Embracing Compassion: A Call for Unity and Understanding in Troubling Times

We must pray for eyes and ears to be opened. We must pray for hearts to embrace compassion, empathy, and understanding. Many still cling to the delusions of self-righteousness from the past, believing that skin color and ethnicity create superiority. Or that biological sex, gender, or markers of dominance define worth.

The Need for Healing

We are living in dangerous times, marked by imbalance and division. Let us pray for healing, for a world where love triumphs over hate. It is essential to recognize that our differences do not divide us; they enrich our shared human experience.

Understanding the Current Climate

In this era, we face challenges that threaten our collective well-being. The discourse surrounding social justice, equality, and human rights is more critical than ever. We must engage in conversations that foster understanding and promote healing.

The Dangerous Double Standard: A Closer Look

On September 22, 2025, President Donald Trump announced an Executive Order designating Antifa as a “Domestic Terrorist Organization.” This order directs federal agencies to “investigate, disrupt, and dismantle” Antifa’s operations, including those who provide “material support.” While this may seem like a tough-on-crime measure, the vagueness of the order raises urgent concerns.

Such designations can expand surveillance, criminalize protest, and chill free speech—especially against leftist, anti-fascist, and social justice activists. This means individuals could be investigated or prosecuted not for committing acts of violence, but simply for associating with or supporting Antifa-aligned movements. It creates a dangerous precedent where dissent and protest could be reframed as “terrorism,” while white supremacist terror groups continue to evade the same label.

The Hypocrisy of Designation

The danger becomes even clearer when viewed in light of Trump’s past rhetoric. During his 2020 debate, he told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by”—a phrase many members interpreted as a green light. He has spoken sympathetically about the Oath Keepers, a militia whose members were convicted for their role in the January 6 insurrection, even suggesting that groups like these could have “a place in politics.”

While Trump has claimed to “condemn” the KKK, he has also equivocated, famously describing white nationalist protesters in Charlottesville as “very fine people.” These mixed signals have emboldened extremists, reinforcing the idea that the state is on their side.

A Comparison of Extremism

The Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Ku Klux Klan are not identical, but they share roots in the same tradition of white supremacy, political intimidation, and reactionary violence. In contrast, Antifa is a decentralized anti-fascist movement with no record of mass killings, primarily focused on countering neo-Nazi and far-right activity. Yet in Trump’s America, Antifa is branded “terrorist,” while groups with long histories of terror and bloodshed escape that label.

This is more than hypocrisy; it is a weaponization of government power. It reveals a toxic double standard where opposing fascism is criminalized, while enabling white supremacy is normalized.

⚖️ Antifa vs. The KKK: Who Really Commits Terrorism?

Why does the government label Antifa a “domestic terrorist organization” but not the Ku Klux Klan? Let’s examine the facts.

🔴 The Ku Klux Klan (KKK)

• Founded: 1865

• Methods: Lynching, bombings, arson, assassinations, voter suppression, mass intimidation

• Targets: Black Americans, Jews, Catholics, immigrants, LGBTQ people, civil rights activists

• Impact: Thousands killed, millions terrorized over more than a century

• Status: Still active today, identified by FBI/DHS as a white supremacist extremist threat—but never formally designated a “terrorist organization”

  
  
  
  

⚫ Antifa

• Founded: No central group; a loose network of anti-fascist activists

• Methods: Counter-protests, direct action, sometimes property damage, occasional violent clashes

• Targets: Neo-Nazis, white supremacist rallies, far-right extremists

• Impact: No record of mass killings; violence is sporadic, typically localized

• Status: Branded a “domestic terrorist organization” by political decree—despite being far less lethal than white supremacist groups

  
  
  
  

📊 What the Data Shows

FBI and DHS reports indicate that the majority of deadly extremist violence in the U.S. comes from white supremacists and far-right extremists—not Antifa. Civil rights experts highlight that the KKK’s legacy is systemic terror, shaping laws, elections, and racial oppression in America for generations.

The reality is clear: Antifa is a decentralized protest movement; the KKK is an organized, historically murderous terrorist network.

🚨 The Double Standard

Antifa is labeled “terrorist” for opposing fascism. The KKK is not labeled “terrorist” despite 150 years of racial and political terror. This discrepancy is not about threat levels; it’s about political convenience.

Interview: Rev. Paula Sadler on Trump’s UN Speech, Truth, and the Threat of Toxic Leadership

Interviewer: Reverend Sadler, thank you for speaking with me. What was your immediate reaction to Trump’s UN address on September 23, 2025?

Rev. Paula Sadler: My reaction was shock mixed with sadness. More than half a century after the United Nations was founded to foster peace and collaboration, we watched a U.S. president speak with disdain—denouncing the UN itself, rejecting multilateralism, and claiming actions that seem far removed from reality. The use of moral certainty to cover over misleading statements signals something deeper going wrong in our political culture.

Interviewer: You’ve said that Trump used authority to mask falsehoods. Which quotes from his speech illustrate that pattern?

Rev. Paula Sadler: There are several. A few stand out:

• “I ended seven wars, dealt with the leaders of each and every one of these countries, and never even received a phone call from the United Nations offering to help … All I got from the United Nations was an escalator that, on the way up, stopped right in the middle.”

  
  

This mixes grand, unverifiable claims (“ended seven wars”) with petty complaints (the escalator) as though they sit on the same moral plane.

• “At least for now, all they seem to do is write a really strongly worded letter and then never follow that letter up. It’s empty words, and empty words don’t solve war. The only thing that solves war … is action.”

  
  

This frames the UN’s traditional diplomatic role as worthless, delegitimizing it entirely.

• “It’s the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world, in my opinion … They were made by stupid people that have cost their country’s fortunes …”

  
  

This attack on climate science and predictions is not just doubt—it’s active contempt for institutions, expertise, and consensus.

• “Not only is the UN not solving the problems it should, too often it’s actually creating new problems … The crisis of uncontrolled migration. … Your countries are being ruined. The United Nations is funding an assault on Western countries and their borders.”

  
  

Here, he paints the UN as an antagonistic force undermining nation-states—especially Western ones.

In each case, the language is absolute. There is no grappling with nuance or contradiction. He frames himself as the only one capable of fixing things.

Interviewer: Some defenders would say, “He’s just exaggerating to make a point.” How do you respond?

Rev. Paula Sadler: The problem is scale and intention. Every speaker exaggerates. What matters is when exaggeration becomes the framework for a worldview—and when that worldview is weaponized. Whether or not he believes all of it, he speaks as though these statements are incontestable facts. That stifles dialogue and fuels polarization.

Interviewer: In your view, how unusual was the tone of this address compared to previous presidents at the UN?

Rev. Paula Sadler: Very unusual. Normally, even when U.S. presidents critique UN policies, they affirm the institution’s necessity. Kennedy, Reagan, G.H.W. Bush—they all saw the UN as imperfect, but indispensable. Trump’s speech doesn’t just critique; it rejects the legitimacy of the UN, mocks its operations (teleprompter, escalator), and claims moral superiority over entire nations. That is a different posture altogether.

Interviewer: You’ve also connected this with Trump’s ambiguity toward extremist groups. How do the two threads (his UN rhetoric and his support of groups like Proud Boys or Oath Keepers) connect?

Rev. Paula Sadler: The link is in signal. When a leader undermines institutional norms and simultaneously gives permissive signals to extremist groups, they create a vacuum of accountability. If you airbrush institutions like the UN out of legitimacy, then violence, strongmen, militias, and violent ideologies can step into the gap. That is precisely what we see when he has told groups like the Proud Boys to “stand by,” and when he speaks sympathetically of the Oath Keepers’ role in January 6. The message becomes: institutions are corrupted, elites are enemies, only “us” can be trusted. That is fertile ground for extremism.

Interviewer: So, why does this matter to everyday people—and especially to a broader audience, not just political insiders?

Rev. Paula Sadler: Because words shape the world. When you hear claims presented in absolute form, repeated constantly, people begin to accept them. When criticism is delegitimized, dissenters labeled enemies, institutions declared obsolete, the public loses a framework for truth and justice. And when that happens, the poor, the marginalized, and the vulnerable are the first to suffer. This is not theory—it’s happening now.

Interviewer: Before we finish: in one final statement, what do you want readers to take away?

Rev. Paula Sadler: This is not about Trump. It’s about the character of power. If we accept precision-shredded rhetoric dressed as authority, we will inevitably give way to leaders who speak over us instead of with us. Our choice is: do we build leadership rooted in humility, justice, diversity, and truth, or do we allow domination, fear, and division to define our age?

Follow-Up: The Marble, Terrazzo, Teleprompter, and Escalator Moments

Interviewer: Reverend Sadler, you’ve spoken about the dangers of rhetoric. But Trump also went off-script in his 2025 UN speech to complain about building materials, teleprompters, and even escalators. What does this tell us?

Rev. Paula Sadler: Yes — this is a very revealing thread in his address, and it fits exactly with the concerns we’ve been discussing about character, psychology, and leadership.

He said, “This building should’ve been done with marble. They put terrazzo — terrazzo is cheaper, it looks cheap. I would’ve done it with the finest marble and it would’ve cost less.” He also quipped that the teleprompter wasn’t working, so he would “speak from the heart.” And he joked bitterly about once getting stuck on a UN escalator.

Why This Matters

1. Triviality vs. Statesmanship

   At the world’s most important diplomatic forum, where leaders usually speak about war, peace, climate, human rights, and cooperation, he spent time criticizing building materials and escalator maintenance. That sends a message: he centers his own grievances and personal taste over collective global concerns.

   
   

2. Projection of Ego

   This kind of commentary showcases his psychological pattern:

3. Self-reference: He compares UN construction choices to what he would have done better.

4. Inflated self-image: Even in architecture, he positions himself as the ultimate expert and fixer.

6. Deflection: Instead of addressing the failures or complexities of diplomacy, he reduces the moment to a “businessman’s gripe.”




7. Distraction from Substance

   Talking about terrazzo vs. marble or a broken escalator diminishes the seriousness of the stage. It also sidesteps accountability: if you’re criticizing building design, you’re not talking about human rights abuses, wars, or domestic unrest.

   
   

8. Character Revelation

   A president’s conduct at the UN is supposed to symbolize America’s role in the world. By fixating on trivialities and making it about himself, Trump reveals a character more concerned with personal image, status symbols, and grievances than with the immense responsibilities of leadership.

   
   
   
   

The Larger Pattern

These anecdotes aren’t random—they reinforce his communication style:

• Ridicule and complaint in place of constructive vision.

• Personalization of everything—even a global assembly is reduced to how the escalator treated him.

• Undercutting institutions by belittling them, even down to their building materials.

  
  

✨ What it really says about his character: Trump uses the world stage not to uplift or unify, but to aggrandize himself and belittle others. These aren’t harmless tangents—they’re symptoms of a leadership style rooted in ego, grievance, and spectacle rather than substance.

Interviewer: But many of his supporters would say, “This is exactly why we like him—he speaks his mind.” How do you respond?

Rev. Paula Sadler: Speaking your mind doesn’t automatically mean you’re speaking with wisdom, truth, or relevance. Leadership requires more than candor—it requires responsibility.

At the United Nations, the world was listening for vision and solutions: peace, climate, hunger, migration, human rights. Instead, he spent precious time airing personal gripes about terrazzo, teleprompters, and escalators. That’s not leadership—that’s distraction.

Yes, authenticity can be refreshing, but authenticity without wisdom is just noise. And when you bring noise into a forum meant for global cooperation, it diminishes America’s role and credibility. The UN deserves substance, not spectacle.

What If Everyone Talked Like This?

Interviewer: Reverend Sadler, if we step back, how should we understand the effect of a leader at the UN talking about marble, terrazzo, or escalators instead of war, peace, and human rights?

Rev. Paula Sadler: The best way to see how abnormal this is, is to imagine it happening in everyday forums.

• At a PTA meeting: Parents gather to address bullying or funding for after-school programs, but one parent spends five minutes ranting about the gym chairs or parking lot asphalt. Everyone would roll their eyes and steer the discussion back to the agenda.

  
  

• At a City Council meeting: Imagine the mayor, instead of discussing homelessness or public safety, mocking the wallpaper in City Hall or the elevator being too slow. Local media would cover it as embarrassing, and residents would see it as disconnected from their needs.

  
  

• In a corporate boardroom: If a CEO told shareholders more about the carpet color in headquarters than about profits or risks, investors would panic. Confidence would collapse.

  
  

• In a courtroom: If an attorney mocked the wood paneling instead of addressing the evidence, the judge would stop them for being irrelevant, and jurors would lose respect.

  
  

• At the United Nations: World leaders are expected to discuss war, climate, and human rights. When a president chooses to gripe about building materials or escalators, it diminishes the seriousness of the stage and erodes global credibility.

  
  
  
  

Rev. Paula Sadler (continued): The common thread is this: when leaders substitute petty grievances for problem-solving, they waste everyone’s time, lose credibility, and weaken the institution itself. Whether it’s the PTA or the UN, these forums exist to solve real problems. Using them as platforms for ego and spectacle is a betrayal of purpose.

Let us continue to seek understanding, compassion, and unity in our communities. Together, we can create a world where every voice is heard, and every heart is valued.