Category Archives: History

Do you believe that Putin may soon officially declare war on Ukraine, the US, and Western?

Russian President Vladimir Putin may declare war on Ukraine as early as May 9, allowing Russia to fully mobilize its reserve troops if invasion plans stall. However, in Russia, May 9 is celebrated as “Victory Day” for defeating the Nazis in 1945. Officials in the West have long assumed that Putin would use the day’s symbolic and propaganda importance to proclaim a military victory in Ukraine or a massive escalation of hostilities. Officials have focused on one scenario: Putin launched a war on Ukraine on May 9. Putin refers to the months-long struggle as a “special military operation,” thereby barring terms like invasion and war. According to British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace, he will strive to shift from his special operation.’ “So he has been tossing the dice, preparing the groundwork for a battle against Nazis that requires more people. “More Russian artillery fodder.”” The invasion of Ukraine — a nation led by a Jewish president — has been described as “denazification” by historians and political analysts alike.

He would not be astonished if Putin said on May Day that ‘we are now at war with the world’s Nazis and need to mass organize the Russian people, Wallace continued. An official war declaration on May 9 might enhance popular support for the invasion. Officials claim Russia urgently needs conscripts due to a rising labor shortfall. Since Russia attacked a little over two months ago, authorities in the West and Ukraine believe 10,000 Russian troops have died.

Do you believe that Republican senators kept their promise toward an African American woman after their line of questioning?

At the start of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings last week, Republican senators made a solemn promise to Ketanji Brown Jackson: They promised that they would not treat her as harshly as Democrats had treated Brett M. Kavanaugh during his 2018 confirmation hearings—a set of circumstances that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) described as “one of the lowest moments in the history of this [Senate Judiciary] committee.”
The reviews have been received. Americans favor Jackson’s confirmation substantially more than they support other recent candidates. Still, they also believe that Republicans handled Jackson’s confirmation roughly as severely as Democrats managed Kavanaugh, if not worse than Democrats dealt with Kavanaugh.
According to a survey conducted by Quinnipiac University last week, there is reasonably significant support for Jackson’s confirmation: 51 percent of respondents backed it, while just 30 percent opposed it. It is more popular than during the verification of Trump’s past two candidates, including Kavanaugh, whose nomination was rejected by the public. According to a CNN survey, Americans are vehemently opposed to it by as much as double digits.
However, it is also essential to consider how we arrived at that position.
Even as Americans opposed Kavanaugh’s confirmation, they were primarily dissatisfied with how Democrats handled his confirmation hearings—particularly their treatment of decades-old sexual misconduct claims, according to several. According to the CNN study, 56 percent of respondents gave unfavorable feedback, while just 36 percent gave them good reviews.
However, the Republican response to Jackson’s hearings — and, it seems, her track record on child pornography cases, which was the central line of attack — has received a mixed reception. According to polling, only 27 percent of Americans approve of their strategy, compared to 52 percent who are opposed to it, according to polling. According to the CNN survey, Democrats and Kavanaugh are separated by a 25-point margin, compared to a 20-point margin for Republicans and Kavanaugh. This time around, there are also more undecideds, which may be because Jackson’s hearings were not as well-publicized as they could have been.
Independents disapproved of the other party’s actions in both instances: on Kavanaugh, they disapproved of Democrats 58-30, and on Jackson, they disliked Republicans 54-25 in both cases, according to exit polls.
It is worth noting that, apart from the public’s support for the candidate, there was a significant difference between the two confirmations. Neither side walked away from the Kavanaugh hearings with glowing recommendations. Republicans’ handling of the situation was perceived in an unfavorable light on par with Democrats’ handling of it. When it comes to Jackson, Democrats, on the other hand, earned more favorable ratings (42 percent) than they received terrible reviews (34 percent). As a result, it is not just a case of people loathing all politicians.
The crucial issue that arises from this is: why did people express dissatisfaction with how the Republican Party handled Jackson’s hearings? After all, their negative vote margin is about 2-to-1, owing to many party members’ disapproval of their actions. Republicans are divided on the issue, with 52 percent supporting it and 26 percent opposing it.
That suggests that even Republican members of Congress felt their party went a little too far in criticizing Jackson’s record as a district judge in child pornography cases (when, in fact, her record was relatively ordinary) during the 2016 election.
The connection to the Democrats’ treatment of Kavanaugh is again illuminating. In that case, too, 26 percent of the opposing party expressed dissatisfaction with the way their side handled the situation. In contrast, approval was far higher – 67 percent. As a result, intraparty assessments of the Republican Party’s treatment of Jackson are, on the whole, more unfavorable than those of the Democratic Party’s handling of Kavanaugh.
Furthermore, Republicans supported Jackson more strongly than Democrats did Kavanaugh.
While Democrats overwhelmingly opposed Kavanaugh’s confirmation by 91-7, about 1 in 5 Republicans (21 percent) believe Jackson should be approved, with a comparatively small majority of 60 percent against. If people like Jackson over Kavanaugh, it is likely that their threshold for believing she was mistreated will be lower than it is for Kavanaugh.
However, many Republicans may wish their side had opposed Jackson even more aggressively than they did.
There are many unknowns in this set of data.
Overall, though, the American people do not believe that Republicans have elevated the level of conversation in the wake of Jackson’s hearings. As long as Republicans say they are the party of Abraham Lincoln, they would keep the principles of Lincoln’s time in office. But they would fall short of what Lincoln did,
From listening to the hearings and hearing all of the questions that were not connected to the judge’s credentials, it is clear that the Republican Party has regressed significantly. Because they treated an African-American woman who was well-qualified for the job, they show that they do not know the law.

Reference

Americans strongly disapprove of GOP pushback on Ketanji Brown Jackson. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/01/americans-disapprove-gop-jackson/?fbclid=IwAR0R1DXxA3QB5kHfs9ROkOimrD8gbkXdJl0OT9h1_xMaWwkaW6alQJW8Pwg

Did you know that Antony Blinken often cites his family’s Holocaust history? The Russia-Ukraine war has him stuck between the personal and the political.

When Secretary of State Antony Blinken cited his family’s Holocaust-era history in explaining a matter of U.S. foreign policy on Monday, it was far from the first time he has done so.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken speaks at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., March 21, 2022. (Kevin LaMarque/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

“One of my responsibilities as Secretary is determining, on behalf of the United States, whether atrocities have been committed,” Blinken, who is Jewish, said Monday at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, where he announced that the Biden administration had determined that the Burmese military had committed genocide against the Rohingya. “It’s an immense responsibility that I take very seriously, particularly given my family’s history.”

That family history involves his stepfather, Samuel Pisar, the Holocaust survivor who became a renowned legal scholar and philosopher. Blinken has often described the late Pisar’s recounting of his rescue by American soldiers, saying it shaped his own idea of what the United States symbolizes worldwide.

“That’s the story that I grew up with, about what our country is and what it represents, and what it means when the United States is engaged and leading,” Blinken said.

Now America’s top diplomat contends with a conflict that puts these values to the test: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has involved mass killings of civilians.

He is also dealing with appeals from Ukraine’s Jewish president, Volodymyr Zelensky — who similarly cites the Holocaust as shaping his outlook — to do more to stop Russia’s attacks.

Zelensky has additionally made direct comparisons between the Russian onslaught and the Holocaust, while Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated his goal is to “de-Nazify” Ukraine.

Talking to American Jewish leaders, Zelensky called Putin’s actions “pure Nazism;” talking to Israelis, he likened Russian tactics to the “final solution”; and in his address to the U.S. Congress, he called the Russian invasion “the worst war since World War II.”

The Biden administration has imposed crippling sanctions on Russia. In addition, it is funneling billions of dollars in defense and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine and deploying U.S. troops to NATO allies adjacent to Ukraine. But President Joe Biden will not accede to Zelensky’s top demands — including creating a no-fly zone over Ukraine to protect it — saying they could provoke a world war.’

On Wednesday, however, Blinken formally declared that the United States’ position is that Russian forces have committed war crimes.

“Many of the sites Russia’s forces have hit have been clearly identifiable as in-use by civilians,” he said. “This includes the Mariupol maternity hospital, as the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights expressly noted in a March 11 report. It also includes a strike that hit a Mariupol theater, clearly marked with ‘дeти’ — Russian for ‘children’ — in huge letters visible from the sky.”

Does Blinken feel the pressures of family history as he contemplates Ukraine? The State Department did not respond to multiple requests for an interview. But his speech at the Holocaust museum on Monday showed that it was on his mind.

“One of the unsettling truths of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is that there’s never a time I visit here when its lessons do not feel deeply resonant,” he said. “But I have to tell you, I can recall a few times when that history felt so urgent or the responsibility it imparts on us so pressing. As we meet, the Russian Government continues to wage its unprovoked, brutal war on Ukraine. Each day brings more brutal attacks, more innocent men, women, and children killed.”

The war’s risk to Holocaust survivors in Ukraine was especially poignant in Blinken’s telling.

“Ukraine is home to nearly 10,000 Holocaust survivors, including an 88-year-old woman, Natalia Berezhnaya of Odesa,” he said. “Here’s what she said in a recent interview, and I quote: ‘It’s hard to wrap my mind around the fact that in 1941, I had to hide in the basement of this building, and that I’m going to have to do that again now.'”

Blinken stopped short of accusing Putin of genocide as he did the Burmese military. Instead, he cast Russia’s predations as part of a welter of human rights disasters now proliferating.

“Even as we are working to increase international pressure on the Kremlin to end this unjustified war, we know there are many other places where horrific atrocities are being committed,” Blinken said. “Over recent weeks, as I’ve spoken with diplomats worldwide about Ukraine, I’ve also heard a constant refrain. Many of them say, ‘Yes, we stand with the people of Ukraine. But we must also stand with the people suffering atrocities in other places.'”

On Wednesday, the move to accuse Russia of war crimes is notable; noted Jewish foreign policy experts had been frustrated with Blinken’s language.

Josh Rogin, an influential foreign policy opinion columnist for The Washington Post, wrote that the hesitancy in Ukraine is reflective of a West that has allowed atrocities to be committed in China, Syria, and Burma. “The Ukraine example shows that ignoring atrocities anywhere is morally and strategically bankrupt,” he said this week before Blinken announced his war crimes designation.

Aaron David Miller, a longtime Middle East peace negotiator and a scion of one of Cleveland’s most prominent Jewish families, sounded a despairing note on Twitter.

“Never Again is Ever Ever Again,” he said. “The International Community has failed to even try to prevent any of the planet’s genocides/mass killings over past 100 years; Armenians; Holocaust; Cambodia; Rwanda; Congo; Sudan; Darfur; Myanmar; Uighurs; Syria….. Ever ask yourself why.”

Asked to expand on the tweet on CNN, Miller, now a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment, a foreign policy think tank, admitted that he understood Blinken’s predicament.

“A president of the United States weighing the consequences of humanitarian intervention in the case of Ukraine has more than just moral factors to take into account and the consequences of an intervention or not an intervention at least for American interests, that could affect millions of humans in the United States and in Ukraine, so it’s it’s a moral hazard,” Miller said. “It’s a complicated problem. And frankly, I think Ukraine will be another example of confirmation of the rule.”

Abe Foxman, the retired national director of the Anti-Defamation League and a Holocaust survivor, argued that Blinken’s approach made sense: One’s views on the Holocaust may shape policy but should not necessarily determine what the procedure is.

He was pleased to see Blinken knows, understands, is informed and instructed by his family history, by his Jewish experience, Foxman said in an interview. It does make a difference, but it cannot be determinative of action. This is a war. It’s not a holocaust or genocide. And it’s very, very important that if you know your history, you see the difference.

Reference

Antony Blinken often cites his family’s Holocaust history. The Russia-Ukraine war has him stuck between the personal and the political. https://www.jta.org/2022/03/24/politics/antony-blinken-often-cites-his-familys-holocaust-history-the-russia-ukraine-war-has-him-stuck-between-the-personal-and-the-political?fbclid=IwAR0vj-Q7Oys1vWBpQYcJm7Y0kjH_8dp7HgXidygq51dBq-SV2-rFeN_-4mw

Why did Mike Braun clarify his assertion that states should decide the legality of interracial marriage?

Sen. Mike Braun, a Republican from Indiana, told reporters in his state on Tuesday that states should determine whether interracial marriage is allowed before claiming he misunderstood the questions and condemning “racism in any form.”

Mike Braun is interviewed in Bekah’s Westside Cafe in Lebanon, Ind., in April 2018.


Inquired as to whether or not he thought “interracial marriage should be left to the states, Braun said, “Yes, I believe that’s something — if you don’t want the Supreme Court to weigh in on matters like that, you’re not going to be able to have both your cake and eat it.” But, honestly, I don’t believe that’s right.” In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia, allowing interracial marriage in the United States.
Afterward, Braun was quizzed on his thoughts on the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut, which established a constitutional right to sexual privacy and made the use of contraception for married couples permissible under federal law. The states, according to Braun, should be the ones to decide.
It’s possible to mention a wide range of difficulties, Braun said. But, as far as what they’re going to be, I’m going to suggest that they aren’t going to be all going to make you happy in a particular state but that we’re better off letting forms express their points of view rather than homogenizing it throughout the nation, as Roe v. Wade did.”

“Initially limiting” Braun’s contention that the Supreme Court had seized states’ powers in 1973 with Roe v. Wade, the Times of Northwest Indiana reports. However, he maintained his position when asked about other decisions, such as the Loving v. Virginia case.
Braun afterward issued a statement indicating that he had “misunderstood” the questions asked.
“I misread a line of inquiry earlier at a virtual news conference that turned out to be about interracial marriage. To be quite clear, the Constitution forbids all forms of discrimination based on race. So the issue of racism isn’t even up for question, and I firmly oppose it at every level, from the state to the person. It was Braun’s opinion.
In a short interview on Wednesday, Braun told CNN that he doesn’t think states should decide on interracial marriage.
That’s not the case, Braun said. Even though one may be forgivable, he exposed his true identity. We learn a lot about him through his reaction. When a racist is apprehended, they immediately attempt to paint themselves as victims of their own ignorance since it would be so handy.

Reference

Mike Braun clarifies his assertion that states should decide the legality of interracial marriage. https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/23/politics/mike-braun-interracial-marriage-comments/index.html?fbclid=IwAR0jpCRaI0ml0-B9YMxOUafjGrKhdb8fxcqJcMgqxLw7BywL4207X-0bq-s

Condemnation or Russian President

US President Joe Biden has condemned Russian President Vladimir Putin for his country’s invasion of Ukraine. He then referred to Putin as a “murderous despot” and “pure thug.” Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, says he is “prepared for conversations” with Putin. The concern today is what Biden’s views — and those of others — signal for the future of the Ukraine conflict. What does President Putin anticipate when he behaves adolescent-like? The Ukrainian people have historically been fearless. Some Ukrainians have relatives in Russia, but they cannot obtain accurate information due to state-controlled media. The Ukrainian people and the Russian people in Russia should be free to think for themselves. Why should one individual dictate what they should consider? One day, the Russian people will rise up against such activities and liberate themselves from their ignorance.

Photo by u0414u043cu0438u0442u0440u0438u0439 u0422u0440u0435u043fu043eu043bu044cu0441u043au0438u0439 on Pexels.com

Reference

Calling Putin a war criminal is a bigger deal than you think. https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/21/politics/putin-war-criminal-ukraine-russia-what-matters/index.html?fbclid=IwAR0gr6FalS9OzEebI80a2u9_3kO4v81lnPPzuz1jK60NU-9mAhmUpwPNmSg

Why have some of the officials of the Orthodox Church expressed opposition to Russia’s invasion?

Several officials of the Orthodox Church have expressed their opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. With the noteworthy exception of the Orthodox patriarch of Moscow, the military intervention has been rejected by the majority of people.

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I, shown leading a service with at the Patriarchal Church of St. George in Istanbul on March 6, has said that Russia’s attack on Ukraine is a ‘violation of human rights.’ (photo: YASIN AKGUL / AFP via Getty Images)

The leader of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate has urged Russian President Vladimir Putin for an “early cessation of the fratricidal conflict.” According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Russian invasion of Ukraine was the greatest conventional military operation in Europe since World War II. With staunch defiance, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has resisted Russian military intervention in his nation since 2014. As a result, the death toll has risen to tens of thousands, with 2.5 million people fleeing to neighboring nations like Poland, Hungary, Moldova, Slovakia, and Romania.

Theodore II, the Orthodox patriarch of Alexandria and all of Africa, has said that Russian President Vladimir Putin is “drunk on power” and “the emperor of our times.” Patriarch Daniel of Romania, the patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church, has called for an “immediate cessation of hostilities” in Ukraine. On February 24, Georgian Patriarch Illia II issued a dire warning about a “global calamity” and remembered Russia’s invasion of his nation in 2008. In early March, more than 275 Russian Orthodox priests and deacons from all across the globe signed an open letter. The Russian Orthodox Church has produced a series of remarks in which it expresses implicit support for the Ukrainian invasion while refraining from condemning the Russian government in any manner.

After giving an anti-war sermon in Moscow, Father Ioann Burdin, a Russian Orthodox priest, was detained. He appealed for the restoration of peace and unity with Metropolitan Onufry in a sermon delivered on February 27. He did not mention the separatist Orthodox Church in Ukraine, which he described as “a schism.” Many of Putin’s justifications for invading Ukraine, particularly those related to NATO expansion, received backing from the Russian patriarch. According to reliable sources, Orthodox clergy and faithful in Ukraine have voiced their displeasure of Patriarch Kirill’s stance on the issue. Father Stefano Caprio said that the Ukrainian conflict generates a “deep divide” in the Orthodox Church in the United States.

Patriarch Kirill cannot break away from Putin because “he would bring the whole palace crashing down,” as he puts it. Some other autocephalous Orthodox churches, particularly those politically and ecclesiastically aligned with the patriarch, support the patriarch.

Reference
Kyiv Patriarch Rejects Property Seizures, Saying They’ll …. https://www.rferl.org/a/kyiv-patriarch-rejects-property-seizures-saying-they-ll-give-kremlin-pretext-for-incursions/29580539.html

Widespread Orthodox Church Backlash Unleashed Against Russia’s Aggression in Ukraine. https://www.ncregister.com/news/widespread-orthodox-church-backlash-unleashed-against-russia-s-aggression-in-ukraine?fbclid=IwAR3GpA1ftGo9LyZOllnPLt6aJ62Gez0LR6jeWNSo_nbmuSUq7vHmkcJNMMA

March on Washington for Voting Rights

Voting rights are essential for all individuals. The March on Washington for Voting Rights commemorated the 58th anniversary of the March on Washington. Marchers are urging Congress to enact voting-rights legislation to halt the implementation of restrictive voting laws in states around the country. The John Lewis Voting Act would reinstate the 1965 Voting Rights Act’s pre-clearance provisions, lower in the 2013 Supreme Court case Shelby County v. Holder. The Rev. Al Sharpton, one of the march’s organizers, contended that the filibuster could not obstruct progress. Democrats currently dominate the Senate but have been unable to overcome filibusters on voting-rights legislation.

Washington march voting rights
With the Washington Monument in the background, the Rev. Al Sharpton, center, holds a banner with Martin Luther King, III, and Democratic Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee and Al Green of Texas, during the march to call for sweeping protections against a further erosion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on August 28, 2021. AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana


To enact voting rights legislation, moderate senators have resisted attempts to weaken or remove the filibuster. The organizers planned to bring attention to problems such as reparations for slave descendants and a $15 minimum wage. The march was led by New York Rep. Mondaire Jones, who has advocated for the filibuster’s removal.

Reference
‘Old battles have become new again’: Thousands march in Washington, DC, and across the US to push for voting-rights legislation. https://www.businessinsider.com/march-voting-rights-legislation-washington-dc-cities-filibuster-2021-8

Voter fraud or irregularities

The notion that massive voter fraud or irregularities exist in Texas elections is perilous, racist, and lacking evidence. He asserts that the threat to Texas voters of all political stripes is not voter fraud but voter suppression. All Texans deserve a system of elections that is free, fair, and accessible. Instead, Senate Bill 1 in Texas would prohibit 24-hour and drive-thru voting, restrict early voting, and make voting more difficult for voters with disabilities or language difficulties. Additionally, it would make it more difficult for Texas judges to accommodate voters during a natural disaster or pandemic.

Texas Senate Bill 1 is a band-aid response to an issue that exists only in the damaging language of those spreading misinformation about the 2020 election. It is past time for legislators to abandon divisive falsehoods and focus on ensuring that all Texas voters have fair, equitable, and free access to the voting box.

Resource
Texas’s Proposed Voter Suppression Law, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/texass-proposed-voter-suppression-law

Judicial aspect of race in the America

Judicial Aspects of Race in the United States: A Nation Fighting for Minority Rights by [Kenneth Dantzler Corbin]
New book on Amazon

This book is about the Judicial aspect of race in the America. In the United States, legislation aimed at regulating interactions between racial or ethnic groups has grown through various historical periods, beginning with European colonization of the Americas, the triangular slave trade, and the American Indian Wars. Racial legislation has been linked to immigration laws, which have sometimes contained explicit clauses targeting certain nations or ethnic groups, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act and the 1923 US Supreme Court decision the United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind. In the antebellum period, all slave states and a few free states enacted similar legislation. Ozawa v. the United States and the United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind are the two most notable instances. Takao Ozawa, born in Japan and lived in the United States for 20 years, sought citizenship but was rejected because he was not deemed white. Americans of Italian and German ancestry and Italian and German citizens were also imprisoned, although on a far lesser scale, even though Italy and Germany sided with Japan in the war against the United States. In 1954, in Hernandez v. Texas, a federal court determined that Mexican Americans and all other ethnic or “racial groups” in the United States may have equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

Francis Albert “Frank” Sinatra, in my family tree

Frank Sinatra '57.jpg

Francis Albert Sinatra was an American singer, actor, and director, one of the most influential and important musical artists of the 20th century. He is one of the best-selling recording acts of all time, selling more than 150 million albums worldwide. He appears in my genealogical chart as the husband of 14th cousin 5x removed.