BLAST FROM THE PAST: So, allowing Putin to Dictate Foreign Policy to NATO members is the Better Choice? Caving into Despots always ends well.

As you read the content below, keep in mind the "Governments" that have allied themselves with Putin and his repressive regime. As we have seen in the Hate Speech and Public Statements by the Political and Religious Leadership of certain Countries regarding the LBTGQ COMMUNITIES within their Borders, Fascism takes on different forms. Sometimes it is behind a Lectern, other times a Pulpit. One thing never changes: Do what we say, when we say it, and maybe you'll get along. RIGHTS, HUMANITARIAN GOALS AND CREATING LAWS AND PUBLIC POLICIES THAT BENEFIT ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE SOMETHING FASCISTS CARE NOTHING ABOUT. All that matters is Power, and how to keep it.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

LET'S lay this one out:

NATO is a Treaty Organization created to protect its members from possible Foreign Invasion. (Which, at its creation, WAS THE U.S.S.R AND ITS SATELLITE PUPPET GOVERNMENTS.)

So, with the breakdown of the U.S.S.R, former IRON CURTAIN COUNTRIES SUCH AS POLAND, THE CZECH REPUBLIC, AND GERMANY joined NATO. Given the recent history of THESE COUNTRIES BEING SUBJECT TO THE TYRANNIES OF STALIN AND HITLER, allying yourself with other DEMOCRACIES for mutual protection would seem to be a NO-BRAINER.

With the recent invasion of UKRAINE BY PUTIN, it would seem to be a pretty smart move, considering the fact that the rest of the world has apparently forgotten the LESSONS LEARNED BY THE CONFLICTS OF THE 20th CENTURY.  LESSONS SUCH AS:

APPEASING OR BACKING DOWN TO SOCIOPATHIC HEADS OF STATE, WILL NOT MAKE THEM:

- MORE REASONABLE IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION.

- WILLING TO IMPLEMENT "HUMANITARIAN POLICIES."

-  PURSUE LESS AGGRESSIVE FOREIGN POLICIES THAT WILL 

ENSURE NO FURTHER DIRECT PHYSICAL INTERVENTION

INTO THE SOVEREIGNTY OF OTHER NATIONS.

Current NATO Countries and the Years They Joined:

Note: * indicates a founding member

Country	Joined		Country	Joined
Albania	2009		Lithuania	2004
Belgium	1949*		Luxembourg	1949*
Bulgaria	2004		Montenegro	2017
Canada	1949*		Netherlands	1949*
Croatia	2009		North Macedonia	2020
Czech Republic	1999		Norway	1949*
Denmark	1949*		Poland	1999
Estonia	2004		Portugal	1949*
France	1949*		Romania	2004
Germany	1955		Slovakia	2004
Greece	1952		Slovenia	2004
Hungary	1999		Spain	1982
Iceland	1949*		Turkey	1952
Italy	1949*		United Kingdom	1949*
Latvia	2004		United States	1949*

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ABOVE LIST, ASK YOURSELF THESE QUESTIONS:

- HOW MANY WERE FORCED BY MILITARY INVASION OR PHYSICAL INTIMIDATION

TO JOIN NATO? 

- SO NATO IS A THREAT TO RUSSIA? PERHAPS YOU CAN LIST FOR ME THE NUMBER OF

MEMBER  NATIONS THAT INVADED ANOTHER SOVEREIGN COUNTRY, AND SEIZED 

CONTROL OF ITS GOVERNMENT?

- HOW MANY OF THESE NATIONS SUFFERED THE TYRANNIES OF THE U.S.S.R,  NAZI

GERMANY, OR OTHER FASCIST REGIMES BEFORE, DURING, OR AFTER WW2, AND WILL

CLAIM THAT THEY WERE COERCED INTO JOINING?

AT THE SAME TIME, THINK OF HOW OFTEN THESE COUNTRIES SUFFERED BECAUSE OF POLICIES AND AN AGENDA DIRECTED BY A HEAD OF STATE SITUATED IN MOSCOW?

...WHAT WILL THE EXCUSE BE WHEN PUTIN DECIDES TO PUT ANOTHER COUNTRY ON HIS SHOPPING LIST, AND LIES THROUGH HIS TEETH ABOUT HOW IT WAS NECESSARY TO INVADE, TO PROTECT RUSSIA?

I REALLY SUGGEST THAT PICKING UP A HISTORY BOOK MIGHT "ENLIGHTEN" SOME WORLD LEADERS AS TO WHAT COULD BE LOST, IF WE CHOOSE TO THINK THAT THE PUTINS AND TRUMPS OF THIS WORLD CAN BE TRUSTED.

RI Heritage Hall of Fame pumps brakes on honoring Michael Flynn.

 BOSTON GLOBE: 

After facing outrage for honoring Trump’s disgraced former national security advisor, the orgainzation said in a statement that it will “defer Flynn’s induction to a more peaceful and rational time and a more secure place. 

I am not going to go into the Body of the rest of the Article, except to point out the reasoning skills offered in the following Quote;

“A majority of the board that voted to induct Flynn relied upon his 30-year record of public service and high attainments,” Conley wrote. “It accepted as true the grant of clemency from the president of the United States asserting that no crime was actually committed..."

Sorry to point this out, but an act of clemency or a pardon from the President, IS NOT PROOF OF INNOCENCE. IT IS BASICALLY AN ACT OF FORGIVENESS FOR CRIMINAL ACTIONS. TRUMP PARDONED THE ACTIONS OF AN INDIVIDUAL WHO COMMITTED CRIMES HE ADMITTED TO, THAT BENEFITTED TRUMP.

STATISTICS AND POLLS. Rules to live by. #1.

 MANIPULATING THE RESULTS IS TO EASY.

This should be a given, but it is often not reported or ignored.  Poll results can be greatly influenced by the Tactics of those conducting them.

Example-  How often do you hear a poll prefaced by words like...

"... among registered..."

"...survey of likely voters..."

"...who identify themselves as.."

"...popularity among age groups..."

What do they all have in common? They tell us virtually nothing.

-  Where did the questioning take place?  Particularly, the "COMMUNITY."  Even in a small city or town, political differences can vary greatly, so knowing the exact locations can give us an indication about the validity of reported results.

-  How much of the information acquired about those who were interviewed or polled, was self- reported or unverifiable?

-  What were the guidelines or standards set that could disqualify an individuals answers from being included in the final results?

-  If there was more than a single question asked, was each individual asked ALL of them, or did previous answers influence the length of the interview?

-  What protocols were in place to guarantee that the Interviewers or Pollsters followed proper procedures?

NEVER ASSUME THAT  POLL RESULTS, EVEN IF THEY ARE IN FAVOR OF YOUR POINT OF VIEW, WERE CONDUCTED WITHOUT BIAS, WITH ALL SIDES TREATED FAIRLY. TO OFTEN THIS LEAVES US WONDERING..."WHERE DID IT ALL GO WRONG?"

REQUESTED REPOST: Can you legally be kicked out of a restaurant for praying before a meal?...I answered this question on QUORA.

I have had a request to repost this Article because of the Current Controversy regarding the Concept of Freedom of Religion as it relates to the U.S. CONSTITUTION. 

                                        XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Can you legally be kicked out of a restaurant for praying before a meal if the people at the table next to you are bothered by your praying and complain to the manager and the manager asks you to leave?

Yes, but it is not the subject matter itself that would be judged by the Legal System, but how the behavior itself was manifested. You have the RIGHT TO PRAY ANYWHERE YOU WANT.

However, you do not have the Right to create a disturbance that a reasonable person would object to, given the TIME, PLACE, and CIRCUMSTANCES.

It may be alright to scream out your devotions in Church, but not in a public area where all Americans expect freedom from the Ill-Mannered and Rude individuals who are disrupting the experience.

Praying at normal conversation tones would and should be tolerated until the words turn into a form of intimidation that crosses the line, either by Volume and/or Content, or disrupts the proceedings that prevent others from receiving the benefits that brought them to such a Meeting, Event, or Learning Experience.

If the manager kicked you out for simply engaging in a Religious Conversation he would be opening himself up for Legal Actions that he would find hard to defend in Court.

AGAIN: TIME, PLACE, CIRCUMSTANCES.