United States and/or World History Archives

Is Kabul Biden’s “Waterloo?”

August 27, 2021

No, it’s not just a song by “Abba.” It was a famous battle.

The Battle of Waterloo was fought on Sunday, 18 June 1815, near Waterloo in Belgium. A French army under the command of Napoleon Bonaparte was defeated by two of the armies of the Seventh Coalition, a British-led coalition consisting of units from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Hanover, Brunswick, and Nassau, under the command of the Duke of Wellington and a Prussian army under the command of Field Marshal von Blücher, referred to also as Blücher’s army. The battle marked the end of the Napoleonic Wars.

All that information is simply “fluff” around the essential stuff resulting in and from Waterloo. The Battle of Waterloo was a “humdinger.” It obviously involved many different combatants, did not last long. Napoleon lost. And four days later, Napoleon abdicated his throne in France.

Uh-Oh! You got the relation between what’s happening in Afghanistan and what happened at Waterloo. Could similar circumstances between the two world events resolve in the same fashion?

In his speech to the nation about our withdrawal from Afghanistan, President Joe Biden was right that a long legacy of American involvement there preceded him. But across the board, in domestic and foreign policy, any new president inherits realities that precede him. The issue confronting every president is what principles and policies will be implemented to deal with these existing realities that will define his administration.

Most clear now is that America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan is surrounded by a perception of confusion, weakness, and humiliation. For anyone who believes that our nation should be a beacon of strength for freedom in the world, that beacon has been deeply tarnished.

According to The Jerusalem Post, these are the nations that will most benefit from this moment: Qatar, Russia, China, Pakistan, Turkey, and Iran. According to the Post, “Most of these countries have hosted the Taliban or tacitly backed them.” In other words, this round has been won by forces in the world for whom freedom is not a value.

Biden, in his remarks, said, “We went to Afghanistan almost 20 years ago with clear goals: get those who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001, and make sure al-Qaida could not use Afghanistan as a base from which to attack us again.”

This is inaccurate. Months after the attack on Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush defined a two-pronged strategy of retaliation in his State of the Union address. One, “Shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans and bring terrorists to justice.” This was accomplished in our successful military incursion in Afghanistan. But second, “We must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world.”

Bush rightly noted that Afghanistan could not and cannot be viewed in isolation from forces in the world that hate us and hate our ideals. This humiliation of our nation in the current withdrawal from Afghanistan strengthens those forces. Although Biden decided to continue withdrawing from Afghanistan, he reversed President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the deal with Iran. Biden’s deal strengthens rather than weakens Iran and creates a path leading to the nuclear capability of this dangerous and threatening nation. But most critical is to appreciate that we cannot defend our nation abroad if we are not clear who we are at home.

President Ronald Reagan observed, “While America’s military strength is important … I’ve always maintained that the struggle now going on for the world will never be decided by bombs or rockets, by armies or military might. The real crisis we face today is a spiritual one; at root, it is a test of moral will and faith.” Our enemies, per Reagan,” must be made to understand: We will never compromise our principles and standards. We will never give away our freedom. We will never abandon our belief in God.”

It is here that Biden’s credibility is so deeply in question.

Under the leadership of this administration, the values that Americans have always known that protect individual freedom and protect God-fearing Americans – certainly those that understand this as Christianity – are on historically shaky ground. Cancel culture and wokeness limit our ability to speak and run our private lives and businesses freely. The values that have sustained marriage and family and protect the unborn have been dangerously weakened.

Government expansion and incursion into private life are unprecedented. Per the Hoover Institution’s John Cogan, if Biden plans find their way into law, “for the first time in history, more than half of all Americans would be on the federal dole.”

How can we expect leadership in Afghanistan or anywhere else abroad for these American values when we don’t see it at home?

American Military and Political Leadership is a Void

Biden’s handlers worked diligently in 2019-2020 to sell to the American people the fact that Joe Biden had a career FULL of foreign policy achievements during his 40-year political career both while he was a U.S. Senator and his eight years as Vice President in the Obama Administration. Yep, they told the truth — kind of. The only truth in the previous statement is that he WAS a U.S. Senator and WAS a U.S. Vice President. Regarding “foreign policy achievements:” he had NONE.

In hindsight, we can see what a dumpster fire the Obama/Biden White House was overseeing America’s national security and foreign affairs.

Failed “red lines” and genocide in Syria? Check;
The Russian annexation of Crimea? Check;
ISIS establishing a caliphate and spreading its deadly tentacles around the world? Check, check;
Then there’s Benghazi and the failed regime change in Libya. Check;
The disastrous Iran nuclear deal gave the world’s leading sponsor of terror $150 billion, much of which ended up in the hands of terror proxies. Check;
No one can overlook that on Biden’s “lead from behind” watch, North Korea dramatically expanded its nuclear arsenal while Russia meddled in U.S. elections — with hardly a wrist slap. Super Check;
The Obama Administration emptied GITMO on his watch, releasing scores of jihadis back onto the battlefield while also trading five hardened terrorists for deserter Bowe Bergdahl. Check.

Rank-and-File Democrats in Congress have begun to see the absence of reason in the Biden Foreign Policy team while the State Department and Defense Department leadership are doing NOTHING but scrambling for answers. It’s NOT working.

The fact that any of the explanations we are hearing from the National Security Advisor, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense are all minus ANY factual information, any reasonable and complete explanations, and certainly no evidence of any plans to extricate the thousands of Americans still behind Taliban lines that they Biden Administration continues to promise to “get them out.” Sadly, that promise is empty. Why? Even those cabinet members quietly agree there is LITTLE chance, if any, to get those Americans along with our Afghan allies out of the country safely before Biden’s arbitrary and mysterious August 31 deadline.

Each day it becomes more apparent that President Biden has NO grasp on governing our nation. These foreign events playing out now in Afghanistan have made it abundantly clear that this President has no grasp on what is necessary to take decisive measures in Afghanistan IMMEDIATELY.

As this story is being written, the suicide bombing of a gate at the Kabul Airport sadly killed twelve U.S. military members. Our military on the ground — not necessarily our military at the Pentagon — is face-to-face with terrorists. And those terrorists represent an uncountable assortment of well-organized, well-trained, and well-financed militia who each despise the United States and all those who represent us. It’s hard for Americans to understand how anyone is so committed to killing “The Great Satan.” “The Great Satan” is the United States of America. Please make no mistake: The Taliban, al Qaeda, ISIS, and multiple branches of these terrorist organizations exist solely to destroy every person on Earth who is NOT an adherent to their versions of the law and religion.

What can we do regarding filling the void of leadership in the U.S.?

Summary

President Biden should step aside. It should be obvious to him — even in his diminished cognitive state — that he doesn’t have what it takes to handle this pending genocide of innocent Afghans and Americans in Afghanistan by this terrorist conglomerate.

What would it look like if President Biden DID decide to resign as President? Obviously, the process would be fairly simple. He would simply resign as President. The Vice President would simultaneously take the oath of office and assume the presidency. But there are many Biden confidants that not only do not think Joe Biden will ever resign, and they don’t want Joe Biden to resign! After all, no matter the physical or mental state of a U.S. president, he or she can stay in office as long as they choose or until they’re replaced. Replacing a President is specifically detailed in the U.S. Constitution.

The first is Impeachment. We’ve been through that process recently, haven’t we? Twice, the Pelosi Democrats attempted to remove Donald Trump from office. They first, on both occasions, voted articles of impeachment in the House of Representatives and sent those articles to the U.S. Senate, after which a trial of President Trump was held. The Senate refused to remove Trump from office.

The second is the 25th Amendment of the Constitution.

After President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, Congress proposed, and the states ratified the 25th Amendment in 1967 to outline the transition of power formally. Before that, the vice president didn’t officially have the power to take over. The amendment states that if the president dies, resigns, or is removed from office, the vice president becomes president. If there is a vacancy in the vice presidency for any reason, the president can choose someone to fill it. And if the president is unable to fulfill his/her duties – like when President George W. Bush was under general anesthesia for colonoscopies in 2002 and 2007 – he can temporarily transfer his powers to the vice president and get them back when he’s done.

How Would the 25th Amendment Work in This Case?

Under the amendment’s fourth stipulation, it would only take 14 people to depose the president: The Vice President and a majority of the President’s Cabinet size if it increased or decreased in number.

Section IV reads:

“Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”

The “Final, Final”

Let’s face it: it’s doubtful Joe Biden will ever step down as President. Being the Commander in Chief has been a lifelong dream for Joe. Many feel Democrat Party leadership negotiated some deal with him to be a “temporary” President so that history would identify him as such. Then at some future point, he would step aside for the Vice President to take over.

In my opinion, neither option is viable and certainly neither would be a good option to choose!

In each option, Vice President Kamala Harris would become President. Can you imagine what horrors would erupt under her guidance? Look at her horrendous record as a prosecutor in San Francisco, then the Attorney General of California, U.S. Senator, and then as a candidate for the United States presidency. In which of these did she have even marginal success?

The people of California messaged their resounding NON-support of her in her presidential campaign. That’s why she dropped out of the race before the first primary election.

Sadly, it appears that whoever holds that office in the White House will be Mr. Biden or Ms. Harris until January of 2025 on Inauguration Day.

Which would you rather it be: Joe Biden or Kamala Harris?

OMG! That’s what you call a “conundrum.”

I wonder if Hillary is available?

To Download Today’s (Friday, August 27, 2021) “TNN Live!” Show, click on this link:

By the way: I thought you might like to reminisce a bit and listen to that big hit by the group Abba from the 70s: “Waterloo.”

The American Regime And Its Moral Ground (by Hadley Arkes)

July 29, 2021

Today, without question, the United States of America is larger than one person. Therefore, it stands to reason that thoughts, discussions, and opinions should all bear that out: and it’s out there.

As we occasionally do at TruthNewsNetwork, today we once again bring to you a very thoughtful and well-constructed offering from a great American thinker. Today it is Hadley Arkes. Hadley Arkes is the Ney Professor of Jurisprudence at Amherst College where he taught for 50 years. His additional significant accomplishments are listed at the completion of today’s piece.

Hadley Arkes

In the night he was elected President in November 2008, Barack Obama addressed a vast throng in Grant Park in my hometown of Chicago and remarked that we had built this country “calloused hand by calloused hand, for 221 years.” Obama professed admiration for Abraham Lincoln, but it was clear that he hadn’t understood – or accepted – Lincoln’s teaching. In contrast to Obama’s 221 years, Lincoln said at Gettysburg that “Four score and seven years” earlier our “fathers brought forth . . . a new nation.” Counting back, Obama found the beginning of the country in 1787, with the drafting of our current Constitution. But counting back, Lincoln took the beginning of the nation to 1776 and the Declaration of Independence. It was not merely the claim of independence; it was the articulation of that “proposition” as Lincoln called it, “the father of all moral principle” among us: that “all men are created equal,” that the only just government over human beings must draw its powers from “the consent of the governed.” Lincoln reminded us that the Union, the American republic, was older than the Constitution. The Constitution was made, as it said, for “a more perfect Union.”

Lincoln reminded us that the Union, the American republic, was older than the Constitution. The Constitution was made, as it said, for “a more perfect Union.”

For Lincoln, the nation began with that “first principle” that marked the character of the regime. The task of forming a Constitution was a matter of working out a structure of governance consistent with that principle. The first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, did not work well. The government couldn’t summon the wherewithal to support itself and defend the country against enemies foreign or domestic. Instead of integrating the separate states into a more unified nation, it set off centrifugal tendencies, driving the states farther apart with discriminatory tariffs and separate currencies. It was not the sense of a nation we would come to know, with the free movement of persons and goods across the boundaries of the states.

Lincoln recalled the biblical proverb that “a word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver” (Prov. 25: 11): The words fitly spoken were “all men are created equal,” which provided the “apple”:

The Union and the Constitution are the picture of silver, subsequently framed around it. The picture was made, not to conceal or destroy the apple; but to preserve it. The picture was made for the apple – not the apple for the picture.

The Constitution was made for the Union, not the Union for the Constitution. When the Founders took up the task of framing a new Constitution, they had to draw upon those principles of law and moral truths that were there – as they had to be – before the Constitution. If those principles were not there, to tell us of the forms of government that were better or worse, how would we know of just what institutions claimed a rightful authority to put in place those “positive laws” that we were obliged to obey? And over time, jurists found it necessary to appeal back to those principles that were there before the Constitution, in order to apply the Constitution sensibly to the cases coming before them. John Quincy Adams would argue that the “right to petition the government” was simply implicit in the logic of a free government: it would be there even it hadn’t been set down in the First Amendment. By the same reasoning, it would be there even if there were no First Amendment; it would be there even if there were no Constitution.

When the Founders took up the task of framing a new Constitution, they had to draw upon those principles of law and moral truths that were there – as they had to be – before the Constitution.

But if that is all true, people will raise the question: Are you saying that we don’t need a Constitution? Of course we do, for it is a matter again of the “structure” of governance. It is utterly critical to know just whom the military will be expected to obey if a president dies in office. And we would certainly want to know if any state may enter a treaty or alliance or make its territory available as a military and naval base for a foreign power. Even more recently there was a jolting bump in the road to the enactment of Obamacare, when the Constitution delivered up, for the 111th time, in peace and war, a midterm election. And no one thought of litigating over this working of the Constitution.

But what of the beginning of everything in that first principle itself? Obama has affected the manners of the urbane half-educated in our own day as he blithely dismisses the notion that “all men are created equal” has ever been a real truth, let alone one of those anchoring, necessary truths that furnished the moral ground of this government. He has fallen in readily with the doctrines of “historicism”: that “truths” can be known only in that historical period when they are believed to be true; that there are no moral truths that hold across the ages – except of course for the “truth” of historicism. And yet Lincoln and the Founders did take that proposition seriously. Lincoln regarded it as one of those “abstract truths applicable to all men and all times.”

Only one kind of creature understands what it means to consent to a contract – and to honor a commitment even when it no longer accords with his self-interest.

Alexander Hamilton went to the root in explaining that point when he wrote about those “first principles, or primary truths on which all subsequent reasonings must depend.” They contained an “internal evidence which, antecedent to all reflection and combination command the assent of the mind.” They were grasped per se nota, as true in themselves, as we grasp the “law of contradiction”: that two contradictory propositions both cannot be true. Then how would one grasp in that way that anchoring principle of the American regime? The answer would be quickly revealed if we posed this question to anyone we know: Why is it that, in this age of animal liberation, we are not signing labor contracts with our horses and cows – or seeking the informed consent of our household pets before we authorize surgery on them? We can expect any person we encounter to be quite puzzled by the question – and wondering why we are asking it. But what the ordinary man grasps already is that animals cannot reason about the terms of a contract, give a promise, and keep their commitments. Only one kind of creature understands what it means to consent to a contract – and to honor a commitment even when it no longer accords with his self-interest.

The ordinary man who grasps at once that simple thing takes hold of the principle in the Declaration. As the argument ran, no man is by nature the ruler of other men in the way that God is by nature the ruler of men and men are by nature the ruler of dogs and horses. Anyone who denies that, said Jefferson, had to assume that the “mass of mankind” had been born “booted and spurred, ready to ride them.”

The question, as Lincoln said, was whether the black man “is not or is a man. If he is not a man … he who is a man may… do just as he pleases with him. But if the negro is a man, is it not … a total destruction of self-government to say that he too shall not govern himself?”

And so, when the question was put, “Where in the world would it be wrong for human beings to be ruled in the way that dogs or horses are ruled?” The answer was: that would be wrong anywhere in the world – and at any time – where that difference in nature remains the same. Thus the notion of certain enduring rights, grounded in an enduring nature, or “natural rights.”

But as Lincoln recognized, slavery was in conflict with those deep premises of the American regime. And that disturbing truth was recognized in the South as well as the North.

But as Lincoln recognized, slavery was in conflict with those deep premises of the American regime. And that disturbing truth was recognized in the South as well as the North. A group of slaveowners, meeting at Darien, in Southern Georgia, declared in 1775 their “disapprobation and abhorrence of the unnatural practice of slavery in America . . . debasing part of our fellow creatures below men, and corrupting the virtues and morals of the rest, and is laying the basis of the liberty we contend for . . . upon a very wrong foundation.” They vowed then to emancipate their own slaves.

After the war, the move to gradual emancipation swept through the North, and by 1810 the number blacks freed through manumission in the South exceeded the number of free blacks in the north. The famous black leader, Frederick Douglass would say later that the Founders had made the right judgment: They had to accept slavery in the South in order to have the Union. But if those southern states had formed a separate nation, they would have expanded a slave empire into the Caribbean or beyond. It was far better to bring the slave states into a Union, or framework, in which slavery was rejected in point of principle. The word slavery would appear nowhere in the Constitution; as Lincoln said, only “covert” language was used. But at the same time, the framers would block the import of more slaves from abroad (after 1808) and bar its extension into the western territories. As Lincoln said, all of the marks here suggested a policy, not of endorsing and encouraging, but discouraging and compressing, with the hope of putting slavery “in the course of ultimate extinction.”

The famous black leader, Frederick Douglass would say later that the Founders had made the right judgment: They had to accept slavery in the South in order to have the Union.

As Justice George Sutherland reminded us in the 1930s, the Union was older than the Constitution, and the right to defend the country would be there under any Constitution. But defending the country meant the need to plan military operations, while concealing those operations from potential enemies. There could be a need, then, of course, to deploy spies and secret agents. These are the things that are, by nature, “executive” functions. And they continue to be distinctly executive functions even if they are directed by John Jay as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, through a committee in Congress, under the Articles of Confederation. When the Iranian revolutionary government seized American hostages in 1979, the Carter Administration froze Iranian assets in the United States. That could not be done by the Congress, after holding hearings, for those assets would have been gone by the time the hearings had concluded. If this strategic action were to be done at all, then in Macbeth’s words, “‘twere well / It were done quickly.” Only the executive could act with dispatch in a crisis of this kind.

At the beginning of the Civil War, the novelist Richard Henry Dana defended, in the Supreme Court, the authority of President Lincoln to order a naval blockade of the South. Dana observed that a Declaration of War was an artifact, a thing created under the positive law of a Constitution. But war, he said, was a fact. And could it really be sensible to assume that an enemy would be decorous enough to hold back its attack until the Congress could be assembled to declare war? Or was it more sensible to conclude that the authority to defend the country had to fall to that one branch of government that was never “out of town, or out of session”: namely, the executive, charged with the ongoing administration of the laws.

. . . it is one of the deepest principles in the American regime, running back to the revolution, that the safety of the American people cannot be put in the hands of officials in Westminster, or unelected judges, who bear no direct responsibility to the people whose lives are at stake.

In that vein, it is one of the deepest principles in the American regime, running back to the revolution, that the safety of the American people cannot be put in the hands of officials in Westminster, or unelected judges, who bear no direct responsibility to the people whose lives are at stake. That is why some of us would argue that it was a profound mistake for Justice Anthony Kennedy and four of his colleagues to inject the judges onto the battlefield in Iraq in the Boumediene case (2008). Actions taken in the heat of battle may not indeed satisfy a demanding test of “due process of law.” But judges are in no decent position to second guess because they bear no responsibility for the lives that may be lost.

Before the Civil War there was in this country another civil war – in Rhode Island. Two different legislatures and governors were put forth to represent the legitimate government of Rhode Island. President John Tyler signaled the intention to intervene on the side of the established government, and that signal was enough to induce the armed opposition to stand down. Chief Justice Roger Taney would later explain (in Luther v. Borden, 1842) that a crisis of this kind could not be handled by trial court, with the time it takes to select a jury, hold a trial, and reach a verdict. Nor could an appellate court handle the matter by calling for briefs, hearing the arguments, and retiring to chambers to write opinions. What came through was an unseasonable but inescapable truth: that it is not mainly the courts that sustain a regime of constitutional freedoms. It is rather the “sword of the law” that preserves that civil peace in which courts are free to render a more scrupulous justice, with those procedures more exacting and more fitting the function of judges.

We have seen, in recent years, presidents and administrations blocked in their initiatives by judges operating with nationwide injunctions. And yet we have also seen, on matters ranging from the launching of wars to the steady “administration of the laws,” that the executive will hold a rightful authority to act at grave moments outside the reach of the legislative or judicial branches. If that leaves people uneasy, we think of Thomas Hobbes’s taunt: If you are uncomfortable with the notion of sovereign power, you will have to call forth some other authority to limit it. And whatever power you call forth will be, then, even more sovereign yet. If one doesn’t trust an American president in conducting war and foreign affairs, the solution cannot be had by putting authority in the hands of unelected judges, who cannot be held responsible for their acts.

Even a president bound up with a thick body of laws will be compelled at times to act well beyond the restraints of the law. The question will always arise then how we can be sure that a president, freed in this way, will use his power to preserve this regime and our freedoms, and not create a new regime built around himself. The only answer to that old question remains the same: the only ground of assurance lies in the character of that person we elevate to the highest office. We would find the deepest assurance in a man who could say, as Lincoln said to a contingent of soldiers, that “I happen temporarily to occupy this big White House. I am a living witness that any of your children may look to come here as my father’s child has.” This was a man whose loyalty to the regime ran to the deepest levels of his own character. The question for us now is whether we cultivate men like that anymore – and whether we have cultivated among ourselves the wit to recognize them when we see them.

. He is also the Founder/Director of the James Wilson Institute on Natural Law and the American Founding in Washington, D.C. Among his numerous books are First Things (1986) and Constitutional Illusions and Anchoring Truths (2010). He is completing a book to be entitled Mere Natural Law.

A Soldier Died Today

May 23, 2020

Most Americans respect and honor our veterans. Unfortunately, it seems we have two Veterans Days each year — often we forget the fact that Memorial Day is NOT another Veterans Day. Today we honor all those who gave their lives for the cause of Freedom.

It’s days like today that remind us of the importance of the Star-Spangled Banner, The Pledge of Allegiance, The U.S. Constitution, and America the Beautiful. The family members of those who gave their lives during their military service will certainly agree that today,

EVERY American owes reverence, honor, and thanks for those heroes’ sacrifices — forget about raising voices against The Stars and Stripes, and The National Anthem, and The Pledge of Allegiance. Jesus said “No man has greater love than this; that he would lay down his life for a friend.” If you’re reading this, you’re one of those that either did not serve or you survived. In either case, you too are fortunate. And we honor you.

Thanks to everyone who has paid that price — including the families who today will think back on fond memories of outdoor cookouts, swimming parties, weddings and graduations shared with a loved one taken while defending our nation.

If a tear runs down your cheek today while remembering a hero who gave their life in keeping America free and safe, don’t be ashamed. Why? Because by sunset somewhere in the greatest country on Earth, a man or woman in uniform (or in a retirement center after wearing that uniform standing watch for us against our foes) paid the ultimate price for your freedom.

This nation is bigger than any one person. It was made that way by people who abandoned the tyranny of totalitarianism in Europe to give their families and descendants — U.S. — a future with life and liberty with justice for each and every one.

“A Soldier Died Today”

Reagan or Trump: Flip a Coin

July 3, 2019

Trump and Kim Jung Un have now been together face-to-face three times. The third meeting was a bit strange, certainly unconventional, and absolutely showed the World that the North Korean leader is pretty desperate to continue down the path of “getting along” with the leader of the United States — in this case, Donald Trump.

Trump detractors’ heads have been spinning, they’ve all been spewing green vomit, and their non-stop attacks of the President are escalating every day. Their crushing crescendo has drowned out any tidbits of good that might have resulted from that short back-slapping get together between those two leaders. Trump adversaries don’t care at all about facts. Their cries are NOT founded on facts, but are directly tied to their one and only political perspective: “Trump is Evil.”

This all reminds me of the press and political treatment of President Ronald Reagan. In fact, Reagan’s treatment by politicians (both Democrat and Republican) and by members of the press are eerily similar.

Reagan could do NOTHING right;
Reagan did EVERYTHING wrong;
Reagan HATED the poor and American minorities;
Reagan cared only about the Rich;
Reagan was a stupid politician;
Reagan was a cowboy that spurned conventional governing.

Does any of that sound familiar?

Reagan and the Press

They hated him, pure and simple.

Journalists — TRUE journalists — are politically neutral in their reporting and take pride in keeping readers, viewers, and listeners from ever knowing what their political persuasions are. Honestly, before 1980 (when Reagan was elected) journalists were fairly successful at hiding their politics. But with the election of the movie star/governor from California, all that journalist independence and integrity in reporting was immediately in the trash.

Want some examples?

“I used to say I thought if you were down on your luck and you got through the Secret Service, got in the Oval Office and said, Mr. President, ‘I’m down on my luck,’ he would literally give you the shirt off his back. And then he’d sit down in his undershirt and he’d sign legislation throwing your kids off school lunch program, maybe your parents off Social Security, and of course the Welfare Queen off of welfare.”
— ABC’s Sam Donaldson, who covered the White House during the 1980s, on Good Morning America, June 11, 2004.

“All of us who covered the Reagans agreed that President Reagan was personable and charming, but I’m not so certain he was nice. It’s hard for me to think of anyone as nice when I hear him say ‘The homeless are homeless because they want to be homeless.’ To my mind, a President should care about all people, and he didn’t, which is why I will always feel Reagan lacked soul.”
— UPI White House reporter Helen Thomas in the July 1993 Good Housekeeping.

“At the end of his presidency, a great many people thought he’d made the wealthy wealthier and had not improved life particularly for the middle class.”
— Peter Jennings talking to co-host Charles Gibson on ABC’s Good Morning America, June 10, 2004.

“Despite the accolades lavished upon Reagan since his death — for ending the Cold War, for restoring the nation’s optimism — his many detractors remember him as a right-wing ideologue beholden to monied interests and insensitive to the needs of the most vulnerable Americans.”
…
“Elected on a promise to slash taxes and crack down on freeloading ‘welfare queens,’ Reagan depicted government as wasteful and minimized its capacity to help people, ideas that survive today. Reagan also dealt a blow to organized labor by firing the striking air traffic controllers, and appointed Antonin Scalia, still the Supreme Court’s most conservative jurist.”
…
“Reagan’s weakening of the social safety net by dismantling longtime Democratic ‘Great Society’ programs arguably vexes his critics the most. By persuading Congress to approve sweeping tax cuts for the wealthy while slashing welfare benefits and other social services like the federal housing assistance program, Reagan was blamed for a huge surge in the nation’s poor and homeless population.”
— Beth Fouhy in an AP story headlined: “Many Still Troubled by Reagan’s Legacy,” June 9, 2004.

CBS’s Morley Safer: “You talk about a vision, and it’s some kind of abstract, vague idea. Did his [Ronald Reagan’s] vision include extraordinary deficits? Did his vision include cutting of the budgets for education and a back of the hand in terms of public education?”
Larry King: “History will not be kind to him?”
Safer: “No, I don’t think history particularly will be kind…I don’t think history has any reason to be kind to him.”
— CNN’s Larry King Live, June 14, 2004.

“After eight years of what many saw as the Reagan administration’s benign neglect of the poor and studied indifference to civil rights, a lot of those who lived through this week in Overtown seemed to think the best thing about George Bush is that he is not Ronald Reagan…There is an Overtown in every big city in America. Pockets of misery made even meaner and more desperate in the past eight years.”
— ABC’s Richard Threlkeld reporting from a section of Miami where there had been riots, on World News Tonight, January 20, 1989.

“Senator, don’t you believe, a lot of people do think that the ‘80s were an excess, which a lot of people got richer and people got poorer, and it’s now fair to redress that balance?”
— Sam Donaldson to Robert Dole on This Week with David Brinkley, Feb. 21, 1993.

“In the greedy excesses of the Reagan years, the mean income of the average physician nearly doubled, from $88,000 to $170,000. Was that warranted?”
— Bryant Gumbel to Dr. Richard Corlin of the American Medical Association, March 31, 1993, Today.

Reagan/Gorbachev

Reagan inherited a pretty nasty foreign policy mess in several countries — none bigger than that of the U.S./Soviet Union nuclear weapons arms race. Reagan — though no foreign policy expert — knew that Soviet Russia was the biggest danger the U.S. faced. He immediately set out to try to find a way to make peace with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. They held three historical meetings: the first in Geneva, the second in Reykjavik, Iceland, and the third in Washington D.C. I will not give you the U.S. media reports that followed each of the Gorbachev-Reagan meetings for the sake of your time. But know this for certain: the media excoriated Reagan for everything he did and didn’t do in planning for and his actions at each meeting. Reagan could do NOTHING right! (Exactly like Trump/Kim meetings as portrayed in today’s media)

In preparation for the Reykjavik meeting, unknown to the Americans Gorbachev prepared and presented a series of nuclear proposals regarding denuclearization by both Russia and the U.S. He did so because he wanted to catch Reagan by surprise. It worked. The Americans were planning intense meetings to find common ground, but not nearly the same common ground as the Russian contingency offered.

Gorbachev feared Reagan’s “Star Wars” plan called “SDI,” or “Strategic Defense Initiative.” The Soviets felt that if “Star Wars” was implemented, it would give the U.S. total defensive nuclear dominance over the Soviet Union both domestically and in Europe. Gorbachev insisted that “if” the U.S. completed and implemented the SDI, it would NOT be activated for the next 10 years. Reagan refused to accept those terms and abruptly left Iceland without any meaningful agreement with Gorbachev nor any future plans to meet again. (Trump took similar action leaving Vietnam abruptly from his meeting with Kim)

Of course, the rest of that story is historical. Gorbachev came to Washington later to continue negotiations. Finally, President Reagan made a trip to Germany and made this historical speech in which he sent a direct message to Gorbachev:

Not long after Reagan’s nuclear negotiations with Gorbachev and this speech in Berlin, the demise of the Soviet Union began, and the Berlin Wall came down.

The U.S. Media Weigh-In with Politicians, Too

No doubt the similarities between Reagan and Gorbachev’s relationship have been compared to that of Trump and Kim Jung Un. That’s not saying that Gorbachev and Kim have personal similarities, but the conditions surrounding U.S. presidential meetings with a foreign leader over nuclear arms issues are VERY similar in nature.

Also, Trump in Vietnam walked out of his second meeting with Kim in a similar fashion as did Reagan in Iceland.

What other similarities are there? Democrats and The Media!

A spokesman for leading Democratic candidate and former vice president Joe Biden blasted Trump for “coddling” Kim “at the expense of American national security and interests.”
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who enjoys the second strongest following among the 2020 presidential aspirants, said the president was “squandering American influence on photo ops and exchanging love letters” with Kim.
Senator Bernie Sanders, almost next in popularity to Warren, said the move had “weakened the State Department.”
Samantha Vinograd, who served on the national security council under President Obama: “By shaking hands with Kim Jong Un at the DMZ with no preconditions attached, he’s really signaling that his metric for success at this point is the status quo, which is no long-range missile tests and no nuclear tests, but North Korea keeping its nuclear arsenal,” she said. Then she stated, “Kim has no reason to denuclearize, but every reason to push Trump for what he’s wanted all along, phased sanctions relief. North Korea under Trump is a normalized, nuclear power.”
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said on Twitter that while Trump and Kim met, “North Korea continues to build nuclear weapons. Another typical Trump ‘show.’”
Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said “We’ve seen a history here,” she said. “Donald Trump announces these summits and nothing really comes out of it.”
Despite the fact that there were four North Korean nuclear tests under President Obama and only one under President Trump, (none in almost 2 years) and Obama gave everything away to Cuba for nothing, Sunday’s editions of ABC’s Good Morning America and NBC’s Sunday Today rushed to declare Trump’s historic meeting with Kim Jong-un at the DMZ to be nothing more than just a photo op. “[T]his was the dramatic headline, the dramatic photo that the President wanted. He’s a great showman. He pulled it off. There’s just no question about that,” proclaimed ABC chief anchor and Clinton lackey George Stephanopoulos. Stephanopoulos argued that there were no political or substantive outcomes from Trump’s previous talks with the North Korean dictator.
There was an echo on NBC where host Willie Geist asked political director Chuck Todd: “Is there a plan from the Trump administration or was it a photo op?” Todd hinted at it being just that, noting: “The last two ended up looking as if they were photo ops in the end. We thought they could lead to something, but they didn’t.”

Summary

Here’s the question that everyone in the media is afraid to ask or answer: Is Donald Trump another Ronald Reagan? You know what: he just might be. Trump really liked Reagan. The two met several times and got along well. But that was long before Donald Trump ever became a politician. It’s humorous that both ended up with entertainment careers immediately prior to becoming politicians: Reagan as California governor after a Hollywood acting career, Trump as U.S. President after a short but very successful television stint.

Do the similarities stop there?

It’s fairly obvious that the Socialist Democrat Party and their communication arm — the Media — hope the current Reagan/Trump comparisons are short-lived. They cannot bear to think that Donald Trump might just pull-off a successful political career! His doing so would certainly complete the self-destruction of the floundering Trump-hating sycophants at MSNBC and CNN. There’s just too much money behind the Washington Post and the New York Times for them to disintegrate. But that’s NOT the Trump objective.

Donald Trump sincerely wants only an American success story full of wins for the American people!

He has NO political agenda other than that. And it drives the Left insane.

Here’s one last comparison of the two: Ronald Reagan’s most famous speech took place in front of a wall in Berlin in which he cried, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Democrats and their media henchmen cringe at the thought of Donald Trump ever being able to in McAllen, Texas or San Diego, California stand before network television cameras and say, “What do you think about this recently completed border wall between Mexico and the United States?”

Uncanny similarities between Reagan and Trump, don’t you think?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Slippery Slope Target: The Constitution

June 3, 2019

Why the rush to remove monuments, change names of Universities and sports teams all the while denigrating their historical meanings?

Actually, what we are seeing is the fulfillment of Barack Obama’s major campaign promise when running in 2008: “To fundamentally change America.” Think about it: how could one change a nation fundamentally without altering its history? He did not say he wanted to alter the course of America or to change the processes in the U.S. Government. No, he wanted to fundamentally change America.

“Fundamentally” America was structured to operate as the most unique country on Earth. Our forefathers took the best of the political frameworks of European countries and added to it “liberty and justice for all.” They then memorialized that new type of government in the roadmap of roadmaps — the U.S. Constitution. That document and its contents are the fundamental backbones of the United States of America. Sure, people fight over whether or not the framers intended for it to be used in perpetuity as literally written or that it be a “living, breathing,” the process of laws that morph in interpretation to fit the inevitable changes in American life as they happen. But the argument today by some is to alter not the interpretations of the intent of the framers but to actually add, delete, and/or change phrasing and wording of the document.

That seems to be the justification used for the efforts to destroy offending monuments and statues and the removal of slogans and stone markers from places highly visible to the public. Which specific offensive historical reminders should be removed and which should stay? That remains to be seen. Of course, there are many that vigorously object to ANY removal, strictly for historical purposes.

To me, removing, hiding, or changing locations of these pieces of history is not the danger I am writing about. What petrifies me is the slippery slope America is now at the brink of sliding down into an abyss of societal culture never before experienced in America. So far the only thing that has prevented that slide is the strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution and the greatest judicial system on Earth. However, that too is under attack.

The “Intent”

What did the Framers envision the Constitution to be? I think the best way to answer that question is to list the items in Article 1 Section 8 (powers of Congress) and Article 2 Section 2 (powers of the President) of the Constitution. Here is the link:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Upon reading these sections of the Constitution, most people will be shocked to see just how little power the Constitution gave to the new federal government. The federal government is mainly responsible for dealings with foreign countries such as treaties, commerce, wars., and little else (immigration, coining money, etc.). Yet today, Constitutional “detractors” on the Left want to tear up the Constitution and start from scratch!

We’ve all heard about the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Those are the first ten Amendments that are simply called the Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson and others involved in creating the U.S. Constitution had just after living under a European national government with top-down repressive and totalitarian operations for generations chose to move to a New World and establish a country that worked instead of top-down as a bottom-up governed nation.

The First Ten Amendments were the MOST important parts of the Constitution for those who had memories of awakening every day under that governmental oppression. Those ten amendments were written to make as easy as possible the understanding by all that the American people were creating a federal government that would operate using ONLY THOSE SPECIFIC RIGHTS AS GIVEN TO THAT GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE. No other federal government rights were ever to be used unless and until they were expressly given to the government by the People!

An all-powerful central government had destroyed Western Europe. Those American settlers wanted nothing to do with that lifestyle then and certainly not moving forward in the new nation.

What Did the Framers Actually Think?

Let’s look at their OWN words:

On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. —Thomas Jefferson

The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it. —James Wilson, in Of the Study of Law in the United States

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution, which at any time exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. … If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. — George Washington

Can it be of less consequence that the meaning of a Constitution should be fixed and known, than a meaning of a law should be so? — James Madison

The important distinction so well understood in America, between a Constitution established by the people and unalterable by the government, and a law established by the government and alterable by the government, seems to have been little understood and less observed in any other country. — James Madison

Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. … If it is, then we have no Constitution. — Thomas Jefferson

To take a single step beyond the text would be to take possession of a boundless field of power. — Thomas Jefferson

How does all this compare to what some contemporaries in politics had to say about the Constitution?

Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop. All that progressives ask or desire is permission—in an era when ‘development,’ ‘evolution,’ is the scientific word—to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine. — Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom, A Call For The Emancipation Of The Generous Energies Of A People

The United States Constitution has proved itself the most marvelously elastic compilation of rules of government ever written.” — Franklin Roosevelt, President

It is the genius of our Constitution that under its shelter of enduring institutions and rooted principles there is ample room for the rich fertility of American political invention. —Lyndon B. Johnson, President

The words of the Constitution … are so unrestricted by their intrinsic meaning or by their history or by tradition or by prior decisions that they leave the individual Justice free, if indeed they do not compel him, to gather meaning not from reading the Constitution but from reading life. —Felix Frankfurter, Supreme Court Justice

This understanding, underlying constitutional interpretation since the New Deal, reflects the Constitution’s demands for structural flexibility sufficient to adapt substantive laws and institutions to rapidly changing social, economic, and technological conditions. — Stephen Breyer, Supreme Court Justice, Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority

I cannot accept this invitation [to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution], for I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention … To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start. —Thurgood Marshall, Supreme Court Justice

It can be lost, and it will be, if the time ever comes when these documents are regarded not as the supreme expression of our profound belief, but merely as curiosities in glass cases. —Harry Truman, President

If we’re picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience a ‘new’ Constitution, we should not look principally for good lawyers. We should look to people who agree with us. When we are in that mode, you realize we have rendered the Constitution useless. —Antonin Gregory Scalia, Supreme Court Justice

Just talk to me as a father—not what the Constitution says. What do you feel? — Joe Biden, Vice President

The Thread of Commonality

Wow! All of those quoted above — those from the 1700s, the 1800s and the 1900s as well as this century — represent different perspectives and different understandings of the intent of the framers and the actual meaning of the Constitution. But, thankfully, they acknowledge the significance of our nation actually having a roadmap to American governing that is recognized as the greatest in the World.

But there’s on more commonality that runs very obviously through each: Opinion. Yep. Each of those who weighed in with thoughts did so based on opinion — THEIR opinion.

And who among us is any different?

Several things about the framer’s offerings are very obvious:

they recognized that they could not foretell the future and therefore could not imagine what legalities their great, great, great, great grandchildren would face but would still need the Constitution for guidance;
they acknowledged that events in the future would dictate the necessity of flexibility in interpretations demanded by contemporary and unimagined occurrences in American life at the time of its creation;
they knew there would, therefore, be demands for actual editing of their original constitution.

To anticipate exactly how to adjudicate these future certainties they knew was a possibility in the 18th century. They therefore brilliantly included the ability and the process to alter the Constitution. That process is called “Amending.” But because of the importance of the strictest adherence to the blueprint of governing they created, they purposely made the amendment process extremely difficult. Why?

They hated the political process and knew that if allowed, that process would destroy true freedom created by the Constitution. They knew that political partisanship would initiate continuous amending of the Constitution not to better serve the basis of the Laws of the People, but to only satisfy the hunger for political power for the elite. They had lived through that and knew it could NOT be allowed to devour this new nation.

Democracy or Republic?

The cries from partisan political parties for either a Democracy or a Republic for a description of the form of government established by the Constitution have gone back and forth for the life of the United States. The winds of the political party in power have determined which form is desired at the time.

Jefferson and Company knew this would happen. They made clear how the U.S. government would work. And they guaranteed Americans would live in a Representative Republic with the establishment of the Electoral College that governs the process of electing the U.S. “Executive in Chief,” the President and Vice President. Also, states are to determine U.S. Senators: 2 from each state originally appointed by each state’s governor but changed via Amendment to be elected by each state’s electorate, Members that serve in the “People’s House,” Congress, are still elected by voters from each House district in each state.

Today, the political Left doesn’t accept the structure of the Republic, rejecting it for instead a Democratic government. Why? In a pure Democracy, there ARE no federal representatives of the People. Each person gets one vote. That sounds reasonable, right? Consider this:

”IF” the U.S. was a true Democracy, every federal election outcome would simply be what those from the states of California, New York, Illinois, Florida, and Texas voted to be. Election results would be determined solely by the most heavily populated states and their voters’ desires. “Fly-over” Americans would have no say so at all in their government.

Without the Electoral College, Hillary Clinton would be President instead of Donald Trump. That was the choice of the U.S. popular vote when the Electoral College elected Trump in something of a landslide. The same happened in the Bush 43 presidential elections.

Summary

So what’s fair?

That answer is simple: NOT A DEMOCRACY.

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99 percent vote.

True democracy is the tyranny of the majority. True democracy is mob rule. Thankfully we do not live in a democracy. We live in a republic. Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican form of government….”

And living in this republic means that every voice matters, majorities do not rule, and those with the loudest voices do not automatically win.

The will of the People means ALL the People.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

A “One State Solution,” or is it “Two?”

May 15, 2019

For most of my life, I’ve listened in on the conflict between the Palestinians and the Jews. I specifically entered the world of international politics as a result of the 1967 war between the two. Beginning then — and still to this day — I watch and listen to the ongoing feud between Israel and the Palestinians over a piece of land praying we don’t have another war.

“How could any country — even Israel — take land from another country, hold onto to it, settle it, with no regard for its rightful and native people?” That’s the narrative most often used in discussions about these ongoing conflicts — from the Palestinian perspective. Of course, the Israeli version sounds much different. There are infrequent but deadly skirmishes between the two and much political rhetoric that is really just arguing with everybody claiming “their” land and “their” rights and always at the expense of the other.

So what IS the truth of the matter? Who owns what? Who SHOULD own what? What is the history of all this? How can it be resolved IF it even can be resolved?

When in doubt, it’s always good to get facts. That’s just what we’ve done!

The Nation of Palestine

There is NO nation of Palestine. In fact, there never has been. So where did all this uproar begin and over what? Let’s examine the “modern” history of the two entities.

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947 proposed to divide the geographical region of Palestine into two independent countries: one with a Jewish majority and one with the Arab majority. The leadership of the Jews in the region accepted the plan; the leadership of the Arabs didn’t.

In 1948 the leader of the Jews, David Ben-Gurion, declared an independent Jewish country named Israel according to this plan. The local Arabs, assisted by armies of the neighboring Arab countries, attacked this state, beginning a war called “The War of Independence” in Israel. Israel won, in the sense that it did not succumb and kept its sovereignty within borders that were larger than what the 1947 U.N. plan allotted it. (A large part of the vitriol between the two comes from the United Nations allotment of 1947. I too wonder, “How does the U.N. have the power to determine any nation or nations’ borders? As a matter of international law, THEY DON’T!

When a ceasefire was reached, the northern part of the lands that (according to the U.N. plan) were supposed to become an Arab state (Western Galilee) became Israeli territory and the Arabs who lived there received Israeli citizenship. The central part, known as Judea and Samaria or the West Bank, became part of the Kingdom of Jordan, and the southern part, known as the Gaza strip became part of Egypt. In the process, many Arabs left their homes and became known as the Palestinian refugees.

For the next 19 years, Israel kept developing and absorbed many Jewish refugees from Arab countries. The idea of an Arab state in Palestine was somewhat forgotten, but Israel kept having conflicts with neighboring Arab countries, and the climax of this was the 1967 Six-day War. In the short, but intense, war, the Israeli army occupied all of the West Bank and Gaza. In 1948 these territories were supposed to become an Arab state, but in practice, they were administered by Jordan and Egypt and nobody complained much. After Israel took over, the idea of a Palestinian state was revived and pushed intensely.

In 1988 the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) declared an independent state of Palestine. It didn’t specify the borders, but it did specify that it is an Arab state. This declaration was symbolic because this organization worked in Tunisia and had no effective presence in the land of Palestine.

In 1993 Israel signed the Oslo accords with this organization, establishing the Palestinian National Authority, effectively giving the PLO partial sovereignty in part of the West Bank and Gaza. In Israel, it is frequently called “autonomy” or “authority.” It has its own passport, police, and government. Some countries recognize it as an independent state and call it “State of Palestine,” but this recognition is not universal.

As of 2019, the conflict with Israel continues, because the authority, as well as other Palestinian organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad have significant demands, most notably: sovereignty over more land, sovereignty in the city of Jerusalem or at least a part of it, giving Palestinian refugees the right to return to their homes, and stopping the enhancement of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank (or destroying them completely). Israel declared several times that it is willing to discuss these things, but it demands from all Palestinian organizations to stop all violent acts against Israel.

So What’s the HubBub?

Palestinians adamantly claim that Israel stole Palestinian land. What do Israeli’s say?

“Israel did not steal Palestinian land. It’s not Palestinians’ land; it’s never been their land. This land was given to the Jewish people, as stated in the Bible, by the Creator. Despite 27 invasions of Judea and Samaria (called the West Bank), conquests by many, forced conversions, exiles, massive oppression, generations of Diaspora, and cowardly acquiescence by a group of 5^th-column Jews themselves, Jews have not only survived in what’s known in Hebrew as Eretz Yisrael (Israel), but they’ve taken a desert wasteland and turned it into a powerful little democracy, the envy of the world. That cannot be denied.

To her detractors, of whom there are many worldwide, the mantra remains the same, ad nauseam. ‘Israel is complicit in doing this. She omitted doing that.’ ‘We respect Judaism but are against Zionism.’

Attempting to mask anti-Semitism as anti-Zionism, Israel’s enemies continually make accusations in such numbers that much of it sticks. To cite just a few:

Myth: “Israel discriminates against its Arab citizens.” The facts show otherwise. Israel is one of the most open societies in the world. Out of a population of 6.7 million, 1.1 million are Muslims, 130,000 are Christians, and 100,000 are Druze. All have equal voting rights — Israel is one of a very few places where Arab women have the right to vote, and Arabs currently hold 14 seats in the Knesset.
Following a five-year trial, in a landmark decision for women’s rights, an Arab judge, Salim Joubran, sentenced the former president of Israel, Moshe Katsav, to seven years in prison for rape. In what Muslim country do Jews have such rights? How many seats do Jews hold in the Saudi government or Jordan? Can anyone recall a Jewish judge sentencing a prominent Arab in Egypt? More to the point, has anyone ever heard of a Jewish judge in Egypt?

Myth: “The Palestinian Authority protects Jewish holy sites.” If so, one important element blocking a sincere peace would be eliminated, but the facts speak otherwise. Just in the years between 1996-2000:
In September 1996, Palestinian rioters destroyed a synagogue at Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus.
Rachel’s Tomb near Bethlehem has been repeatedly attacked since 1996.
In October 2000, Joseph’s Tomb was torched after the Israeli garrison guarding it was temporarily withdrawn. It was subsequently rebuilt as a mosque.
In October 2000, the ancient synagogue in Jericho was destroyed by arson, and a second historic synagogue was damaged.

In textbooks, speech, and daily life, the Palestinians and their supporters deny any Jewish connection at all to these ancient landmarks. This all occurs under nominal Israeli control of these areas.

Why the continuous uproar between Israel and the Palestinians that frequently break out in skirmishes, rocket fire, and deaths in both groups as a result?

“The Jews are building settlements on Palestinian land.”

The issue here that started and perpetuates the animus between the two is there is no Palestinian land. We did extensive research and found no historical evidence of there ever being a Palestinian country with national borders. If there were, when would it have been founded, and by whom? What would its borders have been, and what about the name of its capital? What would its major cities have been? What would have constituted the basis of its economy? What form of government would it have lived under?

Was Palestine ever recognized as an entity by another country? By whom? What was the language of the country called Palestine? What was Palestine’s religion? What was the name of its currency? Since there is no such country today, what caused her demise?

These questions were posed by a Japanese writer, Yashiko Sagamori. Only the most adherent of the Palestinian narrative could even attempt to answer her questions shared above. Pose these same questions regarding Israel and the Jewish connection to this land, each can be answered.

The History

At no time in history has there ever been a nation called Palestine. During the Ottoman Empire, which lasted from 1299-1922, the land dubbed by the Romans as Palestine was controlled by the Turks; there was never an outcry for a Palestinian State then. During the illegal annexation of Judea and Samaria by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan subsequent to the 1949 Armistice and prior to 1967, there was never talk of “occupied territory” or a Palestinian State. Why did the dynamic change subsequent to Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War — a conflict initiated by Palestinians?

Search as you will — throughout the annals of history, Israel is the only nation victorious in war on successive occasions and then expected by the vanquished and the world at large to sue for peace, to cede land she reclaimed that was historically hers, to begin with.

The Jewish people were driven out of Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria by the Babylonians. They returned to their homeland and rebuilt the Second Temple only to have it burned again, this time by Romans, and to be once again exiled from their land.

Despite 27 invasions and conquests subsequent to the Grand Monarchy of Kings David and Solomon, Jews have always had a contiguous connection to this land. If not the land of Israel, where are Jews from? Poland? Ukraine? Russia?

Perusing World history, it seems that the Jewish people have a legitimate claim moreso than any other to their historic homeland, and certainly more so than the Palestinian Arabs do.

But it is obvious that Palestinians do NOT agree with that statement. They have fought to the death in the past to show their disagreement. And unless somehow a mutual agreement is reached, they certainly will fight and die again.

The “Two-State” Solution

The two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict envisions an independent State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel, west of the Jordan River. The boundary between the two states is still subject to dispute and negotiation, with Palestinian and Arab leadership insisting on the “1967 borders,” which is not accepted by Israel. The territory of the former Mandate Palestine (including Jerusalem) would continue to be part of Israel.

In 1974, a UN resolution on the “Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine” called for “two States, Israel and Palestine … side by side within secure and recognized borders” together with “a just resolution of the refugee question in conformity with UN resolution 194.” The borders of the state of Palestine would be “based on the pre-1967 borders.” The latest resolution, in November 2013, was passed 165 to 6, with 6 abstentions; with Israel and the United States voting against.

The Palestinian leadership has embraced the concept since the 1982 Arab Summit in Fez, Morocco. Israel views moves by Palestinian leaders to obtain international recognition of a State of Palestine as being unilateral action by the Palestinians and inconsistent with a negotiated two-state solution.

Summary

Why are we at TruthNewsNetwork making such a big deal out 0f the continuing conflict between these two peoples? Simple: it seems that the conflict is escalating. The recent large number of rockets fired into Israel by Palestinians (or maybe from terrorist groups hiding among the Palestinians) may be a message that they are about to mount a push to take territory from Israel. Hamas and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard — recently labeled as a terrorist organization — both have strongholds among the Palestinians. Most people know the hatred held by these and other terrorist organizations for Israel and the Jewish people.

Further escalating U.S. conversation about the issues between Palestinians and Israelis are the very vocal freshmen Congressional members who are Muslim and who do very vocally back the Palestinians in this conflict with Israel: Somali-born Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Palestinian-American Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). Both have since being elected been embroiled in several serious debates for remarks they have made that are very pointed reminders that they do NOT support Israel and both vehemently oppose a Two-state solution. Their many comments primarily from national talk show interviews seem to many to be outward anti-semitism. Regardless of the validity of that, it is obvious of their support for the Palestinian people in this conversation.

So what will happen regarding the possible resolution? Conventional wisdom says Israel and the Palestinians should work out a mutually acceptable solution. That would be wonderful for everyone else in the World! But it is unlikely to happen. Both peoples have repeatedly marked their point in the sand and have dug-in. Both refuse to budge. Sadly, the losers in that political war of words has been and will continue to be the Palestinian people and Israelis who find themselves in the middle of a political conflict of which they play no part.

There is no doubt the U.S. has been a long time and devoted ally of Israel as are almost all democratic countries in the World. Backing the Palestinian efforts are the obvious countries who are primarily Muslim. Several Middle East countries known for their terrorist activities have and probably will continue to play less than desirable roles in this conflict that seems to just keep going.

If it comes down to another armed conflict, the sense is that Israel — sporting the most powerful military in that region — would unleash its might and power against the Palestinians. The West shudders at that thought because almost certainly if that happens, surrounding countries who are pro-Palestinian militant entities will certainly unite in an all-out effort to forcefully take if not all of Israel the portion claimed by the Palestinians.

I hope we don’t see that conflict. I have no idea what countries in the region have in military assets, but I’m certain Israel has more. And Israel has nuclear weapons — that’s a scary thought!

Maybe that conflict between the two has already been named. I hope not! The conflict I’m thinking of is the Last Battle on Earth, known as Armageddon.

I’d rather not go down that road.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

The “Real” London Rally

July 21, 2018

NO PODCAST TODAY

We all know just how negative the Media is regarding anything positive about/for Donald Trump. We all know Mainstream Media’s #1 goal is to publish, show, share EVERYTHING they can get their hands on that sheds a bad light on the President, his staff, his family members, and every policy he has implemented through legislation and with executive action.

That especially holds true for his foreign trips to meet with leaders of other countries: Kim Jong Un of North Korea, 50 Muslim countries leaders, G7, NATO, Japan, China, to name a few.

In one leg of his most recent trip, Mr. Trump stopped to meet the Queen and Prime Minister of the U.K. Pictures and videos of the massive protests against the President were EVERYWHERE. The American media breathlessly chronicled every step of his visit to the U.K., fawning over the Brits and their obvious disdain for the American president — like members of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe:”

It’s hard to believe that Mika and Joe during the early stages of the Trump Campaign actually supported Candidate Trump. Their “journalistic objectivity” went South along with their support of Trump when he reportedly shunned the two who wanted to have dinner with him at Mar Lago. They immediately joined the “Never Trumpers” and have spewed non-stop venom continuously since. They and their guests derided the President for having the audacity to make a stop in London. Assuredly (according to Morning Joe) Brits hate the U.S. President. MSNBC along with every other American news outlet showed the balloon of a diapered Donald Trump over and over again during the protests. Based on the press coverage before the protests, I thought the balloon was going to be massive — similar to those at the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. When it was shown live and in context, it was quite unimpressive. I thought the Brits were a bit more artistic than that balloon evidenced!

Hard to Believe

It gets tougher and tougher each day to scan through the “news” — if we can call it that — and determine which stories to believe and which to ignore. Quite honestly, seldom does ANY story contain just plain facts. All stories seem to come to readers/viewers/listeners always wrapped in a filter of opinion of whoever wrote or edited each story.

I am certain news publishers and editors understand that and are presenting their stories purposely in the manner in which we get them. But the “in-your-face” manner in which we receive our news has morphed into being not news at all, but a political hit piece story after story, day after day, that always feed the politically correct narrative those who create those stories want Americans to receive.

Here is the problem with this process continuing going forward: many who receive those stories the way they are given by the media are conditioned to simply accept the obviously “spun” message with the filtered political perspective as-is. Before you are tempted to look down on those who do so, remember this: for all of us baby-boomers, in those decades of our youth when the only news sources we had were local newspapers and radio with just three national television networks that each had one affiliate in each market. Every story we read in local papers, heard on our favorite radio station, and saw from Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, and Frank Reynolds on CBS, NBC, and ABC Television News, we benignly accepted as factual — as news. Was it?

We are blessed today to have a multitude of news sources in this instant 24/7 media world. But that blessing often morphs into a curse. Those edits and filters that news producers, directors, anchors, and reporters use certainly jade the messages sent to us. How we receive and process that “news information” is OUR responsibility.

Regarding the President and his stay in London: what we saw and heard was definitely presented with filtered perspectives. We saw the huge protest crowds and heard some raucous speeches from several of those protestors. But what we did NOT see or hear was any positive position-taking by any individual Britts or groups.

Guess what: there WERE some. Watch and listen:

Yes, that was a Pro-Trump rally held in London during the President’s trip.

What: you didn’t see it? You didn’t hear about it?

What’s Up with That?

The two videos above illustrate the entire point of what Americans MUST do with today’s news media: we MUST process what we see and hear through a prism of “questioning.” That means we each need to develop our news summaries using a default position of simple fact collection without drawing an immediate conclusion. Then let that questioning prism guide us to sources for confirmation for validation of those “facts” we see and hear. We must NOT be fearful of ultimate disposal of that “news” that is fake or maybe just someone’s political perspective. (Wouldn’t it be easier for us if they would just tell us when something they say is editorial commentary?)

I bet you didn’t see or hear about that Pro-Trump rally in London even from FOX News, did you? No news organization today is exempt from holding skewed political perspectives. And humans being what we are, no one can totally obliterate personal opinion from affecting how we do what we do on a daily basis. “The Truth Will Out” — and it DOES.

These news events — especially with high definition video confirmation of the contents of each — make major impacts on our impressionable minds. Even without color and HD, major news events coverage changes people for generations.

Two such things impacted my life for eternity. The first was from John F. Kennedy’s inauguration. His line of instruction to Americans, “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country,” touched me deeply and has stuck with me since I saw/heard it. I was in the first grade!

One late morning sitting in my 5th-grade class at Edgar Martin Elementary in Lafayette, Louisiana, the P.A. system suddenly crackled to life and began blaring a radio news report. President Kennedy had been shot in Dallas! Our principal, Mr. Beadle, — with no notice or warning — simply clicked the radio broadcast on the P.A. system. J.F.K.’s assassination rocked my world that day and it STILL impacts my life.

News — REAL news — should chronicle important occurrences in the United States and the World AND DO NOTHING MORE.

Summary

Here’s what we need to be prepared for: Leftist Mainstream Media coverage of conservatives, conservative policies, and this President — as negative as it is already — will continue to grow more and more negative and nastier the closer we get to the Midterm elections. I hate to think about how vitriolic I know it will get from here until 2020. For some reason, these Leftist media hacks feel empowered by a supernatural force to exhaust every negative they can muster to denigrate the G.O.P. and President Trump.

How do we prepare? Be vigilant. My temptation in the face of it all is to turn the television off or watch HGTV or the Cooking Channel. Escaping to peaceful television is tempting. But we all need to make certain the midterms are driven not by emotion and liberal rhetoric, but driven by policy presented through truthful and through messaging. That will NEVER happen from Mainstream Media. For that matter, FOX News — though more professional than most of their competitors — still shows more Leftist bias than in previous election cycles.

Truth is all we need. Truth if presented WHEN presented does not need our help, our explanations, or our editorial. Truth is substantial and all-consuming when implemented.

Americans get the Media. And it IS tiring to watch, listen, and read the constant barrage of hate-speech thrown at Conservatives. But consider this: those who spew venom at Conservatives and their causes, in doing so speak far more about themselves than about those whom they attack.

Put the truth out there; it can take care of itself. And try if you can to keep as much emotion out of YOUR messaging as possible. Certainly, strong emotion regarding issues will always assist in getting messaging received. But too strong and too emotional in the presentation will cause people to react and respond just as Conservatives are responding today to Liberals.

The video above proves that many people in the World — the “Silent Majority” — are smart enough to watch and listen to the substance of each message they see and hear regarding policies. And as they do, they are smart enough to discern the Truth of it all.

Let’s all be one of the smart ones.

It Takes an Immigrant

January 8, 2018

I was up at 4:00 this morning — don’t sleep a lot. Turned the television on for early news and The Patriot was on. I’ve watched it at least 30 times. In fact I purposely watch it at least once a year. Why?

War in America

Colonel Benjamin Martin of the Colonial Army Militia lived a story that every American should know — should study. We should understand what happened to early settlers in the New World while still under the domination of the ruthless government of England’s King George. Martin led a rag-tag group of farmers, ministers, teenagers, with a few former soldiers mixed in against the largest, best trained, and best funded military on Earth. Why? American colonists wanted to finish what they fled Europe for: to build a free nation with self government. King George did not take to that idea too well.

That war killed thousands, tore families apart, destroyed homes, farms, towns, plantations and the government. But most of those colonial colonists held on to that dream of independence, re-grouped again and again to maintain their independence. Driving the British from American soil was not a hope — it was a must. And they did.

Another War

In a hotel restaurant in Modesto I saw an actor friend having breakfast. He came to my table to say hello. He gushed about a movie premier he had seen two nights before at his good friend Mel Gibson’s home. My actor friend (I will not give his name) is a Christian as was the movie. It was “The Passion of the Christ” — 3 Oscar Nominations, $612 million gross in its theatrical release, and remains the highest grossing non-English language film of all time.

That movie re-told a well-worn story to the World that personalized for all the last days of Christ. Its success came from its ability to relate to all. Jim Caviezel depicted better than any before the horrors of Christ’s last days. When I saw the movie the first time I sat riveted by its message to the World of the Savior. It changed me. How so?

My world as that of most Americans had numbed to the Christianity of my youth — my “personal relationship with Jesus.” Once more I was confronted with a real person who really lived and really died. But that was just the beginning — for the World AND for me.

Tie the Two Together

The Patriot vividly chronicled what is probably the single most important historical American event. There would be no USA without The Revolutionary War. Every tenet of our political system, every freedom, every social culture is a result of that war.

The Passion of the Christ chronicled what millions believe to be the most important person in World history. It did so in a manner that was identifiable to all who watched. Its magnetic attraction to its message imparted to all its viewers the realities of not only Jesus Christ the human being, but Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Both movies because of their messages and impact became and are still very controversial. Both have assisted in lighting the current Winds of War in America. And isn’t it ironic that both movies with their life-changing historical messages were given to us by an Immigrant — Mel Gibson!

Winds of War

The winds of war I refer to are those that were born here at home. They are not from the Heartland. They were birthed on the East and West coasts, the products of an ideology unrecognized by most Americans until recently. Those winds are of Fear and Hate. And just as the raging fires in California are still burning, so too are these winds.

These winds were sparked by a socialist education environment that now permeates American schools at every level. They birthed Antifa, Socialism and Supremacy’s rebirths, Me-ism, Elitism, and Political Correctness. It fanned Racism into a frenzy unseen in decades.

Other sparks ignited fires in churches whose messages for men turned from the person of God to the person of Man — Humanism. More and more Americans have slipped into a world where MAN is in total control of everything in HIS life and with total disregard of any responsibility for others. Americanism, Christianity, have no place there. But Fear and Hate are thriving.

Some will say that Fear and Hate have always lived among men. No doubt that is true. But because of historical events that called Men of every race, creed, and religion together for specific causes, Men have always found their way back to the fundamentals that made America the greatest nation in World history. Not so today. Certainly enemies have been and are there, but Men, because of their Hate and Fear that have dissolved into Political Correctness, cannot point out that foe for fear of stepping over the line. There are some that have anyway. Boy have they paid a steep price.

Fear and Hate have fragmented every social, religious, and political institution in America. Just look at Congress, the White House, the Media, churches and denominations. Races have turned against those of other races. Religious people regularly question the ideals of those of other religions. Those from political parties hate other party members. And the Fight of the Sexes is now at a fever pitch. Immorality runs rampant as does crime.

Historically, life in the U.S. has been cyclical: things are really tough for a while, get better for a while, get tough again, and then drastically improve. One can say we are in a “down cycle” right now and to not worry, the “uptick” is just moments away. I fear, however, the cyclical recovery this time will fail because it cannot successfully deal with the Fear and Hate that has rooted itself into the hearts of Americans.

What Next?

Previous down cycles in America sparked a Civil War, the War of 1812, two World Wars, the Korean conflict, Vietnam, Iraq, 9/11, and ISIS. Each time (until this time) Americans have dropped bias, racism, sexism, fear and hate and have pulled together for a common cause: the defeat of the enemy. That happened in these two movies, too. We won the Revolutionary War and Jesus won that battle — He conquered Death. But Americans always love to revel in the good times — maybe for too long. And in today’s U.S. when something bad happens, we simply bury our heads in the sand and act like it’s not there. But it IS there, whether we confront it or not.

Do we need another World War or a nuclear fight with North Korea or another 9/11 to scare us back onto the right track? I would love to say we do not….but maybe we do. What we certainly need is to lay aside our Me-ism and Humanism and narcissistic attitudes and understand there is a Higher Power, that we can do nothing good of ourselves but for that Higher Power, that the Higher Power is a God that our forefathers sought guidance from, prayed to, thanked for His blessings, and sought to teach others of His ways. Don’t jump on me about a “separation of Church and State.” SCOTUS got that wrong! Factually through hundreds of documents our Founders insisted to make and keep God at the center of our Nation in perpetuity. There was NEVER an attempt to found a national religion — which was one reason for their hasty departure from England. In the Constitution they clearly stated that and promised there would be freedom of religion for all AND no national church.

God is NOT a church building and He does NOT own any. God resides in the hearts of men. If men do not recognize that, we are doomed to a possible permanent down cycle in America. 9/11 worked for a bit. But it didn’t take long for the old Winds of War — Fear and Hate — to jump back up into the drivers seat and start doing what they do again — driving us down the wrong path.

WE CAN STOP THAT……IF we want to.

Jesus said that what we do wrong is NOT our sin — the state of our hearts and minds that allow us to justify those things is our sin. We can CHOOSE to do the right things. We can reject Fear and Hate. We can turn to God to once again and reject the totalitarian ways of Humanism that have taken hold of our Nation.

It will take some Benjamin Martins to commit to simply do the right things. It will take a BUNCH of Benjamin Martins.

Jesus started it all for us.

Who’s in?

NOKO

September 17, 2017

Why has nothing been done to stop the North Korean nuclear threat to the World?

Let’s be honest: the United States has the #1 military in the World, the #1 Intelligence operations in the World, and a history of strategically and quietly “taking out” foreign leaders and others who have been a far less danger to the U.S. than Kim Jong Un. With the capabilities of the U.S. from drone strikes to late-night Seal team visits, it is unfathomable that no one has sent this despot to La La Land. Why is that?

Before we analyze the “Why Not’s,” here’s the latest NOKO “news:”

“North Korean strongman Kim Jong Un said his country is close to achieving military ‘equilibrium’ with the United States as a way to make American leaders “dare not talk” about military options for dealing with Pyongyang. Kim’s comments Saturday came a day after the rogue country fired its latest missile over Japan, a test the United Nations Security Council strongly condemned as ‘highly provocative.’ The U.N. slapped North Korea with new sanctions just days ago in response to a powerful Sept. 3 nuclear test. The dictator said the country’s final goal ‘is to establish the equilibrium of real force with the U.S. and make the U.S. rulers dare not talk about military option for the DPRK,’ referring to North Korea’s official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, according to the state-run Korean Central News Agency.

Forget about the tense atmosphere that all in Japan must feel daily with the constant threat of an ever present North Korean missile attack. Those alarms that sound in northern Japanese villages when Kim lobs another missile their way must terrify those locals, not knowing which alarm will be the “real deal.” What about the 30+ million people just miles south of the North Korean border? Those Seoul residents could literally be annihilated from the north in just a matter of minutes not just by a nuclear attack, but by the thousands and thousands of heavy artillery shells that Kim could fire their way at the drop of a hat. And there are thousands of Americans — some in the military, some just private citizens — in Seoul as well. And then there’s Guam that is just a stones throw away in the Pacific.

Kim Jong Un is a ticking time bomb — a “nuclear” time bomb.

So why hasn’t some country (or group of countries) mounted a strategic plan to rid the starving citizens of North Korea, the rest of Asia, and the rest of the World of this despot who is set on doing one thing and one thing only: starting a nuclear holocaust? I don’t think there is just one good answer. But there are quite a few hypotheses about why no one has even tried to take Kim out — or least no one that we know of. Here are some possible reasons:

There really IS a plan. But whoever is responsible for the plan’s implementation is waiting for a strategic time to “go.” But who could that someone be? And from what country?
The plan is actually underway. That could explain why so many of the North Korean rockets fired have exploded shortly after takeoff — showing Kim that the West has the ability to terminate any missile launch he tries. Kim could just be proving to other World leaders that he is not intimidated by the West — especially the United States — and that he will stand in the face of anyone that takes him on. In this scenario he sees no realistic way to move forward from the current missile tests, but it gives him the opportunity to show off to the World;
At any moment a CIA, Mossad or MI6 agent is prepared to slip into Kim’s sleeping quarters and quietly quieten him permanently. There is no doubt the U.S., the U.K., and Israel have such capability. One wonders why these three nation’s leaders have not yet pulled the trigger;
China is propping-up Kim on the World stage and has notified the U.N. Security Council they have him under wraps and to just leave him alone. That would possibly mean Kim has something on Chinese President Xi that has given the despot leverage to allow him to keep making noise. After all, Xi could starve every North Korean to death simply by stopping supplying Kim with necessities NOK needs to survive. China could easily totally blockade North Korea that would destroy it in 60-90 days without firing a shot;

Xi as the strongest leader in Asia may have an alliance with Putin or some other leaders to use Kim to keep the U.S. military occupied while they plan and prepare some coup or takeover of some other country or countries like happened with Crimea and the Ukraine. Certainly President Trump and his intelligence team and military leaders spend quite a bit of time in discussions about North Korea and what should be done;
The last possibility (at least in my mind) is the scariest: maybe just maybe the NOK leader really plans to attack the U.S. Doing so would be certain suicide for him and millions in Asia. But knowing he has the United States backed into a corner with very few options at dealing with him, he may simply be waiting to play his trump card: multiple ICBM missiles tipped with nuclear warheads headed toward the U.S.

Summary

I learned a long time ago that the government is usually doing far more backstage than in front of the curtain. Certainly that is the case with Kim Jong Un and North Korea. It is scary, however, knowing that almost everything going on in D.C. is exposed daily by leakers, and nothing about any surreptitious plan to take Kim Jong Un out has been leaked to the press. I just hope there are some concrete options in place just in case the idiot in Asia with his finger on the nuclear trigger doesn’t cough so hard chomping on a hot dog he accidentally squeezes that trigger. I am confident he actually believes it’s no big deal for him to threaten the U.S. and the rest of the Free World everyday with missile tests. What did Forrest Gump call it: “Stupid is as Stupid does?”

Whether or not you are a praying person, I suggest you spend some reflective time with the Creator finding peace that you will be OK no matter what. Only God knows the real options for this nightmare. Let’s pray and hope that someone somehow will get through to the little dictator and get him to understand he can make a really big mark on history by negotiating some really good things for his People by putting his nuclear proliferation plans on the negotiating table.

He’s dealing with a really good negotiator. It seems that right now they’re at an impasse. The first to blink may be the one to lose. I don’t think President Trump is going to blink.

In Memory…..

May 29, 2017

“Freedom is not Free.” We’ve heard that again and again through the years. It sounds pretty hollow to some. But to others: not so much. Those are the ones whose family members have paid in part the price for our freedom by giving their lives. While we are at the lake, cooking out, playing golf or bicycling, visiting loved ones on our day off, let’s pause for at least one moment and say, “Thanks” — thanks for all of those who gave their lives and for those who were left behind who together paid (and many are still paying) that price.

A number of years ago I sat with my father-in-law in the Pearl Harbor WWII theater watching the movie presentation of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor 75 years ago. It was gut wrenching to say the least. After the movie, we all boarded small boats for the short jaunt out to the Arizona Memorial in the Harbor. As we stood there looking down into the water, droplets of oil and air bubbles popped at the surface. The oil and air came from the Arizona down below where a couple of thousand valiant Americans are entombed, left there forever. Thousands of men and women gave their lives in that “War to end all Wars” that didn’t end all wars. But there are today still thousands of men, women, and children whose loved ones paid that price in places all over the Globe to protect and maintain the freedom in the greatest country in World history. Most would do it again if they were asked to.