If you want to know why Politico risked the inevitable mockery that will ensue by whining absurdly about the supposed dangers posed to the environment by the America 250 fireworks the answer is easily supplied by simply reading the first word of the title of their Friday KvetchFest, "Trump plans record fireworks show, internal docs warn of smoky skies." Substitute the name of any Democrat president such as Clinton or Obama or Autopen and the silly story by the Politico troika of Alex Guillen, Miranda Willson, and Ariel Wittenberg would have been nonexistent. Yes, they just can't allow President Donald Trump to enjoy along with thousands of spectators what they consider to be a triumphal moment without raining on the parade. TDS is just that powerful, especially at Politico. Now let us watch the Politico team make an attempt at a thin veneer of concern over supposed fireworks pollution despite us (and them) knowing what this is really all about: Scientists have well documented the soot and heavy metal pollution that can spike severely in the wake of pyrotechnic displays, and the world-record-setting number of fireworks lined up for July 4 will mean an equally large jump in pollution, according to experts and internal NPS documents reviewed by POLITICO. There are no indications that the administration plans to suggest masking or other personal protection for revelers viewing the fireworks from the nation’s front lawn. And the Environmental Protection Agency said tracking the air quality impacts of the fireworks isn’t their jurisdiction. Any warnings by the government for people to mask up in the wake of the useless Covid mask warnings would be rightly ignored and/or laughed at. The good news is that the dirty air doesn’t linger too long. One study found that particulate matter from July Fourth fireworks remained elevated for about 24 hours across 315 different monitoring sites. On average, the fireworks displays increased pollution by 42 percent. But after a day, fireworks pollution dissipates and usually blows away or settles into water and soil within a day. Wow! So just wait for the wind to blow away whatever air pollution there is. It sounds much less than terrifying. The drought means that pollutants may linger longer in the Potomac than they would under normal conditions, said Tyler Frankel, an associate environmental science professor at the University of Mary Washington. Contaminants can easily get trapped in the river near Theodore Roosevelt Island due to “tidal slosh,” a phenomenon where the water flows both upstream and downstream, Frankel said. Amphibians and juvenile fish are particularly vulnerable to perchlorates, compounds used in fireworks to enable a rapid burn but that can also disrupt animals’ developmental processes. If as few as just ONE Delta Smelt dies due to the America 250 fireworks, Trump must be held to account! Impeachment? The Politico litany of dire America 250 fireworks threats to the environment and health continues on and on and on for our amusement.  Here are just a few more of the highlights spurred on by their derangement over You-Know-Who: Other animals at risk include ospreys, iconic fish-eating birds that are currently in the midst of breeding season and are easily spooked by loud noises. ...Fireworks also rain down small but potentially potent amounts of heavy metals that are used to create vibrant colors but also pose serious health risks. ...No one has yet done epidemiological studies to look at whether hospital admissions for asthma or other cardiovascular and respiratory ailments increase after fireworks events, the kind of research that has been performed on wildfire smoke and ambient pollution. ...Observing the show from a greater distance would reduce exposure. So would staying inside and keeping windows closed. An indoor air filter will scrub out particles. And all those N95 masks left lying around from the pandemic would be effective, too. ... An organizer with Moms Clean Air Force who also has asthma, Schmitz spent last July Fourth “inside with a mask on, leaning over my air purifier struggling to breathe and weighing if I needed to go to the hospital.” Will any of the Politico crew need to be mental health hospitalized (for TDS) if they spot anybody enjoying the terrific America 250 fireworks display?

On Tuesday's Morning Joe, as the nation approaches its 250th anniversary, historian Jon Meacham delivered a revisionist riff on the founding of America.  He actually began well: "The Declaration and the Constitution codified the centrality and sanctity of the individual and the equality, not of outcome and not of success, but equality before God and before the bar of history and before the courts of every individual soul." So far, so good: a clear rejection of the "equity" mindset that demands equal results rather than equal opportunity under the law.  But Meacham quickly pivoted: "There's a very good case to be made, I think, that we were really founded in 1965. That's when a multiracial, multiethnic democracy came more fully into being with the Immigration and Nationality Act, with the Voting Rights Act. And so we're really about 60 years old." This is how many on the modern left approach American history. The New York Times’ 1619 Project sought to push the nation’s true founding backward to 1619, declaring the arrival of the first slaves as America’s real beginning. Now, Meacham effectively pushes the founding forward to 1965, to celebrate the Immigration and Nationality Act and Voting Rights Act.  The common thread is a desire to redefine America’s origins in the service of contemporary progressive priorities. In Meacham's telling, the real founding occurred in the Great Society era. The actual Declaration and Constitution get downgraded to a kind of rough draft, with 1965 supplying the corrected, expanded edition. This fits neatly with the narrative pushed by outlets like the New York Times. As Mara Gay of the Times editorial board suggested to Meacham, today's multiracial left is the true inheritor of the Founders' tradition.  Yet that same left aggressively champions DEI initiatives pushing "equity" — precisely the equality of outcome rather than opportunity that Meacham himself just said the Founders rejected. Meacham correctly identified the principle, but then, by situating the founding in 1965, seemed to hand the inheritance to the very movement working to dismantle it. @Morning_Joe Historian Meacham on 250th: America 'Was Really Founded In 1965' pic.twitter.com/iaGocOFlDR — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) July 1, 2026 As the country prepares to mark 250 years since 1776, expect more attempts to shift the focal point to the 1960s. The actual founding documents, and the generation that risked everything for self-government, deserve better than to be treated as a preliminary sketch awaiting the real work of 1965. Note: Meacham, an Episcopalian, offered a distinctly Protestant reading of history. He praised the Gutenberg press because “you didn’t have to depend on [Catholic] monks" to do illuminated manuscripts, celebrated the Protestant Reformation, in bringing scripture into the vernacular [from the Catholic Latin], as an important step toward democratization, and decried the old vertical order in which “Popes and princes” ruled over subjects.  In a discussion of America’s founding principles, many Catholics are apt to view Meacham's references as gratuitous critiques of their tradition. Here's the transcript. MS NOW Morning Joe 7/1/26 7:23 am EDT MIKE BARNICLE: Could you, in your, tell us what your definition today is of being an American?  JON MEACHAM: The American, right. We are blessed to be in a country that was part of an unfolding drama in the West from Magna Carta and Gutenberg forward.  You know, the invention of movable type, which democratizes information. You didn't have to depend on monks to do an illuminated manuscript. Anyone could go to a printer shop and print an idea and get it out there. It was the earliest form of the internet.  The Glorious Revolution in England, which created a balanced constitution between King and Parliament — a vital reminder of how we have to keep those things in balance. The Protestant Reformation, you know, the translation of scripture into the vernacular. This whole idea, this whole shift — that the Constitution and the Declaration were, I think, the clearest political embodiments of the world being organized vertically—where Popes and princes were at the top and we were subjects.  But the world was becoming more horizontal. We were born with the capacity to determine our own destinies. And what the Declaration and the Constitution did is, they codified the centrality and sanctity of the individual, and the equality—not of outcome and not of success— but equality before God, and before the bar of history, and before the courts, of every individual soul. MARA GAY: You know, John, we're in a moment where it feels sometimes as though there's a great battle that we're in the midst of, between a pro-democracy movement, of multiracial democracy, that claims to be the inheritor of what the Founding Fathers have given us of this great tradition. And then there are others, and you mentioned blood and soil, who want to limit what that means, and the definition of what it means to be American.  I guess, I wonder who you think actually is the inheritor of this American tradition, and how we should think about the radicalism of the Founding fathers in this moment? MEACHAM: You know, we talk about, directly to your point, we talk about this as the 250th anniversary, which it is, of the Second Continental Congress passing the Declaration of Independence, fully beginning the Revolutionary War, which ultimately leads, in 1787 through 1789, to the framing of the Constitution, the inauguration of George Washington, and the beginning of what we would see as a recognizable experiment in self-government.  Except, that a lot of people weren't included in that. And in that important sentence about all men being created equal, men had a very particular application in that era.  It is a very — there's a very good case to be made, I think, that we were really founded in 1965. That, that's when a multiracial, multiethnic democracy came more fully into being with the Immigration and Nationality Act, with the Voting Rights Act.  And so, we're really about 60 years old.

The Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in Michigan has a trio of candidates on the ballot, including radical left-winger Dr. Abdul El-Sayed. Thursday afternoon, El-Sayed was a guest on CNN's The Arena, where Host Kasie Hunt, treated him like a Republican, repeatedly raising issues that made El-Sayed uncomfortable, and pressing him when he didn't answer the question asked. It was very unusual. Hunt began by asking if he can win a general election in the purple state of Michigan should he win the primary, noting some party leaders are concerned about that. When he stressed he'd support "Medicare for All" (nationalized health care) as a Senator, Hunt fired back, "The reality is there's no way Medicare for All passes Congress if Democrats don't control the Senate. And if you don't win that Senate seat in Michigan, it's very hard to see how Democrats win the Senate at all." Hunt then moved on to El-Sayed's criticism of President Trump, noting that he won Michigan in 2024, "Is there anything that he's done in this second term in office that you can identify as being good for the country?" Wow. This from a woman who routinely criticizes the President. Hunt then turned her attention to comments he has made about women and his opponent, Congresswoman Haley Stevens, and played an ad attacking him for it. Rather than address its contents, and Hunt's question of whether he regrets things he's said about women, his response was to point out who he says paid for the ad, UDP, an AIPAC super PAC. This led to Hunt to the topic of Israel, and she continued to press her guest. HUNT: Do you believe Israel has a right to exist? EL-SAYED: It's interesting because nobody's ever asked me whether or not I believe Palestine has a right to exist.... Israel exists. HUNT: You say it exists, but does it have a right to? EL-SAYED: I didn't say that. I just said the question of Israel's existence is not a question. I'm not I'm not going to play this gotcha game about whether or not it has a right to exist. HUNT: You're not going to play the gotcha game, but you're not going to say you think Israel has a right to exist. EL-SAYED: The question about whether or not Israel has a right to exist is actually quite secondary to whether or not they have a right to our tax dollars. And people don't ask that question in good faith. Then Hunt pressed him on his deleted tweets which called for defunding police, which really hit a nerve. Hunt asked: "I also wanted to ask you about some of the tweets that you deleted, as you were in the course of this race, just before, around this question of defunding the police, this is also something likely to come up in a general election should you win this primary. Do you stand by what you had previously said that that police,  in support of defunding the police, or do you believe police should be funded? She later asked, "Why did you delete the tweets"? El-Sayed shot back: "I deleted all the tweets because I didn't want them to be taken out of context, like this, o that you could distract from the actual conversation that Michiganders really want to have." Then more pressing from Hunt. HUNT: I think the question is just if you're leading, would you fight to defund the police or would you not? EL-SAYED: I've already told you what I did. Judge me by my work....And I think this debate about 2020 and the ways that tweets are going to play are really nice on CNN, if you want to get clicks. HUNT: So voters shouldn't look at the fact that you deleted the tweets as evidence that you no longer were for  the things that you said then? After more back and forth Hunt concluded with, "I understand, but you deleted the tweets, right? That's what I'm asking you. I'm asking you about an action that you took, okay." And after asking if Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who has endorsed El-Sayed, will be campaigning with him, she asked him about one of his earliest supporters Hasan Piker, who has said America deserved 9/11: "You also, of course, have campaigned alongside Hasan Piker. Do you believe that the statements that he has made about September 11th are accurate?" An impressive display by Hunt, but why? Maybe she too believes that if El-Sayed wins the primary, he and the Democrats will lose the Michigan Senate seat they currently hold.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses the subject of free speech head on. As follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This reminder comes as, for the 250th time, America gets ready to celebrate the Fourth of July. And in that doing, it is decidedly worth a look back to see the thoughts of the nation’s Founding Fathers when it comes to a free press. Or, as it is referred to in today’s world, “the media.” It is particularly worthwhile to take a look back at the writings and activities of one Founder in particular. That would be the venerable and wise Benjamin Franklin. The liberal journalist and author Walter Isaacson wrote a decidedly noteworthy book on old Ben. The one that is appropriate for this annual July 4th celebration is Benjamin Franklin: An American Life. Isaacson makes a point of discussing Franklin’s relationship to the creation of a free press and the larger world we call the media.  Key to this creation was what Franklin termed “The Junto Club”. The Benjamin Franklin Historical Society defines the Junto Club as follows: “In the fall of 1727 Benjamin Franklin and a group of friends founded the Junto Club also known as the Leather Apron Club. The 12 members were tradesmen and artisans who met Friday evenings to discuss issues of morals, politics or natural philosophy. The club lasted 38 years. Franklin proposed that the group be formed of “ingenious men –a physician, a mathematician, a geographer, a natural philosopher, a botanist, a chemist, and a mechanician (engineer)”. Isaacson also notes: “Franklin was doing modestly well as one of three printers in a town that would naturally have supported only two. But he had learned from his apprentice days in Boston that true success would come if he had not only a printing operation but also his own content and distribution network.” Franklin had competition in this area, however. A publisher named Andrew Bradford. Isaacson writes: “Franklin decided to take Bradford on, and over the next decade he would succeed by building a media conglomerate that included production capacity (printing operations, franchised printers in other cities), products (a newspaper, magazine, almanac), content (his own writings, his alter ego Poor Richard’s, and those of his Junto), and distribution (eventually the whole of the colonial postal system).” In other words, long, long before the arrival of the 20th and 21st century and the media companies built in today’s world by men with names like Rupert Murdoch (Fox), Chris Ruddy (Newsmax), William S. Paley (CBS), David Sarnoff (NBC) or Bill Gates (Microsoft) and Steve Jobs (Apple), there was old Ben Franklin in his very competitive fashion launching a media company of his own. Designed specifically by Franklin to embrace the technology of the day (printers), and then content (a newspaper, magazine and an almanac.) Now? So now America - and the modern world - swims in a media ocean of newspapers, television and radio networks. Not to mention computers! The technological descendants of Ben’s printers. The bottom line? Even though there are those griping about this, that or another media outlet (including me!), this July 4th is a good moment to stop and understand just how fortunate we Americans are. Fortunate to live in a country where a free press and all that that means -- for the good, bad and indifferent -- allows them to read, write and broadcast what they chose. Said another way? Long live a free press. And God Bless America. Happy Fourth of July. 

On Tuesday, Washington Post local breaking news reporter Dana Hedgpeth penned an article entitled “Three words in the Declaration of Independence paint a cruel picture of Natives.” However, while Hedgpeth was eager to remind everyone this meant the Declaration’s “ideals were not extended to everyone,” the historical context she provided for the “merciless Indian savages” passage was quite thin. Hedgpeth, whose bio refers to her as “a Native American journalist” who has “covered topics including Native Americans and their history," begins by setting up the story of “McKaylin Peters, a 24-year-old Native American graduate student at Johns Hopkins University, still recalls when she first heard the words ‘merciless Indian savages.’”  She then adds,  “She cringed when the teacher read a passage deep in the Declaration of Independence: ‘He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.’” Ahead of America 250, she also claims, “Peters and other Native American scholars and tribal leaders are reflecting on the Founding Fathers’ use of the derogatory description for Indigenous people in 1776. Many note that while the Declaration promises that ‘all men are created equal,’ its ideals were not extended to everyone.” Hedgpeth also claimed, “The document’s portrayal of Indigenous people helped establish a moral and legal framework that justified decades of devastating U.S. policies toward Native communities, according to historians.” She also quoted Peters as saying, “It’s a reminder that this country was built by declaring us less than human. When the Declaration of Independence calls us that, it’s a message that Native youth sadly still hear today in classrooms, policy debates and in how society talks about us.” Eventually, Hedgpeth got to some historical context. The first interesting tidbit she provided undermined her central argument, although she didn’t appear to realize it, “[Thomas] Jefferson described Indigenous people as just, honorable and noble — a sharp contrast to the widespread European belief that Indigenous people were inferior.” So, where did this idea come from? While the common image of 18th century warfare is two armies standing in a field about a hundred yards apart and firing at each other, frontier warfare was something entirely different: Repeated violence between Indigenous people and settlers also helped shape the ideology behind the description, including the French and Indian War and Dunmore’s War in 1774, when Virginia colonists fought the Shawnee and Mingo to expand into the Ohio Valley, according to historians. In the summer of 1776, as the Declaration was drafted and adopted, a lesser-known conflict unfolded when Cherokee warriors attacked frontier settlements across parts of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. Colonists responded by burning more than 50 Cherokee towns and driving Native people from their homes. By 1776, the Founding Fathers ‘understood their need to accuse the king of what they considered the ultimate crime — partnering with Indigenous peoples and arming them,’ said Ned Blackhawk, a Native American author and Yale University historian. ‘So they created this vilification in the Declaration that, in many ways, was at odds with their experience of living alongside Natives for generations.’ Jefferson’s praise for the natives is not inconsistent with the grievance against the crown. Frontier warfare did not begin in 1774 or even the French Indian and War. Contrary to Blackhawk’s assertion, for several decades, the reality of frontier warfare with the French and their native allies saw the destruction of villages as the Declaration passage in question says. Surely, one can understand why the colonists would be angry at the king for now allying himself with such tribes. It was a trend that would continue during the Revolutionary War. Hedgpeth closed out her article by quoting Center for Native American Youth at the Aspen Institute, Tracy L. Canard Goodluck. Underneath a picture of her wearing a shirt that said ‘“Merciless Indian Savages’ – Declaration of Independence’ she wrote:  ‘Those words served the purpose back then as a way to dehumanize Native people in this country,’ said Goodluck. ‘We need to change that narrative. We’re still here. We’re doctors, lawyers, teachers and political leaders.  ‘I am that merciless Indian savage who my ancestors prayed for to do great things.’ Goodluck is not “that merciless Indian savage.” She may think she is turning the table on Jefferson and the country, but she is not. They say war is hell, but frontier warfare was another level of hell. You cannot understand Jefferson’s writing without the historical knowledge of the reality of frontier warfare up through 1776. If the Washington Post wants to teach nuanced and complicated history then that should extend both ways.