The Immigrants and their Descendants from the Great Immigration, 1880-to 1917

8-11-16

Richard J. Garfunkel

I am constantly amazed at the virulence of the “new” ethnic-based Eurocentrics. I can almost understand the Southern Baptists and the States’ Rights advocates who are descended most directly from the earliest white settlers; English, Scottish, Welsh, Dutch and German Protestants, who were enamored with the white man’s burden and learned of that supremacist tradition at their mother’s knee and in the churches. It existed all over the English-dominated World from India to the American colonies, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Burma, the Middle East, Singapore and Micronesia. The Raj ruled with an idea and rationale of moral, racial and intellectual superiority.  That is what they knew and believed. They saw the culture and habits of Native peoples, and on one hand, despised, feared and looked down upon them, and on the other hand, ruled by “divide and conquer.” That existed certainly in India until 1947 and here until 1776.  They learned from their defeat here!

But, what of the later immigrants? First in the late 1840’s, were the next wave of Germans, who were quite often Catholics, escaping from revolutionary Europe and the policy of “Kultur Kampft” (culture’s struggle) under Bismarck and then the Irish Catholics escaping the potato famine and the oppressive British rule. The Germans were used to conservatism and many became the backbone of the new Midwestern Republicanism. Culturally they were used to a strong, male-dominated family and thus supported a strong central government. They were hard working and felt comfortable with other citizens of British and Dutch orientation. Also, the country had many Germans (Lutherans) living here from the time of the Revolution, when many had come here as soldiers for hire, or mercenaries (the Hessians from Hesse-Cassel, and others from outside the most militarized state in Europe)). As for the Irish, they hated the British and became the immigrant heart of the Eastern Cities and gravitated to the Democratic Party and eventually took over Tammany Hall in NYC and virtually reinvented politics in America.

What amazes me is that many of the grandchildren of the last great European immigration from Eastern and Southern European immigrants have forgotten their roots. The heart of these people, who are mostly Catholic, along with some Jews, were helped and assisted by the Democrats from Wilson to FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ and beyond, are now the “New” Republicans.  They forgot the Wagner Act, which allowed unions to collectively bargain, they have ignored the efforts of the Democrats and the unions to end discrimination regarding housing, education, and the work place, where their grandfathers and fathers couldn’t get a job in a Fortune 500 company, a law firm, or practice in a hospital. They have ignored the efforts of the liberals who opened the doors of education for them and for their daughters. Who supported Social Security, Medicare, the Minimum Wage, anti-discrimination in the work place, the fight for equal pay for equal work, Choice, and women’s healthcare, Ttile ( and hundreds of other benefits that helped the children of immigrants? They have ignored the age-old efforts of the Democratic Party in opposing the exclusion of these people from all of our “closed” institutions. This history has been chronicled in 10’s of thousands of books and millions of articles. But, how often do I read from some of these same people that the Democrats keep the poor in economic shackles. How short are their memories! Isn’t ironic, that the South, which was the home of home of Southern-based, Jefferson branch of the Democratic Party, which supported slavery and sustained Jim Crow is now the new home of the most conservative Republicans and the reddest states in the Union.  Many of these people seemed to have forgotten discrimination and bigotry and where it has stemmed from.  What happened? Do these children of immigrants now think that it is their turn to be the next generation of bigots and haters who believe in Social Darwinism, “the end justifies the means,” and “divide and conquer?” it is a sorry state of affairs when they forget the remarks of George Santayana, who sagely wrote, “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” 

Supreme Court and the 2^nd Amendment

Richard J. Garfunkel

8-11-16

Speaking of the Constitution, I have been reading how the Right-Wingers are the last bastion to avoid the shredding of the Constitution.  I answered one of these arm chair geniuses!

It is interesting how the right-wing dunderheads are now experts on the US Constitution. I am always amazed when the average citizen starts to opine on Constitutional Law.  I’m sure that these “novitiate” experts know the difference between “Strict Construction,” and “Loose Construction.” Of course they know the history and the impact of Marbury v Madison, Dartmouth College v Woodward, McCullogh v. Maryland. Of course, they understand the nuances of the Heller Decision or McDonald V. Chicago? Maybe they understand the impact of Scalia and the 5-4 decisions on gun ownership, and the fact that in the “strict” analysis of the Founder’s debates on the Bill of Rights, there is no mention of the right of an individual to own a firearm.

 In other words, it wasn’t discussed.  But these brilliant “legal beagles” would know that the compromise on the Constitution was over the fear of a Federal “standing” army, and thus the rights of the states to organize their militias. In fact, few people could afford to own arms in 1789, and when the Militia “mustered” arms were passed out and strictly regulated and returned. There is nothing said about individual firearms or the innate right to own them.  Maybe that is how Justice Scalia saw it, but there have always been gun control laws from Dodge City to the Firearm’s Act of 1934. Or if you need clarification, read about the Hughes Act. If anyone was a “loose Constructionist,” it was Justice Scalia, who re-wrote the “originalists” concept of gun ownership.  But, if you don’t believe me, read Federal Period historian, Professor Carol Berkin’s book, “A Brilliant Solution,” Inventing the American Constitution. While you are at it, maybe you should be curious about “search and seizure,” Fourth Amendment Rights, and then learn the meaning of Escobedo v. Illinois, and Miranda v. Arizona.

Why don’t you write Professor Yale Kamisar at the University of Michigan Law School , who co-authored the “Criminal Justice in Our Times,” and is the co-author of the definitive American law school text book, “Modern Criminal Procedures,<” in its 12^th edition.  But, what about your expertise on schools, starting with the impact of Plessy v Ferguson, to the Rowley Case, Myers v Nebraska to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka? Maybe you understand the “free exercise” clause and the “exclusionary rule?”

But what of executive power and orders.  Maybe folks believe that President Obama has used his Executive Orders to violate the Constitution. Well Obama’s EOs were 244, the lowest for a two-term president since William McKinley. You maybe interested in the fact that here are the following list of Executive Orders going back to FDR: Bush 43 291, Clinton 364, Bush 41 166, Reagan 381, Carter 320, Ford 169, Nixon 346, Eisenhower 484, Truman 907, and FDR 3721.  By the TR used the EO 1083 times. But you are protecting the Constitution!  

The Battle of Agincourt

“The Triumph of the Long Bow”

October 25, 2015

Edited by Richard J. Garfunkel

The Battle of Agincourt is well documented by at least seven contemporary accounts, three of them eyewitnesses. The approximate location of the battle has never been in dispute and the place remains relatively unaltered even after 600 years. Immediately after the battle, Henry summoned the heralds of the two armies who had watched the battle together, and with the principal French herald, Montjoie, settled on the name of the battle as Azincourt, after the nearest fortified place.

Henry V (King of England) invaded France following the failure of negotiations with the French. He claimed the title of King of France through his great-grandfather Edward III, although in practice the English kings were generally prepared to renounce this claim if the French would acknowledge the English claim on Aquitaine and other French lands (the terms of the Treaty of Bretagne). Early on the 25th, Henry deployed his army (approximately 1,500 men-at-arms and 7,000 long bowmen) across a 750-yard (690 m) part of the defile. The army was organized into three “battles” or divisions: the vanguard, led by the Duke of York; the main battle led by Henry himself; and the rearguard, led by Lord Camoys. In addition, Sir Thomas Erpingham, one of Henry’s most experienced household knights, had a role in marshalling the archers. It is likely that the English adopted their usual battle line of longbow men on either flank, with men-at-arms and knights in the center. They may also have deployed some archers in the center of the line. The English men-at-arms in plate and mail were placed shoulder to shoulder four deep. The English and Welsh archers on the flanks drove pointed wooden stakes, or palings, into the ground at an angle to force cavalry to veer off. This use of stakes may have been inspired by the Battle of Nicopolis of 1396, where forces of the Ottoman Empire used the tactic against French cavalry.  Henry, worried about the enemy launching surprise raids, and wanting his troops to remain focused, ordered all his men to spend the night before the battle in silence, on pain of having an ear cut off. He told his men that he would rather die in the coming battle than be captured and ransomed.

The French force was not only larger than that of the English, their noble men-at-arms would have considered themselves superior to the large number of archers in the English army, whom the French (based on their experience in recent memory of using and facing archers) considered relatively insignificant. For example, the chronicler Edmond de Dyntner stated that there were “ten French nobles against one English”, ignoring the archers completely. Several French accounts emphasize that the French leaders were so eager to defeat the English (and win the ransoms of the English men-at-arms) that they insisted on being in the first line; as one of the contemporary accounts put it: “All the lords wanted to be in the vanguard, against the opinion of the constable and the experienced knights.

The French were arrayed in three lines or “battles”. The first line was led by Constable d’Albret, Marshal Boucicault, and the Dukes of Orléans and Bourbon, with attached cavalry wings under the Count of Vendôme and Sir Clignet de Brebant. The second line was commanded by the Dukes of Bar and Alençon and the Count of Nevers. The third line was under the Counts of Dammartin and Fauconberg.^[26] The Burgundian chronicler, Jean de Wavrin, writes that there were

8,000 men-at-arms, 4,000 archers and 1,500 crossbowmen in the vanguard, with two wings of 600 and 800 mounted men-at-arms, and the main battle having “as many knights, esquires and archers as in the vanguard”, with the rearguard containing “all of the rest of the men-at-arms”.^[27] The Herald of Berry uses somewhat different figures of 4,800 men-at-arms in the first line, 3,000 men in the second line, with two “wings” containing 600 mounted men-at-arms each, and a total of “10,000 men-at-arms”,^[28] but does not mention a third line.

The French cavalry, despite being somewhat disorganized and not at full numbers, charged towards the longbow men, but it was a disaster, with the French knights unable to outflank the longbow men (because of the encroaching woodland) and unable to charge through the forest of sharpened stakes that protected the archers. John Keegan argues that the longbows’ main influence on the battle at this point was injuries to horses: armored only on the head, many horses would have become dangerously out of control when struck in the back or flank from the high-elevation long range shots used as the charge started. The mounted charge and subsequent retreat churned up the already muddy terrain between the French and the English. Juliet Barker quotes a contemporary account by a monk of St. Denis who reports how the wounded and panicking horses galloped through the advancing infantry, scattering them and trampling them down in their headlong flight from the battlefield.

The plate armor of the French men-at-arms allowed them to close the 300 yards or so to the English lines while being under what the French monk of Saint Denis described as “a terrifying hail of arrow shot”. A complete coat of plate was considered such good protection that shields were generally not used, although the Burgundian contemporary sources specifically distinguish between Frenchmen who used shields and those who did not, and Rogers has suggested that the front elements of the French force may have used axes and shields. Modern historians are somewhat divided on how effective the longbow fire would have been against plate armor of the time, with some modern texts suggesting that arrows could not penetrate, especially the better quality steel armor, but others suggesting arrows could penetrate, especially the poorer quality wrought iron armor. Rogers suggests that the longbow could penetrate a wrought iron breastplate at short range and penetrate the thinner armor on the limbs even at 220 yards (200 m). He considers a knight in the best quality steel armor would have been more or less invulnerable to an arrow on the breastplate or top of the helmet, but would still have been vulnerable to shots hitting the limbs, particularly at close range.^[49] In any case, to protect themselves as much as possible from the arrows, the French had to lower their visors and bend their helmeted heads to avoid being shot in the face—the eye and air-holes in their helmets were among the weakest points in the armor. This head lowered position restricted both their breathing and their vision. Then they had to walk a few hundred yards through thick mud, a press of comrades and wearing armor weighing 50–60 pounds, gathering sticky clay all the way. Increasingly they had to walk around or over fallen comrades.

The surviving French men-at-arms reached the front of the English line and pushed it back, with the longbow men on the flanks continuing to shoot at point-blank range. When the archers ran out of arrows, they dropped their bows and using hatchets, swords and the mallets they had used to drive their stakes in, attacked the now disordered, fatigued and wounded French men-at-arms massed in front of them. The French could not cope with the thousands of lightly armored longbow men assailants (who were much less hindered by the mud and weight of their armor) combined with the English men-at-arms. The impact of thousands of arrows, combined with the slog in heavy armor through the mud, the heat and lack of oxygen in plate armor with the visor down, and the crush of their numbers meant the French men-at-arms could “scarcely lift their weapons” when they finally engaged the English line. The exhausted French men-at-arms are described as being knocked to the ground by the English and then unable to get back up. As the mêlée developed, the French second line also joined the attack, but they too were swallowed up, with the narrow terrain meaning the extra numbers could not be used effectively. Rogers suggests that the French at the back of their deep formation would have been attempting to push forward and quite literally add their weight to the advance, without realizing that they were hindering the ability of those at the front to maneuver and fight, actually pushing them into the English formation of lance points. After the initial wave, the French would have had to fight over and on the bodies of those who had fallen before them. In such a “press” of thousands of men, Rogers finds it plausible that a significant number could have suffocated in their armor, as is described by several sources, and is also known to have happened in other battles.

The French men-at-arms were taken prisoner or killed in the thousands. The fighting lasted about three hours, but eventually the leaders of the second line were killed or captured, as those of the first line had been. The English Gesta Henrici describes three great heaps of the slain around the three main English standards. According to contemporary English accounts, Henry was directly involved in the hand-to-hand fighting. Upon hearing that his youngest brother Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester had been wounded in the groin, Henry took his household guard and stood over his brother, in the front rank of the fighting, until Humphrey could be dragged to safety. The king received an axe blow to the head, which knocked off a piece of the crown that formed part of his helmet.

Thousands of troops appear to have been in the rearguard, containing servants and commoners whom the French were either unable or unwilling to deploy. Wavrin gives the total French army size as 50,000: “They had plenty of archers and crossbowmen but nobody wanted to let them fire [sic]. The reason for this was that the site was so narrow that there was only enough room for the men-at-arms. A different source says that the French did not even deploy 4,000 of the best crossbowmen “on the pretext they had no need of their help.”

The lack of reliable sources makes it impossible to give a precise figure for the French and English casualties (dead, wounded, taken prisoner). However, it is clear that though the English were outnumbered, their losses were far lower than those of the French. The French sources all give 4,000–10,000 French dead, with up to 1,600 English dead. The lowest ratio in these French sources has the French losing six times more men than the English. The English sources vary between about 1,500 and 11,000 for the French dead, with English dead put at no more than 100. Barker identifies from the available records “at least” 112 Englishmen killed in the fighting, including Edward of Norwich, 2nd Duke of York, a grandson of Edward III.

One widely used estimate puts the English casualties at 450, not an insignificant number in an army of about 8,500, but far fewer than the thousands the French lost, nearly all of whom were killed or captured. Using the lowest French estimate of their own dead of 4,000 would imply a ratio of nearly 9 to 1 in favor of the English, or over 10 to 1 if the prisoners are included.

The French suffered heavily. Three dukes, at least eight counts, a viscount, and an archbishop died, along with numerous other nobles. Of the great royal office holders, France lost her Constable, Admiral, Master of the Crossbowmen and provost of the marshals. The heads of nine major northern towns were killed, often along with their sons, relatives and supporters. In the words of Juliet Barker, the battle “cut a great swath through the natural leaders of French society in Artois, Ponthieu, Normandy, Picardy.”  Estimates of the number of prisoners vary between 700 and 2,200, amongst them the Duke of Orleans (the famous poet Charles of Orleans) and Jean Le Maingre (known as Boucicault) Marshal of France. Although the victory had been militarily decisive, its impact was complex. It did not lead to further English conquests immediately as Henry’s priority was to return to England, which he did on 16 November, to be received in triumph in London on the 23rd. Henry returned a conquering hero, in the eyes of his subjects and European powers outside France, blessed by God. It established the legitimacy of the Lancastrian monarchy and the future campaigns of Henry to pursue his “rights and privileges” in France. Other benefits to the English were longer term. Very quickly after the battle, the fragile truce between

The English longbow, also called the Welsh longbow, is a powerful type of medieval longbow (a tall bow for archery) about 6 feet long used by the English and Welsh for hunting and as a weapon in medieval warfare. English use of longbows was effective against the French during the Hundred Years’ War, particularly at the start of the war in the battles of Sluys (1340), Crécy (1346), and Poitiers(1356), and perhaps most famously at the Battle of Agincourt (1415). They were less successful after this, with longbow men having their lines broken at the Battle of Verneuil (1424), and being completely routed at the Battle of Patay (1429) when they were charged before they had set up their defensive position.

The earliest longbow known from England, found at Ashcott Heath, Somerset, is dated to 2665 BC, but no longbows survive from the period when the longbow was dominant (c. 1250–1450 AD), probably because bows became weaker, broke and were replaced, rather than being handed down through generations. More than 130 bows survive from the Renaissance period, however. More than 3,500 arrows and 137 whole longbows were recovered from the Mary Rose, a ship of Henry VIII‘s navy that sank at Portsmouth in 1545.

As for the longbow- The longbow decided many medieval battles fought by the English and Welsh, the most significant of which were the Battle of Crécy (1346) and the Battle of Agincourt (1415), during the Hundred Years’ War and followed earlier successes, notably at the Battle of Falkirk (1298) and the Battle of Halidon Hill (1333) during the Wars of Scottish Independence.

The longbow was also used against the English by their Welsh neighbors. The Welsh used the longbow mostly in a different manner than the English. In many early period English campaigns, the Welsh used the longbow in ambushes, often at point blank range that allowed their missiles to penetrate armor and generally do a lot of damage.

Although longbows were much faster and more accurate than the black-powder weapons which replaced them, longbow men always took a long time to train because of the years of practice necessary before a war longbow could be used effectively (examples of longbows from the Mary Rose typically had draws greater than 637 N (143 lb_f)). In an era in which warfare was usually seasonal, and non-noble soldiers spent part of the year working at farms, the year-round training required for the effective use of the longbow was a challenge. A standing army was an expensive proposition to a medieval ruler. Mainland European armies seldom trained a significant longbow corps. Due to their specialized training, English longbow men were sought as mercenaries in other European countries, most notably in the Italian city-states and in Spain. The White Company comprising men-at-arms and longbow men and commanded by Sir John Hawkwood, is the best known English Free Company of the 14th century. The powerful Hungarian king, Louis the Great, is an example of someone who used longbow men in his Italian campaigns.

 Sources regarding the history of warfare can be found in the writings of:

Max Hastings

John Keegan

Bernard Law Montgomery, Viscount of Alamein

Anne Curry

Hatred, Division, Change, and its Challenge!

Richard J. Garfunkel

December 11, 2016

Over the past eight years I kept on hearing how divided America was, as if President Obama precipitated this new phenomenon.  Therefore, was this some new and strange dynamic that had never existed before? Well to put it into historical and the most simplistic terms, America has been divided from day one. Whether it was over the American Revolution, and who to back, our King or our independence, debate over the Constitution, or the issues of slavery, international trade, alliances with Britain or France, the rural South over the industrial North, Americans found much to be divided about. As we moved past the Civil War, Suffrage, Women’s Rights, and the rise of the Union movement divided people and led to debate, violence, and strife.

Our divisions resulted in the disastrous Civil War which proportionally killed more Americans, by far, than all our wars combined. Statistically, compared to today’s population, the Civil War would have killed over seven million Americans. Even in our parent’s time, the divisions over immigration quotas, isolationism, World War II preparedness, labor rights, the worthiness of the Korean War, and the McCarthy Era, were deep and contentious.  Had things changed for our generation? For sure Vietnam, the Draft, Civil Rights, Integration, the issue of busing, neighborhood schools, de facto and de jure segregation, Affirmative Action, women’s health issues, birth control, Choice, gun control, Gay Rights, the separation of church and state, and even free speech have divided our Nation.

In truth, many of these issues were resolved. Mainstream political leaders of the center left and right adjusted to the changing social values, morays and realities and found compromises. Were these compromises perfect? Of course not! No compromise makes everyone completely happy! In the past, especially with the issue of slavery we had tried to solve this economic and social stain on our society with the Three-Fifths Compromise, the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the Compromise of 1850. In actuality these were failures, as we ignored the inevitable and paid a huge price in blood and treasure.

Why today are the issues we face any bigger, any more important or as threatening? In fact, they are not. But, today, in the wake of the Internet, the rise of talk radio and the accelerated “Greed Factor,” we have seen the dramatic rise of a new dynamic. This force has emerged after years in the making. It started to emerge in the Nixon Era with the “Silent Majority,” and then it blossomed with Reagan and his neo-Goldwaterism. It was a vestige of Joe McCarthy and the Witch Hunts of the Korean War-Red Scare Era. It does not have the old shape of North versus South, or the division over race or religion.  It isn’t over free trade or tariffs. It isn’t over States’ Rights or even American Exceptionalism!

It has crystalized in this hyper-age of hucksterism, which has been long a factor regarding the American culture. We now see its full-blown manifestation in this coming Age of Trumpism.  America has turned to a carnival barker, a super Billy Bigelow from “Carousel,” a valueless, creature, who worships glitter, excess, illusionary glamour, and the witless idea of notoriety to help sell junk and disgraced policies. First we heard the clarion call, “Make America Great Again!” Then we heard the double-talk, the accusations, the insults, the outrageous lies, the bold promises, the baseless assertions, and then we witnessed the age old tactics of “divide and conquer” and the “Ends justify the means!” Next we’ll be hearing about how America was founded on “Social Darwinism,” or the survival of the fittest. This is not new. Machiavelli wrote about this hundreds of years ago, we saw the power concentrated first in the Church, then in the rise of the nation/state along with the age of the “Divine Right of Kings,” and then the Age of Revolution, the empty promises of the regicides, the rise of Communism and of course stain of fascism.

Are we now entering into another era of the next false G-d? Are we entering into an era of know-nothingness, mythology, parallel “truths,” or hyper hucksterism? If answers to complex problems were simple, why have they been ignored? One should read, “The Power of Myth,” by Joseph Campbell, or re-watch the PBS series hosted by Bill Moyers with Campbell, which was aired in 1988. Somewhere in the near future, Americans have to wake up and become aware of the realities of the world we live in and not remain captives of the myths we believe about ourselves. We are not G-d’s gift to mankind. We are made of flesh and blood, and no more heroic than anyone else. We are basically a country of immigrants, who have brought us the best and brightest, along with a lot of societal and generational baggage. When we start to “grow up” we may then start to reject these myths and the false gods, embodied in empty personage of Donald Trump.

This does not have to be a new age of hyper-divisiveness. This does not have to be an era dominated by mindless fear; dominated by race hatred, religious strife, gender competition, and class warfare!  As we address this new challenge, we must confront our skeptical masses, who seek easy solutions and simplistic nostrums, with strength, realism, knowledge, facts, education and unity. If we turn away and ignore what is out there, assuming it will wither away, we will be fooling ourselves, indulging in our own brand of self-delusion, and condemning ourselves to a bleak future. As the philosopher, and essayist, George Santayana wrote: “Progress far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  Let us focus on what made us great and not the Pied Pipers who have led us down the path of delusion, division and delusion.               

Speaking of Trump and Who He Really is!

Richard J. Garfunkel
December 20,2016

But, what of Trump and his lack of preparedness, his lack of reading, his paucity of knowledge and his untutored assumptions and conclusions? What of his public policy reversals, on Planned Parenthood, Choice, and foreign trade? What about his positions on his own work force along with his opposition to their right to organize? He states he is for the working person, but says wages are too high and opposes any increase in the minimum wage. But, aside from his ignorance regarding domestic policy, what about his lack of civility, his misogynist insults, his sexual harassment of women, his abuse of candidates in his own party, and his insults towards the disabled, the heritage of a Federal judge, and his collective bigotry and xenophobia towards Latinos, Muslims, Mormons and 7th Day Adventists? Who is next on his hate list?

When one talks of character with regards to the presidency, how can we exclude his lifetime of excess, his adultery, his 18 year old, who was born two years before his marriage, his abuse of his first wife (well-chronicled), his business practices and his myriad of failures? He has authored a post-war record of four bankruptcies, He and his representatives have been in court over 4000 times and has been in Federal Court over 160 times. He finally settled for $25 million the Trump University scam and is a party to a $250 billion suit regarding the evasion of taxes. Even his ghost writer, Tony Schwartz, the real writer of “The Art of the Deal,” says he and his book were a fraud.

Even billionaires, who know him best, Mike Bloomberg and Mark Cuban, question his judgment, his temperament and even his sanity. He has left a sordid record of economic and social wreckage involving bad debt (which he brags of) and unpaid bills. He has “stiffed” partners, investors, associates, vendors and clients. Aside from the settled litigation regarding Trump University, what about the Trump institute and his failures which include; the US Football League, Trump Airlines, all of his now closed casinos, his line of vodka, steaks, and other enterprises now hardly remembered. In the wake, of his business career, are the claims of hundreds of vendors who have sued him over unpaid bills. He just tells them to settle or wears them out in constant and ongoing court battles and delays.

If that was not enough, what of his foreign product lines, the hiring of foreign workers at his Mar-al Lago Play Pen and his use of illegal laborers on many of building projects? Is this good business or incredible hypocrisy? Why would any American worker or small business person believe this man, who opposes unions, supports “right to work” states, and refuses to pay his bills? With all this in mind, including his lack of integrity, his failed businesses practices, his false promises, his political payoffs, and his poor judgement, why is he getting support? Do his supporters know that he supports the repeal of the Federal Inheritance Tax Law which affects a fraction of 1% of the country or 5400 families and would cost the US Treasury upwards of $600 billion? Are they aware of his support for the flat-tax, which would give billionaires the same federal tax rate of the average working American? Aside for his support of Voodoo economics, what of his ability to lead a nation when he has insulted over 40% of the population, which includes, African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims and others?

But what of his mocking of the disabled, or his call for his supporters to beat up protester, or his promise to support them in court, if they are charged? Is this presidential? Aside from his total lack of knowledge regarding domestic affairs, he criticized former Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia for his “failed” administration in New Jersey. His knowledge of America has been pretty restricted to beauty pageants, country clubs, boardrooms and very expensive residences and restaurants. So where does he come off telling us that our society is failing, it is rife with crime, and we are on the verge of moral default? If anyone is morally defective, it is Trump. What contact or connection does he have with the average American? As for supposed generosity, where have been his vaunted and well-publicized charitable gifts? There are none of record. But, are they actually hidden in his Federal Income Tax returns? Why can’t the public look over his taxes? The Clintons have revealed 33 years of tax returns. What are those returns hiding?

All presidents, in this inter-connected world, must have more than a little foreign policy knowledge. He seems to know nothing of the history and importance of NATO, our support for our European allies for almost three-quarters of a century, our stand against nuclear proliferation, and the new threats regarding Russia and Eastern Europe or China in the Pacific. With this in mind, why has he been virtually endorsed by the mad dictator of North Korea and seemingly supported by the newest Russian Tsar, Vladimir Putin? Even today he gave another example of his ignorance with regards to Crimea and the Ukraine. He is practically persona non grata in Britain, Scotland, Germany, Israel, and for sure Mexico. Who else wants him?
His countless, gaffs, retractions, corrections, indiscretions, insults, misstatements and outright lies have been carefully categorized by media and fact-checkers all over the country. But what indiscretion can match his overt criticism and insult to a Gold Star Mother.

In the words of the late Joseph Welch, who took on Senator Joseph McCarthy, in the Army-McCarthy hearings of 1954, when McCarthy tried to renew his attack, Welch interrupted him: Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyers Guild … Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

With that in mind, I say the same to the Trump supporters. “Have you no sense of decency?” Are you going to be chastised by history as being either; uniformed, blind, a bigot, or just plain stupid? I ask?