“Earliest Americans” Corrects Illogic of “Native Americans,” While Maintaining Respect

Featured

Let’s be clear from the beginning, it was Christopher Columbus’ error that he believed he had found a shortcut to India which resulted in the erroneous label being applied to the people he “discovered.” This incorrect name, “American Indian,” survived for centuries.

Unfortunately, the first attempt at creating a more accurate and respectful name produced another problem. “Native American” applies to anyone born in the Americas and at any time. (That’s right, it includes everyone born in central and South America as well…. but that can be debated at another time.)

Instead, by calling the initial inhabitants of North America “Earliest Americans” we bring essential logic to the process.

(It’s true that relatively few blog ideas are “first timers.” This mention of a revised term may have already been suggested by other(s). In that case, this author sends his support to their proposal.)

Advertisements

“MAGA” is Not Pro-Racism But is Against Those With a Destructive Agenda

Featured

With presidential slogans like “Patriotism, Protection and Prosperity” (McKinley win in 1896), “Return to Normalcy” (Harding win in 1920), “Peace and Prosperity” (Eisenhower win in 1956), “He’s Making Us Proud Again” (Ford loss in 1976 defeated by Carter’s “Not Just Peanuts” that year), “America Needs a Change” (Mondale loss in 1984), “Prosperity for America’s Families” (Gore loss in 2000), and “Let America be America Again” (Kerry loss in 2004)1 being promoted without anyone being outraged, how does Trump’s “Make America Great Again” cause such disturbances?

The problem is that the U.S. is, as President Trump said in the 2016 campaign, no longer as great as it used to be and it has little to do with racial battles as we have had them strewn throughout most of our country’s history unfortunately. 

How can a nation call itself great when 60 million babies have been killed legally in the last 46 years under a Supreme Court decision on the totally unrelated issue of “privacy”?  President Trump started us back on the path to decency with his early executive order stopping the use of U.S. taxpayers’ funds for abortions elsewhere.  Changing the acceptance of this inhumane practice stateside will be more difficult.

A great nation doesn’t allow its military decline to the point where the Administration says “we lead from behind” or “draws a red line in Syria” then implements no consequences when it’s crossed.

How can a nation call itself great when it re-elects a president who lied about his State Department’s incompetence which led to the torture and murder of four embassy staff in Benghazi in order to stave off a challenge by his opponent in the close 2012 election? 

A great nation doesn’t abdicate its responsibility for assisting infirmed veterans or dismiss IRS harassment of those who disagree with the Administration as having “not a smidge of evidence” when the opposite was obvious.

A hallmark of a great nation doesn’t include forcing doomed and mislabeled “affordable health care” on its population with the lie that “you can keep your doctors and insurance” when neither is true and was known by its architects from the beginning.  Compounding the pain of this falsehood is the net result that demagogues in Congress now say “Medicare for All” is the only solution as insurance company losses increase and many retired couples too young for Medicare are paying $15,000-$20,000 annually for far less coverage than for those they are now subsidizing at their expense.  Socialized medicine is never the answer to those familiar with world history. 2

Let’s not forget education.  The parents are the primary educators of their children and have the right to decide how they are educated.A great nation does not erode parental rights with increasing arrogance as we borrow from the philosophy of the former Soviet Union.4,5

This is just a tip of the iceberg about to hit the U.S.S. America.  Could it be that MAGA is being disparaged because it dared to criticize a Democrat president who is also a member of a minority?  If Trump had adopted Democrat  Kerry’s “Let America be America Again” would members of his staff be assaulted in public? 

Probably, because Trump and his followers believe in the dignity of human life and a respect for the Ten Commandments and Natural Law.  Those values are opposed to the socialist and global government crowd.  Read Marx & Engels, Fourier & Owen, Sanger, Alinsky, Soros and new UK laws on “hate speech” and it becomes ominously clear. 6,4,7,8,9,10

1https://www.presidentsusa.net/campaignslogans.html

2 – “There seems to be a myth that all medical care, procedures and drugs are free under a socialized system. Although Britons do have affordable access to primary-care doctors, and everyone in the UK is covered through high taxes, they are subjected to extensive waiting periods for specialists, surgeries and hospitalization. The fact is that in the West, as the ability of physicians to provide services becomes stretched, many patients die waiting for treatment….

“The [Romanian] system was ‘first come, first served.’  Everyone received a number and waited, as at a food counter, to see a medical professional.  Sitting on the floor was forbidden; sometimes we would be forced to stand for an entire day – occasionally until nightfall – before being examined by an overworked doctor, who supplemented his “egalitarian” income with monetary or material bribes from patients seeking quicker access and better care.  After performing a perfunctory examination, the doctor would give us a prescription and send us away.  The trouble was that the pharmacy in the nearby shopping complex had as little stock on its shelves as every other store in the country.  The pharmacist, who had no ingredients with which to prepare the antibiotic the doctor had prescribed, would simply shrug, and continue to earn his state income for doing nothing.

“When my mother and I would return home empty-handed, my father would go out to find the medication on the black market, paying at least ten times the official price to obtain it.  In spite of the harsh sentences presented to sellers and buyers on the black market, many were willing to take the risk — and extremely grateful.  It was the only way to fill the prescription, which was supposed to be free in the communist ‘paradise’….

“…American millennials, a majority of whom seem to believe in ideological social experiments that may have failed broadly elsewhere, have no clue about the literal and figurative bitter pill that people living under socialist and communist regimes are forced to swallow — not only where health care is concerned.

“Rather than rejecting the basic free-market principles of the US economy — as a 2016 Harvard University survey found that most do — these young Americans would do well to ask themselves why it is that so many people from countries with socialized medicine flock to the United States for treatment.”
From “Socialized Medicine: A Dose of Reality,” by Ileana Johnson, https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12102/socialized-medicine, 3/31/2018.

3 – “… ‘The role of parents in education is of such importance that it is almost impossible to provide an adequate substitute.’  The right and the duty of parents to educate their children are primordial and inalienable…. “The state may not legitimately usurp the initiatives of the spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children…”  Taken from paragraphs 2221 and 2372 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, twenty-fifth printing, November 2013.

4 – “This thinking on education would dominate communist societies.  One Soviet official, writing in the 1980’s, would state emphatically that under communism, the ‘school becomes literally a home.’

“This is also what Charles Fourier and Robert Owen desired.  They wanted public schools and communal enclaves to replace the father and mother as the primary educators and shapers of society’s children.  (This, of course, would be forcibly done in brute fashion in certain Asian communist experiments, such as China and Cambodia, where it produced unprecedentedly deadly results.)  Weikart noted: ‘Owen’s continual emphasis on the role of education in shaping and individual’s character and outlook lent urgency to his appeal for the abolition of the family, since only by removing children from their supposedly irrational and deleterious influence of parents could he hope to alter society.’”  .”  From page 24 of “Takedown,” by Paul Kengor PhD, WND Books, Washington D.C., 2015.

5 – “Or consider the state of New York, which apparently has determined that, while homeschooling is clearly not against the law, it is also not to be tolerated. Mother Kiarre Harris decided in December 2016 to remove her two children from Buffalo’s failing schools.  Per state law, she filed all of the required paperwork with Buffalo City Hall and told the school she was beginning to homeschool the youngsters.  A few weeks later, Child Protective Services and the police showed up to take her kids. When she wouldn’t reveal where the children were, she was arrested and jailed on obstruction charges, while her children were located and taken to foster care.

“Home School Legal Defense Association recently filed suit against New York for routinely doing this very thing: charging ‘truancy’ and taking children away from parents who have fulfilled all of the statutory requirements to teach their children at home.  New York law permits parents to choose this educational alternative, but the state’s message is clear: if you make that choice, we will fabricate a reason to take your child.”  From “Special Report: The State of Parental Rights in America, 2017,”  https://parentalrights.org/sopra17/#education, 2/20/2017.

6 – “As [Richard] Weikart puts it, Marx and Engels believed that the abolition of private property and the integration of socialism would bring in their wake an inevitable dissolution of the family.  It was as if communism would come first and the disappearance, or ‘abolition,’ of the family would follow in due course.  Weikart contrasts this with Charles Fourier and Robert Owen, who saw abolition of the family as a precursor to their utopian vision ‘as part and parcel of their socialists proposals to ameliorate society.’…. Even if Marx and Engels thought that marriage and family would ‘wither away’ in their utopia, this was something that pleased them.  They wanted this withering away, this vanishing.  It was an outcome they welcomed with great enthusiasm.  They intended to promote the outcome.”  From pages 22 and 23 of “Takedown,” by Paul Kengor PhD, WND Books, Washington D.C., 2015.

7 – “The object of civilization is to obtain the highest and most splendid culture of which humanity is capable.  But such attainment is unthinkable if we continue to breed form the present race stock that yields us our largest amount of progeny.  Some method must be devised to eliminate the degenerate and the defective; for these act constantly to impede progress and ever increasingly drag down the human race.  This is especially the case in the nations which have reached the highest degree of civilization, for it is just in these nations that the degenerate and defective are enabled to produce the largest number of progeny.”  From “A Better Race Through Birth Control,” by Margaret Sanger, Nov. 1923, https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=306638.xml

8 – “The fourth rule [of tactics] is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.

“The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.  It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule.  Also, it infuriates the opposition , who then react to your advantage….

“The twelfth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.  You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying ‘You’re right — we don’t know what to do about this issue.  Now you tell us.’

“The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” 
From pages 128 and 130 of “Rules For Radicals,” by Saul Alinsky, Vintage Books (a division of Random House), New York, copyright 1971, October 1989 edition.

9 – “The Soros-globalist agenda here is simple and fairly transparent. In essence, Soros and various European governments are tired of pastors from the Georgian Orthodox Church warning their flocks about the dangers of surrendering their sovereignty and right to self-government to the increasingly radical EU super-state. And so, they are using Soros money and taxpayer funds to “train” the pastors in how to love the EU and promote it to their trusting congregations….

“In the real world, of course, the EU has become infamous for showering taxpayer funds on the radical abortion lobby, programs to sexualize young children with pornographic “sex education,” and pro-homosexual groups, even those linked to the promotion of pedophilia. The EU and its kangaroo “courts” have also been usurping ever broader powers over practically everything, including the family. In fact, the EU has even ordered national governments to criminalize free speech and conscript journalists into the war on traditional marriage and family values — under threat of prison in some places.

“In addition to Soros, much of the propaganda for Georgian priests is financed by EU governments that are rabidly opposed to traditional marriage and even go so far as to imprison people for expressing the biblical view that homosexual acts are a sin….

“Like the situation in Ukraine, where Soros was also a key player, globalists are trying to deceive the people of Georgia into a false choice — the notion that they must either surrender their nation to the authoritarian EU regime, or to Vladimir Putin’s supposedly similarly autocratic, sovereignty-shredding “integration” scheme known as the Eurasian Union. In short, heads, Georgia loses; tails, globalists win. But it is a false choice. The people of Georgia could simply retain their sovereignty and avoid entangling alliances with either super-state.” 
From “Soros Co-opting Churches To Push New World Order,” by Alex Newman of the New American, 4/5/2016, http://orthochristian.com/92200.html

10 – “To “defeat” terrorist organizations, [UK Prime Minister David] Cameron told the assembled UN member regimes — at least some of which sponsor terrorism, according to Western governments — their ‘ideology’ must be defeated in ‘all its forms.’ As examples of ideas in the global terror war’s crosshairs, the embattled U.K. leader pointed to theories about the 9/11 and 7/7 London terror attacks that do not conform to the widely questioned official government narratives. Religious prophecies Cameron called ‘nonsense’ should also be disallowed, he told his counterparts at the UN….

“In the United Kingdom, though, as The New American has documented, the war on speech and ideas the government disapproves of already extends well beyond self-styled Muslim terrorists and violent criminals. Among others in the crosshairs: Christians who quote the Bible, pro-life activists, and even people who question or reject imploding anthropogenic ‘global-warming’ theories. In recent years, for instance, U.K. authorities have prosecuted thousands of British subjects merely for what they say online, using vague laws purporting to criminalize ‘insulting’ or ‘offensive’ comments.

In late 2012, an atheist who ripped up a Koran was prosecuted for ‘causing religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress, by demonstrating hostility based on membership of a particular religious group.’ Before that, a 20-year-old Muslim was prosecuted and convicted for saying on Facebook that British troops should “die and go to hell” for their actions in Afghanistan. Numerous Christian street preachers have been jailed for describing homosexual activity as sinful. One man, the leader of the Liberty GB Party, was arrested for ‘hate speech’ after quoting Winston Churchill, facing a potential two-year prison sentence. 

“Even a harmless octogenarian, Edward Atkinson, has been relentlessly persecuted for his peaceful pro-life activism on behalf of unborn children, going to jail on multiple occasions merely for sending information to abortionists. ‘I was trying to tell her about the abortion holocaust, all the murdered babies, but she couldn’t face the truth apparently, so she went to the police and got me arrested,’ the soft-spoken pensioner told The New American in an interview after one of his arrests for sending images of aborted children to a hospital.  ‘We’re living in a country where all the laws have been inverted.’” 
From “UK Launches War on ‘Non-Violent’ Extremism, Seeking UN Help,” by Alex Newman, The New American, 10/3/2014,  https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/19245-u-k-launches-war-on-non-violent-extremism-seeking-un-help

Today’s “Progressive” U.S. is No Holier Than the Confederate States It Claims to Surpass

Featured

Sure, we have reason to be pleased that the #MeToo movement is making progress toward the elimination of the sexual oppression which has been so ingrained in business and other areas of life.  And if we are able to remove the racism found in different degrees in all races, this would be wonderful, too.

But, how can we feel superior to the Confederate States of America?  Certainly, upholding slavery as they did, was a serious evil because it’s contrary to divine law.1 The fact that it reappeared in Europe twice after it had been banned through efforts of the Church in the so-called Dark Ages2 shows how pernicious this abhorrent practice has been throughout history (including by some northwest American Indian tribes before Columbus’ arrival3). 

We can eliminate vestiges of the Confederacy all we want, but it won’t cleanse us of the moral responsibility of our own great evil:  Abortion.

To rationalize its practice is a grievous affront to the same divine law which requires us to condemn slavery.  The dignity of all human life must be upheld.  Besides being something no one can own, it cannot be taken except in self defense.4   As we remove those statues which are believed to legitimize slavery, we must also remove those images from public squares and museums which remind us of those who support infanticide and other unjustified killings.  Margaret Sanger and Presidents Clinton and Obama come to mind immediately.  And it’s a disgrace to elect any person to Congress, especially those claiming to be “Catholic,” who professes support for “reproductive rights.”

Perhaps they’re trying to disprove the movie quote:  “Nobody ever invented a polite word for a killing yet.”5  In doesn’t matter, those  with well-formed consciences will see through it.

Let’s purify our present before we try to decontaminate ourselves of past generations’ wrongs.

1 – “As the ninth century dawned, Bishop Agobard of Lyon thundered:  ‘All men are brothers, all invoke one same Father, God: the slave and the master, the poor and the rich man, the ignorant and the learned, the weak and the strong…. None has been raised above the other …. There is no… slave or free but in all things and always there is only Christ.’q  Soon, no one ‘doubted that slavery in itself was against divine law.’b” Taken from Pierre Bonnassie (“From Slavery to Feudalism  in South-Western Europe, Cambridge University Press, 1991, 54) and Marc Bloch (“Slavery and Serfdom in the Middle Ages, University of California Press, 1975, 11) in “Bearing False Witness,” by Rodney Stark, Templeton Press, 2016, page 82.  

2 – “But the very first time slavery was eliminated anywhere in the world was not during the Renaissance or the Enlightenment.  It was during the Dark Ages.  And it was accomplished by clever Church leaders who first extended the sacraments to all slaves, reserving only ordination into the priesthood.  Initially, the implications of Christianization of slaves went unnoticed, but soon the clergy began to argue that no true Christian (or Jew) should be enslaved.  Since slaves were Christians, priests began to urge owners to free their slaves as an ‘infinitely commendable act’ that helped ensure their own salvation.”  Ibid.

3 – Ibid. page 81.

4 – “Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality.  Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life.  Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow…. Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.  The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.  For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.”  From paragraphs 2264 and 2265 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, twenty=fifth printing, November 2013.

5 – By Thelma Ritter’s character of Nurse Stella in the 1954 movie “Rear Window,” directed by Alfred Hitchcock, written by John Michael Hayes based on Cornell Woolrich’s 1942 shirt story, “It Had to Be Murder.”  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear_Window

Kill the Electoral College, Then the Senate….. and It Will Kill the Union

Featured

For the many who are not aware, the U.S. is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. And that’s a good thing for two reasons:

  1. In a democracy, all voting age citizens would vote on every bill being considered.1  Imagine getting 235+ million to vote on any issue when we haven’t had even a 60% turnout for a presidential election since 19682 (when there was a third party candidate).
  2. Democracies do not have lengthy life spans:  “Remember Democracy never lasts long.  It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.  There was never a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide.” – John Adams3

The move to eliminate the Electoral College and go to a majority vote in presidential elections would take away a key safeguard promised to the smallest states at the forming of our nation.  In order to convince the smaller states to join a union, the few bigger states promised they would not always have their way at the expense of the smaller states by overwhelming them. Thus, the Senate was created.  With this arrangement, bills passing the House whose membership is based on population would also have to pass the Senate where each state has equal status with two members. Taking away the Electoral College and, by logical progression the Senate, reduces governance to a numbers game to the advantage of the large states with no need for collaboration with the smaller states.

“The Electoral College method of choosing the president and vice president guarantees that each state, whether large or small in area or population, has some voice in selecting the nation’s leaders.  Were we to choose the president and vice president under a popular vote, the outcome of presidential races would always be decided by a few highly populated states.  We would no longer be a government ‘of the people’; instead, our government would be put in power by and accountable to the leaders and citizens of a few highly populated states.”3

In other words, Liberals, imposing your simplistic view of government makes it desirable for the financially prudent and God-fearing states (primarily in the Midwest and South) to leave the Union. See the data below.4,5

1 – “It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents.  A democracy will be confined to a small spot.  A republic may be extended over a large region.”  From The Federalist No. 14, written by James Madison and published on 11/30/1787.  “The Federalist with Letters of ‘Brutus,’” edited by Terrence Ball, Cambridge University Press, 2003.

2https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections

3 – “Debate over Electoral College continues,” by Walter E. Williams, The Cincinnati Enquirer,” 10/21/2018.

4

4“State Fiscal Rankings,” by Eileen Norcross and Olivia Gonzalez

https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/norcross-fiscal-rankings-map-mercatus-v1.pdf

Note how a majority of poor fiscal rankings belong to states where liberal philosophies have dominated for decades.  West Virginia, Kentucky, Mississippi and Louisiana have had struggling economies for reasons other than political inclinations.

5

“Church Attendance By State: How Does Your State Stack Up?.” By Andrew Conrad, https://blog.capterra.com/church-attendance-by-state-how-does-your-state-stack-up/, published 5/24/2017

4

Why Are Egyptian Sarcophagi Not Worthy of the Same Respect Shown to Modern Era Graves?

Featured

The longer one lives, ideas or questions which should have been obvious seem to pop up from nowhere and stun the thoughtful.

Recent example: since it’s disrespectful to disturb graves (outside of criminal investigations), why is it OK to open the sarcophagi(elaborate coffins) of Egyptian mummies?  Is there an arbitrary waiting period so that some day all existing cemeteries can be opened at will?

Or are the ancient civilizations considered somewhat “less than human”?  This is disturbingly similar to how some view “primitive” cultures or the unborn.

 

1 – a stone coffin, especially one bearing sculpture, inscriptions, etc., often displayed as a monument, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sarcophagi

 

 

 

If You Are Opposed to the Electoral College, Then You Must Also be Against Having the Senate

Featured

Hillary Clinton’s supporters are pushing for the abolition of the electoral college after she became the fourth candidate to win the popular vote, but lose the electoral college.  (The other elections were in 1876, 1888 and 2000.1 ) They say it would be justice for a democracy.

First of all, the United States is not a pure democracy where all eligible voters would vote personally on all legislative matters.  We are a constitutional republic.  We elect people to represent us in the decisions at the federal, state and local levels.

Our founding fathers created an ingenious legislature consisting of a Senate and House of Representatives.  Why two sections of Congress?  Because they understood the need to respect each state and they didn’t want the largest states dominating the smallest ones. They wanted to limit the impact of inevitable factions within our nation.  Consequently, for a law to be enacted it must pass both houses:  one which is based on population (House) and one which gives each state two representatives regardless of its population (Senate).  When the states agreed to be connected into one nation, it was with the understanding that their autonomy would not disappear — something the Democrats who push for bigger and bigger federal government seem to have forgotten.

If the electoral college were to be abolished, presidential elections would be relegated to “ten pockets of population” as Larry Arnn, president of Hillsdale College, described today on Fox News.  It would make those areas all-important and render the rest of the nation irrelevant when it came to campaigning.  Without the electoral college, we would have had twenty states deciding for the other thirty in this election.  Our founding fathers had a wise idea.

 

1 – “Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote,”  http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/

2 – “By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease.  Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires.  But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise.  As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.  As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves.  The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests.  The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.  From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.”

Part of Federalist paper #10, http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/the-federalist-10.php

Electing Hillary Over “Dangerous Donald” Would Be As Detrimental as Chamberlain’s Fateful Appeasement of Hitler

Featured

For those with a passing knowledge of history, it is clear that despite society’s claim to be advancing, a disturbing amount of history’s blunders have a way of repeating themselves. A parallel potential is available in our upcoming election amid the haunting memories of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s doomed appeasement of Hitler seventy-eight years ago.

Some  of  Hillary’s  Criticisms  of  Donald  Trump

He Depresses National Pride:  Hillary Clinton cannot refute Donald Trump’s assessment of the negative impact  the Democrats have had on the economic and social health of our nation over the last fifty years.  So, she fabricates that Trump is trying to depress people as her campaign chairman John Podesta said: “Tonight, Donald Trump painted a dark picture of an America in decline.”1  She added last night in Cincinnati, “He has a dark and divisive vision for America that could tear our country apart.”2  Hillary sees herself as the beacon of hope and national unity to counter this.

She also takes issue with Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan by declaring, “America is already is great. But we are great because we are good, and we will respect each other.”3
[That’s true except for the unborn, when religious freedom clashes with the pagan morals of secular world, etc.  But that’s for another article.]

The “1%” is Our Enemy:  Despite the large fees and other concessions she has received from speaking to the world of Wall Street and others (see footnote #4), she claims to be on the side of the little guy in the financial world.  Hillary Clinton pretends solidarity with the average American by declaring that our economy requires the “toppling” of the top 1% of earners because their real income (including hers as she likes to ignore) has risen dramatically unlike the rest of the stagnant economy.5 

Give  Hillary  What  She  Wants  and  We’ll  Be  Safe:    Her biggest push is that Trump is a threat to world peace.  She feels he should not be trusted with the codes to our nuclear arsenal and, “He’s not just unprepared — he’s temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility… We cannot put the safety of our children and grandchildren in Donald Trump’s hands. We cannot let him roll the dice with America… I will leave it to the psychiatrists to explain his attraction to tyrants… You know, there’s no risk of people losing their lives if you blow up a golf-course deal, but it doesn’t work like that in world affairs.”6

In other words, give Hillary what she wants – the presidency – and the world will be stable and safer with the threat of major war eliminated.

What  Does  This  Have  to  do  With  the  1930’s?

After World War I, the victorious Allies (of which the U.S. was a part of) wanted to ensure that the “war to end all wars” would never be repeated.  Consequently, the penalties on the Axis powers (of which Germany was a member) were significant.

Restoring national pride and establishing a common enemy:  Unfortunately, the severity of the surrender terms made it likely that a leader would rise to reinstate the Germans sense of national pride which had been severely bruised.  Thus, it produced Adolph Hitler who attained the title of chancellor in 1933 and began his quest for multinational dominance.  Needing a target to rally his people further, he blamed the Jews for Germany’s economic woes.  At that time, the Jewish people which were about 0.75 per cent of the German population.7

In effect, Hitler made the Jews the “One Per Cent” villains of his time.  Wall Street anyone?

Hitler’s Ego and Plan for Domination  Cause  Great  Concern:  Hitler began his quest for territory by cleverly pulling off an annexation of Austria through political pressure, then with troops.8  After that, he decided to look elsewhere to add natural resources to his control.  He turned to the Sudetenland.  It had become part of Czechoslovakia as a result of the World War I surrender agreement.  Of its three million people, a high percentage was Germans.  The conditions were ripe for trouble as a result of “the German nationalist, anti-Czech, anti-Semitic propaganda disseminated by the Sudeten German (or Nazi) Party during the mid-1930s.”9

Background  of  the  Road  to  Appeasement,  Simply:  Give  Hitler  What  He  Wanted  and  We’d  Be  Safe

Therefore, “starting in 1938, the Nazi propaganda machine fabricated false stories of the three million ethnic Germans being oppressed in Czechoslovakia, and demanded to gain control of these lands.”  Hitler decided, “”It is my unalterable decision to smash Czechoslovakia by military action in the near future.”  But this would be more difficult as Czechoslovakia counted Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union as friends.

Because Hitler was aware of much appeasement sentiment among the leaders of Great Britain and France, he proceeded with pressure.  In September 1938, “France, for example, went as far as demanding Czechoslovakia to cede the territory to Germany, otherwise France would not honor the mutual protection treaty that they had previously signed.”  Here comes British leader Neville Chamberlain who convinced Hitler that a multi-national power convention be held to settle this.

Hitler got his way in that two Czech representatives were allowed in the building of the convention, but only in an adjacent room and were not permitted to take part.  According to Wilhelm Keitel, [French leader Edouard] Daladier was adamant in doing what it takes to avoid war, saying “[w]e won’t tolerate war over this, the Czechs will just have to give way. We will simply have to force them to the cession.” The four decided the fate for Czechoslovakia by granting Germany Sudetenland.10

It  Didn’t  Work  Then  and  It  Won’t  Now

History shows how badly appeasement works.  The concentration camps had been in existence for six years11 already when, twelve months later, Germany invaded Poland and the worst world war began.

If we choose Hillary over Donald because of the fear he would shatter a fragile world peace, what are our chances for a better life?

Health  Insurance:  Let’s see, with Hillary we know we’ll have an acceleration of the health industry debacle known as Obamacare.  It must be remembered that the poorly named “Affordable Health Care Act” was never the end game of Obama and the Left to begin with.  The ultimate goal was a “single payer system” which means socialized medicine.

How can we believe this?  Look at Colorado.  The financial disaster caused by Obamacare (and which the President and his chief architect knew all along) has resulted in huge losses for insurance companies.  Since pride discourages legislators from going back and replacing this feel-good idea, we have:

Amendment 69 would establish Colorado Care, a single-payer government-run health insurer that would be the first of its kind in the country… Under the plan, private health insurance would likely cease to exist in the state.  Instead a 21-member elected board would administer the coverage on behalf of the government.”

“It would cost more than $30 billion and it would be paid for with a 6.6 percent increase in employers’ payroll taxes and a 3.3 percent increase in employees’ payroll taxes.”12

So is this bad?  This is total government  control over one-sixth of the entire economy and the imposed priorities regarding what “health care” choices will be required.  It includes abortion, contraceptives and abortifacients, gender “reassignment” (which ultimately does not solve the emotional problems causing the individual’s turmoil 13, 14) and human/ animal hybrid research (already in progress 15).  It also forces citizens to pay for these morally reprehensible items and implements the rationing of medical services only for those deemed useful enough for society to receive them.  In other words, a true war on human life from conception onward.

By the way, Hillary defends abortion all the way up to birth.  This legal form of murder has accounted for more than 55 million deaths in the U.S., or about six times the number of Jews and Russian prisoners killed by Hitler.16

Freedom  of  Religion:  We need to be reminded that Hillary has said

“…deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” 17

Enough said.

Peace  in  the  World:  There are many others serious concerns about the impact of an H. R. Clinton presidency, but this one must be addressed because it was mentioned in this article’s title!  She paints the picture of Trump as one who is out-of-control and likely to blow up the world one way or another.  Perhaps she doesn’t recognize what being assertive is – something the current administration is unfamiliar with (“red line” in the sand for Syria, caving in to Iran’s wants by not using the strength we had during the negotiations then giving them ransom money later, promising to help Ukraine and under-delivering 18, etc.).  Regarding Hillary herself, there’s the inaction on Ambassador Stevens’ multiple requests for security in Benghazi then doing nothing as the four were killed while directives kept changing regarding our military’s attire which might upset the lawless nation.

Hillary Clinton’s proposals include irresponsible immigration from terrorist nations which will bring the war to our doorstep.  With her Democratic platform in place, we will be able to choose between more frequent attacks overseas or at home.  If that isn’t enough, there’s control of 20% of our uranium ending up in Russia’s hands while money from the Canadian company owners flowed to the Clinton Foundation. 19

Knowing all of this, why would we pull a Chamberlain and elect Hillary Clinton because she is trying to scare us into ignoring the real dangers she poses?

1 – “Clinton: Trump ‘painted a dark picture of America’,” by Ben Kamisar, http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/288834-clinton-trump-painted-a-dark-picture-of-america, 7/22/2016.

2 – “Hillary Clinton Hints of Civil War, Nuclear War if Donald Trump is Elected,” by Charlie Spiering, http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/01/hillary-clinton-hints-of-civil-war-nuclear-war-if-donald-trump-is-elected/, 11/1/2016.

3 – “Clinton blasts Trump: ‘We are great because we are good’,” by Dan Mangan, http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/09/clinton-blasts-trump-we-are-great-because-we-are-good.html, 10/9/2016.

4 – “The speech in 2013 was one of three Clinton made on behalf of Goldman Sachs. According to public records, Clinton gave 92 speeches between 2013 and 2015. Her standard fee is $225,000, and she collected $21.6 million dollars in just under two years. Clinton made 8 speeches to big banks, netting $1.8 million, according to a CNN analysis… According to the memo, Clinton requires travel by private jet, and even specifies that she prefers a Gulfstream 450 or larger. Her staff requires first class and business class tickets. And two members of her staff require up to three days on site to prepare, with all local – “with up to three separate rooms attached.”  From “The truth about Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street speeches,” by Drew Griffin, David Fitzpatrick and Curt Devine, http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/economy/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs/, 4/20/2016.

– ”Hillary Clinton called for ‘toppling’ the 1%,” by Colin Campbell, http://www.businessinsider.com/report-hillary-clinton-called-for-toppling-the-1-2015-4, 4/21/2015.

6 – “Hillary Clinton’s evisceration of Donald Trump,” by Stephen Collinson and Dan Merica, http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-foreign-policy-speech/, 6/3/2016.

7 – “Germany:  Jewish Population in 1933,” https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005276

8 – http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-annexes-austria

9 – https://www.britannica.com/place/Sudetenland

10 – “Munich Conference and the Annexation of Sudetenland,” by C. Peter Chen, http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=87

11 – “CONCENTRATION CAMPS, 1933–1939,” https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005263

12 – “Coloradans to vote on ‘single payer’ health insurance proposal,” by Joe St. George, http://kdvr.com/2016/08/05/colorado-to-vote-on-single-payer-health-insurance-proposal/, updated 8/5/2016.

13 – “Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a ‘mental disorder’ that merits treatment, that sex change is ‘biologically impossible,’ and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder… he explained that transgender surgery is not the solution for people who suffer a “disorder of ‘assumption’” – the notion that their maleness or femaleness is different than what nature assigned to them biologically… Dr. McHugh further noted studies from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic of children who had expressed transgender feelings but for whom, over time, 70%-80% “spontaneously lost those feelings.”
From “Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: Transgender is ‘Mental Disorder;’ Sex Change ‘Biologically Impossible’,” by Michael W. Chapman, http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change, 6/2/2015.


14 – “And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a “satisfied” but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.”

“It now appears that our long-ago decision was a wise one. A 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden produced the most illuminating results yet regarding the transgendered, evidence that should give advocates pause. The long-term study—up to 30 years—followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription.” From “Transgender Surgery Isn’t the Solution,” by Dr. Paul McHugh, http://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120, updated 5/13/2016.

15 – “NIH Plans To Lift Ban On Research Funds For Part-Human, Part-Animal Embryos,” by Rob Stein, http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/08/04/488387729/nih-plans-to-lift-ban-on-research-funds-for-part-human-part-animal-embryos, 8/4/2016.

16 – “The Holocaust death toll,” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1481975/The-Holocaust-death-toll.html, 1/26/2005.

17 — “Hillary: ‘Deep-seated … religious beliefs’ have to be changed for abortion,” by Ed Morrissey, http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/24/hillary-deep-seated-religious-beliefs-have-to-be-changed-for-abortion/, 4/24/2015.

18 – “U.S. Hasn’t Kept Ukraine Aid Promises,” by Josh Rogin, https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-02-05/u-s-hasn-t-kept-ukraine-aid-promises, 2/5/2015.

19 – “At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family… Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife,Hillary Rodham Clinton…”

“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million… And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock…”

“Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown.´ —  [note:  Why?  Weren’t the receipts sent to the Government Accounting Office like all good Secretary of States do?]  From “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal,” by Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html, 4/23/2015,