General James Clapper, Jr., Former Director, National intelligence (April 2017)
Are they fomenting revolution?
Bu Dr. Larry Fedewa (July 7, 2020)
(Washington DC) — There have recently been calls from retired senior officers for active commanders to disobey a presidential order to use federal troops to assist local law enforcement in establishing law and order in some of America’s cities should such an order be given.
The first such call came from James Mattis, Trump’s one time Secretary of Defense, who is also a retired Marine Corps General. He was followed by retired General John Kelly, former Trump Chief of Staff, and Admiral Michael Mullen, Obama Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and several others.
The Hoover Institute’s Victor Davis Hanson wrote a detailed critique of the remarks of several of the most prominent retired senior officers for the National Review (June 2020) which began with this statement:
“In a time of crisis, their synchronized chorus of complaints, falsehoods, and partisan appeals to resistance threaten the very constitutional order they claim to revere.” (ibid) Keep Reading
The original poem was written in 1960 and proved remarkably prescient of the .events to follow in the eventful 1960;s. It was the basis for this poem which was written in 2012, at the height if the Obama era, and has proven predictive of events up to the current civil unrest. It expresses, I think, the challenges we face today when our very freedom is stake.
The hallmark of America’s genius since July 4, 1776 has been our ability to conceive and follow as our guiding star, our God-given right “to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” A major component of this ideal is “equal justice under the law”, which has seen a long, slow, and costly struggle, including a war which cost more American casualties than all the other wars combined. And we have come a long way since 1776. But not far enough.
Some of our fellow Americans have become impatient — and rightfully so — with the fact that this goal has not yet been achieved. Unfortunately, in their impatience, they have attacked the wrong target. Equality before the law does not require the suspension of the law or even of enforcement of the law. It means better laws, better standards and practices of the police, better judges, and better judgement on the part of each of us.
Racism in the sense of preference for our own kind may be an unfortunate characteristic of the human condition, but it must never be allowed to cloud our judgement of right and wrong. On the contrary, we must fight against it, as in the parable of the Good Samaritan. We can strive continuously and sincerely to expand our sense of “our own kind” to include all Americans, and the Christian ideal of “all humankind”.
The history of the past three centuries has proven America more successful than any other civilization ever “so conceived and so dedicated”. We cannot, we must not, give up now! Those who threaten our way of life must be overcome at all costs! We have to endure our shortcomings as we seek to eliminate them. Our individual freedom is a requirement to achieve these lofty goals, but they will never be achieved by mob rule. As Americans we must be true to our heritage. It is our only hope for the advancement of human rights. America is still the shining city on the hill and a beacon of light to the world, but only if we continue to protect it.
There are free market solutions for these issues waiting for GOP support
By Dr. Larry Fedewa (February 11, 2020)
On most of the issues highlighting the 2020 campaign, the Republicans have a great story, especially the economy, law enforcement, foreign policy (including trade), national security, energy, and job creation. The Democrats have concentrated on three critical issues, however, which are nearly ignored by most Republicans: the wealth gap, health care, and climate change
These issues are currently owned by the Democrat candidates; they have not even been addressed directly by the Republicans. This silence is a tragic mistake because current polls show that these three issues are of critical importance to significant numbers of the American electorate. If Republican candidates continue to ignore these two issues, they will suffer in the only polls that really count – the votes in November.
Today’s topic is the wealth gap, with discussions of health care and climate change to follow in succeeding columns. I use the term, “wealth gap” in preference to “wage gap” and “income inequality” because “wealth” includes assets which are relatively long range as opposed to “wages” or “income” which may fluctuate from time to time. Keep Reading
If we thought that Hillary with all her baggage was about as sorry a candidate as the Democratic party could come up with, the current crop of aspirants is proving us wrong. This crop does not seem to have even a coherent message. They are angry, they fight each other, they see horror everywhere, they are advocating pie in the sky, and they hate Donald Trump. That’s about it.
Unless some superstar emerges from the shadows, or Mr. Trump flounders into a recession, it’s hard to see much of a contest in 2020. Not that the Republicans haven’t had their own streaks of weak candidates — one winner in two out of six elections between 1992 and 2016. But so far it is difficult to take the people in the Democrat field seriously.
Eliminate fossil fuels in 10 years – when there is no comparable substitute? When the entire world depends on fossil fuels for survival? Even their statement of the problem is out of date. Nobody can look at the violent weather we have been experiencing and doubt that the climate is changing. But when has it ever not changed? As far back as records go there have been changes in the climate. What about the Ice Age? Keep Reading
My first experience with a union came when I represented the newsroom’s intention to hold a vote for a union to the publisher of a national weekly newspaper. I had a summer job there after my first year as a high school teacher.
Later, as a training developer, I wrote, produced, and oversaw one of the largest industrial training programs in history for the Railway Labor Executives’ Association (a council of all major rail union presidents). I also executed major projects for the Federal Railroad Administration, AMTRAK, Conrail, and others. Still later, I worked very closely with the National Education Association, the professional teachers’ union in a major joint venture, a national research project, and addresses to two national conventions.
The reason I mention all this background is to establish my position as an ardent supporter of the labor movement. My comments come from a position of firm commitment to the need for workers to take their place at any table which determines their welfare.
The occasion of this attention to the labor movement is this week’s Supreme Court decision in Janus versus AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees). Not only do I agree with the decision, I also think it is good for the unions. On the first count, I agree that “freedom of assembly” also means freedom to say “no”. Otherwise, it is not free.
My first experience of a union came early. I had finished my first year as a high school teacher and was hired for the summer by a national weekly newspaper as a proof reader. My status in the organization was quickly determined by my assignment to the night shift.
That timing worked out well for me since I was also back in college for some courses required to get my Colorado teaching certificate. Things were going well, and I was promoted after the first month to an exempt (salaried) position as copy editor. This put me in the company of the editors and reporters, which was an exciting development for a young guy.
One day, a senior editor dropped by my desk and quietly invited me to an after-hours “party” at his house. Flattered, I quickly agreed. It turned out that the “party” was actually a meeting of the entire newsroom for the purpose of activating a just granted Department of Labor mandate to management to arrange for a vote on whether or not to join a union. The right to have the vote on company time was not in dispute. The problem was, who was going to approach the publisher with the news that the government had approved the application? Keep Reading