
The image was clearly blasphemous, and I was gratified to see a number of people whom I’d consider MAGA Christians strongly criticize the president. For example, a popular right-wing commentator, Cam Higby, posted: “I support Trump, and I spend 8 hours a day defending him. I will not defend blasphemy.” Riley Gaines, a college swimmer turned conservative podcaster, tweeted to her 1.6 million followers on X: “Why? Seriously, I cannot understand why he’d post this. Is he looking for a response? Does he actually think this?”
To consider the contrast between the biblical model of religious conscience and the actions of Trump’s Christian loyalists, recall one of the most famous confrontations with power in the Old Testament, between a prophet named Nathan and King David.
In the biblical story, David repents immediately and writes one of the most memorable psalms in Scripture. “Have mercy upon me, O God,” it begins, “According to Your lovingkindness; According to the multitude of Your tender mercies, Blot out my transgressions.”
Now let’s look to the words of Franklin Graham, one of the most prominent evangelicals in America — and one of Trump’s most zealous supporters.
In a public statement after Trump posted the image of himself as Jesus, Graham pretended to believe Trump’s absurd explanation of the image, writing, “I’m thankful the President has made it very clear that this was not at all what he thought the AI-generated image was representing — he thought it was a doctor helping someone, and when he learned of the concerns, he immediately removed the post.” But Graham didn’t stop there. He lashed out against Trump’s critics, “I think his enemies are always foaming at the mouth at any possible opportunity to make him look bad,” he wrote.
Someone else is always to blame.
We played the waiting game after that man posted that image and then claimed he did not in any way see himself as anything but a doctor in the way the image came across.
We waited.
Surely … SURELY … this crossed the line and there would be a reaction by Christians who had been saved by the Blood of Jesus Christ and who loved their Savior for the grace he offered that replaced their sins.
Surely …
When Franklin Graham finally said something, he said, “When I looked at the illustration, I didn’t jump to the same conclusion as some. There were no spiritual references — no halo, there were no crosses, no angels. It was a flag, soldiers, a nurse, fighter planes, eagles, the Statue of Liberty, and I think this is a lot to do about nothing.”
Folks, as Mr. Churchill might say, Here, surely, is the world record in the domain of the ridiculous and the contemptible.
Mr. Churchill was speaking out against the claims of one Benito (This whipped jackal) Mussolini and Mussolini’s claims of Italian victories over Greece in World War 2.
Mr. Graham was speaking out on a subject that Mr. French said was “clearly blasphemous.”
My first reaction to Mr. Graham’s public statement was … is he on crack?
My second reaction to Mr. Graham’s public statement was … is he on meth?
My third reaction to Mr. Graham’s public statement was … is he on crack and meth?
My 4th reaction to Mr. Graham’s public statement was … why is he lying?
Mr. Graham and I grew up in the same age and era and for the most part, the same type of churches.
We spent hours on Sunday Mornings in Sunday School where we were taught Bible stories with what was know as flannel graph illustrations.
A board was cover in flannel and printed paper cut outs of figures with flannel pasted on the back would go up on the board where they would stick.
Printed paper cut outs of David and Goliath with one image of Goliath standing tall and another of Goliath landing flat and the cut outs would be swapped to go along with the narrative of story.
Anyone and I MEAN ANYONE with a biblical flannel graph saw the image posted by that man currently in office and immediately recognized who that figure was.
Mr. French doesn’t say Mr. Graham lied.
Instead, Mr. French says, “Graham pretended to believe …”
Think about that.
Graham pretended to believe.
Not sure what comes to your mind when you here the words, pretended to believe but I think of the Bible verse, Matthew 7:22-23 where Matthew records:
Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Not a lot of wiggle room to be pretending.
Look, I am in NO position to criticize anyone on anyone’s personal relationship with God and Jesus Christ.
If anything, I feel sorry for Mr. Graham.
I feel sorry for anyone who has to pretend that their love of Christ was not and is not offended by that man currently in office.
I guess that is why the Apostle Paul felt it was necessary to tell us: continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.
It is nothing to pretend about.
And in this case, there will be no one else to blame.
foul tirades demean presidency, the country … every one of us
In today’s Opinion Conversation in the New York Times between Frank Bruni and Bret Stephens headlined, The Second Coming of Trump, Mr. Bruni states:
I think it’s a mistake to become too practiced at shrugging off his depravity — which is a non-hysterical, wholly accurate word for it.
I agree that focusing exclusively or excessively on it and hyperventilating is a waste of good breath, but his foul tirades demean the presidency, demean the country — demean every one of us — and it’s important that we never forget that.
We can’t let those tirades become the new idiom for political discourse; we can’t pretend they haven’t diminished our standing in the world.
“That’s just Trump being Trump” is an inadequate response when, for example, he posts a video of himself as a pilot dumping torrents of excrement on protesters. (That was his A.I. gift to us in October.)
Mr. Stephens replied:
I agree.
Yet 77 million Americans voted for him.
That’s the country we live in.
We can’t pretend.
If the latest images that man currently in office showing him as Jesus and with Jesus do not offend you as a Christian then I feel I am on solid ground when I point out that you have plank in your eye.
I got lots of planks in my eye but the one I am pointing at in yours will cause you to take paths you don’t want to be on.
It’s important that we never forget.
God is not mocked.
The foul tirades of that current man in office demean the presidency.
The foul tirades of that current man in office demean the country.
The foul tirades of that current man in office demean every one of us.
no more for him life’s stormy conflicts charging like clouds across the sky
HUSH’D be the camps to-day; And, soldiers, let us drape our war-worn weapons; And each, with musing soul retire, to celebrate, Our dear commander’s death.
No more for him life’s stormy conflicts; Nor victory, nor defeat—No more time’s dark events, Charging like ceaseless clouds across the sky.
But sing, poet, in our name; Sing of the love we bore him—because you, dweller in camps, know it truly.
Sing, to the lower’d coffin there; Sing, with the shovel’d clods that fill the grave—a verse, For the heavy hearts of soldiers.
Hush’d Be the Camps To-Day by Walt Whitman as published in The Patriotic Poems of Walt Whitman (Garden City: Doubleday, 1918),
Wikipedia says: “Hush’d Be the Camps To-Day” is a poem by Walt Whitman dedicated to Abraham Lincoln. The poem was written on April 19, 1865, shortly after Lincoln’s assassination.
Whitman greatly admired Lincoln and went on to write additional poetry about him: “O Captain! My Captain!”, “When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom’d”, and “This Dust Was Once the Man.”
“Hush’d” is not particularly well known, and is generally considered to have been hastily written.
Some critics highlight the poem as Whitman’s first attempt to respond to Lincoln’s death and emphasize that it would have drawn comparatively little attention if Whitman had not written his other poems on Lincoln.
Although they never met, Whitman saw Abraham Lincoln several times between 1861 and 1865, sometimes in close quarters.
The first time was when Lincoln stopped in New York City in 1861 on his way to Washington. Whitman noticed the President-elect’s “striking appearance” and “unpretentious dignity”, and trusted Lincoln’s “supernatural tact” and “idiomatic Western genius”.
He admired the President, writing in October 1863, “I love the President personally.”
Whitman considered himself and Lincoln to be “afloat in the same stream” and “rooted in the same ground”.
Whitman and Lincoln shared similar views on slavery and the Union, and similarities have been noted in their literary styles and inspirations.
Whitman later declared that “Lincoln gets almost nearer me than anybody else.”
As for the New York Times article, I am always re-amazed at the amount of correct detail the reporting had when you consider this was 1865 and the paper went to press within 24 hours of the assassaitnation.
Maybe more than his Birthday being a holiday, April 15th should be a national Day of Mourning when you look at how much this Country gained when he was born and how much this Country lost when he was killed.
Then of course, my relationship to the history has changed so much in the last decade as I review all the actions and the struggles of the past, I find it difficult to reconcile that all that history led to where we are today.
What a mockery on so many levels.
What Mr. Lincoln said on the field at Gettysburg has just as much application TODAY as it did in 1863.
It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us —
that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion —
that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain —
that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom —
and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
As a rule, Mr. Trump does not apologize for doing and saying things that hurt or offend people, and officials in his White House characterize his behavior as radically refreshing and transparent.
I am reminded of James Thurber’s short story, The Owl Who Was God, from Fables for Our Time (Harper and Brothers: New York, 1939).
Once upon a starless midnight there was an owl who sat on the branch of an oak tree. Two ground moles tried to slip quietly by, unnoticed. “You!” said the owl. “Who?” they quavered, in fear and astonishment, for they could not believe it was possible for anyone to see them in that thick darkness. “You two I” said the owl. The moles hurried away and told the other creatures of the field and forest that the owl was the greatest and wisest of all animals because he could see in the dark and because he could answer any question. “I’ll see about that,” said a secretary bird, and he called on the owl one night when it was again very dark. “How many claws am I holding up?” said the secretary bird. “Two,” said the owl, and that was right. “Can you give me another expression for ‘that is to say’ or ‘namely’?” asked the secretary bird. “To wit,” said the owl. “Why does a lover call on his love?” asked the secretary bird. “To woo,” said the owl.
The secretary bird hastened back to the other creatures and reported that the owl was indeed the greatest and wisest animal in the world because he could see in the dark and because he could answer any question. “Can he see in the daytime, too?” asked a red fox. “Yes,” echoed a dormouse and a French poodle. “Can he see in the daytime, too?” All the oilier creatures laughed loudly at this silly question, and they set upon the red fox and his friends and drove them out of the region. Then they sent a messenger to the owl and asked him to be their leader. I
When the owl appeared among the animals it was high noon and the sun was shining brightly. He walked very slowly, which gave him an appearance of great dignity, and he peered about him with large, staring eyes, which gave him an air of tremendous importance. “He’s God!” screamed a Plymouth Rock hen. And the others took up the cry “He’s God!” So they followed him wherever he went and when he began to bump into things they began to bump into things, too. Finally he came to a concrete highway and he started up the middle of it and all the other creatures followed him. Presently a hawk, who was acting as outrider, observed a truck coming toward them at fifty miles an hour, and he reported to the secretary bird and the secretary bird reported to the owl. “There’s danger ahead,” said the secretary bird. “To wit?” said the owl. The secretary bird told him. “Aren’t you afraid?” he asked. “Who?” said the owl calmly, for he could not see the truck. “He’s God!” cried all the creatures again, and they were still crying “He’s God!” when the truck hit them and ran them down. Some of the animals were merely injured, but most of them, including the owl, were killed.
Moral: You can fool too many of the people too much of the time.
