In stentorian tones, Egyptian Pharaoh Seti I, as portrayed by Sir Cedric Hardwicke, pronounces judgment on the legacy of Moses in Cecil B. DeMille’s epic film “The Ten Commandments.”
“Let the name of Moses be stricken from every book and tablet, stricken from all pylons and obelisks, stricken from every monument of Egypt … Let the name of Moses be unheard and unspoken, erased from the memory of men for all time,” he declares.
I can only fantasize about the legacy Donald Trump faces the next time a Democrat sits behind the Resolute desk in the Oval Office. I imagine that armed with Supreme Court legitimacy for unbridled presidential power, among the first executive orders he or she issues will be a command to remove Trump’s name and likeness from any public building, official U.S. currency or official document.
Such a decree would be fitting for a megalomaniac who belittled his predecessors, damaged America’s reputation and international commitments, fleeced his supporters with Trump/MAGA get rich schemes, violated the rule of law and sought at every turn to divide our nation rather than be a healer and uniter.
Of course, Pharaoh’s decree might have physically removed Moses’ name, but his legacy far outlasted the Egyptian monarch’s. My fantasy would not be a display of unity. But it would go a loooooong way in reestablishing a return to normalcy, a time when principles, not personage, was the driving force in our country.
Politics and Religion—The “Js” Dominate: Among prominent names bandied about for their respective party’s presidential nominations are Republican JD (James David) Vance and Democrats Jon Ossoff, Josh Stein, JB (Jay Robert) Pritzker, Jared Polis and John Shapiro.
There are other possibles, including Andy Beshear, Gavin Newsom and Rahm Emanuel. But the preponderance of candidate names beginning with a “J” is quite dramatic.
Even more startling is that six of the Democrats are Jewish, the five “Js” and Rahm. Is the country ready for a Jewish president?
Probably not, given negative reactions to Israel’s conflicts in Gaza and the West Bank plus its influence on Trump’s decision to attack Iran. Emanuel already is addressing the issue to mixed reviews in Israel (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/07/us/politics/rahm-emanuel-speech-israel.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share)
It is a long shot anything can be done to change perceptions by 2028.
A relatively recent convert to Catholicism, Vance, meanwhile, is engaging in religious polemics (with the Pope, no less!) that might not sit well with his Catholic co-religionists and those that view his advocacy in his book “Communion,” that America was founded as, and is, a Christian nation.
I wonder how he squares that thought with America’s historical discrimination against Catholics. Overwhelmingly Protestant, many of the 13 colonies banned Catholics from voting and holding office after the revolution. Later, immigration from predominantly Catholic countries, like Ireland, was restricted. Equal opportunities were denied Catholics. Along with Blacks and Jews, Catholics drew the ire of the Ku Klux Klan.
We have had only two Catholic presidents—John F. Kennedy and Joseph R. Biden.
Vance believes illegal migrants pose a physical threat, that they are more dangerous than American citizens. Yet, the opposite is true, according to the American Immigration Council (https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/debunking_the_myth_of_immigrants_and_crime.pdf).
Of course, perception plays a part in Vance’s position. The media plays up any deaths that can be attributed to an illegal immigrant. But really, should we not be more worried and concerned about our culture of violence and easy access to guns rather than the desire by migrants to seek a better life for themselves and their families, the driving force behind immigration to America for the last 250 years and more? Vance sees no need to restrict gun possession.
Facts, Not Perceptions, Matter: If there is one foreign policy question hanging in the air above Washington and Jerusalem it is, what will be the future relationship between America and Israel?
There can be little doubt the United States will be the dominant partner of any relationship, especially as long as America is governed by a transactional president.
Before considering policy differences consider this: four out of five Americans were born after 1967, the last time Israel was the underdog threatened with extinction. Even among Jews, Israel has lost its position as an endangered state.
The graphics of the wars in Gaza and southern Lebanon have not favored Israel. But the Mideast reality demands greater knowledge by those who challenge Israel’s legitimacy.
Just as our Declaration of Independence enumerated “truths to be self-evident,” so too must we accept there are indisputable statements about Israel and its enemies:
*Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state;
*Arab and Moslem states and Palestinian organizations have repeatedly rejected Israel’s right to exist;
*Arab and Moslem states and Palestinian organizations have rejected proposals for an independent Palestinian state from the moment Israel was created;
*Arabs living in Israel have more rights and freedoms, including freedom of religion and equal rights for women, than Arabs living in any other Mideast state;
*Just as Poland’s borders changed multiple times in the 20th century after wars it did not initiate, so too did Israel’s borders change after it was attacked by Arab countries in 1948, 1967 and 1973;
*After 1948, Moslem states expelled Jewish residents from their countries despite Jews residing in them for upwards of 1,500 years, even before Islam was conceived;
*Israel absorbed the dispossessed Jews; Arab states refused to integrate refugees from the Israeli war of independence;
*Israel has never sought the elimination of any Arab or Moslem state. The reciprocal cannot be said for its opponents.
