A Lesson In Bad Foreign Policy

As long as foreign policy is the topic of the day here on IST…..a little history to close out my posts.

My readers know that I truly enjoy our history, well all history….and today is the day that our most begotten war was started….the year was 1812, 18 June to be exact.

I have taught American foreign policy from pre-revolution until today and this war was one that was a bad idea.

But check it out for yourself….

The 210th anniversary of America’s declaration of the War of 1812 against Great Britain, which falls on June 18, will not inspire much in the way of celebration or commemoration. It had, at most, a minor impact on American and world history. Yet that distant conflict is worth remembering, if only as a cautionary example: it stands as the most misbegotten war the United States has ever fought.

It was an offshoot of the great conflict between Great Britain and France that grew out of the French Revolution of 1789 and ended with the defeat of the French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. In what came to be known as the Napoleonic Wars, Britain sought to use its maritime supremacy to stop other countries’ trade with France. The United States declared itself neutral and claimed the commercial rights that international law accorded to countries with that status during wartime. This led to a conflict with Great Britain over just what those neutral trading rights were. The Americans embraced an expansive definition, which afforded wide latitude for profitable trade. The British insisted on more restrictive terms and began seizing and searching American ships in the Caribbean and confiscating cargo that they regarded as contraband. President George Washington sent the Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay to London to negotiate with the British government on the issue, where he reached a compromise agreement. In 1795 the Congress reluctantly ratified what became known as Jay’s Treaty.


The US has had many misbegotten wars but 1812 was our very first one.

I do hope my reader has learned a wee bit about our history to better understand today’s world.

Class Dismissed!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Why Is The AR-15 America’s Rifle?

Have you noticed that many of our thousands of mass shootings have involved the AR-15?

Why is that?

When did the AR-15 become America’s rifle?

I better question is just what is an AR-15?

Some lawmakers have proposed raising the age to buy these weapons to 21, while others want to ban them altogether.

But what is the AR-15, exactly? Here we demystify the weapon currently at the center of the gun debate.

Starting with the basics: What is a semiautomatic rifle? 

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives defines a semiautomatic rifle as a weapon designed to be fired from the shoulder that “utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round,” and shoots a single bullet with each pull of the trigger.


I recently read an article that answers that one question……

As the United States finds itself looking down the barrel of yet another senseless act of terror, the usual bogeyman has been put on trial: the semiautomatic AR-15.

Known as “America’s Rifle,” the AR-15 is arguably the most common rifle in circulation, with an estimated 20 million in the hands of American citizens.

This number, provided by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, shows the ubiquitous nature of the AR, but is a mere drop in the hat compared to the estimated 400 million firearms in the country- no small number for a nation with a 2020 Census population of 329.5 million.

So what is the AR-15? Where did it come from? How long has it been in civilian hands and has it always been so “easy to get,” as journalists and politicians often claim?

Designed and patented in 1956 by Eugene Stoner under the ArmaLite brand, the ARmaLite Model 15 [where “AR” comes from, not “Assault Rifle”] was a scaled down version of the gas-operated direct impingement AR-10, chambered in the smaller 5.56mm / .223 Remington cartridge rather than the AR-10’s heavier 7.62×51/.308 Winchester offering.

While the AR-10 is arguably more powerful and entered civilian circulation earlier than the AR-15, that is a tangent for another time.

Eventually, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt, who produced two versions: the semi-automatic Colt AR-15 Sporter and the select-fire M-16, the former being for civilian use and the later being for military and law enforcement use [though they could be legally obtained on the civilian market at the time]. The two rifles rolled out to their respective markets in 1963, and quickly took off, with the AR-15’s military cousin entering the US Military in 1964.

America’s Rifle: What is it about the AR-15?

About 20 million AR-15s in circulation, the hands of citizens….that is 20 million……20 with 6 zeroes.

And with the recent rash of mass shootings that number should go up because people are looking for security….a security they will not find.

I do not understand the fascination with the damn gun….I had one in Vietnam and I got rid of it in favor for a M3 Grease gun.

There is a solution for this…..Rep. Beyer from Virginia has one answer….

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) is drafting legislation to impose a hefty tax on assault-style weapons in the wake of recent mass shootings across the United States.

Beyer’s office told The Hill the proposal was a workaround to avoid GOP opposition to legislation outright banning the high-capacity weapons.

“Congressman Beyer has seen action to prevent gun violence obstructed by Senate Republicans using the filibuster after horrific mass shootings for years, this legislation represents an effort to put a new option on the table for those who believe that gun safety reforms are urgently needed to save lives,” Beyer’s deputy chief of staff Aaron Fritschner said in an email.

Beyer to propose 1,000 percent tax on assault-style weapons

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”


Memorial Day–2022

This will be my only post today….a family BBQ….fun, food and family….a great day all around.

Today the nation has a holiday and time to remember those who died in defense of their way of life (or so we are told)……and for the first time in a long while the day is observed on the actual day.

I short historical background on the day….

Originally known as Decoration Day, it originated in the years following the Civil War and became an official federal holiday in 1971. Many Americans observe Memorial Day by visiting cemeteries or memorials, holding family gatherings and participating in parades. Unofficially, it marks the beginning of the summer season.


I will spend the day remembering all those from my unit that did not make it home from Vietnam….and my time in country….

Memorial Day 2022: Historical Quotes, Messages, Status and Sayings -  National Day 2022

My first tour was 1967…..and in the beginning it was culture shock….to go from sock hops, sit-ins and parking trying to get my freak on to heat, rain, mud, bullets and fire fights.

Every US soldier was issued the latest weapon the M-16…a piece of crap…..so after a few months of lugging a useless weapon through the jungle I decided on another weapon….since I already carried a .45 I decided on a relic from the not so distant past….the M3 or as it was called in WW2 the ‘grease gun”……I carried this because that way I had to only carry one type of ammo…it’s rate of fire was slower than the M16 but far more dependable….her name was “Gertty”.

For those too young to remember anything remotely about the Vietnam War and those that gave all we could…..my weapon of choice…..of course if you know anything about me I will have to throw a little history in……

This M3 submachine gun, pictured with its sling and a 30-round stick magazine, was manufactured by Guide Lamp, a division of General Motors.

No one ever used the words “graceful” or “elegant” to describe the M3 submachine gun. Instead, those soldiers, sailors and Marines who carried it called the M3 a “plumber’s nightmare” or “the cake decorator.” Its passing resemblance to a mechanic’s lubrication tool, however, led to the weapon’s most common and enduring nickname: “grease gun.”

Designed as an inexpensive replacement for the iconic Thompson submachine gun, this utilitarian firearm overcame early reliability problems to capably serve U.S. forces and their allies for over half a century. Most servicemen who used one in battle admitted the grease gun was an adequate, if not beloved, close-combat weapon, its cheap, ugly appearance notwithstanding.

As early as 1940, officials in the United States Army Ordnance Department began to prepare for the enormous rearmament program their nation would have to undertake if it was to win victory in the approaching world war. Mass production of individual weapons, then, became an industrial priority.

While Ordnance tended to focus its efforts on such shoulder arms as the semiautomatic M1 rifle, certain specialized troops such as paratroopers and vehicle crewmen often required something else: a compact, hard-hitting submachine gun for short-range work. The current-issue Thompson, designed during World War I, met this requirement but had its issues. Put plainly, the Tommy Gun required too much time, steel, and money to manufacture in large numbers. Even a simplified wartime version called the M1A1 cost taxpayers $45.00 per unit ($660.00 in 2021).

The Controversial M3 Grease Gun

A short stroll down memory lane for me…..

Please take a few moments in your day to remember all those that gave all they could for their country.

Happy Memorial Day Wishes 2022: Status, Messages and Quotes - RangRiwaj

Be Well….Be Safe….

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Jefferson, The Great Humanitarian

I will close out my weekend posting with a bit of history….American history that few know anything about…..

We all know that most GOPers hold Thomas Jefferson in high regard….which in itself is confusing…..most GOPers are ‘religious’ at least when in the public eye…….and their hero was not….he made his own New Testament without all the ‘miracles…..it is called the “Jefferson Bible”……

Had he lived during the InquisitionThomas Jefferson would have been burned at the stake. His ideas about Jesus and Christianity were far from orthodox. A product of the Enlightenment, Jefferson believed that everything, including religion, should be examined in the light of reason.

When Jefferson examined the Gospels he came away with a strongly divided opinion. “I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence,” he wrote in an 1820 letter to William Short, “and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.”

Discover Thomas Jefferson’s Cut-and-Paste Version of the Bible, and Read the Curious Edition Online

Just little history as a lead into my next piece of history.

Jefferson wanted to screw the indigenous people……

Thomas Jefferson once secretly wrote to Congress that the US would try to drive Native Americans into debt in order to take their land.

The US president’s note to lawmakers was referenced in a report from the Interior Department

“In 1803, President Thomas Jefferson delivered a Confidential Message to Congress on Indian Policy explaining a strategy to dispossess Indian Tribes of their territories in part by assimilation,” the report said.

According to the report, Jefferson believed “a policy of assimilation would make it easier and less costly in lives and funding for the United States to separate Indian Tribes from their territories.”

Executed alongside the assimilation policy would be a process to encourage Native Americans to make purchases with credit. The hope, according to the report, was that they would fall into debt, meaning Indian tribes would have to “cede their land” to the US.

“To promote this disposition to exchange lands which they have to spare & we want, for necessaries, which we have to spare & they want, we shall push our trading houses, and be glad to see the good & influential individuals among them run in debt, because we observe that when these debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop th[em off] by a cession of lands,” Jefferson wrote in his letter to Congress.

Jefferson had even more ideas on how to screw the NAs…..


Even the so-called ‘pillars’ of our nation were deep down racist pigs.

Plus the vitriol that is part of the American political scene is nothing new…..it goes all the way back to the very beginning of our political process….

John Adams, a hermaphrodite who is secretly trying to marry the American Presidency to the British Crown? Thomas Jefferson, an atheist and anarchist who supports incest? These are just some of the attacks hurled in the election of 1800. You didn’t think the early republic was some golden age of political decorum, did you?

So you see nasty insults are nothing new in America.

Be Smart—-Learn Stuff….

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Why Did Russia Let The Republics Go?

Ever wonder (probably not) if Ukraine is so important to Russia why then did they allow it to break away?

The news from Ukraine is redundant….pretty much the same day after day…..US spends like a drunken sailor for Ukraine…..Refugees are still pathetic…..Russia fires a rocket somewhere and the words of defiance on both sides continue….

Now a little historic background for those that have an inquiring mind…..

As the conflict drags on and involves more and more participation by the West, mainly the US, some of us struggle to understand just what went wrong.

With the war raging in Ukraine some people, granted not many, have asked the question how did it all come to this?

Basically they are asking what happened to the old USSR that it eventually lead to the many conflicts that have popped up over the last 25 years or so.

For answer we need to look back in Russian history just a bit….that is if you would like to understand what has happened to bring about the wrath on Ukraine.

The break up of the Soviet Union led eventually to the conflicts in Chechnya, Georgia, and now Ukraine….the only way to understand the situation is to look back to 1991 when the break up began…..

“Why did the Russians, despite all that one would expect from them given the histories of the downfalls of empires, decide not to fight and to let the empire fall?” asked Serhii Plokhii, Mykhailo Hrushevsky Professor of Ukrainian History at Harvard University, at a 29 April 2013 lecture at the Kennan Institute. Plokhii discussed the fall of the Soviet Union in the context of the last five months of the Soviet Union in order to explain why it was not accompanied by the violent conflicts triggered by the collapse of previous empires.

Plokhii argued that the fall of the Soviet Union is a unique case in the history of empires: “Russia let most of the republics go without a fight, without a struggle.” While there were slogans and campaigns for independence among the Union republics in the months before the collapse, none were campaigning for the complete disintegration of the empire. Rather, each was struggling against the central authority to augment its own independent power base. Even the Baltic states, the most independently minded of the republics, operated along these lines. Other republics, such as those in Central Asia, were not struggling at all against the Union for political independence.

It is common for scholars to mark the Soviet Union’s de facto end in August 1991, when Boris Yeltsin suspended the activities of the Communist party on the territory of the Russian Federation. However, Plokhii stated that this action alone did not precipitate the end of the USSR and independence of its constituent parts. Plokhii contended that only the exit of the Baltic States was inevitable at that moment; the status of other republics like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus and Ukraine was not fully understood until December 1991.


If more info is needed then another source may assist your understanding…..


Sad few will actually care what the causes are…they have boiled their knowledge down to Ukraine good…..Putin Bad……and the US needs to risk everything to prove the points.

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Ukraine–Historical Background

I am one of those beleagued bloggers that try to help my readers make sense of what went wrong in Ukraine that would lead up to Vlad the Invader attempting to invade Ukraine…..I will admit that most do not want to think about it they will settle for the propaganda spread by their favorite news source.

But I try and will probably fail…..but I can sleep nights knowing I did what I thought was right.

This conflict has been raging for over 2 months….and there has been very little info in the media to try and explain just what went wrong that a war had to be used to solve the situation.

This is my small attempt to help in some form of clarification…..

There are points in Ukraine history that could be part of the problem….like the Clinton NATO thing…..the election of Zelensky……but did you know that Bush I made a promise to the USSR?

The US government today likes to pretend that it is the perennial champion of political independence for countries that were once behind the Iron Curtain. What is often forgotten, however, is that in the days following the fall of the Berlin Wall, Washington opposed independence for Soviet republics like Ukraine and the Baltic states.

In fact, the Bush administration openly supported Mikhail Gorbachev’s efforts to hold the Soviet Union together rather than allow the USSR to decentralize into smaller states. The US regime and its supporters in the press took the position that nationalism—not Soviet despotism—was the real problem for the people of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.

Indeed, in the case of Ukraine, President George H.W. Bush even traveled to Kyiv in 1990 to lecture the Ukrainians about the dangers of seeking independence from Moscow, while decrying the supposed nationalist threat.

Today, nationalism is still a favorite bogeyman among Washington establishment mouthpieces. These outlets routinely opine on the dangers of French nationalism, Hungarian nationalism, and Russian nationalism. One often sees the term nationalism applied in ways designed to make the term distasteful, as in “white nationalism.”

When nationalism is convenient for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and its European freeloaders, on the other hand, we are told that nationalism is a force for good. Thus, the US regime and mainstream media generally pretend that Ukrainian nationalism—and even Ukrainian white nationalism—either don’t exist or are to be praised.

In 1991, however, the US had not yet decided that it paid to actively promote nationalism—so long as it is anti-Russian nationalism. Thus, in those days, we find the US regime siding with Moscow in efforts to stifle or discourage local nationalist efforts to break with the old Soviet state. The way it played out is an interesting case study in both Bush administration bumbling and in the US’s foreign policy before the advent of unipolar American liberal hegemony. 


As I always state…there is more to a story than the one-sided crap the media would have you believe.

The more you learn…the more you know….

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Then There Is The NATO Thing

First of all my thought on NATO……I think that once the USSR collapsed and the ‘republics’ started breaking away then NATO should have been abandoned….after all NATO was suppose to be a deterrent to any expansion by the USSR and once it was gone then NATO was not needed. Replace it with some sort of trade bloc.

Then under Clinton the organization started its Eastward expansion….basically at the behest of the M-IC…..my opinion this started what could be seen as provocation of Russia and they bit at the worm dangled in front of them. (Please notice I said ‘could be seen’…before the idiotic diatribes begin)

Ukraine is dominating the news these but let’s look back at the early days of the 21st century……

A widespread misconception of NATO’s relation to Ukraine has been sustained by silence in news sources and falsehoods by pundits. According to this myth, the NATO-Ukraine connection, prior to Russia’s current horrific invasion, was a matter of Ukraine’s asking to join and NATO’s not saying “No.” In fact, over the last fourteen years, NATO’s conduct has gone far beyond openness to eventual admission, in engagements that have included extensive and expanding joint military operations in Ukraine. This involvement, which was accompanied by US efforts to shape Ukrainian politics, does not in the least affect Putin’s moral responsibility for the carnage he is inflicting. But awareness of this history should affect vitally important assessments of the proper response.

In 2008, William Burns, then U.S. ambassador to Russia and now CIA director, cabled from Moscow, “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin) …I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” As Burns’ cable suggests, Ukraine has distinctive geopolitical significance for Russia. It is the next-largest country in Europe, after Russia, dominates the northern border of the Black Sea, and has a 1,227-mile land border with Russia. Nonetheless, at the end of the 2008 Bucharest NATO Summit, when expansion to Russia’s borders was virtually complete, NATO, led by the US, declared agreement on its completion: “We agreed today that these two countries [Ukraine along with Georgia] will become members of NATO.” In 2011, a NATO report noted, “The Alliance assists Ukraine … in preparing defence policy reviews and other documents, in training personnel, … modernising armed forces and making them more interoperable and more capable of participating in international missions” — international cooperation that had already included a joint Black Sea naval exercise with the US.

The Backstory of NATO, Ukraine and Putin’s Fears

Now NATO wants to expand even more…this time it is Finland and Sweden.

NATO being a war-hawk institution is pushing for a quick inclusion of these states…..

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said Thursday that Finland and Sweden would be embraced with open arms should they decide to join the 30-nation military organization and could become members quite quickly.

Stoltenberg’s remarks came as public support in Finland and Sweden for NATO membership mounts in response to Russia’s war in Ukraine. Media speculation in the two countries suggest the two might apply in mid-May.

“It’s their decision,” Stoltenberg said. “But if they decide to apply, Finland and Sweden will be warmly welcomed, and I expect that process to go quickly.”


I have a problem once again….this expansion will further act as a provocation and could lead to even more conflicts down the road.

There are reasons that this process should be stopped here and now…..

Almost eight decades have passed since the end of World War II and Europe remains helplessly dependent on America. Yet U.S. officials are celebrating the expected application by Finland and Sweden to join NATO.

The Washington Blob doesn’t seem likely to be satisfied until every country on earth relies on the U.S. for its defense.

The accession of these two nations — which would be rapidly granted as war rages between Ukraine and Russia — is being presented as strengthening the alliance. However, the U.S., alone or in conjunction with its 29 NATO allies, many of which appear to field militaries mostly for show, would handily defeat Moscow in any continental contest.

That was evident even before Russia’s botched invasion of Ukraine. Now, two months into a conflict that was supposed to have overrun the latter in a few days or weeks at most, no one imagines that Moscow retains more than a shadow of the Soviet Union’s conventional military capabilities.

In truth, NATO expansion has never been about American security. Rather, it was meant to expand Washington’s defense dole in the name of promoting regional stability.

So why should Americans increase their defense load now? The U.S. should stop adding new members to the transatlantic alliance and instead prepare to turn Europe’s defense over to Europe. Here are nine reasons to keep the door closed to Finland and Sweden.

Nine reasons why NATO should close the door to Sweden and Finland

Let’s be honest….since the mid-1990s NATO has NOT been about American security but rather to make the world dependent on our defense industry….American weapons are big business.

Time for this expansionist mindset to be put to bed….war is never the answer and preparation for it should be secondary.

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Citizen Genet Affair

It is the weekend and as a small diversion from the horrific news of the I would like to offer up a little American since there are moves to re-write it….I think it is important to learn it all…the good, the bad and the ugly…..so let’s step into the ‘way back machine’ to the early days of our republic.

I once taught a class on American Foreign Policy from the beginning to recent history……some say the John Adams and his Sedition Act was our first crisis on the international stage….I disagree.

The new nation of United States of America faced its first foreign policy crisis in 1793 when the US and France were at diplomatic odds….

Edmond Charles Genêt served as French minister to the United States from 1793 to 1794. His activities in that capacity embroiled the United States and France in a diplomatic crisis, as the United States Government attempted to remain neutral in the conflict between Great Britain and Revolutionary France. The controversy was ultimately resolved by Genêt’s recall from his position. As a result of the Citizen Genêt affair, the United States established a set of procedures governing neutrality.

American foreign policy in the 1790s was dominated by the events surrounding the French Revolution. Following the overthrow of the monarchy in 1792, the revolutionary French Government clashed with the monarchies of Spain and Great Britain. French policymakers needed the United States to help defend France’s colonies in the Caribbean – either as a neutral supplier or as a military ally, and so they dispatched Edmond Charles Genêt, an experienced diplomat, as minister to the United States. The French assigned Genêt several additional duties: to obtain advance payments on debts that the U.S. owed to France, to negotiate a commercial treaty between the United States and France, and to implement portions of the 1778 Franco-American treaty which allowed attacks on British merchant shipping using ships based in American ports. Genêt’s attempt to carry out his instructions would bring him into direct conflict with the U.S. Government.

The French Revolution had already reinforced political differences within President George Washington’s Cabinet. The Democratic-Republicans, led by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, sympathized with the French revolutionaries. The Federalists, led by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, believed that ties with Great Britain were more important. President Washington attempted to steer a neutral course between these two opposing views. He believed that joining Great Britain or France in war could subject the comparatively weak United States to invasion by foreign armies and have disastrous economic consequences. President Washington issued a proclamation of neutrality on April 22, 1793.


Further reading on this historic issue…..


The early years of our republic are fascinating….so much back and forth…..start and stop for American foreign policy.

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”


Founders And Political Parties

As yet another election approaches I thought since political parties are all the rage I would take a look at the beginning of the American experiment…..

In the beginning (all great sagas begin with that intro) our Founding Fathers while I may not agree with some of their thoughts did have the right idea about the possible rise of political parties, factions if you will…..

Today, it may seem impossible to imagine the U.S. government without its two leading political parties, Democrats and Republicans. But in 1787, when delegates to the Constitutional Convention gathered in Philadelphia to hash out the foundations of their new government, they entirely omitted political parties from the new nation’s founding document.

This was no accident. The framers of the new Constitution desperately wanted to avoid the divisions that had ripped England apart in the bloody civil wars of the 17th century. Many of them saw parties—or “factions,” as they called them—as corrupt relics of the monarchical British system that they wanted to discard in favor of a truly democratic government.

“It was not that they didn’t think of parties,” says Willard Sterne Randall, professor emeritus of history at Champlain College and biographer of six of the Founding Fathers. “Just the idea of a party brought back bitter memories to some of them.”

George Washington’s family had fled England precisely to avoid the civil wars there, while Alexander Hamilton once called political parties “the most fatal disease” of popular governments. James Madison, who worked with Hamilton to defend the new Constitution to the public in the Federalist Papers, wrote in Federalist 10 that one of the functions of a “well-constructed Union” should be “its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.”


Then there is Jefferson who liked the idea of factions….

Thomas Jefferson, who was serving a diplomatic post in France during the Constitutional Convention, believed it was a mistake not to provide for different political parties in the new government. “Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties,’’

With Jefferson as secretary of state and Hamilton as Treasury secretary, two competing visions for America developed into the nation’s first two political parties. Supporters of Hamilton’s vision of a strong central government—many of whom were Northern businessmen, bankers and merchants who leaned toward England when it came to foreign affairs—would become known as the Federalists. Jefferson, on the other hand, favored limited federal government and keeping power in state and local hands. His supporters tended to be small farmers, artisans and Southern planters who traded with the French, and were sympathetic to France.

And so it began!

Fast forward to the 21st century…..

This country has become the embattled nation the Founders feared….

America has now become that dreaded divided republic. The existential menace is as foretold, and it is breaking the system of government the Founders put in place with the Constitution.

Though America’s two-party system goes back centuries, the threat today is new and different because the two parties are now truly distinct, a development that I date to the 2010 midterms. Until then, the two parties contained enough overlapping multitudes within them that the sort of bargaining and coalition-building natural to multiparty democracy could work inside the two-party system. No more. America now has just two parties, and that’s it.

The theory that guided Washington and Adams was simple, and widespread at the time. If a consistent partisan majority ever united to take control of the government, it would use its power to oppress the minority. The fragile consent of the governed would break down, and violence and authoritarianism would follow. This was how previous republics had fallen into civil wars, and the Framers were intent on learning from history, not repeating its mistakes.


Sadly this nation is far from finding a solution to this chaos….if it ever will is still debatable….my thought is that it is doomed….parties will bring ruination to this country….that and the corruption that goes hand in hand with parties.

Any thoughts?

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

A Cure For Homelessness

The weekend begins I will be posting little as it is Spring and the garden needs attention….

There is at least one person that thinks that Hitler was a good example for a cure to homelessness.

A Republican lawmaker in Tennessee stunned his colleagues Wednesday when he shared the story of a homeless man who turned his life around—Adolf Hitler. During a debate on a bill banning homeless encampments on public property, State Sen. Frank Niceley told lawmakers he “wanted to give a little history on homelessness,” Fox17 reports. “In 1910 Hitler decided to live on the streets for a while,” he said. “So for two years Hitler lived on the streets and practiced his oratory and his body language and how to connect with the masses. And then went on to lead a life that got him in the history books.”

“So, a lot of these people it’s not a dead end. They can come out of these homeless camps and have a productive life, or in Hitler’s case a very unproductive life.” In Mein Kampf, the Nazi leader said his anti-Semitic and German nationalist view developed during the years he was homeless in Vienna. Critics said Niceley was wrong about history—Hitler ended up homeless through poverty, not choice—and wondered why on Earth Niceley would consider him an inspiring example, the Washington Post reports. “I’m going to have to apologize to the universe for this guy,” tweeted Democratic state Rep. Gloria Johnson.

The bill, which criminalizes camping along highways and exit ramps and makes it illegal to camp on public or state property, passed 22-10, with Niceley voting in favor. Critics argued that the bill criminalized homelessness itself, perpetuating the cycle of poverty, WCYB reports. As for Niceley, he has a long history of controversial remarks, the Post notes. In October, he said the shift of companies like Ford to the South shows the Civil War “is going on, and we’re winning.”

When I first read the title of this article my first thought was….yes he did….it was called concentration camps.

Be Well

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”