American Values

Posted on July 7, 2025 by bpriddy

A Trumpist friend who I think quaffs from the carafe of Trump Kool-Aid more than a reasonable person should nonetheless seems to retain a bit of a sense of humor, which is more than his president has. A few days ago, he sent me this, knowing that I would be amused. Sometimes truth IS really funny. Truth Social never is, which is one of the virtues of this observation.

Let’s call this Social Truth.

We don’t know who put this poster together but it could be suitable for framing.

I was amused. Trump wouldn’t be. Polls, however, indicate a growing number Americans also would agree with this;

Well, There Goes the Nobel Peace Prize

Posted on June 25, 2025 by bpriddy

Hours after President Trump proclaimed on Truth Social that he should have won the Nobel Peace Prize several times, he guaranteed he will never get it.

The Nobel Peace Prize Committee never has and never will give the prize to someone who bombs another country. Or rounds up thousands of people he stereotypes with his lies and ships them off to prisons in strange places to face indefinite futures. Or refuses to support a small country that has fought off the aggression by a supposedly overpowering enemy.

Trump claims he deserves it because of his administration’s work in getting a cease fire between Pakistan and India.

He also claims to have brought about a cease fire between Iran and Israel.

Cease fires are not peace treaties. And they have a bad habit of not lasting. In fact, Israel and Iran have already have accused each other of firing missiles after the cease fire.

Who invited him and his B-2s to the Iran-Israel party anyway? It’s one thing to work out a cease fire with diplomacy. It’s something else to unilaterally send in the bombers.

Trump’s claim that the attacks obliterated Iran’s efforts to build nuclear weapons has been disputed by the New York Times, citing a preliminary U.S. damage assessment report saying the bombs only collapsed a few tunnels but not the main underground production rooms. The newspaper says the truth is that production could resume in a matter of months or just weeks. Perhaps Trump was exaggerating which is not uncommon. Regardless, his attacks did not end the nuclear threat from Iran. Instead the attacks seem to have guaranteed that Iran WILL HAVE nuclear weapons if it wants them.

Former Russian President Dimitry Medvedev wasted no time making that point. He posted on social media, “What have the Americans accomplished with their nighttime strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran? The enrichment of nuclear material — and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons — will continue. A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads.”

While Trump might want the bombings to lead to regime change in Iran, Medvedev says the regime might have survived “even stronger.”

One of the countries with nukes that says it will supply Iran with nuclear warheads, if it wants them, is Pakistan, which called the attacks “deeply disturbing and an “unprecedented escalation of tension and violence, owing to ongoing aggression against Iran.”

China said it “stands ready to work with the international community to pool efforts together and uphold justice, and work for restoring peace and stability in the Middle East.”

That’s the kind of language the United States used to use. Iran has asked for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council to condemn the United States. That’s the kind of thing the United States used to seek in times such as this.

People win the Nobel Peace Prize for doing good without thinking they deserve honor.

Then there’s Trump, who says he should have received the prize “four or five times.” However, he complains, “No, I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran, whatever those outcomes may be, but the people know, and that’s all that matters to me!”

No. That’s not all that matters to him. He wants a prize he cannot buy, cannot bully anyone into giving him, and cannot primary.

The prize for Russia/Ukraine?

The prize for giving his good friend Putin an excuse to ship ready-made atomic weapons to Iran?

Adolph Hitler didn’t win the prize for pacifying Poland and Czechoslovakia and rounding up stereotyped undesirables and shipping them off to uncertain and certainly undesirable futures. Mussolini didn’t win the prize for bombing and gassing Ethiopia into submission. Stalin didn’t win the prize for establishing gulags where he sent undesirables by the tens of thousands and creating persecutions and killings behind the Iron Curtain.

At least they didn’t complain about not winning the prize.

Thy Liberty in Law

Posted on June 23, 2025 by bpriddy

One of the things we should do on July 4, other than to read the Declaration of Independence in a way that is more than a thoughtless flow of words, is to ponder a song written many years later for the occasion, and reflect on whether the current administration gives a damn about any of it.

Let’s go back to a Wellesley College English professor who took a train trip to Colorado Springs. The year was 1893 and the things she experienced during her trip were more than sights she had seen. They became impressions. The white buildings of the World’s Fair in Chicago, the World’s Columbian Exposition that celebrated the 400^th anniversary of Columbus’s arrival in this hemisphere, the horizon-reaching wheat fields under the wide sky as the train crossed Kansas, and at the end the breathtaking view from the top of Pike’s Peak.

Professor Katherine Lee Bates started to think of a poem as she stood on top of that mountain and when she went back to her hotel she started to write. Two years later The Congregationalist published her poem, “Pikes Peak,” to commemorate July 4. Through the years, the poem has been revised, with the version that we know best done in 1911. The last line is especially meaningful in our times when thousands of people are not granted due process.

O beautiful for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties above the fruited plain!
America! America! God shed His grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea!
O beautiful for pilgrim feet, whose stern, impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat across the wilderness!
America! America! God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control, Thy liberty in law!

O beautiful for heroes proved in liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved and mercy more than life!
America! America! May God thy gold refine,
Till all success be nobleness, and every gain divine!

O beautiful for patriot dream That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam Undimmed by human tears!
America! America! God shed His grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea!

Several composers found the poem would make a good song. There were at least 75 different melodies attached to it by 1900. One of them was the treatment of the poem as a hymn by the organist and choir director at Grace Church in Newark, NJ. Samuel A. Ward, who was inspired during a ferryboat ride back home to New York from Coney Island to adapt the words to a hymn he had composed in 1882, “O Mother Dear, Jerusalem.” Her words and music were first published together in 1910, seven years after his death. By the time Bates died in 1929, the hymn was in the hymn books of many denominations.

From time to time, someone suggests it should replace “The Star Spangled Banner” as our national anthem or be considered the national hymn.

What started as a poem called “Pikes Peak” is now “America the Beautiful.”

This July 4^th in a good time to ask ourselves if America is still “America the beautiful.”

It seems to become harder by the day to see it.

POLITICO last year published fifty instances in which President Trump used the word “beautiful” to describe, among other things, beautiful Christians, his beautiful phones, a beautiful note from President Xi, a beautiful (and perfect) phone call with Vladymir Zelenskyy, the Supreme court that he once described as “a beautiful thing to watch,” and—of course—himself: “If I took this shirt off, you’d see a beautiful, beautiful person.”

There was a time when he out “beautifuled” himself and actually lavished the word on somebody else—Taylor Swift. “I think she’s beautiful — very beautiful! I find her very beautiful. I think she’s liberal. She probably doesn’t like Trump. I hear she’s very talented. I think she’s very beautiful, actually — unusually beautiful!” |

Trump’s ‘Beautiful’ World – POLITICO

But Trump’s America is no longer beautiful. The ugliness of the ICE deportation teams, the ugliness of unfeeling meat-axe budget cuts, the ugliness of constant name calling when intelligent conversation is beyond capability, the ugliness of……

The list is endless.

But let’s focus on two things today. Actually, four.

On his birthday, Trump celebrated the creation of the U.S. Army with a $45 million parade for himself after his DOGE cut thousands of people from the Veterans Affairs Department a move that, among other things, ended a program that is helping about 80,000 veterans make their house payments. Other cutbacks threaten services at Veterans’ Hospitals.

O beautiful for heroes proved in liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved and mercy more than life!

Trump undoubtedly never pondered that thought from that great hymn.

Then there’s the holiday business.

A few months ago, Trump proudly told Americans that he wans Christopher Columbus to have a “major comeback,” and have Columbus Day be a major holiday. He issued one of his executive orders “reinstating Columbus Day under the same rules, dates, and locations as it has hand for all the many decades before!” as he put it on his internet page. Many government workers get the day off each year now and he sees no problem with that.

What we suspect really gets his goat about that day is that it’s also Indigenous People’s Day, celebrated by those whose culture is not Trump’s.

We suspect that because of his reaction to Juneteenth. On his social media page he complained, “ Too many non-working holidays in America. It is costing our Country $BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to keep all these businesses closed. The workers don’t want it either…It must change if we are going to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

The Associated Press has found several instances in which Trump praised the African-American contribution to “enrich every facet of American Life.”

But he sees a holiday marking the freeing of American slaves as less important than honoring an explorer who never reached the American mainland who offered to provide Ferdinand and Isabella with “slaves as many they shall order to be shipped” if the royal couple gave him resources for a second trip to the New World.

God shed His grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea!

Recognizing “brotherhood from sea to shining sea” is what will make America great again, not budget cuts that damage our veterans or saying Juneteenth is one holiday too many, or ICE raids that trash

But don’t expect Donald Trump to ever think deeply enough, or even think at all, of Making America Beautiful Again. Don’t ever expect him to understand that ugliness and greatness will never go hand-in-hand.

America! America! God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control, Thy liberty in law!
-0-

Notes from a Quiet Hill

Posted on June 11, 2025 by bpriddy

—-stuff we can’t resist commenting on but don’t want to spend time writing more about.

As we were about to file this piece last night, the New York Times reported that this country’s largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptists, had overwhelmingly voted to try to get the Supreme Court to overturn its ruling approving same-sex marriage.

I am a Protestant. And as is the case with the Southern Baptists, I consider myself a Christian. But I struggle to understand how those who also call themselves Christians can then dictate who other people can love, how they can love, and whether some are not permitted to love at all.

After all, love is at the core of Christianity.

Protestants and Catholics alike like to quote First Corinthians 13:13: “Three things will last forever—faith, hope, and love—and the greatest of these is love.” (New Living Translation,)

We are free to practice our religion however we wish in this country, even if it seems inconsistent with the great Love chapter of the Inspired Word. I think my faith (which is different from religion) is more in line with Paul’s letter to the Christians at Corinth.

Okay—-now that the heavy stuff is out of the way:

0-0-0-0

If I was a reporter covering the White House, there are two words that I would say almost all the time when I’m talking to today’s President or other politicians, but especially the President whose statements are from here to Mars away from the truth:

“Prove It.”

He wouldn’t. But he’d call me “nasty” for suggesting something he has no interest in doing.

0-0-0-0-

Wonder what’s going to happen to the Tesla that President Trump bought from Elon Musk while they were still best buds.

Tell ya what I’m gonna do. If there are any who view these entries who has the fevered ear of our president, tell him that I’ll give him $2,500 for it. I’ll even fly to Washington on my own dime and drive it back to Missouri, stopping for a relaxing recharge every 375 miles or so. I would like for him to sign it somewhere that won’t get lost in a rainstorm and to have it fully charged when I pick it up.

That’s my top offer. I could lower the price it if the President thinks my offer is too high for showing his new disdain for Elon. And I won’t object if he’d just give it to me.

If any of you have any connections that can accomplish this deal, let them know of this kind offer.

-0-

We like Andy Borowitz, a satiric columnist and a serious observer of things. He recently reported, tongue in cheek, that the President of Mexico—exercising the beyond-boundaries prerogatives our President thinks the world should honor—has exercised her own beyond-boundaries prerogative. She has renamed our Liberty Bell.

TACO Bell.

As in, “Trump Always Chickens Out” after his big tariff announcements.

Mr. Trump is real touchy on a lot of things and this one really is sand in his underwear. All the more reason to say it. But I won’t remind him of that when I pick up the Tesla

-00-

Missouri has an artists and athletes tax that requires the state income tax be deducted from payments made for concerts and professional sports event participants.. When the Cubs play in St. Louis, the players’ daily pay during the series is subject to the income tax.

I suggested to the House Ways and Means Committee earlier this year that we need to similarly tax highly-paid college athletes for their Name, Image, and Likeness incomes. They’re not amateurs anymore, nor are they student-athletes. We have athlete-students with the emphasis on the first word. You can’t have million-dollar amateurs.

Plus, the experience would be a good introduction to the real world of income taxes for these players.

SPORTS—Stadium Money Faces Crucial Week; Competitive Cardinals; Breakout Rookie in KC; Battlehawks Lose in Playoffs, Again

Posted on June 10, 2025 by bpriddy

By Bob Priddy, Missourinet Contributing Editor

(THE CAPITOL)—-Whether the state lays out hundreds of millions of dollars to build the new stadium that will keep the Kansas City Royals on this side of the state line could be determined tomorrow at the Missouri Capitol.

The House will consider the Senate-passed bill would have the state as much as half of the total costs of a new stadium for the Royals and for major upgrades to Arrowhead Stadium.

Kansas is putting on the pressure by offering to pay as much as 70% of the costs of building new stadiums on its side of the state line.

The bill also requires the state to pay as much as a quarter-billion dollars to upgrade Busch Stadium III.

(CARDINALS)—The Cardinals took on the third-best team in the National League during the weekend and won two out of three from the Dodgers. The Dodgers avoided a sweep with a Sunday win. But the Cardinals continue to gain confidence as they won the series.

Redbird shortstop Masyn Winn thinks the result shows the Cardinals can compete. He told reporters after the game, “We don’t have the payroll that a lot of teams do have. We have a lot of guys in here who are just grinders. We don’t have a standout superstar. We have a lot of guys in here who are just grinders.”

St. Louis finished the week four game behind the Cubs, in second place in the division, seven games ahead of break-even and four games behind Chicago, the team with the second-best record in the National League. The Mets are on top at 42-24.

(PITCHING)— The Cardinals continue to tinker with their pitching staff, calling up relievers Riley O’ Brien and Chris Roycroft, both righthanders, and sending Matt Svanson and Michael McGreevey to Memphis.

They’ve also decided to take a flyer on Zach Plesac, a former starter for the Cleveland Guardians who had been moved in and out of the rotation for the past few years. The Guardians finally let him go to the Los Angeles Angels last year. He was out of baseball as 2025 began but picked up a minor league deal with the Long Island Ducks of the Atlantic League. He’s averaged about eight strikeouts per nine innings with the Ducks.

(ROYALS)—The Kansas City Royals still are waiting for the spark that moves them above mediocre and they might have found it in Jac Caglianone, who went 4 for 4 Sunday against the White Sox. Caglianone, called down from Omaha last week, had been just 2 for his first 21 at-bats. But against the White Sox, he went 4 for 4, one of he hits a 113 mph double.

First baseman Vinnie Pasquantino led the Royals to a 3-3 week in games against the White Sox and the Cardinals with a performance that earned the Player of the Week honors. He batted .500 with 13 hits, 20 total bases, and seven runs batted in during the road trip.

Catcher Salvador Perez made a little history last week with his two-run homer that tied game against the White Sox. It was his 30^th game-tying home run, moving him past Alex Gordon into number two on the team records list. Only George Brett had more. 35.

(BATTLEHAWKS)—We’ve heard this before:

It’s one and done for the St. Louis Battlehawks in the UFL playoffs, and the defeat smarts even more because it happened in front of the home folks.

The DC Defenders, beaten by the ‘Hawks a week earlier, rolled over St. Louis 36-18 to grab the XFL title. The win sets up the Defenders to play the Michigan Panthers for the UFL championship Saturday in (ouch!) St. Louis. Michigan beat Birmingham 44-29 for the right to go to St. Louis.

Now: Where the rubber really meets the road—

(INDYCAR)—If you want to watch the winner of the Indianapolis 500 try to go back to back on an oval, you’ll want to go across the river from St. Louis to World Wide Technology Raceway for Sunday night’s Indycar race. Alex Palou made the 500 his first career win on an oval three weeks ago.

It’s a full weekend of competition with a race for 500 hopefuls in the IndyNXT series and a race for Silver Crown drivers.

(NASCAR)—Denny Hamlin has become one of the few drivers to win a race after running at least 700 Cup races when he minded his fuel until he needed to go all-out in the closing laps at Michigan. He led only the last five laps and finished more than a second ahead of Chris Buescher and Buescher’s teammate, Ty Gibbs.

The race was the 701^st of his career and his 57^th win.

Carson Hocevar seemed to have the race in hand until he his car developed a flat tire, giving William Byron a lead he held until he had to make a splash-and-go fuel stop, handing the lead to Hamlin.

Only ten other drivers in NASCAR history have won at least one race after making 700 starts. Kevin Harvick had seven wins, a record Hamlin wants to beat. He is 44

The win at Michigan is his third checkered flag this year. He has said he wants to win at least sixty races in his career.

NASCAR runs its first international race next week, in Mexico City.

(F1)—Formula 1 runs the Grand Prix of Canada next weekend, in Montreal.

(Photo Credit: Visit Kansas City)

Ed

Posted on June 9, 2025 by bpriddy

We watched George Clooney’s Broadway play, “Good Night and Good Luck,” Saturday night on CNN. Some of you, I hope, watched the show, too.

The play is a stage version of a movie by the same name that was produced two decades ago and that gained some Oscar nominations. It begins and ends with parts of a 37-minute speech Edward R. Murrow gave on October 15, 1958 at the national convention of the Radio-Television News Director’s Association, Murrow’s critique of the still-young television news industry.

It’s known as Murrow’s “wires and lights in a box” speech. Some call it his “suicide speech,” because of his criticism of network TV, particularly of his employer, CBS.

In between the opening and closing remarks (more on the latter later), the movie/play focuses on a courageous time in the history of Murrow of CBS when they took on the most powerful demagogue of that time, Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy, who claimed the State Department was full of Communist spies.

Many today consider the demagoguery of Donald Trump, a latter-day, and more dangerous demagogue than McCarthy was, mainly because Trump has far more power than McCarthy had. There is no doubt that the play is especially timely in demonstrating a time when some in the media did not shirk the challenge of speaking to considerable power and the need for the kind of courage Murrow showed to do exactly that, especially when he used McCarthy’s own words to help dismantle his threat.

While Murrow has been hailed for his courage in challenging McCarthy, it’s not fair to many other journalists, in print or on the air, who also were taking him on. But Murrow, the broadcast journalistic hero of WWII because of his powerful reporting, often from dangerous situations, was not the only one.

I have some links to Murrow, the film, the speech, and the organization to which he spoke.

Murrow is my patron saint of broadcast journalism. When I was still active in the business and sometimes asked to speak to a journalism class, I would have the students listen to his report of what he found at Buchenwald three days after the allies seized it. Some of the young people are stunned, partly because they were unfamiliar with that part of history and partly because of the power of his words.

I was the first two-time Chairman of the Board of the RTNDA and I talked with several of those who were involved in getting Murrow to give that speech or were in the audience when he gave it.

I had a very minor and uncredited consulting role in the movie’s production, providing the association’s 1958 logo and some of the background information about the speech. My reward is a movie theatre poster for the film signed by Clooney, his co=writer Grant Heslov—who played a young version of 60 Minutes founder Don Heweitt, and David Strathairn, who played Murrow.

The play was excellent but I thought the movie was better, partly because there was no mention of the organization to which Murrow spoke. The need to project a voice for the stage, I thought, made Murrow sound more angry than he actually sounded, even though there were times when he was very angry. His normal delivery was at a lower volume that bespoke greater authority than Clooney exhibited. But that’s really nit-picking because of knowledge of the man and the speech that most of those who saw the play don’t have.

The general public seems to have found deep meaning in the play. “I was blown away,” said a friend at lunch after church yesterday. And I can understand that the play was geared more for the general public than to the journalists who have tried to live in the spirit of Murrow.

But as a journalist, I was distressed by the ending. The last paragraph of the speech was eliminated in both the movie and in the play in favor of a more—what?—wistful approach after his famous wires and lights in a box observation.

The real conclusion of the speech is a challenge that might be even greater than his next-to-last paragraph that gave its name to his speech:

“This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and even it can inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise, it’s nothing but wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.”

Here’s the final paragraph:

“Stonewall Jackson, who is generally believed to have known something about weapons, is reported to have said, ‘When war comes, you must draw the sword and throw away the scabbard.’ The trouble with television is that it is rusting in the scabbard during a battle for survival.”

He did NOT say “Good night and Good Luck” at the end of the speech. That was reserved for his news shows. He told the RTNDA audience that night in Chicago, “Thank you for your patience.”

One more personal note:

I knew a man who wrote newscasts for Murrow and for Missouri native Walter Cronkite. Murrow and Cronkite wrote their own commentaries, but Ed Bliss was the newswriter and supervisor of the newswriting staffs.

He often told people attending his writing seminars:

“…Good writing is good writing and the best writing in whatever medium is good broadcast writing. It is clear; it is simple. Hemingway wrote good broadcast copy.

“…In broadcast news the challenge is greatest. Nowhere is clarity in writing so necessary; nowhere the clock so tyrannical; nowhere the audience and the responsibility so great. In your hands has been placed the greatest invention. Not the satellite truck or the computer, but the word.”

In our time, the words of Murrow and Bliss are especially meaningful, and the warnings of their misuse are especially contemporary.

It is time to throw away the scabbard in the conflict with an entity that is of far greater danger to our country than McCarthy was, for McCarthy was only a Senator.

If you want to hear Murrow give this famous speech:

Bing Videos

If you’d like to follow along and think about the things he said, here’s a transcript (courtesy of RTDNA, which also provided the picture we have used.

This just might do nobody any good. At the end of this discourse a few people may accuse this reporter of fouling his own comfortable nest, and your organization may be accused of having given hospitality to heretical and even dangerous thoughts. But I am persuaded that the elaborate structure of networks, advertising agencies and sponsors will not be shaken or altered. It is my desire, if not my duty, to try to talk to you journeymen with some candor about what is happening to radio and television in this generous and capacious land. I have no technical advice or counsel to offer those of you who labor in this vineyard the one that produces words and pictures. You will, I am sure, forgive me for not telling you that the instruments with which you work are miraculous, that your responsibility is unprecedented or that your aspirations are frequently frustrated. It is not necessary to remind you of the fact that your voice, amplified to the degree where it reaches from one end of the country to the other, does not confer upon you greater wisdom than when your voice reached only from one end of the bar to the other. All of these things you know.

You should also know at the outset that, in the manner of witnesses before Congressional committees, I appear here voluntarily-by invitation-that I am an employee of the Columbia Broadcasting System, that I am neither an officer nor any longer a director of that corporation and that these remarks are strictly of a “do-it-yourself” nature. If what I have to say is responsible, then I alone am responsible for the saying of it. Seeking neither approbation from my employers, nor new sponsors, nor acclaim from the critics of radio and television, I cannot very well be disappointed. Believing that potentially the commercial system of broadcasting as practiced in this country is the best and freest yet devised, I have decided to express my concern about what I believe to be happening to radio and television. These instruments have been good to me beyond my due. There exists in mind no reasonable grounds for any kind of personal complaint. I have no feud, either with my employers, any sponsors, or with the professional critics of radio and television. But I am seized with an abiding fear regarding what these two instruments are doing to our society, our culture and our heritage.

Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or perhaps in color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, AND PAY LATER.

For surely we shall pay for using this most powerful instrument of communication to insulate the citizenry from the hard and demanding realities which must indeed be faced if we are to survive. And I mean the word survive, quite literally. If there were to be a competition in indifference, or perhaps in insulation from reality, then Nero and his fiddle, Chamberlain and his umbrella, could not find a place on an early afternoon sustaining show. If Hollywood were to run out of Indians, the program schedules would be mangled beyond all recognition. Then perhaps, some young and courageous soul with a small budget might do a documentary telling what, in fact, we have done–and are still doing–to the Indians in this country. But that would be unpleasant. And we must at all costs shield the sensitive citizen from anything that is unpleasant.

I am entirely persuaded that the American public is more reasonable, restrained and more mature than most of our industry’s program planners believe. Their fear of controversy is not warranted by the evidence. I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is–an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate.

Several years ago, when we undertook to do a program on Egypt and Israel, well-meaning, experienced and intelligent friends in the business said, “This you cannot do. This time you will be handed your head. It is an emotion-packed controversy, and there is no room for reason in it.” We did the program. Zionists, anti-Zionists, the friends of the Middle East, Egyptian and Israeli officials said, I must confess with a faint tone of surprise, “It was a fair account. The information was there. We have no complaints.”

Our experience was similar with two half-hour programs dealing with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Both the medical profession and the tobacco industry cooperated, but in a rather wary fashion. But in the end of the day they were both reasonably content. The subject of radioactive fallout and the banning of nuclear tests was, and is, highly controversial. But according to what little evidence there is, viewers were prepared to listen to both sides with reason and restraint. This is not said to claim any special or unusual competence in the presentation of controversial subjects, but rather to indicate that timidity in these areas is not warranted by the evidence.

Recently, network spokesmen have been disposed to complain that the professional critics of television in print have been rather beastly. There have been ill-disguised hints that somehow competition for the advertising dollar has caused the critics in print to gang up on television and radio. This reporter has no desire to defend the critics. They have space in which to do that on their own behalf. But it remains a fact that the newspapers and magazines are the only instruments of mass communication which remain free from sustained and regular critical comment. I would suggest that if the network spokesmen are so anguished about what appears in print, then let them come forth and engage in a little sustained and regular comment regarding newspapers and magazines. It is an ancient and sad fact that most people in network television, and radio, have an exaggerated regard for what appears in print. And there have been cases where executives have refused to make even private comment on a program for which they are responsible until they had read the reviews in print. This is hardly an exhibition of confidence in their own judgment.

The oldest excuse of the networks for their timidity is their youth. Their spokesmen say, “We are young. We have not developed the traditions. nor acquired the experience of the older media.” If they but knew it, they are building those traditions and creating those precedents every day. Each time they yield to a voice from Washington or any political pressure, each time they eliminate something that might offend some section of the community, they are creating their own body of precedent and tradition, and it will continue to pursue them. They are, in fact, not content to be half safe.

Nowhere is this better illustrated than by the fact that the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission publicly prods broadcasters to engage in their legal right to editorialize. Of course, to undertake an editorial policy; overt, clearly labeled, and obviously unsponsored; requires a station or a network to be responsible. Most stations today probably do not have the manpower to assume this responsibility, but the manpower could be recruited. Editorials, of course, would not be profitable. If they had a cutting edge, they might even offend. It is much easier, much less troublesome, to use this money-making machine of television and radio merely as a conduit through which to channel anything that will be paid for that is not libelous, obscene or defamatory. In that way one has the illusion of power without responsibility.

So far as radio–that most satisfying, ancient but rewarding instrument–is concerned, the diagnosis of the difficulties is not too difficult. And obviously I speak only of news and information. In order to progress, it need only go backward. Back to the time when singing commercials were not allowed on news reports, when there was no middle commercial in a 15-minute news report, when radio was rather proud, and alert, and fast. I recently asked a network official, “Why this great rash of five-minute news reports (including three commercials) on weekends?” And he replied, “Because that seems to be the only thing we can sell.”

Well, in this kind of complex and confusing world, you can’t tell very much about the “why” of the news in a broadcast where only three minutes is available for news. The only man who could do that was Elmer Davis, and his kind aren’t around any more. If radio news is to be regarded as a commodity, only acceptable when saleable, and only when packaged to fit the advertising appropriate of a sponsor, then I don’t care what you call it–I say it isn’t news.

My memory — and I have not yet reached the point where my memories fascinate me — but my memory also goes back to the time when the fear of a slight reduction in business did not result in an immediate cutback in bodies in the news and public affairs department, at a time when network profits had just reached an all-time high. We would all agree, I think, that whether on a station or a network, the stapling machine is a very poor substitute for a newsroom typewriter, and somebody to beat it properly.

One of the minor tragedies of television news and information is that the networks will not even defend their vital interests. When my employer, CBS, through a combination of enterprise and good luck, did an interview with Nikita Khrushchev, the President uttered a few ill-chosen, uninformed words on the subject, and the network thereupon practically apologized. This produced something of a rarity: Many newspapers defended the CBS right to produce the program and commended it for its initiative. The other networks remained silent.

Likewise, when John Foster Dulles, by personal decree, banned American journalists from going to Communist China, and subsequently offered seven contradictory explanations, for his fiat the networks entered only a mild protest. Then they apparently forgot the unpleasantness. Can it be that this national industry is content to serve the public interest only with the trickle of news that comes out of Hong Kong, to leave its viewers in ignorance of the cataclysmic changes that are occurring in a nation of six hundred million people? I have no illusions about the difficulties of reporting from a dictatorship, but our British and French allies have been better served–in their public interest–with some very useful information from their reporters in Communist China.

One of the basic troubles with radio and television news is that both instruments have grown up as an incompatible combination of show business, advertising and news. Each of the three is a rather bizarre and, at times, demanding profession. And when you get all three under one roof, the dust never settles. The top management of the networks with a few notable exceptions, has been trained in advertising, research, sales or show business. But by the nature of the corporate structure, they also make the final and crucial decisions having to do with news and public affairs. Frequently they have neither the time nor the competence to do this. It is, after all, not easy for the same small group of men to decide whether to buy a new station for millions of dollars, build a new building, alter the rate card, buy a new Western, sell a soap opera, decide what defensive line to take in connection with the latest Congressional inquiry, how much money to spend on promoting a new program, what additions or deletions should be made in the existing covey or clutch of vice-presidents, and at the same time– frequently on the long, same long day–to give mature, thoughtful consideration to the manifold problems that confront those who are charged with the responsibility for news and public affairs.

Sometimes there is a clash between the public interest and the corporate interest. A telephone call or a letter from a proper quarter in Washington is treated rather more seriously than a communication from an irate but not politically potent viewer. It is tempting enough to give away a little air time for frequently irresponsible and unwarranted utterances in an effort to temper the wind of political criticism. But this could well be the subject of a separate and even lengthier and drearier dissertation.

Upon occasion, economics and editorial judgment are in conflict. And there is no law which says that dollars will be defeated by duty. Not so long ago the President of the United States delivered a television address to the nation. He was discoursing on the possibility or the probability of war between this nation and the Soviet Union and Communist China. It would seem to have been a reasonably compelling subject, with a degree of urgency attached. Two networks, CBS and NBC, delayed that broadcast for an hour and fifteen minutes. If this decision was dictated by anything other than financial reasons, the networks didn’t deign to explain those reasons. That hour-and-fifteen-minute delay, by the way, is a little more than twice the time required for an ICBM to travel from the Soviet Union to major targets in the United States. It is difficult to believe that this decision was made by men who love, respect and understand news.

I have been dealing largely with the deficit side of the ledger, and the items could be expanded. But I have said, and I believe, that potentially we have in this country a free enterprise system of radio and television which is superior to any other. But to achieve its promise, it must be both free and enterprising. There is no suggestion here that networks or individual stations should operate as philanthropies. But I can find nothing in the Bill of Rights or in the Communications Act which says that they must increase their net profits each year, lest the republic collapse. I do not suggest that news and information should be subsidized by foundations or private subscriptions. I am aware that the networks have expended, and are expending, very considerable sums of money on public affairs programs from which they cannot receive any financial reward. I have had the privilege at CBS of presiding over a considerable number of such programs. And I am able to stand here and say, that I have never had a program turned down by my superiors just because of the money it would cost.

But we all know that you cannot reach the potential maximum audience in marginal time with a sustaining program. This is so because so many stations on the network–any network–will decline to carry it. Every licensee who applies for a grant to operate in the public interest, convenience and necessity makes certain promises as to what he will do in terms of program content. Many recipients of licenses have, in blunt language, just plain welshed on those promises. The money-making machine somehow blunts their memories. The only remedy for this is closer inspection and punitive action by the F.C.C. But in the view of many, this would come perilously close to supervision of program content by a federal agency.

So it seems that we cannot rely on philanthropic support or foundation subsidies. We cannot follow the sustaining route. The networks cannot pay all the freight. And the F.C.C. cannot, will not, or should not discipline those who abuse the facilities that belong to the public. What, then, is the answer? Do we merely stay in our comfortable nests, concluding that the obligation of these instruments has been discharged when we work at the job of informing the public for a minimum of time? Or do we believe that the preservation of the republic is a seven-day-a-week job, demanding more awareness, better skills and more perseverance than we have yet contemplated.

I am frightened by the imbalance, the constant striving to reach the largest possible audience for everything; by the absence of a sustained study of the state of the nation. Heywood Broun once said, “No body politic is healthy until it begins to itch.” I would like television to produce some itching pills rather than this endless outpouring of tranquilizers. It can be done. Maybe it won’t be, but it could. But let us not shoot the wrong piano player. Do not be deluded into believing that the titular heads of the networks control what appears on their networks. They all have better taste. All are responsible to stockholders, and in my experience all are honorable men. But they must schedule what they can sell in the public market.

And this brings us to the nub of the question. In one sense it rather revolves around the phrase heard frequently along Madison Avenue: “The Corporate Image.” I am not precisely sure what this phrase means, but I would imagine that it reflects a desire on the part of the corporations who pay the advertising bills to have a public image, or believe that they are not merely bodies with no souls, panting in pursuit of elusive dollars. They would like us to believe that they can distinguish between the public good and the private or corporate gain. So the question is this: Are the big corporations who pay who pay the freight for radio and television programs to use that time exclusively for the sale of goods and services? Is it in their own interest and that of the stockholders so to do? The sponsor of an hour’s television program is not buying merely the six minutes devoted to his commercial message. He is determining, within broad limits, the sum total of the impact of the entire hour. If he always, invariably, reaches for the largest possible audience, then this process of insulation, of escape from reality, will continue to be massively financed, and its apologists will continue to make winsome speeches about giving the public what it wants, or letting the public decide.

I refuse to believe that the presidents and chairmen of the boards of these big corporations want their corporate image to consist exclusively of a solemn voice in an echo chamber, or a pretty girl opening the door of a refrigerator, or a horse that talks. They want something better, and on occasion some of them have demonstrated it. But most of the men whose legal and moral responsibility it is to spend the stockholders’ money for advertising are, in fact, removed from the realities of the mass media by five, six, or a dozen contraceptive layers of vice-presidents, public relations counsel and advertising agencies. Their business is to sell goods, and the competition is pretty tough.

But this nation is now in competition with malignant forces of evil who are using every instrument at their command to empty the minds of their subjects and fill those minds with slogans, determination and faith in the future. If we go on as we are, we are protecting the mind of the American public from any real contact with the menacing world that squeezes in upon us. We are engaged in a great experiment to discover whether a free public opinion can devise and direct methods of managing the affairs of the nation. We may fail. But in terms of information, we are handicapping ourselves needlessly.

Let us have a little competition not only in selling soap, cigarettes and automobiles, but in informing a troubled, apprehensive but receptive public. Why should not each of the 20 or 30 big corporations–and they dominate radio and television–decide that they will give up one or two of their regularly scheduled programs each year, turn the time over to the networks and say in effect: “This is a tiny tithe, just a little bit of our profits. On this particular night we aren’t going to try to sell cigarettes or automobiles; this is merely a gesture to indicate our belief in the importance of ideas.” The networks should, and I think they would, pay for the cost of producing the program. The advertiser, the sponsor, would get name credit but would have nothing to do with the content of the program. Would this blemish the corporate image? Would the stockholders rise up and object? I think not. For if the premise upon which our pluralistic society rests, which as I understand it is that if the people are given sufficient undiluted information, they will then somehow, even after long, sober second thoughts, reach the right conclusion. If that premise is wrong, then not only the corporate image but the corporations and the rest of us are done for.

There used to be an old phrase in this country, employed when someone talked too much. I am grateful to all of you for not having employed it earlier. The phrase was: “Go hire a hall.” Under this proposal, the sponsor would have hired the hall; he has bought the time. The local station operator, no matter how indifferent, is going to carry the program–he has to–he’s getting paid for it. Then it’s up to the networks to fill the hall. I am not here talking about editorializing but about straightaway exposition as direct, unadorned and impartial as fallible human beings can make it. Just once in a while let us exalt the importance of ideas and information. Let us dream to the extent of saying that on a given Sunday night the time normally occupied by Ed Sullivan is given over to a clinical survey of the state of American education, and a week or two later the time normally used by Steve Allen is devoted to a thoroughgoing study of American policy in the Middle East. Would the corporate image of their respective sponsors be damaged? Would the stockholders rise up and complain? Would anything happen other than that a few million people would have received a little illumination on subjects that may well determine the future of this country, and therefore also the future of the corporations? This method would also provide real competition between the networks as to which could outdo the others in the palatable presentation of information. It would provide an outlet for the young men of skill, and there are many, even of dedication, who would like to do something other than devise methods of insulating while selling.

There may be other and simpler methods of utilizing these instruments of radio and television in the interest of a free society. But I know of none that could be so easily accomplished inside the framework of the existing commercial system. I don’t know how you would measure the success or failure of a given program. And it would be very hard to prove the magnitude of the benefit accruing to the corporation which gave up one night of a variety or quiz show in order that the network might marshal its skills to do a thorough-going job on the present status of NATO, or plans for controlling nuclear tests. But I would reckon that the president, and indeed the stockholders of the corporation who sponsored such a venture, would feel just a little bit better about both the corporation and the country.

It may be that this present system, with no modifications and no experiments, can survive. Perhaps the money-making machine has some kind of built-in perpetual motion, but I do not think so. To a very considerable extent, the media of mass communications in a given country reflects the political, economic and social climate in which it grows and flourishes. That is the reason our system differs from the British and the French, and also from the Russian and the Chinese. We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. And our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.

I do not advocate that we turn television into a 27-inch wailing wall, where longhairs constantly moan about the state of our culture and our defense. But I would just like to see it reflect occasionally the hard, unyielding realities of the world in which we live. I would like to see it done inside the existing framework, and I would like to see the doing of it redound to the credit of those who finance and program it. Measure the results by Nielsen, Trendex or Silex-it doesn’t matter. The main thing is to try. The responsibility can be easily placed, in spite of all the mouthings about giving the public what it wants. It rests on big business, and on big television, and it rests on the top. Responsibility is not something that can be assigned or delegated. And it promises its own reward: both good business and good television.

Perhaps no one will do anything about it. I have ventured to outline it against a background of criticism that may have been too harsh only because I could think of nothing better. Someone once said–and I think it was Max Eastman–that “that publisher serves his advertiser best who best serves his readers.” I cannot believe that radio and television, or the corporations that finance the programs, are serving well or truly their viewers or their listeners, or themselves.

I began by saying that our history will be what we make it. If we go on as we are, then history will take its revenge, and retribution will not limp in catching up with us.

We are to a large extent an imitative society. If one or two or three corporations would undertake to devote just a small fraction of their advertising appropriation along the lines that I have suggested, the procedure might well grow by contagion; the economic burden would be bearable, and there might ensue a most exciting adventure–exposure to ideas and the bringing of reality into the homes of the nation.

To those who say people wouldn’t look; they wouldn’t be interested; they’re too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter’s opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.

This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and even it can inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise, it’s nothing but wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.”

Stonewall Jackson, who is generally believed to have known something about weapons, is reported to have said, “When war comes, you must draw the sword and throw away the scabbard.” The trouble with television is that it is rusting in the scabbard during a battle for survival.

Thank you for your patience.

The contest

Posted on June 5, 2025 by bpriddy

The legislature and the Secretary of State are involved in a urinary contest and the only people getting wet are 22 public servants who have been caught in the middle of the streams.

And I am personally in a state of high urinary agitation because of this match. I was president of the Friends of the Missouri State Archives for nine years and remain on the board. I was there when the organization was founded many years before that. I have used the archives extensively for the Capitol books I have written or am waiting to be published. I have used the archives for other projects as well. Some of those who’ve gotten the axe are on the staff of the state library, which also has been an important resource for my work dating to the 1970s.

In a few days, the Friends will hold their annual meeting. At least, I think they will. The person who does a lot of the planning was one of those given a few minutes to collect their personal items from their desks before they were escorted out of the building.

Losing your job is one thing. Being humiliated by being thrown out of the place where you’ve worked for many, many years is an insult.

But who cares about who is being hurt? The Secretary of State and some Senators who should have worked things out as grownups don’t seem to.

All that I care about, and that many people who rely on these two services should care about, is restoring these people to the important work they do, whether it is working with citizens at the front desk or whether it is the behind-the-scenes sorting, cataloging, and filing that is necessary for a huge archival facility.

As usual, sorting out whether these cuts are legitimate or whether they are a grudge contest played out by senators who remember Secretary Hoskins’ involvement with a Freedom Caucus that virtually enslaved the legislature for three historically unproductive years, or whether it is a misunderstanding of fiscal policy is difficult to determine from our distance.

Whatever is going on here, there are more than twenty people who are hurt by it who do not deserve to be treated as they have been treated.

One good thing is that the legislature is meeting in special session on budget matters and can fix this—and be quick about it. Spitting at each other across a fence isn’t going to do it.

These people can get their jobs back; we have heard of some who are just short of reaching retirement eligibility, which makes this situation even more deplorable.

An adult needs to get the legislative and bureaucratic perpetrators of this petty dispute together and straighten this out. Who should that be?

Governor Mike Kehoe needs to be the adult in the room. Being the state’s adult is an unwritten qualification for the job. These 22 people are his constituents, and many of them have been even closer constituents, dating to his days as a state senator.

There’s a big round table in the governor’s office that is one of the original pieces of furniture when the building was constructed before World War I. That table has seen a lot of deals worked out around it.

It’s time for the Governor to convene a meeting around that historic table not to make policy with the big names of government, but to restore jobs and dignity to the 22 littler people who deserve far more respect than they’ve been given.

The Face of America

Posted on June 4, 2025 by bpriddy

We have a new official presidential portrait. Our President seemingly has grown tired of the first one that was reminiscent of the face in the court picture of the felon he was pronounced to be, so he has a new one. Your friendly art critic here feels it is not an improvement.

It remains the face of a bully, a face lacking compassion, a face showing no sign of a sense of humor or honor, a face that leaves no room in the frame for anyone else.

It is a face that says, “Stay Away. You are not welcome. There is no hope for you here. Forget the tired and poor and the wretched yearning to be free BS. This is my country. Don’t forget it.”

But the more I look at that face, the more I begin to see a small tinge of uncertainty behind it, a slight concern that his act isn’t working as well as it once did.

It is nonetheless an image of United States that he prefers to show to the rest of the world.

Forgive us for being artsy-fartsy in our appraisal of this new image that actually is not really new at all. It reminds this critic of a song from a 1965 Broadway Musical, “The Roar of the Greasepaint, the Smell of the Crowd.” Anthony Newley and Leslie Bricusse wrote it as a follow up to their earlier success, “Stop the World, I Want to Get Off,” a title that might be familiar in current mood more than in Broadway history.

One review we have seen of “The Roar…” says it “explores the themes of class, power, and social inequality,” which again seems to be a familiar theme for our current circumstances.

Tony Bennett had a hit with one of its songs, “Who Can I Turn To?” Another hit from the show was “On a Wonderful Day Like Today.” But the song from the show that came immediately to mind upon observing Glower #2, as it might be called, is “Look at That Face.”

I can imagine the subject of the portrait singing—–

Well, cancel that. Imagining him singing is so far beyond practicality that I don’t know what I was thinking of when I said it. And even though he is a New Yorker to the bone, I doubt that his knowledge of culture is broad enough to appreciate the Broadway stage. I can, however, imagine him standing in front of the portrait however, and saying:

Look at that face –
Just look at it,
Look at that fabulous face of yours.
I knew first look I took at it,
This was the face that the world adores.

Look at those eyes –
As wise and as deep as the sea.
Look at that nose –
It shows what a nose should be.

As for your smile, it’s lyrical –
Friendly and warm as a summer’s day –
That face is just a miracle.
Where could I ever find words to say

The way that it makes me happy
Whatever the time or place?
I’ll find in no book
What I find when I look
At that face.

But then the lyrics turn to how the portrait might appear to someone else:

Look at that face –
Just look at it.
Look at that funny old face of yours.
I knew first look I took at it
You’ve got a face like a kitchen door’s.

Look at those eyes –
As close as the closest of friends.
Look at that nose –
It starts where a good nose ends.

As for your smile – spectacular!
One grin would frighten the birds away.
You’ve got a face like Dracula!
And I mean that in the nicest way!

To say that there’s no one like you
Would not even state the case.
No wonder I shook
When I first took a look
At that face.

Seriously, a final critical comment—-

What is so sad about this is that I have seen pictures of a man who seemed relaxed and friendly, charming and smiling—before he allowed the darkness of power to overtake him.

Two Speeches, Speech One

Posted on May 29, 2025 by bpriddy

This week, we take the unusual step of publishing two contrasting speeches. One is from the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief of our nation’s military forces, speaking to men and women who soon will be under his command. The other is from a well-known journalist who warns of the country the Commander is creating.

The contrast could not be greater in terms of personal and national character. One of these speeches is a disgrace. The other is distinguished.

It will take you about three times longer to read the first speech than to read the second one.

We begin with President Trump, who wore his red “Make America Great Again” cap throughout his speech at West Point, where reports say there were awkward pauses for applause, which was tepid.

TRUMP: Well, I want to thank you very much. This is a beautiful place. I’ve been here many times going to high school, not so far away. Good, a good place. Also, a military academy. Not quite of this distinction, but it was a lot of fun for me. And I just wanna say hello cadets and on behalf of our entire nation, let me begin by saying congratulations to the West Point class of 2025, you are winners, every single one of you.

Thank you. And now we want you to relax and I’m supposed to say, “At ease.” But you’re already at ease. You’re at ease because you’ve made a great choice in what you’re doing. Your choices in life has been really amazing. So this is a celebration and let’s have a little fun. I want to thank your highly respected superintendent, General Stephen Glenn, and he is really, uh, something, I got to know him backstage with his beautiful family and his reputation — His wife is just incredible, his reputation is unbelievable.

And thank you very much. And your daughter is a winner also. Just like everybody out there, real winner. Thank you. Thank you. I also want to thank your [Inaudible] General RJ Garcia, Secretary of the Army, Dan Driscoll, Army Chief of Staff, General Randy George, Senator Ashley Moody, Representatives Steve Womack, Bill Huizenga, Pat Ryan, Mark Green, Keith Self.

Acting US attorney, Alina Habba. And very much, uh, just all of the friends. We have a lot of friends in the audience today. And I just want to thank ’em all for being here. We have a tremendous amount of my friends. They wanted to come up and they wanted to watch this ceremony and they wanted to watch you much more so than me. So I just want to thank so many people are here.

Over the past four years, an extraordinary group of professors, teachers, coaches, leaders, and warriors have transformed this class of cadets into an exceptional group of scholars and soldiers. And so let’s give the entire group, the entire West Point faculty, the staff, for their incredible love of you and outstanding devotion to the corps.

Let’s give them a little hand. And importantly, we can’t forget all of those people beaming with pride, look at them in the audience, oh, they’re so proud. They’re in the stands. So thank your parents, your grandparents and family members who made this all possible for you. Thank you. And I think they must have done something right based on what I’m looking at. America loves our military moms and dads.

Nearly one-third of the cadets graduating today are themselves the children of veterans. So to everyone with us this morning who served America in uniform, no matter your age, please stand so we can salute your service, we’d like to see who you are. Congratulations. Great job. Every cadet on the field before me should savor this morning. ’cause this is a day that you will never, ever forget.

In a few moments, you’ll become graduates of the most elite and storied military academy in human history. And you’ll become officers in the greatest and most powerful army the world has ever known. And I know because I rebuilt that army and I rebuilt the military. And we rebuilt it like nobody has ever rebuilt it before in my first term.

Your experience here at West Point has been anything but easy. — came for duty. You came to serve your country and you came to show yourselves, your family, and the world that you are among the smartest, toughest, strongest, most lethal warriors ever to walk on this planet. Looking out at all of you today, I can proudly say, mission accomplished.

Great job. But now you have to go on. You have to forget that ’cause now you have another. It’s a sad thing, isn’t it? You know, you can’t rest on your laurels no matter what. You just have to keep going. You take it, you take a little day off and you go on to the rest. ’cause you have to have victory, after victory, after victory.

And that’s what you’re gonna have as you receive your commissions as second lieutenants, each of you continues down the same hallowed path, walked by Titans and legends of US, military law. Giants like Ulysses S. Grant, John Black Jack Pershing, Dwight David Eisenhower, the one and only Douglas MacArthur, old blood and guts, George Patton and Stormin’ Norman Schwarzkopf, all great.

So many more. They and countless other patriots before you have walked out of these halls and straight into history. And today, you officially join those immortal heroes in proud ranks of the long gray line. You know that term. So beautiful. The long gray line. Among the 1,000 cadets graduating today, 26 of you wear the prestigious Star Wreath, signifying the highest level of academic achievement.

Please stand up. 26. Let’s see if somebody stands who shouldn’t be standing. Congratulations. That’s a big honor. This class includes an incredible four Rhodes Scholars. Stand up, please. Four. Wow. That’s tied for the most of any West Point class since 1959. That’s great. Four. Congratulations. Boy, oh boy, oh boy.

I wanna bring them right to the Oval Office. I don’t wanna have them go too far away from me. Eight cadets here today took on the challenge of designing their own hypersonic rocket. Oh, we can use you. We’re building them right now. You know, we, uh, we had ours stolen. We had — We are the designer of it. We had it stolen during the Obama administration.

They stole it. You know who stole it? The Russians stole it. Something bad happened. But we’re now — We’re the designer of it and we’re now building them and lots of them. And earlier this year, they launched it into space, setting a world record for amateur rocketry. Can’t get you in there fast enough.

This class excelled not only mentally but also physically last January when more than 1,000 cadets volunteered for an 18-and-a-half mile march on a freezing winter night. Cadet Chris Verdugo completed the task in 2 hours and 30 minutes flat, smashing the international record for the competition by 13 minutes.

Where is he? Where is he? Come up here. Come up here, Chris. Get up here, Chris. Wow. Come here. That’s — By 13 minutes. Come here, Chris. I wanna see this guy. Say something. Come here. Come here.

VERDUGO: [Laughs] It’s been a long five years, but I couldn’t have done it without any of these guys. Love you guys all. Thank you. Thank you.

TRUMP: Wow. That’s great. Keep it going, Chris. That really is the definition of Army strong, isn’t it? International. International. This class includes 513 graduates who completed Air Assault School, 70 who completed Airborne School, eight who made it through the ultra-elite Army Diver School, among the most difficult and grueling programs anywhere on Earth.

That includes the first two women in West Point history to complete Diver School; cadets Megan Cooper and Clara Sebu. Where are you? Stand up. Where are they? Wow. Great job. That is not easy. Congratulations, Megan, Clara. That’s a job well done. Fantastic. Thank you very much. Some of you achieved a different kind of distinction here at the academy, including seven

No. Don’t tell me I’m doing this. Oh, I’m so sorry. Would you like to stand up? (laughs) I don’t know. I think I saw Chris standing up. Chris, what, what’s going on here? Well, you had one good, one not so good. Right, Chris? Can’t believe Chris is standing up. But we want everyone to leave here today, Chris, so you’re gonna be okay because I’m gonna do something with a clean slate.

So in keeping with tradition, I hereby pardon all cadets on restriction for minor conduct offenses effective immediately. So you’re all okay. You’re all okay. The class of 2025 is a lot to be proud of, including your first-rate athletes and athletics. You are something. I’ve been watching too. I watch. I love the sports stuff.

What you’ve done is pretty amazing. Last year, for the first time ever, army lacrosse became the number one ranked men’s lacrosse team in the entire country. Look at that. Those of you on the team, stand. That’s a big honor. Stand. Great. That’s a tough sport too. That’s number one in the country. Your sophomore year, Army football beat Navy 20-17. And the you did it again, beating Navy 17 to 11 and dominating Air Force 23 to three.

But, this year, the Black Knights fought your way into the top 20 nationally and racked up your longest winning streak since 1949 with the help of graduating quarterback Cadet Bryson Daily or, as you call him, Captain America. Captain America. Stand up, Bryson. Where is Bryson? We gotta get him up here, right?

Come on, Bryson. Come on up. Man, oh, man, I heard — I heard he’s, uh — well, I came to a game, and he was — I said, “Yeah, he can get into the NFL, can’t he?” But he chose this life and, you know what, I think he made a good choice. Come on up here, Bryson. Come on up. Wow.

BRYSON: All right. Go, Army football. Shout out to Hogs, H4. Um, can’t wait to graduate. Love you, guys. Thank you. It’s nice to meet you, sir.

TRUMP: If there anything we can do, just let me know. Okay? It’s a great honor.

What a great guy. Well, I just tapped his shoulders like I hit a piece of steel. The guy’s in good shape. There’s a reason, you know, there’s always a reason for success. Thank you, Bryson. At a time when other top college quarterbacks were thinking about going pro, Bryson’s mind was on something else. As he told an interviewer earlier this year, “I’m focused on my career as an infantry officer.” That’s what he wants to do. So, Bryson, you did the right thing, and that’s service at its finest.

Thanks, Bryson. That’s amazing. He’s an amazing guy with an amazing team. Each of you on the field today is among the most talented members of your generation. You could have done anything you wanted. You could have gone anywhere. You could have gone to any school. This is one of the hardest schools to get into.

And writing your own ticket to top jobs on Wall Street or Silicon Valley wouldn’t be bad, but I think what you’re doing is better. Instead of sports teams and spreadsheets and software, you chose a life of service, very important service, instead of stock options. And I do that stuff. It’s sort of boring, honestly.

Compared to what you’re doing, it’s real boring. You chose honor and you chose sacrifice. And, instead of business suits and dress shoes, you chose muddy boots and fatigues, keeping yourself in shape, because West Point cadets don’t just have the brightest minds, you also have the bravest hearts and the noblest souls.

You’re amazing people. I could not be more proud to serve you as your commander-in-chief. And our country is doing well. We’ve turned it around. Very quickly, we’ve turned it around. I just got back from the Middle East, and I was at, as you know, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE. And, I will tell you, they said, all three leaders, great leaders of those three nations, they all said the same thing.

The United States of America is hotter now than we’ve ever seen it and, a year ago, it was as cold as it gets. And it’s true. It’s true. We have the hottest country in the world, and the whole world is talking about it. And that’s an honor for all of us. I cannot wait to see the glory that is still ahead.

However, for the West Point Class of 2025, and we’re gonna help you a lot because we’re gonna give you a nation as good or better than it ever was. That’s what I promise you. All the victories that you’ve had together on these grounds will soon pale in comparison to the momentous deeds that you’ll perform on the mission you’re accepting today and as, uh, future leader of America’s Army.

And we have that Army geared up. We have ordered, you know, we just want $1 trillion military budget, general. Do you know that? 1 trillion? Some people say, “Could you cut it back?” I said, “I’m not cutting 10 cents.” There’s another thing we can cut. We can cut plenty of others, right, Dan? We can cut plenty of other things.

And you have a good man in Dan, too, general. I think you’re gonna find that it’s a very different, uh, warfare out there today. Now, they’ve introduced a thing called drone. A drone is a little bit different. It makes — You have to go back and learn a whole new form of warfare, and you’re gonna do it better than anybody else.

There won’t be anybody close. Generation after generation, the men and women of the Army have done whatever it takes to defend our flag, pouring out their blood onto the fields of battle all over the world. And, all over the world, you’re respected like nobody is respected. Our soldiers have sprinted through storms of bullets, clouds of shrapnel, slogged through miles of dirt and oceans of sand, scaled towering cliffs of jagged rock.

And, time and time again, the American soldier is charged into the fires of hell and sent the devil racing in full retreat. No task has ever been too tough for America’s Army. And now that 250-year legacy of glory and triumph belongs to you, the 1,000 newest officers of the greatest fighting force in the history of the world.

And that’s what you are, and that’s what you’re being thought of. Again, you are the first West Point graduates of the Golden Age of America. This is the golden age, I tell you. Promise. We’re in a new age. This is the Golden Age, and you are the going to lead the Army to summits of greatness that has never reached before.

And you see that. And you see what’s happening. You see what’s going on in the world. Each of you is entering the Officer Corps at a defining moment in the Army’s history. For at least two decades, political leaders from both parties have dragged our military into missions, it was never meant to be. It wasn’t meant to be. People would say, “Why are we doing this? Why are we wasting our time, money, and souls,” in some case. They said to our warriors on nation-building crusades to nations that wanted nothing to do with us, led by leaders that didn’t have a clue in distant lands, while abusing our soldiers with absurd ideological experiments here and at home. All of that’s ended.

You know that. All of it’s ended. It’s ended, strongly ended. They’re not even allowed to think about it anymore. They subjected the Armed Forces to all manner of social projects and political causes while leaving our borders undefended and depleting our arsenals to fight other countries’ wars. We fought for other countries’ borders, but we didn’t fight for our own border.

But now we do, like we have never fought before, by the way. But under the Trump administration, those days are over. We’re getting rid of the distractions and we’re focusing our military on its core mission, crushing America’s adversaries, killing America’s enemies, and defending our great American flag like it has never been defended before.

The job of the US Armed Forces is not to host drag shows, to transform foreign cultures, but to spread democracy to everybody around the world at the point of a gun. The military’s job is to dominate any foe and annihilate any threat to America, anywhere, anytime, in any place. A big part of that job is to be respected again.

And you are, as of right now, respected more than any army anywhere in the world. And that’s happening. And I can tell you, you are respected like nobody can believe. As president, I am laser-focused on our core national interests. My preference will always be to make peace and to seek partnership, even with countries where our differences may be profound.

As you know, we’re working on a lot of things right now. When I left office four years ago, we had no wars, we had no problems, we had nothing but success. We had the most incredible economy, the greatest, single greatest economy for a president in history. I think we’re gonna beat it this time by a lot, if you want to know the truth.

But we had something going on very special. But if the United States or its allies are ever threatened or attacked, the Army will obliterate our opponents with overwhelming strength and devastating force. That’s why my administration has begun a colossal buildup of the United States Armed Forces, a buildup like we’ve never had before.

Peace through strength. You know the term, I’ve used it a lot. Because as much as you wanna fight, I’d rather do it without having to fight. I just wanna look at them and have them fold. And that’s happening. That’s happening. And I’ve approved a one-trillion-dollar investment. And that will be, again, the largest ever in the history of our country.

And we are buying you new airplanes, brand-new, beautiful planes, redesigned planes, brand-new planes, totally stealth planes. I hope they’re stealth. I don’t know, that whole stealth thing, I’m sorta wondering. You mean if we shape a wing this way, they don’t see it, but the other way they see it? I’m not so sure.

But that’s what they tell me. We have the best tanks anywhere in the world. We’re gonna start shipbuilding again. We’re gonna start ship. We used to build a ship a day. Now we don’t build them anymore. We had a lot of people that didn’t know much about getting things built. But that’s all I’ve done in my life, is build.

We’re gonna have the best missiles, we already do, drones and much, much more. And earlier this week, I think you’ll like this, I announced that we are officially building all in America, made in America, designed in America. We’re the only ones that could do it, because we’re the only ones that, with the great technology, we’re building the Golden Dome Missile Defense Shield to protect our homeland and to protect West Point from attack.

And it will be completed before I leave office. And you know, you wouldn’t think this, but our enemies are very unhappy about it. You’ve been hearing, you’ve been reading, “Why are they doing that? Why?” Well, we’re doing it because we wanna be around for a long time. That’s why we’re doing it. We’re also restoring the fundamental principle that a central purpose of our military is to protect our own borders from invasion.

Our country was invaded for the last four years, and they’ve allowed people to come into our country that shouldn’t be, that shouldn’t be here. Criminals walk in, no vetting, no check-in, no nothing. Where are they coming from? And they were taking people outta prisons. They were taking gang members. They were taking the mentally insane and allowing them to come in. And we’re getting them out of our country.

We have no choice. We’re getting them out and bringing them back where they came from.

Have no choice. And it’s not easy. It’s not easy. But hopefully the courts will allow us to continue. You know, we had the greatest election victory. This was, uh, November 5th was we won the popular vote by millions of votes. We won all seven swing states. We won everything. We won 2,750 districts against 505, 2,750 against 505. We had a great mandate and it gives us the right to do what we wanna do to make our country great again.

And that’s what we’re going to do. And on day one, I deployed our military to the southern border, and since that day we’ve reduced the number of illegal border crossings where there used to be hundreds of thousands of people coming into our country a day, we had nobody come in in the last week and a half.

We were at 99.999%, 99.999. Think of that. That was with the help of our military. We had one person come in. One. You know why? He got very sick, and we brought him through to have him brought to a hospital. One person. And for that, please don’t hold me responsible, but that’s okay. They did the right thing.

Gone are the days where defending every nation but our own was the primary thought. We are putting America first. We have to put America first. We have to rebuild and defend our nation. And very shortly you’re going to see a nation better than it’s ever been. And you see that with the trade. For years, we’ve been ripped off by every nation in the world on trade.

We’ve been ripped off at the NATO level. We’ve been ripped off like no country has ever been ripped off. But they don’t rip us off anymore. They’re not gonna rip us off anymore. And you’re seeing it. You have to watch what we’re doing on trade. I know it’s not your primary thing, but it’s quite important in all fairness.

But watch. You’ll see what’s going on. You’ve been reading about it over the last few days. We’re making deals with other nations that were not even — Nobody thought it would be even possible. And uh, the reason is very simple. They respect us again. They’re respecting our country again. That’s what you want.

And everything we do, we are bringing common sense back to America. It’s all about common sense. We can say we’re liberal, we’re conservative. The new word is progressive. They don’t like using the word liberal anymore. That’s why I call them liberal. But, but, uh, whatever you are, you know, most importantly, you have to have common sense because most of it’s — General, most of it’s about common sense when you get right down to it. And uh, we have a lotta people with a lotta, lotta very smart people, but they have to have common sense.

And we’ve liberated our troops from divisive and demeaning political trainings. There will be no more critical race theory or transgender for everybody forced onto our brave men and women in uniform or on anybody else for that matter in this country. And we will not have men playing in women’s sports if that’s okay.

I mean, I wouldn’t wanna have to tackle as an example Bryson as a man, but I don’t think a lotta women wanna tackle him. I don’t think so. How crazy is it, men playing in women’s sports? How crazy is it? So ridiculous. So demeaning. So demeaning to women. And it’s over. That’s over. We’ve ended it. And promotions and appointments will not be based on politics or identity.

They’ll be based on merit. We won that case in the Supreme Court of the United States. We’re allowed to go back to a system of merit. We’re a merit-based country again. Today, morale in the armed forces is soaring to the highest levels in many decades after years of recruiting shortfalls. And we had years and years of recruiting shortfalls, and just last year was the worst of all, the last year of the Biden administration.

We couldn’t get anybody to join our military. We couldn’t get anybody to join our police or firefighters. We couldn’t get anybody to join anything. And right now, just less than a year later, we just set a brand new peacetime recruiting record. The most, most people joined. And we are brimming — In fact, be careful.

There’s somebody gonna try and take your job. Be careful. You better be good. We are brimming with confidence and we’re brimming with people. We had the most, best recruiting month that we’ve had in memory. Nobody remembers anything like it. And that’s all because they have spirit now. They have spirit. They have a spirit for our country.

And now everybody wants to be doing what you’re doing. Think of that. So, it’s really a great honor, I will say. And I’m pleased to report that by next week, the army is expected to surpass its recruiting targets for the entire year. Something that hasn’t happened in 28 years where we’ve had that. So that’s pretty good.

And it’s nice to know that you’re doing something that everybody wants to do. Isn’t it really nice? Wasn’t — I hated to hear that. During the campaign, I was hearing that, the, you couldn’t get people to enlist. But now we’re getting people, and it’s sad because we’re telling so many people, “I’m sorry, we can’t do it.” My administration is doing everything possible to forge the most powerful military ever built.

But ultimately, the task of keeping America strong and safe in the years ahead is going to belong to you. Among you are the lieutenants, majors, colonels, and generals who’ll lead the army for the next 10, 20, 30, and even 40 years. So as commander-in-chief, let me offer a few words of advice as you begin your army careers.

And I thought I’d do this, and I can make this to a civilian audience or to a military audience. It’s pretty much the same. And, uh, I did this recently at uh, Ohio State, and they really liked it. I gave them a little advice as to what I see for what you wanna do and some tips. And first of all, and you’ve already done it different from civilians.

They’re making their decision right now. You’ve already made your decision. I love your decision. You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. If you don’t love it, you’ll never be successful at it. And you’ve done this, and you really, many of you in the audience, many of you that are graduating, uh, you come from military backgrounds or you love the military, it’s what you want to do, it’s what you want to talk about.

One thing I see about people that love the military, that’s all they want to talk about. I’ll be out to dinner, and generals if they, if they love their job, usually the only good ones are the ones that want to talk about it all the time. But if they talk, that’s what they want to talk about. I rarely, really very rarely see somebody who’s successful that doesn’t love what he or she does.

You have to love what you do. In your case, the military is what you chose. And I’ll tell you what; you cannot go wrong. You’re gonna see it too. You’re gonna love it more and more with time. You know, I work all the time. That’s all I do is I work, whether it’s politically. Or before that, I did — I was a very good businessman in case you haven’t heard, really good.

But I was good ’cause I loved it, I loved it. I learned from my father a little bit of — My father was a happy guy and all he did was work. He’d work Saturdays, Sundays. He’d work all the time. And he was a happy guy. He just loved life. And I learned that. I say, “You know, it makes him happy.” I’ve seen other people that never work and they’re not happy.

But you gotta love it, otherwise you won’t be successful. In the army, there are a lot of different paths you can take, so follow your instincts and make sure that you take the path that you love, that you’re doing something that you love within your military. You will be happier and the army will be far stronger for it. Second is to think big.

Always think big. If you’re going to do something, you might as well think big, do it big because it’s just as tough, and sometimes it’s a lot easier thinking big than doing a small task that’s more difficult. One of your greatest graduates, General Eisenhower used to say, “Whenever I run into a problem that I can’t solve, I always like to make it bigger to solve it and solve more of it.” If you go in to solve a problem, and it might as well be a big problem as opposed to a small problem that lots of people can take advantage of and solve.

So you can achieve something really amazing. Think big. Third though, you gotta do this. Uh, brainpower you have to have, potential you have to have, but to be really successful, you’re always going to have to work hard. An example is a great athlete, Gary Player. Great golfer. He wasn’t as big as the other men that were playing against him; great, big, strong guys.

Gary was a smaller guy. I don’t want to say too small. He is a friend of mine. He gets a little angry at people because he hits the ball just as far. He said, “I hit the ball further than them. Why am I small?” But he worked very, very hard. He was always doing exercise, he was always — He was well ahead of his time.

He never stopped. He won 168 golf tournaments. He won 18 majors, nine regular, and nine on the senior tour. 18 with 168. That’s the most tournaments, internationally the most tournaments anybody’s ever won. But he made a statement years ago, and I heard it, I heard it. He’s the first one. I think I’ve heard it a couple of times since, but he was the first.

He said, “It’s funny, the harder I work, the luckier I get.” And think of that, the harder I work, the luckier I get. And he worked hard, and you’re working hard, and the harder you work, the luckier you’re gonna get. Fourth is don’t lose your momentum. Momentum’s an amazing thing. Keep it going. I tell a story sometimes about a man who was a great, great real estate man.

He was a man who was admired for real estate all over the world, actually, but all over the country. He built Levittowns. He started as a man who built one house, then he built two, then he built five, then he built 20, then he built 1,000, then he built 2,000 and 3,000 a year. And he got very big, very big.

He was great at what he did. You see them all over the country still, Levittowns, so a long time ago. But he was, uh, the first of the really, really big home builders. And he became very rich, became a very rich man, and then he decided to sell. He was offered a lot of money by a big conglomerate, Gulf and Western, big conglomerate.

They didn’t do real estate, they didn’t know anything about it, but they saw the money he was making; they wanted to take it to a public company. And they gave him a lot of money, tremendous amount of money. More money than he ever thought he’d get. And he sold this company and he had nothing to do. He ended up getting a divorce, found a new wife.

Could you say a trophy wife? I guess we can say a trophy wife. It didn’t work out too well. But it doesn’t — And that doesn’t work out too well, I must tell you. A lot of trophy wives doesn’t work out, but it made him happy for a little while at least. But he found a new wife. He sold his little boat and he got a big yacht.

He had one of the biggest yachts anywhere in the world. He moved for a time to Monte Carlo and he led the good life. And time went by and he got bored. And 15 years later, the company that he sold to called him and they said, “The housing business is not for us.” You have to understand, when Bill Levitt was hot, when he had momentum, he’d go to the job sites every night.

He’d pick up every loose nail, he’d pick up every scrap of wood. If there was a bolt or a screw laying on the ground, he’d pick it up and he’d use it the next day and putting together a house. But now he was spoiled and he was rich, he was really rich. And they called and they said, “This isn’t for us, this business.

We need to do other things. Would you like to buy it back? We’ll sell it back to you cheap.” And they did. He bought it, he bought it. He thought he made a great deal and he was all excited. But it was 15 years later, he lost a lot of momentum. Remember the word momentum, and he lost everything, it just didn’t work, he lost everything.

And I was sitting at a party on Fifth Avenue one night a long time ago, and you had the biggest people in New York, the biggest people in the country, all in that party, and they were all saluting each other, how great they were, they were all telling each other, “I’m greater than you.” It gets to be really, gives you a headache sometimes, but they had all these people telling their own stories about how fantastic.

A cocktail party, and I looked over, and I was doing well, I was, I don’t know, I was invited to the party, so I had to be doing well. I was very, very young, but I made a name in real estate. And I looked over, and at the party sitting in a corner all by himself, nobody was talking to him, was Mr. Levitt.

He had just gone bankrupt, lost everything, he had lost everything, his home, everything. And I went over and talked to him because he was in the real estate business and I loved real estate, and I said, “Hello, Mr. Levitt, how are you?” He said, “Hello, Donald, it’s nice to meet you.” He knew me from being in the business.

I said, “Uh, so how’s it going?” He goes, “Not well. It’s really not going well, as you’ve probably read, it’s been a very, very tough period for me, son.” And I said, “So what happened? it’s just, anything you can do?” He goes, “No, there’s not a thing I can do.” He said, I’ll never forget, he said, “I’ve lost my momentum, I just didn’t have it. I used to have it but I lost my momentum.” So it’s a story I tell, and you have to know when you have the momentum, but sometimes you have to also know when you’ve lost the momentum and leaving a field, sometimes leaving what you’re doing sometimes is okay, but you gotta have momentum, but you have to know if that momentum’s gone, you have to know when to say it’s time to get out.

And it’s a very sad story, I remember that story so well like it was yesterday. Fifth, you have to have the courage to take risks and to do things differently. Eisenhower, again, was threatened with court martials as a young officer for advocating a new doctrine of tank warfare. Billy Mitchell was thrown out of the army for pioneering the use of air power.

They said, “What do you mean air power, don’t be ridiculous?” People willing to try and do things differently, it’s never gonna be easy for them, but they’re the ones that are gonna really do the important things, they’re the ones who are gonna make history. So don’t be ashamed and don’t be afraid, this is a time of incredible change and we do not need an officer Corps of careerists, and yes-men, and people that want to keep it going the way it’s been because it changes rapidly, especially what you’re doing.

Because believe it or not, you’re in a, a business and profession where things change as rapidly like warfare, the type of warfare. Unfortunately we’re getting to see it with Russia and Ukraine, and we’re studying it and it’s a very terrible thing to study. But we’re seeing the different forms of warfare.

We’re seeing the drones that are coming down at angles and with speed and with precision. We’ve never seen anything like it, we’ve never seen anything like it, and we’re learning from it, but your profession changes very rapidly, you’ve gotta keep, you’ve gotta be at the top of it, you’ve gotta be right at the head of the needle.

We need Patriots with guts, and vision, and backbone who take personal risks to ensure that America wins every single time, we wanna win our battles. You know, I defeated ISIS in three weeks. They told me it would take five years, and the general that did it, you know that story, was named Razin Caine. His name is Dan Caine, but his nickname was Razin Caine.

I said, “Your name is Razin Caine, I love that, is that a nickname?” “That’s what they call me, sir.” “I love you General, I think you’re the guy I am looking for, I want to know a guy named Razin Caine.” And he is now the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and he’s a highly respected man, and we defeated, think of it, ISIS, they said, they said, “How long in Washington?” “Sir, it will take four years to defeat them, maybe five, and maybe we won’t because they’re all over the place.” And then I met a man that said we can do it in three weeks, and he did it three weeks, and that’s, uh, why he’s the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff right now.

And, uh, we did things that nobody thought were possible. We’ve had great military success, when you have the right leader and you have the right people, and we have the right people, you’re gonna have tremendous succ- — success. Six, never lose your faith in America and the American people because they’re always gonna be there for you.

I went through a very tough time with some very radicalized sick people, and I say, I was investigated more than the great late Alphonse Capone. Alphonse Capone was a monster, he was a very hardened criminal. I went through more investigations than Alphonse Capone, and now I’m talking to you as president, can you believe this?

Can you believe it? So you gotta fight hard, and you gotta never give up and don’t let bad people take you down. You gotta let them, you gotta take them down. Got a lot of bad people out there and those people, you have to figure it out, but you also have a lot of great people. Finally, hold on to your culture and your traditions, because that’s what makes something really great, and that’s what’s made the army great, the culture and the tradition.

Whether we’re talking about a battalion, a business, a sports team, or even a nation, history has shown that in many ways culture is destiny. So do not let anyone destroy the culture of winning, you have to win. Winning is a beautiful thing, losing not for us, it’s not for us, not for anybody here. If it was, you wouldn’t be here.

From the earliest days of our nation, this supreme tradition of American military service has been passed down from soldier to soldier and generation to generation, and it’s a beautiful thing to watch. Graduating today is Cadet Ricky McMahon. Ricky’s great-grandfather, stand up wherever you are, Ricky, because you’re gonna like this.

Ricky’s great-grandfather served in World War I. His grandfather served in World War II, and his uncle, father and mother all graduated from West Point. Where is Ricky? In 2004, when Ricky was just a little, little tiny boy, who would think about that Ricky, a little tiny boy? His dad, Lieutenant Colonel Michael McMahon, made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation in Afghanistan.

Today, Lieutenant Colonel McMahon rests not far from here in the West Point Cemetery. Last year, two decades after losing his father, Ricky placed a gold chip from his dad’s 1985 class ring into a crucible along 87 other rings were with it of past West Point grads that were melted down to forge those now worn by the class of 2025. Do you all know that?

Do you know that, what you’re wearing? I want one. Ricky, I want one. Each of you will carry Michael’s memory with you always as you continue the legacy he gave you. It gave you something that would be so proud, he would be so proud, he is proud as he looks down. To Ricky and his mom, Jeanette, you embody what this place is all about, and I know Michael, he’s up there, he’s smiling broadly.

So proud. He’s so proud of you today, you know that. And, uh, he’s a man that couldn’t be, and he is a man that couldn’t be more proud. And I want to just, uh, I just love that story. And everybody’s ring, they’re gonna remember you, they’re gonna remember your family, and most importantly, you’re gonna remember a great tradition.

It’s a great tradition of West Point and of winners. Thank you very much. It’s great to meet you. Thank you. You can sit down. You want to come up? If you want to come up, come up. Come on up. Come on up here. That’s nice. A handsome guy. They’re all good-looking here. I don’t know what’s going on. Uh, whole crowd is beautiful. Thank you very much.

MCMAHON: I’d like to thank my mother, I’d like to thank my family, and I’d like to thank G-3. Go Gophers.

TRUMP: These are good-looking people, I’ll tell you General, what’s going on over [Inaudible]? Look like all a bunch of male models, I can’t stand it. (laughs) For two and a half centuries, our republic has endured because of heroes like Michael. They’ve laid down their lives for America, and because young people like all of you have picked up the banner of service and carried forward the flag of freedom from Lexington to Yorktown, from Gettysburg to Sicily, and from Inchon to Fallujah, America has been won and saved by an unbroken chain of soldiers and patriots who ran to the sound of the guns, leapt into the maw of battle and charged into the crucible of fire to seize the crown of victory no matter the odds, no matter the cost, no matter the danger.

All over the world, our soldiers have made sacred the ground where they shed their blood and showed their valor. From Seminary Ridge to San Juan Hill, Belleau Wood, Omaha Beach, Leyte Gulf, and Ardennes Forest, Chosin Reservoir, all over. And even a place called Pork Chop Hill. And in all of those battles and so many more, some of the best, brightest and bravest have come from right here at the US Military Academy at West Point, one of the great enabled places anywhere in the world.

America’s army has never failed us, and with leaders like the West Point class of 2025, the Army will never fail. We will never let you down. And over the last week, I had the honor of speaking to the heads of many countries and they would say, two weeks ago they say — The 8th, they said, “Sir, we’re celebrating the victory today of World War II.” And I said, “Wow, that’s nice.” Then I’d call another one, unrelated. “Sir, we’re celebrating the victory of World War II.” Then I called up President of France on something also unrelated.

He said, “Sir, we’re celebrating our victory over World War II.” I said, “Well, whoa. What have we here?” We help them a lot. And I- I had this Russia, I talked to Putin about ending that terrible war that’s going on. And he said they’re having a big victory march. And they did lose, in all fairness, 51 million people.

But they were all celebrating. The only country that wasn’t celebrating was the United States of America. And I said, isn’t it amazing? We were the ones that won the war. And we were helped. We were helped. In some cases we had to help them, but we were helped by some of the nations, and we were strongly helped by a couple of them.

But every one of them was celebrating. They had Victory Day, they called it Victory Day in Europe, Victory Day all over. And we weren’t even thought about, nobody had a Victory Day, and so I named that special day and another special day from now on as a holiday, but a holiday where we work because we don’t have enough days.

We’re going to be having so many holidays, we’re not going to be able to work anymore. But I named it for World War II, and a separate day in November, as you know, for World War I. I said, you know, all of these countries that participated in the war are celebrating, but the greatest country of them all, and the country that won the war, nobody even talked about.

And so, we’re going to be talking about it too from now on, and I think you’ll appreciate it. We won the First World War. We won the Second World War, and you know where we won them from? Right here at West Point. West Point won the war. You won two world wars, and plenty of other things, but you want to think of it. We don’t want to have a third world war, but we won the First World War.

We won the Second World War right here from West Point. And that’s something, and we’re gonna be talking about it. You know, they can talk about it, and in some cases, as you know, they didn’t do too much to help. They were ground down, but they were celebrating victory. No, we’re gonna celebrate victory because we’re the ones that won that war.

Standing before you today, I know that you will never stop. You will never quit. You will never yield. You will never tire. You will never, ever, ever surrender. Never give up. Remember that. Never give up. That’s another little factor I could have added. Never, ever give up. Raise your right hand. I pledge I will never, ever give up. You can never give up. You can never give up. If you do, you’re not gonna be successful because you’ll go through things that will be bad.

You’re gonna have great moments, you’re gonna have bad moments. You can never give up. Through every challenge and every battle, you’ll stand strong, you’ll work hard, you’ll stay tough, and you will fight, fight, fight, and win, win, win. So, I wanna just congratulate you all. I’m going back now to deal with Russia, to deal with China. [Laughs] What’s that- what’s that all about?

Trump critics attacked the speech. Many of them probably prefer the speech we’ll have tomorrow.

Christopher Kit

Posted on May 20, 2025 by bpriddy

The first governor the Missourinet covered was Christopher S. Bond. We went on the air January 2, 1975 with a welcome by Bond in one of our first newscasts.

Today, I will be helping Columbia television station KMIZ telecast and webcast his memorial service from the rotunda of the Capitol where he served for ten years, two years as state auditor and eight years as governor. The Capitol is less than an hour’s drive from Mexico, his hometown.

The memorial service will be at non today, after which he will lie in state until mid-day tomorrow. A celebration of his life will take place Thursday at Ladue Chapel Presbyterian Church in St. Louis.

He called himself “Kit,” and signed all of his letters that way. But I never called him that. I think “Kit” is okay for a child but not for somebody who earned the prestigious titles of governor and senator. A grownup, especially a governor or a senator, should be Christopher. I’ll let a frontiersman from two centuries ago get away with it, but it’s just not dignified when applied to a Governor. Or a Senator and, once upon a time, in a time far, far away, a potential candidate for vice-president.

THIS is Kit:

Kit is about forty years old and it’s the time of year for it to go live outside for the summer. We bring it indoors when the weather starts to turn a little crisp and park it next to a window so it can view winter, as we do, from the warmth of the house.

This is Christopher.

That’s fifty years ago, after he had helped me get the American Freedom Train to come through Jefferson City for the American Revolution Bicentennial. I was the local committee Secretary and Carolyn McDowell was the committee chairman. My friend, Jim Wisch, who also helped me build a grandfather clock from a kit (I’m sorry, it’s unavoidable in telling the story), did the woodwork for the plaque with the locomotive on it.

Some people have asked me to talk about Christopher Bond and I’ve talked about some of his legislative successes, his actions overturning a 140-year old extermination order by one of his predecessors telling Mormons to get out of Missouri or he would have the state militia kill them, his work on realigning government, his work ethic, and other things. But I overlooked one of his best accomplishments. Alan Greenblatt, the editor of Governing magazine brought it up after learning of Bond’s death. He headlined it “When a Governor Preserved Part of His State’s Heritage.

With his reminding me, I recalled it well. Half a century ago, the St. Louis Mercantile Library decided to pay for a new air conditioning system by selling more than 100 drawings by Missouri’s most famous 19^th Century artist, George Caleb Bingham. Bingham’s works are universally appreciated not only as art but also because of the historical stories they tell. The drawings are of people who appear in one of his most famous works—County Election.

Bond mobilized school children to donate their dimes and pennies to help the state buy the drawings. Any school that raised $250 got a Bingham print. More than three-hundred schools took part and their children raised about $40,000.

The children inspired adults, businesses, and the legislature to put up the rest of the money, more than two-million dollars, to make the purchase.

The drawings, now in a trust, are protected from being sold.

Greenblatt concludes, “After I learned about Bond’s intervention… it became a habit for me to ask governors and former governors if they had ever done something similar — something that wasn’t part of their larger political agenda but something that had an impact they could talk about with their grandchildren. None have yet given me a satisfactory answer. So kudos to Kit Bond, as he was known, for using his bully pulpit in this particular way.”

I first met him when he was running against incumbent Congressman Bill Hungate, one of the stars of the Watergate hearings, in northeast Missouri. He came to the radio station where I was in my first year as news director, the late KLIK, and we sat on a couch in the front office and talked about why he thought he was qualified to go to Congress. He lost but he gave Hungate a stronger run than he had ever faced.

That was 1968, the year John Danforth broke Democratic control of state politics. He hired a bunch of young assistants, Christopher Bond being one of them. The list of people who came through the “Danforth Incubator” includes future governors, judges of the state supreme court, federal prosecutors, Republican Party leaders, and a couple of future governors—Bond and John Ashcroft.

Before Bond became governor he had to prove he was a Missourian. His primary opponent, Representative R. J. “Bus” King, charged Bond would not have lived in Missouri for the required ten years before the election. He had gone to law school in Virginia, clerked for a federal judge in Georgia, worked for a law firm in Washington, D.C., applied for a marriage license in Kentucky and lived in DC after his marriage.

Bond argued all of those addresses were temporary and were connected to his education and his professional development. But, he said, he never intended to abandon his Missouri residence. The court ruled that “residence” is “largely a matter of intention” not requiring a physical presence. Therefore residence was “that place where a man has his true, fixed and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning.”

Bond became the youngest governor in Missouri history in January, 1973. Some of the old guard, even in his own party, treated him with some disdain, some even referring to his as ‘Kid” Bond.

1972 also was the year Missourians approved a realignment of state government. Our youngest governor’s first big job was a complete reordering of the hundreds of state agencies, boards, and commissions into a little more than a dozen departments.

When a tornado hit Farmington in ’74, Bond and some members of the Capitol Press Corps hopped on a National Guard helicopter and flew over to check the damage. Bond and the press corps got along pretty well but on this flight there was no collegial chit-chat. Bond had his briefcase and was working on things all the way over and all the way back, a work ethic I appreciated.

By re-election time, Bond had won the respect of the old guard and was such a rising star in the party, nationally, that President Ford had Bond on the short list as a running mate. But when Joe Teasdale ran a populist campaign that Bond never seriously challenged, Teasdale emerged a surprise winner by about 13,000 votes. The stunning defeat ended his hopes of rising to national importance.

I remember hearing him talk about how his loss not only was difficult for him, it was doubly difficult for his wife. While he was mourning the end of his dreams, she was dealing with the loss of HER dream. And she had to deal with the end of his national ambitions, too. It’s a lesson I’ve told other potential first-time candidates to think about—-that they don’t run for office alone; that their family is running, too, and is living all of the joys and sadnesses the campaign produces.

Bond filled his time as the head of the Great Plains Legal Foundation while working to rebuild the Republican Party. He came out slugging in the 1980 campaign and clobbered Teasdale by about ten times more votes than was the losing margin to Teasdale in ’72.

He laid out for a couple of years then ran for the U. S. Senate and won the first of his four six-year terms.

When he retired from the Senate fifteen years ago, he said,

“There is no greater honor than being given the people’s trust, to represent them. I have done my best to keep faith with my constituents in every vote I have cast and every issue I have worked on.

“As I look back, the successes we have achieved during my time here have always come because people were willing to reach across the aisle for the common good…

“In a world today where enemies are real—the kind who seek to destroy others because of their religion—it is important to remember there is a lot of real estate between a political opponent and a true enemy.

“Public Service has been a blessing and a labor of love for me. Little in life could be more fulfilling.”

Senator Christopher Bond of Missouri was known for his pork-barrel politics, the politics of getting as much federal money for his state as possible. While some think being “The King of Pork” is not a distinction, Bond was proud of the title—-because it was done for his folks back home.

I saw him occasionally in the years since (such as at the Greitens Inauguration in 2017). Age shortened his height but not his public stature. He always had the smile, always the twinkle in the eye, always was glad to see someone, always ready with a quip.

He was 86 when he died last week.

One final story—about Kit.

In those days the press corps was made up of a lot of young men and women. We had our softball teams and our basketball teams. One day the press corps played a game against Governor Bond and his staff. The press corps won. I hit a shot that nailed the governor in the shin at third base.

In May of 1984, my city league softball team played the governor’s staff and I had to leave my position at third base to fill in for an absent pitcher. Early in the game, one of the governor’s staff hit a shot straight back at me. It hit me in the left eye and I was in the hospital for a few days after doctors stitched the eye and the surrounding area back together. On day a nurse brought a nice plant to my bedside. She and the other nurses were really impressed that the governor would send a plant to one of their patients.

We call the plant Kit. And it will always remind me of a guy named Christopher.

(photo credits: Kit—Bob Priddy; County Election—Art.com; Old Bond—UPI; Official portrait of Bond—Bob Priddy)

Bob Priddy

A journalist's random observations

Category Archives: Politics

American Values

Well, There Goes the Nobel Peace Prize

Thy Liberty in Law

Notes from a Quiet Hill

SPORTS—Stadium Money Faces Crucial Week; Competitive Cardinals; Breakout Rookie in KC; Battlehawks Lose in Playoffs, Again

Ed

The contest

The Face of America

Two Speeches, Speech One

Christopher Kit

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: