Author: admin

Folks, we are going to start with something a little different today. I received a note from my 95 year old mom yesterday. This is a woman who lived through the great depression. A woman whose husband was a Marine that fought in Europe and the Pacific during WWII. A good Christian who raised her family on traditional American values. Who has spent countless hours working for hospice to care for her fellow man.

Now I have to admit, she is somewhat biased when it comes to her bragging on her kids. She and her friends, “The Garden Club”, listen to my radio show religiously. She has heard me talk many times about the current state of our country and while watching the national news recently, she put pen to paper. Here is the note she sent me.

Dear Jim,

SINCE WHEN DID WE ELECT THE PRESS TO RUN THE COUNTRY? FROM DAY ONE REPORTERS HAVE ATTACKED PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP,(THE MAN WHO WE ELECTED TO BE OUR PRESIDENT,) LIKE A PACK OF WILD DOGS AFTER A BONE. 

THEY SHOW NO RESPECT FOR A MAN WHO HAS BUILT A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS AND DEALT WITH COMPETITORS AROUND THE WORLD..I CAN THINK OF NO OTHER COUNTRY WHO WOULD ALLOW SUCH DISREPECT  FOR THEIR HEAD OF GOVERMENT.

AMERICANS HAVE ALLOWED THE PRESS TO PERSECUTE OUR PRESIDENT AND THEN SNEAR AT HIS JUSTIFIED REACTION. SHAME  ON YOU, YOU DO NOT EVEN  REFER TO HIM AS PRESIDENT TRUMP, JUST TRUMP.THE REST OF THE WORLD WOULD IMPRISON ANYONE WHO SHOWED SUCH DISRESPECT TO THEIR LEADER!

 IF YOU WERE SO SMART, WE MIGHT HAVE ELECTED YOU.  HERE’S NEWS FOR YOU……YOU’RE NOT….AND WE DIDNT!

BACK OFF!

 I HAVE LOVED MY COUNTRY FOR 95 YEARS…. DON’T RUIN IT!!

Now folks, something is terribly wrong when a member of the greatest generation sits down and writes a letter like that. These are not the words of some old history professor.

These are the words of someone who has literally lived through the trials and tribulations our country has faced for nearly a century! We simply must take heed to what she is saying.

I have thought long and hard about her words. Being a historian, I thought about just when in the past we saw such disillusion with government and our national values.

What came to mind, was a story I used to share with my students concerning none other than Henry David Thoreau.

I think people are now fed up with government in general. I honestly believe that the majority of our citizens now see both Republican and Democrat politicians as incompetent and feel that the Federal government has completely lost its way.

Henry David Thoreau felt the same way all the way back in 1846.

Here is the story.

Henry David Thoreau, the son of a Concord pencil-maker, graduated from Harvard in 1837. He worked a short while as a schoolmaster, but then began writing poetry. He soon joined a religious, philosophical, and literary movement called Transcendentalism. The leader of the movement was Ralph Waldo Emerson, a writer and lecturer.

At first, Thoreau agreed with Emerson’s teaching that social reform begins with the individual.

In 1845, he built a hut at Walden Pond on property owned by Emerson. For the next few years, Thoreau lived simply off the land, meditated, and wrote about nature. A hippy 100 years ahead of his time!

 

Thoreau, in addition to communing with nature, also adopted another policy of the Transcendentalists.

“Every person should follow the dictates of his own individual conscience, even if doing so, broke the laws of the land”.

Thoreau deliberately broke the law in 1846 by refusing to pay a poll tax.

His reason for not paying was that the tax would go to pay for the Mexican/American War, which he opposed.

I late July of 1846, Thoreau went to town to pick up some supplies.

On the way he met his friend, Sam Staples, who was tax collector, sheriff, and jailer.

Sam politely reminded Henry that he had not paid his poll tax. Henry said he would not pay it. So Sam said he’d pay it if Henry was hurting for money.

Henry said it was the principal of the thing and he would not pay.

Sam told him, “If you don’t pay, I will have to lock you up.”

Henry replied, “Now is as good a time as any!” So Sam took his friend to jail.

Now Henry found jail fascinating. After all, he was a writer. There he came in contact with thieves, pirates, thugs and murderers. This gave him tons of new ideas for characters in his writings.

Well word go out that Henry had been arrested and his friends posted his bail. When Sheriff Sam found the bail had been posted he went to the jail and told Henry he was free to go.

To Sam’s amazement Henry said he wouldn’t go! Henry said that since he hadn’t paid the bail, Sam couldn’t make him leave.

So Sam and the jailer physically drug Henry out of the jail and set him free.

Henry was furious and decided the best way to continue his protest was to write about it. He then sat down and wrote a speech titled “Civil Disobedience” that he delivered at the Concord Lyceum in January 1848.

( note: Henry died of TB in 1862 at the age of 45)

Thoreau’s minor act of defiance caused him to conclude that it was not enough to be simply against slavery and the war. A person of conscience had to act. In “Civil Disobedience,” he proclaimed an activist manifesto:

In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation, which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty, are slaves, and a whole country [Mexico] is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize.

Thoreau argued that the government must end its unjust actions to earn the right to collect taxes from its citizens. As long as the government commits unjust actions, he continued, conscientious individuals must choose whether to pay their taxes or to refuse to pay them and defy the government.

Thoreau declared that if the government required people to participate in injustice by obeying “unjust laws,” then people should “break the laws” even if they ended up in prison. “Under a government which imprisons any unjustly,” he asserted, “the true place for a just man is also a prison.”

By not paying his taxes, Thoreau explained, he was refusing his allegiance to the government. “In fact,” he wrote, “I quietly declare war with the State….”

Unlike some later advocates of civil disobedience like Martin Luther King, Thoreau did not rule out using violence against an unjust government. In 1859, Thoreau defended John Brown’s bloody attack on the federal arsenal at Harper’s Ferry, Virginia, during his failed attempt to spark a slave revolt.

Thoreau had no objection to government taxes for highways and schools.

But government, he charged, was too often based on expediency, which can permit injustice in the name of public convenience. The individual, he insisted, was never obliged to surrender conscience to the majority or to the State.

If a law “is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another,” he declares, “then, I say, break the law.” The essay makes it clear that this stance is not a matter of whim but a demanding moral principle.

Thoreau’s essay has had a huge influence on reformers worldwide, from Tolstoy in Russia and Gandhi in South Africa and India; to Martin Luther King, Jr’s civil rights movement and the opposition to the Vietnam War in the United States; to recent demonstrations for civil rights in the former Soviet Union and China.

Now this was not a call for violence. Gandhi advocated the use of civility at all times “the civil register,” which extols respect for the opposition and behavior out of understanding rather than anger.

He and his followers practiced “Non-violent, non-participation”. In other words, he invented the sit in. And like Thoreau, Gandhi was constantly seeking the higher truth with regard to man’s relationship in the universe.

Thoreau’s essay had more wide reaching political and social impact than most people understand. “In the 1940’s it was read by the Danish resistance, in the 1950’s it was followed by people who opposed McCarthyism, in the 1960’s it was influential in the struggle against South African apartheid, and in the 1970’s it was discovered by a new generation of anti-war activists.”

Thoreau was a firm believer in autonomy, professing individual defiance of unjust laws, and a stubborn resistance to government intrusion into society.

It is important to understand that Thoreau was not anti-government; he was pro “improved” government. He stated, “But to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government.

Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.”

Thoreau, at the time, saw a government that in his perception was often immoral, overbearing, and self-righteous.

Sound familiar?

Republicans hate Obamacare. Democrats hate building the wall. Our nation has never been more divided. In Washington DC., yes. But how about out here among the people. The common folk, the individuals, who make up this great land of ours.

I meet regularly for coffee with friends who are to totally opposite to my views on politics.

We have lively discussions, argue over current events, and claim our opponents are wrong.

Yet somehow, we agree to disagree, air our differences, smile and shake hands and set a time to meet the following week.

Why can’t that happen in our nation’s capital? My friends and I are as bull headed as they come, but we are willing to listen to both sides and still get along.

Would Thoreau roll over in his grave at the state of politics in America today? Or rather, would he urge us to stand up as individuals, take action against the established order with autonomy (neither Republican nor Democrat), reason, and intellect.

Let me share the first line of Thoreau’s lecture, “Civil Disobedience” (1849)

I heartily accept the motto, “That government is best which governs least”; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe- “That government is best which governs not at all”; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

Now interestingly enough, Thoreau went on to discuss the issue of the presidency.

I hear of a convention to be held at Baltimore, or elsewhere, for the selection of a candidate for the Presidency, made up chiefly of editors, and men who are politicians by profession; but I think, what is it to any independent, intelligent, and respectable man what decision they may come to? Shall we not have the advantage of his wisdom and honesty, nevertheless? Can we not count upon some independent votes? Are there not many individuals in the country who do not attend conventions? But no: I find that the respectable man, so called, has immediately drifted from his position, and despairs of his country, when his country has more reason to despair of him. He forthwith adopts one of the candidates thus selected as the only available one, thus proving that he is himself available for any purposes of the demagogue. His vote is of no more worth than that of any unprincipled foreigner or hireling native, who may have been bought.

O for a man who is a man, and, as my neighbor says, has a bone in his back which you cannot pass your hand through!

I think you can apply Thoreau’s words not just to the presidency, but to all of the federal politicians currently occupying the swamp that we call Washington, DC.

If you have not read “Civil Disobedience” I encourage you to do so. Put it in your left hand and put the declaration of Independence in your right.

Read them both. Then take a few minutes to think about what these two documents are saying. Think about the men who wrote them and the times they were living in.

I agree with my mom. She is correct that the press is out of control. She is also correct that we the people are losing all respect for the politicians on both sides of the aisle and that they are systematically destroying the principals upon which this great nation was founded.

Callers?

The European Union – often known as the EU – is an economic and political partnership involving 28 European countries

It began after World War Two to foster economic co-operation, with the idea that countries which trade together were more likely to avoid going to war with each other.

The European Union was officially founded on November 1, 1993. European treaties and alliances, however, have been in place since 1949 when NATO was formed.

It has since grown to become a “single market” allowing goods and PEOPLE to move around, basically as if the member states were one country.

It has its own currency, the euro, which is used by 19 of the member countries, its own parliament, and it now sets rules in a wide range of areas – including on the environment, transportation, consumer rights and even things such as mobile phone charges.

With the initiation of Brexit, that could all change.

So let’s answer some basic questions so we can get a handle on this whole mess.

What does Brexit mean?

It is a word that is used as a shorthand way of saying the UK leaving the European Union- merging the words Britain and exit to get Brexit.

Why is Britain leaving the European Union?

A vote in which everyone of voting age could take part – was held on Thursday, June 23rd, 2016, to decide whether the United Kingdom should leave or remain in the European Union. Leave won by 51.9% to 48.1%. The voter turnout was 71.8%, with more than 30 million people voting.

When is the UK due to leave the EU?

For the UK to leave the EU it had to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which gives the two sides two years to agree the terms of the split. Theresa May triggered this process on 29 March, 2017, meaning the UK is scheduled to leave at 11pm UK time on Friday, March 29th, 2019.

Theresa May has put it into British law.

So is Brexit definitely happening?

The UK is due to leave the European Union on March 29th, 2019 – it’s the law, regardless of whether there is a deal with the EU or not. Stopping Brexit would require a change in the law in the UK.

The European Court of Justice ruled on 10 December 2018 that the UK could cancel the Article 50 Brexit process without the permission of the other 27 EU members, and remain a member of the EU on its existing terms, provided the decision followed a “democratic process”.

So, not only is British Prime Minister Theresa May fighting the European Union, she is also fighting the courts and her political opposition in her own country.

Let’s take a look at the advantages and disadvantages of the European Union.

First, what are the advantages of the EU?

1. It creates a more influential economic block.
   Individual nations within Europe struggle to hold influence on the global stage because of their size. By having several small nations join for one economic purpose, more influence can be exerted on local and global economics. Larger economic blocks create better import and export opportunities. Better pricing on needs, goods, and free trade opportunities all help to benefit the greater good of Europe.
2. Travel becomes easier.
   With the nations of Europe working together, it has created a society that is somewhat borderless for travel purposes. There are fewer checkpoints, customs entry points, and other identification verification stops required when traveling from nation to nation. This allows for free travel within the continent for those who have applied for the appropriate identification.
3. It creates harmony on the continent.
   In the past, European nations were often combative with one another. Many divisions have come out of Europe over the generations, including wars that are far too numerous to list. Civil wars were also common on the continent, leading up to the 20th century. The joining of the 28 member states of the European Union has helped to lessen the number of conflicts that have occurred, which has created better safety for Europeans from an overall standpoint.
4. It has helped to modernize countries.
   Members like Turkey have become modern nations thanks to the benefits of being part of the European Union. Specific criteria for membership include making commitments to human rights, having a specific rule of law, and following a market economy. This prevents discrimination and provides due process across the continent while encouraging economic growth at the same time.
5. Job creation occurs because of the existence of the European Union.
   In the United Kingdom, up to 10% of all employment opportunities are directly linked to the EU. The United States has employment ties to the European Union as well. Without that structure, those jobs and the economics they provide could disappear. Millions of people could be displaced and billions could disappear from the global economy.
6. It creates another level of international security.
   European nations have a form of mutual protection through NATO. Belonging to the United Nations provides another level of security. The European Union provides a third level of security that allows for local intelligence services to have access to improved data sharing and military resources that can keep the population safer than if the Union did not exist.

Now, what are the disadvantages of the EU?

1. Fewer borders and restrictions means more opportunities for evil deeds.
   History has shown us that one person, with the right tools and motivation, can cause a lot of havoc for a society. Since 2010, there has been an increase in vehicle attacks and other terror-like events that have occurred on European soil. The highly-coordinated Paris attacks in November 2015 killed 130 people and several have occurred since then. With open borders comes less security.
2. Creating an overseeing government doesn’t heal division.
   The recent Brexit vote is evidence that Europe may seem united in a Union, but the old divisions still exist. The European Union has proven that it can provide helpful benefits from an economic standpoint, but there is still a sense of nationalism that provides the foundation of what has been built since 1993. When push comes to shove, Brexit proves that the harmony present is more for outward appearances only.
3. It ties the hands of local governments on certain issues.
   There is one primary issue which the European Union faces right now: refugee migration. More than 1 million refugees have settled in Germany. Despite the many needs that these people have, just 6 billion Euros have been dedicated to build facilities for these refugees outside of the humanitarian aid that is already being offered. This means local governments must provide support to the EU without much in return for the crises they face at home.
4. Currency support is required for stable politics.
   The banking crisis in Greece was just the first step of many toward a currency that is insolvent (does not have the assets to back its worth) for Europe with its current structure. Italy is facing a banking crisis with billions in doubtful loans on the books. Huge budget cuts forced upon Greece may be forced upon Italy as well, which would create instability for the politics in the region.
5. It lacks transparency.
   Elections in member nations are public and transparent. The election of the European Commission is not transparent. The Commission has the authority to wield a tremendous amount of influence and power, but the average person has no say in who represents them in this way or what the quality of the representation will be. This makes it difficult for member nations to have individual control as each nation is required to follow EU laws to remain with the Union.
6. It costs money.
   Member states are providing billions in support to the European Union every year. The argument could be made that these investments could be made within their own borders .

So folks there you have it. Can you imagine joining an American Union with North America, Central America, and South America?

Bear in mind, it would mean no borders in the Americas with people free to travel from Canada, Central America, and South America to the US with no passport and vice versa.

In addition we would be required to submit to the decisions of one, all powerful government, overseeing our economy, transportation, environment, foreign relations, and defense.

As for me, I think Brexit is long overdue and I fully support it.

 

Mexico’s incoming foreign minister has said that a scheme similar to the Marshall Plan that helped rebuild Western Europe after the Second World War will be necessary to handle the migrant crisis coming from Central America and southern Mexico.

Marcelo Ebrard told reporters in Mexico City that a major investment of that kind would be necessary to develop the area and to fix conditions that push migrants north from Central America and away from violence and poor economic conditions.

The idea has come up as incoming Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador considers how to handle the border crisis that he inherited when he was sworn into office.

President Trump’s administration has suggested that migrants should be kept in Mexico as their asylum claims are processed.

Mr Ebrard, who is due to meet US secretary of state Mike Pompeo to discuss the border and migration, said estimates were still being prepared to determine just how much funding would be needed to develop the region.

Mexico alone was likely to invest more than $20 billion in southern Mexico during the coming administration, Mr Ebrard said.

“As a result, any serious effort undertaken for our brothers in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala would need to be a similar sum,” he said. The majority of those involved in the migrant caravans making their way to the US border are believed to be Honduran.

Now bear in mind, he wants us to give him $20 billion. Trump is only asking for 5 billion for his wall.

Revitalizing Southern Mexico was a key pledge of President Obrador’s during his run for the Mexican presidency, and defending the poor more broadly has been a central theme to his political rise to the top echelons of Mexican politics.

But the migrant crisis on the US-Mexico border may be the first major challenge to President Obrador’s commitment to help the struggling masses he has championed as he looks to balance demands from the US alongside those of the migrants who are fleeing violence and economic depression in Central America.

Mexican officials have already indicated that keeping migrants in Mexican border towns is turning into a humanitarian crisis, with officials expressing concern that keeping would-be refugees in Mexico as they await the conclusion to their asylum cases could force people into crowded shelters with terrible conditions.

There has been added tension at the border between Tijuana and California after US border patrol officials opened fire with tear gas canisters on migrants who attempted to rush the border, with a number of women and children caught up in the clashes.

The US, for its part, defended the use of those tactics and President Trump indicated that tear gas canisters and other means of physical control are not intended to be used on women and children.

“They’re not coming into the United States. They will not be coming into our country,” President Trump said.

Critics have accused the Trump administration of a draconian response, while Mexico has demanded the US investigate its use of tear gas.

The migrants and refugees themselves were urgently exploring their options amid a growing feeling that they had little hope of making successful asylum bids in the United States or of crossing the border illegally.

There was a steady line outside a tent housing the International Organization for Migration, where officials were offering assistance to those who wanted to return to their home countries.

So we have a real mess at the southern border and the Mexican President thinks a program like the Marshall Plan will fix it.

So let’s look at the Marshall plan.

The Marshall Plan gave more than $15 billion – or more that $157 billion in 2018 money – in economic assistance to Western Europe following the conclusion of the Second World War.

Bear in mind. That was our tax dollars that were spent to rebuild our formers enemies and all the damage they caused.

The plan was announced in a speech at Harvard University given by Secretary of State George C. Marshall.

On June 5, 1947, on the steps of Memorial Church at Harvard University, he outlined an ambitious European Recovery Program (ERP) that would soon carry his name, the Marshall Plan.

He stated: “The modern system of the division of labor upon which the exchange of products is based is in danger of breaking down…. It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health to the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace. Our policy is not directed against any country, but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos.”

Marshall presented the concept to the American people and Congress, telling them that we must avoid the mistakes that had been made in post-World War One Europe from re-occurring.

He contended that it was the policy of American isolationism that had allowed the Treaty of Versailles to endanger Europe and brought forth a second bitter war to the continent.

Sixteen nations met in Paris, outlining the assistance that each required and how this aid was to be divided.

The final proposal agreed upon by delegates asked for $22 billion in aid; a figure that President Truman could not justify in Congress.

Although Truman cut the request to $17 billion, the plan still met with strong opposition and after much filibustering, Congress approved $15 billion, 157 billion in today’s money.

President Truman officially signed the Marshall Plan into law on April 3, 1948.

The Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA), headed by Paul G. Hoffman, was formed to administer the funds. The first aid had already been provided to Greece and Turkey in January 1947, prior to the official signing of the program. Italy followed in July 1948.

The majority of the funds provided, went to purchase goods, mainly manufactured or produced in the United States. At the beginning, this was primarily food and fuel.

This became a main criticism of the program in that America was following a concept for economic imperialism, in an attempt to gain economic control of Europe.

But in reality, the amounts that America donated as part of the Marshall Plan, can hardly be considered “imperialism”, in that they represent only a small fraction of the GNP, and the duration of the program was limited from the start.

Beginning in April 1948, the United States provided these funds for economic and technical assistance to those European countries that had joined the Organization for European Economic Co-operation.

In Germany, a vast amount of money was invested in the rebuilding of industry, with the coal industry alone receiving 40% of these funds.
The concept was simple enough, companies that were provided such funds, were obliged to repay these “loans” to their government, so that these same funds could be used to assist other businesses and industries.

Post-war Germany had been forced to dismantle a great deal of its major factories and industries, according to guidelines enforced by the Allied Control Council.

Figures for car production alone had been set to levels that represented only 10% of pre-war numbers. With the introduction by the Western Allies of the German “Mark” as the new official currency, on June 21, 1948, a new economic era was created within Europe and especially Germany. An agreement signed in November 1949, increased these production figures for Germany dramatically.

Germany and the other European countries, over the years, have absorbed these “repaid” funds into their national budgets, thereby “disappearing”.

It was never intended that these funds were to be repaid to the American government. So we basically just gave them $157 billion after we had just spent a fortune fighting WWII.

But the plan didn’t end there.

The Marshall Plan also included a Technical Assistance Program, which funded engineers and industrialists to visit the United States, to gain first-hand experience of industrial capitalism and technological transfer.

Under the same program, American engineers came to Europe, to advise and provide technical support to developing industries.
After four years, the program had surpassed all expectations, with each member country achieving a larger GNP (Gross National Product) than pre-war levels.

On December 11, 1953, George Marshall was awarded the coveted Nobel Peace Prize, for his work.

Within the short period between 1948 and 1952, Europe experienced a dramatic increase in economic production. The hunger and starvation experienced by so many displaced persons, literally disappeared overnight.

Whether or not, the Marshall Plan alone can be accredited for this achievement is a question that historians may never be fully able to answer. For sure, the Marshall Plan helped to rebuild Europe.

The Soviets and the Eastern Bloc naturally turned down any such aid offered by the Americans, thereby causing yet another wedge between the two political systems, which was followed by the introduction of an East German Mark in July 1948, the blockade of Berlin and the ensuing Berlin Airlift in 1948/49.

From Finland, Hungary, Romania and especially East Germany; the Soviets demanded large reparation funds and goods, which in turn slowed down their economic development after the war dramatically.

Without question, the Marshall Plan laid the foundation of European integration, easing trade between member nations, setting up the institutions that coordinated the economies of Europe into a single efficient unit.

It served as a prelude to the creation of the United Europe that we have today.

Only a few years after the Marshall Plan Program; Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany, joined together and formed the European Economic Community (EEC), with the signing of the Treaties of Rome, in 1957.

Development within Europe that continued to expand its membership, brought about the Maastricht Treaty of November 1, 1993, forming the European Union, that resulted in the new European-wide currency, the “Euro”, which replaced all national legal tender of member countries, in 2002.

So this idea proposed by the Mexican President is nothing new.

In fact, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore has also suggested a “Global Marshall Plan”, intended to take funds from wealthy nations, to assist in the development of environmentally based industries in Third World Countries.

When one considers that 15 million children die of hunger each year; that 1 in 12 people on this earth are undernourished; or that 1 in 4 live on less than $1 per day; perhaps some would agree that such a program would be money well spent.

But I have several problems with the idea.

First. Let’s take the starving children argument out of the equation.

It seems the progressives always want to turn to the starving children in support of any argument they make.

Before we take care of all the starving migrants in Central America, I think we should first take care of the 1 out of every 8 children in the United States under the age of 12, who go to bed hungry every night. hungry.

Folks it is not just third world countries that have this problem.

17 percent of German children today live near or under the poverty levels.

Here is the bigger problem.

At the end of WWII we gave Western Europe $157 billion and they completely rebuilt their economies with new factories, technologies, and infrastructure.

Did I mention we had a similar plan for Asia?

From the end of the war to the end of 1953, the US provided grants and credits amounting to $5.9 billion to Asian countries, roughly $50 billion in 2018 dollars.

That money went to China, Taiwan ($1.051 billion), India ($255 million), Indonesia ($215 million), Japan ($2.44 billion), South Korea ($894 million), Pakistan ($98 million) and the Philippines ($803 million).

In addition, another $282 million went to Israel and $196 million to the rest of the Middle East. All this aid was separate from the Marshall Plan.

Now folks, what it boils down to is we spent a fortune fighting WWII to save Europe from Hitler and Asia from Hirohito. Then we rebuilt them.

At home, our factories were worn out and our economy was a mess.

We now had to compete in a world economy with factories and an infrastructure built in the late 1800’s against our competitors who had brand new factories and infrastructure built with US taxpayer dollars.

Is it no wonder that we saw Japan take the lead in automobile production and Germany take the lead in precision machining and the chemical industry?

So I have to ask, should we be spending money on a new Marshall Plan in Southern Mexico and Central America? Or should we take that money, invest it here at home, and put America first as our President has repeatedly said when he discusses our economy and foreign policies?

 

Callers?

 

France saw a fifth weekend of protests by defiant gilets jaunes (pronounced jillae june) (yellow vests) who ignored government calls to stay home following this week’s attack on Strasbourg’s Christmas market.

The gilets jaunes take their name from the yellow safety vests that French drivers are required to keep in their cars. The group is a complicated phenomenon, first of all because it has no defined leader.

The movement began in protest of Macron’s economic policies, particularly the increase in fuel taxes (four euro cents on the litre for unleaded gas, seven euro cents for diesel) that was introduced, in January, to help curb carbon emissions. Along with the hike in taxes, the price of gas has risen dramatically, meaning that French drivers, this fall, found themselves paying as much as 1.59 euros per litre (six dollars per gallon), an increase of seventeen per cent since this time last year for users of unleaded gas, and twenty-three per cent for diesel.

For many households, particularly in rural and suburban areas that don’t have public transportation, the added expense has been brutal.

In Paris hundreds gathered at the Champs-Elysées and at the Opera House though the authorities said the numbers were well down on previous weeks.

At both sites, demonstrators found themselves facing a massive show of strength from the security services. Protesters were searched as riot police, gendarmes with armored vehicles, mounted police and plainclothes police encircled, refusing to allow them to disperse en masse down spur roads.

It has been a long week for Emmanuel Macron who, hours after trying to defuse the most explosive crisis of his 18 months in office by making concessions to the gilets jaunes, was dealing with a suspected terrorist attack on Strasbourg’s celebrated Christmas market.

On Monday, Macron, accused by gilets jaunes of being arrogant and out of touch, announced a package of concessions including a rise in the minimum wage in a televised address to the nation.

French protests have often seemed like a dance between demonstrators and police – direct action has a long and cherished history here. But these weekly confrontations between people and state are different.

Not led by any union or political party, the “yellow vest” protests have unleashed the worst civil disorder Paris has seen for decades.

Four people have been killed, many hundreds injured and billions of euros of damage inflicted on the country’s urban centres.

The French government at one point warned of “serious violence” and “fears for democracy and its institutions”, with at least one protest spokesman calling on people to march on the Elysee Palace, the home of the president.

And yet the power of this movement lies, in the quiet support of what polls suggest is more than half the country.

President Emmanuel Macron came to power vowing to face down protesters and drive through long-postponed economic reforms.

For the first 18 months of his presidency, that’s exactly what he did – forcing through changes in the labour law against a backdrop of noisy public protests, and pushing past broad, union-led demonstrations on railway reform.

This current crisis erupted – not over a major issue – but rather over a fiscal detail in the budget for next year, a routine rise in eco-taxes on fuel.

It wasn’t even a policy that the current government had made.

The commitment to annual tax rises on fuel – and especially diesel – in order to fund eco-friendly projects had been part of the previous government’s legacy to Macron.

But it was enough to spark a small local rebellion – a handful of motorists started displaying their regulation hi-vis jackets, or gilets jaunes, in the windscreens of their cars and posting their actions on Facebook.

Now a movement created on social media, with no recognised leadership, has forced President Macron into concessions that were unthinkable a few weeks ago. How? Because this not a confrontation about fuel taxes, or any one issue.

It’s about power

It’s no accident that cars were the spark that ignited this anger. Not needing one has become a status symbol in France.

Those in city centres have a wealth of public transport to choose from, but you need to be rich enough to live in the centre of Paris or Marseille or Bordeaux, and most people are not.

“Economic growth happens in big globalised cities, but the working classes no longer live there,” says Christophe Guilluy, an independent researcher specialising in human geography. “That’s a major change.

For the first time in history, they don’t live where wealth and jobs are created. They live in a ‘rural France’, characterised by weak economic growth, high unemployment and high anxiety.”

“This economic model creates enormous wealth,” he continues. “But it creates it in a concentrated and unequal way. Since the 1980s, what we are seeing is a weakening of all categories of the middle class.”

Without a car, those in France who have been priced out of the big cities struggle to get to work, take their children to school and even to shop for groceries.

Fuel prices in France are roughly the same as in Germany or the UK – and French diesel prices generally lie somewhere in between its two neighbours.

But there is a more general sense of unfairness – a feeling that the struggling middle class are being asked to shoulder more than their fair share of the burden, while France’s millionaires have seen their top rate of tax slashed. And the pain was felt especially keenly this year, because rises in the global oil price had already made fuel more expensive.

In September this year, the government announced its planned increase in the eco-taxes levied on petrol and, particularly, on diesel.

Shortly afterwards, the first motorists began showing off their hi-vis jackets in the windscreens of their cars, and Jacline Mouraud, a hypnotherapist from Brittany, published a video on social media saying that motorists were being “hunted”.

Months earlier, Priscillia Ludosky, the manager of an online cosmetics company from just outside Paris, had launched a petition on the website Change.org calling for petrol prices to be lowered.

After the announcement on tax rises, it really began to take off, quickly gathering a million signatures – but still, she says, there’s been no response from the government.

“We are not understood, we are not heard, our opinions are not sought on the big decisions,” she explains. “I get the impression that when the president speaks to people in the street, he’s completely detached from reality.”

Then, in October, truck driver Eric Drouet, another initiator of the movement, suggested on Facebook the idea of a national blockage, calling on protesters around the country to block roads in their area on 17 November, obstructing and slowing traffic in order to get the government’s attention.

About 290,000 people took part. The gilets jaunes movement had begun.

“The movement started around a tax rise,” says Christophe Guilluy, “but I think it’s simply a pretext, in the same way that Brexit is not fundamentally a confrontation with Europe, but first and foremost a way for people to say ‘we exist’.

“In France, people are using the gilets jaunes as a way to say ‘we exist’ to the elites, to the political class, to those who have forgotten about them for the past 20 years, for the simple reason that they no longer live in the same place.”

The irony, for Emmanuel Macron, is that he came to power promising to rebuild trust in politics, especially among those struggling to thrive in the new, globalised economy.

The reforms he promised were designed, he said, to create wealth in order that it could be shared with those who needed it most.

It was a policy that aimed to liberalize and protect, but many in France feel that the social protection for workers has fallen short compared with the liberal reforms enjoyed by businesses.

President Macron pushed through reforms where previous presidents had feared to tread – reducing the power of the unions in workplace relations, ending the special benefits enjoyed by railway workers, and making it easier for companies to hire and fire staff.

He also ended the wealth tax on all assets apart from property, meaning a 70% cut in the tax for France’s millionaires.

It was meant to boost investment in the economy, but it was seen by many poorer voters as further proof that this former banker-turned-president was still primarily a friend of business, not of the poor working and middle class.

France’s Public Policy Institute recently published a review of who had gained and lost under Macron’s presidency so far. It found that the buying power of the poorest in society had slightly shrunk, while those in the economic middle had slightly gained. But the biggest winners were the richest 1%.

This sense of unfairness emerges time and again in the graffiti that has appeared on walls and monuments in Paris. Much of it calls for the resignation of Macron, or simply the “fall of the regime”.

On the Republic’s famous monument at Republique, someone has changed the revolutionary right of “universal suffrage” to read “universal suffering”.

If the roots of protesters’ frustration lie in the big economic shifts of the 1980s, how far did Macron himself encourage it to bloom into open opposition?

“In the last election, many people voted to change their situation and they still find themselves here, so they’ve started to get frustrated,” says protester Antonin Olles. “They’ve realised that those who govern them don’t know what real life is like – for them, poverty is just a set of numbers.”

“We want a second French revolution,” Olles says. “We want to show the rest of Europe that the people have some power.”

Now here is something to think about.

France has an entirely different political system compared to ours.

Their President serves for 5 years and like ours is limited to 2 terms.

However, here in the US, we have 2 major political parties, Democrats and Republicans.

This is not true in France. In the election that brought President Macron to power, there were 5 political parties running candidates for President.

1. The Left-wing centred around the French Socialist Party
2. The Europe Ecology Party known as The Greens (EELV)
3. The Radical Party of the far Left including Communists.
4. The Right-wing is centred aroundLes Républicains (The Republican) party – until 2015 called the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP)
5. The New Centre Party of Macron who ran on a platform of being neither right nor left.

 

In our American 2 party system we are seeing tremendous controversy. Two camps if you will.

Those who fully support Trump, and the Never Trumpers.

With a two party system a president will always have the support of roughly half of the people. This makes it hard to launch a revolution against either party that occupies the white house.

Now think about France. With 5 political factions, even if you have a 25% of the people support you, that leaves 75% to oppose you.

That is what has happened with the gilets jaunes movement. Macron is not fighting one opposing party, he is fighting 4.

The other 4 parties have put their differences aside and all come together to oppose Macron.

Personally, I don’t see how Macron will survive this.

 

So let me ask you folks, are the members of gilets jaunes justified in launching their protests?

Living here in the Ozarks we have to depend on our cars to go to work, buy groceries, and take our kids to school.

If gas went to $6.00/gallon to fund improvements for St. Louis and Kansas City, would you be willing to pay?

If not, would you be willing to put aside your differences and join hands with an opposing political party to put an end to it?

The latest Russia/Ukrainian conflict. What happened?

Two Ukrainian gunboats and a tug were sailing towards the Kerch Strait, the only route for ships to enter the Sea of Azov from the Black Sea.

Russia’s FSB border guard force says the flotilla violated Russian territorial waters.

But coordinates released later by the FSB and Ukraine confirm that the Russian attack happened in international waters near the strait.

Ukraine called it Russian aggression, because the Black Sea is free for shipping and annexed Crimea belongs to Ukraine.

A 2003 Russia-Ukraine treaty stipulates unimpeded access to the Kerch Strait and Sea of Azov.

Good grief. Isn’t this similar to the same mess we saw a few years back? Yep. Let’s review what happened back then.

Ukraine gained independence after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and has since veered between seeking closer ties with Western Europe and rejoining its alliance with Russia, which sees its interests as threatened by a Western-leaning Ukraine.

Europe’s second largest country, Ukraine is a land of wide, fertile agricultural plains, with large pockets of heavy industry in the east.

While Ukraine and Russia share common historical origins, the western part of the country has closer ties with its European neighbors, particularly Poland, and nationalist, independence, sentiment is strongest there.

However, a minority of the population wants to rejoin Russia and uses Russian as its first language, particularly in the cities and the industrialized east.

An uprising against pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014 ushered in a new, Western-leaning government, but Russia used the opportunity to seize the Crimean peninsula and arm insurgent groups to occupy parts of the industrialized east of Ukraine.

So bottom line, Ukraine used to be a part of the Soviet Union, but when the USSR collapsed, Ukraine sought, and is still seeking its independence.

How serious is this?

It is the most dangerous clash at sea off Crimea since Russia annexed the Ukrainian peninsula in 2014.

Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko urged Nato to send ships to the Sea of Azov, warning of a threat of Russian invasion.

Nato shows no sign of doing so – Ukraine is not a member – but NATO says they support Ukraine. Western leaders condemned Russia’s actions.

Mr Poroshenko has put Ukraine’s border regions under martial law until December 26th and barred Russian men aged 16-60 from entering, except for “humanitarian cases” (funerals, etc.).

Russian President Vladimir Putin accused him of staging a “provocation” to boost his poll ratings.

Russia is holding the three boats in Kerch. One was rammed by an Russian vessel in the clash.

The Russian forces opened fire and several Ukrainian sailors were injured. All 24 are in Russian detention.

So this whole conflict could flare up again. The pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine have Russian heavy weapons; Ukraine has Western support. They have been fighting off and on since April 2014.

Outnumbered and outgunned on the water, there is very little Ukraine’s small navy could do if Russia wanted to take control of the Sea of Azov.

Under the terms of a 2003 agreement, the Azov sea and its access point through the Kerch Strait are supposed to be shared by Ukraine and Russia.

The 2003 deal didn’t put any dotted lines on the chart. Instead, the vessels of both countries were given carte blanche to pretty much roam as they wished.

It worked, up to a point. Then in 2014 when Russia seized Crimea, the dynamic changed.

The Kerch Strait was no longer flanked by the Russian authorities to the east, and the Ukrainians in the west.

The straits were now fully under Moscow’s control, and the Russians had big plans.

Crimea was part of Ukraine, but now is under Russian control. So the west side of the Kerch Strait was Ukrainian the east side Russian. Now it is Russian held territory on both sides of the strait.

Moscow wanted to link Crimea to Russia, so a 12-mile bridge was quickly constructed. It was formally opened in May of this year (2018) when Russian President Vladimir Putin triumphantly drove a truck across it.

The bridge was bad news for eastern Ukraine.

Citing the need to increase security, Russia dramatically increased the number of armed vessels both near the Kerch Strait and in the Sea of Azov.

Cargo ships that wanted to reach Ukraine’s Azov ports now found themselves subject to more inspections and lengthy delays that sometimes stretched to a week.

With an extra day at sea costing a shipping company up to $15,000 picking up steel or grain from the former Ukrainian port of Mariupol was now a risky proposition, and some shipping companies have opted to stay away.

Ukraine began complaining that it was facing an economic blockade, and that Russia was in breach of the 2003 “sharing” agreement.

Much to Ukraine’s frustration, there was little international response, and the life was slowly starved out of Ukraine’s Azov ports.

That brings us to Sunday, when Ukraine attempted to send three navy vessels – a tugboat and two small armored ships through the Kerch Strait.

Those dramatic events have been well documented and – as is now the case with everything to do with Russia – endlessly debated.

Put in the simplest terms, Russian coastguard vessels rammed and then shot at the Ukrainian boats before capturing them and the 24 sailors on board.

It marked the most serious development in Ukraine’s relationship with Russia since the annexation of Crimea back in 2014.

On Monday evening, 24 hours after he lost three of his boats and nearly two dozen men, Commander Voronchenko, of the Ukrainian Navy spoke to the BBC office in Kiev and stated:

“I’ll tell you this – we will fight for our land till our last breath. We’ll do all we can so our land remains ours and our sea remains ours. We’ll take all necessary measures to defend and protect our country.”

Hopefully you all now have a better idea of what recently happened.

But man, there is a lot of hatred between these two countries.

Maybe a little history will help explain the passion of the Ukrainians in all of this.

Have you ever heard the term Holodomor?

The term Holodomor (Hollow-doe-more) death by hunger, in Ukrainian, refers to the starvation of millions of Ukrainians in 1932–33 as a result of Soviet policies.

The Holodomor can be seen as the culmination of an assault by the Communist Party and Soviet state on the Ukrainian peasantry, who resisted Soviet policies.

This assault occurred as a campaign of intimidation and arrests of Ukrainian intellectuals, writers, artists, religious leaders, and political groups, who were seen as a threat to Soviet ideology and state-building.

Between 1917 and 1921, following WWI, Ukraine briefly became an independent country and fought to retain its independence before falling to Vladimir Lenin’s Red Army and being incorporated into the Soviet Union.

In the 1920s, Soviet central authorities, seeking the support of the populace, allowed for some cultural autonomy through the policy known as “indigenization.”

By the end of the 1920s, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin decided to curtail Ukraine’s cultural autonomy, launching the intimidation, arrest, imprisonment and execution of thousands of Ukrainian intellectuals, church leaders, as well as Communist Party officials who had supported Ukraine’s distinctiveness.

At the same time, Stalin ordered the collectivization of agriculture.

The majority of Ukrainians, who were small-scale or subsistence farmers, resisted.

The state confiscated the property of the independent farmers and forced them to work on government collective farms.

The more prosperous farmers (owning a few head of livestock, for example) and those who resisted collectivization were called kulaks (rich peasants) and declared enemies of the state who deserved to be eliminated as a class.

Thousands were thrown out of their homes and deported.

In 1932, the Communist Party set impossibly high quotas for the amount of grain Ukrainian villages were required to contribute to the Soviet state.

When the villages were not able to meet the quotas, authorities intensified the requisition campaign, confiscating even the seed set aside for planting and levied fines to be paid in meat and potatoes for failure to fulfill the quotas.

Special teams were sent to search homes and even seized other foodstuffs.

Starving farmers attempted to leave their villages in search of food, but Soviet authorities issued a decree forbidding Ukraine’s peasants from leaving the country.

As a result, many thousands of farmers who had managed to leave their villages were apprehended and sent back, virtually a death sentence.

A law was introduced that made the theft of even a few stalks of grain an act of sabotage punishable by execution.

In some cases, soldiers were posted in watchtowers to prevent people from taking any of the harvest.

Although informed of the dire conditions in Ukraine, central authorities ordered local officials to extract even more from the villages. Millions starved as the USSR sold crops from Ukraine abroad.

Kulaks were summarily executed for failing to turn over their crops and livestock. I retaliation, the Kulaks, burned their own crops and slaughtered all their livestock rather than let the government confiscate it while they starved.

The Russian winter now set in. with the crops and livestock destroyed, and the farmers all dead, millions of Russians living in the cities now starved as well.

It is estimated that as many as 60 to 90 million Russians died as a result of the policies Stalin imposed on the Ukraine.

So let’s jump back to our current situation.

 

Although very few Ukrainians are still alive today who lived through the Holodomor, their children have been told of the horrors of what their parents and grandparents endured under the control of the Russian empire.

Does anyone out there think the Ukrainians will lay down their arms without a fight and allow themselves to be annexed by Russia?

So now the big question. Should the US and our western allies step in on the side of the Ukraine or should we stand on the sidelines and see how this plays out?

“Of course we will step in”, some of you say. Well, I hate to disappoint you but unfortunately we may very well choose a path we have taken before in a similar situation.

I’m referring to The Hungarian Uprising of 1956

Hungary in 1956 seemed to sum up all that the Cold War stood for. The people of Hungary and the rest of Eastern Europe were ruled over with an iron fist by Communist Russia and anybody who challenged the rule of Stalin and Russia paid the price.

The death of Stalin in 1953 did not weaken the grip Moscow had on the people of Eastern Europe and Hungary, by challenging the rule of Moscow, paid such a price in 1956.

From 1945 on the Hungarians were under the control of Moscow.

All wealth of whatever nature was taken from Hungary by the Russians who showed their power by putting thousands of Russian troops and hundreds of tanks in Hungary.

See a similarity here to Ukraine’s history with Russia?

The Hungarian leader, a fellow by the name of Rakosi, was put in power by Stalin.

When Stalin died in 1953 all people in Eastern Europe were given some hope that they might be free from Soviet (Russian) rule.

In February 1956, the new Russian leader Khruschev made a bitter attack on the dead Stalin and his policies and in July 1956 in a gesture to the Hungarians, Rakosi was forced to resign.

This situation, combined with 1) a bad harvest 2) fuel shortages 3) a cold and wet autumn all created a volatile situation.

On October 23rd 1956, students and workers took to the streets of Budapest (the capital of Hungary ) and issued their Sixteen Points which included personal freedom, more food, the removal of Russian control, etc.

Imre Nagy was now appointed prime minister of Hungary. He was thought to be liberal and in Moscow this was felt to be the best way to keep the “hooligans” happy, as the Moscow media referred to the protesters.

Nagy now allowed political parties to start again.

On October 31st, 1956, Nagy broadcast that Hungary would withdraw itself from the Warsaw Pact. This pushed the Russians too far.

On November 4th, Soviet tanks went into Budapest to restore order and they acted with total brutality even killing wounded people.

Tanks dragged bodies through the streets of Budapest as a warning to others who were still protesting.

Hundreds of tanks went into Budapest and probably 30,000 people were killed.

To flee the expected Soviet reprisals, probably 200,000 fled to the west leaving all they possessed in Hungary.

Nagy was tried and executed and buried in an unmarked grave. By November 14th, order had been restored. Soviet rule was re-established.

President Eisenhower of USA said “I feel with the Hungarian people.” J F Dulles, American Secretary of State, said “To all those suffering under communist slavery, let us say you can count on us.” But America did nothing more.

So why did Europe and America do nothing except offer moral support and condemn Russia ?

There are several reasons. Because of the geographic location of Hungary, how could you actually help without resorting to war? Look where Ukraine is located folks.

Both sides in the Cold War were nuclear powers and the risks were too great. Although there are several new nuclear powers in the world since 1956, Russia still has nuclear capability.

Any economic boycott of the Soviet Union would have been pointless as Russia took what it needed from the countries it occupied. Russia may no longer have its satellite states, but it does now have economic ties worldwide.

So folks, let’s go back to my two questions.

Does anyone out there think the Ukrainians will lay down their arms without a fight and allow themselves to be annexed by Russia?

Should the US and our western allies step in on the side of the Ukraine or should we stand on the sidelines and see how this plays out?

 

 

 

As President Trump attended the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the end of the first World War, his host, French President Macron launched an extraordinarily direct political attack.

Here’s what Donald Trump said a few weeks ago:

“You know they have a word, it sort of became old-fashioned, it’s called ‘nationalist.’ And I said, really? We’re not supposed to use that word? You know what I am? I’m a nationalist, OK? I’m a nationalist.”

Who could Emmanuel Macron have meant when he said this at the WWI commemoration:

“Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism. Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism by saying ‘our interests first, who cares about the others.’ We erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what makes it grace, and what is essential – its moral values.“

The president of France is saying it’s wrong to put your own country’s interests first. He thinks something else — perhaps the European interest or the global interest should come first.

But who decides what that is?

What is Macron’s mandate, exactly, for putting the European or the global over the national? He was elected with French votes, not global votes.

He is calling for creating a European defense force. Is the formation of the European Union and the call for this military force, not the very thing he claims is nationalism?

If “loving your country and hating all other countries” is the definition of nationalism, this doesn’t really fit most of the movement that drove Trump to the presidency. Trump’s biggest fans don’t hate all other nations.

IIII It might be more accurate to say that the Trump-style nationalists don’t value much beyond our borders.

As a country, we’re not always quick to respond to far-off bloody massacres like the gassing of the Kurds or the Balkans or Rwanda, but we do denounce them. (Whether or not we actually give a damn, we care about what other countries think of us).

For quite a few presidencies, we’ve at least given lip service to the promotion of human rights abroad. We’ve generally tried to promote democracy and oppose dictatorships.

But over the last decade and a half or so, reaching out beyond our borders increasingly became associated with apologizing, making unilateral concessions, no good deed going unpunished and the United States getting the short end of the stick.

We have spent enormous blood and treasure trying to build a safer, more secure, and free world, and in response, plenty of world leaders — including those in countries we thought of as allies — treated America as a universal scapegoat.

So the French president said, in a clear reference to President Trump: “Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

Nationalism is actually the epitome of morality for a national leader. It is the moral imperative for any national leader to prioritize the security and interests of his or her citizens above all else.

To place any other nation before one’s citizens is in fact immoral and a betrayal of the nation. It is in fact unpatriotic.

Macron is mistaken on many points, but he’s not alone.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and many other global leaders agree with Macron’s sentiment. Merkel chimed in similarly against President Trump.

Former White House adviser Dr. Sebastian Gorka slammed German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s remarks on worldwide migration just this past week that appeared to be a veiled swipe at President Trump.

Speaking at a speech in Berlin last Wednesday, Merkel defended her country’s inclusion in the U.N.’s Global Migration Compact, which regulates the treatment of migrants.

The agreement is expected to be signed next month, but the United States withdrew last year.

Merkel said that people who think that they can solve problems on their own represent “nationalism in its purest form, not patriotism.”

Gorka said Saturday that it was “absolutely outrageous” that Merkel appeared to be “lecturing” the U.S.

“It was America’s nationalism that saved the world from the Nazis and the Third Reich and the imperialists of General Hideki Tojo’s Japan,” he said.

President Trump labeled himself as a “nationalist” at a rally in Texas last month, saying that he generally cares about America more than the rest of the world.

This latest worldwide immigration agreement calls for the management of migration at “local, national, regional and global levels.”

After the United States withdrew from the pact, Hungary, Poland, Austria, Australia and Israel have all said they wouldn’t sign the agreement either.

“Merkel has done more as one political individual to undermine the national sovereignty of the nation states of the EU than any other member,” Gorka added.

Unfortunately, some previous American presidents would agree with Macron and Merkel.

 

Some of our past presidents have at times become so interested in nation-building abroad, creating global consensus for trade deals, negotiating nuclear deals and working on other international agreements that they have become disconnected from prioritizing the interests of the American worker and taxpayer.

Diplomacy and deals are not good things in and of themselves; what matters is if they are pursued in the interests of the United States and our people.

There appears to be some confusion about what nationalism is. Some, like Macron, are of the mindset that nationalism is just another term for fascism or nations associated with fascists, such as the Vichy French (German occupied France) during World War II.

But that’s not how President Trump defines nationalism. The U.S. president is certainly not advocating for the dominating, horrific, nationalism embraced by the Nazi mass murderers who ruled Germany in the 1930s and 40s.

Instead, President Trump is embracing the nationalism of American Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, Britain’s Prime Minister Winston Churchill and great leaders of other nations who have dedicated themselves to serving their people and making their countries great.

It is not imperialist nor isolationist to suggest that the leaders of nations should be first and foremost concerned with their own nations and citizens.

The nationalism President Trump calls for is one that seeks an even playing field for all nations – not special deals and preferred treatment for the global elite.

It means countries should engage with each other – and where interests align, stand together as partners.

The partners should enter into mutual defense treaties like NATO and pay their fair share and contribute equally.

President Trump understands that he should not be sacrificing American sovereignty and our national priorities and wealth on the altar of globalist fairy tales.

The globalist approach of Western European leaders is based in the idea that we can all leave behind the borders of our nations and our history and heritage for a bright global future.

Fortunately, voters the world over are rejecting these ideas, reminding their leaders that we should be a community of unique nations, not a global one-world government.

America has prioritized our national interests throughout our history, with an adherence to the ideals that have made us a singular nation – from the rule of law to free markets. This has been a blessing to the world.

It is precisely because of these things that we have had the economic power to rescue Europe twice in the 20th century in the two world wars.

We must never sacrifice the health and wealth of Americans to satisfy a global consensus.

Our politicians should always have before them, as their utmost priority, the interest of the American worker and taxpayer and the desire to make America great. They must adhere to the values and beliefs that made our nation the envy of the world.

If we lose sight of those priorities and values, then we have chosen to decline.

President Trump understands this and is acting in our nation’s best interests and in the best interests of the American people.

 

Previous administrations literally bowed to foreign leaders.

Early in his presidency at a Latin American summit, President Obama sat as  Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega spent 50 minutes furiously denouncing the United States as the root cause of all problems in Latin America.

Would Teddy Roosevelt have sat there and taken that? If our president won’t walk out on a 50-minute diatribe denouncing the United States of America, who will? If we don’t stand up for ourselves, why should we expect anyone else to do it?

When Trump says, “America first!” his supporters are applauding the idea of standing up for ourselves, of no longer having to sacrifice our priorities and interests for a vague sense of the global greater good.

 

So personally, I could care less what President Macron and Chancellor Merkel think.

I am a patriot.

I am a nationalist.

To me there is no difference.

How about you? Are you a patriot or a nationalist? Can you be both?

In September 1620, a small ship called the Mayflower left Plymouth, England, carrying 102 passengers—an assortment of religious separatists seeking a new home where they could freely practice their faith and other individuals lured by the promise of prosperity and land ownership in the New World.

After a treacherous and uncomfortable crossing that lasted 66 days, they dropped anchor near the tip of Cape Cod, far north of their intended destination at the mouth of the Hudson River.

One month later, the Mayflower crossed Massachusetts Bay, where the Pilgrims, as they are now commonly known, began the work of establishing a village at Plymouth.

Throughout that first brutal winter, most of the colonists remained on board the ship, where they suffered from exposure, scurvy and outbreaks of contagious disease.

Only half of the Mayflower’s original passengers and crew lived to see their first New England spring.

In March, the remaining settlers moved ashore, where they received an astonishing visit from an Abenaki Indian who greeted them in English.

Several days later, he returned with another Native American, Squanto, a member of the Pawtuxet tribe who had been kidnapped by an English sea captain and sold into slavery before escaping to London and returning to his homeland on an exploratory expedition.

Squanto taught the Pilgrims, weakened by malnutrition and illness, how to grow corn, take sap from maple trees, catch fish in the rivers and avoid poisonous plants.

He also helped the settlers forge an alliance with the Wampanoag, (whahmp-uh-nog) a local tribe.

 

In November 1621, after the Pilgrims’ first corn harvest proved successful, Governor William Bradford organized a celebratory feast and invited a group of the colony’s Native American allies, including the Wampanoag (whahmp-uh-nog) chief Massasoit (mass-a-so-it).

Now remembered as American’s “first Thanksgiving”—although the Pilgrims themselves may not have used the term at the time—the festival lasted for three days.

While no record exists of the historic banquet’s exact menu, the Pilgrim settler Edward Winslow wrote in his journal that Governor Bradford sent four men on a “fowling” mission in preparation for the event, and that the Wampanoag guests arrived bearing five deer.

Historians have suggested that many of the dishes were likely prepared using traditional Native American spices and cooking methods. Because the Pilgrims had no oven and the Mayflower’s sugar supply had dwindled by the fall of 1621, the meal did not feature pies, cakes or other desserts, which have become a standard of current celebrations.

Pilgrims held their second Thanksgiving celebration in 1623 to mark the end of a long drought that had threatened the year’s harvest and prompted Governor Bradford to call for a religious fast. Days of fasting and thanksgiving on an annual or occasional basis became common practice in other New England settlements as well.

During the American Revolution, the Continental Congress designated one or more days of thanksgiving a year, and in 1789 George Washington issued the first Thanksgiving proclamation by the national government of the United States; in it, he called upon Americans to express their gratitude for the happy conclusion to the country’s war of independence and the successful ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

His successors John Adams and James Madison also designated days of thanks during their presidencies.

In 1817, New York became the first of several states to officially adopt an annual Thanksgiving holiday; each celebrated it on a different day.

In 1827, the noted magazine editor and prolific writer Sarah Josepha Hale launched a campaign to establish Thanksgiving as a national holiday.

 

For 36 years, she published numerous editorials and sent scores of letters to governors, senators, presidents and other politicians. Abraham Lincoln finally heeded her request in 1863, at the height of the Civil War, in a proclamation calling on all Americans to ask God to “commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife” and to “heal the wounds of the nation.”

He scheduled Thanksgiving for the final Thursday in November, and it was celebrated on that day every year until 1939, when Franklin D. Roosevelt moved the holiday up a week in an attempt to spur retail sales during the Great Depression.

Roosevelt’s plan, known derisively as Franksgiving, was met with passionate opposition, and in 1941 the president reluctantly signed a bill making Thanksgiving the fourth Thursday in November.

So who was this Sarah Josepha Hale also known as the “Mother of Thanksgiving?

Sarah Josepha Hale was born on October 24^th, 1788 in Newport, New Hampshire.

Her parents were strong advocates for education of both sexes. Therefore, Hale was taught well beyond the normal age for a woman.

Later, she married a lawyer David Hale, who supported her in all of her scholarly endeavors. Sadly, her husband died after only nine years of marriage, leaving Hale a widow with five children.

She turned to poetry as a form of income.  Her most famous book, titled Poems for Our Children included a beloved story from her childhood and “Mary Had a Little Lamb” was instantly a popular nursery rhyme.

In 1837, she became the editor of the Godey’s Lady’s Book. Her work with the magazine made her one of the most influential voices in the 19^th century.

Her columns covered everything from women’s education to child rearing. She also used her platform to support other causes, including abolishing slavery and, later, colonization (freeing African Americans and sending them to Africa).

Under her leadership, the publication popularized white wedding dresses and Christmas trees, trends often credited to Britain’s Queen Victoria.

In the magazine’s pages, Hale swore by the wrinkle-busting power of applying brown butcher paper soaked in apple vinegar to the forehead and described pigeons as “about the only bird in New England worth cooking.”

She was also characterized as “a crusader urging the admission of women to the practice of medicine, more thorough female education, and foreign missions”.

She was annoyed by the menial position of pre-Civil War women and proceeded to create and use the term ‘domestic science’. She even helped finance the all-female Vassar College, founded in 1861.

While working as editor of the magazine, she also raised money for various historic sites. She helped to preserve George Washington’s home and financially supported the construction of the Bunker Hill Monument.

Hale has been criticized heavily for her support of gender roles. As an editor, she encouraged women to focus their efforts in the domestic realm.

A proper woman, to Hale, a woman’s job was not only to manage the home but to also to teach religion to her children.

Godey’s Lady Book was widely known for its conservative views for much of the 19^th century.

Interestingly, Hale did not support the women’s suffrage movement because she believed that women’s participation in politics would limit their influence in the home.

However, Hale did use the magazine to push for the education of women and the rights of women as property owners.

Hale used her writings to support the creation of Thanksgiving as a national holiday.

Beginning in 1846, she lobbied the president and other leading politicians to push for the national celebration of Thanksgiving, which was then only celebrated in the Northeast.

Her requests for recognition were largely ignored by politicians until 1863.

As I stated earlier, while the nation was in the middle of the Civil War, President Lincoln signed into action “A National Day of Thanksgiving and Praise.” 

Hale’s letter to Lincoln is often cited as the main factor in his decision. She also launched a letter-writing campaign to members of Congress, governors and Presidents.

President Zachary Taylor said around 1849 that it was up to the states to decide when and whether to declare a Thanksgiving holiday; in that period, such a holiday was often celebrated anywhere from September to December, depending on the place.

Some politicians thought the “day of public thanksgiving and prayer” declared by George Washington in 1789 violated the separation of church and state.

But, in a Sept. 28, 1863 letter to Lincoln, Hale argued the other side. She made the case that a “National and fixed Union Festival” should occur on the last Thursday of November, annually, because the last Thursday of November was when George Washington had declared the first national Thanksgiving in 1789.

On Oct. 3, Lincoln issued the proclamation designating “the last Thursday of November” as a day of Thanksgiving, arguing in several newspaper editorials that, “in the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity, the American people should take some time for gratitude.”

Next, Hale turned her efforts to making Thanksgiving a law of the land through an act of Congress—but she passed away in 1879 at the age of 91.

It would be more than 60 years until President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a joint resolution, passed by Congress, which took into account years when there are five Thursdays in November and declared the fourth Thursday of the month a Federal Thanksgiving Day holiday.

So let’s look at some interesting facts about Thanksgiving:

While president, Thomas Jefferson refused to declare Thanksgiving as a holiday.

Presidents originally had to declare it a holiday every year. History says Jefferson refused because he strongly believed in the separation of church and state. Since Thanksgiving involved prayer, he thought making it a National holiday violated the US Constitution.

About 46 million turkeys are cooked for Thanksgiving each year.

And on Christmas, 22 million families host an encore with another turkey.

But not everyone eats turkey on Thanksgiving.

According to the National Turkey Federation, only 88% of Americans chow down on turkey. Which begs the question, what interesting dishes are the other 12% cooking up?

Most Americans like Thanksgiving leftovers more than the actual meal.

Almost eight in 10 agree that the second helpings of stuffing, mashed potatoes, and pie beat out the big dinner itself, according to a 2015 Harris Poll.

The Butterball Turkey Talk Line answers almost 100,000 calls each season.

In 2016, the company’s popular cooking crisis management team also introduced a 24-hour text message line for the lead-up into the big day.

An estimated 50 million pumpkin pies are eaten on Thanksgiving.

But according to The American Pie Council, more Americans prefer apple pie overall — pumpkin only comes in second place.

32 million people begin Black Friday shopping on Thanksgiving.

Even though many consumers think stores shouldn’t be open on Thanksgiving, a good chunk of us still plan to shop on the holiday, according to the National Retail Federation. Black Friday draws the biggest crowd of the entire weekend though with 115 million people.

Finally, and I love this one,

Black Friday is the busiest day of the year for plumbers.

Thanks to all that food we gobble up on Thanksgiving, Roto-Rooter reports that kitchen drains, garbage disposals, and yes, toilets, require more attention the day after Thanksgiving than any other day of the year.

 

So in closing, I would like to tell you the things I am most thankful for:

First and foremost, I am thankful that my wife, who has stage 4 cancer, is here to celebrate Thanksgiving with me.

Second, I am thankful for my family and friends.

Third, I am thankful to live in the greatest country in the world where everyone has opportunity, freedom, and the right to pursue their goals.

Others?

I’m thankful for those that serve this great nation especially our service men and women, law enforcement, and firefighters.

Finally, I am thankful to KRMS for continuing to give me the opportunity broadcast my thoughts on a weekly basis to all of you, my listeners, the best radio audience in the nation!

 

So there is my list gang. How about you?

Seven Palestinians, including a local militant commander, were killed last Sunday during a covert Israeli operation in Gaza, Palestinian officials say.

An Israeli soldier was also killed and another wounded, after a firefight erupted.

Palestinians said an Israeli unit travelling in a civilian vehicle had killed the Hamas commander.

It was followed by rocket-fire into Israel, while on Monday a Palestinian mortar hit an Israeli bus.

Initial reports say the vehicle was empty, although a 19-year-old was seriously hurt, Israel’s ambulance service said.

Good grief folks, Advertisement

what happened?

According to Palestinian sources, the Israeli unit was about 2 miles inside the Gaza Strip, which borders Israel, when it fired at Nur Barakeh, the commander of a Hamas’ military wing.

A gun battle erupted and Israeli tanks and aircraft opened fire in the area, witnesses said.

Six of the Palestinians killed belonged to Hamas – the militant Islamist group which controls the Gaza Strip – and the seventh was a member of the militant Popular Resistance Committees, AFP news agency cited Palestinian officials as saying.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said a member of the special unit involved was killed and another was lightly wounded.

In the wake of the clashes, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cut short his visit to Paris for events to mark the 100th anniversary of the end of World War One and returned to Israel, his office said.

So why did Israel kill the commander?

Due to the secrecy of the operation, Israel has not revealed specific details about the mission.

The Israeli Defense Force said though that the operation was “not intended to kill or abduct terrorists, but to strengthen Israeli security”.

The BBC’s Tom Bateman in Jerusalem says that according to a former Israeli general, the incident was likely to have been an intelligence gathering operation that went wrong.

Fawzi Barhoum, a spokesman for Hamas, denounced the incident as a “cowardly Israeli attack”.

IDF chief Lt Gen Gadi Eisenkot said the Israeli unit had carried out “a very meaningful operation to Israel’s security”, without giving further details.

The Israeli military said that after the clashes 17 rockets had been fired from Gaza into Israel and three were shot down.

So why are these two fighting again?

A little history so you can understand the talking heads on the evening news.

First, let’s identify where this is all happening. The Gaza Strip

Inhabited since at least the 15th century B.C., Gaza has been dominated by many different peoples and empires throughout its history; it was incorporated into the Ottoman Empire (The Turks) in the early 16th century.

Gaza fell to British forces during World War I, becoming a part of the British control of Palestine set out by the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WWI.

Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Egypt administered the newly formed Gaza Strip; it was captured by Israel in the Six-Day War in 1967.

Under a series of agreements signed between 1994 and 1999, Israel transferred to the Palestinian Authority (PA) security and civilian responsibility for many Palestinian-populated areas of the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank.

In early 2003, the US, EU, UN, and Russia, presented a roadmap to a final peace settlement by 2005, calling for two states – Israel and a democratic Palestine.

Following Palestinian leader Yasir ARAFAT’s death in late 2004 and the subsequent election of Mahmud ABBAS (head of the Fatah political party) as the PA president, Israel and the PA agreed to move the peace process forward.

Israel in late 2005 unilaterally withdrew all of its settlers and soldiers and dismantled its military facilities in the Gaza Strip, but continues to control maritime, airspace, and other access.

Now to the Players:

HAMAS

Hamas goal is to create a single, Sunni, Islamic state in historic Palestine, which is now largely divided between Israel and the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. Hamas, means “zeal” in Arabic and is an acronym for Islamic Resistance Movement.

Hamas’s charter calls for Israel’s destruction, and Hamas has engaged in terrorist activities.

Hamas’s leadership grew up in the late 1940s, mostly as impoverished offspring of Palestinian refugees.

Many of Hamas’s leaders were educated in Cairo during the rule of Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser. Present members include religious leaders, sheikhs (Arab chiefs), intellectuals, technocrats, businessmen, young activists, and paramilitary fighters.

To cultivate support, Hamas has provided social services to the needy in the 11 refugee camps in Gaza.

Providing social welfare and education through clinics, kindergartens, summer camps, medical services, sports programs, and job programs has tied the Hamas leadership to its supporters.

 

Mosques and Islamic religious organizations have been Hamas’s most important vehicles for spreading its message and providing its services. Partly funded by its members, most funds come from sympathizers abroad.

 

The group was founded in 1988 as a militant segment of the Palestinian Arab national movement and was connected ideologically to the Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in Egypt 60 years earlier.

Hamas is calling for the destruction of Israel and the return to Islamic values.

Hamas firmly opposed the 1993 Oslo Accords, in which the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel engaged in mutual recognition for the purpose of Israel’s gradual transfer of power, land, and limited self-rule to the PLO.

After denouncing the September 1993 Oslo Accords, Hamas increased its strikes against Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as in Israel proper.

It boycotted the January 1996 Palestinian presidential and legislative council elections. The elections were won by Fatah (opposing political party), headed by PLO leader Yasir Arafat.

The boycott was in part because Hamas knew it would lose the election, but also Hamas wanted to avoid giving legitimacy to the PLO’s recognition of Israel.

Under the accord, Israel, the United States, and Western European nations asked the newly created Palestinian National Authority (PNA) to suppress Hamas’s attacks.

Arafat periodically restrained Hamas terrorist actions against Israel but he did not suppress them altogether.

In March 2004 Israel Defense Forces assassinated the Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin in a helicopter gunship attack as Yassin left a mosque in the Gaza Strip.

The next month Israel assassinated his successor Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi, a cofounder of Hamas.

In both cases Israel claimed that these two men were responsible for killing Israeli civilians. Israel announced it would continue such targeted assassinations as part of its war on terrorism.

The assassinations occurred as Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon said he was ready to unilaterally evacuate some 9,500 Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005.

In early 2006, the Islamic Resistance Movement, HAMAS, won the Palestinian Legislative Council election and took control of the PA government.

Attempts to form a unity government between Fatah and HAMAS failed, and violent clashes between Fatah and HAMAS supporters ensued, culminating in HAMAS’s violent seizure of all military and governmental institutions in the Gaza Strip in June 2007.

 

Israel

 

Following World War II, the British withdrew from their control of Palestine, and the UN partitioned the area into Arab and Jewish states, an arrangement rejected by the Arabs. (both sides were promised Palestine by the Brits)

Subsequently, the Israelis defeated the Arabs in a series of wars without ending the deep tensions between the two sides.

In keeping with the framework established at the Madrid Conference in October 1991, bilateral negotiations were conducted between Israel and Palestinian representatives and Syria to achieve a permanent settlement to the dispute.

Israel and Palestinian officials signed on 13 September 1993 a Declaration of Principles (also known as the “Oslo Accords”) guiding an interim period of Palestinian self-rule.

Progress toward a permanent status agreement was undermined by Israeli-Palestinian violence between September 2003 and February 2005.

As I stated earlier, Israel in 2005 unilaterally disengaged from the Gaza Strip, evacuating settlers and its military while retaining control over most points of entry into the Gaza Strip.

The election of HAMAS to head the Palestinian Legislative Council in 2006 froze relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Israel engaged in a 23-day conflict with HAMAS in the Gaza Strip during December 2008 and January 2009.

Prime Minister Binyamin NETANYAHU formed a coalition in March 2009 following a February 2009 general election. Direct talks with the PA launched in September 2010 collapsed.

So in summary, why are Israel and Hamas current enemies?

Hamas won Palestinian elections in 2006 and reinforced its power in the Gaza Strip after ousting West Bank-based Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ rival Fatah faction in clashes the following year.

While Mr Abbas’ Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) had signed peace accords with Israel, Hamas does not recognize Israel’s right to exist and advocates the use of violence against it.

Israel, along with Egypt, has maintained a blockade of Gaza since about 2006, in order, they say, to stop attacks by militants.

Israel and Hamas have gone to war three times, and rocket-fire from Gaza and Israel air strikes against militant targets are a regular occurrence. That is what we are seeing on the news today.

 

 

More than 200 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed by Israeli forces since the end of March – most during weekly protests along the border at which thousands have expressed their support for the declared right of Palestinian refugees to return to their ancestral homes in what is now Israel.

So there you have it folks. Think this can be solved by the UN having both sides sign treaties, or is this a conflict that can only be settled through force?

It is not going to solve itself. It will probably only get worse in the coming months.

What role, if any, do you think the US should play in all of this?

 

 

The very first one, 1788-1789

The first presidential election in our nation’s history was one-of-a-kind in that it was literally no contest. Organized political parties had yet to form, and George Washington ran unopposed. His victory is the only one in the nation’s history to feature 100 percent of the Electoral College vote.

The real question in 1788 was who would become vice president. At the time, this office was awarded to the runner-up in the electoral vote (each elector cast two votes to ensure there would be a runner-up.) Eleven candidates made a play for the vice-presidency, but John Adams came out on top.

 

Jefferson vs. Adams, 1800
In case you’re wondering exactly how down-and-dirty these campaigns got, consider the fact that this is the only election in history where a vice president has run against the president he was currently serving under. You can imagine that things were a little tense in the White House in the months leading up to the election.

Jefferson hired a writer to pen insults rather than dirty his own hands (at least at first). One of his most creative lines said that Adams was a “hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”

Adams’ Federalists carried things even further, asking voters, “Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames… female chastity violated… children writhing on the pike? GREAT GOD OF COMPASSION AND JUSTICE, SHIELD MY COUNTRY FROM DESTRUCTION.”

Supporters of Thomas Jefferson claimed incumbent John Adams wanted to marry off his son to the daughter of King George III, creating an American dynasty under British rule.

Jefferson haters called the challenger a fraud, a coward, a thief, and “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.” Jefferson won….

At the time, states got to pick their own election days, so voting ran from April to October. Because of the complicated “pick two” voting structure in the Electoral College, the election ended up a tie between Jefferson and his vice-presidential pick, Aaron Burr. One South Carolina delegate was supposed to give one of his votes on another candidate, so as to arrange for Jefferson to win and Burr to come in second. The plan somehow went wrong, and both men ended up with 73 electoral votes.

That sent the tie-breaking vote to the House of Representatives. Seven tense days of voting followed, but Jefferson finally pulled ahead of Burr.

The drama triggered the passage of the 12th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which stipulates that the Electoral College pick the president and vice-president separately, doing away with the runner-up complications.

 

Jackson vs. Adams, 1828

When Andrew Jackson ran against incumbent John Quincy Adams in 1828, it was not pretty. Adams’ previous term had not been a very successful one, but he was prepared to sling a little mud anyway.

He and his handlers said Jackson had the personality of a dictator, was too uneducated to be president and hurled all sorts of horrible insults at his wife, Rachel.

Rachel had been in an abusive marriage with a man who finally divorced her, but divorce was still quite the scandal at the time. The Federalists called her a “dirty black wench”, a “convicted adulteress” and said she was prone to “open and notorious lewdness”.

On their end, Jackson’s people said that Adams had sold his wife’s maid as a concubine to the czar of Russia.

Jackson won pretty handily – 642,553 votes to Adams’ 500,897.

Lincoln vs. Douglas, 1860
Although it’s normal – and expected – for candidates to stump across the country in any little small town that will have them, in 1860 it was considered a little tacky. Stephen Douglas chose this tactic anyway, but claimed that he was really just taking a leisurely train ride from D.C. to New York to visit his mom. Lincoln and his supporters took note of the fact that it took him over a month to get there and even put out a “Lost Child” handbill that said he “Left Washington, D.C. sometime in July, to go home to his mother… who is very anxious about him. Seen in Philadelphia, New York City, Hartford, Conn., and at a clambake in Rhode Island. Answers to the name Little Giant. Talks a great deal, very loud, always about himself.” ‘Little Giant’ was a potshot at Douglas’ height – he was only 5’4″. He was also said to be “about five feet nothing in height and about the same in diameter the other way.”

Douglas took aim at Lincoln, too, saying he was a “horrid-looking wretch, sooty and scoundrelly in aspect, a cross between the nutmeg dealer, the horse-swapper and the nightman.” Another good one? “Lincoln is the leanest, lankest, most ungainly mass of legs and arms and hatchet face ever strung on a single frame.”

 

 

Running against a corpse, 1872

In 1872, incumbent Ulysses S. Grant had an easy run for a second term — because his opponent died before the final votes were cast.

Grant had the election in the bag even before his opponent, Horace Greeley, died, however. The incumbent won 286 electoral votes compared with Greeley’s 66 after election day. But on Nov. 29, 1872, before the Electoral College votes were in, Greeley died and his electoral votes were split among other candidates. Greeley remains the only presidential candidate to die before the election was finalized.

 

Cleveland vs. Blaine, 1884
Who knew Grover Cleveland was the Bill Clinton of his time? During his campaign, stories of his lecherousness were plentiful.

One was verified, though – Cleveland, while still a bachelor, had fathered a child with a widow named Maria Halpin. He fully supported the child. So really, by today’s standards, it probably wouldn’t be that much of a scandal. No marriages ruined, no paternity tests, no child support issues. Nevertheless, the Republican party, who supported candidate James Blaine, took this and ran with it. They made up the chant, “Ma! Ma! Where’s my pa?” and used it to taunt Cleveland.

Blaine was no innocent, though. He was accused of shady dealings with the railroad, which was confirmed when a letter was found in which Blaine pretty much confirmed that he knew he was involved in corrupt business – he signed the letter, “My regards to Mrs. Fisher. Burn this letter!” Cleveland’s Democrats made up their own chant based on his writings – “Burn this letter! Burn this letter!”

Hoover vs Smith, 1928

Democrat Al Smith lost pretty badly to Republican Herbert Hoover, largely due to one reason: his religion.

At the time of the election, the Holland Tunnel in New York was just being finished up. Republicans told everyone that the Catholic Smith had commissioned a secret tunnel 3,500 miles long, from the Holland Tunnel to the Vatican in Rome, and that the Pope would have a say in all presidential matters should Smith be elected.

It probably didn’t help matters that Babe Ruth was a staunch Smith supporter. You think it would work in his favor, but the Babe would show up at events wearing only his undershirt with a mug of beer in one hand. If people opposed his viewpoint, Ruth would simply say, “The hell with you,” and be done with them.

 

There’s a lot that’s flawed about the United States’ voting system, but we can at least take comfort in the fact that, in theory anyway, all citizens in good standing, men and women alike, have the right to vote. This wasn’t always the case.

Black Americans didn’t have the constitutional right to vote until 1870, and it took women even longer to gain that right: the 19th Amendment didn’t pass until 1920, following a long debate.

One of the big voices against giving women the vote was the organization National Association OPPOSED to Woman Suffrage. In the 1910s it published a pamphlet explaining why women shouldn’t be allowed to vote:

 

The stated reasons to “vote no” include:

BECAUSE 90% of the women either do not want it, or do not care.

BECAUSE it means competition of women with men instead of co-operation.

BECAUSE 80% of the women eligible to vote are married and can only double or annul their husband’s votes.

BECAUSE it can be of no benefit commensurate with the additional expense involved.

BECAUSE in some States more voting women than voting men will place the Government under petticoat rule.

BECAUSE it is unwise to risk the good we already have for the evil which may occur.

 

The pamphlet also includes a list of household tips for women. Some gems:

“A clean house, which cannot be provided by legislation, keeps children happier and healthier than any number of uplift laws.” (laws proposed by women)

“You do not need a ballot to clean out your sink spout”

“Control of a temper makes for a happier home than control of elections”

Folks, I’ll leave it right there. As you can see, this was probably not the nastiest election in US history.

7 Steps to Improving Your Critical Thinking

What is the hardest task in the world? To think. – Ralph Waldo Emerson

Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probably reason why so few engage in it. – Henry Ford

Every day, I’m amazed at the amount of information I consume; I listen to the news in the morning, check my social media accounts throughout the day, and watch some TV before I go to bed, all while getting constant updates via email and Facebook. It can be overwhelming , but things get really interesting when some of that information is biased, inaccurate, or just plain made up. It makes it hard to know what to believe.

Even with all the competing sources and opinions out there, getting the truth — or at least close to it — matters. What you believe affects what you buy, what you do, who you vote for, and even how you feel. In other words, it virtually dictates how you live your life. So how can you figure out what is true and what is not? Well, one way is by learning to think more critically. Critical thinking is as simple as it sounds — it’s just a way of thinking that helps you get a little closer to the best answer. Critical thinking is just deliberately and systematically processing information so that you can make better decisions and generally understand things better. So the next time you have a problem to solve, a decision to make or information to evaluate, here are methods you can use to help you find the truth.

1. Don’t Take Anything at Face Value The first step to thinking critically is to learn to evaluate what you hear, what you read, and what you decide to do. So, rather than doing something because it’s what you’ve always done or accepting what you’ve heard as the truth, spend some time just thinking. What’s the problem? What are the possible solutions? What are the pros and cons of each? If you really evaluate things, you’re likely to make a better, more reasoned choice. As the saying goes, “When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me.” It’s quite easy to make an ass of yourself simply by failing to question your basic assumptions. Some of the greatest innovators in human history were those who simply looked up for a moment and wondered if one of everyone’s general assumptions was wrong. From Newton to Einstein, questioning assumptions is where innovation happens.

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking. – George S. Patton

2. Consider Motive Where information is coming from is a key part of thinking critically about it. Everyone has a motive and a bias. Sometimes, it’s pretty obvious; other times, it’s a lot harder to detect. Just know that where any information comes from should affect how you evaluate it — and whether you decide to act on it.

3. Do Your Research All the information that gets thrown at us on a daily basis can be overwhelming, but if you decide to take matters into your own hands, it can also be a very powerful tool. If you have a problem to solve, a decision to make, or a perspective to evaluate, get onto Google and start reading about it. The more information you have, the better prepared you’ll be to think things through and come up with a reasonable answer to your query. I have a personal library of over 3500 books and I use them all the time for research. You have access to your local library and an unlimited amount of good info on the net. Don’t rely solely on Google. The Library of Congress online is a great source of information. Another search engine I use a lot is called Refseek (www.refseek.com) It contains over a billion books, documents, journals and newspapers. When you’re trying to solve a problem, it’s always helpful to look at other work that has been done in the same area. It’s important, however, to evaluate this information critically, or else you can easily reach the wrong conclusion. Ask the following questions of any evidence you encounter: How was it gathered, by whom, and why?

4. Ask Questions I sometimes find myself shying away from questions. They can make me feel a little stupid. But mostly, I can’t help myself. I just need to know! And once you go down that rabbit hole, you not only learn more, but often discover whole new ways of thinking about things. I tell my students all the time, there are no stupid questions. That is how you learn. Sometimes an explanation becomes so complex that the basic, original questions get lost. To avoid this, continually go back to the basic questions you asked when you set out to solve the problem. What do you already know? How do you know that? What are you trying to prove, disprove, demonstrated, critique, etc.?

5. Don’t always assume You’re Right I know it’s hard. I struggle with the hard-headed desire to be right as much as the next person. Because being right feels great. But assuming you’re right will often put you on the wrong track when it comes to thinking critically. Because if you don’t take in other perspectives and points of view, and think them over, and compare them to your own, you really aren’t doing much thinking at all — and certainly not the critical kind. Human thought is amazing, but the speed and automation with which it happens can be a disadvantage when we’re trying to think critically. Our brains naturally use mental shortcuts to explain what’s happening around us. This was beneficial to humans when we were hunting large game and fighting off wild animals, but it can be disastrous when we try to decide who to vote for. A critical thinker is aware of their biases and personal prejudices and how they influence seemingly “objective” decisions and solutions. All of us have biases in our thinking–it’s awareness of them that makes thought critical.

6. Break It Down Being able to see the big picture is often touted as a great quality, but I’d wager that being able to see that picture for all its components is even better. After all, most problems are too big to solve all at once, but they can be broken down into smaller parts. The smaller the parts, the easier it’ll be to evaluate them individually and arrive at a solution. This is essentially what scientists do; before they can figure out how a bigger system — such as our bodies or an ecosystem — works, they have to understand all the parts of that system, how they work, and how they relate to each other. I think this is a primary reason why Dr. Schulties have been so successful with our radio show. We both seem to have the capability to take complex issues and break them down into something we and our listeners can understand. That is part of critical thinking.

7. Keep It Simple In the scientific community, a line of reasoning called Occam’s razor is often used to decide which hypothesis is most likely to be true. This means finding the simplest explanation that fits all facts. This is what you would call the most obvious explanation at least until it’s proven wrong. Often, Occam’s razor is just plain common sense. When you do your research and finally lay out what you believe to be the facts, you’ll probably be surprised by what you uncover. It might not be what you were expecting, but chances are it’ll be closer to the truth. Some of the most amazing solutions to problems are astounding not because of their complexity, but because of their elegant simplicity. Look for the simple solution first.

Conclusion: Critical thinking is not an easy topic to understand or explain, but the benefits of learning it and incorporating it into your life are huge. Remember : 1. Don’t Take Anything at Face Value 2. Consider the Motive 3. Do Your Research 4. Ask Questions 5. Don’t always assume You’re Right 6. Break It Down 7. Keep It Simple

I will close with one final quote:

Anyone who stops learning is old, whether at twenty or eighty. Anyone who keeps learning stays young. – Henry Ford

What do you think? Can you adopt critical thinking in your life? Better yet, can you pass it on to those who refuse to use it?