arms race

With the U.S. and Russia feuding over the range of ICBM’s, you can look forward to another arms race. This means that taxes will soon go up, those bunkers that people used to sell to the paranoid rich, will be in vogue again and that Eisenhower’s criticism of the MIC, military industrial complex, a real thing, was well deserved.

MICEisenhower, or Ike, was one of my favorite Presidents. The 34th President of the U.S. and an extreme moderate, if there is such a thing. A Republican by party, a general during WWII, and enacted the Civil Rights Act of ’57. One of his biggest concerns was an arms race. . Eisenhower was an American army general and statesman who served as the 34th President of the United States from 1953 to 1961. During World War II, he was a five-star general in the United States Army and served as Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe. He was responsible for planning and supervising the invasion of North Africa in Operation Torch in 1942–43 and the successful invasion of France and Germany in 1944–45 from the Western Front.

Born David Dwight Eisenhower in Denison, Texas, he was raised in Kansas, (it seems that Kansas or people associated with Kansas, have a tendency to turn out good Presidents), in a large family of mostly Pennsylvania Dutch ancestry. His family had a strong religious background. His mother was born a Lutheran, married as a River Brethren, and later became a Jehovah’s Witness. Even so, Eisenhower did not belong to any organized church until 1952. He cited constant relocation during his military career as one reason. He graduated from West Point in 1915 and later married Mamie Doud, with whom he had two sons. During World War I, he was denied a request to serve in Europe and instead commanded a unit that trained tank crews. Following the war, he served under various generals and was promoted to the rank of brigadier general in 1941. After the U.S. entered World War II, Eisenhower oversaw the successful invasions of North Africa and Sicily before supervising the invasions of France and Germany. After the war, Eisenhower served as Army Chief of Staff and then took on the uncomfortable role as president of Columbia University. In 1951–52, he served as the first Supreme Commander of NATO.

In 1952, Eisenhower entered the presidential race as a Republican to block the foreign policies of Senator Robert A. Taft. He won that election and the 1956 election in landslides, both times defeating Adlai Stevenson II. He became the first Republican-elected President since Herbert Hoover in 1928. Eisenhower’s main goals in office were to contain the expansion of the Soviet Union and reduce federal deficits. In 1953, he threatened the use of nuclear weapons until China agreed to terms regarding POWs in the Korean War. An armistice ended the stalemated conflict. His New Look policy of nuclear deterrence prioritized inexpensive nuclear weapons while reducing funding for expensive Army divisions. He continued Harry S. Truman’s policy of recognizing the Republic of China as the legitimate government of China, and he won congressional approval of the Formosa Resolution. His administration provided major aid to help the French fight off Vietnamese Communists in the First Indochina War. After the French left he gave strong financial support to the new state of South Vietnam. He supported local military coups against governments in Iran and Guatemala. During the Suez Crisis of 1956, Eisenhower condemned the Israeli, British and French invasion of Egypt, and he forced them to withdraw. He also condemned the Soviet invasion during the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 but took no action. During the Syrian Crisis of 1957 he approved a CIA-MI6 plan to stage fake border incidents as an excuse for an invasion by Syria’s pro-Western neighbors. After the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, Eisenhower authorized the establishment of NASA, which led to the Space Race. He deployed 15,000 soldiers during the 1958 Lebanon crisis. Near the end of his term, his efforts to set up a summit meeting with the Soviets collapsed when a U.S. spy plane was shot down over Russia. He approved the Bay of Pigs invasion, which was left to his successor to carry out.

On the domestic front, Eisenhower was a moderate conservative who continued New Deal agencies and expanded Social Security. He covertly opposed Joseph McCarthy and contributed to the end of McCarthyism by openly invoking executive privilege. Eisenhower signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent Army troops to enforce federal court orders that integrated schools in Little Rock, Arkansas. His largest program was the Interstate Highway System. He promoted the establishment of strong science education via the National Defense Education Act. Eisenhower’s two terms saw widespread economic prosperity except for a minor recession in 1958. In his farewell address to the nation, Eisenhower expressed his concerns about the dangers of massive military spending, particularly deficit spending and government contracts to private military manufacturers. He was voted Gallup’s most admired man twelve times and also achieved widespread popular esteem both in and out of office. Historical evaluations of his presidency place him among the upper tier of U.S. presidents.

The Effects of Gaslighting


Want to hear something funny, I believe that the President just got gaslit. That someone would actually come out and say they are the resistance to hold back the President’s policy of destruction at this time makes no sense. Why would they do it now? Why not wait until after the next election. The only thing I can think of is that that they tried to gaslight the President prior to the Mueller probe questions or they are trying to create a particular riff in his cabinet. Either way, I wouldn’t take too much of what is being said and done too serious unless the person comes out in the open and says it. I would think it best be kept quiet if it were true, since it wasn’t, I believe that it is a fable.

My Personal Opinion: Chivalry Should Never Die


When the First Lady when on her trip to see the accommodations of children facilities, she was immediately criticized for wearing a jacket. To the President’s credit, he immediately defended the First Lady in what was a fact finding trip that she was under no obligation to do. The First Lady realized that the criticisms that her husband was facing might have been over stated, as some media outlets will do. I applaud her actions. Some quickly derided her actions and the President defense of his wife was nothing less than chivalrous. That is what a husband should do for his wife when people that just want to criticize and start lambasting a person without getting all the factual information. With that being said, I disagree with this administration’s stance on immigration. I hope that a better solution to the immigration and DACA situations can be reached.

FLOTUS, in my opinion, is handling herself with a tremendous amount of grace and dignity under the circumstances. It is to her credit that she takes time out to make sure that the rights of immigrants aren’t being trampled on, something that goes beyond what FLOTUS duties regularly are and somewhat contradicts what POTUS is trying to establish.



My Opinion On Politics

head scratcher

With everything that’s going on in the world of politics, you sometimes wonder how we are a functional society. You have the midterm elections coming up and people will go out to vote, I won’t, not because I don’t feel voting is the right thing to do but because you have some extremely conflicting ideologies that are moving so far to the their perspective sides that I feel that voting either way would just create more problems than solutions. Maybe that’s the message the American people should take until these ideologies start meeting in the middle somehow. Imagine an election without a vote, except for the delegates themselves, that would be a powerful message from the people that the parties should start working together.

And the winner for whatever office is so and so from the whatever party with 7 votes to 5 votes, with the winner having more family members.

To the Dems,

I would like to say that Hillary Clinton lost because she lost, not because of any outside influence by any agency. Sometimes you just don’t win because you weren’t the right person at the right time, novel idea right. While I understand the psychology of wanting to place the blame on someone else, sometimes, especially when you are feeling over confident, you don’t see the pitfalls that lie right in front of you. I wrote in a blog in 2016 that the only person that could lose to the Repubs was Sec. Clinton, not because she wasn’t qualified, she is very qualified for the post but because of the excess baggage that she was towing. I also wrote that the only person that could beat all the Repubs was Senator Sanders but he wouldn’t beat Sec. Clinton. My prediction played out. That’s life and we move on. For the Dems to now combat the move of the right  to go more towards the left is a mistake. Former President Obama won on the ability to reach both parties and his message was not move to the extreme left, it was one of hope of solutions and reuniting the country. It wasn’t the message that lost the Dems the election, it was, and I like Sec. Clinton, but it was her. Sorry, some might disagree. My solution to you winning is to find a way to integrate your social programs with private capital ventures. It’s fiscally irresponsible to say or think we can do everything you propose without increasing taxes, even though I would love free healthcare and education. Ultimately, we’re paying for it anyway. Give special corporate rates to companies that implement a social program that is worthwhile. Find a way to motivate the capitalistic company to give back in a socialistic manner. I still have that gym with free healthcare idea. Give a big company a special low tax corporate rate to implement it and it’s a win win situation. Has there been a private venture that has accommodated or made cheaper any other expenditure, just look at Tesla and there space exploration, saving tax payers millions.

To the Repubs,

Becoming a divisive party that rules by conflict is only good when you want to topple another nation, not when you want to unite ours. It is my opinion that you should shed your previous monikers of being the party of the old white guy, that’s what the popular opinion is, and remake your party as the party of fiscal responsibility, no crayola categories.  Constant conflict wears down people and countries and it saps your energy. While I like, so far, the way the country is heading fiscally, I feel that it won’t be sustainable if we are in a constant state of turmoil. The ability to find solutions, no matter who presents the answer, is key to creating a better tomorrow. While I liked playing the dirty dozens on the school yard, it makes me cringe when I see it in my politics. My solution to you winning is to start being more inclusive. Add a little spice in your life, by that I mean get a Pres Sec. that is a moderate and have at least one left leaning adviser who is loyal to you and the country so you can get the opposite perspective. This will help you in winning some of the left “IF” the economy keeps it upward trend. Oh, yeah, this probably goes best unsaid but I’ll say it anyway, you don’t have to pick a fight with all the people that criticize you, because no matter what, 45% of the people will, and that will leave you exhausted and give you a reputation as a bully. My solution for that is that you can try giving them a compliment and just say you don’t agree with them on that particular issue. It works. Point out their good deeds and say you just don’t agree with their political perspective.

Those are my thoughts but I guess if my point of views worked, I wouldn’t be a retired blogger. Good Luck to both parties.

Freedom of The Press: Keep America Safe by buying a newspaper.

freedom of the press

The First Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, was submitted to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, and adopted on December 15, 1791. It reads as follows; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Being that this is the first amendment, our founding fathers thought that these particular rights were very important for the success of a democratic nation to succeed. Those were their first thoughts and inclinations on what was needed to establish a free society. That was why the most important war fought in our country’s history, the revolutionary war, was all about. I have a tremendous amount of respect for news organizations. They are, in many ways, the bedrock of our great society. They inform the masses of factual events and raise awareness to injustices that would threaten those freedoms. How important is a free press? To a democracy, it’s as important as breathing. But it isn’t enough for a press to be free, it also has to be fair and accurate. How important is a fair and accurate press, to the people that make up the democracy, well, not to sound redundant, but it’s as important as breathing.

When the American settlers decided to form their own government and break from, what they saw as, an oppressive monarchy, they had certain realizations in mind. Those realizations, the first ten amendments as well as the preamble to the constitution, weregeorge washington thought of and written in a time when their human and civil rights had been discarded and just regained. They were written when monarchies made the rule of law and decided what was best for everyone. They, the king or queen, would decide what was best for the people and they would also decide what information the people should know, what religion the people should practice, what they can utter in public and if they were allowed to protest. If anyone decided to disagree with them, they would be jailed, tortured or executed.

One of the greatest philosophers of our time and the person that most influenced our Constitution, John Locke (I’m an Immanuel Kant fan myself), was very aware of what

john locke
John Locke

tyrannical monarchies could do and wrote the Two Treatises of Government. Not to go to in depth about his works right now, it pretty much said that people should pick who governs, for which the monarchy exiled him and would later try and blame an attempted assassination of the king on his works. His only fault was that he wrote something that he felt was right and true, that all people are created equal. We would later find out that he only meant people that looked like him but the point is that he distributed these treatises and would later be punished for his views. He had no idea of knowing that those treatises would be the principles that formed our government today. The one that he did not write, the one that he, himself, openly demonstrated was the right to express your views as well as publicize them.

James Madison is credited as being the architect of the first amendment. His thoughts were that if he had to choose between a free government or a free press, that a free press was more important. John Adams, our second President, didn’t agree. He would enact a

james madison
James Madison

Sedition Act that could arrest press members if they wrote anything that was not true. The Sedition act would be repealed after he left office. What these Presidents knew, and every President from George Washington to our current President, have had to contend with is that the press, with the release of information, empowered the people, for information, factual information, is power. Ask the NSA, they are an agency built around that very motto. They don’t exactly agree with the dissemination of that information but they love gathering it. They’re the tight lipped relative that hears all the secrets but never tells anyone.

The importance of investigative journalism is detailed in an essay by former Managing Editor of the Washington Post, Robert Kaiser. He discusses the importance of a free press

woodward and berstein
Woodward and Berstein

in his latest Bookings Essay. How powerful is the press, it brought down a President, Nixon (1972, Woodward and Bernstein expose Watergate), it forces lawmakers to enact laws, the civil rights laws (tv news coverage of the atrocities happening), it fights corruption (1902, Ida Tarbell profiles J.D.  Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Co.), it fight sexual harassment and inequality (2017, #me too movement and 1992, Florence Graves reveals sexual misconduct in Congress), it fights government overreach (1953, Murrey Marder dogs Sen Joseph McCarthy’s witch hunt and 2013, NSA Surveillance on American Citizens). When it comes to politics, some organizations seem more like lobbyists then reporters, you just have to read both sides and see where the similarities are and where they differ to get the truth, but most outlets report facts when it comes to the above mentioned items. The press is as necessary to free society as oxygen is to living, there I go again, being redundant.

True journalism, not the barbie and ken dolls that get on TV and tell you what outfits to wear, but true journalism like the Woodward’s and Bernstein’s, Dan Rather’s, Daphne Caruan Galizia (Killed in a car bomb 10/2017), Eliah Lovejoy (anti-slavery abolitionist killed by angry mob 11/1837), Irving W. Carson (killed covering the civil war 4/1862),

freedom of press rating
Do you notice that the one’s that are orange and below are countries that you would never want to live in.

Walter Ligget (drive by shooting while reporting about mafia and political associations 12/1935), Don Bolles (car bomb while reporting about organized crime 6/1976), Manuel de dios Unanue (assassinated by Colombian drug cartel while reporting on the cartel’s activities 3/1992), Chauncey Bailey (shot dead on a Downtown Oakland street on August 2, 2007, the victim of a crime syndicate he was investigating for a story) is what this country is made of.

They’re not all dead, nor do they have to die to be a true journalist, some are still living;

  • Eric Lipton of The New York Times

    For reporting that showed how the influence of lobbyists can sway congressional leaders and state attorneys general, slanting justice toward the wealthy and connected.

  • Eric Eyre of Charleston Gazette-Mail, Charleston, WV

    For courageous reporting, performed in the face of powerful opposition, to expose the flood of opioids flowing into depressed West Virginia counties with the highest overdose death rates in the country.

  • Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, Eileen Sullivan and Chris Hawley of the Associated Press

    For their spotlighting of the New York Police Department’s clandestine spying program that monitored daily life in Muslim communities, resulting in congressional calls for a federal investigation, and a debate over the proper role of domestic intelligence gathering.

  • David Barstow of The New York Times

    For his tenacious reporting that revealed how some retired generals, working as radio and television analysts, had been co-opted by the Pentagon to make its case for the war in Iraq, and how many of them also had undisclosed ties to companies that benefited from policies they defended.

  • Susan Schmidt, James V. Grimaldi and R. Jeffrey Smith of The Washington Post

    For their indefatigable probe of Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff that exposed congressional corruption and produced reform efforts.

There’s more but I’m a blogger, not an author. Without these people, none of these issues would have been addressed, may I add at great peril to their safety and security. It isn’t easy telling the government that they are wrong, they don’t take it well, not well at all, trust me, I know.  Now, I know that some TV journalists have to fill their hour up, ratings matter so they can break these stories that are necessary, and I applaud them because I know that they want to hit the system hard with that they see wrong, they give you the fashion ten minute review so later then can give you a breaking news story. I don’t mean to degrade anyone.

Can we, today, invest in a journalistic magazine, buy an online subscription to a credible news source, not mine, a real one, keep America safe by buying a newspaper, trust me, you’ll thank me in the long run. By the way, I’m a fan of propublica, they make everyone look bad. Check out their site.


I’m a True Capitalist Socialist

capitalism socialism

With all the news about Apple hitting the trillion dollar mark, it made me wonder what Apple is actually going to do with all that capital. They’re capital surplus is more than all but 16 country’s GDP in this world. They are the 17th biggest country, if they buy an Island for themselves and maybe call it Ambrosia, you know, after the apple. They wouldambrosia apple be considered a major economy. Their sole product would be, well, exporting Apple, not the red delicious type but the laptop, iphone and ipod type. Apple has recently invested $350 billion dollars over 5 years in creating U.S. jobs. That’s good! I have railed against the company in some of my past illustrious blogs about their inability to be team players and to give back to communities that have given so much to them. I wish I had thought of putting pressure on them to create jobs here. That’s definitely a win for this administration, their losses come from deporting families of veteran’s who put their lives on the line for our safety, it’s a give and take. Getting back on subject, Apple has shown that capitalism doesn’t mean you can’t have a socialistic outlook. By creating factories here, they have given people opportunities, even though it’s recent, course corrections like that can be done at any time. Better late than never, so, hats off to Apple and this administration on these particular events. I, personally can’t criticize someone (deportations and separations of families) and not give them their just do and congratulations or applaud them (have Apple invest in our community) when they make, what everyone else said was impossible to do, happen. Investing in our community, global community, as a whole by asking companies to give a little back in form of some kind of social program, when they make 1 trillion dollars, seems to me, should be the norm.

Lebron James, who in 2018 made or is going to make 80 million plus and who’s net worth is roughly estimated at $440 million (just to put that perspective, that’s a little more then four ten thousandths of apple or .00044 of apple or 44 cents for every thousand dollars for Apple, so, he’s an apple seed which I’m sure will continue to grow and to put that into perspective to my finances, I would be walnut, because walnuts didn’t make any money, they’re broke and probably owe more than they have, thanks mastercard), just built a school in his home town of Akron for underprivileged children to get a better start in life. That is amazing and Mr. James, or apple seed (just kidding), King James, should take a bow.

The Gates Foundation is another great example of a capitalistic socialistic view. The Gates Foundation, is a private foundation founded by Bill and Melinda Gates. It was launched in 2000, and is said to be the largest private foundation in the US, holding $38 billion in assets. The primary aims of the foundation are, globally, to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty, and in America, to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology. The foundation, based in Seattle, Washington, is controlled by its three trustees: Bill and Melinda Gates, and Warren Buffett. Other principal officers include Co-Chair William H. Gates, Sr. and Chief Executive Officer Susan Desmond-Hellmann.

It had an endowment of US$44.3 billion as of December 31, 2014. The scale of the foundation and the way it seeks to apply business techniques to giving makes it one of the leaders in venture philanthropy, though the foundation itself notes that the philanthropic role has limitations. In 2007, its founders were ranked as the second most generous philanthropists in America, and Warren Buffett the first. As of May 16, 2013, Bill Gates had donated US$28 billion to the foundation. Since its founding, the foundation has endowed and supported a broad range of social, health, and education developments including the establishment of the Gates Cambridge Scholarships at Cambridge University.

With this type of generosity from people that are willing to take a capitalistic socialistic approach to life, it makes me wonder, why haven’t more people done it, in their private ventures? Apples venture isn’t as socialistic as the other people mentioned, crossing my fingers that they will also follow the Gates Foundation path, because they are getting capitalism_confrontation_socialism_by_holzeisenbahn-d87duzzsomething in return, product. But with all that wealth and intelligence, couldn’t they come up with something truly altruistic? The biggest fix this country needs is healthcare and, in my opinion, that solution can’t come from the government, it has to come from the private sector. If one of these multi billion companies or the one trillion dollar company, could figure out a solution to that problem, they would truly be indispensable. Some people feel that it isn’t private companies responsibility to take on such a task, I think different. I say it isn’t right to make a profit on sickness and that when you make that much money in other areas that it is your responsibility, not only responsibility, but duty, to take on such tasks. While giving money as donations is great, it isn’t sustainable. Plus free, doesn’t really give a sense of self worth or accomplishment, not that I wouldn’t accept the offer or be grateful.

I always thought that  my gym should offer me cheap, 100% covered healthcare. You can make it so that the gym makes a small profit, enough to pay employees and and cover any maintenance cost and overhead, and the rest should go to paying for healthcare costs. This type of venture can only be started by a company that already has it’s roots settled firmly into the capitalistic ground and let the socialistic leaves bloom. You can even sell your other products at the gym, if you make something like fitbit or similar device. That would be truly be a capitalistic socialistic private venture. The good it would do, would truly be amazing, because you wouldn’t be making a profit on the healthcare portion, just the gym product portion. This is only my thought but one thing is for sure, neither socialism, having the government create a universal healthcare medicare thingy, or capitalism, making money by raising prices on pharmaceuticals and charging exorbitant prices for health so the CEO can buy a yacht, work.

If someone takes the leap and decides on a plan to intertwine socialism with capitalism, which is not a mix of communism and democracy, those are political views and plus you wouldn’t have a cool army to order around, I think it would solve a whole series of problems. So if I ever hit the lottery for two trillion, which would make me two Apples, I will definitely give it a go, until then, I blog.