POV: Venezuela, Greenland, and the Minnesota Shooting

Note: Audio from our most recent POV. You can watch the live version on our YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/Mw5zzuCeIRY

POV episodes are intentionally slower. They create space to step back from the constant churn of headlines and talk through what’s happening without rushing to conclusions. Will Wright and Josh Burtram use these conversations to think out loud, ask honest questions, and stay focused on clarity rather than reaction.

In this episode, we reflect on three developments that raise serious questions about power and accountability. We begin with the U.S. seizure of Venezuela’s president and what that action means for constitutional authority, regime change, and America’s role in the world. We then turn to growing discussions around Greenland, national security in the Arctic, and how those conversations are being received by U.S. allies.

The episode closes with a difficult discussion about the killing of an American citizen during a federal immigration operation in Minnesota. We walk through what is known, what remains unclear, and how quickly public narratives form before investigations are complete.

Throughout the conversation, Josh works to frame a Christian perspective shaped by human dignity, restraint, truthfulness, and lament. POV is a space to slow down, think carefully, and keep people at the center when policy decisions carry real human consequences.

Transcript

0:18

All right, hey guys, welcome to another POV point of view where we'll, of course, our political host and me, Josh Bertram, Pastor Josh Bertram, the Rev, no, I call my brother the Rev. But we come and we give our opinions, talk about the different news, things that are going on, the intersection of faith and politics, of course, and even just major news things that are happening right now that have happened in the last... month and give our opinion and this sense of what I would like to think, what we would like to feel is a faithful response, a faithful Christian response to some of these things. of course that's up for interpretation. So we'd love for you guys for to give feedback along the way. And of course, if you're with us, well, it's good to see you. Sorry, I should have said hello first. it's fine. It's good to see you too. And just a reminder, uh we were just working in our mic. You don't have to talk that close to your mic. But uh yeah, it's just like, yeah, it's really loud. um yeah, no, it's good to see you. good to be here. If my kids are watching, hi, Jericho Ronin. um yeah, no, I'm looking forward to this conversation. Yeah, same. And just again, the POV, we come together once a month. We're going to do it on the first Thursday, correct? Second Thursday. This is the second Thursday. It's the second Thursday of every month. That's why it's so early, because the first Thursday was January 1st this month. That's why that happened. And so, yes, we're going to come together and we're going to talk about this and we're going to hit some of these big stories. And we have quite a bit to talk about. We have quite a bit to talk about. Dude, it's like this is gonna be hard. We have quite a bit to talk about um over the last few, over the last month. And also just want to remind everyone about our Patreon to go jump on there. Patreon.com forward slash faithful politics. So just look it up, make sure you get on there. We're gonna be creating a community. We also have a sub stack, look that up. Divinities, democracy, dialogues of democracy and divinity. is what it's called. So go to that sub stack, all those fun stuff and be a part of it. Send questions as you have them or comments tonight and we'll try to answer them. All right, we're ready to jump into the story as well. no, you're muted. Fingers crossed. Yes, indeed. You're ready. Okay. I mean, that's an easy tech issue, dude. You just hit the unmute button. So we're going to start with, you know, just a small story about Venezuela. I don't know if you realized, Will, that we went in and we arrested the president of Venezuela. I just, you know, I know that you don't keep up with the news very much and I just wanted to let you know. That's just gonna be my cue. I mean, really, this is for the benefit of anybody that has headphones in and they're just like, But yeah, no, um we did do a thing in Venezuela and I think it was a surprise to a lot of people. We did. January 3rd, 2026, US forces carried out a military operations in Caracas, Venezuela, tomato tomato, and seized Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Celia Flores. They framed, so what we've done is US, we, guess solidarity, mean, we're the United States. We officials, our officials framed the action as law enforcement mission back by the military. Sorry. I don't know why I'm laughing. It's it's funny to call something a law enforcement. I don't just never thought about that in terms of like, Hey, this is a law enforcement thing. And yet it's requiring the military to go in there and blow things up and all sorts of fun stuff. So anyway, that's, that's, that's interesting. Let's see, he's been indicted. He went to New York for a grand jury, indicted by grand jury, and the charges involve terrorism, drugs, and weapons. so, let's see, September, since September, US forces, just to give a little context, have killed more than 100 people in at least 30 strikes on alleged Venezuelan drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean and Pacific. And this has course been a huge... Um issue and it's the last thing i'll say before just throwing it over to you Uh one well a couple things not congress wasn't notified so we can have you talk about that and um on january 8th today the us senate voted 52 to 47 on a procedural step to advance a war powers resolution That would ban and bar further military action against venezuela without Congressional authorization that doesn't mean no further a military action. It means without government or without congressional authorization and Do you think that's going to go through the house and and go through the president's desk? Yeah, I mean, it's not veto proof. And I don't think Mike Johnson has any um inclination to bring it up. I mean, they still have to fund the government by the 30th of January. So, uh I mean, they've got a lot on their plate. But yeah, no, it did pass. There were about five senators that voted in... or along with the Democrats. uh Trump did respond on Truth Social. said, should be ashamed of the senators that just voted with Democrats and attempting to take away our powers to fight and defend the United States of America. Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Rand Paul, Josh Hawley, and Todd Young should never be elected to office again. This vote, yeah, you know, that guy. know, know, uh super isn't he super liberal, Josh Hawley? uh so liberal. uh So yeah, they shouldn't be elected to office again. This vote greatly hampers American self-defense and national security, impeding the president's authority as commander in chief. In any event, despite their stupidity, the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, totally violating Article 2 of the Constitution, as all presidents and their Department of Justice have determined before me. Nevertheless, a more important Senate vote will be taking place next week on this very subject, which is... That's interesting because like I, I mean, maybe there is a vote happening next week that, you know, is going to unilaterally give Trump, you know, the last remaining pieces of our constitutional republic. um But yeah, no, this um is pretty significant, I think. And I don't want to like necessarily blow it out of the water, so to speak. um Is that a pun? That was a bad pun. And it was a bad pun that I even said it. Because you didn't even think about it, dude. But then I just thought about the boats and the water getting blown up. Anyway, sorry, go ahead. you did. an angel on my shoulder was like, don't do it, do it, don't do it, do it. No, but then you did it for me. So it's almost like, who are you? No, but the action that he took, is, well, actually, it would be false to say it was unprecedented. So George H.W. Bush did a similar thing with Panama. I don't know the details, uh but To say it's unprecedented to unseat somebody from power, think that that wouldn't necessarily be a true statement. What I do know is that Nicolas Maduro is universally thought as a bad actor by most Western countries. uh Trump probably could have gotten the support of Congress if he made a case for why he wants to do what he wants to do. But instead, he decided to do what he did as he does most things in a second term, like via executive order, via just pushing the boundaries of the law and not saying this is a military action, this is a law enforcement operation, and then bring him in for drug and gun charges. Of which, by the way, the charging documents didn't have anything in there about fentanyl, which is a substance that Trump declared is a weapon of mass destruction. destruction. You know, and uh it's just like, you can't say that you are going to go and, you know, uh grab this leader of another country, bring him here on cocaine charges when you literally just pardon an ex-president uh for cocaine charges from Honduras. Like, what? I have no idea what's happening. I don't know what's happening either. you know, so, so I'm going to push a little bit and say, and kind of try to get into a little bit more of the reasoning as to why this is an issue. Like, why is it an issue? And I think it is, but I want to even bring, articulate a little bit. Like, what is it about going in and arresting this, like, you know, dictator, whatever? Why? is that an issue? um Why would you say it's an issue? I mean, I can talk, but I know it's going to sound like it's silly, but why would you say it's an issue to do that? Well, mean, like your question sort of like doesn't address the complexity of like what the answer should be, right? Because like the answer isn't something linear. It's not like, the issue is X, you know, the issue is Y. It's like, no, like there's uh a virtual cornucopia of issues, you know, with this particular uh thing, because it just kind of further, I think, reinforces the idea that Trump is has very autocratic tendencies and will capitalize on them any way you can. I think that the immediate response, especially by the Republicans on this particular ah military action is somewhat muted. The fact that there was only five Republicans that voted with the Democrats, I think shouldn't go unnoticed because You know, Trump has has his eyesight on other countries. So so and he's he's realized that, he can just he can literally go grab the president of another country uh without telling Congress ah and not expect there to be repercussions. I mean, really, it's like the hubris of this of this administration is I mean, it's impressive, to be honest, to think that there won't be any consequences. And that's just not to say like consequences with the United States. That's like consequences globally. I mean, you're going to remove a leader, do a regime change, and then expect that their vice president is going to kind of like all of a sudden bring in, know, sweeping democratic norms, know, and give freedom back to their people. It's like, I don't know. mean, I don't know. What do you think? Yeah, I I think it's wrong. Well, for a few reasons. One, think that I don't think anyone should be able to use the military like this in this way. I just I don't know what the solution is. And I know presidents have done this kind of thing in terms of like, I mean, we invaded. Iraq, you were there. You were on the ground in this country because of something where a weapon of mass destruction was talked about and we went in and we invaded. We invaded Afghanistan. uh We've invaded several countries before without ever doing an actual declaration of war on uh Congress, doing it on uh Vietnam. And we went in there and we invaded that country. or helped, mean, essentially helped the South Vietnamese, right? And Korea, right? It's like, we have done this. And so I don't know, man. It's like one person being able to do that, but not letting Congress know. And I think that's the thing to me that just seems like that's what I don't like about what's happening right now. Even thinking about, and correct me if I'm wrong, but like, He didn't inform Congress when he destroyed the West Wing of the uh White House, right? em These unilateral decisions, it seems like, that are coming out, that people are just being informed, the American people are being informed, but it seems like a lot of different people are just being informed about it em after the fact. And so that's hard for me. And just like... going in, like the assumption, right, that I had before was that we are the good guys, which I mean, I love America and I want us to be the good guys, but it feels like we're going in and we're just making decisions um and like just exercising our will. I don't know, I guess I just have a different opinion than I... it doesn't seem like this is a just war thing. Like there's like the Christian principle of just war looking at it, you know, being the last result, being like ends justify the means of the great kind of evil. Like I think something like what happened in World War II, I would say is probably, I don't know. Again, I'm speaking in great amount of ignorance, but it seems like the last really just war. You had someone who was very, very clearly very evil, bent on world domination and was taking actions towards that. And then we came in and we stopped that. But it's like, I don't know if that's the same thing of what's happening here with Venezuela and em Maduro. don't know. Part of the problem is, and maybe you know more about this, but... Like what is the strategic interest? Is it just the oil in Venezuela for us? And are there other countries coming around this? Like why do we care about Venezuela? Yeah, I mean, I think. as a strategic importance, not the Venezuelan people, of course, let's just care about them because they're people. the reasons that have been stated are kind of all over the place. you know, there is we have to, you know, get the president because he committed crimes. But also Venezuela has a bunch of oil based off of like some deal Chevron had made with him many years ago. I don't know the details of that, so I can't really confirm or deny it. But, you know, the fact that the the public facing message is that we're going for the oil, at least now that the president is gone, you know, I think should be a little concerning because you're like, okay, you're a sovereign country and you're just going to let the United States come on and start. like start drilling, you know, I mean, I don't maybe maybe, uh you know, that there are some there are some like technology that makes it a lot easier, you know, but uh but but but you know, I do want to address something because somebody wrote something in the chat uh and and it's like the the images that are being pushed by especially those on the Trump administration, you know, like Venezuelans that are dancing on the street that are like, you know, like really, really joyful, you know, like, like I think like, like that's real. And I think that we have to at least acknowledge that like this action for many people, like was very liberating. And and it's like to them, maybe the US just looks like, you know, a a savior for the lack of a better term, you know, like a country that that that sees an authoritarian person and they remove him out of the country. That said, the vice president is still in charge. Just think of it like if Venezuela did the same thing to us. They did some sort of like middle of the night operation, they grabbed Trump. There would probably be large have invaded. Yeah, well, it's like there would be large swaths of America that would be extremely upset, you know, that that they did that. then another like majority that would be excited or happy, you know, and then we'd be like, but we still have bands, you know, like, like, so so like in their we'd be like, but wait, someone just came into our country and took our president. What does that say about us? Like in our ability to defend ourselves and, does it say that I think my biggest issue in all of this is true, right? All of these can be true at the same time. I think one of my biggest problems is that might this just reinforces that might makes right. This just reinforces if you have power, you're going to do what you want. And the assumption. that we have the right motivations, we have the right intentions. And that's a dangerous assumption to make. Go ahead. Yeah, I had an interrupt. Yeah. I was going to say it's true. a lot of it is sort of founded on Monroe doctrine. We don't need to get into the weeds of that. But in essence, it's like this non-necessarily legally binding sort of thing that America is going to be sort of the big dog in town in the Western Hemisphere. um One of the reasons why like Venezuela has been somewhat of a strategic interest for the United States because they are sort of like the central hub for pushing drugs and money and stuff. mean, China has a huge vested interest. ah I just saw something today, I think it was China, where they're having to sort of redirect how they get their oil, like not from Venezuela anymore. Same thing with Russia. So it's almost like, there may be some long-term benefits from from what Trump did as like disturbing and I don't know, just very nerve wracking it is. And like there may be some long-term benefits to the country, but it's almost like on the world stage, like everything that people thought America could be, you know, in a bad way, like we're doing, you know, we're trying to colonialize. it's such a hard thing, man, because it's like, you you think about George Bush uh Jr., George W., right? And he goes in and he basically, I mean, they invade the country and then he finally finds, you know, Hussein. Right? They finally find him and they go in and they capture this guy and... Or the same thing with Osama bin Laden, right? He came in and again, they attacked us. so that was right, he was behind this plan that attacked us. And so I understand why they went in and they did that. So we have done these kinds of operations. And it's like, it because, like I think the thing that I'm wrestling with that maybe some people wrestle with is that, it because that Trump is like... There's just a sense that Trump is just trying to do whatever he wants. Some people love it, some people hate it. uh And so we're just going to look at anything. It's going to be painted in this authoritarian vibe. um And is it that or is this like, is actually truly in the strategic interest of United States. China is doing like, this is our enemy and we're taking a military action. And yet though, Again, from what I understand, It wasn't, again, not approved by Congress, not understood by NATO. And I don't have we done that before? Did we get like NATO's approval for like other conflicts or something like that? Is that like something we do? like the only time NATO has helped or I should let me back up. like NATO has a provision, the Article 5 provision, know, basically like kind of tackle ones, tackle all kind of thing. And they came to our aid in 9-11. I mean, I remember being deployed and meeting some cool like troops from other countries, you know. And so it's like There was a time when NATO was a lot more, I don't know, like favorable towards the US. And Trump could be a part of it. mean, like every president has always had kind of their thing against NATO. So I don't really have any strong opinions either or. But yeah, after the attack, like that next Monday, the UN General Assembly met to talk about Like the actions of America and like as you would expect, know, you had some countries were like, yeah, you know, didn't really want to like, like say much but others are like, yeah, they really suck, you know, America, you know, like, a lot of those were from Latin America, I noticed. They're not that that was the only ones in China and then Russia. But it's like, how are you going listen to Russia with what they're doing anyway? Yeah. of course, like that was on, I forgot whatever the day the attack was. But then, you know, just a few days later, you got his administration, folks like Stephen Miller and others saying that, yeah, like Greenland, you're next. And you're just like, I mean, like if you were a sovereign country, you're the president of whatever, know, who Becca stands in. uh And um the president of United States had just went into another country and grabbed their president and then just a few days later they're out there saying basically we want Greenland you know like like that that that gets you that gets you thinking and i'm just thinking on a global stage like like i don't i don't think the relationship with our allies are going to look the same you know in three years from now It doesn't seem like it is. And speaking of Greenland, right, um we'll work into this. I'll give us kind of a sense of what's going on with this Greenland. I'll read some facts here to get us kind of contextualized and then we'll level set rather and then um kind of work through it. The last thing though, I will say about this is that I think we can desire justice, be thankful that certain people are freed. And hopefully there is a freeing and really freedom and justice are put first. It's hard for me to believe that this was for freedom or justice m and not just a military strategy thing that's just about gaining more power. um I don't even know. I mean, I guess it can be both, but it just seems like that's so obvious that that was what it is. But we can, we can, what does that justice, but we should insist on due process and restraint. um Because again, if that's not being shown to people, what does that say about our views of humanity? What does that say about our own morals? And then at what point will restraint be removed for citizens? And we're already worried about that kind of stuff in any government. And so that's kind of like, at what point is that restraint removed? We want to push due process and require it of our government. um So on Tuesday, January 16th, was reported on January 17th 7th rather, Tuesday, January 6th, reported January 7th. The White House said, President Trump and advisors are discussing options for acquiring Greenland. The White House statement described Greenland as a national security priority in the Arctic and said using the military using the US military is always an option available to the commander in chief. Reuters reports internal options being discussed include an outright purchase, interesting, a compact of free association that stops short of making Greenland a US territory or state. Seems like those are the two um options that were being discussed at that point. Greenland is autonomous territory. within the Kingdom of Denmark and it's got its own government and parliament. uh Denmark controls foreign affairs and its defense. It says it does not want to be a part of the United States and the island has about how many people do you think Greenland has? Um, probably about the same as Virginia. 57,000 people. Dang, really? So then there must be something, it must be very resource rich. Man, so there's been mixed international reaction. Reuters reports leaders from major European powers in Canada rally behind Greenland, which I don't know what we expect on that one. I would probably rally around Greenland myself, less understanding more of what are we doing here. Why is this, are we even talking about this? Emphasizing it belongs to its people and warning an invasion would shock NATO. Indeed, it would. And so I'll stop there. What's been, what are your thoughts on this and what's the congressional reaction so far that you've seen? Yeah, mean, like the congressional actions are well, there really hasn't been any major congressional actions outside of just floor speeches, you know. reactions is what I mean, um reactions in a sense of how our Congress members are Yeah, think um a few of them have been saying stuff. If I had a memory, I could tell you their names. But I have seen some speeches and some discussions about Greenland's our ally. mean, even Mitch McConnell put something out. I saw something from another Republican senator who was talking about something about Steve Miller and he's just up there saying, can acquire Greenland. He was not very happy about, yes, yes, yes, yes. Yeah, it's creating some shakeups. Let's level set here. What does the Congress do if they want to stop whatever it is Donald Trump wants to go or the president of the United States. What do they need to do? What's going on? I don't know. mean like like like like president do whatever they want? Is that really where we're at? The president can just do whatever they want? That's not true, is it? the president has wide latitude on a number of different things. mean, he can freaking launch a nuke, you know, like without congressional action. So. How does that even make sense? How is that possible? America? America, dude. No, I mean, it's just one of those things where, like, for me, it's kind of like the Venezuela thing. It's like these things happen and you start to look around and be like, oh, that's your line. know? Like, OK, like grabbing a president from another country in the middle of the night without telling Congress, like, that's where you draw the line. OK, I got you. You know, like and other people are like, no, no, no. Greenland's the line like if Trump invades Greenland, you know, like Venezuela's fine, but Greenland that's where I draw the line so I'm just like Like all these little my minor minor might not mind that they're not minor right all these actions that Trump's taken It's sort of furthering showing where our where our cracks are um And like it's It's not great. I mean like just just the fact that there was a congressional floor speech or somebody having to say we're not going to take Greenland, you know, like, like that's on record. So that's going to be for for, you know, the annals of history. So in Trump's fifth term, you know, like, we'll look back at this moment and be like, hmm, if only we knew if only there were signs. Well, peel I don't know Pele Broberg called for direct this is Greenland opposition leader called for direct talks with the US without Denmark Greenland's minister foreign minister said unilateral talks would be illegal and so a meeting is scheduled next week involving Denmark Greenland and the United States NATO ambassadors agreed to boost Arctic Security. So, okay, and maybe I just need to look this up and I can do this. um But why... So this matters because this is testing whether... um Like all this talk about security language. We talk about, need security, we need security, which people have done that. mean, nations have done that throughout history. They've used security, the need for national security to justify just about anything. Right. So that's to me, the security, okay, great. Yes, we need security. We need to know exactly what that means and how this achieves that. Now there may be documents that show that I'd have to look, I'm sure there probably are some, you know, somewhere and I have to look that up. But this is about like, is talk about security just a blank check? for coercion against smaller peoples and even allies. See, that's the thing that's like so hard about this. These are allies, right? And so allies still have conflicting interests. And so how do we, how do we, how do we work through this? yeah, it's, it's just, it's, it's, it's pretty wild to me. Do you know why they're so interested in Denmark? I mean, at Denmark in Greenland. I don't know. mean, in Trump's first term, he was uh posting pictures of Trump Tower on Greenland. So outside of what the president has already mentioned, you know, I can, I can, I only just have that, that to go on now. I mean, what does it mean to have security in the Arctic? Well, mean, like the... And if you don't know, that's okay. just like, I'm just throwing this out there. It's like, what do we, I've never even heard of this before. Again, that doesn't mean it's not a big deal. It's just. does have a very strategic area, if you look at it on a map. So it's like, if there were uh a bunch of military races on Greenland, that would be pretty amazing. And amazing in the sense of we would control a pretty large swath of that hemisphere, or at least that part of the world. It's a strategic interest, I think, to Russia, But here's the thing that I don't know that I read briefly today. So I don't really want to talk too much about it because I just don't know that much about it. But there was a some agreement between America and Greenland or Denmark at some point in time in history that laid out, you know, the option for us to build like runways or something like that. So I'm going to Google it and learn a little bit more just because I think that could be an interesting nugget that we could use in the conversation. uh The last thing I'll say is that um it seems odd, and I'm not saying that to be a conspiracy theorist, but Trump's military pursuits makes a little bit more sense given that he posted today that he was going to be What did he say? Our budget for 2027 should not be $1 trillion, but rather $1.5 trillion. Like this last NDAA, I think was like $900 billion. So we were eventually going to get to a trillion, I think, in our lifetime. But his rationale for it was essentially based off of all of the money we're getting from tariffs, which is just really dumb. All right. All right. We have one of our in the chat said, Greenland is rich in base metals. In base metals. Okay. Yeah. I mean, figured there's like, I mean, probably a lot of resources there, um like material that we would want. And then I'm sure like, I do want to figure out what the strategic importance of all these things are. Venezuela, Greenland. But also it's like, if you just sort of like step back and just think about, like, what are we really talking about here? And the dollar value, like, OK, we're going to we're running Venezuela now, you know, like like Marco Rubio, you know, in between his time as like the national archivist, because like he's in charge of that, you know, like he's running Venezuela. And I'm like, like, so like running a country doesn't cost any money. Like taking over Greenland and running that country and like that's not going to cost any money people in Greenland, dude. Yeah, true. Good point. I had no idea. That's so small. That's crazy, ah But I mean, I hear you. then they get like, yeah, what are we like, strategic interest. But the reality is like 100 people died, dude. And again, I'm not saying that they're and again, people die all the time and we just get used to it and it's horrible. You know, these people, these hundred families or whatever they are, whatever they were, Venezuelan families had 100 minutes like they they're without their their husband, father, brother, sister, mom, however it happened. And it's like, we talk about it in terms of strategic interests, but man, hope that Christians, again, thinking Christians, never forget, these are people that have been killed and are dying. uh People that God died for, that Jesus loves. And again, This again goes back to why the whole government and Christian mixture doesn't work. A government can't love its enemies. That means it's not a good government if it loves its enemies. What does that mean if a government loves its enemies? What does that mean? Now again, a government can show mercy. They can show restraint, but a government can't be a Christian. It has interest that it has to do it has to use force. It has to take lives and it's like we we talk in these abstract terms like strategic and all the stuff and yes all that matters but it's like people are at the bottom of this both in pun intended they get at the bottom they're at the top and the bottom of this and they just get forgotten And again, I don't know any of these people and I don't know what happened to them. And I don't know if they were good people or bad people or whatever. I don't have any clue that they were people. And my guess is not all of them were horrible, terrible, awful people that deserve to die. That's my guess. So anyway, I know it's not as simple as that, but the Christian always thinks about the person. That's what I I think we do reject might makes right, even when this is framed as national security. National security is not an idol that Christians should willingly be okay to sacrifice our morals on. Go ahead. I would say Franklin Graham would disagree with you. I know Franklin Graham would disagree with me, but with Jesus, that's my question. Oh man, I hear you, but the national security of stuff again, it mixes again with the Christian mission to save souls and to save people and to show the compassion of Jesus. How is what is happening in Venezuela showing? I mean, in some ways, right, if there's someone who's free, but again, it wasn't to free these people. That's not why we did this. That's not why we did it. We did it for a while. They're already saying that. And we did it for strategic interest. Okay, at least they're being honest about it. Great, then we can deal with it for what it really is. Right? Okay, so it's hard. Go ahead. switch topic? I didn't realize we were going to be talking about Venezuela for 40 minutes. yeah, dude, well, we talked about Venezuela. We talked about Greenland. These are big deals, dude. But you know what? But we talked about Venezuela and Greenland. It wasn't just Venezuela, dude. It 20 minutes per each. And then, well, now we can move into the one that's probably going to cause the most issues for tonight. There are a couple of things, but I can just post it later on online. There is something about the 10 Commandments being displayed uh in the public. in how these are, you know, we're going to continue to see actions, fights in the courts over um the display of the 10 commandments. Just as a quick thing, a group of 18 multi-faith and non-religious Texas families filed a statewide class action lawsuit December 2nd of last year, 2025, seeking to stop districts not already covered um by the litigation. and injunctions from displaying the 10 commandments in the classrooms. So the Texas Attorney General, Paxton, issued guidance stating the state will vigorously enforce the Texas Senate bill and has pursued action against districts that refuse to comply. So we are going to see a lot of fighting about this in the courts. And that's what's happening right now. Unity and decisions aren't happening. And this is a trend that I think we should pay attention to. The unity and decisions aren't happening as a cultural understanding and agreement. They're happening through litigation and fights. That's what's happening right now. And it's like, we've got to figure out how to move and talk to each other and not have to solve everything in the freaking adversarial court system that we have set up. So that's one thing to keep. keep thinking about. I don't know if you have any thoughts you wanted to say quickly on that. Nope, I think you covered it well. And the last one before we jump into Minneapolis is um we've talked about the Johnson Amendment before. We've covered this, so you can go check it out. Essentially, it restricts 501c3 nonprofits, including churches from endorsing or opposing political candidates. um And this has been under attack in the courts. they're essentially the underlying lawsuit There was one filed in federal court in Texas. It was brought by the natural religious broadcasters and two Texas churches challenging the Johnson amendment on constitutional grounds. So this is being challenged. And Americans United, people that we've had their uh president on and were big friends of Americans United for separation of church and state, they actually sought to intervene as a party to defend the Johnson amendment in court. um because they didn't think the government would adequately defend it and the federal judge in Texas ruled on January 6th um that the Americans United cannot intervene, but they can't participate via an amicus briefing. So what are we saying that for? Well, we're going to keep looking at this ah Johnson amendment. It's under pressure, under attack. And if it's removed... Then pastors, which essentially kind of already been doing, it seems like for the last 10 years, but pastors can essentially pose or support a candidate in any way they want. Unfettered. where do you fall on that? Like, you love to be able to endorse a candidate from the pulpit? You know, why do I phone that? I don't know. That's an interesting question because, you know, on the... here's a completely made up scenario. Your favorite Republican candidate, whoever that is, um is going up against Hillary Clinton. And the Johnson Amendment has been abolished. What do you do? So a part of me is kind of like, you know, whatever, just let people speak. And if people don't like it, then they'll just leave. And then that church, you know, so a part of me, the tension is like, just free speech, whatever. The another part of me is like, I understand why I understand why there's a resistance against churches becoming politicized because they already have been, they continue to be, and it creates issues. And then even especially as if there's any connection with like funding or some kind, like if it opens up and I've seen some of this and I don't know how do it, but if it opens up channels for somehow funds to be passing through churches to political candidates or something like that, you can see how this would get very messy. A lot of conflicts of interest, not a good idea. So I'm in general against it. I don't think it's simple. I don't think it's wrong. I just think it's unwise. At some point though, I think that if there is, depending on how bad the person might be, I do, or the candidate like the policies, I guess, how dangerous they might be for Christians or for people in general, m I could see you being justified in saying this, we should not listen to this. um You're certainly justified in saying we should not listen to this policy or critique it biblically, any policy that you're seeing, any cultural thing and trend. I that's part of the job, I think, of a pastor personally. You want to hit up Minneapolis, dude? The last few minutes together. few minutes. Yeah, what's happening there? I haven't really been following the news. yeah, nobody. We've just been living under rocks here at Faithful Politics. Well, apparently on January 7th, no, this is not a no joking matter, but on Wednesday, January 7th, 2026, US immigration agent shot and killed 37 year old Renee Nicole Good in her car in Minneapolis during an immigration enforcement surge. um The Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem said the agent fired in self-defense claiming Good weaponized her vehicle and tried to run an officer over. She characterized the act as a domestic terrorism under FBI investigation. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said video of the incident directly contradicts the government's self-defense narrative and called the official count a garbage narrative. Reuters reports it verified widely shared video that raised doubts about the reports it verified widely shared video that raised doubts about the government's account. It also gave a description of video. says the SUV inches forward, then reverses briefly. The driver moves forward, steers to the right. And what appears to be an attempt to drive away, an agent in front of the car fires three shots, at least one after the bumper had passed him. It was clear from the video whether the car. It was unclear whether the car contacted the officer, but I do think it did from a different angle. saw that after the shots, the car accelerated, crashed into parked cars and a utility pole. The Minneapolis city council identified the victim and demanded I sleep the city. The police chief said good was not a target of immigration operations. There's been protests now thousands gathered near the scene. Some protesters were met by heavily armed federal agents wearing gas masks. who fired chemical irritants. So now the Department of Homeland Security said it's conducting the largest Department of Homeland Security DHS operation ever in Minnesota with 2,000 officers. Noem said authorities have arrested 1,500 people in recent weeks. Government Tim Walz put the National Guard on alert and blamed federal tactics for escalating toward tragedy. immigration enforcement is now colliding with accountability. the use of lethal force, public trust, and truthfulness in official narratives. So yeah, man, it's, not to mention just Minneapolis. I don't know what's going on with Minneapolis, man. They have a lot of issues happen there. What's up with that now? I'm just saying, these public big things, and this stuff with the Somali. uh, corruption and Tim Wall's resigning and I mean, they're Oh, not running again. Sorry. Yes, that, was, yeah. And he's not going to run again and all this stuff. And it's like, yeah, I mean, it's pretty crazy there right now. What, um, what are your thoughts on, this situation? Yeah. So just first, like a public service announcement. Like whenever there is like a like tragic national thing that happens, uh like everybody should just stay off social media. Like as soon as it happens. Like turn your phone off ah because like. you know, just to kind of use a Jonathan Haidt reference, like we're just going to be triggering our elephant and things will seem to be more true than they normally would be if we weren't elevated. So, you know, like whenever there's stuff like this, like people are just like, yeah, I think, you know, the person was this or, yeah, they were doing that. I mean, everybody's trying to sort of craft the narrative before we have all the facts to kind of frame it the way that sort of best suits them. And the president, being the president, didn't do any favors. He was trying to craft a narrative, claiming that this person was a domestic terrorist and all this other kind of stuff. And I watched the video. I watched it a couple of times. uh And I kind of have my own thoughts. I don't necessarily think explaining them or talking about them would be necessarily productive. uh because I don't want to set the narrative for you. Watch the video, you'll think what you think. We can talk or email later. But I do think that there was quite a bit of shock, the fact that an American citizen was shot not necessarily... doing any crime, I should say. And I'll put crime kind of in with an asterisk because like I'm not a lawyer. yeah, it's almost like it happened and then everybody. Yeah, yeah. it's like the event just really kind of just again, like I talked about exposing fractures earlier, but it's like everybody's response to this just sort of was expected, right? Like the right's gonna do the right's gonna do the left's gonna do what the left's gonna do, you know, the press. central casting, just, everyone played their part. Yeah, everybody played, played, played their part, you know, I mean, and it's just like the Venezuela stuff, right? It's like, we, capture this guy, all Democrats just, you know, are supporting authoritarian leaders, you know, and like in here, it's like, Democrats, you know, I don't know, or lawless or whatever. Domestic terrorists. this domestic terrorist and it's yeah, it's really, it's really, really sad. mean, so what I do know, some of the things that that um that we didn't talk about was was who this person is. So like the very first thing I read this morning came in my newsfeed was about about this individual. I don't have a pulled up here, but but she was, you know, she was living with a partner and but was married em and her husband had died back in 2023. uh And it was like the uh father of her kid or something like that, you know, and it's like now this kid has to grow up without like a father. I think she has total three kids. I don't know the family dynamic there, but I know that she has at least one young kid with a with a man that's no longer alive. So her her grandmother might think it was a grandmother grandfather. Those kids was was interviewed in the article. And now, know, basically said that they're going to have to raise this young child. You know, so it's like, are the facts that we know about her. I know there's been some sort of like, you know, characterization of who she is, what she was doing, so on and so forth. Like, I haven't read anything from news sources that I trust anyways, that, you know, have really talked more about her actions. But even if she was a paid... protester, right? Or whatever that means. does what happened in the video make sense for the punishment? You know, and I would say that I would say no, I just I didn't. Based on what I saw, and of course, it was very, you know, like, my view is very limited because I wasn't the officer. um You know, it just didn't seem like she deserved to die. But again, I guess I guess we'll learn more. Yeah. know, and I, you know, it's like one of those split second decisions, like you see anyone in Lost Morseman. It's like they're in a place of danger. They're already heightened. Everyone's yelling at them. They have cameras on them. They're coming up. This woman is look like this is my interpretation could become, you know, open to correction. But it looked like she was from where I saw it, like to spook the guy was open in the door trying to get her out. I'm assuming to arrest, she reversed and then was going to drive away. And then there's a guy, maybe she didn't see him. Maybe he was in the peripheral because he wasn't visible. And then he comes from the angle that I was at, right? They have another angle. She wasn't visible. then, I mean, he, guy, the guy that shot, the officer that took the shots, and then he was visible. And then she was turning and he shoots and it just... And what it looked like, it all happened so quickly. It just, it looked like he got spooked and she got spooked. And what the problem is though, she was in a car and he had a gun. And so when two people got spooked like that in this crazy situation in which it's this tense, honestly, it was just a matter of time. In my opinion, it was just a matter of time before something happened. Yeah, I would. some kind of like fight, firefight. mean, there's already been that kind of thing, but till some citizen was killed or something happened, it was only a matter time to me. I don't I mean, I don't know what the training involves for like, you know, an ice agent. But what I do know is like I have trained like when I was in the infantry. I mean, when we were in Iraq, my particular team and if I have any former veteran friends watching this, just just remember, our fire team had the most number of raids. You That will only mean something to probably like two people. But like in the time we were there, we did close to like 90 some odd raids. That's like door kicking, know, going in an inner clear room and all that kind of stuff. But it's like day one when we entered theater, it wasn't like the first time we did that. No, like the previous year leading up to our deployment, like we were in shoot houses, you know, places where like we're using live rounds and I'm shooting literally about a foot away from your shoulder. and training clearing rooms. So you do that such that you fight as you train, train as you fight. So that way when you're put into that situation, the things that spook you should at least not be as much as something that was spooked like you or I. You would think that they would be given... They're trying to train the nervous system to be in high stress situations. Yeah. and we would even do, you know, like certain drills like in Fort Polk, Louisiana, I if it's still there, but they have a full like mocks like city, Sugarcorden. That's like the like replica of like the Black Hawk Down ah area. Like like we've trained there, you know, and it's like like again, I don't know anything about this ICE agents past history or training. What I do know that was reported earlier today was that he was involved with another vehicle situation. I think this was in June of last year where I guess he was pulled or dragged for a number of dissents. And I don't know the details behind that, but it's like you can kind of infer like one of two things. Like one, like people need to stop trying to hit ICE agents with their vehicles, you know, and then two, like... And probably stop getting in their way at that level. mean, obstructing federal agents seems like that will be a crime that's going to be true. Go ahead. Yeah. Or two, like, uh what is this guy doing where he finds himself in these types of altercations so often? You know, I mean, like, like whatever happens with this guy, I mean, there's obviously going to be like lawsuits and stuff, but it'll eventually go to federal court. So, you know, Tim Walls probably won't be able to like have much, much to say. And regardless of how the federal court rules, like I've got no doubt in my mind that Trump's going to pardon everybody in the federal government. ah when he leaves. So this guy may have to do like what a year in prison or something maybe if he's found at fault ah but he'll be pardoned. And I say that not to say that he's instantly guilty. We don't know, right? But if he does go to jail, that is a possible... ah he's instantly guilty. He's not instantly guilty, but he is instantly protected right now. Whereas she and her family is not. Hmm. Yeah. Yeah. And imagine like just the fact that the president painted her as a domestic terrorist. Like, how do you think the funeral? How do you think? Like, do you think that they're going to be able to have like, actually be able to like mourn? You know, like, I don't know. We can probably go on forever, but we're almost out of time. we are. thinking about treating, what do we, because part of what I want to do is I want to think through a Christian response to this, right? We have all these things that are the intersection of politics and religion that we talked about and that comes up in the news all the time. This is just a small sample size, by the way, right? There's so many other things that have come out in the news, so many other things. that have been happening. We haven't been able to get to it, dude. Too many things happen. We can't even talk about the big stuff because it's just eclipsed within a couple of days. Something else happens. Some huge thing. We're invading Venezuela. We're taking over Greenland. is shooting everybody. um It's so hard to keep up with that, but I want to get a Christian response. Thinking about this, man, the image of God is non-negotiable in everybody. uh The ice agent, the person that was shot, right? And why does that matter? Well, it matters because no life is just dispensable, right? um No life is just invaluable or able to be thrown to the side without caring. uh These are real people with real issues. They're reacting in extremely high stress situations and really like we could talk about in that situation. Yes, it's it's awful, but there's a there's a root There is a root cause issue here em That is that needs to be examined and that's our current political situation in current climate We are at we we are treating each other like enemies and enemy combatants and we're going in and we are in a really hard situation um domestically right now. this is why we're doing this. Continue to care for people, love people, don't hate ICE agents. That's not the solution, is not to hate ICE agents or hate the woke radical liberal left. No, just love people. Don't have dehumanizing rhetoric. Don't celebrate violence. Good God. Can we not celebrate violence as Christians? I mean, I'm not trying to say, I'm not making any argument about the use of force and keeping law or protecting or national, whatever. I'm saying let's not celebrate violence at a minimum as Christians. And not justify it either for no reason. Demand, I think we should demand transparent investigations. um And I think we should expect transparency and accountability when lethal force is used. I don't think we should ever allow and accept uh a government entity or law enforcement agency to tell us that when lethal force is used to not be transparent and not be the one accountable. mean, that's why we have accountability so that you can use lethal force. That's the only way we can feel like there is some kind of justification or at least guardrails around it. And I think also dude, in all of this, and it's the last thing I'll say before we kind of, we end here and I'll let you respond. But I think we should make room for lament and grief, not just arguments. Right now, we're going to see, like, there's going to be an investigation into this. There's going to be documents. There's going to be things we can look at. I want to encourage, please, guys, go to actual documentation, primary sources, as much as you possibly can. We have great technology that lets us do that. Please do that, OK? Please do it. But everything's going to come out. But right now, can we just lament that we're in? a situation in our country right now where citizens are being shot by federal agents as they're trying to go and enforce and pick up illegal immigrants. mean, the whole thing is so just awful right now. And I think grief and lament is appropriate, not just jumping to argument and why this is justified and my side is right. Can we just... Can we just acknowledge the sadness and lament for this? Anyway, that's kind of some ideas on a Christian response. Did you have any, did that spark anything? Yeah, there's a question for you. I'm assuming for you. Oh, nice. Do you think the administration possibly bore false witness against the victim? That's interesting. Yeah, I I without again jumping into all the details of it, because I don't know all the details and want to continue to look at them. The fact that a president or even even like the secretary would. If they would claim something about this woman em within this quickly, I think that's irresponsible. And I do think it is. I do. I do think it can be deception and lying when you're making claims that you don't know are true. And I think that I think and I don't care who you are. Right. I saw President Trump post. Nobody's above the law. I've seen him say that so many. Yeah. Neither is he. And I'm glad he's posting that because nobody is above the law and no one's above the truth. And I think that the truth is the most important thing that we have and we should never be afraid of it. That's what I think. What do you think, Will? Yeah, no, I agree. I just think that the saddest thing for me is the fact that it doesn't matter, you know, that he does bear false witness all the time. And it's like, I mean, just. don't seem to care about false witness. Like, like, let's just like, okay. When people die. mean, this is POV, dude, just say what you think. Yeah, like when people die, uh whether I like them or not, and I'm aware that they pass, like it is sad, you know? mean, heck, could take Charlie Kirk or could take Rob Reiner, you know? Like both deaths are like, are terrible, you know? And Charlie Kirk's death is terrible too, because like he got murdered. And it's just like... Like the problem about the president opining about people's deaths is that there's an expectation that his um post or whatever he talks about will be equal across the board. So most presidents would be like, yeah, Jimmy Carter died. That's a bad thing. Like, hey, Rob Reiner died. That's a bad thing. Charlie Kirk died. It's a bad thing. know, Obama, like Bush, Clinton, like all these people. like had people that died during their term and they just were respectful. So it's like, if we can get a person to, you know, just say a life was lost, you know, here, because in Rob Reiner's case, you know, like, because his son murdered him, you know, like, do we really expect that he's going to think twice about this unnamed person that was in the way of his like ice agent? Like, I don't like, like, I'm not think that? No, I don't think that at all. I've stopped being surprised, you know, em just because of, yeah, just stuff with this person is so, you know, don't boo vote. That's all I'm going to say. Vote. Yes, do what you can. And man, it's just like, can we restore some sanity and some care for the people around us? Christians should care about truth more than anything. You should never be afraid of it. Never be afraid of it. sounds like a great place to end. It does. does, guys. Thanks for coming and being a part of this and joining us tonight. We keep doing this every second to Thursday, Tuesday, come on, every second Thursday of the month. And if you have suggestions, guys, on, you know, send them over to us. You can email us, you can go to the website, contact us there. You can send us a message on Facebook, on all the socials. If you have an idea about a new story that you want us to think through, send it over. We'd love to hear from you. Patreon, Substax, get over there. We really need your support. We want to keep this going, and we love it, and we appreciate your support. And until next time, guys, God bless you. You're going to hear Alexa in my background. Keep your conversations not right or left but up. See ya. it up.