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

He's baaaack! (originally written Jan. 25, 2017)

Just when you thought that fascism, Nazis and Adolf Hitler were resigned to the pages of history, you are mistaken. All are back in the guise of talking points of the über Left which are being used to demonize America's 45th President.

I can't help but think this Nazi (German abbreviation for national socialism) revival is the brainchild of Hollywood and is their own special contribution to the new war on Trump, and by extension, all conservatives. If you remember the movie, 'Wag the dog,' the heroes were a rogue, presumably Democratic Party, operative (Robert DeNiro) and a Hollywood movie producer (Dustin Hoffman). Both collaborated to create a phony war to divert attention from a philandering President (remind you of anyone from the nineties?).

Adolf Hitler's name used to be taboo much less used in comparisons made to living people. The only two times in the recent past that I can recall they were made was about Ugandan dictator, Idi Amin and then about the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein. These were horrible men, no doubt about it, and they certainly earned their comparisons.

It seems that Hitler has been redeemed, like a celebrity completing a six-month de-tox stint at a rehab center. The press has told itself, "It's okay. Hitler's brutality has passed its expiration date. We can now dust him off, prop him up and start talking about the similarities between Der Führer and Der President." So the gloves have come off and Hitler is now relevant again. I'm sure that the families and descendents of the six million plus people that were brutally murdered in gas chambers all across Europe in the 30s and 40s will be overjoyed to hear that the most despised man in the 20th and 21st centuries has become gentrified. Glad, too, must be all the German people that have spent the last seventy years trying to push Hitler into the background.

No, he's back, also in TV shows like 'Hunting Hitler' where a retired CIA operative and his staff of former Special Forces employees and researchers have tracked the Chancellor's escape from his bunker in Berlin in April of 1945 by airplane to Spain and then by submarine to Argentina and finally overland to Chile. It seems the fascination with this truly satanic individual has not abated over time, and until we find his mummified body dressed as a lowly shepherd sitting on a Chilean mountainside we won't be satisfied. There are even people who claim that he's still alive! Let's see, that would make him 128 years old this coming April 20th. This propensity for Hitler comparisons to our President has taken on a life of its own thanks to the  mainstream media and its lackeys. On inauguration day, they (Chris Matthews and others) started by comparing the President's patriotic  call of, "America first" in our dealings on trade and international affairs as being, wait for it..."Hitlerian" and harkened back to his (Hitler's) persecution of the Jews!

I was recently interviewed by a foreign radio station and my American opponent (Chairman of the Democrats Abroad organization in that country) was asked how he viewed the inauguration. He said he was profoundly ashamed to be an American. He was then asked why to which he responded, "Because I saw a replay of Nazi Germany of the 30s (the 'America First' quote) when Hitler was persecuting and rounding up the Jews. It was horrifying." I was then asked what I thought about the quote. I said that it was innocent enough and certainly not reminiscent of something like, "Deutschland über alles" (Germany above everything else). It was normal that any head of state would put his/her people's welfare and well-being first, and that it was high time that an American President admitted that we have national interests which we will prioritize higher than someone else's.

Well, this explanation only inflamed my opponent, and he began to ratchet up his argument by playing the 'personal card' by saying that he was Jewish and that he took this suggestion to put America first as code for a kind of return to Aryan supremacy and that his party was not going to stand for it.

The interview ended, thankfully, before his head could explode at the mere thought of four years of Donald Trump and before I lost my patience with him. I'll admit, that that experience and the recent quotes from Chris Matthews and others worry me. I'm more than a little concerned about the future of compromise when one side of the aisle thinks that the other side is sitting behind their desks  wearing armbands and sporting toothbrush moustaches...and is busy preparing a hostile takeover of America.

To all those who are even thinking of comparing anyone in America, let alone our 45th President, to Adolf Hitler, do yourself a favor and read the "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" or better yet I'll put you in touch with a Jewish friend of mine who survived four concentration camps during WWII and whose story I told in a book entitled, "My name is Aron." He'll set you straight about the differences between the two men.

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