Since the outbreak of the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, Western leaders have followed a strategy of providing the Ukrainians enough weapons and support to hold the Russians at bay but not enough to defeat the invaders. The reason is that the West is concerned with what Putin might do if backed into a situation where he is facing defeat; would he go nuclear or unleash some biological weapon? If he did, would such a response be limited to the area of the Ukraine or would he in a fit of anger, target NATO members? While Putin may appear to be unstable or not have a grasp of reality to some, he has been highly successful in keeping the Western nations at bay while increasing his influence with other nations who are not in the immediate area. All the while, the people of the Ukraine bleed to death while attempting to keep the Russian forces at bay, while hoping for a change in Russian leadership. A strategy of attrition by the West using someone else’s blood.

Over the past fifty years, the Federal Department of Education has received trillions of dollars which is then given back to the States with numerous strings. When it was first formed, the budget for the department was about ten billion dollars, but in the latest budget it has increased to over one-hundred, eighty-five billion ($185,629,999,000). What have we received for those funds except to expand the number of Federal government bureaucrats who have a job for life?

Is there a better way to educate children? Is there a less expensive way which can give us at a minimum, the same results and hopefully, better educated young people. We know that in city after city the test scores in reading and math are abysmal. Yet, year after year we increase local budgets for schools as we are told by “educators” that the problem is a lack of funding. To add insult to injury, we are requested to (in some states which allow voter participation) for new bond issues which add billions in debt with no accountability.

The Russians had to destroy Mariupol to liberate it and bring it back to Mother Russia. That is the logic of Putin’s war which may sound strange to the Western way of thinking, but it is in keeping with centuries of Russian thought.

Mariupol has a long and at times, difficult history. From nomads to Genghis Khan and the Golden Horde, through the Ottoman empire and into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Mariupol managed to survive the Russian Revolution and terrible civil war and even the Nazi occupation, but it faces its greatest test as the “liberating” Russian army is now in control of a ghost town.

The link to an article by Norman Davies, the preeminent historian on Easter Europe will help to put the entire war in proper context. Once you understand the Russian context, you will understand there are no limits to this war, and indeed, it is only for starters.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-founding-conquering-and-destruction-of-mariupol-

Ever since the unification of Germany in 1870, Germany has stood out as an economic powerhouse. Just prior to World War I, it had surpassed the United Kingdom in several key manufacturing areas and was ready to challenge the United States. By 1914, Germany was producing nearly 50% of the electrical equipment in the world. After the destruction of World War II, the United States realized that the stability of Europe depended not on the victors (the U.K. and France) but on the defeated, Germany. Picking up the pieces, Germany once again stepped up and became the strong core of Europe.

The ability of Germany to take such a dominate role in Europe was based on several factors, including a highly educated, disciplines and homogeneous population, excellent technology, cheap energy, and the luxury of living under the protective umbrella of the United States. When Europe had problems, such as the economic disaster of 2007-8, Germany took a strong lead in insuring stability and continuity in the banking industry. It was Germany, not any of the other Western European states which provided the base for the European type of welfare state. Unfortunately, as history shows, Germany can make many bad decisions for every good one.

Joseph Kennedy, the father of JFK, was a rumrunner and a womanizer who used his money to become Ambassador to the United Kingdom during the presidency of FDR. Known for his anti-semitism and pro-Nazi views, his tenure as Ambassador was a trail for FDR, but he needed the financial support and Kennedy’s connections with the underworld and unions to win an election.

Kennedy was in London at the start of the Blitz but quickly moved his office away from the official Embassy to his home in the suburbs of London. Within the Foreign Office, the joke of the day was: “I always thought my daffodils were yellow until I met Joe Kennedy.”   The Splendid and the Vile by Erik Larson, pp 194

You must hand it national leaders from the U.S. and western European states; they are experts at making hypocrisy a fine art. While preaching to their own population and the developing nations about the importance of going “green”, they institute policies that are actually counterproductive to their noble goals; they continue to build coal powered plants, develop and exploit fossil fuel mining in third world countries, mandate bio-fuels which have no positive impacts on the environment and drive up the price of food for the poorest of the poor, and continue to fool their own citizens about the waste of billions of their own currency on “green” projects that have already failed.

How long will we allow our “leaders” to preach to us, the individuals who pay the actual price for their follies? When will we stop believing that without better technology, the concept of achieving their nobility stated goals are nothing but hot air and a waste of valuable resources? Hit the link below for more information on their follies.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rich-worlds-climate-hypocrisy-energy-fossil-fuel-wind-solar-panel-india-poverty-power-battery-storage-11655654331?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Has anyone noticed that the recent group of mass murderers are 1) young males and 2) all marijuana users? It may not be polite to say it, as so many (such as the state of California for example) have a major vested interest in the legalization of marijuana (to the tune in California of about $345,000,000 a year). It is also not polite to mention that today’s marijuana which is so much more potent than the weed that their grandparents smoked, is capable of inducing psychosis such as “scromiting” which is a combination of screaming and vomiting. Given that the brain does not mature until about the age of twenty-five, whose interest is it in to provide young, impressionable, immature minds with a drug that is clearly dangerous to a particular age group?

Yet, in all the talk about gun control with the silly demands from some that the voting age be lowered, the use of marijuana by immature individuals seems to be ignored. The link below is to an excellent article which points out disturbing facts that seem to either be ignored or totally buried by doctors, editors, and government officials. I fear we have unleashed a monster on our youth, and everyone will have to pay a price in destroyed lives.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cannabis-and-the-violent-crime-surge-marijuana-pot-use-thc-shootings-psychosis-mental-11654540197

A couple of days ago I was driving back from a business trip to Las Vegas; it was 108 degrees outside, but I was tooling along at 75 miles per hour, had the air on plus the radio so everything was fine. I realized that if I were driving an electric car (fueled by oil and coal), that I would have had to turn off the radio and roll down the windows (and thus enjoy the wonderful hot desert air) and reduce my speed to less than 65 to make it home. That is until I ran into a major jam which had me crawling, bumper to bumper for an extra hour. Whoops, I would have been in serious trouble with an electric car. The normal four-hour trip was extended to five hours and had I been traveling at the lower speed, another hour beyond that assuming I did not have to stop for a charge and assuming that I would not have had a dead battery in that massive traffic jam.

I am sure that there are many folks who can find that an electric car will meet their needs for short shopping trips and various chores. I am also sure that given the predicted rolling black outs, and the behind schedule construction of charging stations, there are many others who like me will be reluctant to give up our current vehicles. It is a choice, but we should be realistic about our choices and not live in a fool’s paradise. Nothing is free and anyone who believes that an electric vehicle does not contribute to CO2 is fooling themselves. The link below is worth a view as it helps to put things in proper perspective. Invest a few minutes and see reality.

At the end of World War II, Europe lay destroyed; millions displaced, millions dead, tens of thousands of cities, towns and cities burned out and a manufacturing base almost totally bombed out of existence. During several meetings between Stalin and George C. Marshall, it became clear to Marshall that the Soviets were not going to co-operate with the rebuilding of Europe. The main point of contention centered on Germany; it was Marshall’s belief that Germany was the main economic powerhouse of continental Europe and that it’s resurrection would lead to growth and political stability in Europe. Stalin also realized that, but a strong and productive Europe was not in his best interests; let Europe continue to live in poverty and hunger and the political instability will benefit Stalin.

After their last meeting, Marshall knew that it was in the best interest not only of Europe, but also the United States to rebuild Europe. Just seven weeks after his meeting with Stalin, Marshall developed a plan for the rebuilding of Europe and presented it to the President Harry Truman. The thought of spending billions of dollars to rebuild Europe was not popular but President Truman was firmly in favor of the plan. But how to get Congress to go along with the plan? Truman was considered a political hack by many and achieved the office of President only due to the death of the venerated Roosevelt.

Clark Clifford, then a political advisor to the President, recommended that the bill be called the Truman Plan, but Truman replied, “If I send the plan up the hill (with Truman’s name), it will quiver a couple of times, go belly up and die. Even the worst Republican will vote for the plan if Marshall’s name is on it” and so the European Recovery Act became known as the Marshall Plan.

George C. Marshall, also honored as the “Architect of Victory” for his work building the U.S. military both before and during World War II, went on to give an eleven-minute speech at Harvard in front of fifteen thousand which changed the course of history. As predicted by the President, Congress in part because of the great esteem they had for Marshall, appropriated billions for the rebuilding and resurgence of Western Europe. Monies were offered to Eastern European nations but being under the control of the Soviets, they were directed to refuse any monies, as Stalin feared a strong U.S. presence in the captive nations.

The plan was a remarkable success and lead to the West German state, the regrowth of Europe and the economic boom of the United States. In the background, the political realism and concern for actual success stood President Harry Truman. His ego, self-confidence and political savvy was strong enough to ensure the success of a plan that saved Europe. That is a test of a true leader.

Is it possible that the golden days of being “woke” and check-the-box ESG are in the past? As the incessant and mostly silly demands of a small minority can never be satisfied or realized and, as the actual costs of the ESG movement are beginning to be dumped on middle- and lower-class citizens around the world, a reaction is taking place. Suddenly, it is the corporations themselves who are having to pay the price for their ventures into woke and ESG areas. They are pushed in part by vocal minorities and youthful employees as well as a desire by often weak-willed senior management which desires to be part of an elite club. How exactly will the head of Disney explain to the mass of his shareholders the fifty-billion-dollar loss in market value in less than two months? Do you really want to go to Pizza Hut where your child who is in kindergarten can receive a free book on the glory of drag queens? “All I wanted was a pizza!” Boycott! Suddenly, taking shots at politicians and ignoring your customer base has a genuine cost.

The link below to an article in the Financial Times shows that a backlash has developed as shareholders are putting their financial well being ahead of the feel-good efforts of corporate management. It is an interesting game to watch and may very well be reflected in the upcoming Novembe elections.

https://www.ft.com/content/e952d6bf-d00e-433c-baf3-2673f925a229