Just War Theory and Practice

  

 

The recent disagreement between Pope Leo and President Trump over the war in Iran is unfortunate, mainly because I think they could and should be on the same side. Let me explain.

Pope Leo is an Augustinian, a member of that famous religious order that traces its origins to St. Augustine, a fifth century bishop generally regarded as one of the two most influential philosopher/theologians of Christianity. He lived during the time of the barbarian incursions into the Roman Empire that led to the famous sack of the city of Rome in 410 A.D, and his famous book, The City of God, attempted to demonstrate that the supplanting of the ancient Roman gods by the God of Christianity did not cause Rome’s military disasters. In doing so, Augustine created what is still known as the “just war theory” to explain under what circumstances Christians could depart from pacifism. 

Coincidentally, I have been slowly working my way through Augustine’s lengthy book and found the following description of what Augustine obviously considered a just war. He told the story of Radagaisus, king of the Goths, a conspicuous worshipper of pagan gods, who had led his army into the Italian peninsula and was besieging the city of Fiorentia in the year 406 until a Roman relieving force won an overwhelming victory. Here is an excerpt from Augustine’s account.

 

"When Radagaisus, king of the Goths, having taken up his position very near to the city, with a vast and savage army, was already close upon the Romans, he was in one day so speedily and so thoroughly beaten, that, whilst not even one Roman was wounded, much less slain, far more than a hundred thousand of his army were prostrated, and he himself and his sons, having been captured, were forthwith put to death, suffering the punishment they deserved. For had so impious a man, with so great and so impious a host, entered the city, whom would he have spared? what tombs of the martyrs would he have respected? in his treatment of what person would he have manifested the fear of God? whose blood would he have refrained from shedding? whose chastity would he have wished to preserve inviolate?"

Warfare has changed since the time of Augustine. It is no longer possible to wait until the enemy is at the gates now that missiles can cross oceans and destroy whole cities. Nevertheless, just war principles can still be applicable and despite his critics I believe President Trump actions qualify on a number of counts. 

In the first place, he has shown a remarkable concern for human life not only American but also Iranian lives. From the first he has refrained from attacking civilian targets, and advanced technology has enabled our forces to strike only military targets with pinpoint accuracy. This achievement is truly remarkable and praiseworthy. We would do well to compare his policy with that of the Iranian regime that recently killed more than 30,000 Iranian protestors.

Second, he has shown an incredible desire to negotiate a settlement before the attack began and still continues to the present day. No one can say the Iranian regime was not warned, but a combination of foolishness, and fanaticism led them to think President Trump would back down as other Presidents have done.

Finally, the President’s repeatedly stated goal is peace, and not destruction or conquest. He has expressed no desire to occupy Iran, as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, or even change its regime. He does not need or want Iran’s oil reserves. He just wants Iran to be a normal nation with no ability to attack us or its neighbors now and in the future. Remember that Iranian negotiators had claimed that they had enough enriched uranian to make not one but eleven nuclear bombs.

###

Today's Quote: The urge to save humanity is almost always a face for the urge to rule it. H.L. Mencken

 

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.


###

Peace Deal News

  

I have been a regular reader of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) for over fifty years. Even though I worked in the financial services industry, I liked the Journal more for its editorial content than its business news. A few years ago the Journal was acquired by media giant News Corp. It was an unprecedented deal since it was agreed that the traditionally conservative editorial pages would be independent of the new owner. 

Sure enough, the Journal’s editorial pages have remained largely conservative and pro-business. However, since 2016 the WSJ editors and commentators have never been able to swallow Donald Trump to the point where it is hard for them to say one good word about him, his actions, or his policies. They don’t appear to hate him in the manner of left-wing commentators, but they seem to regard him as a rogue relative whose presence they would prefer to ignore. 

So far this year I do not recall the editors of the Journal writing anything good about the President. No one can blame them for consistently opposing his tariff policies but where is the applause as he brokers one peace deal or cease fire after another. They have even been strangely reticent about this weekend’s peace deal that included the release of the Israeli hostages.

Last Saturday, they did bury the following at the end of an editorial that praised the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a courageous female opponent of the Venezuelan dictatorship. 

“If Mr. Trump helps Ms. Machado and the Venezuelan people restore democracy, and help free Mr. Lai from prison, the President will deserve the Nobel next year.”

In their opinion, the unprecedented Peace deal in the Middle East as well as the others negotiated over the globe in the past nine months are not good enough.

Journal political columnists have been equally reluctant to praise the President. Karl Rove, a regular columnist every Thursday since he left the Bush administration, has never forgiven Trump for his criticism of the Bushes. Despite his political astuteness, he finds it almost impossible to give the President any credit. 

Holman Jenkins, usually an acute political observer, has to almost tie himself in knots rather than give any praise to obvious achievements of the Trump administration. After all these years, he still cannot understand the President’s popularity and insists that James Comey won the election for him back in 2016.

Peggy Noonan has been the lead political columnist in the Weekend edition for years. She has never liked Trump as a person or politician. I recall that in 2016 she admitted that she voted for Edmund Burke, a long dead British political scientist, rather than cast a ballot for either Trump or Hillary Clinton. She must feel that she would become a pariah among her political friends if she ever said a good word about President Trump.

Finally, last Saturday she had to break down and give President Trump a grudging hand for brokering the Gaza peace deal. She wrote,

"Give it to him. Give him your applause. Sometimes pessimism reaches a point of moral error. Sometimes hope is the only realistic approach.

So give it to President Trump, whose White House has produced the first progress in the Mideast since the grave crisis of Oc. 7 began. He announced Wednesday with typically Trumpian words. He called it, “a big, big day, a beautiful day, potentially one of the great days ever in civilization.”

Finally, the release of the hostages on Monday led to an editorial, albeit not the lead editorial, with this headline:

“Trump’s Hostage Triumph in Jerusalem.”

Despite the headline the editorial was full of caveats and warnings. It was left to global affairs columnist Walter Russell Mead to finally give credit where credit was due.

“Only Mr. Trump could have made this happen. No other living politician could have reassured Israel, threatened Hamas, and patched together a broad coalition the way he has done. Mr. Trump has his shortcomings… but he is a leader who bestrides the world scene like no other.”

Apparently, the news dam has started to leak.

###

Trump: the First Six Months

 

I do not like to know about the private lives of movie stars whose films I so admire. Nor am I interested in the private lives of great athletes and entertainers no matter how talented they are at their chosen professions. I like to watch them perform, and marvel at what they achieve, but that's it. 

 

I have come to believe that it is the same with politicians and other leaders. They should be judged not on their private lives or past behavior but on what they actually achieve or fail to achieve in office. Perhaps a good person can be a better President than a bad one, but it is debatable, and I will put that discussion off for another day. For now, I would just like to consider what President Trump has achieved in in the first six months of his current term.

 

In foreign affairs his 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.

 

Critics may claim that these deals will not last, or that they are flawed, but no one can deny that for now the killing has largely stopped in these troubled areas. Nevertheless, Trump haters cannot give him credit for anything. It is as if they would have preferred these negotiations to have failed and the killing to have gone on rather than give Trump an ounce of credit.

 

It is true that the President has so far failed to achieve his stated goal of peace in Ukraine where the killing continues on both sides. But no one can accuse him of not trying to end the conflict. 

 

At home the President’s achievements have been almost as remarkable. The passage of the Big Beautiful Budget bill through Congress, despite unanimous Democratic opposition, allowed for the continuance of the very successful tax reforms of his first administration. The Tax reform act of 2017 proved to be a model of common sense and simplicity. It bolstered the economy and made the tax code fairer especially for those with incomes below $100,000, the great majority of the population. 

 

Even the lowering of tax rates on corporations was a matter of fairness. Why should American corporations be taxed at higher rates than corporations in other countries? Why were American corporations put at such a disadvantage that they had to build factories and transfer jobs overseas to compete? In addition, higher corporate rates forced these companies to keep their profits overseas to avoid excessive double taxation. 

 

As mentioned in a previous post, the 2017 tax reform did not mean that Federal revenues declined. On the contrary, lowering tax rates increased Federal revenues dramatically, something that allowed the Biden administration to break spending records. 

 

It remains to be seen if the Budget bill will have the same effects as the reforms of the first Trump administration. Back then, salaries and real wages for all people were at record highs, and there was virtually no inflation to cruelly wipe away these gains. So far in his second administration, the border has been effectively closed, inflation is down despite tariff fears, and the country is on the road to energy independence. Remember how low gas prices were at the pump during the first Trump administration. We seem to be there again.

 

Nothing will stop “no Trumpers” from hating the President. They have seemingly been inoculated from giving the President one iota of credit for anything. Even retired baby boomers at my local Senior center cannot give him any credit for an increase in the standard deduction that effectively makes their Social Security benefit tax free.

 

 ### 

Trump's First Hundred Days

  

 

Recently there have been a number of commentaries on the first 100 days of the second Trump administration. One appeared as a front-page article in the Connecticut Post, my local newspaper. The reporter described several interviews he had done with MAGA types. It was a small sample, but he found that Trump supporters were not blind advocates and that they did have some reservations about the President. They generally supported his policies, but some had qualms about his manner and methods.

What was even more interesting was that anti-Trumpers he interviewed could not find one positive thing to say about the President. That is really blind prejudice. Last month I did a blog post on Bret Baier's interview with Elon Musk and members of his DOGE team. When I asked liberal friends to watch even 15 minutes, they refused.

I emailed the reporter and commented on the apparent difference between Trump supporters and opponents. To my surprise he sent me a lengthy reply in which he admitted that he himself could not think of one positive thing that President Trump had accomplished in his first 100 days.

Perhaps it is unfair to judge anyone by their first 100 days on the job, especially one as difficult as the Presidency. It will take months, even years, to determine the results of many of the changes that President Trump has set in motion. Nevertheless, I would like to mention some policies that I think even liberals could regard as positives.

First, let’s look at tariffs which even the generally conservative editorial page of the Wall Street Journal finds deplorable. Practically every day the Journal editors extol the virtues of free trade and explain how bad the tariffs will be for the American economy, but not once have I seen them explain why practically every other nation imposes much higher tariffs on their imports than we do. Rising economic giants like China and India place huge tariffs on their imports. Why? Isn’t it simply to protect their home industries? The French, for example, have imposed tariffs on wines for years to protect their native growers from foreign competition.

Similarly, Democrats who must oppose anything President Trump says or does must now oppose tariffs. However, the Biden administration let stand the tariffs and trade deals that Trump had imposed during his first administration. Apparently, they did not destroy the economy or cause the stock market to tank back then.

Anyway, President Trump’s new tariffs seem to have led to significant deals with the UK and China and more seem to be in the works. We will have to wait and see.

It is hard for me to imagine why liberals can’t applaud the President’s border policies. Illegal border crossings have reached an all-time low since Trump came into office a few months ago. As the old saying goes, where there is a will, there is a way. I believe that the open border policy promoted by the Biden administration and financed by massive grants to non-government agencies (NGOs), was cruel and inhumane to those attempting that arduous journey.

I also find it hard to understand why liberals object to the DOGE findings to the point where they will not even listen. Some, for example, still can’t believe that the Small Business Administration (SBA) gave away hundreds of millions to fraudsters during the pandemic, something the SBA now admits, and claims to be correcting.

What is really puzzling is how Democrats cannot support the President’s foreign policies. It used to be an axiom that no matter how fiercely opposing parties would battle on domestic issues, they would come together to support the President on foreign affairs. But no more. Ukraine is a good example. Now, we have a President who wants to end the killing. So far, it has not been as easy as he thought, but it would be easier if his efforts were supported by the opposition.

Finally, the personnel of the second Trump administration so far seem a significant improvement over the Biden team. Just look at the top three Cabinet posts. Marco Rubio, who received almost unanimous confirmation support seems to be doing an excellent job as Secretary of State. There is really no comparison between him and his predecessor Anthony Blinken, the creator of the Hunter Biden laptop hoax. Scott Bessent seems to be doing a fine job as Treasury Secretary. No one questions his qualifications or experience. From the day he was nominated as Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth has raised bitter opposition. But at least Hegseth is a civilian, and so far, his email gaffes pale in comparison with the abject withdrawal from Afghanistan orchestrated by his predecessor.

Speaking about personnel, can anyone doubt that we now have a real live President guiding the ship of state. I don’t know how he does it, but every day Trump seems to be out there making decisions, meeting with all comers from heads of state to hostile reporters. At last we know who is running the show.


###

Ukraine: Stop the Killing

                                           

 

Even the most inveterate Trump hater should at least be able to give the President some credit for wanting to stop the killing in Ukraine. I know they distrust anything he says, and fear that he will strike a bad deal with Russia, but the older I get, the more I think that putting an end to the killing and ravages of war transcends all other considerations. 

As the saying goes, “War is Hell” but many commentators on both sides seem to regard it as a game that can be won or lost. However, would any of these pundits be willing to participate on an actual battlefield? It is always the young men on both sides who will bear the burden and face the horror.

A couple of years ago I read and posted on Lawrence Kirby’s Stories from the Pacific, a book about his experience as a young Marine in World War II. I was told about this book by my brother-in-law Richard Gardella who knew Larry Kirby briefly before the former Marine died at the age of 99 in a Senior residence. The stories in Kirby’s book are a real eye opener and at times extremely heart rending. 

In one especially moving chapter he describes one incident that took place while fighting in the jungle of the island of Guam. He was on a scouting mission when suddenly he came upon a young Japanese soldier about 20 feet away. Their eyes met in stunned silence but after a brief pause the Japanese hurled a grenade and Kirby rushed him and opened fire. Kirby was wounded by the grenade shrapnel, but the Japanese soldier was dead. Kirby never forgot that tragic experience. Years later he wrote this poem.

I met a youthful enemy 

My fear reflected in his eye

I loathed him not, nor did he me

But we must fight and one must die.

No longer boys but not yet men

Just sad young soldiers sick with fright

Flag and face our difference then

One’s timeless sleep would come that night

Panic grew with every breath

I had to kill, I had to try.

Why do I seek a stranger’s death?

With vain despair I wondered why?

I could be his friend, not foe

Such wish was true, not foolish whim.

The brave, young lad will never know.

With tragic skill I murdered him.

Long years have passed since when he fell

My heart still aches, no sense of pride.

Though I seem here I live in hell.

On that cruel day I also died. *

Lawrence Kirby believed that soldiers did not like to talk about their experiences mainly because no one would believe how horrible war could be for the young men who actually fought. He wrote, 

"The ultimate desecration of the human spirit is the conscious activity of cruel inhumanity, predicated and justified—at least in the minds of those who sent us—as noble and patriotic duty, a privilege and responsibility accepted willingly by only the brave, offering their lives in this crusade and, further, willing to kill other equally brave and misguided young men in the cause of patriotism and in the name of duty…. (53)

My war ended with Iwo Jima. I was one of the very lucky few to survive the terrible bloodshed. It was my last campaign, thank God. The killing, the screaming, the torn bodies, the shattered limbs the suffering—it had become too much to handle! There were times when I thought I would welcome death. Ending the terror seemed more important than living." (56)

It seems to me that all Americans should unite behind the President in his efforts to stop the killing. I don't believe it will be as easy as the President initially thought, but it would certainly help if, on this one issue, he had the support of a united America.   

###

 

*Lawrence F. Kirby: Stories from the Pacific. P. 102

Predictions 2025

                                             

January is the time of year when many pundits like to make predictions for the upcoming year. Shortly after I started the Weekly Bystander, I realized that it was foolish to make predictions. Most predictions are either just wishful thinking, or simply a call for the continuation of the current trend. 

Nevertheless, I would like to do some wishful thinking of my own for 2025. Today, I listened as President Trump's spelled out an ambitious agenda in his inaugural address. As he spoke I thought about the harsh realities that would face him in the next four years.

Trump seems remarkably fit and hearty for someone his age. Still, as time goes by it will be more and more apparent that he is a lame duck who cannot succeed himself. He has surrounded himself with a group of ambitious young people who inevitably will begin to jockey for party leadership.

He has the slimmest of margins in Congress where he cannot even count on unanimity in his own party. Democrats in Congress will obviously be even more obstructionist than ever. I believe that it will be very difficult to advance his domestic agenda through Congress. Like his Democrat predecessors he will have to govern by executive order and administrative action.

Even if his appointees to high office are approved by the Senate, they will be impeded and obstructed by a Federal bureaucracy that is more than 90% Democratic. This bureaucracy is relatively secure in their jobs. Elon Musk will not be able to treat them as if they were Tesla employees.

However, President Trump will have a freer hand in foreign affairs. It is interesting that in his remarks today he said that he wants to be remembered as a man of peace. One of the reasons I voted for Donald Trump in 2016 was his stated concern about the danger of nuclear war. I cannot find the exact source but I recall that when he was asked about the greatest issue facing the country, he put the threat of nuclear war at the top of the list. I do not recall whether any other candidate expressed a similar concern. Certainly, his first administration saw four years of relative peace in the world.

Of all the failures of the Biden administration, the greatest has been the failure of the outgoing President to appear as a champion of peace. For example, not only did his actions provoke the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but also, they quashed a peace agreement reached by the warring parties early in the war.

Internationally, however, Trump has a freer hand. In his upcoming State of the Union address he could present himself as a champion of world peace and claim that his primary goal in the coming years will be to lessen tension all over the globe. 

Over a hundred years ago, World War I, a conflict sparked by the assassination of a leader in central Europe, eventually led to the slaughter of millions. Many even think that the aftermath of WWI led to the rise of totalitarian states with their horrible persecutions of their own people, and ultimately to the devastation of the Second World War.

There are many trouble spots in the world where a similar spark could ignite a nuclear exchange that would have unthinkable consequences for the whole world. The President could make the lessening of tensions his major issue in the coming year. Here are some examples.

First, some real collusion with Russia would be a very good idea. Russia does not have to be an enemy of Europe or the United States. It would be really beneficial if Russia was brought into working relationships with Europe and the USA that would be beneficial to all.

If Russia became the primary supplier of oil and natural gas for Europe, it would have little reason to aim intermediate range nuclear missiles at its customers in Europe. It would have every reason to treat its customers well. At the same time, Russia would receive a much needed revenue stream. 

As far as the USA is concerned it would be much better for us if Russia became a wealthy modern economy rather than a backward third world nation with so much of its GDP going to support a massive military. We don’t want to drive Putin’s back to the wall either economically or militarily. If we cut a deal with Russia, we could radically rethink the need for NATO, a military force that the Europeans don’t even want to support. 

A Russian deal could include a Ukraine deal. It is imperative to bring that war to an end. Both sides have much to gain by cutting a deal that would guarantee Ukrainian independence of both NATO and Russia. 

Second, the closing of a fair trade deal with China would not only benefit both sides economically, it might also lead the Chinese government to reconsider and reduce its provocative military build-up in the South China Sea. The last thing anyone wants is some trigger happy pilot on either side buzzing a rival warship.

We no longer have to fear Communist ideology in either Russia or China. It is true that both have authoritarian governments but their leaders seem much less interested in Communism than teachers and students in American colleges and universities.

Korea would also be a good place to cut a deal on behalf of peace. A peace treaty between North and South Korea would finally bring an end to the Korean War that began in 1950. It would be a great first step in reducing the enormous military weaponry already in place on both sides of the demilitarized zone. If all it takes to get North Korea’s leader to dismantle his nuclear program is the removal of American troops from the peninsula, I think it would be worth it. We should let the Korean people decide.

Finally, there is no greater tinder box in the world than the Middle East. American troops have been stationed there for over 20 years. Impossible as it might seem, I do think that deals could be cut there that would involve both Russia and Iran. If you look at a map, you will see that both of them have much more reason to be there than we do. After all, we don’t need the region’s oil anymore.

 If he presents himself a champion of peace, President Trump can rise above petty politics and secure his reputation forever.

###  

President Trump: Concession Speech

 

     

 

Now that the Electoral College has voted, I suspect that President Trump will soon concede. Below is my suggestion of what should be in that concession speech. It is a brief statement that admits defeat in the election battle, while vigorously claiming to carry on the war for America in the next four years.

I am announcing today that I will acknowledge and accept the results of the recent Electoral College vote. Even though I continue to believe that there was massive fraud in the election, I am conceding in the interests of national tranquility, 

However, I intend to be very active as President in my few remaining weeks in office. I will continue to discharge the duties of the office until my successor is inaugurated. I will also remain fully committed in politics, especially in working to elect the two Republican candidates for Senate in the upcoming Georgia run-off election. 

Moreover, when I leave office, I intend to be part of the resistance to the new Democratic regime because I believe that their opposition over the past four years has been offensive, unprincipled, and not in the true interests of our country. Not only have the Democrats failed to learn from their mistakes in the past, but also, they now are preparing to double down on them.

I will also work to continue the efforts to expose what I believe to be massive fraud in the past election. Even Democrats and their allies in the media admit that there was fraud, but just say that there was not enough to change the outcome. Despite innumerable signed affidavits, they continually claim that there is no evidence. 

Fraud in our elections cannot be tolerated for it strikes at the very root of our democracy. I will do all I can as a private citizen in the next four years to expose the fraudulent activities in the past election, and to work to ensure that they can never happen again.

There is precedent for such resistance which, after all, is the right of every American citizen. For the past four years Democrats have complained that my election was stolen by collusion with Russia and that my Presidency was illegitimate. For four years I have been subjected to the most vicious attacks from the Democratic opposition, the governing class in Washington, and their allies in the media. 

The attacks began even before my inauguration and continued even after the Mueller and other investigations turned up no evidence of wrongdoing on my part. My opponents even resorted to a bogus impeachment with virtually no evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Senate rightly exonerated me. 

Despite an unprecedented level of political opposition and obstruction on the part of the Democrats and their allies, my administration achieved more in the past four years than the previous two administrations did in sixteen.

At home we supported tax reform that brought jobs back to America, and stimulated the economy to new heights. During my tenure we achieved record high employment and earnings in all levels of society, including record employment and job gains for minorities. 

We threw out foreign trade deals that everyone knew were flawed and outmoded, and replaced them with trade deals in which America would no longer play the sucker. Moreover, we discarded treaties that played into the hands of our enemies. We withdrew from the Paris Climate accord when it was clear that China, the world’s greatest polluter, would not comply. We withdrew from the foolish and dangerous nuclear agreement with Iran. During my administration no planeloads of cash were sent to promoters of terrorism. 

Today, we are closer to peace in the Middle East than we have been in the past century. We have eliminated ISIS, the terrorist force that occupied most of Iraq during the Obama Biden administration. During my administration we entered no new wars and have begun to bring our troops home from all parts of the world. We also brokered peace deals between Israel and its Arab neighbors, something my opponents thought could never be done.

Finally, I believe that history will record that the greatest achievement of the Trump administration was the development of a vaccine for the coronavirus in record time through an incredible joint effort on the part of government and our private industry. We have suffered a tragic number of deaths during the pandemic, but because of our joint efforts, our successor will have the tools to overcome Covid. 

The true test of the Trump administration will not be about whether people liked or disliked me personally, but on how much my administration and the American people have accomplished in the past four years. In the next four years I plan to work to ensure that those gains are not lost or frittered away by self-serving politicians, and foolish ideologues.

 

### 

Media Election Aftermath

  

                                             

 

Since the election I have noticed an interesting change in the editorial columns in my local newspaper, the Connecticut Post. The paper, a part of the Hearst chain, had a consistent policy of opposition to President Trump, a policy dutifully followed by all of its columnists.

Not one good word about the President or his Administration was allowed to be published not only during the election campaign, but throughout the past four years. The achievements of his administration were routinely ignored or suppressed. For example, when a huge contract was given to Connecticut’s Electric Boat company to build new submarines, credit was given to a local Democratic congressman but none to President Trump. Of course, not one of the columnists even mentioned this year’s peace accords between Israel and its Moslem neighbors all of which were brokered by the Trump administration.

The paper is a champion of diversity but there has been no diversity of opinion among its columnists or editorial writers. No matter what their race or gender, they were all highly partisan Democratic supporters, even to the point of outright hatred of President Trump. Like many, they refused to recognize the legitimacy of the President’s election in 2016, and consistently refused to even call him President. He could only be referred to as Trump.

After the election, however, some political commentators were apparently left off the leash.  Just the other day, one regular columnist who never could bring himself to even write a good word about the President, or name one of his accomplishments wrote the following in praise of the development of a vaccine to treat the coronavirus. 

We are about to become beneficiaries of one of the most stunning accomplishments in the history of medical science. In the space of a year, we’ve identified a disease, named it, sequenced its genome, learned about treating it and—it seems—made several types of vaccine that work against it.

Earlier in his essay he did refer to the Trump administration and Operation Warp Speed but still could not bring himself to name President Trump or give him any credit for engineering “one of the most stunning accomplishments in the history of medical science.” He could only say that “we” did it, as if the extraordinary combination of government and private industry was a collective effort in which the President played a negligible role. Still, it was a startling admission that something had actually been accomplished by the President and his team in the past four years.

Earlier, a black columnist, who also could not bring himself to say anything good about the President, conveniently waited until after the election to blame Connecticut Democratic multi-millionaire politicians like Senator Richard Blumenthal and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro for their failure to really help black people during their long tenure in office. 

In a similar fashion, another columnist waited until after the election to bemoan the fact that Connecticut had become even more of a one-party state than before. The state, one of the bluest in the country, had become even bluer as the Democrats gained more seats in the legislature. Of course, due to the pandemic, there has been no legislature for months and the Democratic Governor uses emergency powers to rule like a dictator. Where has this columnist been? How come he never complained about one-party rule before?

Finally, in an election post-mortem, a female columnist expressed surprise that even one woman could have voted for the misogynistic Trump. She claimed that she did not know even one woman who voted for the President. To her credit she did invite readers to respond, and when a number of women responded with thoughtful reasons, she had the decency to print some of the replies in her next column.

I wonder what these columnists and others like them all over the country will write about once President Trump leaves office? He has provided an incredible amount of material for them. For four years they have willingly participated in every effort to remove the President from office. Who or what will they dare to criticize and condemn in the Biden administration? Who will even bother to read or listen to their platitudes about the new administration? Recent pre-inaugural press conferences with Joe Biden have demonstrated how easily the media can shift from attack dogs to lap dogs.

###

Election 2020: Post-Mortem

 

The Democrats were caught napping in 2016 when they went down to a stunning defeat at the hands of the upstart outsider, Donald Trump. They apparently relied on their own polls that were way off the mark in predicting an easy win for Hillary Clinton.  

They did not make the same mistake in 2020 even though the polls were again predicting a Democratic landslide. They pulled out all the stops in the campaign. After complaining for years about the influence of money in elections, they threw record amounts of cash into battleground states where they far outspent the Trump campaign.

In addition, they could count on the continuation of the media assault on the President that began four years ago. By 2020 a large portion of the population has been turned into rabid Trump haters by the media, a phenomenon witnessed in the recent urban riots and protests. 

Finally, it would not surprise me if the President’s claims of ballot fraud in Blue state cities turn out to be true. You would have to be incredibly politically naïve not to at least suspect that urban Democratic political machines are capable of fraud. 

I cast my first Presidential ballot at the age of 21 when I voted for John F. Kennedy in 1960. I was a young college student in New York City, and Kennedy seemed like a breath of fresh air, especially compared to Richard Nixon. Now, most historians agree that the Democrats “stole” the election by winning Illinois through the ballot stuffing tactics of Chicago’s corrupt Mayor Richard Daley of “Vote Early and Often” fame.

Since then, years of experience have shown that if an election is close, urban Democrat politicians will find ways to produce enough ballots to turn the tide. Nearby Bridgeport, Connecticut has been a one party city for years. Nevertheless, although the state of Connecticut is heavily Democratic, recent tight races for Governor have been decided by a Bridgeport Democratic machine noted for its corruption. The mayor is an ex-felon and the Police Chief, the mayor’s former driver, was recently forced to quit for irregularities in his appointment process.

Although newspapers are giving the election to Joe Biden, there will be recounts in key battleground states. Georgia has been given to Biden but he only has a 10000 vote lead out of 5 Million votes cast. In Wisconsin Biden leads by 20000 votes with over 3 Million votes cast. It is the same story in Arizona where Biden only leads by 20000 votes with over 3 Million votes cast. Finally, there is Pennsylvania where Biden holds a 40000 lead with over 6 Million votes cast.

As I said before, you would have to be incredibly politically naïve to believe that the Democratic machines in Atlanta, Milwaukee, Tucson, and Philadelphia would not be capable of voter suppression, and intimidation? Is it a coincidence that riots broke out in the streets of Philadelphia only days before the election?

Pennsylvania went even further and stacked the deck before election day when a state law prohibiting the counting of ballots received after election day, was overthrown by a judge who ruled that even ballots without postmarks should be counted. What an opportunity for fraud. 

If recounts tip the balance for President Trump in Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, he will be re-elected.  In that event Democratic politicians, commentators, and fanatical Progressive who are now calling for calm and unity will tear the nation apart. Let me repeat for emphasis. If recounts discover fraud and give the election to President Trump, there will be rioting in the streets spurred on by those who are now calling for peace, calm, and unity.

However, if the recounts confirm the election of Joe Biden, I believe that President Trump will emerge as the real winner in this election. Although he trailed in the popular vote, he received more than 70 Million votes, a tremendous outpouring of popular favor. It is hard to imagine that all of those voters were right-wing extremists. 

In Florida, rated a toss-up in the pre-election polls, the President won by half a million votes despite massive spending by his opponents. Billionaire Michael Bloomberg reportedly spent $100 Million of his own money to gain the state for Biden. It was the same in Texas where the polls indicated that the traditional red state was in play. The President won by over 600,000 votes. 

Actually, the President, despite four years of unrelenting attacks that included bogus Russian collusion claims, a partisan impeachment with no high crimes or misdemeanors, rioting and looting in major cities, and the coronavirus, markedly increased his vote count in the battleground states. Ohio, for example, was a squeaker in 2016 but this year, Trump won easily. The Trump phenomenon worked just as well in Florida.

Almost half of his votes came from women, something liberal female columnists cannot understand. The President also dramatically increased his vote count among blacks and Hispanics. 

In the final weeks of the campaign the President emerged as a true charismatic leader. He foundered in the first debate and then was stricken with the coronavirus himself. Incredibly for a 74-year-old man, he bounced back with a vengeance like the Energizer Bunny. He demolished Biden in the second debate, and then proceeded to take his message to the people in huge rallies all over the country. It was amazing to see him on stage dancing to YMCA while the crowds cheered. Despite the polls he did not quit like Republicans Romney and McCain in prior elections.

Nevertheless, as noted above, the Democrats were ready and threw everything they had at him. I almost hope that President Trump does not prevail in the recounts. He has started a movement and might be able to lead it better outside the White House. He is 74 and he and his family deserve a rest. 

###

Election Issues 2020: Who Can You Trust?

 

                                                 

A neighbor recently told me that he could not trust President Trump. He raised a legitimate issue. Trustworthiness is important in a President. It is part of the “character” issue that Joe Biden has raised in the current campaign. Let’s examine the trustworthiness of the two candidates.

I can certainly understand why people could believe that Donald Trump could not be trusted back in 2016 when he pulled off his stunning upset of front-runner Hillary Clinton. Trump had never held political office before, and his words and deeds as a private citizen were often out of line. Nevertheless, if the President is judged on his actual performance in office, something the media has purposely refused to do, you can see that he has largely been true to his word, even if you disagree with his policies.

He claimed from the start that he was for peace and against the interminable wars that the country has been involved in during the last two administrations. Under his leadership our military defeated ISIS and then the President proceeded to bring back troops from the Middle East. Moreover, he brokered unprecedented deals between Israel and its Arab neighbors, something that was not even discussed in the recent debates. He followed up on his pledge to recognize Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel, and the world did not come to an end.

From the beginning the President argued that previous trade deals were bad and not in the Nation’s best interests. Despite much opposition, he scrapped NAFTA, a trade deal that everyone agreed was flawed and his administration negotiated a new one that seems much better. He imposed tariffs and sanctions on foreign countries like China that were not playing by the rules. 

He claimed that other foreign deals were flawed and followed through by withdrawing from the Paris climate accord, and the Iranian nuclear deal. There would be no more planeloads of cash shipped to supporters of terrorism. He also claimed that NATO allies and South Korea were not paying their fair share for their own defense, and got them to pony up billions.

From the first, he argued that the tax code was unfair and overly complicated. He followed through with the tax reform act of 2017. By 2019 Federal tax revenue increased 4% over the pre-reform level and figures indicate that the average taxpayer paid less.

Before his election Donald Trump produced a list of 20 names from which he would fill any Supreme Court vacancies. He followed through on his pledge and so far has chosen three extremely qualified justices, none of whom were party hacks or personal friends.

On the other hand, I have to admit that I find it hard to trust Democratic candidate and former Vice-President Joe Biden. Even before the recent documents appeared I wondered how a man who could work 47 years as a “public servant” could amass a huge fortune, well in excess of most of the people he was supposed to serve. 

I also wondered how his son Hunter, with no qualifications whatsoever, could be on the board of directors of a Ukrainian energy company at a salary in excess of $600,000 per year. Moreover, I wondered how Vice-President Biden, who was in charge of overseeing billions in aid to Ukraine and bragged that he forced the government of Ukraine to fire a Ukrainian prosecutor investigating that company, could not be aware of his son's position. Subsequently, Biden claimed that not only was he  unaware of his son’s activities in the Ukraine, he also knew nothing of his dealings with China even after flying there together on Air Force II.

In the last two weeks my suspicions were confirmed when the NY Post broke the story about the emails on a computer that Hunter Biden dropped off at a repair store but never bothered to retrieve. The emails indicated that the former Vice President not only knew of his son’s activities but that they were part of a whole Biden family enterprise designed to capitalize on the Biden name.

 Incredibly, the story was spiked or censored on most news outlets. Even when a former business partner of Hunter Biden went public with corroborating testimony and evidence, his story was only reported on Fox News. Even the Wall Street Journal, which featured editorials on the subject, did not mention it on its news pages. 

Nevertheless, the story stinks and the silence of the Biden campaign has been deafening.

I also find it difficult to trust Joe Biden because I suspect that he and his campaign are hiding something else. At age 78 Biden is obviously suffering the effects of old age. I won’t speculate on his medical or psychological history but his garbled and confused statements are troubling. Even his handlers keep him away from stressful situations or interviews. 

He won’t, for example, say whether he is for or against his party’s idea of packing the Supreme Court with more judges in order to get favorable outcomes. He claimed that he is the Democratic party but he will not say. Unlike the President, he will not publish names of potential Supreme Court nominees. On other questions, he just says he has plans or will appoint blue-ribbon commissions to investigate and come up with solutions, a typical evasive tactic. 

It seems clear to me that rather than being the Democratic Party, he is just a front man, an old war horse brought out of retirement as the party’s only hope to regain power. The other Democratic candidates looked dangerous or lackluster. There is no enthusiasm for Biden even among Democrats. 

The President was correct in the last debate when he branded Biden as just “a politician.”

### 

Hatred of President Trump

 

 

Shortly after President Trump’s election an old friend told me that I ought to be “sick to my stomach” at Trump’s behavior. I replied that my stomach was fine, and asked him to please list a couple of things that Trump has done as President that he found objectionable. He declined to provide anything except to say that it was Trump’s personality and behavior that disgusted him. Like many he played the amateur psychologist and claimed that Trump was “narcissistically self-aggrandizing.” In other words, he didn't like the President and it won’t matter what he does.

I suspect that this attitude is shared by most of those who today literally hate the President despite lawn signs proclaiming that “Hate Has No Home Here.” They vehemently dislike the man and everything about him including his family. From the beginning his detractors have complained of every word and gesture. 

One acquaintance recently told me that the President was totally evil and responsible for everything that has gone wrong in the country. He is responsible for the 200000 coronavirus deaths as well as the fires raging in California. When I asked her if she could think of one good thing the President had done, she could not name one. 

Unfortunately, relentless hatred against Trump has meant that too few have bothered to discuss or assess what he has actually done in office so far. There has been a steady flow of vitriolic venom directed against his person, his words and even gestures, but no real discussion or evaluation of his public policies or actions. It should be possible to have a rational discussion of these policies without descending into invective against Trump. Even though actions are supposed to speak louder than words, words travel faster and fake news travels even faster.

Perhaps the President’s greatest achievement so far is the fact that he is still in office after more than three years. When the President took office, there were many who believed that he was unfit for the office and would not be able to govern or even form an administration. They predicted that his Presidency would not last 4 weeks much less four years. We know that at the beginning there were those in high places in government who even conspired to remove him from office. The Mueller investigation was part of this effort.

Now despite continued opposition from Democrats that sought to constantly obstruct the President, and even led to a highly partisan attempt at impeachment, the President is still in office and can point to a number of real achievements. 

Just recently his administration brokered an unprecedented deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates that led these two long-time enemies to establish relations. A few days later the President announced that a similar agreement had been reached between Serbia and Kosovo. Efforts of precious administrations had come to nothing.

When I mention these achievements to people, they express disbelief probably due to the fact that a Trump-hating media is censoring any news that would reflect credit on the President.  One person I know dismissed the news and claimed that these peace deals would not last.

Some people have noticed. Recently, a Norwegian parliamentarian nominated President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize because of his role in the Israel/UAR settlement. That was followed by another nomination for his role in the Serbia/Kosovo agreement. Most people have not heard this news, and when they do they dismiss it and claim that the nomination process is flawed. Headlines and lead articles on Yahoo news are mainly negative.

You have to dig deep to find that the Norwegian, characterized as far-right, who nominated the President claimed that the Nobel committee “should look at the facts and judge him on the facts—not on the way he behaves sometimes.” He concluded, “I think he has done more trying to create peace between nations than most other peace prize nominees.”

I wonder what the President’s critics thought of the Nobel process when President Obama won the Peace prize after only one year in office, and with no foreign policy successes. 

It used to be an axiom in American politics that while the parties could disagree vehemently on domestic issues, they would come together and support the President in his dealings with foreign countries. Nevertheless, President Trump has never been able to count on the support of the Democratic party in his dealings with foreign powers, whether friend or foe.

He tried, for example, to broker a deal between North and South Korea that had the potential to end the North Korean nuclear arms program. Who knows what success he might have had if the Democrats had stood behind him on this vital issue? Instead, by constantly seeking to de-legitimize him and even remove him from office, they obviously weakened his negotiating position. What a shame.

### 

 

Christmas Message 2019

First Lady lights the Nation's Christmas Tree

By now practically everyone is familiar with the Grinch, the popular figure in the famous story by Dr. Seuss who tried to steal Christmas by stealing all the trappings of Christmas from the children of Whoville. He crept into their homes on the eve of Christmas and took all the presents, the lights, the trees, and even the holiday meal. Next morning, he discovered that he had not stolen Christmas at all. The people were still celebrating the wonderful holiday.

There are many grinches in our society today. For years there has been an annual attack on Christmas from those who object to the holiday.  Attempts are made to ban Christmas displays from public places. In schools, Christmas pageants have been replaced by Winter celebrations. For some, the greeting, Merry Christmas, is objectionable and replaced by Happy Holidays. Occasionally, a few fanatics even resort to outright vandalism.

In response, Christian apologist often react in an un-christian like manner. Their first instinct is to fight back as if statues and trees and lights were more than merely symbolic. People who believe in the true message of Christmas, like the residents of Whoville, don't need all the trimmings to celebrate. It is such a great story that no matter how hard the grinches of the world try, they will never be able to overcome it.

This year President Trump and his wife Melania presided over the lighting to the Christmas tree in the Nation's capital. After the First lady did the ceremonial lighting, the President gave a brief message that it worth reporting. Here is an excerpt:

In 1923, President Calvin Coolidge lit the first National Christmas Tree.
Later that night, African American community centers held an outdoor worship service on these grounds. And during that service, the Washington Monument was illuminated with a beautiful cross, a powerful reminder of the meaning of Christmas.

More than 2,000 years ago, a brilliant star shone in the East. Wise men traveled far, far afield. I mean, they were a long distance away. And they came and they stood with us under the star, where they found the Holy Family in Bethlehem. As the Bible tells us, when the Wise Men “had come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary, his mother, and fell down and worshipped him.”

Christians give thanks that the Son of God came into the world to save humanity. Jesus Christ inspires us to love one another with hearts full of generosity and grace....

And at Christmas, we remember this eternal truth: Every person is a beloved child of God. As one grateful nation, we praise the joy of family, the blessings of freedom, and the miracle of Christmas.

On behalf of Melania and our entire family, Merry Christmas and God bless you all. Thank you very much. Merry Christmas, everybody. Thank you.

Merry Christmas and a Happy 2020 to all.

###

President Trump and Fairness

A recent article in the Connecticut Mirror, an online newspaper, announced a Navy award of over $22 Billion to Groton’s Electric Boat company to build nine or possibly ten Virginia class attack submarines. The article quoted Connecticut’s Democratic leaders including Second District Congressman Joe Courtney, the State’s two Senators, and even Governor Lamont in praise of the huge boost to the State’s economy.

The article failed to give President Trump or the Trump Administration any credit for the Navy’s award. It quoted Connecticut Democratic politicians but did not even mention the President’s name. After all, the President is Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. 

President Trump referred to this reluctance to give credit or even just report significant news in his recent joint press conference with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. In the course of that press conference, the questioning turned to Korea and the President took the opportunity to point out that in the past year his administration had succeeded in getting South Korea to contribute $500 Million more to the cost of stationing American troops in South Korea.

He asked the reporters if they were even aware of this news, and urged them to tell the story, especially since he was the first President in decades to ask the very prosperous South Koreans to pay their fair share.

No matter what you think of President Trump, you will have to admit that fairness is an important word or concept for him. One of the reasons the NATO meeting turned contentious was that the President repeated his claim that other NATO members were not paying their agreed upon, fair share of the cost of their own defense. For too many years they had been content to leave the lion’s share of the burden to the USA.

The President also uses fairness to describe his position on trade and tariffs.  To the dismay of the Wall Street Journal and other conservatives, he claims to be a “fair” trader and not a “free” trader. If the Chinese insist on putting high tariffs on American cars and motorcycles, he will retaliate by raising tariffs on their manufactured products. 

The economic arguments for or against tariffs don’t seem to concern him. He just argues that he will not play the chump, as his predecessors have done, and give away the store to China or any other country.

Fairness is also at the heart of his treatment of the press. Who can blame him for lashing out at the media or taking to Twitter to make his case. After almost three years in office, few have bothered to discuss or assess what he and his administration have actually done in office so far. There has been a steady flow of vitriolic venom directed against his person, his words and even gestures, but no real discussion or evaluation of his public policies or actions. 

Speaking of the press, I thought the President’s comportment in the press conference with Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO Secretary General, was remarkable in many ways. He did not think it necessary to dominate the conference but listened attentively to his ally’s comments and allowed him plenty of time to participate.

He then took questions that he answered with dignity, calm, and intelligence even when they inevitably swerved off the subject of NATO and on to impeachment. It was a remarkable performance. He spoke off the cuff in striking contrast to his predecessor in the Oval office, who rarely spoke without a teleprompter. 

In the press conference the President came off as a very magnanimous person, in striking contrast to those who are calling for his impeachment. He is not an ordinary politician. How else can one explain the $22 Billion award to a Connecticut company, one of the bluest states in the Country? 

The Senators from Connecticut have been two of his harshest critics over the past three years. My own representative from prosperous Fairfield County is one of the leaders in Congress in the impeachment process. I can’t think of any other President who would have allowed the Navy to award such a contract to a State from which he had nothing to gain politically. 

It’s just not fair to constantly blame and deride the President, and not give him credit for anything, especially when the Navy contract will provide much needed aid to the Nation’s defense, and the Connecticut economy.

###