You can't have your version of history both ways

© 2020 Jim Spence -  It is fascinating to contrast the way the blame-America first crowd argues basic facts about the U.S.A.'s place in the world. At stake in their claims regarding all the wrong doings by the U.S.A. is the fundamental nature of Americans. The Colin Kaepernicks of the America always find the American glass empty. Others of similar ilk find it at least half empty. Blame America firsters will routinely point to the scourge of slavery, 19th century American colonialism, and even 19th century American imperialism, as a way of presenting a permanently negative image of the fundamental nature of America. In their process of doing so, they typically try to make sure those who consider their assertions, come away believing that America’s past is hopelessly tainted and Americans, particularly white Americans embrace the nation’s past wrongdoings. They also imply that anyone in today’s generation of Americans, must either accept responsibility for all the transgressions of previous generations of Americans, or become socialists, as a way of "redeeming" themselves. Millions of gullible people including those running public education buy into this tripe.
Unfortunately, gullible people wind up being the victims of their own gullibility. Consider how all of the incredibly gullible people in Germany allowed Hitler to come to power, outlaw all other political parties, round up Jews, and annex by force, neighboring countries. Tojo behaved in a similar way in Japan with the tacit approval of the nation's gullible “emperor” and gullible citizens. The Japanese military butchered hundreds of thousands of innocent Chinese citizens as well as other Asians. Germany eventually attacked the Soviet Union and butchered hundreds of thousands if not millions of Russians, as well.
Previous generations of Americans found themselves in a precarious situation in 1939-1940. They did not want to fight battles in Europe or Asia. However, when England, Russia, and China begged for any form of assistance against the assaults of the Japanese and Germans, the United States showed compassion for those being invaded. Eventually this stance dragged the U.S. into World War II.
Let's make no mistake, there was a concerted effort by many nations to defeat the butchers of Japan and Germany in WWII. However, without American treasure, American industrial might, and American blood, neither Hitler’s Nazi Germany nor Tojo’s Japan would have been defeated. Young Americans like my uncle Nelson Spence endured incredible hardships fighting and winning critical battles at places like Guadalcanal in the Pacific. He was a lucky. He came home. Tens of thousands didn't.
There is an old saying, “You can’t have it both ways.” Tom Brokaw wrote a book called, "The Greatest Generation.” It provided tremendous documentation of the sacrifices of young American men and women during WWII.
There is a question for 21st century Americans that is intriguing. Can we take credit for all of the bravery and sacrifices made by the WWII generation of Americans? Do the virtues of those thousands of American who died on the beaches at Normandy and in the Pacific, transfer to today’s American citizens simply because, we are loosely defined, members of that same general group of people?
The best answer to this question should be a resounding NO. We 21st century Spences are entitled to make NO claims, that because Nelson Spence spent months fighting on the island of Guadalcanal, that WE somehow, deserve to take credit for his sacrifices or the sacrifices of other brave Americans during that period. Talk to Colin Kaepernick and millions like him, and they will quickly and completely agree that 21st century Americans have NO claims on the virtues of our ancestors who fought in WWII against Germany and Japan. Sacrifices made by those Americans to help save the lives millions of Russian, French, English, Dutch, Belgian, Filipino, and Jewish people, is irrelevant to our own virtues in this century or lack of virtues. Fair enough.
Now let’s have some fun and invert this exercise. When we do so, it does not take long to expose the utter stupidity and hypocrisy of the modern-day progressive Democrat. Why are they pitiful? Because they want to have it both ways. 21st century American progressive are constantly trying to pin all of the transgressions of previous generations of Americans, including the scourge of slavery, colonialism, imperialism, etc. on present day Americans, particularly white men. Anyone with any sense of fairness should be able to see that this mindset is truly unfair. Nobody should try to take credit for unearned virtues, nor take the blame for transgressions done by others. This is basic fairness.
Still, this have it both ways approach is the essence of the Democrat's identity politics. Democrats attempt to categorize all people as members of groups instead of evaluating every human being as an individual.
Martin Luther King Jr. nailed it when he said people need to be judged by the content of their character. Nothing could be more profound than this statement, simply because it rejects group identity that can make one evil or virtuous simply based on their group membership category.
When discussing this idea with a friend recently she put it to me in more succinct terms, "I didn’t risk my life to liberate Europe or Asia from Germany and Japan, and I never lynched anyone either."
Democrats have a failed message to Americans, simply because they kowtow to the group identity crowd in their party.
We are a nation of individuals and should be judged according to the content of our characters.

Share/Bookmark

Fighting terrorism in America

© 2020 Jim Spence - On this site nine years ago, I posted a column entitled, “Let’s Play….Find the War Mongers.” It seems appropriate, based on the hysterical mainstream news media coverage of the recent U.S. killing of Iranian General Soleimani, that we play the game again.
A couple of weeks ago there were widespread predictions that Trump was a war monger and on the verge of starting WWIII. Naturally, the Democrats decided to take actions in the House of Representatives to limit the Commander in Chief’s ability to be well, you know, the Commander in Chief.
A nice history lesson to review military actions taken by previous presidents regarding terrorism seems in order. First, on my long list of attacks against Americans, is the attack on the American Embassy in Iran in 1979. Clearly a response was required. And eventually, President Carter brought the military in to try to send a message to state-sponsored terrorists. The rescue mission failed. Was Jimmy Carter’s ultimate military response to try to rescue U.S. diplomats an act of war mongering? Nobody in the news media accused him of that at the time.
Muamar Gaddafi of Libya was tied to assassination plans against U.S. diplomats in Rome and Paris in 1981. Ronald Reagan promptly ordered the shooting down of Libyan fighter jets. Reagan took heavy criticism in the mainstream news media for his actions. He had already been branded as a war monger by Democrats. So following the cue of those who lead them, the press questioned Reagan's motives from the start on Libya. Stand by for more on Libya.
Slobodan Milošević, the Yugoslavian/Serbian dictator, engaged in the horrific practice of systematic mass murder in Bosnia in the late 1990’s. The primary victims were Muslims. Serbia called their actions “ethnic cleansing.” What they were doing was nothing short of unrelenting genocide. President Clinton sent American bombers to attack Serbia for 78 straight days. This is a fact the hopelessly pacifist left conveniently sweeps aside. American jets dropped bombs on areas occupied by the killers every single day non-stop. Was the Clinton response to genocide war mongering? Even when bombs strayed and hit the Chinese embassy, the criticism from the mainstream media of Bill Clinton was muted. Most Democrats don’t even remember the fact that Clinton bombed that area for 78 straight days.
Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Queada’s attacks on the World Trade Center towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington on 9-11 is perhaps the most famous terrorist ever stalked by U.S. forces. Eventually, in early May of 2011, Barack Obama ordered a special forces mission to cross the borders of Pakistan, without Pakistani permission. Obama intended to capture or execute bin Laden. Were the actions taken by Barack Obama war mongering? Americans, both Democrats and Republicans did not criticize Obama. They cheered him and his unauthorized military action against the notorious terrorist. The mainstream American press did not question his motives, instead they sang Obama’s praises. After all, Obama had already been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. Why shouldn't he barge into Pakistan and kill bin Laden?
Obama was a busy man in 2011. Also, in 2011, Anwar Al-Awlaki, an American citizen who was born in Las Cruces, NM was killed in actions authorized by Barack Obama. Al-Alwaki was in Yemen at the time when a U.S. military drone terminated him. Was Obama’s action war mongering? The mainstream media was not merely silent, it approved of the killing.
Barack Obama also decided he had had enough of aging dictator Muammar Gaddafi in Libya in 2011. Accordingly, Obama unleashed air strikes and tomahawk missiles on Libya. Eventually, in subsequent actions, Gaddafi was killed by American forces. Was Obama guilty of war mongering? Again, there was virtually no criticism of Obama in the American press for his actions against Libya.
Now lets get to another attack on a known butcher and check the reactions. In late 2019, Iranian General Soleimani was in Iraq illegally. He was planning attacks on the U.S. embassy and also on other American bases there. Intelligence identified his location at the Baghdad airport, and Trump authorized a drone attack on the man who ran state-sponsored terror in Iran. Was Trump guilty of war mongering? To listen to CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, Trump wasn't a hero like Obama. Instead he was a reckless, provocative, mad man who was bringing America on the verge of World War III. A draft of young people was coming. Trump had to be stopped.
The patterns of all these incidents makes everything clear. Presidents Carter, Clinton, and Obama could all act as responsible Commanders in Chief for taking out dangerous individuals engaging in state-sponsored attacks on U.S. embassies etc. President’s Reagan, Bush, and Trump are simply war mongers for doing the same thing.
Let's be honest here folks. Anyone who thinks that the so-called journalists at these news outlets named above, are anything more than propaganda foot soldiers in the Democratic Party are delusional.
These days 96% of all analysis of Trump’s actions are negative, including the battle against terrorists. And journalists, while devoting just 4% of all analysis to the positives, suggests America no longer has a safe and “free” press. These outlets are so caught up in self-importance they think 1st amendment rights are under attack.
They need to report on site on presidents Putin of Russia and Xi in China. There these dictators get 100% positive coverage in their media not 96% negative.
This all begs the question. Who is really under attack around here? The answer is freedom loving Americans.
Share/Bookmark

King's dream realization could be a nightmare for Dems

© 2020 Jim Spence -  Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream. King wanted an America where people would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. So profound were his words and his vision that though he did not live to see it (as he prophetically predicted), the scourge of racism in America pretty much went underground decades ago.
Earlier this week our nation celebrated a national holiday in Martin Luther King’s honor. Travel to almost any city of any size in America, and streets or highways are named after Dr. King.
Yes, there are still racists in the United States. There always will be. However, it is no longer acceptable for whites to espouse any racist thoughts in respected circles. The truth is, and mainly for understandable reasons, racism is much more prominent in the black community than in the white community. Accordingly, on television shows, in movies, and in every nook and cranny of pop culture, it seems to be generally acceptable to bash whites, especially older white men. Unfortunately, anti-white sentiments run completely counter to Dr. King's dream. It is still the content of of a person's character and not the color of one’s skin, that should be judged.
It is troubling that one can see the same old Democrat’s election strategy unfold each election season. In a feeble effort to maintain a stronghold on minority votes, Democrats willingly reject King’s dream. Accusing whites of being racist anytime any white refuses to go along with all the bad policy ideas Democrats have, is finally beginning to become exposed as a bad political strategy with a limited shelf-life.
Democrats seem unable to break free of the race-card game because they have acquired a serious addiction to the process of hyping a perception in minority communities of widespread white racism. Terms like “white privilege and white supremacists” are trotted out to describe anyone attending a political rally that runs counter to Democratic Party dogma. Racism accusations are used as a matter of routine to describe views of people who support various civil protections including support for the first and second amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
One had to fight back the laughter when listening to comments made by Senators Kamala Harris and Corey Booker as they dropped out of the Democratic race for the presidency recently. Rules were established by leading Democrats to keep the debates from having fifteen or twenty candidates on stage, month after month. Eventually, both the Booker and Harris campaigns floundered. They were, unlike the top competitors in the party, simply unable to attract financial donors or decent polling numbers with REGISTERED DEMOCRATS.
From Booker and Harris, complaints of a lack of diversity on the debate stage began to be woven into their excuses for failure. It is simply ironic that Harris and Booker, in the post-Obama era, attempted to make the case that Democrats don’t donate or declare polling preferences for black candidates because they have a bias against black candidates. Given all the racist propaganda regarding whites being foisted on the public, these assertions are absurd. But somehow Booker and Harris had to grab the racism crutch as they fell. Harris added the sexism charge to her list of reasons why her candidacy failed to gain traction despite the face that Elizabeth Warren was crushing her in the polls. It seems that minority voters are not the mindlessly monolithic automatons Democrats are counting on.
What we are left with are five viable Democrats. Four are aging whites and one is a young white gay mayor from Indiana.
We hear the term identity politics tossed around all the time. Most voters are not sure what it means. Identity politics is group think in a nutshell. Democrats see people, particularly those who despise all the failures of socialism, as members of groups. Republicans see people as individuals.
The fact that Democrats have been indoctrinating the population to judge people according to the color of their skin and gender is about to blow up in their faces. Here are some of the group themes: Women are generally good unless they vote GOP. White men are bad (except for socialist white men who check their built in privileges at the door). Racial minority members should all think of themselves as victims. Whites are all to be considered as oppressors (especially white men). This explains why you see classes in white privilege being taught at many universities around the nation.
Don't look now but Democrats suddenly have a problem with only a slate of multi-millionaire white people to choose from in the presidential primaries.
The problem is compounded by the fact that unemployment and poverty numbers among minority members are at their lowest level EVER under Trump’s policies. With no minority candidate to vote for who doesn't have the stigma of whiteness, Democrat’s group think might just backfire in 2020. Which white person should the minority voter trust? Should they trust the unknown white person? Or should they trust the one who has been delivering results for minorities like no other president in modern history? The realization of Dr. King's dream could be a nightmare for Democrats.
Share/Bookmark

We finally have an "outsider" on the inside

© 2020 Jim Spence - Ask most Americans if they are sick and tired of career politicians and most will reply with an emphatic, YES. The emergence of Ross Perot in the early 1990’s is a good case study of how the mainstream media deals with outsiders. Perot, who passed away recently, was a man of high integrity. He had a good grasp of most things that were ailing America and he was honest. Prior to the 1992 election, Perot surged to the lead in the polls, only to be crushed by an orchestrated smear campaign by Democrats and Republicans with the news media doing the blocking and tackling. Watching the insider’s smear job on Perot was like watching an ambush unfold in slow motion. In short order, using opposition research received from Democrats and Republicans the news networks turned Perot’s “image” from a high integrity “outsider” with an incredibly successful business background and years of unselfish public service, into some sort of quirky nut who was not to be trusted. Unlike the thick-skinned Donald Trump, Perot did not handle the unfairness very well. American voters who swore by-God they wanted an outsider instead of another career politician in the White House got conned by the insiders. Voters abandoned Perot in sufficient numbers to get Bill Clinton elected in 1992.
Every four years we seem to engage in the same ritual. New “outsiders” try to break through the Washington D.C. power clique that has dominated this nation for several generations and every single outsider has FAILED to crack those tall barriers, except one. That would be Donald Trump.
Many voters who were skeptical of Trump (including me) did not trust him, even though he got our vote in 2016. We had no choice. We simply could not put power in the hands of a known crook like Hillary Clinton. We had plenty of reasons to be cynical, so we held our noses when we voted for Trump.
Let’s fast forward to the present. It is safe to say that Donald Trump, despite all his annoying tweets, his ridiculous pettiness, and his willingness to terminate decent people like firing is a daily bodily function, Trump has kept MORE PROMISES than any president in my adult lifetime. The only president who comes close to the promises kept record of Trump is Ronald Reagan.
It is not just that Trump has kept so many promises. It is critical to recognize that he has done so while enduring withering criticism from the mainstream news media. A recent survey revealed that 96% of all Trump “analysis” is negative. This is unprecedented. The fact that Trump is polling so well tells you how very little the public trusts journalists.
The anti-Trump drumbeat should be wearing average Americans down more than it is. Look at Fox’s Chris Wallace. Wallace finally seems to be unable to ignore the never-ending smear campaign against Trump. He has bought into the Democrat’s latest in a three-year series of concerted efforts to manufacture accusations that will support their post 2016 election loss impeachment obsession. Wallace has joined the rest of the media that is missing something basic. Americans are interested in results, not likable politicians. They have been betrayed by enough likable politicians to last them the rest of their lives.
Do those of us keeping track of kept promises and broken promises wish that Trump would stop being petty? Yes. Do we wish he was more loyal to his appointees? Yes. Do we wish he was not so provocative and obnoxious? Yes. But do we understand that these are small things to trade away, in exchange for KEPT PROMISES on important public policies? YES.
Don’t look now but Trump is polling amazingly well with both Hispanic and Black voters. The mainstream media would have everyone including Hispanics and Blacks believe that these two groups are made up of monolithic automatons, because they all think alike and of course they all vote alike. These absurd monolithic American minority behavior theories are coming unraveled. Minority voters understand that their wages are rising, and they see that there are JOBS EVERYWHERE for anyone willing to work. If these polls are even close to being correct, the Democrats, with all their desperate impeachment obsessions and incredible assistance from the mainstream media, are going to be on the outside looking in until 2024.
What does the GOP Senate do with such a durable president? The GOP Senate is made up mostly of career politicians, many of whom are sellouts. Most GOP senators do not feel any obligation to do what they have said they will do. If the GOP Senators treat Trump decently in the upcoming sham impeachment trial, it will only be because it serves their interests to do so. They seem oblivious to his promise keeping, because they pay so much attention to his shortcomings. Too bad they don’t examine their own.


Share/Bookmark

Ocasio-Cortez - the closet capitalist

© 2020 Jim Spence - Perhaps the most misinformed human being ever to be elected to the United States House of Representatives is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.
They could build a shrine to her stupidity. Try these assertions on for size:
AOC said regarding climate change, “There’s scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult. And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question, you know, is it okay to still have children?”
What is the alternative? I thought Democrats were against endangering species? Does she want to exclude human beings from this principle? However, it is safe to say nobody is going to complain if Ocasio-Cortez does not reproduce.
She also claimed that unemployment measures under Donald Trump are low because everyone in the middle class has two jobs. Sorry sister, the Bureau of Labor Statistics begs to differ. The BLS keeps track of how many people work more than one job.
Ocasio-Cortez actually compared the U.S. Border Patrol’s enforcement of our immigration laws to the Nazi Holocaust. It would seem she hasn’t visited the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. yet to get up to speed on the death of six million Jews.
It goes on and on.  Ocasio-Cortez also said, “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” OK, mark me down as a crazy gambler, but I am betting she winds up being wrong on this one too.
Ocasio-Cortez is a very vocal opponent of America’s free market system. And she says she is fine with being called a socialist since she hates free economic market systems. But of course, nobody in the Democratic Party is calling her a socialist anymore, because apparently she has the unmitigated gall to want to keep the political funds she has raised, instead of “sharing” them with all of her colleagues in the Democratic Party collective.
AOC is now refusing to pay her annual dues ($250,000) to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. She says she will funnel money she raised on her own directly to Democrats who are facing tough races. It sounds like she thinks that people like her, who work to raise money, have a tendency to spend those funds more wisely than all of the Democrats running the Congressional Campaign Committee. Now that is rich, though Ocasio-Cortez hates rich people too....it turns out she is a closet capitalist.
Some of those who are part of the “collective” (pun intended) feel Ocasio-Cortez is not a good team player. Because Ocasio-Cortez likes being in control of what she earns, she is being castigated.
The great irony of this, and a scary point too, is the fact that Ocasio-Cortez is a fundraising juggernaut. She convinces other misinformed socialists citizens in the U.S. to donate to her in huge numbers. According to filings, in the third-quarter of 2019, she out-raised all other House Democrats including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
It is almost as if the Democrats resent the fact that she doesn’t pay her “fair share,” a term usually reserved for the citizens who pay the bulk of all taxes in America. Greg Meeks a fellow Democrat said this of AOC’s resistance to the collective, “Sometimes the question comes….Do you want to be in a majority or do you want to be in the minority? And do you want to be part of a team?”
All of this hypocrisy is mindful of the hapless Ed Asner, who never saw any Democratic interference in business that he didn’t support.......UNTIL the State of California passed a law that said Non-Profit Community Theaters had to abide by the minimum wage laws too. When that happened, Asner came up all sorts of justifications for why his neck of the woods deserved a special exemption from the oppressive minimum wage law....simply because it would harm what he was trying to do, in terms of developing new talent. It is simply amazing how keeping what you earn or being able to offer a training wage to entry level workers makes sense to AOC and chumps like Ed Asner, but only when it suits their personal interests. Everyone else who argues as they do is a greedy bastard.
There is no fundamental principles at work here with these types, just naked selfishness.
Share/Bookmark

Mussolini, Tojo, Hitler, and the Iranian Mullahs

© 2020 Jim Spence - Tyrants operating within their own boundaries are sticky problems for the international community. Defining and policing human rights violations within sovereign borders is pretty much impossible.
Consider what a horrific murdering thug Saddam Hussein was. When he confined his atrocious behavior to his own people, he was safe from international intervention within Iraq. But then, he decided to annex Kuwait and a gigantic coalition crushed him.
The history books are loaded with examples of tyrants engaged in territorial expansions. While the maintenance of vast empires over large geographic spaces can be accomplished, eventually they fail. And as military technology has advanced, the appetites of tyrants have become more limited.
The sixth stage of creating and maintaining conditions for lasting peace involves differentiating between local skirmishes and actions by tyrants with territorial ambitions. The biggest threat to this stage of the peace maintenance process in 2020 is the behavior of the Iranian mullahs. Iran clearly has broad regional ambitions. Accordingly, Iran attacked Iraq, the U.S. embassy in Iraq, and Saudi Arabia's oil facilities in 2019. Iran also regularly organized and funded violence against Israel. It also seized oil tankers in the open waters of the Persian Gulf. The killing of Iranian General Soleimani by U.S. forces was simply a recognition that Iran’s behavior had gone far beyond engaging in minor skirmishes.
Stage seven for creating and maintaining conditions for peace, requires the recognition by civilized nations that appeasement of leaders of any nations that violate the first six stages necessary for peace will result in the worst possible outcomes for all global citizens.
The history books tell the story. Tyrannical expansionist actions of Japan, Germany, and Italy serve as perfect illustrations of the point. The appeasement of Hitler by France, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union provide perfect illustrations of this fundamental principle. Appeased tyrants become emboldened, not grateful. In Asia, the appeasing of Hideki Tojo's excursions into China led to his emboldening. When he met zero resistance, Tojo escalated imperialist actions. The point here is simple. Tyrants only respect strength, they do not respect appeasement. They see it for what it is.......weakness. The standing down of Iran shortly after General Soleimani’s death, illustrates the point. It is a mystery why Democrats in America and their parrots in the news media were unable to anticipate this reaction by the Iranian mullahs. The U.S. media still reacts to talk instead of ACTION.
The last stage necessary to create and maintain conditions for lasting peace is empirical. Nations that DO NOT teach their adults and their children the first seven stages required to maintain peace, will eventually suffer catastrophic consequences.
Again, it was not just the leaders of Japan, Germany, and Italy that paid the price for the citizens of those countries not choosing leaders wisely. Millions of citizens all around the world died as a direct consequence of the intransigence of Japanese, Italian, and German citizens.
The outcomes could have been different. When Mussolini invaded Abyssinia, he should have been isolated and crushed. When Hitler began his attempts to acquire territories, he should have been isolated and crushed. The same goes for Hideki Tojo. In each of these instances, it was clear that there was a dangerously ambitious tyrant involved who was unwilling to respect the recognized borders of other nations. Countries that paid huge prices for appeasing Tojo and Hitler were China and the Soviet Union. And of course, Jewish people paid dearly as well.
World War II could have been averted if swift decisive action had been taken to isolate and punish Italy. This would have sent a strong message to both Japan and Germany that disrespect for international boundaries by tyrants would not be tolerated.
Fast forward to 2020. It is quite sad indeed that Democrats and their buddies in the mainstream news media are either too ignorant of history or too cynical regarding Trump to understand what causes war and what causes peace.
Successive generations of American students are being indoctrinated in nonsensical viewpoints instead of the realities of keeping the peace. In this scenario, a guy like Trump gets accused of creating hostility escalation, when he is actually doing precisely the opposite. What a pity. We will pay in the end for this ignorance.
Share/Bookmark

Reverence for diplomacy comes with responsibilities

© 2020 Jim Spence - Human beings are the most dangerous creatures on the planet. How should we define peace? It seems very unrealistic to think that local skirmishes can be eliminated any time soon. With this in mind, stage two of the sequence necessary for the establishment and maintenance of peace is a sobering compromise. The compromise involves recognizing the reality that a certain number of regional/local skirmishes are inevitable. In a state of utopia, which of course does not exist anywhere on earth, there are no skirmishes or local conflicts. Since we don't live in utopia, except for many progressive Democrats who pretend they do, we are going to have to accept the occasional skirmish.
It will only be when public education systems around the globe teach children and adults what causes war, and how difficult it is to maintain peace, that there might be some hope that we can eliminate skirmishes. Based on the efficacy of public education in the U.S. and Europe, for the foreseeable future, the best case scenario is to see to it that local skirmishes do not escalate into regional or global wars.
Stage three in the sequence necessary to establish and maintain peace is basic. Stage three is accomplished when all civilized nations agree to respect internationally recognized boundaries. History is unequivocal on this stage. When a nation, any nation’s borders are violated by aggressors, trouble almost always follows in the form of violence and war. In the effort to police the planet and foster tranquility, super-power nations MUST come together instead of vetoing one another at the U.N., and insist that borders for all nations be respected. Why would we single out the super-power nations? Because super-power nations have the wherewithal to actually enforce respect for borders.
Stage four requires a strong reverence for diplomacy. A huge preference for diplomacy is required on the part of all civilized nations. This is very basic to peace. Relying on diplomacy means nations should maintain embassies within the boundaries of other nations and vice versa, to make sure there is mutual respect and diplomatic communications on an ongoing basis. Again, this is fundamental.
Stage five is directly tied to embracing the importance of diplomacy. All countries must be committed to both enjoying and providing safe and secure embassies. Safe and secure embassies are essential for effective diplomacy. When embassies are NOT protected by the host countries, or respected by other nations, peace always crumbles.
One of the most favored tactics of radical Islamic terrorists, is to attack embassies. When these attacks are state-sponsored, the conditions for peace disintegrate.
Democratic Party candidates for the presidency made hollow comments in recent days. Their shallow criticisms of the attack that killed General Soleimani ignored the fact that state-sponsored Iranian attacks on the American embassy in Iraq represented an UNEQUIVOCAL rejection of diplomacy. Nobody who is the least bit serious about peace can rationally believe that engaging in diplomacy remained an option, when Iran’s military chief was attacking U.S. diplomatic personnel at our embassy in Iraq.
Make no mistake. Democrats know this. Unfortunately their desire for power and their hatred of Trump is so visceral, they are actually willing to pretend that an attack on diplomats in the U.S. embassy in Baghdad was not relevant to Soleimani's death. An embassy attack isn’t merely relevant, it is fundamental. Iran violated American territory, again. In doing so, Iran violated stage five of the sequence that is necessary for the establishment and maintenance of peace.
To appease this sort of Iranian aggression, as Democrats suggest America should do, is to invite disaster. Democrat behavior this month will not play well with independent unaligned voters.
Share/Bookmark

Stage One: Colonial Grievances and Peace

© 2020 Jim Spence - Stage one of the eight stages necessary to establish and maintain “peace” is the recognition by all parties that attempting to re-address colonial grievances is senseless and will be ultimately be fruitless. While many colonial era victims have grievances that are very legitimate, after several generations have come and gone, the essence of re-visiting colonial grievances becomes nothing more than a preference for endless feuding, skirmishing, and bloodshed.
There’s not much regarding colonialism and imperialism that hasn’t already been written. Colonialism can be defined as, “the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.”
Occasionally, the terms “colonialism” or “imperialism” are directed as an accusation against the United States. However, by and large all superpowers including the U.S. have eschewed the practice of colonialism and imperialism for many decades. The United States acquired no new territories after World War II when it could have done so with ease. Additional evidence of this reality is the fact that independence has been granted to many former European colonies. The examples are practically endless, especially with England, France, Spain, and the Netherlands.
Every situation involving past colonialism is unique. It would be impossible to establish rules to try to settle old colonial disputes. Spain forcefully colonized and pillaged what would eventually become Mexico. Before the Spaniards arrived in what is now Mexico, the Aztecs established themselves as the dominant force in territories that once belonged to other tribes and factions. The same is true of the Mayans and the Incas in Central and South America. Mexicans fought Spain and gained independence, as did countries in Central and South America. Mexico then made the policy mistake of allowing uncontrolled immigration into colonial Texas, mostly by poor Americans from the south. Eventually the colonists in Texas fought successfully to break away from Mexico. Later the Texans voted to join the United States, which had seized the American west from Mexico in the middle of the 19th century. This was the era when colonialism and imperialism were fashionable in the U.S.
The point here is a simple one. It is virtually impossible to identify all the damaged parties from the colonial/imperialism era, let alone sort out all the grievances. Perhaps some Americans do owe some Mexicans for colonialist/imperialist aggression. Who are these Americans? Do these Americans owe the ancestors of the Spaniards that took Mexico from the Aztecs? Or do these unidentifiable American descendants owe the ancestors of the Aztecs, since they are themselves the descendants of the victims of the Spanish imperialists? The fishing line is tangled. It is best to start over.
At some point for the sake of peace, old territorial grievances must be dropped if peace is preferred. Naturally, hitting the reset button won’t make inter-generational wrongs become right. However, neither do endless feuds and skirmishes. Peace must be deemed more palatable than endless fighting by ALL parties.
Observers can see how this dilemma has become seemingly permanent in the Middle East. There, territorial claims and counterclaims go back dozens and dozens of generations over thousands and thousands of years. In the end, when the living generations of both sides insist on refusing to recognize the rights of the other side to exist, it is impossible to even try to draw borders that will be respected, let alone establish embassies and diplomatic relations.
Again, the premise that the condition of war and strife is normal, and the condition of peace is elusive can be easily acknowledged, when considering the Middle East in general and Israel in particular. Middle East peace is an oxymoron simply because the region has never even made it past Stage Two of the eight stage sequence necessary for maintaining establishing and maintaining peace.
Israel is the superior military force in the region. It is nearly impossible to see this changing given their free market economic model. Diplomatic offers by Israel to return significant portions of land, as well as establishing mutually recognized and respected borders, are essentially stages three and four in the eight stages necessary for establishing and maintaining peace. Sadly, these offers have always been rejected in favor of a continuation of feuding and skirmishing. It is disturbing that there are radical Democratic Party members in the U.S. House of Representatives, who refuse to recognize this situation for what it is. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) are the kinds of people who make getting to Stage Three of the peace process seem like an impossibility. They seem content to blame the U.S. and Israel for thousands of years of war and strife. In doing so, they stonewall the impasse to peace, while fomenting perpetual feuding and skirmishing in the Middle East. The fundamental truths associated with the eight state sequence get torpedoed and the bloodshed continues. Omar and Tlaib are an embarrassment to all peace-seeking Americans.
Share/Bookmark

The Eight Stage Sequence of Maintaining Peace

© 2020 Jim Spence - Amazingly, there are important recurring patterns of behavior throughout human history that go ignored. Reviews of thousands of years of nation's and nation state's actions reveals one unassailable truth. Various stages of war and hostilities are the default condition for mankind. Alternatively, peace remains the great exception. Why?
To maintain peace, governments run by human beings all around the globe must behave themselves. This seems hard to do. An objective assessment of this situation suggests there is a sequence of processes that ALL nations must respect for peaceful conditions to prevail. Should only one nation violate the sequence, peace can come to an end for many other nations.

Often hapless commentary on what actions can "lead to war" gets disguised as news reporting. Often the commentary is so simplistic, it is an insult to anyone who has been paying attention to world history.

Many people claim they have a “global view” and consider themselves citizens of the earth, instead of merely citizens of a country. Too often these types offer nothing to the potential for a learning process where maintaining peace is concerned. Instead of recognizing the fundamental truths of the peace–war stage sequence, they offer one-dimensional political insults. Ignorant of history, grasping all the difficulties of maintaining peace is beyond their grasp. Good global citizens must also be good citizens of individual nations. These duties are NOT mutually exclusive as many imply.

In the 21st Century it is time to concede that the days of colonialism are not only over, but also admit it is impossible to rewind the clock. Virtually every developed nation on earth has engaged in colonialism, including the U.S. It is noteworthy that indigenous people also engaged in colonialism. Colonialism is a human failing, it is NOT merely a developed nation failing.

It was clearly demonstrated that the colonial era was OVER when the would-be late comers to the colonial era (Germany, Japan, and Italy) learned that territorial expansion was going to be considered a no-no in the civilized world after WWII began.

In the post colonial era, there are clearly eight separate sequences required to maintain peace. In fact, all stages must be continuously maintained....to keep peace.

Stage one is the recognition that attempting to re-address colonial grievances is senseless and will be ultimately be fruitless. While many colonial era victims have grievances that are very legitimate, after several generations have come and gone, the essence of re-visiting colonial grievances becomes nothing more than endless feuding and bloodshed.

Stage two is the reality that a certain number of regional/local skirmishes are inevitable. The key to maintaining peace is to see to it that these skirmishes do not escalate into regional or global wars. It is best to be realistic instead of idealistic about skirmishes.

Stage three is basic. All nations must respect internationally recognized boundaries. When a nation’s borders are violated trouble almost always follows in the form of war.

Stage four requires an internationally strong reverence for diplomacy. This is required on the part of all civilized nations. It is very basic to peace, that nations maintain embassies within the boundaries of other nations to make sure there is mutual respect and diplomatic communications on an ongoing basis.

Stage five is directly tied to the importance of diplomacy. All countries must enjoy and provide safe and secure embassies. Safe and secure embassies are essential for effective diplomacy when inevitable conflicts develop. When embassies are NOT protected by the host countries, or respected by other nations, peace always crumbles.

Stage six is the essential balancing act. Civilized nations must be capable of differentiating between actions that represent 1) minor local skirmishes or 2) territorial expansion ambitions by would-be tyrants. While minor skirmishes must be tolerated to a certain extent, the appeasement of territorial aggressors will almost always lead to the end of peaceful conditions.

Stage seven requires the recognition by civilized nations that appeasement of leaders of any nations that violate the previous six stages of peace listed above, will result in the worst possible outcomes for all global citizens. The actions of Japan, Germany, and Italy and reactions by other nations provides a perfect illustration of this fundamental principle. There are many other good examples. Appeasing Tojo, Mussolini, and Hitler led to escalations, not to keeping the peace.

Stage eight is empirical. Nations that DO NOT teach their adults and their children the first seven stages required to maintain peace, will eventually suffer catastrophic consequences. Again, it was not just the leaders of Japan, Germany, and Italy that paid the price for the citizens being unaware of the implications of these sequences. Millions of citizens all around the world died as a direct consequence of the ignorance of Japanese, Italian, and German citizens of the sequences involved in maintaining peace.

Finally, a few observations on technology. Technology is a general term. Technology has advanced at a furious pace in recent years. Superior military technology, in the hands of peace-loving nations has always been important to maintaining peace. All civilized nations must not only embrace the previous eight stages of peace, they must also see the wisdom of civilized super-powers possessing superior military technology and superior intelligence gathering capabilities.

When peace loving super-powers are required to shackle their technology and appease rogue states that violate the principles listed above, the world becomes LESS peaceful. Essentially, erring on the side of appeasement once a rogue nation violates the other stages of the peace sequence, creates conditions that allow local and regional skirmishes to escalate into regional or global wars. We now have the technology to make the alternative to appeasement more focused and less invasive.
Share/Bookmark

The insatiable egos of Mike Lee and Rand Paul.

© 2020 Jim Spence - There seems to be something that happens to United States senators after they have been in Washington a few years. Enter Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky, two seemingly bright, thoughtful, and intelligent guys. Both fried all semblance of their personal credibility with ridiculous rants on the media briefing Wednesday morning by the defense apparatus of our country.
There is certainly a time and place for Republicans to demand answers from the president of their own party. However, given that America is engaged in a domestic CIVIL WAR that pits shameless Democrats, who literally will stop at nothing to regain power, the time and place to ask questions is behind closed doors.
Observers who pay attention to Washington D.C. have noted for many decades that the most contagious disease U.S. senators are susceptible to catching, is an overwhelming sense of SELF-IMPORTANCE. You see it on both sides of the aisle, and you see it in the U.S. House of Representatives as well. But know this, every House member wants to be a senator. There are only 100 of them in the nation and boy do they all know it. Senators are easily the most arrogant human beings on the planet.
You never know when the symptoms of malignant self-importance will strike a senator. But when you see these symptoms, they are unmistakable. It seems that both Mike Lee and Rand Paul have contracted this intellectual malignancy. Brain surgery seems in order because sadly, self-importance now overwhelms their abilities to engage in rational thought and/or basic information processing capabilities.
There is a stark reality that has yet to take root in the minds of Mike Lee and Rand Paul. This reality is that Donald Trump did not even need to make the case for dusting off an Iranian terrorist general who’s record of killing innocent civilians and U.S. military personnel was without parallel. The enormous mountain of evidence was empirical. Still, Trump stood before the cameras with his entire military team by his side this morning and ran down the already known laundry list of capital offenses committed by Soleimani and the rogue state of Iran. In fact, Trump did so without including the fact that an old U.N resolution actually forbade Soleimani from even setting foot in Iraq, let alone plotting more death and destruction.
It reflects particularly poorly that Mike Lee and Rand Paul both seemed oblivious to the fact that an attack on an embassy, ANY EMBASSY, is an act of war. Self-importance IN, rational thinking OUT.
In the previous column on this site, readers were counselled on the fundamental facts regarding the civilized world’s war with radical Islam. Readers were reminded that this war NEVER ENDED.
Accordingly, it is absolutely appalling that two veteran GOP senators, who are not hapless partisan Democrats hoping to retake the White House, would not know this, or worse yet, ignore it. The list of basic facts regarding what Iran and its generals have been doing in and around the Persian Gulf for the last forty years should not require a rehashing for anyone who has had as many briefings as Mike Lee and Rand Paul.
The point here is painfully simple. When Americans elect a Commander in Chief there is a prerequisite of trust required. Nobody in his right mind wants a duly elected president, or members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to disclose how they knew that Soleimani was in Iraq, let alone how they KNEW what he might have been doing there.
Mike Lee and Rand Paul seem to forget, while under their incredible fog of self-importance, that there are brave Americans still on the ground in Iraq, providing steady streams of intelligence. These brave warriors can easily be compromised if symbolic public briefings contain TOO MUCH CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.
The message here is pretty basic. Given a choice between Mike Lee and a Democrat or Rand Paul and a Democrat, the advice to voters in Utah and Kentucky is to vote for Lee and Paul. But the evidence is clear. These men should have known full well that they should have taken their curiosity about the details of the dusting of the most dangerous terrorist in the world BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.
Mike Lee and Rand Paul disgraced themselves today. It seems that only U.S. senators with an overwhelming sense of self-importance are prone to these types of ego-driven miscalculations. What a pitiful situation for the GOP voters in Utah and Kentucky. There are so many things that are more important than the egos of Mike Lee and Rand Paul.
Share/Bookmark