This whole Federalism thing

States' rights is the reason the Trump Administration gave for rescinding the Obama directive on transgender bathrooms, and while I agree that the Federal government doesn't belong in the public's bathrooms, it doesn't belong in many other places, either. The framers of our Constitution didn't take government overreach lightly, and they wisely said that those powers not enumerated as the Federal government's in Article 1. section 8 of the Constitution were vested in the  states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved, respectively, to the people." The White House and its principal inhabitant are not 'the people' though they often act like it. The founders intended the doctrine of enumerated power to be our principal defense against a potentially overbearing and overreaching government, something the last Administration, unfortunately, proved itself to be.

This  not to say that the Obama Administration was the only administration that acted too big for its britches; many previous administrations have governed as if they possessed the reigns of legislative power and have imposed policies on citizens without legal justification or precedent. While we always have the courts to fall back on as a means of last resort to reverse or negate such overreach, the process takes an inordinate amount of time, and while this is happening the Federal bureaucracy is able to sink its roots deep into the fine print of implementing regulations. This makes it hard to undo unwarranted power grabs.

So, what should we do to stop such executive edicts? The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California showed us, recently, just how with its temporary restraining order stopping the Trump Administration's immigrant moratorium on seven countries that have insufficient capabilities to properly vet their would-be emigrants or visitors to the United States. One can disagree with the court's ruling, but it is hard to ignore their power. And while they may have stayed this executive order, they will fail to stay the next one because the Administration has learned a valuable lesson; haste makes waste. A new order will exempt those foreigners who have already been issued visas to the U.S. and all Permanent Resident Card ('green card') holders.

The whole issue of the enumeration of powers goes to the heart of our Constitutional Republic and the right of the people to be free from unjustified intervention into the law-making of individual states. States must be free to enact their own laws that govern their own residents as long as those laws don't infringe on existing Constitutionally-sound Federal laws. There are several instances of U.S. Supreme Court rulings where reasonable people can disagree. The most egregious ruling, in my opinion, is the one concerning the right of the Federal government to force all Americans to purchase health insurance. This ruling is a landmark one in that it gives sweeping power to the Federal government, allowing it to require people to purchase something they, in some cases, do not want nor can afford. To add insult to injury, the Obama Administration had the temerity to even decide what the product should look like, requiring seniors, for example, to have contraceptive measures as part of their insurance plans.

If we were to take that example one step further and apply it to other mandatory purchases, how would gun control advocates feel if the new Administration were to require every household to own a firearm and to qualify at a firing range once a year and pay a Federally-set fee or pay a penalty? Abuse of power is the central issue here. When the Federal government goes off the reservation and enters our private sphere it is acting as a dictatorship. There is simply no other word to describe such actions. The coming years will test the Trump Administration's resolve and its ability to resist making the same mistakes that its predecessors have made. It is up to the people to remain vigilant and to call them out when and if they do exceed their power just as it is the people's responsibility to demand speedy adjudication of any Constitutionally questionable overreach. If we do not, we have only ourselves to blame for the consequences.

Stephan Helgesen is a retired U.S. diplomat, now author and political strategist. He has written over 600 articles and six books on politics, economics and social trends. He can be reached at stephan@stephanhelgesen.com

Return of the Goths?

For many on the Left, President Trump is acting imperious, like a Caesar of the Roman Empire, governing by decree (Executive Order). They bemoan the loss of their society, the one that was carefully and skillfully constructed during the reign of Obama the First. They are also filled with rage at the prospect of living under 'Trumpian Rule' and determined to take back control.  On that note, the Democrats are meeting this weekend to elect their General (the head of the Democratic National Committee) who will, presumably, lead them into battle against the forces of the evil one, Donald Trump.

Like the ancient struggle between the Romans and the Goths (a Germanic tribe frequently referenced for their part in the fall of the Roman Empire), the Democrats are intent on waging all-out war to topple the regime and will use whichever tool and tactic they can to insure its defeat.

There may, indeed, be some similarities between the Goths and the Democrats. The Roman historian, Tacitus, said of the Goths (the parentheses are mine), "Their principal strength, on the whole, consists in their infantry (their organized grass roots): hence in an engagement these are intermixed with the cavalry (the media); so well accordant with the nature of equestrian combats is the agility of those foot soldiers, whom they select from the whole body of their youth (recruits from college campuses), and place in the front of the line (protestors). In the election of kings (candidates) they have regard to birth (political dynasties like the Clintons) for; in that of generals, to valor. Their kings have not an absolute or unlimited power (they defer to the Party platform); and their generals command less through the force of authority, than of example. If they are daring, adventurous, and conspicuous in action, they procure obedience from the admiration they inspire. The Germans transact no business, public or private, without being armed (with 'fake news' and rumor-mongering): but it is not customary for any person to assume arms till the state has approved his ability to use them."

There is no doubt, given their performance in the first thirty days of the Trump Presidency, that the Democrats will employ a variety of historically successful battlefield tactics and weapons to bring the Trump Administration to its knees. The first salvos of opposition have already been fired with a 'boycott' of the inauguration by 60 Democrat Congressional Representatives. Later, there have been systematic attempts to de-legitimize his Presidency by propagandizing ('Russiagate') and by delaying the vote on his cabinet appointees while their arrows, dipped in the poison of character assassination, were unleashed to destroy his cabinet choices. Then there is the third wave of attack, principally mounted by a fifth column of Obama-friendly government employees who are leaking classified information to the press, coupled with an onslaught of phony news stories by media zealots that see themselves as 'defenders of democracy' but whose actions resemble those of resistance fighters.

These are going to intensify with time as the Democrats' heavy artillery is moved into position. Unlike the Goths, they will employ a classical Roman approach. They will attempt to divide and separate Republicans' support for the President and then encircle them with their armies of foot soldier protestors, Congressional leaders and supporters from special interest organizations like women's and environmental groups, alternative lifestyle and immigration rights groups, etc.. Then, they will steadily close that circle and eventually disarm them. Finally, they will push for a national day of 'cleansing' - the impeachment - of President Donald J. Trump.

Before you say that is preposterous and cite Will Rogers' quote that, "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat" or believe that the Party is not that circumspect, take the pulse of the liberal nation. Watch a CNN evening broadcast, read the Washington Post or the New York Times.

In ancient times, the Goths were thought to be nothing but barbarians. In the third century A.D., Historian Herman Wolfram described them that way, "Their language does not sound human, more like stammering and mere noise. (They) also speak diverse languages all at once or side by side, for in their eyes language is no criterion of tribal membership. Their religion is superstition, and though not actually pagan, it is hardly more than corrupted Christianity, heresy and worse. For barbarians can neither think nor act rationally; theological controversies are Greek to them. If a storm approaches, they fear the heavens are collapsing, give up any advantage they may have on the battlefield, and flee."

But the Goths did not flee or back down. They adapted and eventually sacked Rome.

While history is made one day at a time and visible for all to see, man inexplicably continues to prove his unwillingness or inability to learn from it. We should all remember the Ides of March and the threat to Democracy that exists from those who would subvert it...in order to preserve it.

Stephan Helgesen is a retired U.S. diplomat, now author and political strategist. He has written over 600 articles and six books on politics, economics and social trends. He can be reached at stephan@stephanhelgesen.com

Losing one's voice

A had a voice once, but that was before I joined the ranks of the diplomatic service over thirty years ago. Upon taking the oath of office, I lost it, or rather subordinated it as the price of joining the Foreign Service, along with thousands of other Americans who also lost their voices for the same reason. We all made a deal to give up part of our First Amendment right as a condition of employment so that our government would not have to explain why some of 'its own' were saying things that contradicted the foreign policy line of the current administration. This deal wasn't expressly written into our contract, but it was understood that we were to avoid controversy by not expressing our own personal or professional opinions when stationed in a foreign country.

Instead, the Embassy would speak for us. It and the Ambassador were the official mouthpieces for the U.S. Government. If we really disagreed with government policy or internal procedures our agency would take it up in Washington, D.C. with the appropriate office. Everybody knew that if it went that far (to WASHDC) it would invariably end up costing somebody, something. Maybe a job, maybe a promotion, maybe a reprimand, or maybe just some diplomatic 'egg' on their face.

That, in itself, is a very sobering reality. It meant that we self-censored and, essentially, had only one choice...to try to work out our problems and settle our differences 'at post.' Not a bad idea, really, but when you work for another department's Foreign Service like I did, it made the task of settling disputes with the State Department nearly impossible. Why? Because the State Department runs the Embassy with an iron fist in a velvet glove. It is the landlord and building superintendant of the Embassy. It manages all the administrative functions, and its general services office takes care of all the officers' residences. It disburses your funds and pays your agency's bills, and its Regional Security Officer assures your safety. The Deputy to the Ambassador (DCM) is the bad cop to the Ambassador's good cop. He/she will make sure that your agency is 'folded under' the State Department's wing and is an equal member of the 'country team' (if it suits him/her) or marginalizes you if it doesn't.

I spent 20 years on country teams and worked under a dozen Ambassadors and as many DCMs. Most knew how the game was played and would ask for your opinion if other officers were asked for theirs, but when decision-making time came, it was the State Department's position that usually triumphed. Sure, there were instances when it didn't, but those were generally situations where it would have been political suicide to take a contrary position. I can understand how that might sound like 'sour grapes' from an agency representative that had to accede to the wishes of another larger government department, but it isn't. It is truth-telling at its finest.

There were other ways to get one's point across without speaking out, and some chose to take them. One was leaking unclassified information to the press. A second was slow-walking implementation of disagreeable policies. A third was cherry-picking some part of a decision and suggesting that it was 'against regulations' and asking that it be sent back to the lawyers. A fourth was involving others 'back home,' but as I said earlier that could have negative consequences, so one had to be careful. 

What is happening today with the leaking attacks on the new Trump Administration is the work of cowards and traitors. These people aren't patriots or 'whistle-blowers.' They are simply angry, disgruntled spoiled government 'brats' that don't want to play by the new rules or work for the new boss. So, what do they do? They spend valuable government time devising ways to smuggle information out of the citadel. Remember the theft of government documents from the National Archives by  former Security Advisor Sandy Berger in 2003? Berger didn't have to find his voice, all he had to do was ford the stream of permissions for entry into the Archives and steal what wasn't his. The same is true of the leakers today. They are stealing what isn't theirs and should be apprehended and punished. It cost Sandy Berger $50,000, 100 hours of community service, his security clearance and his law license for stuffing documents into his BVDs. 

If honest people like myself are given Top Secret security clearances and told that our voices must be silent on matters of government policy, the least we can do is make sure that everybody adheres to the same rules and are not regarded as heroes of the revolution. Find the leakers. Reveal their identities to all of us and then punish them, publicly. I would stop short of making them wear a scarlet letter on their Armanis, but I would definitely have them suit up in chic prison orange for a few years.

Stephan Helgesen is a retired U.S. diplomat, now author and political strategist. He has written over 600 articles and six books on politics, economics and social trends. He can be reached at stephan@stephanhelgesen.com

Accepting the rule of law

There are basically two groups of people in the United States: those that believe in the consistent and fair application of our laws and those that don't. That may be a little too simplistic for some to hear, but try to think about it in terms of our attitudes and how those attitudes are formed.

Many professionals believe that the vast majority of our attitudes are formed as a result of modeling others' behavior or listening to those older - and presumably wiser - than ourselves. Our own personal opinions that are formed as a result of questioning and processing all that information from our elders may influence our attitudes as well. For example: Are we resentful of our lot in life? Are we jealous of others that are better off or have the right pedigree? Do we feel oppressed by authority or unfairly treated by another race of people? Do we feel victimized by 'the system?' Were we abused by our parents or bullied by classmates? Did we feel that the laws of the country (or the playground) didn't apply to us or adequately protect us? Did we see people flaunting the law and avoiding punishment because they had money or a good lawyer? Did we do the same? On the other side of the coin, were we privileged to live in a loving home with a simple and fair set of rules and regulations? Did we get punished when we broke them? Were we rewarded for exceeding expectations? Did our teachers and parents occasionally praise us?

I'm not a psychologist, but I would submit that many of our attitudes about the fair and consistent application of the law have, as I said, a strong connection to our early role models and what kind of behavior was acceptable in our homes and schools. If we saw injustice in rule-making or in the inconsistent administration of those rules, chances are we would have incorporated that into our worldview and accepted it as normal behavior. It's not a stretch then to predict that children holding those views would grow up with them as their principal governing moral philosophy.

That's a simplistic hypothesis, but who among us doesn't look in the mirror, occasionally, and see our mothers or fathers staring back at us? Like many of you, I grew up with 'rules of the road' for how to act and react in the home and outside its walls. If I didn't come when called for supper, I either got no supper or was punished in some other way. If I sped through a school zone as a teenager, I got a ticket (and my parents would have grounded me). If I didn't turn in a book report I got an 'incomplete' on my report card. And on and on it goes. Some of my classmates weren't so lucky. One in particular, a good friend of mine, got crosswise with the law and ended up in prison. Another chose the 'California lifestyle' of cocaine and died. Others were killed in Vietnam. The point I'm making is that it's not only the choices we make that create consequences, but it's also our worldviews and attitudes that influence the choices we make that create consequences.

Take our immigration debate, for instance. This is one debate, I predict, that will divide Americans on a grand scale, and much of it will be directly attributable to our worldviews and our upbringing. Here's how it will play out...

Those espousing the consistent application of the law (usually conservatives) will base their arguments for the deportation of criminal illegal aliens on existing U.S. immigration law and point to the overarching right of our country to legislate immigration policy and enforce it as reasons for doing so. It's as simple as that. For them, it's not a matter of fairness; it's a matter of law (it is assumed that 'fairness' is what undergirds our immigration laws in the first place). This presents a big problem for those (usually liberals) that believe that we should be making exceptions to our laws for whole groups of illegal immigrants because the laws, themselves, are either unfair or the penalties (deportation) are too stringent. The following question will be asked, repeatedly over the coming years: "How do we as compassionate and fair people square that circle?" Answer: we can't, easily, because if we admit that our existing laws are unfair and/or the penalties too stringent then we will have to admit that we have not been following the 'true North' of America's moral compass and will need to re-make our laws and re-think our attitudes.

Should this happen, it will upend our ideological applecart and create a firestorm of disagreement among conservatives and liberals, the consequences of which will be wholesale chaos within the immigrant community, the law enforcement community, the politicians, the hard-liners on immigration policy from both sides and you and me. There must never be a Mason-Dixon Line separating Americans on this issue. We must get our immigration policy right this time. The only way to do that is with an open dialogue among opposing groups, no matter how heated it may get. Should we fail to convince one another, so be it, but we must try now because we won't have the opportunity once the shouting begins and the wheels of mass protests are set in motion. If there's one thing Americans understand it is the power of the people to affect their own lives.

Stephan Helgesen is a retired U.S. diplomat, now author and political strategist. He has written over 600 articles and six books on politics, economics and social trends. He can be reached at stephan@stephanhelgesen.com

The last safe space

It seems that everybody is looking for a safe space these days. College students want a place   "where seldom is heard a discouraging word and the skies are not cloudy all day." (Thanks to Dr. Brewster M. Higley of Smith County Kansas for his inspirational poem, "My Western Home" that led to that great American song, "Home on the Range.") But college students aren't the only ones seeking protection from the real world. Many non-students are also dissatisfied with the new direction the USA is taking under our new President, and they want the entire country to be declared one big safe space. Many would like that space to be one where an undergraduate degree would be free for all, a nation without borders, guaranteed minimum incomes, low or no-cost healthcare and ample legalized marijuana to smooth out all of society's rough edges.

I hasten to add that not all young people think this way, but there are a fair number of them suiting up for protest marches against the Trump Administration and all conservative Republicans who, for them, are the enemy. What is ironic with all of this is that the 'no-Trumpers' and the more militant single-issue groups are bent on turning our country's safe streets into unsafe zones for regular Americans! They are intent on expressing their anger by converting all our public squares, airports and stadiums into impassable human minefields, complete with 'Thunderpower Megaphones' that can put out as many as 122 decibels (for those of you unfamiliar with noise measurements, a thunderclap is 120 db and a jet takeoff is rated at 133 db). 

So much for the peace and quiet of America's streets. Nearly every conceivable anti-Trump special interest group or subgroup is actively fund-raising, courting wealthy donors and recruiting new advocates for their cause. And there are plenty of willing foot-soldiers for them to choose from. They come from the ranks of the youthful unemployed, sixties counter-culture types, Hollywood celebrities, academics, women's organizations, and disgruntled Democrats. The pool is about 65 million people (the number that voted for Hillary Clinton in the General Election). All are busy honing their skills on smaller demonstrations and are undoubtedly reading Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" and Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" as well as watching old film footage of Abbie Hoffman, Bill Ayers, Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden, to name just a few. 

By my reckoning, there is only one safe public space left where most of us can spend a few minutes alone in relative solitude...the toilet, but that, too, has been under attack by the Left. It was on the Obama Administration's hit list. The Administration felt that the 0.3% of Americans that self-identified as transgender people (source: Williams Institute, April 2011) were being discriminated against and needed protection. So, states were told that they had to accommodate people who were 'in transition' from one gender to the other. They were required to provide third toilets for them or allow people who 'felt' like the opposite sex to use the toilets of their chosen gender. The punishment for not complying was loss of Federal funds (13 states filed suit against the Administration which has held up the transformation).

We should all have empathy with individuals going through such a traumatic transformative process. It can't be easy, but when the number of affected people is 0.3% of the entire population, it hardly seems defensible to spend billions on re-purposing America's restrooms to accommodate them, not to mention upsetting the other 99.7% that frequent them. What I am about to say now should not be taken as being insensitive to their plight...but this last final refuge from the cacophony of daily life should not be on our "To Do" list when we have so many other pressing problems confronting us. Considering the new age of protesting that we are entering, it might, however, be a target for those of us feeling oppressed by eight long years of an Obama overreach and by the growing protests of no-Trumpers.

We, the silent majority, need to make our voices heard. That's why I suggest that on August 4th of this year (the baptism date of John Harington, the inventor of Britain's first flush toilet in 1596) that a "Million Man Toilet March" be held.

On that day, precisely at noon, men from all over the country would spontaneously self-identify as women for one hour and demand access to women's lavatories from sea to shining sea. Goodness knows the women's Johns (Jills?) will be crowded for an hour, but isn't it a small price to pay for freedom from bathroom tyranny? Remember to put the seat down, fellows.

Stephan Helgesen is a retired U.S. diplomat, now author and political strategist. He has written over 600 articles and six books on politics, economics and social trends. He can be reached at stephan@stephanhelgesen.com

The new Dutch courage of social media

"Gentlemen, take your positions" were often some of the last words heard by 18th and 19th century disputants just before their disagreements were permanently settled by a ball of deadly lead.  Dueling with a loaded pistol was the last resort in settling a dispute among gentlemen and gave some consolation to the injury of a besmirched reputation or tarnished honor. According to the Smithsonian Magazine, even George Washington was nearly involved in one, "The story, as Parson Weems tells it, is that in 1754 a strapping young militia officer named George Washington argued with a smaller man, one William Payne, who made up for the disparity in size by knocking Washington down with a stick. It was the kind of affront that, among a certain class of Virginia gentlemen, almost invariably called for a duel. That must have been what Payne was expecting when Washington summoned him to a tavern the following day. Instead, he found the colonel at a table with a decanter of wine and two glasses. Washington apologized for the quarrel and the two men shook hands. Whether or not this actually happened—and some biographers believe that it did—is almost beside the point. Weems’ intention was to reveal Washington as he imagined him: a figure of profound self-assurance capable of keeping an overheated argument from turning into something far worse. At a time in America when the code of the duel was becoming a law unto itself, such restraint was not always apparent."

Today, a couple centuries later, we consider ourselves infinitely more civilized, preferring instead to sully each other's reputations and spread disparaging comments and lies from behind the safety of a Facebook or Twitter account. "Take that," we say as we plunge our electronic epithets deep into the boundless ether of the Internet with nary a worry or second thought about the long-term consequences to ourselves or others. We are the new warriors that approach the battlefield of personal contact remotely and without body armor. Spurred on by a politically-correct climate, campus safe zones and a complicit media we feel comfortable in lashing out at people who disagree with us from our computer or smartphone. No battlefield medics needed here, for there is no spilt blood. The only wounds requiring attention are those of our online reputations. Without the ability to confront one another, personally, we are resigned to sending rebuttals through the protagonist's medium. We cannot swat our opponent with our coat sleeve hanky and then choose pistols or swords, so the contest then becomes one of who can scream the loudest in print or mobilize the most Twitter followers to flood the zone with 'likes.'

Those of us who grew up in an America that didn't fear personal intercourse are disheartened to say the least by the new Dutch courage of the (un)social media. It is 30,000 ft. warfare, not hand-to-hand combat. Our enemy's face is protected by a hash tag and our fight is fought in darkness. We see no cuts or bruises and are incapable of feeling remorse (even if we wanted to) after landing a staggering blow to the body. Instead, we employ exclamation points, upper case letters, bold print and the occasional expletive to replace jabs and uppercuts.

This is not courageous; it is cowardly. Had we our opponents standing nose-to-nose with us or at least in the same room would we dare be so provocative or callous? Would our tone be as combative and antagonistic, and would our words be selected for total and immediate destruction? I doubt it, because most civilized men listen to their instincts instead of their testosterone and choose a different tack when they find themselves in potentially explosive situations. Not so with social media. There are no holds barred, no illegal punches. Everything is allowed. Attack a person's veracity, their motives or their family. Nothing is out of bounds, and if you're ever criticized for your criticism, say that they had it coming and you were just doing your duty to the 'community.'

It's time to engage our opponents, personally, but first we must come out from under the cover of our mother's skirts and leave Facebook and Twitter to lesser men and women.

Stephan Helgesen is a retired U.S. diplomat, now author and political strategist. He has written over 600 articles and six books on politics, economics and social trends. He can be reached at stephan@stephanhelgesen.com

Trump presidency creates new industries

It's time to give President Trump a little credit for his clever use of creative goading that has led to the massive stimulation of the American economy in just one short month! Take the protestors, for example. The 'Million Women's March' on Washington may have been the first group to have kick-started the new opposition economic miracle. If we assume that there were only a quarter million women that descended on Washington on January 21st, they had to have gotten there by car, bus, train or plane. If each of them spent just $200 on round-trip transportation and stayed at a Holiday Inn in the nation's capital or just outside the District in neighboring Virginia or Maryland they probably paid $100/night, times two nights, at least. Even protestors get hungry so they had to eat at least twice a day, and at DC prices they could easily have racked up $30/day per person. Then there were those cute pink stocking caps with ears. Figure $10 apiece. Their printed signs probably cost a pretty penny, too. All in all, that march probably brought in about a half-billion dollars or more to transportation companies, hotels, restaurants, printers, etc. Not bad.

After the inauguration, the protest class (especially the more violent ones) really shifted into high gear, taking to college campuses and creating mayhem. Here we have other items they purchased locally (no imports from Mexico or China) like alcohol for their Molotov cocktails, lots of Balaclavas to hide their faces, standard issue hooded sweatshirts and, of course, their army surplus gas masks and combat boots (great for kicking in plate glass windows). Add this to transportation charges from Über drivers, the costs for replacing broken windows and the repair or replacement of other public property that was destroyed and the 'heroes of the revolution' should get the equivalent of the Medal of Freedom for their contributions to their local economies.

Yes, dissension is good business for America's businesses. It's great for the non-profit, special interest organizations and politicians, too. Take Senator Elizabeth Warren, for example. After she tried to read a 40-year old letter from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s wife, Coretta King, denouncing Senator Jeff Sessions on the floor of the Senate (and was promptly shut down by a Senate rule that prohibits the impuning of a fellow Senator), it was reported that donations to her political coffers soared! I'm sure that angry Liberals are also giving more money to Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Senator Charles Schumer and Senator Bernie Sanders, too. Then there are the lobbyists and the lawyers - the hired guns of DC. They will switch allegiance at the first whiff of money and sue anybody for anything. We can always count on them to charge, mightily, for their services. Case in point, former Attorney General, Eric Holder, has been hired to 'help out' California to the tune of $25K/month.  What a bargain!

The media are also big winners. Filing negative stories about the President gets the Trump haters' blood boiling and that increases ratings which also raises the advertising prices networks and papers can charge for airtime or column inches. Who loves you, baby? Trump does. With every over the top statement he makes, the presses turn faster and our flat screens and smart phones flicker brighter. Every network political 'contributor' with a political axe to grind or a cheap shot in their back pocket is invited to be a panelist with others of their ilk to trash talk the President and take home a few thousand shekels for venting their spleen on national TV. Every time Mr. Trump's family is skewered (like his daughter, Ivanka, whose line of clothing was not renewed by the politically correct West Coast clothier, Nordstrom's), Trump supporters step up and buy more of her clothing at other stores to show their solidarity. Finally, recent stock market gains show that American investors have more confidence in our economy now and are buying more shares. That adds value to our country's bottom line. All this proves my point that protesting pays off big time for America. It's the industry that keeps on giving, and Mr. Trump knows this which could be why he delights in getting under the skin of his detractors. I say, up with the First Amendment! It's better than a tax cut or a border surcharge or even the repeal of Obamacare. It's so typically American.

 Stephan Helgesen is a retired U.S. diplomat, now author and political strategist. He has written over 600 articles and six books on politics, economics and social trends. He can be reached at stephan@stephanhelgesen.com

Lies, downright lies and outright lies

"Liar, liar, pants on fire, hanging from a telephone wire," now that's a blast from our childhood. Today, it's become a common refrain used by combatants on the political right starting with the President and on the left starting with the fourth estate - the press. (FYI: The term fourth estate used to refer to forces outside the established power structure using medieval three-estate systems. Historically, in Northern and Eastern Europe the term referred to rural commoners. Today, it's the media.) President Trump can justifiably lay claim to ramping up the search for liars and their lies by repeatedly calling out the media for reporting a flurry of 'fake news' and now 'very fake news' stories about subjects ranging from Russia's involvement in the 2016 Presidential election to the dismissal of General Michael Flynn from his post as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Indeed, the President has become a kind of reverse lightning rod, shooting high voltage accusations at the media for not doing their jobs at vetting sources or for specializing in 'second-hand' or 'cut and paste' journalism. This is the style where reporters take stories written by others and then modify them slightly or run them unchanged without any substantiation or attempt at investigating their veracity. To be honest, the press has brought their low approval ratings on themselves by taking sides in the political debate.  They loved JFK and were lukewarm about LBJ until he escalated the Vietnam War. Then they hated him. They also hated Nixon and were amused by Ford. They were supportive of Carter...for awhile. They didn't like Reagan because he went over their heads, directly to the American people, and slaughtered a few of their most sacred cows.

They weren't particularly fond of Bush '41' because he was too reserved and didn't give them enough spice for their columns. They loved Clinton because he was hip and because he loved their spotlight until they covered his impeachment hearings. The press despised Bush '43' and characterized him as a cowboy or bumbling bumpkin. Then came Barack Obama and the media fell in love...again. It was JFK redux. In Obama's case, lies that came from the Administration or directly from the President's own mouth were dismissed as 'mis-speaking' or things 'taken out of context.'  Now, with '45' the press is enraged and on a crusade to bring him down.

The new reporter's handbook has basically re-defined lying. It is now considered anything that a Republican or conservative says that doesn't please the media. Gone is the time-honored tradition of checking and re-checking sources and tracking down facts. Media organizations that had previously cautioned their reporters to 'get it right' are now saying 'get it any way and anywhere you can, and if you get it right that's a bonus.' Occupants of the White House must also shoulder their share of the blame for doing that little sidestep that actor Charles Durning danced in his portrayal as the Governor of Texas in the movie, "Best Little Whorehouse in Texas." These were some of the lyrics he sang as he sashayed through the Texas State Capitol Building: "Fellow Texans, I am proudly standing here to humbly see. I assure you, and I mean it - Now, who says I don’t speak out as plain as day? And, fellow Texans, I’m for progress and the flag - long may it fly. I’m a poor boy, come to greatness.  So, it follows that I cannot tell a lie. Ooh, I love to dance a little sidestep, now they see me now they don’t - I’ve come and gone and, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step, cut a little swathe and lead the people on." Lying has become gentrified, rehabilitated. Everybody does it, so can it really be that bad after all?

Enter the downright or hypothetical lie - sometimes confused with an exaggerated outrageous statement said for shock value. It often comes with tongue firmly planted in cheek, into a statement that no one except the press would take seriously like Trump's own comments on his supporters' love of him ("I could almost shoot somebody and not lose voters.") While technically not a lie, reporters don't care. If it was an unproven hypothetical statement said to make a point it's as good as a lie to them. (In order to please the media, Trump would actually have to shoot someone and then have a poll conducted.) The outright lie is similar, but different, and it can depend on the liar's motives.

It can also be something said that is so patently over the top that nobody would ever confuse it with the truth - the kind of falsehood that makes people laugh out loud at its absurdity or rise up in indignation. The mainstream media is especially good at rising up because they have no sense of humor. The poet, Dylan Thomas, wasn't lying when he described how he thought we should age: "Do not go gentle into that good night. Old age should burn and rave at close of day; rage, rage against the dying of the light." I fear that that kind of zeal has been co-opted by the media and our politicians and is being applied to lying, and it doesn't look as if things will improve over time as the rewards for telling the truth are few and far between.

Stephan Helgesen is a retired U.S. diplomat, now author and political strategist. He has written over 600 articles and six books on politics, economics and social trends. He can be reached at stephan@stephanhelgesen.com

  

Freedom's high price

A few years ago, I wrote a book ("My Name is Aron: Journey to the light of freedom") about a Holocaust survivor, and all throughout that experience of turning his words into a heart-wrenching story of imprisonment and forced labor I was visited in my sleep for months by HIS terrible memories of five years spent in four concentration camps in three countries. His story, like so many of those millions that were imprisoned and murdered by an oppressive regime that was based on hatred and prejudice, is a lesson for all of us.

Though the re-telling of those stories is painful to hear for current generations of Germans and non-Germans alike, they  must continue to be retold because they remind us of those terrible years of the oppression of ethnic, racial or religious groups AND that under the right conditions it could happen again. Writing Aron's memoirs also made me keenly aware of how fragile freedom and human rights are and how we must all work together to protect them.

My first encounter with European resistance fighters came in 1984 when I lived in The Hague in The Netherlands. Because of my diplomatic status, I was able to get access to a handful of a few brave Dutchmen who engaged in sabotage against the Nazi occupiers and who faced death every day of their lives during a period of five long years, starting on the 10th of May in 1940. I heard stories of extraordinary bravery and of enormous suffering that took place only a mile or so from my home in the small town of Scheveningen which bordered the North Sea. Dutch resistance fighters who were imprisoned in that town and were 'convicted' of sabotage by kangaroo courts were summarily marched into the nearby sand dunes and executed.

Years later, I lived in Denmark, another occupied country during WWII. The scabs of the Danes'  wounds were routinely pulled off, every year, as survivors and their families commemorated the sacrifices made by their underground fighters at a memorial park called Ryvangen. While the Nazi occupation of Denmark was less severe than that of The Netherlands, the Danes suffered, similarly, with limitations on their movement, on their speech and assembly. The Danish King, Christian X, refused to be holed up in his Amalienborg palace and frequently rode his horse through the streets of Copenhagen in an attempt to bolster the spirits of his countrymen. The average Danes did their parts, too, to keep the flames of liberty and hope burning...if only in their own hearts.

My wife's father was in the Danish resistance movement and participated in many acts of sabotage against the Nazi occupiers. Late in 1944, he was eventually forced to flee to Sweden for refuge, leaving his wife and two children behind. He was unable to return until Denmark's liberation as his home was being watched by the SS. The stories of individual courage of people like Aron and those  brave souls in Holland and Denmark are compelling, and many books and movies have been made about them. They remind us that while our bodies may be imprisoned our "Gedanken sind frei" (our thoughts are free) and they will win out over time. The uncomfortable truth is that freedom is never safe from attack by people that believe they have the right to take it from others.

Our First Amendment to the Constitution protects us from such attacks (on paper at least), but it, too, is routinely coming under siege by people who believe that there is only one right way to feel, think or speak about controversial issues. Instead of protesting the efforts of these people who wish to severely limit or destroy our right to speak or assemble peacefully, some are reverting to violence to prevent what they feel is objectionable or disagreeable speech. It is these very people and their willingness to take away our freedom of expression that are, maybe unwittingly, giving fascism the fertile soil in which to grow its poisonous seeds. We must be vigilant and never forget how placing any limits on our ideas and words can give rise to destructive ideologies that can undo the freedoms we enjoy. As Americans we have no choice and must do this if for no other reason than to honor the millions around the world that gave their lives to protect it.      

Stephan Helgesen is a retired U.S. diplomat, now author and political strategist. He has written over 600 articles and six books on politics, economics and social trends. He can be reached at stephan@stephanhelgesen.com

Million women to march on D.C. (originally written Jan. 18, 2017)

I'm told that a million woman march is being organized to coincide with and protest the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump next week and that organizations like the American Association of University Women (among others) is encouraging its members to participate. I don't for the life of me understand the point. The man hasn't even been sworn in yet and already the sisterhood is presuming his guilt and assuming he will strip them of all of their hard-won rights.

I'm sorry, les femmes, you just lost my unwavering support by not giving a duly-elected President of the United States with over 62 million votes (many of them from women) the benefit of the doubt that he will uphold the Constitution and protect all Americans, even those who wear skirts and carry purses.

My wife (who is a conservative-leaning woman) and I, discussed this matter and came to the same conclusion...that any non-profit organization like the AAUW must stay home and not participate in what is blatantly a political march/movement. If they don't want to do that, fine, then they ought to have their non-profit status rescinded by the IRS.

I don't mind telling you that this 'living in the land of denial' attitude on the part of the Democrats and the faux 'victims' in our society has already gotten old. There is plenty of room at the barricades, and two can play the protest game which is why I'm calling on everyone who's just as fed up as I am with the Left's whining, phony accusations and fake news, to send the following telegram to their elected representatives in both the House and Senate.

"Dear (elected representative),

Just thought I'd let you know that I'm following every single vote you cast and every single public utterance you make during the next few years. Stop. And, should you choose to support the incessant whining and caterwauling of the Democrats and your left-leaning constituents, I for one will do my utmost to unseat you next time around. Stop. As you may have heard, there is a 'million woman march' scheduled to coincide with President-elect Trump's inauguration next week. Stop. I encourage you to put out a public statement from your office in support of removing the non-profit status of any non-profit organization that participates in this political event. Stop. We the people will be watching. Stop. Yours, (your name)"

The URL to send such a telegram is: https://www.itelegram.com.

As a writer, I am among the last people on God's green Earth that would want to restrict anybody's right of free speech, so I say to all the ladies who want to show their solidarity with their gender, go right ahead. March. Protest. Speak out against oppression and unequal rights whenever and wherever you see the practice happening, but please try to keep it civil and don't presume that any man, let alone the one that will lead our country for the next four years, is guilty of doing so before you have had time to observe him in office doing the people's business. We should all judge each other's actions more severely than we do each other's words, and just because you didn't get the female of your choice elected this time around, don't take it out on the man who beat her, simply because he speaks his mind and doesn't subscribe to your brand of political correctness. Feel free to disagree with him at every turn if you must, but avoid making the next four years a replay of the sixties. We truly have, "come a long way, baby." Let's move on and work together.

Stephan Helgesen is a retired U.S. diplomat turned author and political strategist. He has written over 600 articles and six books on politics, economics and social trends. He can be reached at stephan@stephanhelgesen.com. He also has four smart independent daughters.

What would Martin Luther King, Jr. say? (originally written Jan. 18, 2017)

Watching Dr. King use non-violence against those who preferred the wood of the nightstick in the sixties was inspiring. The man was an exceptionally rousing speaker and used every single syllable to make his case for justice and fairness for all, but especially for America's negroes.

Millions of Blacks and Whites responded by opening their minds and hearts to his dream that one day people would be judged by the content of their character instead of their skin color. Dr. King also knew that there was more than just one way to be prejudiced, and that there was also something called, 'reverse racism.' In the case of the negro, it was entirely understandable after so many years of oppressive laws and despicable treatment by so-called 'good decent people' not only in the old South but also by hypocrites in bastions of neutrality like some northern states.

The Black man's time had come and equality for all would wait no longer. Dr. King's marches attracted hundreds of participants and thousands of viewers on television, and he stood by his preference for non-violence when it would have been easier to fight back. His movement gained steam and many 'fence-sitting' observers saw the courage of this preacher as he was arrested and jailed for his beliefs. They joined him in spirit as his cause moved forward, and while there were many prominent people that supported him, there were also many ordinary men and women, too.

One of them was John Lewis, now a Congressman from Georgia, who was born into a poor sharecropper family in Troy, Alabama in1940, and ever since his early adulthood has been at the forefront of the civil rights movement. There is no question that Mr. Lewis has earned his place in the pantheon of America's civil rights leaders by his work in the 60s and later, but even icons like him make mistakes and can stray from the path. Such is the case with his actions today.

His comments on President-elect Donald Trump's 'legitimacy' (he believes that he has none because of the 'Russian interference' in the 2016 election) betrays a deep-seated wound. He sees the reins of government turned over from 'his man,' Barack Obama, to an 'illegitimate' outspoken one like Mr. Trump. Furthermore, it was comments by Mr. Trump about the state of America's inner city Black communities and the fact that Democrats (like Mr. Lewis and his colleagues) had done nothing to help America's Blacks for half a century that made Lewis angry and ready to punch back.

He is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), an organization within Congress that is only populated by African-American representatives, and has, as its goals, to:  "positively influence the course of events pertinent to African-Americans and others of similar experience and situation," and "...achieve greater equity for persons of African descent in the design and content of domestic and international programs and services." It has grown from 13 members in 1971 to 45 members today. (A White candidate for Congress, Steve Cohen, applied for membership in 2006, but was refused, leaving some to scratch their heads and wonder if Martin Luther King, Jr. would also have refused to have one more member join him in the fight against racism.)

Representative Lewis should look into his own heart this Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and ask himself if calling other people illegitimate is not drinking from the same stream that anti-Black groups drank from during the time he was working to champion the negro's rights. It is uncomfortably reminiscent of a time in American history when the double standard was the only standard or method of behavior towards Black America. The fact that Congressman Lewis and other members of the CBC have decided to boycott the inauguration of our 45th President says volumes about political retribution. They have directed their ire towards a man who challenged the legitimate birthplace of our 44th President (it must be said that stonewalling Mr. Trump on this issue was politically advantageous for President Obama). They were also taken aback, as previously stated, by Mr. Trump's audacity in visiting America's inner cities and questioning why the lives of millions of Black Americans hadn't improved under Democratic Party rule.

Couple those two things with their party's loss at the polls in November and you have a recipe for staying home from the inauguration and licking their wounds. It is nonetheless regrettable, that they choose to do so because their actions will only call attention to themselves as being part of a monolithic special-interest organization that cares only about its own members and is unwilling to show solidarity with all Americans.

The only upside to this drama is the fact that by boycotting the inauguration, the CBC and other Democrat Representatives have freed up 30-40 more seats for other fair-minded Americans to attend.

Stephan Helgesen is a retired diplomat and now political strategist and author. He has written over 600 articles and books on politics, economics and social trends. He has written extensively on the subject of equal rights. He can be reached at: stephan@stephanhelgesen.com

Boycotting common sense? (originally written Jan. 17, 2017)

It seems like there is a virus affecting many in the Democratic Party's ranks these days, and its name is 'boycotting.' Boycotts have been a part of political and ordinary life for as long as I can remember, but the U.S. Congress is taking the phenomenon to a higher and more troublesome level.

First a little history. The name 'boycott' came from the Irish land agent, Charles Boycott, who was notorious for evicting non-paying tenants. Soon his employees stopped laboring in his fields and businessmen wouldn't take his money. In an effort to turn things around, old Charles imported workers to tend his crops, but the expense nearly ruined him. Fast-forwarding to modern times, we're probably all familiar with the national meat boycott of April 1973 when housewives were fed up with skyrocketing meat prices. President Nixon tried to put a lid on the prices, but it was too late. Women across America were just saying 'no' to meat at grocery stores all over the country. The boycott was called the greatest consumer rebellion since the Boston Tea Party! Unfortunately, after the boycott ended, meat prices had only fallen a few cents/pound, proving that while the boycott did gain national prominence, the effect was marginal at the checkout lane. The longer term effect, however, was that the American consumer wasn't going to stand for being bullied or gouged without a fight. More recent boycotts, against the fast food company, Chic-fil-a, staged by angry supporters of 'same sex' marriage in June of 2012 also ended unceremoniously with the company actually racking up substantial sales and solidifying its customer base.

Boycotts are sometimes an effective way of showing mass displeasure about a company's actions or corporate beliefs, but most of the time they end badly. The reverse can be true, politically, when large numbers of people protest a government's policies. Take the case of apartheid in South Africa, for example. There was an anti-apartheid movement (AAM) also known as the 'Boycott Movement' by a British organization in 1959. The constant drumbeat against that country's racial policies did, eventually, lead to a change of direction and the inclusion of Blacks into the greater fabric of life in South Africa.

America is once again experiencing a boycott, this time of the inauguration of our 45th President, by some in the esteemed body of elected Congressional Representatives on the Democratic Party's side. As of this writing, 35 Congressional Representatives, mostly from the Congressional Black Caucus, have declared their intention to boycott the inauguration of Donald J. Trump as our next President. Some, like Congressman John Lewis of Georgia, have called Mr. Trump an 'illegitimate' President, citing Russian government meddling in our Presidential election in November. Other colleagues of his are protesting the President-elect's character and/or his style as being un-Presidential.

A 'Million Woman March' has also been planned to coincide with the inaugural events. This march is being joined by some non-profit organizations like the American Association of University Women (AAUW), for example. In my view, this is a dangerous precedent for non-profits to set - to be part of political demonstrations - but the women are determined to express their concern that the incoming Trump administration is somehow anti-woman. According to the organizers, they will, “March from Lincoln Memorial to [the] White House to show our strength, power and courage and demonstrate our disapproval of the new president and his values in a peaceful march. ALL women, femme, trans, gender non-conforming and feminist others are invited to march on Washington DC the day following the inauguration of the President elect. This march is a show of solidarity to demand our safety and health in a time when our country is marginalizing us and making sexual assault an electable and forgivable norm. We align with all POC and LGBTQ causes, and we will show our support in a non-violent protest.”

That is quite a mouthful considering the new President hasn't even taken the oath of office AND that two of his stated objectives are to find ways to help women with early childhood day care and to improve family leave for new mothers. One wonders what is going on when Americans cannot wait for a person's actions to either catch up with him or absolve him.

Stephan Helgesen is a retired diplomat and author. He has written six books and over 600 articles on subjects ranging from politics to economics and social trends. He can be reached at: stephan@stephanhelgesen.com

The David and Goliath of governance (originally written Jan. 15, 2017)

On January 20th, America will not only have exchanged Presidents, but also moved 180 degrees from an administration that was ideologically-driven to one rooted in pragmatism. According to many critics, we will have taken a Goliath-sized step backwards and are simply trying to re-create the bygone era of Ronald Reagan when there was such a thing as tough leaders and power was something to be proud of rather than apologize for. Republicans agree about the myth but disagree about the effects.

Maybe this is what sticks in the craw of Democrats today, the fact that their forward momentum has been halted and their pilgrimage toward the utopian politics of the collective has been disrupted after eight years of an administration, seen with conservatives' eyes, that crashed through the fortifications of the Constitution while chanting "Yes, we can" and that did everything in its power to discredit the half of America that said, "No, we won't." After Friday, the rhetoric that characterized everything Mr. Obama touched will drift away and the clouds that have been hiding the country's real challenges will part as we embark on a journey to find the truth about who we really are and what we really need to do, together, to reclaim our birthright as Americans.

These kinds of social expeditions are not for the faint of heart. Neither is there room for the spinmeisters or the obfuscators. Journeys of this sort demand the speed of a gazelle, the strength of a lion and the skin of a rhinoceros. The patience of Job and the courage of David are also required as the Goliath of big government, with all its power, pushes back. It will not go down easily, certainly not with a single slingshot of resistance. The new Administration must move, quickly, to cut off the head of the snake of special interests and entrenched single-issue oriented groups from both the Left and the Right if it is to survive and achieve its objectives. The American divide was not born yesterday, nor will it die easily.

The new President and his cabinet will be exposed to great personal and professional vilification and be opposed with every press release they issue, every utterance they make and after every decision they take. They must be prepared for relentless name-calling, innuendo, fake news and incessant propaganda. Our new leaders' collective resumes and experience show us that they have what it takes to do the job and that they will not be bullied by belligerence nor deterred from their mission by subversion from the Left. If history teaches us anything, it tells us that there will be times during the next four years when the new administration's forward progress will be stopped cold in its tracks. When that happens, it will need to find the courage to compromise on those aspects of their plans that will improve them for all Americans. In short, they must find new common ground both inside and outside their own party.

The next four years will see our country remake itself using a new version of the Cold War era's realpolitik . Decisions will be based on real reality not the hypothetical reality of the last eight years. The Obama Administration's policies have taught us one lesson of near Biblical proportion...putting up impenetrable walls between the parties doesn't work for the good of the country because walls also separate the honest brokers of reason in both parties from one another.

Stephan Helgesen is a retired diplomat and now political strategist and author. He has written six books and over 600 articles on subjects ranging from politics to economics to social trends. He can be reached at: stephan@stephanhelgesen.com

Tearing down and building up (originally written Jan. 21, 2017)

America has elected, and now confirmed by his swearing-in, its 45th president. During the next four years, we're bound to see a wrecking ball taken to most Obama-initiated Executive Orders and a wholesale attempt to dismantle the Affordable Care Act along with other laws. It is the nature of new administrations that do not share a common political view to want to completely re-do what has been done.

It is also the nature of politics and politically-driven people to want to take apart and discard anything that reminds them of the prior inhabitant of the office. I get that, so we should not be shocked when President Trump's people accelerate the process of de-Obamafication, right from day one. None of this surprises me, but what does make me shake my head in disbelief is the fact that we haven't moved much closer to adopting a national economic and political ideology (or strategy) that most Americans will accept!

In fact, it's downright bewildering that after two world wars, a serious depression, and 45 Presidents and 240 years of ruling ourselves that we still don't know what we want. I could accept this kind of attitude if we were 330 million teenagers entering puberty, but really, Virginia, the USA is unable to adopt an ideology that WORKS! Oh, I know, we've flirted with socialism in times past (and in times present with Bernie Sanders), but those were just summer romances and really didn't mean anything. One of more of our generations were just rebelling against the status quo. We really wouldn't have traded in our SUVs for a Lada Niva even if Sanders had won, nor would be calling each other 'comrade' or 'citizen.' It's just not in us, that's all.

We're capitalists. We like our overpriced latte frappuccinos at Starbucks and Siri who speaks to us in dulcet tones from our iphones. Who wants to go backward in time even for the sake of the revolution? Revolutions are supposed to propel us forward and show us what's over the next hill. The Obama presidency is over and while he gave us eight years of tumult, it wasn't all his fault. It rarely is. Blame must be shared by those that didn't  learn the lessons of yesterday. See, that's my point. Instead of ripping everything off the walls and deep-sixing every old report and memo to make room for the new, we had better take a close look at what's going out to the dumpster. Some of those things could be pretty valuable in a few months or years.

Ideas have a way of skirting the edges of time and perching themselves just within sight but slightly out of our reach. Some ideas wait patiently to be discovered or re-discovered while others are grabbed off the shelf right away and put into practice. The new Trump Administration has done its pre-governance due diligence, but as anybody coming into a new job or office will tell you, "Look in back of the desk or in that last filing cabinet. You may be surprised at what you'll find." Suspicion and skepticism are part of the fabric of Washington, D.C., so sometimes it's understandable that new administrations want to wipe the slate clean and start afresh. But that's not always the best decision. Creative destruction isn't always creative, and destruction isn't always beneficial. Before we tear up the immediate past, it might be a good idea to actually talk to the people that implemented the regulations and procedures.

Theirs is the real valuable knowledge that is often lost in a transition.

Stephan Helgesen is a retired diplomat and now political strategist and author. He has written six books and over 600 articles on topics ranging from politics to economics to social trends. He can be reached at: stephan@stephanhelgesen.com