Paul Random

President-elect Donald Trump’s newly forming “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) promises to make Big Brother less bureaucratic and less wasteful, potentially saving trillions of taxpayer dollars.

Led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, DOGE is already raising eyebrows and making some career government workers nervous and it’s no wonder.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal last month, Musk and Ramaswamy were blunt regarding their intentions.

“Most government enforcement decisions and discretionary expenditures aren’t made by the democratically elected president or even his political appointees but by millions of unelected, unappointed civil servants within government agencies who view themselves as immune from firing thanks to civil-service protections,” they observed.

One of the ways they’re proposing to save money and increase efficiency is to permanently sunset federal remote work – policies widely enacted during the COVID pandemic.

“Requiring federal employees to come to the office five days a week would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome,” they wrote. “If federal employees don’t want to show up, American taxpayers shouldn’t pay them for the COVID-era privilege of staying home.”

But writing for the Institute for Family Studies, Anne Morse-Huércanos, who holds a Ph.D. in Demography and Sociology, warns that eliminating remote work also threatens to eliminate moms and dads from the workforce.

“If Musk and Ramaswamy require federal workers to work in-person five days a week, this will disproportionately hurt people with families,” Dr. Morse-Huércanos writes. “Some will eat the extra commuting time and spend less time with their kids. Others will move their family closer to downtown at the expense of having a yard where their children can run and play outside. Others will weigh their job against these new costs to their family-life and choose their family-life instead.”

Few would argue that remote work presents significant personal benefits ranging from the physical to the financial – and especially more time with family.

But should government officials be concerned about structuring jobs in ways to accommodate parental demands?

Dr. Morse-Huércanos argues that it’s in the public’s best interest to have fathers and mothers at the table. She’s not wrong. Men and women who are fathers and mothers bring a unique perspective to their work, especially when it comes to shaping and advancing policies that impact families. But there is more than one way to make that happen.

As her analysis goes, removing any remote work option will drive out the parents first since they often live outside the Beltway, ceding the territory to the single and childless.

Almost five years out from the COVID pandemic, there are strong feelings about remote, hybrid and in-person work. Some have suggested opinions about it come down to a simple divide: the worker bees love it and the bosses hate it. That’s likely an oversimplification of a layered issue – but it’s probably more true than false.

For Christians, at the heart of the debate lies our overall understanding and appreciation of the nature of work itself. It should be instructive that God Himself worked six days and rested just one. That doesn’t mean we should revert to a six-day work week. But it’s one thing if you’re trying to figure out where and how best to get your work done and a whole other if you’re focused on getting paid more or the same for wanting to do less.

Work can certainly be transactional, but it should also be relational. We ignore the value of an in-person dynamic at the office at our own peril. As believers, work should also be seen as a form of worship – a transformational way to see our labor driven by our calling and not simply a matter of convenience.

Images from Getty.

There’s a riveting scene in the movie Gettysburg, the epic 1993 Civil War film, that features an exasperated General John Buford, played by the gravelly voiced Sam Elliot.

Standing in an open Pennsylvania field the day before a big battle in 1863, Buford runs his fingers through his sweat-soaked hair and laments to an aide:

“Devin, I’ve led a soldier’s life,” he begins, staring off into the distance. “I’ve never seen anything as brutally clear as this … It’s as if it were already done. Already a memory. As if tomorrow has already happened, and you can’t do anything about it.”

This haunting reflection comes to mind as we await and anticipate the looming controversies attached to any number of consequential policies of the incoming Trump administration. The protests are coming – and some of the lies have already begun.

Promising change and the end of the status quo, the new president is sure to elicit strong reaction from both his friends and foes – and perhaps none more so than his pledge to enforce America’s borders.

To be sure, there’s been robust debate over the years on how to manage the influx of those who break the law to get into our country. Members of both parties have struggled to get a handle on the increasingly complex and compounding problem of illegal immigration.

The presidential campaign highlighted the heartbreaking murders of several Americans killed by those here illegally. There was Laken Riley, a 22-year-old Augusta University student. She was slain while jogging. Jocelyn Nungary, age 12, was murdered by Venezuelan gang members. There have been others.

Don’t expect to see those protesting the enforcement of America’s immigration laws highlighting these innocent victims. Instead, brace yourself for the weaponization of empathy – a reckless, irresponsible and misleading framing of the issue.

Case in point – a meme that’s circulating in social media that attempts to even co-opt Christmas to garner sympathy and compassion for those who broke the law.

“If you’re celebrating mass deportation of distraught, exhausted human beings seeking refuge, you probably shouldn’t be sweetly singing Christmas songs about a baby with ‘no crib for a bed,’” reads the message making its way around.

There is so much wrong with the statement that it’s difficult to know where to begin.

First, the suggestion that Christians are “celebrating” the deportations of refugees is an outright false premise. There is no celebration. There is concern – and a sober-minded vigilance.

Second, according to the UNHCR, “A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee conflict or persecution and has crossed an international border to seek safety. They cannot return to their country without risking their life or freedoms.”

While there are instances of this happening, the vast majority of those crossing illegally into America aren’t being forced to flee. Many want to leave their country for all the same reasons our ancestors did. Tragically, others are here for evil purposes or simply to collect welfare.

Third, it’s bad and sloppy theology to imply Jesus was a refugee as a baby in Bethlehem. He wasn’t. Mary and Joseph were following the law when they went to Bethlehem to register for the Census (Luke 2:1). When an angel appeared in a dream and instructed Joseph to escape to Egypt (Matthew 2:13), they would have better fit the description of being a refugee, but they were still living within the Roman Empire when they fled.

Here is a great irony: Those who are attempting to guilt Christians into supporting illegal immigration and opposing the deportation of those who broke the law are doing so under the guise of empathy when, in fact, it’s dangerous and destructive to not enforce existing laws.

In fact, many believers are eager to see our borders protected and criminals brought to justice because of their love and compassion for others. It’s actually cruel to support policies that hurt and even sometimes kill innocent people. There is nothing compassionate about open borders and lax enforcement.

Scripture makes clear we’re to “love the stranger” (Deuteronomy 10:19), but the apostle Paul also makes clear we’re to “be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established” (Romans 13:1).

Like General Buford, we can see what’s coming from those who will protest the enforcement of America’s immigration laws. Brace yourself for the arguments and accusations. Be gracious and merciful, but just don’t allow them to browbeat you with sloppy theological arguments and empty empathy that manipulates and misleads.

Image from Shutterstock.

It’s been exactly 30 years since the Sony PlayStation made its debut in Japan, a product that was created because of a failed venture between the video game maker and Nintendo – another Japanese company that began in 1889 by selling playing cards.

PlayStation made it to America and the rest of the world the next year, and to date has sold over 400 million consoles. The PlayStation 5, or PS5, is the latest iteration.

Hailed as a game where “Play has no limits,” the company is promoting the console in a fantastical, gritty, city-based video advertisement where everyday structures turn into playful objects. A metal street garbage can becomes a basketball hoop, awnings are trampolines, the side of a building is a “Connect Four” game, and a stairway turns into a slide on which commuters are invited to descend, work clothes, bags, and all.

The message is clear: Play shouldn’t be limited to the conventional.

Adding flair and additional fun to the ad is the all-important musical soundtrack. Appropriately, it’s called “I Feel Just Like a Child” by an artist named Devendra Obi Banhart. A Venezuelan American singer-songwriter, Banhart wouldn’t be familiar to those who prefer Christian music. Instead, his music falls into the genres of what’s known as “Freak Folk,” “Psychedelic Folk,” and “New Weird America.”

But consider the lyrics you hear as the PS5 ad unfolds:

The advertisement doesn’t feature all of the song, and not all of it is as clear and sensical as that portion, but are you picking up on the larger truth being shared?

Without intentionally making a moral point, the artist – and by extension Sony – acknowledge it’s a child in the womb. Not a blob of tissue. A child.

Truth has a way of cutting through the fog. You can try and shade it. You can try and deny it. You can even attempt to ignore it altogether. But that doesn’t make truth any less true.

As the battle over abortion rages, especially given the rising-red-state-versus-blue-state divide, it’s encouraging to remember that truth is not a geographic construct. Although voters in California or New York might not want to acknowledge the legal rights of a preborn baby, their delusion and denial don’t make the child any less viable or human.

Inadvertently, Sony has just endorsed the fact that it’s a baby in the womb – a truth that’s actually very good for Sony’s bottom line. After all, babies grow up to buy PlayStations.

As pro-life champions, we’d be wise to point out these admissions, even if they’re not intentional. Last month, we highlighted Volvo, the Swedish car manufacturer who celebrated the value of children while celebrating the quality and safety of their automobile.

Sony may believe that “play has no limits,” but when it comes to the sanctity of life, there are moral limits. Indeed, all life from the “womb to the tomb” is worthy of dignity and protection.

Image credit: Sony

President Joe Biden’s “full and unconditional pardon” of his son, Hunter, has raised eyebrows on both sides of the aisle, a rare display of bipartisan objection in a hopelessly divided Washington, D.C.

The sweeping pardon grants legal protection “for those offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014, through December 1, 2024.”

Hunter Biden was convicted earlier this year of tax evasion and illegal possession of a gun.

Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution gives the president the authority to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” 

George Washington holds the distinction of being the first president to grant executive clemency. Back in 1795, John Mitchell and Philip Weigel were disgruntled Pennsylvania farmers, upset the government was taxing distilled spirits to raise revenue to pay off the national debt.

Not all the frustrated farmers were offended drinkers, but since whiskey is distilled from grain, they stood to be financially impacted from the tax. Some of the upset farmers tarred and feathered federal officers who showed up trying to collect the tax. Mitchell and Weigel were tagged as being part of one such mob. They were convicted of treason and sentenced to death by hanging.

After Mitchell’s and Weigel’s execution was delayed, Washington stepped in and pardoned the duo.

“The misled have abandoned their errors,” the President declared.

“For though I shall always think it a sacred duty to exercise with firmness and energy the constitutional powers with which I am vested, yet it appears to me no less consistent with the public good than it is with my personal feelings to mingle in the operations of Government every degree of moderation and tenderness which the national justice, dignity, and safety may permit.”

Washington would go on to issue 14 other pardons, the third fewest. Serving just 32 days, William Henry Harrison issued none. James Garfield, who was assassinated after only 200 days in office, also never exercised his right to pardon anyone. If you don’t count the extraordinary circumstances of President Carter vetoing over 200,000 for draft evasion, and President Biden pardoning over 6,500 for marijuana possession, Franklin Roosevelt, who served the most terms (three plus), also issued the most pardons with 3,687.

President Ford may have issued the most famous and historically consequential of pardons when he granted clemency to former President Richard Nixon for any crimes related to the Watergate break-in and its cover-up.

Given that many of our founders hailed from England, it’s not surprising that the presidential pardon finds its roots in British law.

The “Royal Prerogative of Mercy” dates back to the seventh century to King Ine of Wessex. It basically gave the leader the right to step in and exercise compassion.

There was significant debate over granting the United States’ new president the power to pardon at all. There was strong opposition to it, but also enthusiastic support in favor of the right.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in “Federalist No. 74,” “Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed…. one man appears to be a more eligible dispenser of the mercy of government, than a body of men.”

John Marshall, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, described the presidential pardon as “an act of grace.”

Some will argue that the presidential pardon is rooted in God’s modeling of grace and mercy, and as Christians, we know full well the blessings of both.

It was Dr. Adrian Rogers, longtime pastor at Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, Tennessee, who once declared, “Mercy is when God doesn’t give us what we deserve, grace is when God gives us what we don’t deserve, and justice is when we receive what we deserve.”

Strong feelings will persist over the merits, or lack thereof, of the Hunter Biden pardon, especially since President Biden has for years insisted that he wouldn’t issue any pardon at all.

As Christians, though, we can sing with awe and appreciation the words of the hymnist Thomas O. Chisholm, who marveled at God’s faithfulness in our lives:

Pardon for sin and a peace that endureth, Thine own dear presence to cheer and to guide; Strength for today and bright hope for tomorrow, Blessings all mine, with ten thousand beside!

Image from Getty.