Habemus 'Yankee' Papem!

 

June 30, 2025

On May 8, 2025, over 1 billion Catholics worldwide witnessed the election of a new Pope through the traditional Vatican Conclave. A process steeped in history, precedent, and mystery, the success of a new shepherd for the faithful played out in front of a global audience. What made this election special was that it was the first time an American was chosen to be the "Vicar of Christ," and he took the name Pope Leo XIV. This is the third Pope to be selected in the 21st Century, and he is seated at a time of great uncertainty among Catholics regarding the direction of the church.  Is Pope Leo the right leader for the flock?

_____________________________

The ascension of Cardinal Prevost, who was born and raised in Chicago and lived for a time in Peru, was a history-making election for Vatican City.  It was the first time in the two-thousand-year history of the Catholic Church that an American cardinal was chosen to sit on the throne of Saint Peter. There were other favorites, including Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle of the Philippines and Petro Parolin of Italy. However, the College of Cardinals chose a mild-mannered man with humble Midwestern roots to become the new Pontiff.  It doesn't hurt that the process by which he was promoted used a secret ballot, which itself was secluded from the outside world. When he was selected, thousands of people saw white smoke and cheered loudly as he emerged in flowing robes.  

What does the world know about Pope Leo XIV?  There were murmurs that he might balance both traditionalism and modern thinking, as he chose his Papal name as a successor to a man (Pope Leo XIII, 1878-1903) who introduced some new thinking to the church, known as Rerum Novarum. It was an open letter to bishops, archbishops, and patriarchs, encouraging support for the working class while eschewing both socialism and capitalism. His letter aimed to call for the alleviation of poverty among the working class while promoting living wages for workers, respecting property rights, and upholding free enterprise. Additionally, he believed that one of the primary duties of the church was to protect human dignity through social justice. It was a balanced approach to the 20th Century. What to make of Pope Leo XIII's inspiration for the current Pope? Will his successor adopt a modernist, yet balanced approach, following the direction his papal inspiration chose?

Pope Leo XIV may want to lead in a similar pragmatic manner.  It would require serious skill in balancing the various factions within the church. There are calls from some Catholics to have the church return to its conservative roots. On the other hand, I am sure Pope Leo understands the desire of others to move the church towards their desired shift to more acceptable positions regarding women in leadership positions, and support for relationships amongst LGBT+ Catholics.  While I can understand a desire to be more accommodating to modern beliefs, churches must be rigid about some things, since rules and morals are what they are because they don't shift based on political, social, or populist sentiments.   While this may cause some to be upset, I understand the desire to be firm on certain traditional church positions.

I have read online that some interpret Pope Leo's previous messaging, writings, and conversations on "X" that he is not a fan of the new White House administration, particularly of President Trump's deportation policies, nor Vice President Vance's opinion on social issues.  That is purely speculative, since a Pope needs to have a productive and cooperative relationship with the President of the United States, since 20% of Americans identify themselves as Catholic; it is a significant percentage of the Vatican's global constituency.  It would be beneficial to harness the power of the Office of the President and the worldwide reach of the White House; they both should have a strong desire to work together for the greater good.

Pope Leo XIV was selected at a time of transition for the church itself, 25 years into the new century, and he could be a pivotal figure if he makes the right decisions and positions the church to win back many who have drifted away from their faith.  There are a few things Pope Leo can make part of his agenda, and if he succeeds, he will be remembered as one of the Catholic Church's most extraordinary leaders in its history.

In my analysis, I offer these recommendations as food for thought:

1) Give local dioceses the power to refer priests and any other clergy to Vatican City who abuse those in their care directly, without pushback from Vatican City.  Perhaps even give them the authority to defrock and excommunicate those men as well. The sexual abuse that took place over the past 50 years (what is known at least), and highlighted recently through countless investigations and depicted in films, must be prevented by any means necessary.  In the past, troublesome priests or cardinals who caused problems were just moved around ("out of sight, out of mind"), until a quiet solution was found.  That will not fly in the digital age, and if the new Pope allows for regional administration and jurisdiction, I think it would endear those dioceses to local Catholics.

2) Implement significant changes to the church hierarchy and allow priests to live like the rest of society. Give women a more prominent role (on some level) within the church. Traditionists would advocate for only men being priests and cardinals, which is not a dealbreaker for me. Having leadership positions for women within regional dioceses is a good thing, for they will bring empathy and nurturing to the order, which is needed. Additionally, with the Catholic Church having to battle negative stereotypes about alleged abuse of the most vulnerable in their care, having women with character in positions of authority will help alleviate some of these impressions. There can never be enough watchful shepherds for the flock.  I think this initiative will be one of the more contentious since traditionalists will not want to budge on more women in senior positions within the church.  My main point is not that a gender will necessarily make someone good for their position. The primary benefit is that having a large pool of people to select from improves the safeguarding of the most vulnerable members of the church and brings in more talented people to serve a higher and noble purpose.

I think it would also help grow the priesthood if more ordained priests were allowed to be married.  I understand the church may be against it because of the vastness of its monetary and physical assets around the world, which it would want to protect from any divorce, not to mention contradiction with its vows of celibacy (which are unrealistic in today's age). While it would complicate things, and there needs to be assurances in countries where the church has a large presence, that anyone who is not a priest is not entitled to anything from the church following a marriage dissolution.  This is not something that can be agreed to within a short window, but I hope it can be discussed over time.  It would attract more dedicated and passionate Catholics if priests were allowed to have families, as in other churches and denominations.

3) Provide additional options for Catholics to commune together or find better ways to connect with their spiritual side.  Church attendance is in steady decline throughout the Western World, particularly in the United States. That could be due to more options and distractions, as well as outdated positions by people who feel that church doctrine has not evolved quickly enough to match society as a whole. Perhaps one could consider replacing long, multi-hour services, including those in Latin, with shorter services, more meditations, and support sessions for parishioners, which can be held in the evenings at local churches. These things could encourage more young people to become religious and spiritual, or even Catholic, if certain reports are to be believed.

4) Clean up the political machinations, scandals, and mismanagement within the Roman Curia, the Vatican's large bureaucracy. Many years ago (2013), when Pope Francis took over the Holy See, in one of his first speeches, he extolled the various issues that plague the largely administrative, civil service underbelly of the Vatican. These issues include being "spiritually lost, overworked, arrogant, feeling immortal, glorifying people in senior positions," and having lost their main reason for being, which is assisting the Pope in tending to his large flock around the world.  It is very similar to the large bureaucracy of the American government, where agencies and individuals are more concerned with protecting their territory, rather than serving the American president and his agenda. A return to its roots, while serving the greater good, is a return to its primary mission. Hopefully, Pope Leo XIV can move the administrative state in the right direction.

Another looming problem for the church is economic, where its finances are in dire straits, and which now encroaches on its massive pension system. The Catholic Church has been running deficits for quite some time, but the pension system within the Church has large funding gaps that pose a danger to the overall financial health of the organization. I believe now it has turned into a crisis. There are two main bodies of the church: one is the city-state of the Vatican, and the other is the Holy See, the aforementioned administrative state.  The Vatican produces a surplus in revenue from tourism, merchandise sales, and the Vatican Museum. The Holy See spends far more than its operating expenses, and thus is a potential financial quagmire for the incoming Pope.

The agenda for any incoming Pontiff is complex, but Pope Leo XIV has the potential to be transformative and have his legacy live on for centuries.  Will he be able to succeed with any of these initiatives?  Time will tell, since any government's administrative state can impede initiatives if it wants to. The Roman Curia is not different.

I would like to see the Pope successful, and I hope his efforts will bring religion back (at least on a spiritual level) into people's lives. Most people want to believe in something that provides them inspiration, comfort, or motivation.  If Pope Leo XIV can make positive changes to the church, including improvement of its financial health and protecting the most vulnerable, that would put the church back on a righteous path.  Additionally, if he continues Pope Francis's initiatives regarding the poor and destitute, along with giving women leadership positions within parts of the church, I think he can have a lasting imprint on human history, especially with Catholics around the world.  

 

 

President Trump v. Harvard: The Free Speech Showdown America Needs?

May 11, 2025

The new Trump Administration has brought a new raft of ideological fights.  Recently, the White House has threatened companies, law firms, and the like to adhere to the new conservative administration in Washington, D.C.  Many have given in to win favor with President Trump.  One of the old-money institutions that has drawn a line in the sand, daring the Trump Administration to cross it, is the venerable bastion of higher learning, Harvard University. Is this the 1st Amendment fight this country needs? Is it really about anti-Semitism? Or is it a battle between a controlling presidential administration and an academic institution protecting its ability to operate however it wants, including protecting its progressive agenda, including Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)? 

________________________________

Recently, the gauntlet was thrown down by the Trump Administration to deal with what it perceives as anti-Semitism on campuses throughout the country. The President threatened to end the federal grant money allotted to Harvard if the university does not clamp down on what is perceived to be aggressive positions against Israel by some students during its military operations against Hamas.

While the issue has been a contentious one for supporters of both Israel and the Palestinians, the debate has veered off the rails into what is now a psychological battle to win the hearts and minds and to define clear battle lines of what is right and who is wrong.  Who gets to determine that, though?

College students have always been at the forefront of expressing their opinions on many issues (which is what going to college is partially about), and American universities have encouraged this from their creation. Proper debates are the best sunlight on issues that divide people. The Free Speech Movement sprang up on college campuses during the tumultuous 1960s, during the height of the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement. Student activism moved on from that era to other issues, including the Cold War, President Ronald Reagan's domestic policy in the 1980s, and the Apartheid regime in South Africa, to name a few.

Why has the federal government been involved in this particular battle? While anti-Semitism is a scourge that needs to be stopped in its infancy, I feel the primary motive of the Trump administration is the heavy pressure from wealthy donors who are worried that the general narrative regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is shifting from a traditional pro-Israel position to a more nuanced opinion (in some cases sympathetic to the plight of women and children in the Palestinaian territories, especially from American university students).  Older Americans, especially religious conservatives and some Democrats, have always held the belief that supporting Israel, no matter what, is the best course of action for the United States to take publicly. Younger people, especially students, don't exhibit the opinions and beliefs their parents share. The expansion of people who espouse those views and their subsequent activism, notably on college campuses, is what is causing alarm amongst Israel's most passionate supporters.  

Countless marketing and advertising campaigns are promoting the perception that there is a spike in anti-Semitic incidents throughout the country, notably in the form of protests, including on university campuses.  Universities must protect students of all religious backgrounds from harassment and personal and physical attacks while at the same time ensuring robust opportunities for the student body to engage in healthy and productive, and safe debates.  The challenge is to do this while not infringing on free speech, protected in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

A few members of Congress introduced the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act in 2023 (H.R. 6090), which was an attempt to allow the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism when investigating complaints of discrimination from schools that receive federal assistance against any person of color, race or religious affiliation.  The IHRA defines anti-Semitism as "a certain perception of Jews, which can, in some cases, morph into hatred." I support aggressive attempts to root out actual anti-Semitism. At the same time, I want to ensure that this campaign does not use the projected perception of anti-Semitism to curtail good-faith opposition to Israel's military actions that negatively impact noncombatants who are not part of Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Glenn Greenwald, a lawyer, journalist, and podcaster who considers himself a liberal, recently interviewed two Jewish academics on his podcast: professors Eli Meyerhoff (Duke University) and Emily Schneider (Northern Arizona University). They discussed the actual levels of anti-Semitism while debunking what the mainstream media promotes. These types of honest and pragmatic discussions are needed at this time.

The former president of Harvard, Claudine Gay, along with other Ivy League schools and prestigious institutions, was at the center of several Congressional anti-Semitism hearings last year. Members of Congress, such as Representative Elise Stefanik (R-NY), did not find the methods and policies these schools were using to target anti-Semitic protests sufficient. Ms. Gay later resigned due to a plagiarism scandal, but the public perception following the hearings expedited her departure. In my opinion, President Trump targeted the institution because Harvard is at the pinnacle of prestige in American academia. Although these protests occur at other universities as well, he wanted to send a message to the alumni and students protesting Israel's military operations in Gaza.

All sovereign nations have the right to defend themselves and their citizens, including Israel, but what has changed public opinion is the level of military action proportionate to the attacks on the country.  Certain areas of Gaza resemble post-war Germany, with buildings destroyed and complete neighborhoods unlivable. Those images, along with human casualties, notably women and children, are what young people see on YouTube, TikTok, and other online platforms. The raw emotions of what young people viewed galvanized the desire to protest this conflict, much more than in years past. Conversely, the October 7th attacks in 2023 against Israel by Hamas militants had the same effect on the Jewish diaspora around the world, too.

Is this push by President Trump to protect a one-sided position on the Israel-Palestinian conflict at the urging of his donors and supporters of Israel? As President, he does have a responsibility to root out all forms of bias or hatred towards any ethnic or religious group in this country.  Any chief executive needs to do this, for it will show that they are attempting to protect human dignity and will be seen as trying to unite the country.  Limiting or ending anti-Semitism is a noble and just cause, but it should not be used to eliminate, oppose, or bully any American citizen with a different position on this issue.  Nor should it be used as a shield to protect a narrative beneficial to a country, or stop any good-faith debate.  

Protecting and enhancing freedom of speech is a sacred right in the United States, and it should never be abridged or targeted in the name of cleansing public discourse, regardless of the passions involved or how divisive it can be.

The 2025 Los Angeles Fires: Has Southern California Cool Gone Up in Smoke?

 

February 13, 2025

By now the entire world has spent the first few weeks in January this year watching Southern California ravaged by fire storms.  Several major fires started within a few hours of each other, causing severe damage to thousands of homes, with the most hard-hit areas being Pacific Palisades and Altadena.  What can be done to better prepare the region to save lives and property? Californians need to know if this is the new normal during fire season.

_____________________________

The new year began with fireworks that ominously preempted a reign of wind and fire that nearly brought Los Angeles "to its knees" and ended with acres of scorched earth, thousands of destroyed homes, and ruined dreams. This was the most destructive fire season on record and was something many lifelong residents of this great city will never forget. During the height of the destruction, there were roughly 6 major fires that first responders in Los Angeles County were dealing with:

The Palisades fire (Pacific Palisades) and the Eaton fire (North Pasadena, Altadena, Sierra Madre) caused the most damage and were the hardest to contain. The Kenneth Fire and Sunset Fires briefly caused people to be evacuated but were nowhere near the level of the two major burn areas. These two regions accounted for the largest loss of homes during the period of non-containment of the major fires as you can see in the maps.  The Palisades fire burned over 23,000 acres and destroyed over 10,000 homes, while the Eaton fire burned through 14,000 acres, and 7,000 homes were gone.  As of this week, the fires are now fully contained, according to the Cal Fire website. The Palisades and Eaton Fires are now the most destructive in Los Angeles County history, with some estimates damages could top $150 billion.  Even though many residents in those neighborhoods are defiant about their circumstances, there is no way to determine what the region will look like 5-10 years from now.

As with any natural disaster, in addition to the stories of neighborly assistance and support, courage shown by firefighters and first responders, and politicians promising "new beginnings," there are ever-present real estate developers and construction companies waiting in the wings for opportunities.  These include government contracts procured through their lobbyists or seeking out homeowners and offering them a flat price for their homes. This process is the next phase of post-containment. 

The desire by developers to update and change zoning code construction designations has been known for years, moving away from  "R1" (single-family use homes in low-density areas, i.e. single-use homes on a plot of land) to "R3," which would allow for multi-property homes, duplexes, and apartments on a single-use plot of land in newly transformed, high-density neighborhoods.  I think this might be pushed more intensely in Altadena, because it is a primarily middle-class enclave, unlike the wealthier Pacific Palisades neighborhood, where opposition to R3 zoning comes with more financial resources for legal challenges. Although, Magic Johnson has pledged to support Altadena residents as best he can since a significant percentage are black. 

This follows a pattern of recent statewide efforts by Governor Newsom to find solutions to California's housing shortage, which includes his recent signature into law last October of 2023 Senate Bill 450, which streamlines the process for certain R3 zoning construction projects. Introduced by State Senator Bob Wieckowski, the bill was introduced to help facilitate enhancements to the original Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which was a serious, well-intentioned attempt to alleviate the shortfall.  The bill would allow for the construction of two housing units within a single-family residential zone among other things. I guess it is serendipitous that these new laws came into effect before a massive natural disaster which will benefit politically connected construction companies and developers to build densely packed homes in decimated neighborhoods. The largest donor for Governor Newsom in 2022 was listed as "N/A." 

I feel this agenda will increase property tax from more R3-zoned properties (revenue for the state budget), add new voters, many from outside Los Angeles County (to increase one-party rule and put out of reach any bonafide opposition), and ease unhealthy air pollution (smog) on our freeways (electric car purchase requirements, anyone?).  Interesting times ahead!

It is not a good look when the 'vultures' start circling a neighborhood after a natural disaster. However, it is a subsequent pattern of late, especially after the Lahaina Maui fire in 2023, which destroyed many historic homes.  I remember the whispers online and in the media that with so many properties destroyed in a valuable, picturesque area in a tropical paradise, this was too good of an opportunity to miss for those with a financial stake in any new construction after the loss of property.  A large number of the residents of Lahaina were not upper class.  I was saddened by the fact that the loss of these homes was so much more than rebuilding an asset for a real estate portfolio for them.  It was the center of family life and community for many generations. 

Homelessness grew exponentially after the fires in Maui, and that could happen in Los Angeles after the loss of so many middle-class homes.  The legislation to facilitate the construction of R3 zone multi-home, low-density building projects to alleviate housing shortages could keep out of the spotlight the increase in the unhoused, many middle and low-income residents from these fires. Will these Los Angeles residents, many of whom are not wealthy, have the money to buy the new SB8 homes in the post-wildfire Southern California landscape? 

I think it is better to have an in-depth study with the participation of all parties (legislators, Cal Fire, Los Angeles County Fire Department, homeowners) that dealt with these horrendous fires. The investigation should focus on the root causes, especially methods to deal with human behavior.  Subsequent inquiries about the following should be asked as well:  

1. Why was the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) reservoir near Pacific Palisades empty for routine maintenance before a major fire season?
2. Why were so many fire department vehicles awaiting repair or activation when they could have been put to good use during the most destructive phase of fires' non-containment?
3. The fact that there were budget cuts in the past two fiscal cycles for the Los Angeles Fire Department, juxtaposed with images of heroic firefighters appearing overwhelmed due to underfunding for equipment and personnel, is of major concern that needs intense critical review and remediation.

Most wildfires in Southern California are caused by humans (homeless persons, lit cigarettes, unattended campfires, burning debris, and equipment malfunctions). One of the worst wildfires in recent memory, the El Dorado Fire, which led to the death of a firefighter, was caused by an innocuous gender reveal party in 2020. 

Furthermore, to reduce the dry brush in the areas near neighborhoods and major freeways, cities in Southern California must work with utility companies (Southern California Gas, Southern California Edison, PG&E), Caltrans, and Governor Newsom to remove any old equipment that could potentially cause sparks, power lines that are close to trees or brush that are potential fire hazards, and to make serious investments in infrastructure that will prevent future fires, besides predisposing weather conditions. New homes should have fire-retardent materials, especially for the roof, with carefully designed vents to prevent embers from entering the attic.   

These catastrophic fires ruined lives and were traumatic for those who survived, and who saw their dreams and memories burn to the ground.  I would like the 'better angels of our nature' to focus on learning from this experience, emphasizing building better homes with stronger materials.  Additionally, I hope Los Angeles city officials and state politicians show fortitude in dealing with construction companies and developers and push back on their profit motives to radically change the social fabric of these wonderful neighborhoods and allow many residents to rebuild their lost homes.  It would be an additional tragedy if administrative red tape did not allow many to move back due to delays in cleaning debris from their destroyed homes and they eventually move away.

The region of Southern California is one of the best places in the world to live.  People here deal with many challenges, much like others around the world.  We need to protect against environmental hazards and encourage proactive vigilance towards human criminal behavior for arson, which makes life difficult to live here and forces people to move. We can do better, we must do better and not let this part of the world lose its cool.

   

2024 Election Aftermath: Once the Rubble has Cleared, What Now?

 

January 1, 2025

Whew! Election Armageddon has come and gone, and there has been very little looting and no burning of buildings, which many Americans were worried about, including myself.  After a steady avalanche of political ads for almost a year, it's "All Quiet on the Election Front."  As many political prognosticators had projected, Donald Trump was re-elected to the Presidency, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris, winning the Electoral College 312-226, and surprisingly, the popular vote by two million votes. It is something a Republican has not done in nearly 20 years.  After the dust has settled, what are the takeaways and what do the next four years have in store for the country?

__________________________

Even in January 2020, when the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump, left Washington, D.C. on a Special Air Mission (Air Force One when not used by any current President), many knew that he would become the prodigal chief executive and try to win back the White House in 2024.  Democrats felt they had a good opportunity to defeat the former President for the second time.  So, what happened?  What were the main themes of their massive defeat against Donald Trump?

Polling:  As in previous presidential contests, the polling showed that the race was close and within the statistical margin of error for either candidate.  This was the case for several months of the campaign, especially after President Biden formally ended his re-election campaign.  Most of the major polling sites (FiveThirtyEight.com for example) showed the race fairly close, or even with Vice President Harris in the lead, within the margin of error.  When comparing polling with the actual election results, something doesn't add up.  Either the sample sizes used were confined to small groups that, while qualified as legitimate polling, did not produce outcomes that matched the collected data. President Trump won the Electoral College by a fairly large margin, which a Republican president has not achieved since Ronald Reagan in 1984.  That meant the polling did not reflect public sentiment around the country.  Why was this?

My theory is that polling companies are businesses, which run on money. Supply and demand. Political campaigns, non-profits, wealthy donors, and others who had a vested interest in former President Trump being defeated, likely sought out desired information that reinforced their biases and wanted data and polling to reinforce their political views.  The Harris-Waltz campaign worked in conjunction with these people because they wanted to translate that intense dislike of President Trump into financial contributions to the cause.  As a result, the campaign was able to generate close to 1.2 billion dollars, a staggering amount within a short window (slightly over three months). As such, the polling data that was presented hid the true opinions of voters in favor of financial incentives for vested parties.

Harris Campaign Failures: Since President Joe Biden abdicated his presidency, the mood amongst Democrats was buoyed by early optimism that a younger, dynamic candidate would increase the political fortunes of the party heading into pivotal Election Day.  However, those feelings did not protect Vice President Harris from the political liabilities whispered about her during her time in Washington, D.C.  This included no major legislative accomplishments as a Senator representing California. She was able to make a positive impression on certain voters, however, with her aggressive questioning of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings, which boosted confidence in her slightly.

Ms. Harris was able to perform reasonably well during her one debate with former President Trump, although the bar was set very low and the media did not pressure her or fact-check her the same way they did Mr. Trump.  Her selection of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz did not provide any sort of boost either.  Mr. Walz did not energize men in her party, or Republicans or even independents, and that was not a good sign.  During media interviews and campaign stops, she did not provide any comprehensive background on her policy positions, and there was a dearth of solutions to current problems, which in turn gave voters the impression she was not the right person to move the country in a better direction.  Some party insiders wanted her to choose popular Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, but I think Ms. Harris didn't want her V.P. candidate to upstage her, and also appease the far-left activists who were the most vocal on social media, on her most liberal flank.

Trump Campaign Successes: On the other hand, even though Mr. Trump did not appeal to the general public for various reasons, he was able to make inroads with certain political demographics that Republicans have not been able to reach or improve on in decades. Latinos are the fastest-growing demographic in the United States, and although Vice President Harris won overall with this group, she only carried them by 8 points overall, (but Mr. Trump won Hispanic males by a point), whereas President Biden won them by 33 points in 2020.

What was the reason for this? Partly, it can be attributed to voters feeling that he was genuine (or at least he was good about faking it), and his policy positions were said without fear or favor. Most notably, this related to illegal immigration and closing the southern border, which weighed heavily with a majority of voters this election cycle. Whereas Vice President Harris showed a lack of positive impression from independents and Republicans who were open to being swayed. One of the most loyal voting blocks for Democrats, black voters, still voted overwhelmingly for the party, but Mr. Trump won 10% more (20% overall) than when he lost the election four years ago.  Most of that increase was due to an aggregate increase in support from men of all stripes, but especially black men, which is impressive, considering the political alignment with this voter group and the Democratic party for many decades.

Cabinet Picks: One of the interesting things that former President Trump did in this election campaign that has not been done before was to announce his cabinet choices before the votes were cast.  It gave Americans the vision Mr. Trump was advocating before he was sworn in, and if citizens liked those choices, it gave them an additional reason to vote for the former president. He stated that he would appoint Kash Patel, a loyal lieutenant in his previous administration as the Director of the FBI, he floated the idea of Vivek Ramaswamy with a plum Cabinet position, but ultimately gave him and Trump Whisperer Elon Musk the task of creating the "Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)," a clever double entendre meant to invoke a better, smarter and well-run government which coincidentally also shares the name of a cryptocurrency Mr. Musk supports (DOGECOIN).

Additionally, he included in his potential cabinet choices other vocal Trump supporters such as former Democrat Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence(DNI), controversial Defense Secretary-designate Peter Hegseth, formerly of Fox News and combat veteran, former  Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi as Attorney General for the Department of Justice, and litigator, vaccine skeptic and Democratic party family scion Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for Secretary of Health and Human Services. So far, only one Trump cabinet pick was forced to resign, Matt Gaettz, after the House of Representatives was forced to publish an internal ethics investigation.  Will others, such as Pete Hegseth, not get confirmed, or forced to bow out prematurely? While he didn't officially endorse all these cabinet positions before November 5th, he didn't deny their potential involvement in his administration. Perhaps to unofficially gauge public approval of them to determine if they pass muster? Mr. Trump, as of now, continues to support his choices.

Prognosis: President Trump was able to secure a second single term because of a combination of factors, some of which were not in his control, while others were a result of this campaign.  President Joe Biden was told he needed to resign by serious Democratic party players behind the scenes, rumored to include Senator Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Speaker Emeritus Nancy Pelosi, and if rumors are true, former President Barack Obama. The push came after Mr. Biden performed poorly (on an aesthetic level) in a single debate with Mr. Trump.  As a parting shot, Joe Biden endorsed his vice president, which put pressure on Democrats to coalesce around Ms. Harris. As stated before, she was able to generate money for her campaign, but it has been questioned if that money was spent wisely, which included lavish outlays for a women-centric podcast interview ("Call Her Daddy" with Alex Cooper), interview with Oprah Winfrey (Harpo Productions), etc.  When you lose a presidential election, the campaign's strategy, tactics, and fundraising expenses will be reviewed and scrutinized, and fairly or unfairly, be a representation of the candidate and how they would govern themselves.

Time will tell if President Trump delivers on his many promises, including lowering grocery prices, avoiding costly military quagmires, peace and prosperity for a majority of Americans, little to no scandals, and an honorable administration that the American people are supportive of.  However, if he reverts to the political showman who prefers rallies instead of governance, and the effective leadership he espoused, he will cause problems for his party, they will lose one or both the House of Representatives and the Senate, investigations will be opened against him, and it will be four years of chaos, conflict, and the continued fragmentation of our democracy.  

It's "All Quiet on the Political Front" for what's left for 2024. 

Happy New Year!

Now that 2025 has arrived: Buckle Up.