Share and Share Alike. We like Shares!

Update May 30, 2020 Slaying in Minneapolis

I am not sure how this is related to the COVID crisis, but a man was killed by a police officer in Minneapolis on May 25th. The police officer is white and his victim was black. This is tragic incident that should have never occurred and we cannot allow this type of brutality from any branch of law enforcement. People have the right to be heard and the right to protest these types of tragedies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_George_Floyd

Immediately the media turned the incident into a race issue. Reports from every news agency began with, “a while cop killed a black man by kneeling on his neck.” People in Minneapolis took to the streets to protest. Peaceful protests lasted only a short time before rioting and looting took over. By Friday protests spread all over the country. Major cities saw crowds gather and for the most part, peaceful marches. In Minneapolis protesters burnt down a police station, looted a number of businesses, and burned some to the ground. Some business owners posted signs, “Black Owned Business.” The media went on a feeding frenzy to turn this incident into a race war.

In America it really shouldn’t matter what color the police officer or the victim are. Killing a suspect is going too far. Especially if it takes more than eight minutes to torture the victim to death. No American should stand for that. But it is just as wrong to turn this into a race issue. Then to play the race card to justify rioting, looting, and burning businesses? America should be past that juvenile stage and for the most part is. All the officers involved in the slaying need to be held accountable. So do the looters and those destroying property. There is no excuse for that type of action. The police officer cannot claim he was having a bad day and expect to walk free. Neither should the looters. They stole property. The looters destroyed property. The looters ruined businesses and people’s lives. They destroyed government properly and now tax payers have to pay for it. The looters broke the law and well, let’s listen to the protesters. They demand justice and equality. In this case justice must remain a two way street. Let’s look at the race card they played. They are demanding equal treatment. Sure the police involved will face charges and most likely will receive the maximum penalty. Let’s call out the people calling for equality. If they are serious, they will turn themselves in and set the example for their community by displaying their dedication to equality by demanding a fair trial and paying for their crimes. If they claim equality and want people to take them seriously, they need to step up and set the example. But if they want to hide behind that race card and show the world equality has nothing to so with it, what they really want is an excuse to be above the law, they will never accomplish a thing. They will add to the problem and never take a single step in solving anything.

Let’s take a look at simple human nature. Someone who wants to right a wrong goes out of their way to establish their credibility and standards. When someone wants their voice heard, understood, and taken seriously, they do their best to offer an example people look up to. Especially in the political arena where mud slinging is a way of life, one must make their life a small target to shoot at. When negotiating basic human rights, your opponent will take careful aim at every flaw they can find. People who dedicate their lives to a higher standard for everyone set that standard in their own lives long before they take to the streets. The most dramatic changes in US society came from people who lead by example. Their lives and moral standards attracted people because those people knew they could trust that person and had no doubts where that person stood.

On the other hand, people interested in their own welfare and personal gain use circumstances as an excuse. An excuse to break the law. If one person did that, it gives us the right to do this. Life and society become a bottomless pit of lawlessness establishing a moral conduct based on what the other side did wrong. That leads only to a downward spiral. Nothing good has ever come from the mentality of looking for excuses to break the law.

I doubt is one of those looters will stand up to be an example of what is right and lead by example. Most likely there is not a leader among them. There is not a single person among those rioters capable of leading by example. By that I mean a good example. They are only capable of setting a poor example and watching others go beyond their poor example by stealing more, or causing more damage. And what will that accomplish? If equality is what they seek, they are headed in the wrong direction.

Those looters are using the death of a black man at the hands of a white cop as an excuse to unleash their frustration. Looters are protesting one thing and one thing only. Those looters are against everyone who puts in long hours of hard work to make a better life. Looters are looking for an easy way to get by in life and detest anyone who stands up to be an example of achieving the American dream through hard work. It doesn’t matter what color those business owners are, those rioters hate the example true Americans set. The battle is between those who work to improve their way of life and the people who want everything given to them or they will find a way of taking it.

Watching videos of those protests I had to wonder to myself, how many of those protesters are going to vote socialist? I wonder how many were Sanders supporters. I wonder how many of them know how Biden set up one socialist government in Ukraine and then another. I wonder how many of them know what those socialist governments did in Ukraine. How those governments suppressed the people, freedom of speech, and used every means to silence protesters, I wonder how many of the protesters across this country know that Ukraine had to rise up to over throw their government because everyday life was far worse than what we saw that police officer do to that man in Minneapolis. I wonder how many of those protesters know Joe Biden set up an oppressive government in Ukraine. The government the people had to fight to over throw in 2014.

Share and Share Alike. We like Shares!
Share and Share Alike. We like Shares!

The Evacuation of Dunkirk

 

“So long as the English tongue survives, the word Dunkirk will be spoken with reverence. In that harbour, such a hell on earth as never blazed before, at the end of a lost battle, the rags and blemishes that had hidden the soul of democracy fell away. There, beaten but unconquered, in shining splendour, she faced the enemy, this shining thing in the souls of free men, which Hitler cannot command. It is in the great tradition of democracy. It is a future. It is victory.” New York Times, 1 June 1940

“For us Germans the word “Dunkirchen” will stand for all time for victory in the greatest battle of annihilation in history. But, for the British and French who were there, it will remind them for the rest of their lives of a defeat that was heavier than any army had ever suffered before.” Der Adler, 5 June 1940 (Source)

The Battle of Dunkirk. The Dunkirk Evacuation. Code Name: Operation Dynamo.

After declaring war on Germany, Britain sent the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) to help defend France. The problem, though, was that while France had the Maginot Line between them and Germany, they stupidly believed that the Ardennes forest was “impenetrable.”

So what did Germany do?

On May 10, 1940, the German army attacked Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg. Fighting continued for four days until the Allies were forced to push back when France and Belgium positions failed to hold. 

On May 12, though, Germany entered France through none other than the Ardennes forest.

“The Germans advanced in an arc westward from the Ardennes in Belgium, along France’s Somme River, and to the English Channel, cutting off communication between the Allies’ northern and southern forces” (Source). The Allies were quickly finding themselves surrounded and trapped against the northern coast of France. By the 19th, British commander, General Viscount John Gort, was considering a BEF withdrawal by sea. However, the Allies decided to launch a counterattack on the 21st. By the 24th, German army commander in chief, Walther von Brauchitsh was ready to take Dunkirk. It was actually Hitler who prevented the attack, having been convinced by Hermann Göring that the Luftwaffe “could destroy the Allied forces trapped on the beaches of Dunkirk” (Source). 

Evacuation Dynamo was initiated on May 26th. They expected to have 48 hours to evacuate what they hoped would be 45,000 troops. However, the following day, King Leopold III of Belgium surrendered to Germany. As a result, Germany “resumed the land attack on Dunkirk” (Source). The break in fighting had allowed Britain to fortify their defenses, but they did not last long under advancing Germans. “As there were not enough ships to transport the huge masses of men stranded at Dunkirk, the British Admiralty called on all British citizens in possession of sea-worthy vessels to lend their ships to the effort. Fishing boats, pleasure yachts, lifeboats, and other civilian ships raced to Dunkirk, braving mines, bombs, and torpedoes” (Source). Some 933 ships took part.

Between the Luftwaffe and the counterattacks (some 3,500 missions) from the RAF, the Dunkirk harbor was beyond use. “Small civilian vessels had to ferry the soldiers from the beaches to the warships waiting at sea. But for nine days, the evacuation continued, a miracle to the Allied commanders who had expected disaster” (Source).

The battle ended on June 4, with the German army closing in. “With Western Europe abandoned by its main defenders, the German army swept through the rest of France, and Paris fell on June 14” (Source). On May 22, the armistice at Compiegne was signed by Henri Petain. “Germany annexed half the country, leaving the other half in the hands of their puppet French rulers” (Source).

“The inability for the German army to move on the survivors of Dunkirk is noted by many historians as one of the most critical mistakes Hitler made, one that that Rundstedt even called ‘one of the great turning points of the war’” (Source).

Casualties & Losses:

British: 198,000 troops were rescued; 68,000 dead, even more ended up MIA or as POWs. French: 140,000 troops were rescued; 290,000 dead. Germans: 27,074 dead; 111,034 wounded. Additionally, Britain lost some six destroyers, five minesweepers, eight transport ships, and a further 200 vessels had been sunk or badly damaged. They also left behind hundreds of thousands of guns, vehicles, and ammunition in what was now German territory.

[Below: Troops awaiting evacuation.]

Нолан, может, и гений, но не в военной драме – мнение - Свежие ...

 

“Soldiers of the West Front! Dunkirk has fallen … with it has ended the greatest battle in world history. Soldiers! My confidence in you knows no bounds. You have not disappointed me” (Source). ~ Hitler, June W5, 1940

Back home, Prime Minister Churchill was equally as pleased with his own troops. Praising and warning his people: “We must be very careful not to assign to this the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations” (Source). 

The bulk of the British army had been rescued. This meant that Britain still had hope. A number of miracles and extraordinary factors helped make it possible. “The decision of Gort (the commander of the BEF) to ignore Churchill and the French commanders and head to the coast, the halt order, the weather, the survival of the Eastern Mole (the pier from which the majority of troops were evacuated), and the incredible determination of the Royal Navy, all combined to save the BEF” (Source).

Had the evacuation been unsuccessful, with a quarter of a million British troops held in captivity, Churchill would not have much other choice but to surrender – and sign Hitler’s peace treaty, as France had done. Had the evacuation been unsuccessful, the German army would have been left with additional provisions on their side, “including the 40 divisions which Britain’s continued hostility required in Africa and on the Atlantic Wall, as well as the 1,882 aircraft, and their experienced pilots and bomber crews, which were lost over Britain in the coming months” (Source).

“Hitler never wished to enter into war with Britain. He admired the country whose Empire he believed powerfully reinforced his ideas of racial domination, commenting that ‘To maintain their Empire they need a strong continental power at their side. Only Germany can be that power.’ After Dunkirk, however, he was stunned to find that his ‘sensible peace arrangements’ were continuously and categorically rejected. Even as late as 6 July, Hitler insisted that the invasion of Britain would only be tried as a last resort ‘if it cannot be made to sue for peace any other way’” (Source).

Dunkirk aroused America’s sentiment and caused them to realize the importance of aiding Britain. “It is a matter of inestimable importance to our own security that we should instantly remove all restrictions on the rendering of realistic, material aid to the Allies,” the Washington Evening Star declared (Source). By mid-June, America shipped roughly half a million rifles to their aid. The American support boosted both countries’ resolved and Churchill promised that “Britain would preserve ‘the whole world, including the United States’ from sinking ‘into the abyss of a new Dark Age’” (Source).

In June of 1940, Britain stood alone against Germany, Italy, & the Soviet Union.

[Below: Operation Dynamo]

image

Share and Share Alike. We like Shares!
Share and Share Alike. We like Shares!

Battle of Calais

The Battle of Calais started after the Germans had split the Allied armies in half at Sedan on May 14th and 15th, 1940. From there, the British had been cut off from their supplies. Eight days later, the Battle of Calais had begun. Dunkirk, Boulogne, and Calais had become vitally important. So, British troops were sent to Calais to establish a new line to the BEF, who were still fighting around Lille and Arras.

The defense of Calais would be carried out by Calais Force. This force contained one battalion each from the King’s Royal Rifle Corps (60th Rifles), the Queen Victoria Rifles and the Rifle Brigade, the 229th anti-tank battery of the Royal Artillery and a battalion from the Royal Tank Regiment, equipped with 21 light and 27 cruiser forces. 

Under the command of Brigadier Claude Nicholson, they would be aided by a Searchlight Regiment as well as an anti-aircraft regiment. Additionally, some 800 French soldiers helped to defend the citadel. In all, this gave Nicholson a total of 4,000 men.

The Germans reached the coast on May 20th, then stopped for a day. On the 22nd, they continued their drive north. The 10th Panzer Division was given the responsibility of taking Calais and the 1st Panzer Division of driving on towards Dunkirk, but of stopping to capture Calais on their way. Both divisions were at “full strength,” meaning that each division had roughly 15,000 men and 300 tanks.

At the time, Calais had a border of “bastions and ramparts” (Source). However, Nicholson realized that even this wouldn’t help him hold the perimeter for very long. So, he made the decision to move further north, along an inner perimeter. This line was protected by water lines, in the canals, as well as in the docks.

By midmorning on May 23rd, the Germans tanks had begun rolling into Calais from the south west. Later that morning, three more squadrons of tanks, these under the command of Lt. Col. Keller, left Calais for Omer, some twenty minutes south east. Five miles south of Calais, at Guines, they ran into the German tanks. A short battle followed.

[Below: Calais in ruins]

Photo] Destroyed houses and church in Calais, France, afternoon of ...

 

The British tanks eventually retreated back north to Coquelles, which was south west of Calais. However, the Germans had also been repulsed. I Panzer Division continued on, leaving the X Panzer Division to defend Calais. At Calais, itself, the King’s Royal Rifle Corps (60th Rifles) saw battle with the Rifle Brigade on the dunes east of Calais.

At 2 a.m. the next morning, on the way to Dunkirk, Brigadier Nicholson’s tanks met the Rifle Brigade. Unfortunately, the British were forced to retreat back to Calais. By 6 that evening, the Germans had also broken through the British outer perimeter at Calais, forcing Nicholson to move his headquarters back from “Boulevard Léon Gambetta to the Gare Maritime, on the waterfront” (Source).

The Royal Navy was able to provide artillery defense with the help of the Polish warship, Burza. Later, HMS Wolfhound and HMS Verity were able to bring in supplies, ammunition, and Admiral J. F. Somerville. However, the battle also saw the sinking of HMS Wessex as well as heavy damage to HMS Vimiera and the Polish Burza. But the Royal Navy had to keep up the good fight, for it meant they were giving the BEF the extra time they needed to reach Dunkirk safely.

On the morning of the 25th, the X Panzer division attacked the inner perimeter. At 9 that evening, Prime Minister Churchill sent a communiqué:

“Every hour you continue to exist is of the greatest help to the BEF. Government has therefore decided you must continue to fight. Have greatest possible admiration for your splendid stand. Evacuation will not (repeat not) take place, and craft required for above purpose are to return to Dover” (Source).

That night, a small flotilla of ships began rescuing the survivors of the Royal Marine.

Fighting continued most of the next day with yet another German attack. They were able to gradually push the British back. Later, the French surrendered. Around 11 am, “Bastion 11 was forced to surrender with barely a man unwounded” (Source). Their defenses were beginning to collapse. But the British refused to give in. They were pushed back as far as Courgain, where they held on until 9 that evening.

Shortly thereafter, soldiers were rounded up. Many of them would be in captivity of five years. Nicholson died in captivity in 1943. Overall, some 20,000 men were taken prisoner, some 3,000-4,000 of them being British. The rest were French, Belgian, and Dutch.

[Below: Captured British forces]

image

Share and Share Alike. We like Shares!
Share and Share Alike. We like Shares!

The Political View Verses the Moral View

Let’s face the facts. On the political side we do have opposing factions who insist they follow God. Some insist they hear God and are following God’s commands. Others insist they are guided by moral convictions established by religious beliefs. And of course we have a vast majority of Americans who believe we need a President, and of course a government guided by God. The vast majority of Americans believe we need a government who is going to make the right decisions, and somehow make the United States a country that looks after the interest of its people, treats everyone fairly, taxes fairly, has a strong defense, helps other countries, and is wise enough so other countries do not take advantage of our generosity. Is that asking for too much?

When we mix religion with politics in an election year, we know there will be reactions. This is nothing new. John Kennedy addressed that question when he ran for President.

https://youtu.be/mBNlS8Zg1WA

John Kennedy discussed some rather valid points. Religion is personal. Each candidate has the same right to worship as they choose. Candidates have the same rights as every US citizen. John Kennedy went on to point out, if one religion is persecuted by the media or special interest groups, which religion will they persecute tomorrow? One of the best points John Kennedy pointed out is to vote for a President based on their personal convictions, not based on their religion. But that takes research. My dad taught us how to research a politician. Back in the 1960’s we had politicians to look up to and use as a measuring stick to compare others. Bill Proxmire was one of those rare politicians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Proxmire

Proxmire was one of those rare one of a kind politicians with ethics nearly beyond belief. Proxmire lived and mingled among the people he represented. He won elections by a landslide. His biggest campaign expense was to pay for stamps to send campaign contributions back to people. Proxmire was a rare breed in Washington always pointing out wasteful spending. Not just millions of dollar on huge projects, but instances where just a few thousand dollars was wasted. Proxmire was a guy who told it like it was and didn’t back down from anyone. Today Proxmire would be labeled a whistle blower. The people in Wisconsin considered Senator Proxmire a man doing the job he was sent to Washington to do. I grew up in Wisconsin being rather naive thinking we always had a group of politicians like Proxmire in Washington battling another group of crooked politicians from elsewhere in this country. But I was wrong. Proxmire was a rare breed. One of a kind.

We can take a look at what the 2020 political scene has to offer. A strong contender for the White House was an open communist, or socialist based on the particular policy. Communists are typically anti-religion, which suggest threats to rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Historically socialists restrict religions to state approved religions. The fact a number of US voters approved of socialism and communism during primary elections should be a real concern for all American voters. Bernie Sanders was brought up Jewish parents, but his interest in Hitler and the Nazi government he installed and how he was elected is not only strange, bazaar, but alarming. Since we should be learning from the words and advice of former Presidents, I cannot see how so many voters missed the messages about the religious persecution past Presidents had to face. We’ve gone through three Presidents who have sent troops overseas to protect people from religious persecution. It is rather shocking for so many voters to look at those sacrifices as unnecessary. Warnings repeated by those last three Presidents included the fact, “it may be one group today. Will it be you tomorrow?”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

https://berniesanders.com/

John Kennedy had his facts straight when he told voters to judge a candidate by their moral convictions. How are we supposed to determine a person’s conviction? Is it by the promises they make? We have seen too many lies from politicians to accept promises. We should be smarter than that. How do those promises align with their life style? Using Sanders as an example, we see a politician telling the public, “rich people will pay for your essentials.” Does that include his millions? Sanders also teaches us another important fact. We need to check out the facts and figures they discuss and post on their websites. Sanders proposed 11 trillion dollars worth of programs. A figure equal to the combined income of every taxpayer in 2018. A figure and fact the media was either too lazy to investigate, or knew about and wanted to hide from the public.

Joe Biden is a little tough to gauge on convictions. He is a Roman Catholic and practices his faith. https://kfax.com/articles/blogs/religion-today-blog/things-christians-should-know-about-the-faith-of-joe-biden

Joe Biden lost members of his family over the years and faced more than many of us will in a lifetime. As with most candidates, his voting record varies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden

The fact Biden goes against religious convictions on some issues raises a red flag with some voters, but to other voters it tells them Biden is a man who thinks on his own and makes his own decisions.

The socialist factor with Biden should raise some red flags and call for caution. Joe Biden called his installation of a Democracy in Ukraine his greatest accomplishment. Biden actually experimented with a democratic-socialist government in Ukraine that was over thrown in 2014. Investigations into his son’s business activity in Ukraine are now on hold until after US elections. Time will tell what those investigations reveal.

Another key figure in the political arena today with a strong religious conviction is Nancy Pelosi. Based on the fact she refers to herself as the most powerful woman in America, and at times, the world, urges us to look at her moral convictions. We have to consult a number of sources when we look into Pelosi’s life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi

https://atlanticmidwest.org/posts/how-nancy-pelosis-baltimore-catholic-roots-shaped-her

https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2012/11/113-congress-relig-affil.pdf

Pelosi, who had been walking away from the podium, exploded. She pointed a finger at Rosen and said, “I don’t hate anybody. I was raised in a Catholic house. We don’t hate anybody.”

Then she added, “And as a Catholic, I resent your using the word ‘hate’ in a sentence that addresses me. I pray for the president all the time. So don’t mess with me when it comes to words like that.”

https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article238369468.html

When we compare basic Catholic values to Pelosi’s political views and career, we see two completely distant worlds. The focus being on Catholic views dealing with homosexuality, marriage, and abortion. Pelosi has chosen to cast away religious views on those subjects and take on, for lack of a better term, a completely radical view. To some this shift in moral conviction indicates a strength in a woman. One reporter compared that strength to a motherly figure. Although that reporter did no agree with Pelosi’s political views, he did appreciate her fierceness. The individual voter has to decide between that fierce attitude and her talk about moral convictions, religious guides, and actually performance. Do opposite poles indicate an imbalance in moral convictions, or an attitude that attracts votes.

Pelosi never liked President Trump and has had no problem making that fact public. “Donald Trump is not going to be President of the United States,” Pelosi said on the latest episode of Recode Decode, hosted by Kara Swisher. “Take it to the bank, I guarantee it.” She said that she is urging her Republican friends to “take back your party.” In response to the proposal that Trump uses social media better than other politicians, Pelosi blamed ratings-hungry media outlets for amplifying his visibility.

“Social media has democratized elections even further,” she added. “People hear things that may or may not be true, but nonetheless, the democratization of communication is good for a democracy.” https://www.vox.com/2016/5/16/11679242/nancy-pelosi-trump-guarantee-kara-swisher-podcast

Pelosi may be the best of the best when it comes to a politician, saying one thing, doing another, accusing a person of something, then taking that crime to a whole new level. On one hand she condemns Trump for using social media, blames the press, then turns around and takes social media and fake news to a whole new level to accomplish her goals. If nothing else, an examination of Pelosi’s life and morals shows a deep conviction of double standards. Perfectly acceptable to herself, but an unforgivable sin and the high crime of treason when used by anyone else. To understand Pelosi’s mindset and motivation, we have to look at her modern day concept of a democracy.

We can scan the internet, study 30 articles on the definition of a democracy and walk away with 30 conflicting concepts. This is a ploy used during the French Revolution when the conquering class executed the ruling aristocrats, installed a new government, and made reason their god.

https://www.history.com/topics/france/french-revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason

The main point to learn from that revolution of reason is, the French rewrote their dictionary turning the definitions of a number of words upside down. A new form of political control was born. When people believe right is wrong, and evil used for the good of the people is acceptable, those people of course become confused with no where to turn for answers but their leaders. The moral convictions of people as a whole is destroyed. With no real moral compass to follow, the people put their trust in leaders who in essence have free reign to constantly contradict themselves while leaving the impression their questionable actions are somehow, someday, going to benefit the people they represent. Which is basically the definition of a democracy.

The French revolution set up the acceptance of an anarchy to achieve the perfect society. The belief that good will eventually spring from the bowels of total darkness was a political tool this world has learned to live with, accept, and sad to say, believe in. The world has learned to accept political figures whose actions never seem to reflect their words and promises. Voters all over the world have learned to sit, wait, and hope someday something good has to happen. And voters all over the world have learned to accept the fact, nothing will ever change. No matter what we do, we are at the mercy of the people we elected. And they are not who they say they are.

Today we can take the two terms, liberal and conservative. Both have lost their meaning because they are applied and misapplied at will. The two political parties in the US use the terms liberal and conservative at will to serve their purpose at the time. No one really knows what each of those words mean. People apply their own definitions and like politicians, often flip flop the definitions of those two words to suit the circumstances of the moment.

Democracy is a word that has been misapplied, reapplied, and for all intents and purposes, redefined in conflicting manners to confuse the average voter. Voters all over the world have accepted the fact politicians apply one meaning to a democracy, then apply a completely different definition when they formulate and vote on policies and laws. Politicians tell people a democracy defines freedom. Then they apply laws, restrictions, taxes, and policies to restrict and control basic freedoms. Within their private chambers a democracy takes on a completely different definition. Behind closed doors a democracy is a form of government where elected officials rule the voters. We see that belief rear its ugly head in the new, emergency stay at home laws and orders. For all intents and purposes, the world is under martial law. In the eyes of politicians, no one is able to protect themselves. Politicians actually believe they are the only people on earth able to examine the situation and make a decision. Governments on all levels treat people like children unable to protect themselves, or make a rational decision. Then politicians pass laws and set restrictions to protect the general public from the minority of people unable to follow directions, protect themselves, have any rational thought, and have no respect for others. In essence, politicians today are showing the world how easy it is for them to abuse their power and justify their abuse of power by actually thinking it will somehow turn out for the good of all people. Politicians have blurred the definition of a democracy by shifting it to a totalitarian government. Mixing the two for what they believe is the greater good of the people. To further their control, politicians have convinced themselves, the public does not understand. They convince themselves they need to seize total control because they are the only people alive who understand the situation, and they are the knight in shinning armor placed on the throne to save the kingdom. Today we can see what to expect when a democracy is defined as, the decision of those in control is final and punishment must be inflicted to get the point across. Today we see what a democracy is when unquestioned control is necessary to guarantee a safe and secure society.

The sum it up in my own terms, the modern definition of a democracy is when people are elected to determine the direction of society as a whole. The people are directed by those they elect. In traditional terms, a republic is when elected officials are still bound to the will of the people. In a republic, after elections, decisions and policies are still shaped by the people.

John Kennedy offered a unique vision of a republic. Faced with one major issue, segregation and the prejudice it comes with, Kennedy, the youngest President ever elected, was faced with a daunting task. Knowing prejudice and segregation sprang from the evolutionary theories conjured up in the late 1850’s President Kennedy knew he had to reeducate a vast number of Americans who used the evolutionary theories to fuel segregation. It may have been Kennedy’s religious background that fueled his desire to overcome the social issues his administration faced. Knowing evolution was a theory, Kennedy looked at how man made theories and concepts shaped opinions. Some called evolution a science. Although evolution did not fit the definition of science. Evolution could not be proven. There was no evidence, nor was there any way to conduct any scientific tests. So evolution was never anything more than an opinion. An opinion people used to justify segregation and a host of crimes against humanity and establish a double standard of freedom in America. Kennedy had no choice but to follow his convictions and the only solution to those issues. To dispel any belief in man made theories and rely on cold, hard facts. Education and science were the only weapons Kennedy had to fight with.

In a way, everything was in place for Kennedy to spark a new, progressive scientific revolution everyone could benefit from. Kennedy was a WWII war veteran. He was surrounded by a political atmosphere of WWII veterans who took the battles against inequality to the home front. Opposition was high, but a few footholds were gained. During and after WWII blacks as well as Asians, and other nationalities were still looked down upon. The main excuse was evolution. Many whites believed they were a superior race. Sure the US just defeated Hitler and his dreams to create a pure Aryan race to rule the world. But that mentality was still alive and thriving in the US. Another double standard of thinking widely accepted by you guessed it, those who benefited the most. Somehow Kennedy had to change the mindset of the average American white person. Education and science were the keys.

Equal education was the first step. Whites implemented separate but equal education out of fear and ignorance. Ignorance because evolution told them blacks will never advance as far as whites. Fear because one black man could disprove the entire evolutionary theory.

John Kennedy was in the right spot at the right time. He had to first get the American people to focus on science. An idea is a theory until proven. Then it becomes a fact. John Kennedy put all of his eggs in one basket by announcing a plan to send a man to the moon. At that time, a man on the moon was a concept, an unproven theory. Kennedy had infant computers and a host of scientists to work with. Rockets were in their early stages and to create and launch a rocket of the size required was at that time, basically unproven. A few satellites later and that stage was set. In the 1960’s a trip to the moon was on a rather fast pace. They also had to deal with the theory of weightlessness in space. Another theory science needed to prove. One after another science showed the world exactly how to prove a theory. Science fed into the equal rights movement as if God had a hand in taking the minimum and turning it into a world changing event.

On the political front President Kennedy had a vision of the perfect republic. A government founded on the idea of educated voters. To achieve that goal, the American public had to accept President Kennedy’s concept of continuing education and the concept that every living being has something to contribute. President Kennedy summed up his moral convictions in a few words.

Only an educated and informed people will be a free people. John F. Kennedy’s Remarks in Nashville at the 90th Anniversary Convocation of Vanderbilt University (18 May 1963).

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man. John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961

https://www.ushistory.org/documents/ask-not.htm

Almost 40 years later people are still speculating on who shot President Kennedy. We may never ever know who was behind President Kennedy’s assassination, but we do know why he was assassinated. The concept of a total republic not lead by elected officials, but an educated and motivated society struck fear in the hearts of every crooked politician waiting for things to get back to their idea of normal so they could get back to making money the old fashion way – steal it.

President Kennedy used the moon trip to define science, establish the difference between fact and theory and give evolution a black eye. With that accomplished, his administration turned its attention on the two concepts of freedom closest to his heart. The reeducation of America was kindled. From the hearts and minds of educated Americans a new government structure was on the horizon. A government where every elected official not only depends on but thrives on input and ideas from the people who pay their salaries.

Based on the fact those concepts cost President Kennedy his life, we can see how far politicians will go to protect their interests. Interests that are threatened by well educated voters. I often wonder how John Kennedy’s concepts, ideals, and moral conviction would be accepted today. President Kennedy was lucky. He was President in a day and age of professional journalism was expected and demanded by the general public. Quite the opposite of today.

Update May 9th 2020

May 8th marked the 75th anniversary of VE day. Today most people have no idea what VE day is. VE stands for Victory in Europe and marked the end of WWII in Europe. President Trump held a few ceremonies to commemorate the day. They were not covered by any US media. A few European newspapers covered the event. But nothing in America. It is as if WWII never happened. Has fakes news infected the US media that badly? Has socialism gotten such a grip on the US that it is no longer politically correct to celebrate a day that draws attention to the fact the US fought a war against socialism. To socialism ignorance in bliss. A republic relies on education to survive.

Monday, February 19th, will be celebrated as Presidents’ Day. One of the recurring themes of most presidents of the United States is the absolute necessity of making sure our people are educated. They have varied opinions on how that is to be accomplished, but most have seemed to agree that a free society can only survive as a republic if the people maintain a program of general education. Can we not hear our first three presidents say this? “A primary object should be the education of our youth in the science of government. In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? And what duty more pressing than communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?” – George Washington “Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. And it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson “Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people…. They have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge — I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers.” – John Adams

https://nccs.net/blogs/articles/educate-and-inform-the-whole-mass-of-the-people

Parts of Europe have banned VE-DAY celebrations. America forgot VE-Day and Europe banned it. Has it become political incorrect to celebrate the end of a war when socialism got their asses kicked?

Today we can clearly see which politicians really believe they were elected to carry out the will of the people and which think they were elected to rule over people. View a few of Pelosi’s videos and you can tell her idea of the perfect government is an ant colony. There is one queen, guard ants, and worker ants. Today many consider an ant colony as the perfect example of a democracy.

Imagine what this country would be like today if President Kennedy was able to follow his mission in life, to create a country with well educated voters having their voices heard between elections. We still have that system. It is called town hall meetings. Elected officials travel from town to town to hear what people think. I’ve been going to those for years. I have see the attitudes of politicians change over the years. I also noticed something else. It is rare to see a young person in those meetings. And if you do see a young person, their questions and comments are normally along a socialist lines. And always based on some less than reputable website. That was not the vision President Kennedy had.

Kennedy’s narrow election victory and small working margin in Congress left him cautious. He was reluctant to lose southern support for legislation on many fronts by pushing too hard on civil rights legislation. Instead, he appointed unprecedented numbers of African Americans to high-level positions in the administration and strengthened the Civil Rights Commission. He spoke out in favor of school desegregation, praised a number of cities for integrating their schools, and put Vice President Lyndon Johnson in charge of the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity. Attorney General Robert Kennedy turned his attention to voting rights, initiating five times the number of suits brought during the previous administration. https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/civil-rights-movement

On May 25, 1961, Kennedy addressed a joint session of Congress to announce his decision to go to the moon. He backed up this decision with remarkable financial commitments. In the immediate aftermath of his speech, NASA’s budget was increased by 89 percent, and by another 101 percent the following year. To carry out Apollo, NASA became the large engineering organization centered on developing capabilities for human space flight that it is today. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/john-f-kennedy-and-nasa

https://history.nasa.gov/moondec.html

Scholarships — Eligibility

S. 539 — Public Law 87-153, approved August 17, 1961

Permits legally classified American nationals to qualify and receive financial assistance under the Fulbright Act for advanced education abroad.

https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/legislative-summary/education

The Kennedys decided to submit civil rights legislation to Congress, and they began a series of meetings with congressional leaders to see what might have a chance of passing. After Birmingham, Jack realized that the “terrible problem” was “going to get worse and worse and had to be dealt with.”

Jack was also undoubtedly responding to a harsh public attack by Martin Luther King, who said that Kennedy had been as ineffective in civil rights as Eisenhower. Above all, King declared, the president should start talking about integration in moral terms, showing him capable of rising above politics.

Jack announced that he would soon be submitting far-reaching legislation to Congress that would integrate public accommodations, hasten school desegregation, and add protection for the right to vote.

Appeals were made to the Golden Rule. “In short, every American ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children be treated.”

https://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/John_F__Kennedy_Education.htm

Americans have regarded education as the keystone of the American democratic

experience. Indeed, federal involvement in education pre-dates the Constitution. It was

explicitly encouraged by the Congress of the Confederation in the Survey Ordinance of

1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.

https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5269&context=open_access_etds

In a Special Message to the Congress on Education, delivered on February 6, 1962, Kennedy laid out his argument that education in this country is the right—the necessity—and the responsibility—of all.

https://www.thoughtco.com/jfk-education-legacy-4140694

June 11, 1963, President John F. Kennedy gave a televised address to the American people and announced that he would be sending a civil rights bill to Congress. His bill would become the most-far reaching act of legislation supporting racial equality in American history. Beginning in the 1950s, African Americans had been engaged in peaceful demonstrations to protest segregation and discrimination, but had encountered violence and resistance. The turmoil through the South prompted the president to take action. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed racial segregation in public accommodations including hotels, restaurants, theaters, and stores, and made employment discrimination illegal. President Lyndon Johnson signed the bill on July 2, 1964. This exhibit summarizes some of the historical events that influenced the passage of this legislation. https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/the-civil-rights-act-of-1964

Kennedy focused in three major areas, education, the space program, and civil rights. This seems like a rather odd combination of interests. Although a man would not step food on the moon until 1969, we have to ask the question, did President Kennedy use the space program to advance civil rights?

We know the theory of evolution was looked upon as fact by those who needed an excuse to execute wide spread prejudice over the land. It was the only argument they had to stand on. On paper slavery had been abolished for nearly 100 years. https://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/13th-amendment

Strange as it may seem a man named Charles Darwin published his book on evolution only a few tears before Congress passed a law abolishing slavery. Darwin’s book gave slave owners what they needed, an excuse to act as masters over one section of mankind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species

Although nothing is specifically written on the subject, did President Kennedy have a plan to use the space program and the science behind it to teach America the difference between a theory and fact. When we look at what it took to send a man to the moon and safely return him, we can see how science had to prove one theory after another. Calculations to launch a rocket and capsule of that size was a theory until proven. Gravity on the moon was a theory until proven. There was no way to get the amount of fuel needed to leave earth’s atmosphere onto the moon. Scientists had to rely on theories to calculate the moon’s gravity and the amount of fuel required to lift off from the moon and propel that capsule back to earth. The trip to and from the moon was based on theories science had to prove as fact. Was President Kennedy planning on using the space program to show mankind the difference between theories and facts? It was going to take a miracle to change minds on civil rights. For a hundred years mankind had been using the theory of evolution as a crutch to limp trough their excuses for segregation. Although President Kennedy was the youngest President in the US, he had visions few people possessed. Sad to say, his visions were what killed him. What would have life been like of President Kennedy was able to achieve his dreams?

Share and Share Alike. We like Shares!
Share and Share Alike. We like Shares!

Battles Over the Constitution

Time to call out the white elephant in the room. Let’s take a look at where people are protesting, what they are protesting, and why they are protesting. There is no big surprise that when we examine the issues, there are few common factors. First we look at the leaders in those hot beds.

Bill de Blasio is an American politician who has served as the 109th mayor of New York City since 2014. A member of the Democratic Party, he was New York City’s public advocate from 2010 to 2013.

Andrew Graham Beshear is an American attorney and politician. Since December 2019, he has served as the 63rd Governor of Kentucky. A member of the Democratic Party, he is the son of Steve Beshear, the 61st Governor of Kentucky. Beshear was elected attorney general of Kentucky in November 2015.

Roy Asberry Cooper III is an American politician and attorney who has served as the 75th Governor of North Carolina since January 1, 2017. A member of the Democratic Party, Cooper had previously served as the elected Attorney General of North Carolina since 2001.

Anthony Steven Evers is an American politician and educator who has served as the 46th governor of Wisconsin since January 7, 2019. A member of the Democratic Party, Evers previously served as the Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Gretchen Esther Whitmer is an American politician serving as the 49th governor of Michigan. A member of the Democratic Party, she served in the Michigan House of Representatives from 2001 to 2006 and in the Michigan Senate from 2006 to 2015. Whitmer was born and raised in Michigan.

Thomas Mark Barrett is an American politician and member of the Democratic Party who has served as the 44th Mayor of Milwaukee, Wisconsin since 2004. He served in the United States House of Representatives from 1993 to 2003, and the Wisconsin State Senate from 1989 to 1993.

Philip Dunton Murphy is an American financier, diplomat and Democratic Party politician who has been the 56th governor of New Jersey since January 2018. He served as the United States Ambassador to Germany from 2009 to 2013, during which time he dealt with fallout from the United States diplomatic cables leak.

It’s no surprise they are all democrats. All of them have another thing in common. They all believe they have the right and duty to cease total control when it is in the best interest of the people they serve. The only thing is, they are far from serving the people who elected them. They all believe in a strong centralized government. We can see how that concept of a strong centralized government eliminates every opportunity of being represented. They all ignore the protests. They all call the protests a political move blaming it on the republicans. Every attempt to regain the balance of power guaranteed by state constitutions is called a political attack. In essence we have a group of democrats who believe executive power is supreme power and should not be questioned. We have a group of people who oppose the constitution they swore to uphold and protect. In reality we have a group of democrats who are fighting against the constitution and the balance of power it guarantees. After looking at a number of stories we gather a number of views from different angles.

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-protest-social-distancing-1bc7fb5a-b94c-471e-adf2-c50bfad4f242.html

https://www.wired.com/story/anti-lockdown-protests-online/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/30/michigan-protests-coronavirus-lockdown-armed-capitol

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/19/opinion/coronavirus-first-amendment-protests.html

https://www.kpbs.org/news/2020/may/01/san-diego-protesters-are-angry-about-covid-19-rest/

I have to note, I did not include links to sites that require a paid subscription to view the article. When we look at the general claims from those who are protesting we see a few common threads. People are telling the press, they are exercising their right to assemble and freedom of speech. We also have a story where people are showing up carrying arms. They are drawing attention to the second amendment which has been under attack for some time. People are protesting because they are not being heard. People are protesting because they live in cities and states led by democrats who refuse to listen to the voice of those who elected them. Demonstrators believe in a republic where elected officials listen to the people who put them in office. But that system is not working in particular areas in the US. This is not an isolated incident and is not restricted to COVID rules and regulations. This is a problem that has been around for years. The virus only magnified the problem.

Of course we have a number of news reports that people are holding Trump signs and the media has joined those democratic leaders in an attempt to ignore the core issue and turn the nationwide protests into a political battle. A quick look at the signs and and few interviews with the protesters tells us, people are taking to the streets because their rights are being denied and they see leaders ignoring and defying the constitution. That is the real threat America faces and no smoke screen will cover that up. Protesters all over the US are drawing attention to the constitution and the treats we face today.

Let’s take a logical look at the accusations leveled by those democratic leaders and the media who has chosen to support them. First of all, news is biased. The news we see is controlled by the highest paying advertiser. If the democratic party is the highest bidder for advertising, the media will go out of their way to write and post stories that support their advertiser. Today it is more difficult to dig deep enough to find the truth on any subject.

We have a group of powerful democrats who call protests supporting and defending the constitution a political move. They call it a political battle. Let’s take the democratic view a step further. Isn’t it rather alarming when one party calls an organized protest supporting the constitution a battle? Of course those democrats chose to ignore and over ride the constitution. This has been going on long before this virus crisis. Democrats have led fights against the second amendment. Democrats are constantly introducing bills that give special privileges and funds to minorities. Which is often viewed as buying votes but can also be viewed as a violation of civil rights when one group, any group is given special favors, funding, and privileges and other groups are denied those privileges, loans, and funding. It does not matter which minority group is given special privileges, it is a violation of the basic fundamental, we are all created equal. In the long run, granting special privileges to select groups is one item on a long list of excuses democrats are using to challenge the constitution. Their plan is to chop away at the constitution one article and one amendment at a time.

Democrats have been trying to under mind the judicial branch of the government. Recent court decisions across the US pointed out how executive powers have been abused during this crisis. Democratic leaders shunned those court decisions calling them political attacks. It doesn’t matter if protesters in the streets or supreme court judges point out violations against the constitution, democrats claim they are political attacks. That should answer the question for all Americans. Democrats across the US have declared war on the constitution and America’s civil rights. It doesn’t make sense to call every attempt to uphold and defend the constitution an attack. Support for the constitution is viewed as an attack only by those who intend to alter, change, or destroy the constitution. And that is what those protests have been about and what the will continue to be about. Protecting the constitution is primary.

We don’t need a new Constitution. We need to elect people who take their oath to support and defend the constitution seriously. Our rights and liberty depend upon it.

Share and Share Alike. We like Shares!
Share and Share Alike. We like Shares!

Wisconsin: The Governor Verses the Constitution.

Over this past week we have seen a lot happen in Wisconsin. We had to wait what felt like an eternity to hear the State Supreme Court decision on stay at home orders during this virus crisis. Within hours of the decision, Governor Tony Evers recorded a live phone interview with CNN. During his interview with CNN Evers was allowed to voice his opinion on a 161 page Supreme Court Decision. The majority of the claims Governor Evers made were completely contrary to the written decision released a few hours before the governor’s live interview.

Governor: “Overturning stay-at-home order puts Wisconsin ‘into chaos’”

Decision: ¶65 “Therefore, I conclude there is a legal basis upon which to consider the Legislature’s extraordinary request. I too am appreciative of the concerns raised by COVID-19 and the possibility of throwing the state into chaos. Accordingly, although our declaration of rights is effective immediately, I would stay future actions to enforce our decision until May 20, 2020.”

Governor: “Wisconsin Republican Legislature and those 4 Supreme Court Justices decided …”

Decision: Wisconsin Legislature, Petitioner

In its last act of judicial activism, the majority takes it upon

itself to immediately overturn Emergency Order 28, a remedy neither

party asked for.”

¶167 “Some would like to characterize this case as a battle

over the constitutional limits on executive power——can an

executive branch officer really shut down businesses, limit

travel, and forbid public gatherings? These are important

questions for sure, but they are not what this case is about. No

party has raised or developed such a claim. Some would also like

to frame this as a challenge to the government’s potential infringement of certain constitutional protections like the freedoms of religion, speech, and assembly, and the right to hunt and fish. But these issues are not before us either. No party

has raised or developed a claim along these lines. ”

¶254 “First, in what is a recurring theme, this argument was

not developed by any party. This is raised sua sponte by this

court without the benefit of adversarial briefing. We risk serious

error when we issue broad rulings based on legal rationales that

have not been tested through the crucible of adversarial

litigation. When accepting an original action, this danger is

even greater.”

https://www.wpr.org/sites/default/files/wi_legislature_v._andrea_palm_-_decision.pdf

Court records show the lawsuit was not filed by one party, or only by Republics on the State Legislature, but by both parties in a unified effort to ensure the security of the State Constitution they took an oath to defend. Evers wants people to believe this court case was a battle between Democrats and Republicans. Nothing could be further from the truth. Judge ROGGENSACK went out of his way to prove this decision was not a political move or one party attacking another. Evers wants people to believe every Democrat in Wisconsin supported his move to place the Constitution on hold, completely ignore it, and the Constitution needs to be modified. That is not the opinion of the Supreme Court nor the Legislature made up of Democrats and Republicans. As a whole the majority of the judges in the Wisconsin Supreme Court as well as the State Legislature agree, one man should never stand above the State Constitution establishing checks and balances to protect the rights of all Wisconsin citizens. Evers claims 69% of Wisconsin supported his decision to seize total control and pass that control onto those of his choosing.

Governor: “Today absolutely Republican Legislatures and those four Supreme Court justices decided that facts don’t matter, statues don’t matter, and frankly it puts our state into chaos. There are no regulations out there. Period.”

Reporter: “Does this mean all businesses in your state can open tomorrow or right away?”

Governor: “Yes. The Tavern league of Wisconsin sent a message to all the people in their organization saying you can open now. And that’s happening all across Wisconsin as we speak. So this is the wild west now.”

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/05/14/governor-tony-evers-wisconsin-supreme-court-strikes-down-stay-at-home-ctn-vpx.cnn

This clearly indicates, the governor did not read the court decision. Evers’ statement shows, his moves are 100% politically motivated. It also shows Evers has zero concern for the people he was elected to serve. By implying the Tavern League now sets the laws and standards in Wisconsin, Evers single handedly created a state of chaos. Which of course was his intent.

As governor, Evers is sworn to uphold the laws of Wisconsin. He had the opportunity to educate the public on the court decision but instead chose to turn the decision into a political battle, drive a wedge between democrats and republicans not only on the political field but throughout the state, and imply the court decision opened the door for any organization or individual to interpret the law they see fit. To imply one court decision removed all laws from Wisconsin is dangerous and naive statement beneath the dignity of any elected official in any capacity. What did motivate Evers to make such a statement?

After reading the court decision no one can argue the fact, this was a case of one person challenging the state constitution in what everyone agrees a national crisis.

¶69 “Endowing one person with the sole power to create,

execute, and enforce the law contravenes the structural separation

of powers established by the people. Through the Wisconsin

Constitution, the people confer distinct powers on the

legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government.

“Three clauses of the Wisconsin Constitution embody this

separation: Article IV, Section 1”

What was Evers’ motive to change the State Supreme Court decision centered on the State Constitution into a political battle between parties? The detail that should come to every educated voter mind is the fact Tony Evers was in charge of the state education system since 2001.

After working as a schoolteacher for several years, he became a school administrator, serving as a principal and, later, district superintendent. Evers first ran for Superintendent of Public Instruction in 1993 and again in 2001, losing both elections. Evers was instead appointed deputy superintendent, a position he served in from 2001 to 2009. In 2009, he ran for Superintendent of Public Instruction again, this time winning. He was reelected twice, in 2013 and 2017.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Evers

There is no better expert on the Wisconsin school system than Tony Evers. Before making that phone call to CNN, Evers had to decide to gamble on the presumption that no one would read the actually court decision. Having a clear insight to the Wisconsin educational system, Evers felt secure enough to do a live interview, present his view of the facts knowing CNN would never question nor research his claims, and few if any individuals in Wisconsin would fact check his claims. Evers also banked on the idea that voters supporting his party would accept a pack of lies because it damages the reputation of the opposing party. Voters supporting Evers would accept statements aimed at damaging the reputation of Republicans without checking the actual facts. Evers comments achieved their goal. News agencies all over the country chose to air Evers comments, presenting them as facts without ever reading the actual court decision. Here is one random example of the fake news Evers sparked.

Wisconsin Is a Warning

On Wednesday night, the state’s highest court issued a hyperpartisan ruling that endangers thousands of lives.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court invalidated the state’s stay-at-home order on Wednesday in a 4–3 decision that condemned the public health measure as a grave assault on citizens’ constitutional rights. Two justices compared the order, which closed nonessential businesses and limited large gatherings of people, to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Even though the plaintiffs and defendants agreed the court should put its ruling on hold, the majority of justices refused to do so, instead implementing the decision immediately. As a result, Wisconsinites flocked to reopened bars Wednesday night during a pandemic, in a state that is nowhere close to flattening the curve.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/wisconsin-supreme-court-strikes-down-stay-at-home-order.html

Like the governor, the media neglects to cover news in an unbiased fashion or provide a link for readers to further research the reasoning behind comments and the decision as a whole.

Decision: “We mention cases like Korematsu in order to test the limits of

government authority, to remind the state that urging courts to

approve the exercise of extraordinary power during times of

emergency may lead to extraordinary abuses of its citizens.”

Meanwhile, Kelly’s concurrence displayed a remarkable lack of humility for a judge who was just soundly rejected by the people he serves. He proposed new, far-reaching limitations on the executive branch’s authority, carrying forward the Legislature’s crusade to strip the Democratic governor of his powers. Oddly enough, both Kelly and Bradley rooted their theories in the Wisconsin Constitution—but they repeatedly cited three opinions involving the federal Constitution: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch’s dissent in Gundy v. U.S., Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Morrison v. Olson, and Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurrence in Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads. None of these opinions actually carries legal weight. Yet it appears that Kelly and Bradley will transform them into Wisconsin law if they get the opportunity.”

That news story did provide a number of links to back up its story. The majority of links supplied take the reader to other biased articles written by the same news agency and other news agencies with articles that agree with their false statements. In other words, their reporting is biased and as any reader with an open mind can tell, is dedicated to changing state constitutions and our federal Constitution. Why do media outlets and a small minority of politicians want to change the Constitution? And why does the media go out of its way to hide any logical conversations about the Constitution from the public and throw up smoke screens to redirect public attention to senseless battles over just about every word in the Constitution?

So far we have a debate over rights preserved in the state constitution redirected into a political battle. And we have a governor with nearly 2 decades of experience in the state education system. Add to that certain media outlets who neglect to check the facts he presented. The first detail we need to consider is, what kind of educator in their right mind would teach a generation to accept opinions without gathering and examining facts? Socialist do. Communists rely on that type of thinking.

Is there a link between Governor Evers comments on the Supreme Court decision, the failing education system, and the democratic-socialist movement across the US? There is another leading indicator to consider. Every socialist movement relies in two main details, the ability to control people and taking away their ability to defend themselves. How does Governor Evers stand in gun control?

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers says Republican legislative leaders who oppose gun control bills that polls show enjoy broad public support are essentially telling the public to “go to hell.”

Evers made the comment Monday after calling the Republican-controlled Legislature into a special session — which will take place Nov. 7 — to take up a pair of gun control measures that GOP leaders have been unwilling to debate.

https://www.wpr.org/gov-tony-evers-calls-special-session-gun-control

The governor had called on lawmakers to take up an expansion of background checks and a so-called “red flag” law, which would allow gun rights to be temporarily revoked from individuals who are deemed by a court to be potentially harmful to themselves or others.

Republicans have argued the bills violate Second Amendment and due process rights. They declined to advance other gun-related proposals during the special session as well, though Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, argued the Assembly’s work on suicide prevention and attempted veto overrides related to mental health funding would address the root cause of gun violence.

The governor has cited strong public support for both expanding background checks and the red-flag proposal. According to recent polls from Marquette University Law School, both measures have at least 80 percent approval from Wisconsin residents.

https://www.wpr.org/gov-tony-evers-may-call-another-special-session-state-gun-laws

To examine this piece of evidence, we need to consider a few facts. What was Evers’ motive in introducing those bills. I think the majority of people agree on back ground checks and the fact we need to get guns out of the hands of individuals who pose a threat to themselves and others. Wisconsin along with most other states have laws on the books that do just that. Legislatures told Evers his laws would be a violation of Constitutional rights. Another example of Evers attempting to under mind the Constitution.

Some accuse Republicans of catering to voters. Let’s check out the facts on that accusation. Wisconsin does have a bunch of hunters. Are they enough to sway a vote?

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin …. Allow me to restate that number: 600,000!

http://www.onwisconsinoutdoors.com/DeerHunting/AMERICAS-HUNTERS–Pretty-Amazing

The State of Wisconsin had 3,397,693 active registered voters on May 1, 2020.

https://elections.wi.gov/node/6886

Hunters account for less than 20% of general voters. Hardly a number to be concerned about at the polls. So we would have to accept the fact, the Republican majority in the Senate along with the majority of Democrats in the state legislature do not agree with Governor Evers’ quest to change the State Constitution. Not for far reaching gun laws going beyond laws already on the books. The legislature does not agree with changing the Constitution to open the doors for the confiscation of guns by any agency the governor decides to name in the future. We’ve seen that fail with the COVID orders. We can thank the Wisconsin legislative branch for putting a stop to that type of power grab in other areas.

After the court decision was released, mayors and county executives threatened to impose stricter restrictions in their cities and counties. Did you see what just happened? State gun control laws allow cities and counties to pass their own local laws. Every business in Wisconsin has the right to ban guns on their property. State law contains a list of properties where firearms are not allowed. Cities and counties have forearm ordinances on the books. If they wanted a total ban on guns, or certain types of guns, they have the right to pass ordinances in their cities and counties. Why do they refuse to pass local ordinances on guns, but want the state to pass state laws and the federal government to pass federal laws enforced throughout the country? If you have a problem in your backyard, handle it. But don’t make my problem your problem.

That was the problem we saw with the COVID laws. The entire state was made to suffer equally. If one city has people who refused to follow orders, stricter orders were put in effect for the entire state. And now we have cities and counties saying they will address local problems. In some areas that may be a good idea. I would suggest caution. If the State Supreme Court just told us those orders were unconstitutional, what good is it going to do when mayors and county executives begin passing local ordinances that are unconstitutional? The Supreme court already warned the door is open for companies and individuals to sue the state for damages. In the long run, lawmakers could cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Which would be nothing new. If you did a little research it would not take long to uncover one example after another of special interest groups demanding special treatment for one group or another. Shortly after a law is passed and certain groups receive special assistance based on sex, creed, color, or nationality, the same group that demanded that special treatment rushes in with a host of lawsuits representing groups who claim discrimination. Actions like that cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Much of that money is funneled into political campaigns promising programs for every minority under the sun. People are elected. New laws favoring one group above all others is passed. Lawsuits are filed and the wheels keep turning, driving the average taxpayer into the ground. This has to stop. This will continue until the average American voter takes on the responsibility of becoming an informed voter. Do not allow the media to deceive you.

Share and Share Alike. We like Shares!
Share and Share Alike. We like Shares!

With the outbreak of the American War for Independence, the British garrison at Fort Ticonderoga number something along the lines of about 50 men. Now, Fort Ticonderoga was of great strategic importance to the Patriots thanks to its location Lake Champlain. Thus, on May 10, 1775, the Green Mountain Boys, led by Colonels Benedict Arnold and Ethan Allen advanced on the fort.

On the morning of the 10th, the Green Mountain Boys rowed across Lake Champlain, capturing the fort in a surprise attack. This was the first offensive victory of the American Patriots. And all without firing a single shot. 

Share and Share Alike. We like Shares!
Share and Share Alike. We like Shares!

Battle of France

After spending four years fighting in the crude trenches of WWI, the French smartly built the Maginot Line, a series of sophisticated fortifications that France believed would protect them from German invasion. But, as we already know, they didn’t bother to build it along the Ardennes Forest because they believed it was “impenetrable.” That, of course, was their first mistake.

Hitler’s armies invaded France (and the low countries) on May 10, 1940.

Initially, Hitler had planned to invade these countries right on the heels of their victory over Poland. However, those plans had to be postponed, due to bad weather. Their plans were once again postponed in January 1940, when “a German plane crashed in neutral Belgium, with a copy of the attack orders on board” (Source). At this point, France was probably (maybe) feeling pretty good about their chances of not being invaded by Germany.

But, then, of course, May arrived, and with it, Hitler’s forces. During those months, Hitler was forced to rethink his invasion plan. With the help of General Erich von Manstein, who proposed that they attack France through Belgium and Holland. After all, that would mean conquering three countries for the price of one! Err, so to speak.

The Allies would never suspect an attack through the Ardennes (clearly). And to further insure their success, the Nazis planned to employ blitzkrieg-like techniques.

By heavily concentrating their tanks into Panzer formations (armored), they were able to outwit the French, who had spread their own tanks much too thinly. “Manstein’s plan envisaged these Panzer divisions in a semi-independent role, striking ahead of the main body of the army, to disrupt and disorientate the Allies” (Source). But this plan was not only much riskier than the Poland invasion plan, but it was also much more ambitious.

[Below: Invasion & fall of France]

Hotchkiss H35 1940 | Photos militaires, Guerre mondiale, France

 

On May 10, the Nazis invaded both Belgium and Holland (and also a number of other countries). They began the attack with air raids, followed quickly by parachute drops or large numbers of troops. “The speed of the German advance and the brutality of the air raids gave them a huge psychological advantage, and on 14 May the Dutch surrendered” (Source).

The Allies responded, relatively successfully, on the attack of Belgium. They did not do so well in Holland, however, and they were pushed back. Then, on the 13th, troops marched through the Ardennes, on the River Meuse. Crossing the river involved a two-day battle. The Allies fought hard, but despite some hard fighting by both the air forces and the tank divisions, the German tanks, led by General Heinz Guderian, broke through. With little to no opposition, thanks to most of the Allied troops still fighting in Belgium, the Germans reached the English Channel by May 20 – after a mere 7 days of fighting.

By the 21st, British tanks were at least able to meet Erwin Rommel’s 7th Panzer Division at Arras. But that was the last piece of good news, because, with the German forces pushing up from both the west and the south, the Allies now found themselves surrounded.

It was so bad that the Belgians surrendered on May 28, after a mere 18 days of fighting.

The Allies – and the French, in particular – were becoming desperate. The French attempted a change of personnel, switching out General Gamelin for General Weygand as Commander-in-Chief. But it didn’t help much. Then, on May 23rd, BEF commander, General Lord Gort, called for his own men to fall back to the Channel ports.

The French felt betrayed by this decision, and with good reason. But, it turned out that Gort’s decision was a life saver, at least for the BEF. They spent the next 10 days (May 26-June 4), planning out Operation Dynamo – or, better known as Dunkirk.

[Below: Aftermath of the Battle of France]

Image

Share and Share Alike. We like Shares!
Share and Share Alike. We like Shares!

Battle for the Hague

On May 10, 1940, at 4:00 am, as part of the Battle of the Netherlands, fought between the Royal Netherlands Army and the German Luftwaffe, paratroopers “dropped in and around The Hague in order to capture Dutch airfields and the city” (Source). This was the first paratroop assault in history.

Ultimately, the Germans hoped to capture the Dutch Royal Family. Additionally, they hoped to capture the government and force the Dutch to surrender.

Unfortunately, their plans failed. They didn’t manage to capture Queen Wilhelmina.

And, well, see, the Dutch, who were smartly alert at the time, overheard the noise from the aircraft formations flying overhead, then turning around and flying over again. The first target, Ypenburg, was attacked, dropping “the 1st Battalion of the 2nd Fallschirmjaeger Regiment around the area” (Source). However, since the Dutch heard the plans, they were able to get their own planes into the air quickly enough to claim some victories for themselves. This just before being shot down themselves or being forced to land. Essentially, the Germans did manage to capture all three fields.

But then “the Dutch Army launched a counter-attack several hours later” (Source).

[Below: German Paratroopers above the Hague]

Erwin Gerald Mol (@erwinmol81) | Twitter

The attack started at Ypenburg. The Dutch were definitely outnumbered and the only ammunition they had was what they had managed to capture from the Germans. Even then, they fell into position, launching an artillery attack against their own airfield, causing heavy damage. The Germans were finally forced to evacuate “the airfield’s burning buildings, losing their strong defensive position” (Source).

Then Dutch troops stormed the airfield, forcing the Germans to fully retreat. While some of the Germans were able to withdraw and hide in the nearby woods, the Dutch did capture several more.

From here, the Dutch were ordered to turn towards Loosduinen. They sealed off Leiden and Wassenaar, retaking “an important bridge near Valkenburg” (Source). With the arrival of reinforcements, the Dutch were able to start attacking Germans from the ground and from the air. The Germans were forced to retreat, and several battles took place in Valkenburg, all to liberate the village. But it was heavily damaged in the process.

“By the end of 10 May, Dutch forces had retaken the captured airfields, but this tactical victory was to be short lived as on 14th May the German Rotterdam Blitz forced the Dutch armed forces to surrender” (Source).

As for the German failure, well, there were several factors at play. For one, they didn’t have nearly enough paratroopers, especially for all of the objectives they wished to achieve. Then, a number of these were “dropped miles from their objectives” (Source). Furthermore, German intelligence wasn’t nearly up to par, and the information that they did receive was poor. “With the landing strips effectively blocked, the following waves of aircraft were forced to divert, force-land on the nearby beaches or highways, or return to base” (Source). And, to top all of that, after Dunkirk, the Dutch had been busy building up their defense, making sure that their best artillery and armored cars were ready for the inevitable battle.

 [Below: Crashed German plane.]

image

Share and Share Alike. We like Shares!
Share and Share Alike. We like Shares!

Battle of Rotterdam

The battle began on May 10, 1940 and lasted for four days, ending with dreadful bombings. The Nazis chose to take over the Netherlands because they believed that it would be the ideal place for an Air Force base. For one, Rotterdam was a port town. A port town that just happened to be in close proximity to Britain, Hitler’s dream target.

The Dutch, on the other hand, had wanted to remain neutral in this war, much liked they done last time. In large part, the Dutch wanted to remain neutral because they knew that their military just didn’t have what it would take to stand up against the Axis powers. They were woefully lacking in military necessities such as aircraft, vehicles, and . . . oh, troops.

Hitler was sure that he could capture and occupy the Netherlands in just one short day of battle. Little did he know that the Dutch would put up such a big fight.

Now, while the Dutch didn’t necessarily have the number of troops needed to take part in a world war, they also weren’t necessarily lacking in troops. In fact, in the Rotterdam neighborhood of Hillegersberg was an artillery battalion with some 7,000 men. In nearby areas they had machine guns, cannons, and even the Royal Netherlands Air Force. Their biggest problem was simply that they just weren’t equipped enough to fight against the Nazis, who’d been preparing for battle for years.

Whether Hitler was aware of the seize of the Netherland’s military or not, his initial plan was for his own task force to attack Rotterdam and seize its bridges, all using the advantage of surprise. This plan was scrapped, however, and in its place was born the idea to use Heinkel He 59D’s. Much easier to surprise the Dutch with parachutists. They could easily capture the bridges, especially with even more men in the air for cover.

So, early May 10th, 80 Nazi soldiers landed. They easily captured several bridges. So far, there was no resistance. Everything was going as planned.

What they didn’t realize was that the Dutch troops were hiding in houses along the various routes to the bridges. They ambushed the approaching Germans. Meanwhile, another group of Dutch were waiting in the square. Turns out, they had been alerted to the German arrival by the sound of their plans. Yes, this was the same problem the Germans ran into over in the Hague . . . on the same exact morning.

Even though the garrison was run by a lonely captain, he quickly assembled his men and sent them out around town to places such as bridges, railway stations, and along the Nieuwe Maas.

Meanwhile, “a small delegation of Dutch Marines and an incomplete army engineers company” took positions north of the bridges and began deploying machine guns (Source). They were able to push the Germans back into a small perimeter by a mere traffic bridge – which probably isn’t exactly what the Germans had in mind when the planned to “take” Dutch bridges.

The Dutch continued to push and, gradually, the German pocket grew smaller and smaller. Later in the morning, they were gratefully aided by the Dutch Navy – however small their contingent may have been with only a small gunboat and a motor torpedo boat. Unfortunately, Luftwaffe bombs caused serious damages to the two boats, causing 3 deaths.

It was difficult, but the Dutch were able to hold out until that afternoon. It was then that German help in the form of the 10th Company of the 16th Air Landing Regiment.

But the Dutch continued to push the Germans back until the Germans withdrew into a National Life Insurance Company building. Turned out, this was better for the Germans than the Dutch. For one, the Germans had been reinforced with more anti-tanks guns. Furthermore, their location inside the building proved to hamper the Dutch.

[Below: Destroyed Rotterdam]

Museum JoCas onderwijs geschiedenis erfgoed uitvindingen ...

 

The next morning, the Dutch actually received reinforcements. After reorganizing them, Colonel Scharroo deployed them along the river. Then, at 4:00, the fighting continued. That being said, the Dutch still failed to infiltrate the National Life Insurance building. But, at the same time, the Nazis had failed to replenish their weapons. But, then the Royal Netherlands Air Force stepped in, bombing bridges. They missed their intended targets, but somehow managed to take out several machine gun nests, instead. Which was responded to by Messerschmitt Bf 110s. In all, five German plans were lost and 3 Dutch ones. But of course, the Germans had many more planes to spare than the Dutch did. At the same time, the SS Statendam was bombed, catching fire.

On the 13th, the Marines came to lend aid. Unfortunately, as they advanced, they came under German attack. Germans also attacked the two Dutch armored cars trying to cross the bridge. They were forced to retreat without firing on the insurance building. But then the Marines, previously unaware that the Nazis had overtaken the insurance building, came under German even more fire. The Marines returned fire, but after several casualties, were forced to retreat. They found shelter under the bridge. They were fired on again and had to retreat even further.

“After the war, the German occupants of the insurance building admitted that they had been on the verge of surrender. They were very short on ammunition, half of them had been wounded, and they had reached the point of utter exhaustion. But just when they were about to yield, the marines disappeared” (Source).

It had become clear that everything rested on the defense of Rotterdam’s two bridges. So, they put seven infantry companies, 3 anti-tank guns for each bridge. Additionally, three batteries of 105 mm howitzers were placed at Kralingse Plas bridge. In the meantime, three German tanks arrived, starting an all-out tanks assault. They were met by great Dutch opposition.

Then Hermann Göring stepped in. He decided that the best course of action was for an all-out aerial attack. Then, General Georg von Küchler, the Dutch operational area commander-in-chief, sent the Dutch an ultimatum: Unconditional surrender of the city was being demanded.

Finally, on the morning of May 14, the letter was delivered to General Scharroo. The Dutch insisted on a final notice with the German officer’s signature, name, and rank.

It was during this time, that Göring ordered the attack. A group of 27 bombers arrived to the south of the city. Aware of the attack, the Germans raised a red flare. Seeing this, 24 of the bombers turned and headed west. The remaining three dropped their payload.

“About one square mile of the city was completely destroyed. In total, over 25,000 buildings were leveled. Below is the breakdown of the type of buildings destroyed

 24,978 homes

2,320 businesses

24 churches

62 schools

775 warehouses” (Source).

Only a handful of buildings survived. One of these building was the 1898 high-rise, Witte Huis. It did receive some damage; the bullets holes of which can be seen to this day. Rotterdam, itself, was set ablaze. As bombs were dropping, many of the buildings that were struck caught fire. They became uncontrollable. “Over the course of a week, the fires began to join and create one huge inferno. It’s been said that after night, on the first night after the bombings, the sky was red from all the fires” (Source).

With their city on fire, it didn’t take long for the Dutch to surrender. Immediately, Germans took control of the city, ablaze or not. The following day, the British began bombing the Ruhr in retaliation.

It is reported that the Dutch casualty toll was somewhere around 1,000. However, thanks to German occupation, some 85,000 citizens were now homeless.

[Below: Rotterdam burning]

Image

Share and Share Alike. We like Shares!