Musk's statements indicate a profound lack of understanding of the Constitution of the United States from historical, legal, and practical perspectives. His behavior reflects his goal of remodeling the Federal government along the lines of one or more of his businesses

Alexander Hamilton, one of the chief designers of the U. S. Constitution, and himself a very keen businessman prior to entering politics, understood the differences required in running a business for profit, and governing a people. These differences are alluded to in the Forward of our Constitution and include establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and much more.

In addition, the differences between these two men are striking. Hamilton, like Musk, was smart, but he used that intelligence to help found a government based on a constitution written and ratified by the people of the future United States. Musk would form a government without public consent, consistent only with his personal convictions, and without subjecting these to the scrutiny of a public forum. Musk's statement that his actions are "what the people want" has no basis in fact.

For your perusal, what follows are brief portraits of both Elon Musk and Alexander Hamilton . To save time I composed these primarily from information provided by ChatGPT. They will withstand fact checking by the interested reader. Bibliographic resources describing the formation of the U.S. Constitution, and the life of Alexander Hamilton, appear at the end of this essay.

Elon Musk
Tesla, led by Elon Musk, is known for its relatively non-traditional bureaucracy compared to legacy automakers. Musk has fostered a flat, fast-moving, and engineering-driven organizational culture, but paradoxically, some bureaucratic inefficiencies have emerged as the company has scaled. Here are key characteristics of Tesla's bureaucracy:

1. Flat Hierarchy (in Theory)
• Musk discourages excessive layers of management and promotes direct communication across departments.
• Employees are encouraged to bypass traditional chains of command and email or message higher-ups (including Musk) directly.
• This approach is intended to accelerate decision-making but can sometimes lead to chaos when Musk himself is the bottleneck.
2. Musk-Centric Decision-Making
• Despite the flat structure, Musk exerts highly centralized control over major decisions.
• He is known for making abrupt changes, personally reviewing engineering details, and even dictating the design of manufacturing processes.
• Some former employees have described Tesla as a "one-man company," where Musk's influence overrides traditional corporate bureaucracy.
3. Engineering and Production Focus
• Unlike traditional automakers that rely heavily on middle management,Tesla prioritizes engineers and production workers over administrative roles.
• The company tends to devalue HR and middle management functions, leading to frequent burnout and turnover among employees.
4. Rapid and Often Chaotic Implementation
• Tesla's bureaucracy is unique in that it allows (or forces) employees to pivot extremely quickly in response to Musk's directives.
• While this agility has led to industry-first innovations, it also results in last-minute changes, lack of documentation, and inconsistent policies across different teams.
5. High Turnover and Restructuring
• Tesla frequently reshuffles leadership, disbands teams, and eliminates entire divisions based on Musk's shifting priorities.
• In contrast to traditional bureaucracies that emphasize stability, Tesla's approach is often volatile and contributes to a high attrition rate.
6. Hardcore Work Culture
• Tesla enforces an intense, results-driven environment with long hours and a "no excuses" mentality.
• Employees are expected to prioritize work over bureaucracy, often bypassing formal procedures in favor of immediate action.
• Musk has a well-known disdain for meetings, PowerPoints, and unnecessary managerial oversight, preferring hands-on engineering.

Conclusion (Elon Musk)
Tesla operates with a hybrid bureaucracy: it rejects many traditional corporate structures in favor of speed and direct communication, yet it is also highly centralized around Musk's authority. This system allows Tesla to innovate quickly but also creates instability, high employee churn, and inconsistent execution.

Alexander Hamilton
During George Washington's first term as President of the United States (1789-1793), Alexander Hamilton played a pivotal role as the first Secretary of the Treasury (1789=1795). His influence extended beyond financial policy, shaping the foundational structure of the new federal government. Here's a breakdown of his key contributions.

1. Establishing the National Financial System
• Hamilton's most significant achievement was stabilizing the young nation's economy through his bold financial policies.
• He developed the Report on Public Credit (1790), which proposed:
• The federal assumption of state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War.
• The issuance of new federal bonds to consolidate national debt and build public trust in the government's credit.
• The creation of a system of taxation, including tariffs and excise taxes (e.g., the controversial whiskey tax).
2. Founding the First Bank of the United States (1791)
• Hamilton spearheaded the creation of the First Bank of the United States, modeled after the Bank of England.
• The bank provided a stable currency, facilitated trade, and helped manage government funds.
• This move sparked major opposition, especially from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who viewed it as unconstitutional and a power grab by the federal government.
3. Laying the Foundation for American Industry
• In his Report on Manufactures (1791), Hamilton advocated for industrial development to reduce dependence on European goods.
• He pushed for protective tariffs, government subsidies, and infrastructure improvements to boost domestic manufacturing.
4. Establishing Federal Taxation and Revenue Collection
• To fund his financial programs, Hamilton introduced tariffs and excise taxes, including the infamous whiskey tax (which later led to the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794).
• These measures ensured a steady revenue stream for the federal government but also angered frontier farmers.
5. Defending the U.S. Constitution and Expanding Federal Power
• Hamilton was a strong advocate for a broad interpretation of the Constitution (loose constructionism), arguing that the federal government had implied powers to take actions necessary for national stability.
• His views clashed with Jefferson and Madison, who championed states' rights and a limited federal government.
6. Serving as Washington's Close Advisor
• Hamilton was arguably Washington's most trusted cabinet member, frequently influencing both domestic and foreign policy.
• He played a key role in advising Washington on responses to internal conflicts and foreign policy challenges, such as the French Revolution and America's neutrality in European wars.

Conclusion (Alexander Hamilton)
During Washington's first term, Hamilton transformed the U.S. from a financially unstable collection of states into a unified economic power with a strong federal government. His policies laid the groundwork for the modern American economy but also deepened the ideological divide between Federalists (led by Hamilton) and Democratic-Republicans (led by Jefferson and Madison)..

Summary
You can see from these descriptions that both men are not easily characterized by terms such as "liberal" or "conservative". A wider study suggests that the primary difference between these two men in shaping a government, including its necessary bureaucracy, is that Hamilton was open to the rule of law established by the Constitution, and through the consent of the governed acting through their elected representatives. An approach that has been the accepted practice since the founding of this government.

Musk (and Trump) on the other hand would introduce a top down hierarchy, where the control and direction of government is determined and centralized in the hands of one individual.

Bibliography:

• Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, The Federalist Papers
• Akhil Reed Amar, The Words That Made Us: America's constitutional conversation, 1760-1840
• Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton

Trump and Musk's reasons for reducing the size of the Federal Government are that their combined efforts will eliminate massive waste and fraud, and make the governing process more cost efficient. These are blatant lies. Here I present an in-depth analysis of the actual cost and efficiency of recent operations of the Federal government. These have been implemented by president Joe Biden's appointees, and the civil servants employed under his administration.

The real reason for decimating the infrastructure of the Federal Government is to have a few oligarchs, tech businesses and Heritage Foundation idealogues take control. They want to run the Federal Government unopposed in an authoritarian fashion to serve their own ends, as if it were simply another business venture. These are heartless individuals who would ignore the real needs of the people of this country, and allow the decimation of its environment, and that of the world's, in the process. They would abrogate our U.S. Constitution and ignore any laws legislated under that constitution by our elected representatives. They will attempt to destroy other individuals or groups who stand in their way, even if their opponents are sovereign nations.

QUESTION:
Before you read this analysis (which you can fact check), answer this question: What percentage of Federal income from tax revenues is spent as "overhead costs"?   5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, . . . or more?

ANSWER:
Note: Sorry, I can't explain the answer with an exclamatory remark like "Yee gods!!!" followed by several emojis, or even with a 140 character response. If you guess wrong, please don't attempt to justify your answer using some asinine argument that won't hold up under scrutiny.

And the following is true for most complex issues where problems arise: there are no simple answers. You must do the analysis and the math. Unless, of course, you prefer to believe what you hear and see on FOX NEWS entertainment media, or what your "friends" tell you.

Note:: The symbol " ~ " stands for "approximately".

1. Administrative Costs: Salaries, benefits, and operational costs of federal agencies. (Yes, this analysis includes government agencies!)
2. General Government Operations: Costs associated with Congress, the White House, and regulatory agencies. (Yes, this analysis includes government regulatory agencies, as well.)
3. Debt Service: Interest payments on national debt (not typically overhead, but a major cost).
4. Enforcement and Collection: IRS and other tax collection costs. (Note: this is also an "agency".)

Step 1: Identify Total Federal Spending and Tax Revenue

Based on recent data:

• Total Federal Spending (FY 2023): ~$6.1 trillion
• Total Federal Tax Revenue (FY 2023): ~$4.4 trillion
• Budget Deficit (FY 2023): ~$1.7 trillion

Step 2: Estimate Overhead Costs

• Office of Personnel Management (OPM) & Federal Employee Costs
• The federal government employs ~2.2 million civilian workers (excluding military).
• Average salary + benefits per worker: ~$100,000
• Estimated personnel cost: ~$220 billion
• General Government (Legislative, Executive, and Regulatory Agencies)
• Congressional Budget: ~$6 billion
• Executive Office of the President: ~$1 billion
• Regulatory agencies (SEC, EPA, etc.): ~$50 billion
• Debt Interest Payments (Not Directly Overhead but Necessary Cost)
• FY 2023 interest payments: ~$659 billion
• IRS & Tax Collection Costs
• IRS budget: ~$13 billion
• Tax collection efficiency: ~$40 collected per $1 spent (Note: overhead here is just 2.5%)

• Core administrative costs (civilian federal payroll, executive agencies, Congress, regulatory agencies, IRS): ~$290 billion
• Including interest on debt: ~$950 billion (though debt service isn't really "overhead")

Step 3: Calculate Overhead as a Percentage of Tax Revenue

Core Overhead Percentage
$290 billion / $ 4.4 trillion = ~ 6.6% (Yes, that's the answer, just 6.6%)

(290,000,000,000/4,400,000,000,000) x 100
or
(290E9 / 4.4E12) x 100 (on a scientific calculator)


Including Debt Interest (not typically considered overhead)
$950 billion / $4.4 trillion = ~ 21.6%

(950,000,000,000/4,400,000,000,000) x 100
or
(950E9 / 4.4E12) x100 (on a scientific calculator)

CONCLUSION:

The pure administrative overhead of running the federal government is about 6.6% of total tax revenue.

If we include debt service, the cost rises to about 21.6% of total tax revenue. This means that for every $1 collected in taxes, about 6.6 cents go toward administrative overhead, and another 15 cents go toward interest on the national debt.

The Federal Government does a great job of keeping operational overhead to a minimum. The average family unit or individual can't even operate at a cost of 6.6 percent of total income. Your credit card debt alone is running near 20 percent annual interest.

IMPORTANT NOTE: To curry your favor Trump wants to give out another "tax cut", which will raise the national debt even higher. He says he wants to pay for some of this by reducing or eliminating Federal aid programs (like US A.I.D. for example, or Medicaid, or school lunch programs), or by carrying the debt forward (most likely), which will cause the "tax cut" to be paid for in the future. Your kids will end up paying for your "tax cut".

The political problems that we are experiencing now on a daily basis have their root cause in the world of work. Many problems have arisen that have made this environment difficult for a large number of people seeking financial security. At their wits end, they are ready and willing to accept a simple promise of solutions, and also accept specious arguments about who is to blame for their predicament.

To solve these problems and to douse the current political firestorm, we really need to think outside the sandboxes in which the Democrats and Republicans are willing to play. To do this we must implement a new world order both strategically and tactically. The problems arising in the world of work are made even more difficult because they arise in a global and not simply a national context.

Daniel Susskind gives a very good description of the problems in his book "A World Without Work". Not only does he describe these problems but he looks into the thought processes we must accept in order to learn how to respond to these problems. Here is one of the opening paragraphs of Susskind's book.
__________

"It was John Maynard Keynes, the great British economist, who popularized the term "technological unemployment" almost 50 years before [Wassily] Leontief wrote down his worries [about the influence of technological change], [change that Keynes captured ] ... in a pithy pairing of words [which was] the idea that new technologies might push people out of work.

In what follows, I will draw on many of the economic arguments that have been developed since Keynes [tried] to gain a better look back at what happened in the past, and a clearer glimpse of what lies ahead. But I will also seek to go well beyond the narrow intellectual terrain inhabited by most economists working in this field. The future of work raises exciting and troubling questions that often have little to do to do with economics:[these are] questions about the nature of intelligence, about inequality and why it matters, about the political power of large technology companies, about what it means to live a meaningful life, and about how we might live together in a world that looks very different from the one in which we have grown up. In my view, any story about the future of work that fails to engage with these questions . . . is incomplete"
__________

So let's get engaged. It could be a great marriage.

We divide our approach into two categories: "strategic" and "tactical". Strategic goals are those which we will seek to attain after the mid-term elections in 2026. But expressing them now and over the next two years is what we need to do in order to win over the electorate to vote for our candidates for office.

Tactical goals are the ones we must implement now in order to win big in the mid-term elections, giving us the opportunity to pursue our strategic goals.

Strategic Goals:
1. Remove Trump and his cronies from office shortly after the mid-term election. This can be accomplished by impeaching and convicting Trump, and then arresting him on the conspiracy charges developed by Jack Smith's team.
2. Force Vance to resign or be impeached on charges of cooperating with the current unlawful Trump (2025) agenda. The Speaker of the House after the election will be a Democrat, and would assume the presidency with Trump gone and Vance having been forced to resign.
3. Institute a universal basic income for all Americans including those on a path to citizenship. No conditions otherwise. People want to work and want to be educated.
4. Institute universal healthcare for all people residing legally in the United States.
5. Document all undocumented residents of the United States and its territories.
6. Simplify the immigration pathway for those seeking immediate residency in the United States, such as those seeking asylum. Settle these immigrants in a city that they themselves will construct. Give them the responsibility of supporting themselves and deciding the rate at which this city can absorb additional immigrants. The only requirement is that immigrants commit to a five year residency, which results in qualifying for U.S. citizenship, and fluency in the English language. Monies that now are being wasted to keep people out can be invested to help bootstrap the city into existence. In a short time, this approach will pay for itself though local, state, and federal taxes based on the business activities of the city.
7. Send troops to the Latin American countries harboring cartels and gangs that are forcing people to flee to our Southern Border. Rid these countries of lawlessness and restore order and the ability for the lawful citizens of these countries to live and work there.
8. Implement a tax structure that taxes income over a million dollars a year at exponentially high rates, and a wealth tax for people whose assets total over one hundred million dollars. We need to get rid of the billionaire class and raise the incomes of people responsible for producing this wealth.
9. Provide for a tuition free continued public education system after high school that will serve this country's needs for an educated and enlightened workforce. No age limit as people will require life long learning opportunities to keep pace with technology. Paid leave from jobs will help foster life long learning.
10. Reward schools that provide an education that is individualized, self-paced, and mastery oriented. Schools that provide education plus community services should be a central part of communities, open on a 24/7 year round basis, and meet parents' and caregivers' needs for child care.

Tactical Goals:
1. Organize to win a super majority of seats in the House, and a majority of seats in the Senate in the coming mid-term elections.
2. Make our strategic goals known to the electorate in no uncertain terms.
3. Confront Trumps executive orders with legal challenges at every turn.
4. Challenge Musk's U.S. citizenship and work to have it revoked.
5. Encourage a boycott of the purchase of the Tesla brand of motor vehicles.
6. Provide social media coverage of our goals even if it means creating our own versions of existing social media free of advertising. PBS might possibly be expanded to construct and maintain such media with our financial support.
7. Boycott media sites that promote division and misinformation including X and Facebook. Promote targeted boycotts of Amazon.

To solve a problem you must understand the nature of the system in which it arises. The source of our current political crisis is not simply the mishandling of government by Trump and his supporters. Those misguided attempts to rectify perceived economic and social problems are merely the symptoms of a much more complex interplay of variables. This interplay amounts to the series of technological changes that we are currently experiencing on a worldwide scale.

The system we are looking at includes people who can think for themselves and those who can't. Those who can't outnumber those who can. Those who can't lean in the direction of strong leadership that promises to support them. In particular those who can't seek security of person and financial security. That is what is being promised to the disaffected. In addition, at home, the government of the United States is being blamed for their lack of both physical and financial security. This is of course nonsense, but they have no way of evaluating this premise when their primary sources of information are replete with a lack of information and outright disinformation.

The other side has the means to interpret information - notably reliable sources that they trust, but are "intellectual" in nature. Sources like the PBS NewsHour, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, or any of a large number of reliable people and websites. The problem with this approach, however, is that the individual must take the initiative to seek out and find reliable sources like these. The individual needs to be able to read, and listen, and analyze what they are seeing and hearing. But, because of a significant failure of our education system, those on the other side are not capable of doing this.

There is more, much more, needed to understand the problem. The economic foundation of the last century in the United States, and worldwide, is shifting under our feet. Those who can are able to adjust., but there are many who cannot, and they make up the "cannot" population seeking financial security. Why this is happening is discussed in Daniel Susskind's book "A World Without Work: technology, automation, and how we should respond".

Add to this the globalization of economics, and we have a worldwide shift in how the world supports itself economically. This has generated a rapid rise in the inequality of incomes at home. This has been worsened by the manner in which businesses have been run by people like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and the tech magnates in particular. Thomas Piketty has described this new economic order in his "Capital in the Twenty-first Century". The consequences thereof have been described by Joseph E. Stiglitz in his "The Price of Inequality: how today's divided society endangers our future.

What you are seeing unfolding in the new Trump administration is an attempt by some people to rectify these perceived inequalities with an approach that is retrograde in nature. They want to stop this shift by falling back on the values that have served us in the past, not well of course, but sufficient enough to suppress dissent on a wide scale. They are doomed to failure because we cannot rely on the economics of the past, nor on our tendency to use brute force when it comes to solving problems of security. Under the new global order that is taking place, the old solutions simply will not work.

We had better learn how to adjust to this new world order, or the result will be utter world chaos. We need to figure out how we are going to equitably distribute resources to a world population in a highly technological environment, one with the absence of work as we have known it.

Trump is playing dictator just like he said he would. This is no time to roll over and play dead. It's a time to stand up for the democracy we are supposed to be and say "No" to the nonsense flowing from his mouth and pen, and overcome the reluctance of your representatives in government to do anything to stop this fascist behavior.

If everyone working for the Federal government just refused to accept his "orders", what could he do? Send Stephen Miller over to threaten them with expulsion? Send the Capitol Police over to arrest them? (Ha, fat chance.)

Wear a sweatshirt that states "JUST SAY NO" and continue doing your job. Hold your nose and act like Andrew (pew!) Jackson who figuratively told the Supreme Court re the case "Worcester v. Georgia," (1832), "You made the law, You enforce it". We could end up with another "Trail of Tears" if government sides with the dictatorial pronouncements of Trump.

He is not yet president of the United States and he is threatening to use the U.S. military to take the Panama Canal from Panama, Greenland from Denmark, and then simply annex Canada and make it the 51st state. In addition he wants to rename The Gulf of Mexico, "The Gulf of America". What's next, "The American Ocean"?

He is already making the United States the laughing stock of the entire world, and he has not yet set foot in The White House. That laughter will turn to outright indignation and retaliation as soon as he does. This man is a grave threat to world order. He is sounding more and more like Hitler shortly before the Second World War. Trump has placed Panama in the position that Hitler placed Czechoslovakia. Trump's wanting Denmark's Greenland duplicates Hitler's desire for Poland. And Trump's coveting Canada was Hitler's desire to acquire the vast territory that was Russia at the time, minus the Russians. Trump even used the same words as Hitler to justify his claims: "security" and room for expansion": Sicherheit und Lebensraum.

And then Trump's "final solution" - the forced exportation of an uncountable number of Latinos who will be forced to forfeit their rights under the law, their jobs, their property, their family lives, and possibly their very own lives at the hands of Federal agents, all in an effort in to make our nation Aryan pure again.

Where does this pseudo Hitler rising from the ashes of Berlin stop? Four years of him destroying our country, along with its reputation for actively opposing dictatorships, is not acceptable. You all had better speak up now, otherwise Russia and China will be ridding us of this dictator in the same way we and our Allies rid Europe of theirs 80 years ago. Only it won't result in a liberation that any of us will appreciate.

"A blustering fellow more insolent than courageous : one given to hectoring, browbeating and threatening: especially : One habitually threatening, harsh, or cruel [beyond words] to others weaker or smaller than himself."

There is no doubt that Putin and Putin's Russia is a bully. The question is: What are we going to do about it?

When I was a kid in a steel town in central Pennsylvania (Coatesville), there were always bullies in the schoolyard and in the Park where we kids played. What did we do about it? Well, we often got beat up. It was especially humiliating to have the beating occur as our friends stood by and looked on.

Growing up in a steel town was a seasoning experience. Especially when I didn't have any parents to come home to (my brother and I lived with our grandmother). If the occasion arose you had to stand your ground or be shunned. If that meant taking a beating, so be it. You were compelled to fight your own battles. Friends from the sidelines might shout encouragement, but that was it in the form of assistance.

The best strategy as it turned out was to fight back, ferociously, regardless of the bully's size. I soon discovered that more often than not this tactic worked. The bully would curse at you and then walk off. This was not a good strategy if more than one of them were together. Then the best thing to do was run like hell. If the bully's companion was about my size or smaller, however, I stayed to fight.

Once, as a young kid, I was hawking newspapers on a Coatesville downtown street. I was carrying all the cash I'd made that morning selling an armful of papers. Only a few were left: "Record. Coatesville Record. Get your Coatesville Record here", I shouted.

Two guys approached me from behind and walked on either side of me. The big guy (head and shoulders above me) told me to give him my money or else: I won't go into details. The other guy slightly smaller than me kept nudging me from my other side. I sized up my alternatives. The big guy was on my left. I switched the remaining papers to my left hand. Then swung my fist up and into the bug guy's jaw with as much force as a skinny 11 year old could muster. He buckled backwards holding his jaw and the other kid ran. I chased him.

Fact is, I'm still alive today writing you this.

Putin and Belarus are the two guys on Zelenskyy's sides. He has punched Putin in the face. The result is Putin's battering Zelenskyy with missiles from afar while the rest of us stand by and watch, shouting words of encouragement while throwing him toothpicks with which to defend himself. Biden looking on yells that "Putin cannot remain in power". The headline in today's Wall Street Journal screams "Biden's Remark on Putin Stirs Anxiety Among Western Allies." Zelenskyy as much calls us chicken shits: "cowards" to be exact. He's right.

Let's cut the bullshit and stop this incessant killing of innocent men, women, and children that we watch with shock and awe on TV every day. We should not be content to watch. We are acting like kids. We ought to be acting like parents.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-officials-rush-to-clarify-bidens-comment-on-russias-putin-11648401478?page=1&fbclid=IwAR2YbQX2J3e1DkUHp2I59FzVZqv2HbLSTjSFTvn-2_Ay1pay_iLe9q9iCz8

Putin's plan was to overrun Ukraine with superior numbers and military hardware in just a few days. This included taking Kyiv, eradicating Zelenskyy , eliminating the democratically elected government, and intimidating the rest of the country by immediately placing Russian troops in all the major cities in Ukraine. With those troops in place, and military rule the order of the day, it would be difficult  if not impossible to rid the country of a Russian presence. Blitzkrieg.

Not so fast said the well-trained Ukrainian military, and Russia's plan A has been abandoned by default. Plan B, bombing civilians, is the ad hoc response: not a good choice. It's like having the tree you just cut down fall on you.

Putin implies he will use tactical nuclear weapons if his troops in Ukraine are attacked. But he is not stupid. Now it's NATO's turn to attack. Tell Russia  they have 24 hours to get out, or they will face the consequences of an all out war with NATO; this does not have to be a bluff. And that withdrawal should include the separatists in the provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk.

The future becomes untenable the longer Russia is given the upper hand in Ukraine. NATO will necessarily be drawn into a wider conflict not of its choosing, and without its current favorable military position. Russia will annex Moldova next, and gain the time necessary to recruit military support from Syria and China.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/06/us/politics/us-ukraine-weapons.html

With All due Respect to Boris Johnson

Nothing short of war is going to have any significant impact on Putin's empire building decisions. Furthermore the majority of the Russian populace believe in and support Putin; they are not about to  overthrow him for what he is doing in Ukraine.

Russia, in spite of any sanctions levied on it, has the  energy, agricultural, mineral and industrial resources  to carry on quite independently. Moreover, Russia's empire building is fully supported and even led by China. Russia also has significant moral and economic support from African nations.

Take notice: what we have right now is a reprise of the conditions that prefaced WW II, when  Germany threatened the western hemisphere and Japan the eastern half.

This time, however, a world war with nuclear arms would assure the devastation of all humanity. The Ukraine of 2022 is the Czechoslovakia of 1938. We simply cannot afford to retrace  the path we took into WW II.  We need to forcefully demonstrate that the democracies of the world will not tolerate the reprise of Hitler's imperial vision.

We can only accomplish this by force of arms. Half of Russia's army is concentrated in the Ukraine, outside the Russian mainland. Putin has at least the  option of withdrawing his troops if he is placed under military duress  Now is the time to strike with the least probability of forcing a nuclear holocaust in the future, and at the same time give immediate pause to China's imperial ambitions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/06/opinion/boris-johnson-russia-putin-ukraine-war.html

GEOPOLITICS 101

We are in a race with Russia and China for whose form of government will dominate the world for generations to come.

Both Putin an Xi represent a top down form of government where people are ruled by dictators. We have been working for years to develop a bottom up form of government where rules for behavior are determined by the people themselves.

Today we face a direct challenge to our way of life and our influence on the other countries of the world by Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Today, 01 March 2022, the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, made an appeal to the United States for direct military intervention: troops not simply munitions.

In his own words, broadcast on CNN, he said that  the Ukrainian people are fighting valiantly but cannot possibly hold out alone against the overwhelming manpower and military might of Russia. And that he needed an additional military presence, the United States in particular, to win this war.

As Putin invaded Ukraine, social media in China rejoiced at his bravado. Those expressing this praise are mostly young adults who have  come of age knowing  nothing but dictatorship, censorship, and the absence of freedom of self expression.

These are the people who will soon become officers of rank in the Chinese military, or play a role as leading figures in the Chinese Communist Party. They are closely studying the responses of the United States and other democracies to China's territorial incursions, and the political and territorial incursions of other dictatorships around the world.

They are looking for evidence of strength in dictatorships and weakness in democracies. In the past twenty years dictatorships have shown nothing but healthy growth, while democracies have been prone to self destruction. The young Chinese population is rooting for Putin, and hand-in-hand, the demise of democracy in the United States.

The problem, as supporters of dictatorships see it, is the inefficiency of a democratic way of life. The truth is that you can't have freedom of choice without inefficiencies. You can't run a democracy like you can a corporation. Democracies are slow to act, even on important matters, because all opinions need be taken into consideration: even those of the uninformed. In this country today, being uniformed even seems to be a highly regarded state of mind.

However, there are some matters that cannot wait to be hashed out in endless detail, especially where the evidence for action is clear, and history is a clear guide to the future. Ukraine is one of those matters.

We cannot afford to wait for another Pearl Harbor to awaken our fighting spirit, Ukraine will be gone as well as many other smaller countries in Eastern Europe, South America, and Southeast Asia. Couple that with the nuclear threat that will be posed by Iran and North Korea and you can kiss any hope for a democratically governed world goodbye.

Any military historian can give you many examples of how hesitation to act on the battlefield when the opportunity presented itself has resulted in the prolongation of a war. Our own Civil War is rife with examples of this sort in the Union cause. I recommend "Grant" by Ron Chernow for documented evidence thereof. And no one need be reminded of the incursions of Germany under Hitler and Japan as predictors of WW II.

We need to act now, today, to stop Putin. We have half of Putin's army parked on a forty mile stretch of highway  leading to Kyiv. Destroy that and Putin's little war will come to a sudden halt. All this without touching the Russian mainland directly. Otherwise we sit and watch and offer our "thoughts  and prayers" to those remnants of families streaming once again into Western Europe, leaving piles of Stinger and Javelin missiles in the hands of Russian troops.

What a waste of years of NATO preparation for just this sort of conflict. And the Chinese and other dictatorships around the world will be throwing parties in Putin's honor.