Howard Chandler Christy Depicts The Founders Signing The U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787. "Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States" (1940)

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Putin's Hitler-Esque Tactics Against Russia's Neighbors

Friends,

A few posts ago, some historical comparisons were made between Pres. Obama and Neville Chamberlain (Britain's Pre-WWII P.M.) and between Putin and Adolf Hitler. Perhaps the most striking comparison that can be made between the Nazi dictator and today's Russian strongman is in the way the two of them went about annexing territory. People today think of Hitler launching massive military attacks on other nations (blitzkrieg). But that's not how he got started.

His early conquests were easy. The international community wanted to avoid war at all costs. Hitler's first two conquests were Austria and Czechoslovakia (if one excludes the re-armament of the Rhineland). In each case, he funded and directed Nazi parties in those countries to foment riots and chaos. (Sound like Crimea with pro-Russian insurgents?)

Next, Hitler threatened the governments of those nations with dire consequences should they use force to restore public order. (Sound like Ukraine right now?) Finally, when law and order within those countries broke down to the extent that citizens of Hitler's ethnicity (Germans) began to feel unsafe, he invaded and annexed the place in the name of protecting his own people. (Beginning to sound like Vladimir Putin?) 

In each case the international community turned a blind eye and largely bought the German view of the crisis, "Oh well - they're all Germans anyway. Who are we to stop them from being together?" Appeasement did not prevent war - it made it a dead certainty. Some of us fear we are walking into the same trap by slapping Russia on the wrist for its naked aggression against its neighbors. Putin's ambition will not be appeased by throwing him bits of Russian-speaking countries any more than Hitler was appeased when he was allowed to devour German-speaking ones.

For more insight on the Hitler-Putin connection in world affairs, see Dick Morris' brief video here:
http://www.dickmorris.com/putin-is-trying-to-break-nato-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/


Morris tells us Putin is already putting the Crimean pressure on the Baltic states - NATO allies.

Patriot Thought

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Is Putin... Hitler? Is Pres. Obama... Chamberlain?

1938: Hitler's minions founded a pro-Nazi party in the German speaking part of Czechoslovakia known as the Sudetenland. After annexing Austria without so much as a yawn from the western powers, Hitler is encouraged to go after Czechoslovakia. He has the Sudeten Nazi group pressure the Czechs for autonomy. The Czechs can not accept this, as Hitler knows. Hitler demands the international community sanction a German takeover of the Sudetenland. (Is this looking like Crimea today?)

Hitler's real aim is to test Britain and France. He wants to know how far they will go to avoid fighting him. (He was shocked that they did nothing when he rearmed the Rhineland and annexed Austria without any consequences.)

The British PM, Neville Chamberlain, pressured the French leader, Daladier, to go with him to Munich, Germany, to sign the agreement giving the Sudetenland to Germany. Reluctantly the French leader went along. Daladier told Chamberlain Hitler will stop at nothing to conquer all of Europe, but the French leader was afraid to lose Britain as an ally against future German aggression.

Thus, Britain and France joined Mussolini and Hitler at the signing table in Munich and gave away a piece of a sovereign country they had no right to give in the first place. (The Czechs were even forbidden to attend the conference.)

What Britain and France got in return was a promise [a lie] that Hitler would seek no more new territory. As soon as the ink was dry, Hitler rolled his tanks all the way to Prague. Next, he invaded Poland and that was the start of WWII.

Weakness encourages aggression. Pres. Obama told Putin's aid at a conference, shortly before the 2012 election, "This is my last election. Tell Vladimir I will have more flexibility after this election." In light of recent events, Putin seems to have taken the message that Obama is just a politician who cares only about being re-elected and will give Russia whatever it wants after the election. (The conference was supposed to be about the two countries' nuclear armaments, missile defense systems, and future plans concerning them.)

Was that what Pres. Obama had in mind when he made that off-mic (but mic still-on) comment to the Russian rep? We have to wonder because Russian aggression in the last year has been at its highest since the Cold War.

Putin then slices off a piece of the Ukraine (Crimea) when that country erupts into chaos following Ukrainian outrage over its gov't seeking a Russian economic aid package instead of the IMF offer.

What has Pres. Obama responded with? Unilateral economic sanctions against Russia. Many people believe these actions will not deter the Russian leader without being combined with European sanctions against Russia. European nations conduct a lot more trade with Russia than the U.S. does (mainly energy imports).

None of this suggests the U.S. ought to threaten the Russians with war. Instead, Pres. Obama could have agreed to provide arms to the Ukrainians when they came to Washington requesting it. (This was an entirely reasonable request considering the massive Russian troop build-up on Ukraine's border following Russia's annexation of Crimea.) This would have sent the message to the Russian leader that further territorial grabs will have consequences.

Many Americans believe we should stay out of the affairs of other countries altogether. Pres. Obama has noticeably fed into this sentiment. But aggressive actors in the world (i.e. Russia, China, Iran) take downgraded American involvement in the world as weakness. After getting what he wanted at Munich, Hitler told his aides his enemies [Britain and France] "were little worms." Churchill said at the time, "Our leaders had to choose between war and shame. They've chosen shame... but they will get war." Churchill often stated his belief that Hitler could've been deterred from further aggression if he'd been stopped at the Rhineland in 1936. (At the time, Hitler issued an order to his commanders to pull out of the Rhineland if the French responded to the troop presence.)

That is a timeless lesson. It's the same thinking behind Theodore Roosevelt's "Speak softly but carry a big stick" motto. The idea is, if you convey to your adversary that you are ready and willing to fight, you don't actually have to fight. America didn't have to fight a major war in the presidencies of T. Roosevelt or Eisenhower. Those presidents used big stick diplomacy against America's adversaries. Reagan didn't have to fight Russia even though he outspent them in an armaments race. At the end of it, the Russian leaders were ready to talk peace and friendship.

Patriot Thought

Russia warns of civil war if Ukraine uses force to quell eastern revolts


http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/08/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/index.html?hpt=po_c2


Translation? Russia's waiting for a pretext to invade. Any kind of move by the Ukraine government to restore order will provide it.

Saturday, April 5, 2014

Is America Wrong on Ukraine and Russia... Right?

Here are some links passed on from a friend who takes a different view on the Ukraine Crisis

Whether you agree or disagree, it will be interested to know your thoughts.

Here is an interview from a man who claims to have been an "economic hitman"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AynGBMUgdmg

This article claims the IMF package would harm the Ukrainians
http://rt.com/news/ukraine-austerity-law-imf-753/


Was the 5 billion dollar loan to the Ukrainian opposition evil?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eUSg6ebcQ4


You decide

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Thought of the Day: American Weakness in the Ukraine Crisis

Sunday, March 30th

Friends,

Today our gallant secretary of state John Kerry met with his Russian counterpart to discuss the Ukraine crisis. It's a big deal considering Russia has 40,000 troops  with all the tanks and weaponry needed to lunch an invasion. 

No one believes Putin's lie that these are just military exercises, especially since metals and other war materials in the area have been rationed. That is, no one believes it with the possible exception of Pres. Obama and Sec. Kerry.

You would think the Russian foreign minister would tell another clever lie just to put Kerry at ease. Instead he told Kerry that Russia's position is that Ukraine should be broken-up into several autonomous regions with a federated gov't. Wrong answer! That's code for, "we are about to attack."

The American secretary of state replied [meekly] that "That should be up to the Ukrainians."

What he should have said is, "That's unacceptable and we will arm the Ukrainians if you don't tell Vladimir to make his 80,000 troops scram from the Ukraine border!"

But Putin got the answer he wanted. America will do nothing but whine if Russia conquers Ukraine. Next, he will have his eyes on the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Those are NATO allies. We have an agreement to defend them. But will we?

The historical parallels between this crisis and the leaders involved eerily resembles the run-up to WWII. If you want to know how, just ask.


Patriot Thought

Saturday, August 17, 2013

Daily U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 4

Major Theme: When the Congress Shall Meet

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day."

[spelling and capitalization are reproduced from the document]

-U.S. Constitution


Paragraph two states that the Congress shall meet at least once in a year. What significance are we to glean from this? The Founders did not intend for Congressmen and Senators to spend a lot of time in the capital. Politics was not supposed to be a full-time occupation. It was a public service, no more than that. Think of how much less mischief our Congress could get into today, if they spent less than half the time they usually spend in Washington.

Patriot Thought

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Daily U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 3 (Paragraphs 6 and 7)

Major Theme: The Senate's Role In Impeachment Cases

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

[spelling and capitalization are reproduced from the document]

-U.S. Constitution

Visitor Comments

The dated links and statements below show interaction between the readers and makers of this blog to further the marketplace of ideas that enrich the education of patriots. Certain opinions made to posts are excerpted and re-posted here to highlight interesting discussions by fellow patriots.

Chris CJuly 28, 2013 at 12:31 PM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

I think it is absurd to draw a moral equivalence between innocent until proven guilty and guilty until proven innocent. It should be clear that one is far more protective and respectful of individual rights than the other. It's ironic that you attack the American system here, when it obviously takes more into account that someone could be falsely accused. Hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution rather than the defense.

DonaldJuly 28, 2013 at 8:27 AM[writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

It is interesting because the American Justice system goes from a innocent until proven guilty point of view. It definitely is no better in China where it is from a guilty until proven innocent point of view. Both are flawed because both lend themselves to being tainted with corruption as well as the norms of society.

Living the JourneyJuly 26, 2013 at 10:11 AM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

I found it interesting that Donald's perception of how America out to be was originally influenced by American fiction. This reminds me of when I arrived in China the first time expecting to see sword toting warriors running on the roofs of ancient temple like buildings. I was definitely surprised by reality.

Donald
July 26, 2013 at 9:09 AM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

Long before Zimmerman was pronounced innocent, people in my country were laughing at the thought of a white man (yes he is white Hispanic really) being found guilty of killing a black teenager. That will never happen they say. When things like that happen, it is the stuff of legend and stories and hollywood scripts. Look at some of the greatest literature found out there (to kill a mocking bird for example). It is the stand of the downtrodden black defendant who triumphs over the hard and brutal white man. This in itself is a tragedy as well because of the stereotypical vision people then have of the US as in the case of many of my country people as well as others from other countries in their view of America.

Anonymous
December 28, 2012 12:13 PM [writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

I do believe in evil but I also believe that Adam Lanza had mental issues that weren't being addressed. Also, he had been abandoned by his father whom he hadn't seen in over 2 years and who had a second family which Adam was not a part of. Adam had been assigned a school psychologist but somewhere along the line he dropped through the cracks and didn't get the care he needed that could possibly have prevented this tragedy. We'll never know...

Living the JourneyDecember 31, 2012 7:16 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

How can evil be defined in a pluralistic society? Is morality something decided by vote? And then following that question, how can evil be "treated"? Jason, I think you're trying to open a door that very few want to walk through because if we do, we are forced to make choices about things many would like to leave "relative".

Anonymous
December 31, 2012 7:36 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

I think we should stop offering up drug store psychology and focus on the one common denominator- GUNS. Psychotic people exist in all cultures, nations and religions. Look at the countries in the world with strict gun control laws; such as Japan, Australia, Canada to name a few, and they have far less violence involving guns. Are you blaming secularism? Science? The devil made him do it! Right? Simply, Adam Lanza and other mass murderers are mentally ill. So let's make it impossible for people like him to obtain guns of mass destruction.

Jason Aldous
December 31, 2012 10:56 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

Dear Living the Journey, We will always have tragedies so long as there is evil. Evil as such can not be cured through government policy. On the contrary, its work can only be limited through choices made by individuals.

Dear Anonymous, I do blame secular reasoning for making it difficult for us to address the problem. If you take good and evil out of your worldview, morally you can not say there is anything wrong with what Adam Lanza did. You may be horrified at what he did, but you can not judge it against any standards, if good and evil are removed as avenues of inquiry.

Jason AldousDecember 27, 2012 6:39 PM [writing in response to Wednesday, December 26, 2012: Gun Control Part 3: The Second Amendment (A Legal Analysis)]

Let's see, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Even if the wording implies that the populace must be armed when called up for militia service, it says "the right of the people shall not be infringed." Since the amendment states that bearing arms is a "right" and "not to be infringed" it is an open and shut case for anyone taking an objective reading of it. "Rights" are entitlements. Privileges can be taken away, but not rights. It matters not if this right was given with militia service in mind. Good work, Mr. Emma.


AnonymousDecember 17, 2012 3:46 PM [writing in response to Monday, December 17, 2012, Gun Control Part 2: Would Society Be Better Off If All Guns Were Made Illegal? (A Reasonable Treatment)]

On my part, I think that all guns should definitely be regulated and strictly controlled. Its interesting that almost all Americans point to the 2nd amendment. From my point of view, this 2nd Amendment was written in a time when there was 'trust' among people and their government. Today this trust has been flushed down the drain

AnonymousDecember 17, 2012 5:26 PM [writing in response to Monday, December 17, 2012, Gun Control Part 2: Would Society Be Better Off If All Guns Were Made Illegal? (A Reasonable Treatment)]

In 1959, 60% of the American public favored a ban on handguns. Today, the majority of the American people don't even support a ban on assault rifles. Why? Because since 1959, the argument that tighter gun control would reduce crime has been effectively refuted in the mind of the public. The change in attitude toward gun control is primarily due to fear of crime rather than distrust of government.


GeoDecember 8, 2012 2:11 PM [writing in response to Friday, December 7, 2012, Pearl Harbor: Was It Japan's Fault, or America's? (Conspiracy Theory vs. History)]

FDR campainged on keeping the US out of the war but when he wanted to get into the war he needed an excuse. He may very well have been tempted to withhold information from his top commanders at Pearl Harbor. They certainly suspected he did.

GeoDecember 8, 2012 at 1:28 PM[writing in response to Saturday, December 1, 2012, Voting In A Bad Economy, Recession Myths: De-Constructing Historical Falsification]

Can't argue with your observations, Jason, but even with the limited space no mention of the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs in any discussion of Hoover/Great Depression/FDR is to ignore an elephant in the room.

Chris CDecember 7, 2012 at 4:40 PM[writing in response to Tuesday, November 27, 2012, The Next Great American President: Who We Need To Look For In 2016]

One qualm: I don't think Suez can be regarded as a long-term success for Eisenhower. It bought us no credibility with the developing world and managed to alienate important Allies. As a result, we got no real help from Britain in Vietnam and plenty of hostility from France in the 1960's. France's desire to oppose or sabotage us on key issues has continued to this day.