Introduction

During his first days in office President Trump signed over 50 executive orders.  While new presidents start their terms with executive orders, the extent and direction of President Trump’s orders is “Trumpian!”  All media outlets are talking about the President’s executive orders.  Pundits are speculating on the legality and impact of these directives.  In the following posts I will discuss each executive order, consider why it was signed, present the positives and negatives of each order, and consider the unforeseen consequences good and bad! 

National Energy Emergency

Signed on January 20, this order declares a national energy emergency.  The Trump administration claims that there is an inadequate energy supply and infrastructure, blaming the previous administration.  The order redefines “energy” to include crude oil, natural gas, refined petroleum products, uranium, coal biofuels, geothermal heat, and hydropower.  It excludes wind and solar power.  Federal agencies are directed to use statutory emergency powers to authorize and develop energy projects.  Agencies can claim powers granted through the Defense Production Act and eminent federal domain claims. 

The order directs the Environmental Protection Agency to allow year-round sale of E-15 gasoline.  It also requires that federal agencies consider the environmental impact of energy projects on wildlife and economic costs.

Why?

Candidate Trump regularly made statements degrading wind and solar sources of energy.  He promoted fossil fuel with his “drill baby, drill.”  This order fulfills his promise to his political base.

Positives

The order favors year-long use of E-15 gasoline which supports the farm based ethanol industry.  It also includes apparent safeguards for wildlife.  One could also argue that through the encouragement of exploration of our own natural resources, America will become less reliant on foreign resources.

Negatives

The continued development of new resources increases the rate that these resources are depleted.  There is a limited amount of most of our natural resources, geothermal heat and hydro power being the exceptions.  In addition, the damage to the environment by expanding oil drilling, fracking, and mining cannot be underestimated.  The exclusion of wind and solar from the energy list makes NO sense.  Both are sources of energy that are limitless and are carbon neutral.

Birthright Citizenship

Signed January 20, the Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship does away with citizenship for children born of undocumented immigrants or of immigrants with temporary status. 

Why?

That is a good question! 

Positives

I personally see nothing positive in this executive order.

Negatives

This order is in direct violation of the 14^th Amendment, which states that anyone born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.  In addition, the United States Supreme Court confirmed the amendment in the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark.  This order creates two distinct groups, one with citizen rights and another without these rights.  America’s world reputation as a nation that upholds human rights and equality is at stake.

Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) 

This order was signed on January 20.  This order established a new department.  The charge to this new department is to modernize government technology and improve efficiency.  The office will achieve these goals by reducing waste, bloat, and insularity within other government entities.  Using the early retirement mandate, agencies will be able to hire only 1 employee for every 4 that leave government service.  All agencies are required to develop plans for workforce reductions with a focus on reducing diversity initiatives and nonessential functions.  DOGE will work with all agencies to ensure implementation.  The United States Digital Service (USDS) became the United States DOGE Service. This operation will work to implement the President’s 18-month DOGE agenda.  By July 4, 2026, this group will modernize software to improve efficiency of government software, network infrastructure and IT systems.  The group will seek to establish interoperability among government agencies ensuring seamless data sharing. 

Why?

The inefficiency of the federal government, along with bloat, has been a public concern for decades.  Republican legislators have placed government reduction and efficiency at the top of their agenda as well.  There is little doubt that a bureaucracy as large as our federal government has inefficiencies, and media headlines have pointed out government failures.  In signing this executive order, the President delivers on a campaign promise that satisfies his political base and, on the surface, should satisfy other Americans concerned with government waste and inefficiency.

Positives

Given the perception of government inefficiency and waste held by many Americans, this new agency should be welcomed as a positive move. The department could make a difference through efforts to eliminate insularity, duplication of tasks, and in general, wasteful spending.  Standardization of IT throughout the government would likely improve the quality of services. Taxpayers would save money.  The national debt could be reduced. Perhaps trust in the government would be improved.  Fraud might be detected, leading to a more honest government.

Negatives

While the positives are evident, the implementation of the new agency’s’ goals is imperiled by the overly aggressive attack that was initiated by its director.  A velvet glove approach rather than a sledgehammer would have made this new department a partner rather than a demolition machine. Privacy issues have been raised as DOGE demands access to sensitive data, including Social Security numbers, tax records, and medical records.  There are also concerns about DOGE’s unregulated changes to programs already approved by Congress.  Many critics have raised legal issues given what appears to be arbitrary and capricious political control of government payments.  Congress, not the executive branch, was given the power of the purse by the Constitution.  To date, DOGE has announced plans to eliminate thousands of career federal jobs.  Federal agencies have been reduced to almost nothing (USAID, for example).  There are also questions about safeguards to protect sensitive information.  DOGE has personnel who may not have been vetted before given access to secure computing systems.  To be continued!

Israel, Zionism:  The Illogical Battle for Land

By

Robert Fischer

Introduction

Most people have very little understanding of what is behind the chaos in the Middle East.  What we see is a conflict that involves Israel, Iran, sometime other Arab states, and organizations claiming to represent the Palestinian State.  What we often do not see is the people who live in these countries.  They are the innocent victims of various government efforts to maintain or gain control over what some call historic lands.  These people are predominately Muslims, Jews, and Christians.  All worship the same God!  Christianity was born out of Judaism.  Muslims accept Jesus as a great profit.  The people can and do get along and live side by side. 

Historical Background

So, what is the problem?  To understand the present, it is necessary to consider the historical past.  The area we call the Middle East has a long, colorful, and violent history.  It would take volumes to record it all.  The following is a limited timeline for the area which would eventually be called Israel.  Originally the lands called Israel were populated by perhaps two groups of people.  The north was called Samaria and the south the Kingdom of Judah.  Judah was conquered by the Babylonians in 586 BC.  Samaria was absorbed into the Assyrian Empire in 772 BC.  Some of the people we now refer to as Israelites were exiled to Babylon.  Many eventually returned to Judah.  In 332 BC Alexander the Great conquered much of the middle east, including the old kingdom of Judea.  The people of Judea were split into traditional Israelites and those who were Hellenized.  By 64 BC the Romans had conquered Judea, claiming it as a Roman Province in 6CE.  The Roman conflict with the Jewish population resulted in the Romans forcing many Jews to migrate.  Jews were now a minority in all areas except Galilee.

The point of the preceding information is that there may have been a historic land occupied by Judeans.  The Jewish faith was practiced by the descendants of Joseph.  However, it would be difficult to claim that today’s Jewish people have a historic right to exist as a nation.  This argument would be like saying that the Creek Indians have an historic right to the land of Georgia since they were there long before the arrival of Europeans.  Or perhaps a claim by the Roman Catholic Church that the Papal States should be returned to Vatican governance.  However, it is historically accurate to say that the Jewish people have always occupied the land.  Sometimes they were a nation.  Other times they were subjects of a conquering power, and sometimes many of the Jews were enslaved or exiled.

So where did the idea of a Jewish homeland come from and why is it an issue today? 

In the late 19^th century, Jewish thinkers in Eastern Europe sought ways to move beyond their oppressed status.  Some of these leaders suggested that Jews should embrace the nations where they lived and work to excel as people of those nations.   However, Rabbinic Jewish leaders continued to promote the Biblical stories of exile.  The way forward was to remain true to their historic Jewish roots.  The Jews would live in their exile nations but remain true to the Jewish traditions.  A third path was championed by Theodor Herzl and was called Zionism.  This 1880s movement called for a binational Palestine.  The Jews and Arabs would occupy the Palestinian territory as equals.  The problem with all three approaches was a continuing anti-Jewish thread in many European nations, and Russia in particular.

The British colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain sought to solve the problem by suggesting that a nation be created for the Jewish people in what was known as the British colony of Uganda.  Herzl presented Chamberlain’s plan at the Sixth World Zionist Congress in 1903.  He presented the proposal as way for the Jewish people to escape antisemitism.  However, strict Zionists insisted that their historic land was given to them by the God of Abraham, and they would only be interested in returning to Israel.  The British Colony of Uganda also opposed the idea.  The proposal died.  However, the Jewish Territorial Organization was established with the purpose of finding a solution to the Jewish problem.

Then during WW I, the British needed allies to assist in the war effort against the Axis, particularly Turkey.  Enter Sir Thomas Edward Lawrence and his work with the Arab tribes.  The British promised Arab allies that they would have an independent and united Arab country in order to gain their support against the Turks.  At the same time the British also promised to create a Jewish national home as conceived in the Balfour Declaration of 1917.  The Jewish immigration into Palestine increased through the 1930s.  The large numbers of Jewish people entering Palestine caused major conflicts with the Palestinian Arabs.  From 1936-39 the Arab revolt resulted in significant attacks on both Jews and the British.

The problem was exacerbated with the growth of the Nazi Party, and their anti-Jewish program became the Holocaust.  Following the defeat of Germany, many Jewish people were displaced and had to be absorbed into the European world or migrate to America.  The other option was to migrate to Palestine where other Jewish people were already living. 

What Went Wrong?

That solution may not have been so bad.  However, the British Palestinian protectorate was also the home of Herzl’s Zionism dream.  With the rather rapid arrival of Jewish immigrants, many Palestinians were displaced.  Zionist militias violently displaced over 800,00 Palestinians. Fear of a Jewish takeover resulted in unrest and conflict between the Jewish people and the native Palestinians.  The British, under the new leadership of Queen Elizabeth, was recovering from its war costs.  Prime Minister Churchill and the new Queen differed in their opinion regarding the British territories.  The Queen began the process of divesting direct control over many of its provinces.  Palestine, with its internal conflict, was deemed a situation that needed a solution.  Therefore, the nation of Israel was created in 1948 within the Palestinian Protectorate.  The creation of Israel was supported by the United Nations and seen as a solution to the Jewish problems as well as a way to reduce the Palestinian/Jewish conflicts.  The Partition Plan called for splitting Palestine into two states with slightly more than half the land proposed as a Jewish state.  While the Jews accepted the Partition Plan, the Arab League did not. This was the beginning of the civil war between the Jews and Arabs.  As a result of the 1948 Arab Israeli War, Israel achieved a significant victory, claiming all of Palestine except the West Bank and Gaza.  Seven hundred thousand Palestinians were forced to leave Israel.

The Arab Objectives and Conflict

Thus began the Arab efforts to keep Palestinian territory for Palestinians.  In 1956, Nasser of Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal.  Joined by France and Britain, Israel invaded Egypt.  The Soviet Union and United States brokered a peace agreement.  The canal was reopened in 1957.  In 1967 the “Six-Day-War” began after Egypt blocked shipping in the Gulf of Aqaba.  Israel attacked Egyptian airfields and invaded the Sinai Peninsula.  Jordan joined forces with Egypt.  Israel dominated the fighting, having destroyed most of Egypt’s air force.  In 1972, Black September attacked the Olympic Village in Munich, where Israel’s athletes were housed.  Eleven Israeli were killed.  In 1973 the Yom Kippur War occurred when an alliance of Egypt and Syria attacked Israel on the Yom Kippur Holiday.  The United States came to Israel’s aid and the invaders were ousted.

The Great Hope for Peace

 In 1978, President Jimmy Carter forged a peace agreement between Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin.  Israel would withdraw from the Sinai and the Palestinian would have self-government in the West Bank and Gaza.   Ten years later, Palestinians, still hoping for real self-government, rebelled with protests, and civil disobedience.  Israel reacted with a military crackdown.  The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) continued to cause unrest wanting Palestinian autonomy.  In 1993 the PLO, under Yasser Arafat, and Israel, under Yitzhak Rabin, agreed to a process to allow for Palestinian self-rule.  The Palestinian Authority was created with the PLO as the negotiating partner.  But the issue of Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank were left unresolved.

The Beginning of “The Hatfield’s and McCoy’s

In 1995 Rabin was assassinated by a right-wing Jewish national who opposed the two-state solution.  Unrest continued as the Jerusalem and settlement problems were not resolved.  In 2006 the Hamas organization, a militant group, won legislative seats in Gaza.  This led to friction with the Fatah Party (successor to the PLO) in the West Bank.  Then in 2007, Israel, in reaction to the Hamas power in Gaza, imposed a blockade on the Gaza Strip.  Israel also increased its control over the West Bank where more than 500,000 Jews were living in illegal settlements.  In 2008, Israel attacked Gaza following a rocket attack by Hamas where they used weapons supplied by Egypt.  Tension never lessoned.  In 2012, Israel killed Hamas’ military leader.  Hamas responded with a series of rocket attacks.  And in 2014, Hamas captured and killed three Israeli teenagers.  In 2017, President Trump recognized Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, causing outrage among the Palestinians.  In 2018, Gazan protesters began subtle attacks into Israel.  Israel responded with a raid into Gaza.  Hamas fired rockets into Israel in retaliation.  In 2021, Israeli police raided the al-Aqqa Mosque in Jerusalem, following weeks of tension and protests.  Hamas again fired rockets toward Jerusalem.  Israel retaliated with airstrikes in Gaza.  In 2022, West Bank Palestinians began a series of attacks.  Israel responded with the “Break the Wave” operation in the West Bank.  In December, Benjamin Netanyahu was sworn in as prime minister for his sixth term.  The government he heads has been described as the most far-right Israeli government since the creation of the nation.  In January 2023, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) raided Jenin.  The Palestinian response occurred the next day.  All the “tit-for-tat eventually led to what we see today!

So Where Are We Today?

The conflict rages on!  Innocent civilians have been killed on both sides.  However, the greatest casualties are among the Palestinians.  The Netanyahu government seems intent on putting an end to the “feud’.  His goal is the elimination of all those in political/military power who oppose the idea of Israel.  The two-state solution is no longer an option.  Within the last few days, Israel has informed the United States that it will seek peace only when Israel is allowed to maintain a military/police presence in the Palestinian areas and Lebanon.   They are also demanding that the Israeli Airforce be given permission to operate in Lebanon’s airspace. 

The goal seems simple, but too many innocent civilians, now including Lebanese Christians, have died.  The final question must be– How long will the United States continue to supply Israel with the weapons it needs to conduct their campaign.  Of course, the United States must consider the Iranian threat and its support of Hamas and Hezbollah, but at what cost?

By

Robert Fischer

Education and Democracy in the 17^th and 18^th Century America

Education is the process whereby a society teaches its members the knowledge skills that are necessary to function in that culture.  There are two broad categories of education.  Formal education or schooling is provided in a formal setting teaching prescribed topics.  The second category is informal education.  This is education gained through experiences.  Much of this informal education is found in the home or workplace.

Education in the colonies and early America was far from consistent or formal.  The northern colonies were heavily populated by Puritans who valued education, with 70% of men being literate. For Puritans, education was needed so that their congregations could read the Bible and be involved citizens.  Massachusetts mandated that every town of over 50 families support an elementary school for boys and girls, and towns with over 100 families support Latin to prepare boys for the ministry and law practice.  Subjects for both boys and girls included reading, writing, and religion.  Girls, in some cases, were taught sewing and social “graces.”   Boys were allowed to continue anywhere they learned advanced math, Latin and Greek.

While Elementary schools for both girls and boys were common in the northern and middle colonies, the southern colonies did not value literacy for the poor or working class.  Education for the wealthy, provided by private schools, was normal.  Middle class children were often taught at home by literate parents.  There were few secondary schools, and most were in the larger colonial towns.  Education was geared towards males who might eventually go on to college or become business owners.

Secondary education was rare, the exception being in larger towns such as Boston, Philadelphia, New York, and Charleston.   Subjects might include more Latin, accounting, surveying, other languages, and navigation. Vocational education was probably more common during this colonial period. 

Colleges were even rarer. All the colonial colleges were in the middle or upper colonies and were small.   Only white males were admitted.  The curriculum was set on ancient languages, history, math, and theology.  Most graduates became ministers.  By the end of the colonial period, the law had become popular.

The only college for women was in French Louisiana (not part of the colonies). Ursuline Academy graduated women one who would later become the first female pharmacist.  The Catholic school was also the first to provide classes for African and Native Americans.

This was the status of education as our founding fathers struggled to create a new nation.  Given the support that many of these men showed for an educated populus, what did they envision as an education for the masses?  The new government set out to standardize spelling and instill patriotism.  In New England the teaching of religion was still paramount.  By the mid-1800s, many wanted a free and compulsory education.  This desire was not realized until the end of the 1800s.   This changed the focus of education for the wealthy to all Americans.  Education now focused on not only the basics of social survival but included courses to stabilize national unity and teach new arrivals “American” values.  The changing social structure, moving from rural to city (industrial) required reading, writing, and math skills.  College education was still reserved for the wealthy class.

Education in the 20^th Century

By the beginning of the 20^th century, public education was available with almost 80% of the young population in school.  However, 2/3 of the schools were small, multi-grade rural schools.  The curriculum focused on math and grammar.  The teachers were dedicated but had little formal education.  Teaching techniques frequently involved only memorization through repetition. Larger communities with more students often had schools grouped by age.  The urbanization and industrialization of the nation created new demands.  Added to this shift in culture was the great influx of immigrants looking for a new start.  The inadequacy of the education system created a public demand for education reform.  A more efficient education system was needed.  In addition to traditional education, there was also a demand for vocational programs to prepare individuals to work in the skilled trades.

Despite the improvements in education during the first several decades of the 20^th century, fewer than 15% were educated beyond grade school.  It wasn’t until the 1940s and 50s that the numbers attending high school would increase.

The Second World War saw major changes in education.  The draft rejected five million recruits because they could not read or write.  The problem clearly showed that education varied greatly, depending on where you received an education.  As young males went to war, the demand for technical training programs for those left behind to fill their jobs increased.

Following the end of WWII, the Servicemen’s Read-justment Act (GI Bill) supported college education for those that served.  Millions of Americans now received college degrees.

Education for the Baby Boomer

During the 1950s rural country schools were being consolidated into community schools.  Most states required the completion of 8^th grade as a minimum requirement.  Most teens attended high school.  The emphasis was on either vocational education or college preparation.  In most cases, less than 25 percent of a high school graduating class went on to college.  By the 1960s those that did pursue a college degree could expect that less than 30 percent of those who entered college would graduate.  For the most part, good jobs awaited the college graduate.  With the high number of baby boomers, universities could afford to be tough and selective. 

This trend continued through the early 1970s.  However, by the end of the 70s and into the 80s the number of degree seeking quality students began to decline.  The colleges, for the most part, were faculty/student oriented.  However, by the 1980s the emphasis shifted to a quasi-business model.  With the emphasis shifting from an educational focus to a numbers/monetary interest, many schools began to look for new ways to bolster their enrollment.

This shift in emphasis started a downward spiral in educational quality.  College/university graduation rates have risen to over 60 percent.  Graduation GPAs have increased from an average of 2.5 to 3.25.  This leads to the question of “Are students better prepared and smarter than their 1960s counterparts?”  I highly doubt it.  The other side of the change was the need to recruit students from nontraditional social groups.  The diversity of education is a positive from this trend.  More minority students were admitted to colleges.  However, this policy often overlooked academic abilities, creating a need for special remedial and support services.

What does this have to do with Democracy?

Given the emphasis that our founding fathers placed on an educated electorate, it is important to consider how various phases in the education of Americans shaped our politics.  It is impossible to consider all the dynamics in this short piece.  So, let us consider how our current educational system has impacted politics in the 21st century.

Students today have less exposure to civics and history.   These are two very important topics, given the nature of our democratic/socialistic republic.  Unless citizens understand where our nation came from and how our government was designed to work, the “noble experiment,” as Benjamin Franklin called it, will eventually fail.  Given today’s governmental gridlock and the lack of consensus building, America may have reached a turning point. 

We need to provide an education that supports our history, explains our social system, and explains our civil processes.  We also need to educate people on how to evaluate the information that they consume.  What is good research?  What is propaganda?  Which media outlets can be trusted, and which should be read with skepticism?

Only with an informed and critical electorate can America retain the democracy envisioned by its founding fathers.

Unless we reform education to include these important topics on a priority basis, America is at risk of losing its democracy.  Government reform may be needed.  However, it cannot occur until the electorate takes their responsibility seriously, holding their representatives to account.

We the People and Our Choices

Robert James Fischer

As the November presidential election gets closer, it becomes critical that We the People consider what kind of president we want.  This country is a representative democratic republic.  The people are the government only when we all participate in electing the right people to represent our views.  Along with this fundamental foundation is the belief that the majority rules.  When our position is not part of the majority, it is our obligation to accept the rule of the majority.  When a part of the minority position, the next election provides an opportunity to change votes and perhaps win the argument.

With the preceding in mind, it is very important that we each consider our choices in casting a ballot.  While the presidential election is critical, state and local elections are important too.  Take time to know who your candidates are.  Where do they stand on various issues?  What does their history tell you about their integrity?  Are they involved in politics for their own self-aggrandizement, or do they care about their constituents?  Who is supporting them?  If it is an organization, what is their agenda?

Consider the support that the Christian nationalist movement has given to many Republican candidates. What does this group represent?  In my opinion, I am very bothered by their agenda.  (See the film – Bad Faith) In discussions with friends and family, I have often corrected those who believe that our founding fathers were all Christians.  Actually, the most prominent were deists.  The Constitution was written to provide for separation of religion and government.  The English, French, and other European experiences with state religions did NOT turn out well.  Our founding fathers clearly wanted a republic where freedom of religion was the rule.

Christian nationalists support the concept of a Christian nation.  They lament the demise of “Christian values.”  Also within their agenda is a return to the days of a male dominated, racist ideology.  Many believe in the old saying that a “hard working” Christian American can achieve the American dream.  This appears to be the position held by Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate J. D. Vance.  A good overview of the Christian nationalist movement can be viewed in the film Bad Faith.

As I write this piece, it appears that the presidential choice will be either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris.  In my previous writings I have attempted to stay neutral. However, I cannot stay neutral in this presidential election.  While I understand the desire for a return to what some see as a better time, America has been and is GREAT!  We the people have evolved.  For example, more rights have been afforded to all people in more recent years.  While poverty is far from irradicated, the general standard of living for most Americans is good as compared to most of the world.  I do not wish to return to a jaded view of the past, where women could not vote, or get a credit card without a male cosigner, or where minorities were not afforded their civil rights.

I look forward to an America that welcomes migrants and offers the same opportunities to all people.  Except for the American Indian, all Americans are the product of immigration.  However, Donald Trump is preying on the fear of losing the “American dream. “  He talks about hate and fear.  He has clearly talked about revenge on those who have the courage to challenge his views.  There is a reason that most of his former cabinet members, including his vice president, do not support his candidacy. 

On the other hand, Kamala Harris is a forward-thinking person.  She understands that migrants have been the backbone of this country.  She believes in the values that have moved this country out of Jim Crow and the subjugation of women.  She has strong moral values without promoting the Christian nationalist agenda.

There is NO choice!  Kamala Harris should be our next president.  Donald Trump should be in prison!