Thursday, 31 August 2017 00:55

Why was U.S. Civil War Avoidable?

Written by

When President Trump recently expressed this odd historical interpretation, it was dismissed as just another “Trumpism.” But in our deep research, we found that the President had evoked thought about a major U.S. crisis that has never been explained:

  1. The years before the 1860-65 war between the states had turned into a widening cleavage between the New England and Midwest states, and the Southeast and West. Although slavery was the emotional issue, dramatized by the infamous Brown brothers’ rebellion, the martial touch-point was really about economics.
  2. New England had developed into a major hub of imports and exports. The South was increasingly becoming rich due to the zero cost of labor provided by its “multi-million “Negroes” This created intense disagreements throughout the land. Despite the calming “Dred Scott” Congressional decision, protecting “escaped slaves,” the future of both North and South kept getting more confrontational.
  3. The U.S. was further saddled by one of American history’s weakest Presidents, James Buchanan, who chose to “paper over” the increasingly emotional North/South controversy.

When it came time for the next presidential election, the South chose veteran statesman, Jefferson Davis, to lead the “Democrats.” The North saw a squabble between several candidates, with Illinois’ Abraham Lincoln, bringing up the rear. Through an act of fate; and support by former enemy, Stephen A. Douglas (D-IL), the awkward, Illinois equestrian attorney was elected President.

This set off a firestorm in the South, well aware of Lincoln’s distaste of slavery, and the Southern behavior in general.

Such Southern anger resulted in South Carolina unitarily separating from the U.S.’s 30 million strong nation. While other states followed after Abe Lincoln’s inauguration, the sainted “Great American” cited one of his many statements, “ A house divided cannot stand,” thereby mandating a “desertion” from the U.S. as an act of war.

With the South increasingly antagonized by this tall, lanky “dictator” President, the secession move was on. This resulted in an incredible two million dead on the fields of battle, finally decided by Federal General Ulysses Simpson Grant over the Southern “West Point” graduate Robert E. Lee.

This carnage, won by the North, reunited a nation that had lost the greatest number of lives in real and percentage terms in modern history. There were far more losses than all other wars combined, that involved the U.S., before the 1860-4 Civil War, and since then.

After the murderous World War II in Europe and the Pacific, President Truman, succeeding predecessor Roosevelt, undertook the U.S. rebuilding of the West European shambles back into solid production in 1948.

Although this act of magnificence would also become fruitful for U.S. trade, it also accepted the establishment of Jewish Israel, which the wily Russians had proposed in order to turn this new small nation into a Soviet ally in the early days of the Cold War.

Originally called the “Truman” plan, in the President’s support for his first full term, in the 1948 election, the nation of Israel’s birth was violently opposed by Secretary of State, George Marshall, who had just returned from China. There, he had proposed that nation’s partition into the areas controlled by the “hateful” enemies of Mao tse Tung, and Chiang kai-Chek, at the end of their bloody civil war.

Marshall feared a full-scale Arab revolt in the Middle East, if Israel was established. This coincided with the pro-Arab U.S. State Department then and now. This major element of future Islamic sympathy was used as the U.S. inciting mayhem among our “Arab” allies, a position that has continued until this very day.

When the prevalent 1948 Secretary of State returned from his foreign trip, the “Israel birth” possibility angered him intensely. He was severely afraid that this would instigate a new Mideast war.

As Marshall tendered his resignation to Truman, the re-electioneering President berated the Secretary of State, especially after his approval of a reborn Jewish State. But being the wily Missourian that he was, he expressed his sorrow at Marshall’s resignation. But at the same time, he told Marshall that he had planned to name the European reconstruction plan after the Secretary of State, even after Marshall had told Truman that he would not support a new “Israel,” but would just stand aside.

Marshall obviously savored his name on an unprecedented European giant reconstruction effort. Little did he know that his shrewd turnabout would perpetuate his name historically on the billions benefitting from such a successful reconstruction effort.

The turmoil facing Europe’s future is increasingly dominated by the Ultra-Right and the Alt-Left. But even Islamists are an increasing influence on the West’s politics. Much of this growing influence occurs with some support from radical Islamic powerful world nations, including Turkey.

A good example is Holland’s DENK (Dutch for think and Turkish for equality) political party, led by two Turks, is concerned with the growing strength of the Far Right and Left. Little has been publicized about its Islamic influence.

Although “centrists” are still in power positions, like France’s recent newly-elected President Macron, it’s the Islamists in that nation which are steadily increasing their political muscle.

While the Dutch Islamic political party is inspirational to other European Moslems, little attention has been paid by observers, who may consider them insignificant. The French have also fielded a growing pro-Islamic movement, which has lately been accused of following the principles of the Koran, the Muslim bible, and rejecting Europe’s Christian commitment basis. Austria, too, has witnessed the rise of Islamism, which makes no excuses for being committed to their Islamist homelands.

In attempting to analyze this spreading of power, so far, it has been financed by Mideast nations, such as Turkey, which has constantly been refused membership by the European Community, as well as its financial arm, Eurozone.

While such a political onslaught against Europe is rampant, it increasingly follows the spread of Turkish expansion, duplicating the Ottoman Empire, at the gates of Vienna in 1683.

It already had pretensions of swallowing most of Europe, dramatically suffering from the religious civil wars of 1630-48 battle for the dominance of Western Europe, which pitted Catholic religions against the growing Protestants. This ended at the 1648 Peace of Westphalia D4C, which ended the Ottoman’s and Turkish expansionism, and its eventual downfall, led by the young Turks; a young men’s revolutionary group.

After Turkey, (its new name) joined the axis of Germany and Austria during World War I, they also murdered 1.5 million Armenians, although this is hotly denied by Erdogan’s current Turkish power structure.

Monday, 28 August 2017 15:44

Is Russia Still Anti-Semitic?

Written by

During the hundreds of years of czars sitting on the throne, “Great Russia” hounded the millions of its Jewish populace, many of whom came to Russia from Spain, where they were forced to flee the country; becoming welcomed by the Ottoman Empire. The worst element of that was that most Russians treated them no better.

Back in the 20th century, a Jewish hero, Joseph Trumpledor distinguished himself in the Russian war against Japan in the early 1900's. For his heroics, Trumpledor received the Medal of the Sword, (the Order of Suvorov), the highest award ever given to even a Russian. No mention was made of that fact that he was Jewish. This coverup was typical in the Stalin era. Stalin hated the Jews. Even his own Jewish son-in-law.

Even those Jews were called “Russians,” despite their contribution to the victory over the Nazis’ murder of all Jews. Although the Communists committed the “Wehrmacht” crimes, including the objective of extermination, referred to them as Russians. This applied especially to Stalin, who savored the World War II victory, but accused the Hebrews of a doctors’ plot against him, prior to his death in 1953. Even Vladimir Putin has little interest in Jewish travail, although posing as a friend of Israel.

This discrimination has widened anti-Semitism in many of the world’s countries, especially the Arab Middle East, whose leaders love Hitler’s Mein Kampf, a best seller in most Arab countries.

While the U.S. allowed hundreds of Jews to immigrate from Nazi Europe, many remember the 1930's, and its pro-German attitudes against Jews in the American “isolationism of that time. But even today’s United Nations, comprised of 200 members, have voted against Israel’s very existence to this very day, indicating their pro-Islamic bias.

When President Trump first occupied the Oval Office, he set an overloaded game plan, which has become increasingly apparent, even as his first 100 days followed in lockstep.

The President, still reveling in his unexpected election last year, set objectives that were overwhelming (healthcare and tax reform, border wall, infrastructure, etc.). He didn’t count on the fact that his every move would be contested by Congress, even including some GOP party members. The Freedom Founder subcommittee was balking, and the healthcare proposal had to be reworked to bring potential new healthcare approval.

While much of America’s working class supported his long-term expansion plans, Trump also didn’t dream of the difficulty in implementation, as well as imposing import tariffs, which could engender retaliation from those countries (China, Mexico, Southeast Asia) affected.

As the first business President, Trump believed that righting initiatives for badly needed domestic expansion, which previously had deteriorated to the point that the U.S. consumer index had become the highest ever, 68% of a world-leading gross domestic product, was a hurdle to overcome. The President also didn’t figure on the need to hire and fire in rapid order.

Another phase Trump faced was a multiplicity of foreign policy issues, which had expanded to much of the world, as terrorism ran amok among five of the globe’s continents.

The major effort of a completed infrastructure of the nation’s roads, highways, dams, etc., which had been ignored for some 50 years, since President Eisenhower’s term, at the height of the U.S..Russia confrontation (Cold War). In facing this Herculean task, President Trump is further faced with 55,000 bridges, considered unsafe and crumbing, by highly approved experts. Also, a rash of national pipelines to further the American nation’s ten-year old oil “fracking” production. President Trump’s “menu” also seemed to include rebuilding new factory production, and increasing employment, which he had promised before the election.

Despite the general public’s support and appreciation, the President seems on the way to accomplishing only a part of what he had promised, prior to the November 2018 mid-term elections. It is doubtful that much of his promises can be carried out, unless and until he is reelected in 2020.

Ever since Saudi Arabia was recognized by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in 1934, Saudi Arabia has been portrayed as the hub of the Mideast Arabs. This was partially due to its housing of Mecca and Medina. In Moslem religious circles, these cities were the basis origin of Islam, to which thousands go to present their respect to the founder Mohammed.

While Saudi Arabia, despite its limited 31 million population, has gained the plaudits of Mideast leadership, as well as being the world’s major oil producer, their generated wealth is controlled by royalty, such as the recent King Salman, and their families. The Saudis have generally stayed above the fray, rampant in the Middle East, while still being accepted as Islam’s true center.

The Saudis also represented the focus of antagonism to the founding of the Jewish state, Israel, to the point that President Roosevelt gave in to the King, in 1945, delaying Israel’s founding until 1948. But that situation has rapidly changed since the 1973 Yom Kipper War, when the Saudis launched an embargo of oil shipments against the U.S. for supporting Israel in that invasion.

Subsequently, the embargo was lifted as the Saudis asked for U.S. protection in the face of a rampaging Iraq, that had already taken over Kuwait, and was poised at the Saudi borders, which resulted in the Saudis asking the U.S. for aid, which they got.

Most lately Saudi Arabia has softened its stand against Israel, and its refusal to turn over land to the so-called “Palestinians,” who claimed Judah and Samaria as their homeland. However the following have drastically changed Saudi Arabia’s exalted position:

  1. While the U.S., primarily ousted the Iraqis from Kuwait and pledged future support, the Saudis, almost exclusively Sunni in their Mohammedan belief, are being confronted by increasingly powerful Shia Iran, the other half of Islamic belief.
  2. The Saudis’ expansive financial depository has been hit hard by the halving of oil prices since mid-2014. Even more disastrous to them has been the U.S. shale fracking, capable of matching the Saudis’ 10 million barrels a day. Still, as a leader of the OPEC global oil monopoly, the Saudis stood ready to implement a cut back, as long as non-OPEC Russia, also a producer of 10 million barrels a day, went along.
  3. But with the deflation of their multi-billion dollar stockpile shrinking, Riyadh has floated a gigantic bond offer, representing five percent of the Saudis’ total oil production. Needless to say, the U.S. demurred, but has cut back production to secure prices at mid-fifties— one-half the pricing that existed in July, 2014.
  4. In a loose alliance with primarily Sunni Egypt, the Saudis have even developed a minimal alliance with Israel, due to fear of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard’s control over Lebanon’s Hezbollah. Iran is partnered with the Russians. Their influence secured two Syrian Mediterranean sea outlets, which they never had before.
  5. Although still the nominal head of OPEC, the Saudis have lost their once dominant stature, and look for solid backing from the Americans, with a friendly Trump Administration . Even a major entry of the self-styled caliphate “ISIS” has entered the picture, dramatically lowering even more the Saudis once dominant position.

After a lackluster 2016, the renewed confidence in President Trump’s business growth appreciation seems to indicate new records in Initial Public Offerings (IPO’s). But despite this reversal from last year’s slump, a hang-back in the ability to match historically rich private offerings in stock market value is still questionable.

An increasing number of companies have decided to “go public” as the year progressed, exceeding records not seen since 2014. U.S. listed IPO’s raised more than $20 billion in the first half of the year, five times more than that made available at the same time last year. It so far has run double the comparable 2015 total in the wake of the Trump election.

Several major offerings by high profile Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are heading the hunt for independents, anticipating favorable tax advantages in the forthcoming new tax approaches being planned by the Trump Administration, not to mention long-delayed infrastructure expansion.

In spite of this newfound confidence by the multi-billions of dollars available to be spent on privately-held business enterprises, most are waiting to see whether the current Administration’s inspired confidence will be implemented with Congressionally-approved action.

Even so, the current momentum is a radical change from 2015 and most of last year; when the fear of continued government regulations and general antipathy toward business and industry, was manifest, even while the new high tech champs (Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.) were gaining most of the U.S. stock market’s interest and support.

Especially discouraged, prior to the surprising outcome of the November 8, 2016 elections, were the fossil fuel giants, Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, BP, Conoco Phillips, and their suppliers, such as Schlumberger, who had foreseen continued over-emphasis on renewables, at the expense of further oil, natural gas, and coal extraction efforts.

Even with this new surge of optimism, and as the stock market itself has gained confidence, there is still an aura of “fear” that an enthusiastic business-minded Trump Administration could be held back by an obstreperous Congress.

Consequently, a runaway investment surge is holding back, waiting to see what effect the new tax structure, import/export tariffs, a potential Mexico-border wall, and the hoped-for elimination of inheritance “death” taxes will have, if implemented this year.

Such “doubting Thomases” are more disposed to wait for the 2018 mid-term elections, in which a substantial number of Democrat Senators will be up for reelection, in addition to some House seats, now comfortably controlled by Republicans.

A solid GOP “thumbs-up at mid-term” would likely unleash a torrent of investment-fund expenditures, never before seen in America’s history of business development.

While the Jewish State of Israel has become both a solid economic and military power, respected by its global supporters in the U.S., and increasing trade ties with surging China and India, the “Palestinian phantom” hoax is the last vestige of those wishing for Israel’s extermination.

The constant, ongoing “peace talks” between a powerful Mideast democracy and a non-existent “Palestine” requires an understanding by those not shrouded by historical misunderstanding.

1) The name “Palestine” emanated in the Second Century AD, after the heroic Simon Bar Kochba, and his spiritual advisor Rabbi Simeon Akiba succeeded in ousting the Roman legions from Jerusalem for four years, in a failed hope of establishing an embryonic Jewish commonwealth in 135 AD. This was eventually crushed by the homicidal Roman Emperor Hadrian, who used German Hessian mercenaries to defeat and eliminate the third Jewish attempt at statehood, like the Maccabeans 350 years earlier.

As final punishment, Hadrian renamed the remnant Judea and Samaria “Palestine.” This was a detrimental version of Philistines, the Jewish arch enemies in centuries past. When first the Christian “Byzantines,” during the Crusades era, and then the Ottoman Empire replaced Roman rule, the name Palestine, land of the Philistines, stuck.

It became a factor again after the British ousted the Ottoman Turks during World War I, then becoming a haven for Zionists from Russia, Rumania, and finally Nazi Germany in the 1930's.

After the post World War II emergence of Israel on May 15, 1948, the name Palestine evaporated as a synonym for an emerging Jewish State revival. But not to be outdone, the shrewd Egyptian-born Yassir Arafat, founded the “Palestine Liberation Organization” (PLO), generating rebellions in the “West Bank,” first taken over by British backed Jordan, and given up to the PLO terrorists, after Israel’s fantastic “Six Day War” that asserted Israeli control over the former “Palestinian borders,” between the Mediterranean and the River Jordan.

But, foolishly, the Israel- “Oslo Accords” of the early 1990's attempted to satisfy the United Nations’ Western “peacemakers.” Even Israel’s prestigious leaders, such as Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin hoped that negotiations with the so-called Palestinians (mostly renegades from Mideast Arab countries) should resolve the demands of those wishing to exterminate Israel.

Even the legendary military leader, Ariel (Arik) Sharon subsequently attempted to impress President George W. Bush by “giving up” the Gaza strip. This unleashed the terrorist group Hamas, which has become a thorn in Israel’s side, along with two minor wars, with terrorist Hezbollah from Lebanon in the North. Fatah’s Arab Israel- haters in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) added to the undercurrent.

Only Israel’s world class military and, hopefully, the regained support of the U.S., stands as a barrier against its destruction. Unfortunately, the United Nations, and otherwise civilized European nations have become increasingly indifferent to Israel’s future survival. In addition, animosity towards Israel is also being taught by some of America’s major university professors.

Wednesday, 23 August 2017 00:17

Why Should the US/Mexican Wall Never be Built?

Written by

While the objective of a 1500-mile U.S./Mexican wall physically separating the swarms of millions of Mexicans “illegally” crossing into America, such a wall would be doomed to failure; not to mention the increasing lack of good will between two of the three North American members.

Like the infamous Hadrian Wall, built by a murderous Roman “Caesar,” and the Chinese Wall, taking more than 200 years to build, such barriers have proven enormously expensive, and failed miserably in protecting “homelands” from invasion.

In the case of the prospective 1500 mile wall between Mexico and the U.S., its proponents believe such a barrier would stop the surge of millions that have crossed into the U.S., since President Ronald Reagan “pardoned” the three million illegals in the U.S., with the promise that there would be no more.

Such an architectural nightmare would not be any more effective than Prohibition in the mid-to-late 1920's was in stopping the sale and use of alcohol. In fact, it resulted in an almost doubling of the use of whiskey, as intrepid “importers” flooded the U.S. markets until prohibition was canceled by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

While “illegal” immigration from Mexico into the U.S. hit its high point during the two terms of the Obama Administration, this was partially due to the accelerating lack of Mexican job opportunities, and the rife corruption, along with expanded growth of drug cartels.

While immigration would likely be slowed by a border length brick wall, the uncontrolled Mexican drug cartels would likely find other means of bypassing the wall, due to the heavy U.S. demand, dating back to the Vietnam disaster aftermath.

In fact, Mexico’s “maquiladoras,” that made U.S. manufacturing south of the border totally tax free, with the U.S. simultaneously reducing manufactured imports from China and the Southeast Asian nations would greatly enhance Mexico’s job and livelihood opportunities. This in itself would reduce the need of permanent “border crossings.”

While the current major reductions in border crossings may be due to fear of the “Trump crackdown,” the answers of future drug dissolution lies in U.S. home leadership. This aspect of making “America great again,” through “drug sickness” minimization could be the solution.

Having been business-active in Mexico, and somewhat familiar with its outstanding working population and its continuing growth, the U.S. should capitalize on the advantages of first-class production nearby.

America’s Hispanic minority has become a valuable asset in helping double the U.S.’s current population from the 160 million level of 50 years ago. With thousands of hands-on jobs, among others, still waiting for takers, such available nearby help is badly needed.

Hopefully, positive Mexican-American relations, added to by the third NAFTA member, Canada, will point the future in the right direction.

Tuesday, 22 August 2017 00:14

Are States’ Rights Being Restored?

Written by

Among the major presidential directives implemented by former President Barack Obama were the unprecedented rash of U.S. Government supremacy over states’ rights in a major section of the U.S. This was especially true of the nation’s two-thirds, West of the Mississippi, previously left under the jurisdiction of those Western states that happened to contain those areas.

This assertion of federal power is especially ironic, since such Washington, D.C. power grab has previously been ascribed to arch-conservatives, attempting to impose the federal will over state and local Administrations. Such a power balance confrontation has occurred periodically in American history, when a few American Presidents attempted to override state governments, whose interests were often at odds with the financial and managerial mandates emanating from the White House.

Since the U.S. Constitution, in its infinite wisdom, attempted to maintain state and local rights as a pillar of the founding fathers’ documents, the attempt to centralize ultimate governmental power inevitably became the demand of liberal Democratic Presidents. Their rationale was that social equality and the rights of all Americans was best administered from a central source. Those who were most passionate in imposing their will were Presidents Woodrow Wilson (1913-20), Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945), and most emphatically by former President Barack Obama (2009-17).

Although it’s particularly ironic that these Presidents were justifiably defined as liberal Democrats, their willful imposition of power over the nation as a whole were attempted in a mandating manner. These are characteristics normally attributed to Right-wing power centralizers. Not one of these Presidents would have been described as less than egalitarian Democrats.

In the case of Wilson, it was his unsuccessful demand to force the U.S. into the ultimately-failed League of Nations. Roosevelt ruled the U.S. to the point of wanting to pack the Supreme Court with additional justices to the historic nine, which was rejected by Congress. President Obama’s record use of executive orders, as an implementation of central control, ran out with his second-term termination.

Judging by President Trump’s early statements and directives, the emphasis on Washington, D.C. administration will be to return these rights to the 50 individual states, as long as they don’t violate the U.S. Constitution.

The grandiose Trump plans now afoot mean also to restore America as the world’s leading broad-based manufacturing sector, as well as revising international trade pacts and imports that are skewed, in one-sided fashion against the U.S., in most cases.

His “America made Great Again” includes bringing back the nearly two trillion U.S. dollars festering in foreign banks, and remaking the U.S. into the world center of production and services in the years to come.

The first plebiscite of his policies will emerge in the November mid-term elections, which will reflect America’s evaluation of the Trump regime’s accomplishments up to that point.

In analyzing President Trump’s first 100 days, and the several months following, it’s becoming increasingly apparent that elimination of the bulk of his predecessor’s priorities are a major target of POTUS’s initiatives.

While emphasizing the long-delayed infrastructural needs of the nation, as well as the first major, new comprehensive tax restructuring, and military buildup, the Trump team seems committed to elimination or reduction of practically all major legislative initiatives injected into America’s overall policies in the past eight years. These include the following:

  1. “Climatological purity” emphasis; 2) Affordable Healthcare; 3) Dodd-Frank banking regulations; 4) “Common core” educational mandates; 5) Mandatory federal minimum wages; 6) “Open border” and sanctuary cities elimination, and 7) reducing “renewable energy” emphasis and restoring fossil fuel priorities (coal, oil, and natural gas).
  2. Critics of President Trump’s priorities are blaming this unprecedented attack on his presidential predecessor’s overwhelming reversal as political; but objective analysis tends to emphasize the rectitude of such “Trump priorities.”
  3. The most telling criticism of President Obama’s Administration emphasis on low-cost goods imports was the unprecedented closing of U.S. factories and the massive reduction of manufacturing employment, numbering from 20 million to less than half that amount today. Although this shrinkage can be somewhat attributed to technological evolution, and the “great financial recession” (2008-11), the Obama emphasis on “consumer benefits” available anywhere off shore as the main culprit in the U.S. manufacturing depression.

Also unpopular with many presidential election voters was the Obama animosity against the production and the refining of fossil fuels. Although its ostensible objective was “climatic purification,” the unfulfilled cap-and-trade initiative indicated the Obama Administration objective of rewarding “renewables,” while penalizing the Co² emissions of expanding fossil fuels.

Most condemning, according to Trump intimates, was the usage of the Congressionally-voted near trillion dollars to “affordable healthcare” and renewable expenditures, while foregoing badly-needed nationwide infrastructure upgrading of roads, highways, bridges, dams, railroad tracks and pipelines.

The Administration’s rejection of the Keystone Pipeline from Canada, was proof-positive of President Barack Obama’s animosity toward fossil fuels, in favor of renewables.

Although President Trump has initiated updated healthcare, a new tax structure, and rebuilding of America’s manufacturing capability up front, it’s still questionable as to how much of this Obama rejection/new initiatives combination can be passed legislatively before the 2018 mid-term elections.

Page 1 of 3