Independence Day 2026

 I concentrated on eighteenth century British politics in my brief academic career more than 50 years ago. In the process I came to realize the importance of British politics for a true understanding of the American Revolution. The American colonists regarded themselves as Englishmen defending their traditional rights as Englishmen. Basically, they believed that government should be as close to the people as possible, and not in some faraway capitol. Below find a brief analysis of the Declaration of Independence.

*************

Every July 4 we celebrate Independence Day, the anniversary of the promulgation of our famed Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. Most of us have heard the famous opening lines of the document, 

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

However, few have ever read the entire Declaration and even fewer have any understanding of the nature of the actual grievances that led the colonists to sever their ties with England and seek independence. Most readers don’t get past the following words.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

King George III of England was one of the nicest, most benevolent rulers that England ever had, but the Declaration portrayed him as a tyrannical despot. However, the real conflict between England and her American colonies was not between Monarchy and Democracy but between the rights of the British people represented as they were by their own Parliament, and the rights of the American colonists represented as they were by their own colonial assemblies. In this conflict no one was a greater supporter of the rights and authority of the British Parliament than the King.

For the most part the Declaration of Independence does not complain about violations of individual human rights but concentrates on what it claims has been a systematic attempt on the part of the government in England to violate the rights and privileges of colonial representative assemblies. 

The founding fathers believed these assemblies that represented the leading citizens and property owners in the various colonies were the sole bulwark against monarchical tyranny on the one hand, and democratic anarchy on the other. They claimed that the King and his colonial governors had repeatedly refused to put into operation laws passed by these assemblies.

•He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

•He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operations till his assent should be obtained…

•He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature…

•He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

In some cases the English government has even gone so far as to dissolve some of these representative assemblies and leave particular colonies without any form of self-government. The legal system, military defense, and tax collection have been taken out of the hands of the colonial representatives. Here are some examples:

•He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

•He has made the judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

•He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

•He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.

• He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power.

In the end the Declaration claimed that it came down to a contest between their own local representative assemblies and a faraway legislature that did not represent them. Because they had come to deny the authority of the British Parliament, they never used the word Parliament in the document. 

There are elements in the Declaration that might seem offensive to modern ears. Jefferson and others in America opposed the efforts of a reforming British government to permit religious toleration of the large Catholic population in newly conquered Canada. For them Catholicism went hand in hand with despotism. The Declaration also complained about attempts on the part of the British government to prevent colonization of Indian territory. Indeed, it claimed that England was encouraging the native tribes.

Nevertheless, the leaders assembled in Congress insisted on their rights as Englishmen to govern themselves. They wanted government to be as close to home as possible. They would make their own laws, vote their own taxes when necessary, and be responsible for their own legal and military systems. They did not want to be governed by a faraway government that had little concern for their interests or welfare.

It was true that the founders were men of property and status. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and Franklin were not common men. Democracy would come later. For the present they wanted to protect their right to self-government. The British government had declared itself “invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.” To resist, they were prepared to risk all that they held dear.

•“And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” 

 ###

 

Democratic Socialists and American Prosperity

Back in 2019, Alexandra Ocasio Cortez (AOC), the now famous Democratic Representative from New York City, claimed that an entire generation "came of age and never saw American prosperity." I suppose that she and other Democratic Socialists still believe that they have not prospered in America. 

She only has to look in a mirror to disprove such a preposterous claim. The image at the left shows her in a designer gown that she wore to a fancy dress gala at New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art that was packed with other successful people like herself. Her clothes, jewelry and make up probably cost more than most ordinary people pay for food. Didn't she grow up in Westchester county, one of the most prosperous areas in the country? Before she entered politics weren't the drinks she served as a barista signs of prosperity?

She also should look at the end of her arm and behold the ever-present mobile phone in her hand. How can the generation that has never seen American prosperity own these expensive phones with their equally pricy monthly plans? What about the laptops and other devices that are owned by practically everyone? They have the world's best libraries in the palm of their hands.

Moreover, every day these mobile phones and laptops have to be plugged into the electric grid so that their batteries can be recharged. Electricity is one of our basic human needs in the modern world but it is remarkably cheap compared to other things we buy. People hate their electric bills but most probably spend less on this vital resource than they pay on beer and coffee. Speaking of coffee, the ubiquitous Starbucks, where so many young people like to meet and hang out and pay exorbitant prices for a latte are certainly a sign of prosperity. 

AOC's words made me think of my own generation and compare it with the prosperity of her generation. Let's look at housing first.

I was 21 in 1960, and about to enter my Senior year at Fordham University. I had lived at home with my grandparents in the borough of Queens ever since my mother had died 10 years before. They owned a three family house on busy 69th Street, and we lived on the first floor. There were only two bedrooms and one bathroom. I did not have my own room but slept in the rarely used dining room adjoining the small kitchen. The bathroom had a tub with a makeshift shower attached.There were no countertops, granite or otherwise, in the bathroom or in the kitchen, Food was prepared on the kitchen table or on the stove. We never ate out. It was unthinkable for my grandparents to eat at a restaurant.

My father, stepmother and two brothers lived next door above a deli. Their apartment also only had two bedrooms and an even more primitive bathroom. At the same time, my future wife lived on the first floor of a two story home in White Plains, NY. with her parents and four siblings. Their apartment had only two bedrooms and one bathroom, as well as a tiny kitchen with no countertops. She and her two younger sisters shared the same bedroom.

 

What about communications? Cell phones had not yet been invented and I don't remember that my grandparents even had a landline by 1960. They communicated with neighbors and family on the front steps or in the back yard under the grapevine. To call a girl for a date I had to walk a couple of blocks to a payphone.

Like most families we only had one car. My grandparents never learned to drive, and my father, who dreamed of owning a Cadillac, had to settle for used Chevys. I only got my driver's license after graduating from college. Transportation by bus oe subway was the norm, although we did walk a lot. I never even rode a bike. Motor bikes and scooters were unheard of. Unlike my grandchildren, I never thought of traveling abroad, although by 1960 attending high school in Manhattan had opened my eyes to the wonders of NYC.

Although I never thought of it, I guess even with our modest lifestyles we were sharing in American prosperity. By 1960 my father and grandparents had converted their homes from coal to oil heat. No more backbreaking shoveling coal every morning. By then there was only one TV in the living room but with no remote. There was no gigantic flat screen color TV in every room. I had one pair of shoes and one pair of sneakers for sports. Everyone wore Keds back in 1960. There were no designer sneakers.

In 1960 I was about to enter my Senior year at Fordham University.  My father certainly could not afford the tuition but I had won a scholarship from his employer, the Bulova Watch Company. As the first in my family to ever attend college, It never occurred to me to live on campus, and so I had to take a bus and subway ride of over an hour each day just to get to campus.  It turned out to be a blessing in disguise as NY City with its libraries, museums, theaters, and movies became my campus.

In 1960 I had $250 in a small savings account, and no prospects for the future. If I had ever thought of it, I might have complained that I had not shared in American prosperity. But in the next year I graduated from Fordham with a fine education and no debt, won a NY State Teaching scholarship to attend Columbia University, and met the young nurse who would still be my wife today. 

I don't think my story is unusual for any generation. 

###

###

Hall of Shame Induction

 

The Weekly Bystander has been content to let former President Joe Biden and his wife Jill slide into oblivion since the last election, but the recent publication of her memoir has brought them into the limelight again. I have not read her book and don't intend to, but reviews make it clear that it has tarnished their reputation even more.

It is now time for Jill Biden to join her husband in The Weekly Bystander Hall of Shame. Five years ago, after a disastrous first year in office, President Biden was inducted. Here is a link to a post that gave the reasons even before we knew what the rest of his term would bring.

Now, after the startling admissions in her memoir, it is Jill's turn. It's not just that she claims that during the infamous debate of June 2024, she thought Joe was having a stroke, but that she also claims that before or since, she has never seen any sign of mental decline in her elderly husband. 

Even more deceitful was her performance after the debate when on national television she effusively praised her husband's performance despite what she had seen with her own two eyes. She now says that she was using a technique employed by educators to encourage schoolchildren who had failed at some task.   Maybe so, but treating the President of the United States as if he was a schoolboy was disgraceful as well as deceitful. What kind of a woman is she? What kind of a wife is she to think he could have served four more years in such a demanding office? Check out this link to a brief video of her post debate reporting.

Below is an excerpt from my account of the June 2024 debate that treated Joe Biden with more compassion than Jill did.  

"My wife and I watched the Presidential debate last Thursday night, and it was obvious that President Biden lost. I rate his performance as a “D” because he at least completed the grueling ordeal. My impression was confirmed by watching the spinmeisters discuss the debate afterwards. Even the most die-hard Democrats admitted as much. It didn’t take words. Their faces told the story.

It was not that you could point to a blunder or two. President Biden looked and sounded weak and infirm. One Democratic commentator noted that there is only three years difference in their ages, but Trump looked and acted thirty years younger.

 

Joe Louis, one of boxings greatest champions, once said of an opponent that “he can run, but he can’t hide.” Well, President Biden may be running but he couldn’t hide during the debate. We finally saw the real Joe, or what was left of him at age 81. Finally, he stood alone without even Jill at his side, and we saw him without teleprompter or prepared remarks although he had spent a week preparing. It was sad, even sadder when you consider that he is the President of the United States.  

 

President Biden’s deportment during the debate would make you think that we have not really had a President for the past three and a half years. I would go even further and say that he appears like a figurehead or puppet, and that during his term I suspect that the country has been run by a secret cabinet of non-elected Democratic bureaucrats and advisors working behind the scenes. 

 

For three years Jill and the others in his inner circle must have observed that he was suffering from old age, and that he was no longer fit for the job. Along with a cooperative media, they have perpetrated a colossal fraud on us. They have hidden the real Joe from us but in the debate we could see and hear the truth with our own eyes and ears."

 

By coincidence, when I wrote the June 2024 debate post I found a letter by an eighteenth century critic of the British government on the eve of the American Revolution. In one passage the letter discussed the Duke of Bedford, an aging aristocrat and minister whose policies contributed to the American war and the eventual loss of the American colonies.

“ Let us consider you then, as arrived at the summit of worldly greatness; let us suppose that all your plans of avarice and ambition are accomplished, and your most sanguine wishes gratified… can age itself forget that you are now in the last act of life? Can gray hairs make folly venerable? And is there no period to be reserved for meditation and retirement? For shame, … let it not be recorded of you, that the latest moments of your life were dedicated to the same unworthy pursuits, the same busy agitations, in which your youth and manhood were exhausted. Consider that, although you cannot disgrace your former life, you are violating the character of age, and exposing the impotent imbecility, after you have lost the vigor, of the passions.”

### 

Assassins

 

The recent attempt by a self-proclaimed assassin to enter the White House Correspondents dinner and possibly kill President Trump and other members of his administration marked the third attempt on Donald Trump’s life in the last twelve months. 

It makes you wonder why Donald Trump is such a target. The question was put to the President in the brief press conference held right after the incident. He replied that he had studied assassinations and claimed that the Presidency has always been a high-risk job, especially if the President has achieved much.  According to him there is little reason to target an inconsequential President like his predecessor.

I suspect that there is some truth in his remarks, but I think there is something more involved in the attacks aimed at him. I do not agree with those who think the problem will be solved by toning down the “rhetoric.” The rhetoric itself stems from something deeper. I do not believe that the people who claim that Trump is a dictator, a fascist, or another Hitler are lying or hypocritical. They really believe it. In a way, they can’t help themselves. It is as if they have been programmed. Let me give an example.

An incident occurred in our home during President Trump’s first administration that was strange. For years a window cleaner had been coming to our home to clean our windows. He was a nice guy who always did a good job, and my wife really liked him. While chatting with him on one occasion, she mentioned that she liked Trump. Immediately, he picked up his equipment and walked out of the house leaving the job half done. It was as if his psychological immune system had sprung into action and he could not help reacting. 

I thought of this trivial incident while trying to understand why three attempts have been made on the life of President Trump so far. What are the assassins like, and what do they believe?

The case of Luigi Mangione provides some clues. This young man deliberately shot a man in the back in broad daylight, a killing that in former times would have been considered craven cowardice. Yet, Mangione apparently thought he was doing a good deed in shooting the CEO of a large health care insurance company. Moreover, instead of being vilified, he is regarded by many as a kind of hero, even a saint. The CEO he killed was a successful Businessman who somehow deserved to die.  

In the eyes of his haters Donald Trump is the epitome of the Big Bad Businessman. He is rich and flaunts it. He is arrogant and self-assured. He brooks no criticism or insult. He is the personification of the villains of innumerable movies and TV series that I have witnessed over my long lifetime. For years, Law and Order, to name one, has been among TV’s most popular shows. Inevitably, the original murder suspect is usually a poor young Black or Puerto Rican, but then the murderer turns out to be a wealthy businessman.

The pandemic alerted us to the workings of our immune system: how it is programmed to immediately spring into action against harmful invaders. We also learned that sometimes the immune system can overreact and cause even more damage.

I have come to believe that we also have a psychological immune system that has largely been conditioned by what we have been watching over our lifetimes. Any rational person must admit that from the age of the robber barons to our current tech tycoons, the cultural bias has been largely left wing and anti- business.

The opinion page of my local newspaper has no conservative commentators. It cannot afford to offend the sensibilities of its readers or remaining advertisers. The mainstream news media is notoriously biased. The staff at NPR is overwhelmingly Democratic. It’s not much different online. It turns out that over 70% of Wikipedia sources are left wing, and only 1% come from the right. For every conservative on the Yale faculty, there are 36 liberals.  

I admit that I have my own psychological immune system, but I have never hated anyone or thought of killing anybody even if it would benefit humanity.  I can’t bear to watch or read left leaning news but do not hate the Democrats who for years have dominated politics here in Connecticut. I disagreed with many of the things that former Democratic Presidents Biden and Obama did, but I never hated them. 

In thinking about it, I believe that there were some institutions that kept my psychological immune system from over-reacting even when I was a young man. First, there was my marriage. My wife certainly would not have allowed me to be an assassin. Our shared beliefs, background, and values also helped. There were our children. We had to raise them, and I had to work to support them. There were our extended families who supported us and who we had to support in turn. There was our Church whose teaching, culture, and long history were in our blood.

I certainly don’t think that I am unique. On the contrary, I believe that most people still are supported by institutions like these that keep them from doing harm. Unfortunately, over my long lifetime I have seen most of these institutions ridiculed, bitterly attacked, or just regarded as irrelevant. Marriage, children, family, and religion are no longer the ideal. Young men especially are on their own.

###

Finish the Job, Sir

 

                                           

 

Although the attack on Iran has been an unqualified military success, commentators wonder about the so-called endgame.  What will happen in future weeks and months? Does anyone know? 

Actually, the overwhelming destruction of Iran’s military capabilities means that we are now in the endgame. Let’s consider the condition of the 90 million people in Iran, a country twice the size of Texas. Although USA and Israeli bombing has so far been pin-pointing military targets with remarkable accuracy, the impact on the civilian population could be catastrophic.

Food supplies must be scarce. There must be widespread hunger, even starvation in some areas.

Their water supply system must have been severely impacted. Drinking water availability and quality must have been compromised. Waste removal and sewage systems may not be functioning.

Electricity must be out in many parts of the country with not only loss of light but also heat. Communications networks must be impaired if working at all. 

Needed medical services for the sick, injured, and elderly must be almost non-existent.

Just imagine your own neighborhood without food, water, light, heat and phone communication during a winter storm. Inevitably, we can expect crime and looting as people struggle to survive.

We have won the war, but we will find ourselves responsible for avoiding a human tragedy of enormous dimensions. Look what Israel had to do after the war in Gaza. Iran will require a much greater humanitarian response. What can we do?

This Monday, March 9, President Trump provided a relatively short report on the status of the war, and on its potential aftermath. Anyone who dislikes the President for the things he says should take the time to view the 30-minute report as well as the questions he handled afterwards.

He claimed that the attack on Iran had been an unqualified success, and that our military had achieved in three days what planners had thought would take weeks, even months to achieve. 

He did spend much time on what might come next. He did not sound like a belligerent conqueror out to impose his will on the Iranian people, or even the remnants of the current regime.

The President indicated that he does not intend to repeat the mistakes of the war in Iraq. He intends that Iran’s oil be used to finance the rebuilding of the country and not fall into the hands of terrorists. He also believes that when the supporters of the regime in Iraq lost their jobs, they joined ISIS. He hopes that the policy of accommodation working in Venezuela can work in Iran.

He also stated that shipping lanes in the area will be protected so that the flow of oil will continue to the rest of the world. He pointed out that using our naval resources to keep the Straits of Hormuz open is not for our benefit since we are now energy independent. In particular, this policy will especially benefit China, a country largely dependent on oil imports. Wisely, he does not intend to use success in Iran to drive the Chinese back to the wall. 

He then took questions from the assembled reporters. It is amazing that Trump haters cannot credit Trump’s willingness to take questions. He seems to be out there every day taking questions. Have his opponents forgotten that President Biden rarely held a press conference, and that former President Obama always used a teleprompter?

Anyway, he took about 18 questions from the assembled reporters, and I don’t believe there was one that asked about the astonishing military success we achieved. Today’s media seems no longer interested in reporting what has actually happened, but they focus on what they fear will happen in the future especially with President Trump in command.

Despite the success of the mission, most of the questions were designed to find fault. The extraordinary precision of our bombing in striking only military targets in contrast to most modern war, or the terrorist tactics of the Iranian regime and its proxies went unmentioned. 

Questioners tried to drive a wedge between the President and Vice-President Vance and even suggested that Secretary of State Marco Rubio was unfit to conduct negotiations with Cuba. 

The last question was especially telling. The reporter asked how many casualties President Trump was willing to accept in this war.  In three days, we had destroyed Iran’s Russia and China supplied air defense system, neutralized its 1000 plus ballistic missile arsenal, sunk its entire navy, and decapitated its leadership, and we had taken only eight casualties. 

The question was insulting but the President, as usual, handled it well. He mentioned that he had already met with the families of the eight soldiers, and that despite their grief, they urged him to “Finish the job, Sir, finish the job.”

### 

Political Hatred

In a recent column in the Wall Street Journal, Holman Jenkins cautioned MAGA supporters against falling in love with a politician. Good advice, but he failed to mention that it is perhaps even more unwise to hate a politician. Coincidentally, about the same time a letter to the Journal cited the words of Michael Corleone in the Godfather, "Don't hate your enemies, it clouds your judgment." These words brought to mind a post I had written about political hatred back in 2022 during the Trump interregnum. ***************************

In my quiet suburban neighborhood, I sometimes come across lawn signs that read, "HATE HAS NO HOME HERE." Nevertheless, in the past few years I have never witnessed so much hatred in my town and in my country as has been directed at former President Donald Trump. Like all hatred it seems visceral rather than reasonable. It is as if a large part of the population has received a political vaccination that enables the political immune system to form an immediate and violent reaction to even the mention of his name. 

During the election when I questioned my neighbors about their Trump animosity, they invariably replied that they just could not stand the man, no matter what he might have accomplished in office. They could not even bring themselves to acknowledge that he might have accomplished even one good thing as President. He has been our of power for more than a year but still my Internet home page features almost daily anti-Trump headlines.

I have been thinking about this Trump hatred phenomenon for awhile, and recently I found as good an explanation as I have ever read in a biography of Sir Robert Walpole, an English politician of almost 300 years ago. It would appear that Walpole was as larger than life as Donald Trump, and just as hated despite his accomplishments. Below is J.H. Plumb's concluding appraisal of Walpole that brought Trump and his haters to mind. 

All that he does and says in the early thirties argues a growing inflexibility of temperament, a greediness to grasp and exercise power; the anxiety lessens, and the future is contemplated less than the present. As a young man his contemporaries spoke of his gaiety, of his ebullient life, of the warmth and spontaneity of his nature. Some of this he never lost. Although he could be the most affable of men, quick to respond to his defeated enemies, this should not blind us to the essential ruthless nature of his political actions. Where he differed from many great men who have wielded political power as great as his, is this: he did not require the death or even exile of men who had vainly crossed his path. Their complete political impotence was all he desired. Nor did great power make him secretive or remote or grossly suspicious of his close friends. … He was available to all from field marshals to ensigns, admirals to midshipmen, archbishops to curates, princes to merchants, so long as they were prepared to wait patiently in the throng that daily besieged his doors. And to his colleagues, and to the Court, he remained open-hearted, generous almost to a fault, retaining his delight in ostentatious display, in gargantuan meals and vast potations; his coarseness, his love of lecherous sally, grew rather than diminished with the years… His frankness, his lack of pretentiousness, were nevertheless tinged with vulgarity, with a gross enjoyment, with almost a delight in stimulating the envy of men. 

Certainly that envy was stirred, more profoundly, more publicly than is the common lot of great men of state. He was hated more for being himself than for his conduct of affairs. Not only was his power resented… his whole manner of life bred detestation wherever he went. He paraded his wealth with ever greater ostentation. He bought pictures at reckless prices, wallowed in the extravagance of Houghton, deluged his myriad guests with rare food and costly wine; his huge ungainly figure sparkled with diamonds and flashed with satin. And he gloried in his power, spoke roughly if not ungenerously of others, and let the whole world know that he was master. Such a way of life invited criticism on a personal level. All the opposition press reveled in portraying the grossness of Walpole’s life; ballads were sung of his ill-gotten wealth; obscene caricatures illustrated his relations with the Queen; bitter pamphlets laid bare the graft, the corruption, the favourtism of his regime…. Year in, year out the gutter Press squirted its filth over his reputation. His friends did little better, the institutions by which he governed worse…. His sole aim in life was to amass gold and aggrandize his family. Day after day, week after week, month after month, this twisted and malicious criticism never ceased: and embedded in the heart of the sludge was a grain of truth, enough indeed for this uncontrolled  propaganda to carry with it a certain conviction. The good that he did—the stability, the peace, the prosperity, were taken for granted—the evil magnified to phantom proportions.

Public life and the institutions of government were thereby brought into disrepute: by 1734 Parliament had lost much of the respect it had enjoyed in the early years of the century; an ever franker acceptance of the greedier side of human nature strengthened self-seeking, weakened altruism and vulgarized politics, until critical issues of state became a matter of personal vendetta…. Each year that Walpole remained in power lowered the standards of public life, for the vituperation and criticism were as responsible as the long years of power for hardening his nature and coarsening his response to life.

###

J. H. Plumb. Sir Robert Walpole, the King’s Minister. 1961. Pp. 330-332. 

Trump: Egomania or What?

 

A long-time friend just sent me an email in which he argued that President Trump’s actions and words were the product of his massive ego. My friend has never liked Trump and cannot believe that Trump is motivated by anything other than self -conceit. I think my friend’s views are shared by millions of Trump haters.


For example, in a recent interview conducted by Bret Baier with Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner, a high-ranking member of the Senate Intelligence committee, the Senator attributed all of Trump’s foreign policy initiatives to personal ego, and not to any legitimate policy or strategic concerns. The Senator, given his status, should know better.

In foreign affairs the Trump administration has had one success after another. After the bombing of the Iranian nuclear facilities, the President brokered a cease fire in the 12-day war between Israel and Iran. Later, he brokered a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. About the same time, he brokered a cease-fire between Rwanda and Congo, two warring African nations. Leaders of both countries signed the deal in the Oval office. Earlier, President Trump intervened to prevent a war between India and Pakistan, two nuclear powers. Were these initiatives all motivated by personal ego?

I don't agree. Why would a 79-year-old man who has everything even want to be President? He is rich, has a beautiful wife, luxurious homes, and everything else? He came within an inch of being shot to death, was impeached, and charged with many crimes. Half the country hates him with passion, and will not give him credit for anything.

Could it be possible that back in 2016 he actually believed that politicians were flushing the country down the toilet in both domestic and foreign affairs?

Look at the mess after the invasion of Iraq. If President Bush had known in 2001 that American troops would be fighting in Iraq for over a decade, would he have invaded in the first place? Remember that Vice-President Dick Cheney was detested by Democrats and charged with provoking the war just to benefit oil-driller Schlumberger. Now Cheney is a Democratic saint because Trump opposed the Iraq incursion.

Look at the mess that is Obamacare. Does anyway remember the tricks and deals used by the Obama administration to jam the ACA through Congress. Remember that Federal employees, including Senators, were supposed to be enrolled in Obamacare. What happened to that? Speaking about President Obama, what about Benghazi, his “red line” in Syria, and the rise of ISIS? Just imagine the furor if Trump and Hegseth experienced such disasters.

Look at the Biden administration. Why didn’t anyone call Biden an egomaniac for thinking he could manage a second term? Look at the immigration disaster. What motivated him to open the borders? Can you believe that in 2024 the Democratic candidates were Kamela Harris, and Tim Walz, especially when you look at the massive welfare fraud in Minnesota and other blue states? What qualifications did they have other than massive egos.

Was Trump wrong about the failures of politicians in both parties to put country ahead of their own egos and personal ambitions?

It is interesting to note that practically everything the Democrats blame Trump for doing, they have done themselves. They call him a dictator when he issues executive orders, but Obama said all he needed to govern was a pen and a phone. They say he wants to abolish the Senate filibuster, but progressives urged Biden to pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices. Democrats say he seeks revenge on his detractors, but they are proven masters of that tactic.

Nothing will stop “no Trumpers” from hating the President. They have seemingly been inoculated from giving the President one iota of credit for anything. The other day someone said that if Trump were to fight Cancer, Democrats would be in favor of Cancer.


It is not egomania to want credit where credit is due, and to want recognition for a job well done. Let's stop talking about ego and concentrate on the issues.


###

2025 Review

 

I’ve learned from experience not to make predictions or resolutions at the New Year. But there is no harm in looking back over the past year and trying to assess whether it was a good year or not. In my opinion I rate 2025 as a good to very good year. Here are some reasons.

The World did not come to an End.

There are still real problems facing the world today but 2025 turned out to be a pretty good year despite dire predictions following the Trump victory. War still goes on in Ukraine but no one can say that the Trump administration has not tried to broker a peace. For the time being, the war in Gaza is over, and the Iranian nuclear program has been derailed. Despite threatening gestures China did not invade Taiwan.

President Trump has also brokered a number of peace deals, and the U.S. military must be given credit not only for the destruction of the Iranian nuclear sites, but also for the weakening of Iranian surrogates in the Middle East. 

The United States did not go down the Drain.

Predictions of doom did not materialize after Donald Trump was sworn in as President in 2025. Somehow, the nation has survived his first year as President. Despite unprecedented and vitriolic hatred on the part of his enemies, President Trump and his administration have chalked up a number of achievements. I said at the beginning of his first term that it would be wise to see what Trump does as President rather than obsess over his words and tweets. I think this still holds true today.

In his second term President Trump seems to have put together a skilled and experienced set of advisors at the Cabinet level and on down. It appears as if adults and not ideologues are now in vital government offices. It would be hard for anyone to deny that Marco Rubio has done a good job as Secretary of State, or Scott Bessent has done a good job at the Treasury. More than anything else, Trump is an active and energetic President. He is out there every day answering questions from all sides. In this important respect he is the opposite of his predecessor.

The Stock Market hit an all-time high.  

The Dow Jones Industrial average rose 14%. The tech heavy NASDAQ gained more than 20%, and most global markets also hit record highs. Stock market gains benefit everyone, not just wealthy capitalists. Retirement plans, both public and private, are primarily invested in the stock market. Employees of profitable companies also get higher bonuses. President Trump cannot be given all the credit for this economic boom but his election did not cause the economy to collapse. So far Trump's tariff policies have not produced the dire results predicted by his opponents in politics or the media. 

Despite unanimous Democrat opposition, the Republican Congress passed a Tax Reform Bill. Although it is still too early to tell, it would appear that the bill will benefit low income workers more than the well to do. With the increased standard deduction those living at or below the poverty level will pay little or no income tax, and most Seniors will see a reduction in the tax on their Social Security benefits. Eliminating fraud and waste also benefits those in real need.

Inflation seems under control. 

During President Trump's first administration Democratic opponents never tired of complaining about income inequality, but in 2025 they switched to an affordability mantra. My wife tells me that prices are up at the supermarket, but she also noticed that gas is cheaper at the pump. Now that winter is here consumers will also see a marked decrease in the cost of their home heating oil. In 2023 during the Biden administration I paid $6.50 per gallon for home heating oil. That's $6500 for 1000 gallons. This year my price is capped at about $3.00 per gallon, and so our home heating cost will only be $3000. Interestingly, the price is down to what it was in the first year of Trump's first administration. In the first three years of the Biden administration my oil price cap was $6.50, $4.94, and $5.04. Why didn't anyone talk about affordability then? 

I compared my electricity and water bills and they are practically the same this year as they were last year. The cost is remarkably cheap considering the essential importance of electricity and water in our daily lives. I was even able to switch our cell phone carrier and reduce our monthly bill from $125 to $70. The new carrier even threw in two new smart phones (I hated to part with my old dumb phone), as well as $650 in Costco bucks. Competition is still the best way to keep costs down.

I really wonder about affordability concerns when I see the following:

The LA Dodgers won the World Series and the cheapest seat in their ballpark was around $800 and the stands were packed. Prices for playoff games in Yankee Stadium were similar. The cheapest seat in Madison Square Garden for a Knick game is around $200 but people in court side seats pay up to $13000 for even a meaningless regular season game. When cameras pan the fans in these expensive seats, most appear to be young men. Are they the same ones who can't afford to get married and start a family?

Of course, anyone's evaluation of 2025 will probably be based mainly on personal and family considerations. Despite old age health concerns last year, by the end of the year my wife and I were in relatively good shape for our age. In addition, our children and grandchildren seem to be doing well, and we are even expecting a third great-grandchild in Texas in 2026. Personally, it was a good year and we have much to be thankful for.

Speaking of thanks, I found the lovely and poignant song "Thanks for the Memory" on Youtube last year. It was sung by Bob Hope and Shirley Ross back in 1938 in an otherwise awful film, but it is amazing to watch the two performers put over the song that would become Bob Hope's signature for the rest of his long career. Click on this link or watch below. 

Happy New Year!