REUBIN ASKEW OF FLORIDA DIES

Bloomington IL Pending Approval We are all tragically upset by the disappearance of the Malaysian 777 bound for China. One can only hope and pray that the passengers and crew will be found alive and well. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families at this time. Also, we have learned that last Thursday Reubin Askew the former governor of Florida has left to join the heavenly population. Reubin was a great man with his wife and two children supporting him as I did in his campaign for the presidency in 1984. He overcame an alcoholic father through his hard work and loving mother. He was a dear friend and leaves a legacy of what a political figure should project. Apparently, God needed a great yet gentle administrator in His heaven. God speed governor, Dr. Alan Phillips, Sr.

MOBILITY IS THE WRONG WORD

WRITING IN THE ECONOMIST ON MOBILITY, Feb 4, 2014 Wrong question, there should not be any asking about mobility. If there are not jobs to go to where are folks headed? The administration's elite voices trumpet job creation. Really, talk alone is a pathetic substitute for a sour economy that the fed has pumped up for five years buying bonds. Isn't it now propitious to do something about job creation. Or are elitists so wed to their rocking chairs they need more featherbedding. Why internationally are we the purveyors of a stiff corporate regressive tax rate. Ireland, China, and many other nations realize the attraction to companies of less taxes and workable wages. Is the fed involved in job creation? If so, how are they involved? Have we arrived at a point of illogical entitlement? Are the administration's rocking chairs so beckoning that they have removed Presidential vision? America must awake from this slumber. There is no vision in the White House for jobs. Dr. Alan G. Phillips, Sr.

ARE YOU FED UP WITH A BROKEN WASHINGTON D.C.? Read "This Town", by Mark Leibovich and his publishers. See excerpt below.

A New York Times political feature correspondent examines the power wars and exploitative practices of the government in Washington, D.C., revealing how journalism careers are made and broken while news events and scandals are used as networking platforms. From, Mark Leibovich's THIS TOWN, Tim Russert is dead. But the room was alive. You can't work it too hard at a memorial service, obviously. It's the kind of thing people notice. But the big-ticket Washington departure rite can be such a great networking opportunity. You can almost feel the ardor behind the solemn faces: lucky stampedes of power mourners, about two thousand of them, wearing out the red-carpeted aisles of the Kennedy Center. Before the service, people keep rushing down the left-hand aisle to get to Robert Gibbs, the journeyman campaign spokesman who struck gold with the right patron, Barack Obama, soon to be the first African-American nominee of a major party. If Obama gets elected, Gibbs is in line to be the White House press secretary. Gibbs is the son of librarians, two of the 10 percent of white Alabamans who will support Obama in November. "Bobby," as he was known back home, hated to read as a child and grew up to be a talker, now an increasingly hot one. He keeps getting approached in airports and on the street for his autograph. He is a destination for a populace trained to view human interaction through the prism of "How can this person be helpful to me?" Gibbs has become potentially whoppingly helpful. People seek out and congratulate him for his success and that of his candidate, especially at tribal gatherings like this, a grand send-off for the host of Meet the Press. Next to Gibbs presides another beneficial destination: David Axelrod, a Democratic media consultant and kibitzing walrus of a mensch who orchestrated Obama's run to the 2008 Democratic nomination. Known as "Axe," Axelrod is a sentimental RFK Democrat whose swoon over Obama is unrivaled even by Gibbs's. (Gibbs once called Axe "the guy who walks in front of Obama with rose petals.") Noting the big run on Gibbs and Axelrod, a columnist for Politico told me they were the new "it guys" at the service, and of course they were, in part for devising a communications strategy predicated on indifference to this very onrushing club of D.C.'s Leading Thinkers. Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski are mobbed as well; they can barely get to their seats: assaulted with kudos for the success of Morning Joe, their dawn roundtable on MSNBC and a popular artery in the bloodstream of the Leading Thinkers. People keep pressing business cards into the cohosts' palms, eager to get themselves booked, or their clients booked, or their books mentioned, just once, by Joe or Mika. "A new low, even for Washington tackiness," Mika will lament of the funereal hustle. But it's important to be part of the conversation, anyone would understand. You seize your moment when it comes. Bill and Hillary Clinton walk stiffly down the left aisle. Heads lurch and the collective effects are unmistakable: that exotic D.C. tingle falls over the room, the kind that comes with proximity to Superpowers. Bill and Hill. They are given wide berth. It had been a tough stretch. Hillary has just conceded the Democratic nomination. It ended an epic primary saga in which Bill had disgraced himself, making unpresidential and maybe racially loaded remarks about Obama. Neither Clinton is in a particularly good "place" with Washington at the moment, or with the media, or with the Democratic Party — or, for that matter, maybe with each other. Bill's top post–White House aide, Doug Band, is keeping a list on his BlackBerry of all the people who screwed over the Clintons in the campaign and who are now, as they say, "dead to us." Some of them dead are here at the Kennedy Center. There is a running joke inside Clinton World about all the bad things happening to the Clinton crossers. Ted Kennedy, who pivotally endorsed Obama in January, is now dying from a brain tumor. (After Kennedy's endorsement, which came months before the tumor was discovered, his colleague Lindsey Graham asked Kennedy if he could inherit his Senate hideaway office. Why? "Because the Clintons are gonna kill you," Graham joked.) John Edwards, who also endorsed Obama, was busted for cheating on his dying wife; his disgrace is now in full spiral. The state of Iowa, whose Democratic voters slapped a humiliating third-place finish on Hillary in January's caucuses, was devastated by biblical floods in the spring. Now, true to her stoic and gritty precedent, Hillary is keeping her smile affixed like hardened gum and sending out powerful "Stay away from this vehicle" vibes. Ignoring the vibes, an eager producer for MSNBC's Countdown beelines toward her, introduces herself to the Almighty, and prepares to launch a Hail Mary "ask " about whether the senator might possibly want to come on Countdown that night. "It is a pleasure to meet you," Clinton responds to the eager producer, while the smile stays tight and she keeps right on walking. Hillary has a memorial service to attend: the memorial service of a man she and her husband plainly despised and who they believed (rightly) despised them back. But the Clintons are pros at death and sickness. They show up. They play their assigned roles. They send nice notes and lend comfort to the bereaved in that warm and open-faced Clinton way. They are here with empathetic eyes to pay respects, like heads of Mafia families do when a rival godfather falls. Washington memorial services have that quality when the various personality cults convene: Bill and Hillary walking a few feet away from Newt and Callista Gingrich and right past David Shuster, the MSNBC host who has just been suspended by the network for saying the Clinton campaign "pimped out" Chelsea by having her call superdelegates. (Shuster has been barely heard from since. To reiterate: Don't mess with the Clintons!) Bill and Hill, who appear not to have reserved seats, find two several rows back next to Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state, and Condoleezza Rice, the current one. Not far from the Gibbs and Axe receiving line, NBC's Andrea Mitchell walks in with her husband, the conservative monetary oracle and former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan. One of the most dogged reporters in the city, Andrea adores her work and her friends, but mostly adores Alan. He is a prime Washington Leading Thinker who even when being blamed by many for runing the economy off a cliff can always be seen on Andrea's arm doing his courtly old dignitary thing at D.C. social events. If Washington was a comic book — and it sort of is — Greenspan would be in the background of every panel. A few rows from Alan and Andrea sits Barbara Walters, the luminary TV interviewer and Chairman Greenspan's former girlfriend. Back when Alan and Andrea were first dating, during the George H. W. Bush administration, they attended a dinner to honor Queen Elizabeth at the British embassy. In the presidential receiving line, Bush introduced Andrea to the queen. "Your Majesty, this is one of our premier American journalists," the president said, then turned to Mitchell and said, "Hello, Barbara." Bush sent a personal note of apology to Andrea the next day. At the memorial service, Barbara sat over near Ken Duberstein, a vintage Washington character in his own right, who did a brief stint as the White House chief of staff during the checked-out final months of Ronald Reagan's second term. Duberstein and Mitchell are old friends. Jews by religion and local royalty by acclamation, they once shared a memorable erev Yom Kippur — the holiest night on the Jewish calendar — at a most sacred of Official Washington shrines: the McLean, Virginia, mansion of Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, and his wife, Haifa. Dick and Lynne Cheney were also there. It was such a coveted social function. Andrea and Ken felt pangs of Jewish guilt but ultimately could not say no to this most holy of obligations. "In the end, we both decided that the Lord and our parents would somehow understand," Andrea later explained in her book, Talking Back. Now a lobbyist, Duberstein has been riding the D.C. carousel for years, his Rolodex flipping with billable connections. He is an archetypical "former." That is, a former officeholder who can easily score a seven-figure income as an out-of-office wise man, pundit, statesman, or, if you would be so crass (and a true statesman never would be), hired gun. "Formers" stick to Washington like melted cheese on a gold-plated toaster. Duberstein is often referred to in these words: "It isn't exactly clear what Kenny does." You know you've made it in D.C. when someone says that — "It isn't clear what he does" — about you. Such people used to have an air of mystery about them. You assumed they did something exotic, like work for the CIA. Now you might assume the Kuwaiti government or someone is paying them a gusher to do something not terribly virtuous. They would prefer not to discuss their work, if you don't mind, and you have to respect their discretion. Ambiguity pays well here. Duberstein is a regular at Ben Bradlee and Sally Quinn's and talks constantly on the phone to his close friend Colin Powell, and even more constantly to everyone else about what "Colin was just telling me." Like most formers, Duberstein sits on many boards and loves to read his name in print or pixel — except, God forbid, if someone identifies him as a mere "former Reagan administration official," not Reagan's "former chief of staff," in which case he will feel denied his full former bona fides and often complain. The standard line on Duberstein is that he spent six and a half months as Reagan's chief of staff and twenty-four years (and counting) dining out on it. As John McCain was securing the Republican nomination, Duberstein made inquiries about running his theoretical transition team, according to several campaign aides. That would be a perfect assignment for someone of Duberstein's ilk, someone with an intuitive sense of who all the GOP usual suspects to populate an incoming administration will be. Duberstein denies ever lobbying for the transition job, but the McCain team was not interested in his services anyway, and eventually Duberstein wound up endorsing Obama, just after Colin did. Duberstein keeps shaking hands and waving and looking mid-sentence over your glistening head to see who else is in the vicinity. He wears a big welcoming smile, which he relaxes, at the appropriate time, into an expression of grave distress over the loss of Timothy John Russert.

PUBLISHED IN THE HILL, 12/5/2013 BY DR. PHILLIPS, SR.

THE PRESIDENTIAL OATH ONCE TAKEN MUST BE KEPT I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. This oath once taken by a President represents a solemn and unreserved commitment to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The stress, challenges and pressures that confront the president’s office on a daily basis require his absolute and unreserved commitment to enforce this oath. Today the administration is working overtime to pass a bill that the majority of the American people do not want. The Democrat party presently controls both houses of Congress and the White House. Complicating the healthcare reform bill's consideration is a President who has stated he is not concerned with procedure, yet that is what the Constitution is about. The desire of the Speaker of the House along with the Majority leader in the Senate seems to be to pass this healthcare bill at most any cost. This strategy has resulted in closed room deals, payoffs and apparent subterfuge. Now the nation is being told that the final bill will be deemed to have been approved without the constitutional procedure for voting having been applied. The Presidential oath binds the Chief Executive of the United States to the best of his ability to the preservation, protection and defense of the Constitution. He is not tasked with the preservation, protection and defense of any healthcare bill. If in the course of making a strong effort to follow the oath a bill is passed by constitutionally prescribed means with mandated voting procedure followed, that's another matter. The Constitution outlines the process for rejecting or voting bill into law. The Constitution provides procedures for many things, including a declaration of war, representation by elected representatives and if necessary the impeachment of a sitting President. For any President to ignore Constitutional law and legal procedure for approvals of bills without votes from elected representatives of the people is a violation of the Constitution and the Presidential oath. The results of deliberately obviating the rules of this great document will result in, deterioration of the writ's preservation, protection and defense. At this critical moment in the nation's history when the Constitution and its voting procedure is under attack the document must be defended by the oath taker the President of the United States. To subvert the Constitution by not preserving, protecting and defending the document's provisions would make any President subject to impeachment for violation of his oath. Should the elimination of constitutional voting procedures be supported by the President, our Constitutional laws will neither be protected or preserved. If this healthcare reform bill is enacted through failing to follow constitutional procedure on the part of the President, his violation of the above oath, in my opinion, makes him eligible for impeachment. Dr. Alan Phillips, Sr.

NY Times, December 3, 2013, Response Dr. Phillips, Sr.

Bloomington IL Now we learn via the Drudge Report that security was not built into the government website from the beginning. Other sources are calling for the builders of the website to start over. Credibility and citizen belief are vanishing rapidly. A Williams interview of the President will not make a major difference this week. It's now obvious that the total Obama care effort is in trouble as a result of incompetence, lack of oversight, little accountability, and extremely poor reasoning. This has the prognosis of a major disaster.

ARTICLE ROLLING STONE NOVEMBER 20, 2013

Rolling Stone, November 20, 2013 John F. Kennedy's Vision of Peace On the 50th anniversary of JFK's death, his nephew recalls the fallen president's attempts to halt the war machine President John F. Kennedy at work in the Oval office in 1962. George Tames/The New York Times By Robert F. Kennedy Jr. November 20, 2013 12:30 PM ET On November 22nd, 1963, my uncle, president John F. Kennedy, went to Dallas intending to condemn as "nonsense" the right-wing notion that "peace is a sign of weakness." He meant to argue that the best way to demonstrate American strength was not by using destructive weapons and threats but by being a nation that "practices what it preaches about equal rights and social justice," striving toward peace instead of "aggressive ambitions." Despite the Cold War rhetoric of his campaign, JFK's greatest ambition as president was to break the militaristic ideology that has dominated our country since World War II. He told his close friend Ben Bradlee that he wanted the epitaph "He kept the peace," and said to another friend, William Walton, "I am almost a 'peace at any price' president." Hugh Sidey, a journalist and friend, wrote that the governing aspect of JFK's leadership was "a total revulsion" of war. Nevertheless, as James W. Douglass argues in his book JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, JFK's presidency would be a continuous struggle with his own military and intelligence agencies, which engaged in incessant schemes to trap him into escalating the Cold War into a hot one. His first major confrontation with the Pentagon, the Bay of Pigs catastrophe, came only three months into his presidency and would set the course for the next 1,000 days. JFK's predecessor, Dwight D. Eisenhower, had finalized support on March 17th, 1960, for a Cuban invasion by anti-Castro insurgents, but the wily general left its execution to the incoming Kennedy team. From the start, JFK recoiled at the caper's stench, as CIA Director Allen Dulles has acknowledged, demanding assurances from CIA and Pentagon brass that there was no chance of failure and that there would be no need for U.S. military involvement. Dulles and the generals knowingly lied and gave him those guarantees. When the invasion failed, JFK refused to order airstrikes against Castro. Realizing he had been drawn into a trap, he told his top aides, David Powers and Kenneth O'Donnell, "They were sure I'd give in to them and send the go-ahead order to the [U.S. Navy aircraft carrier] Essex. They couldn't believe that a new president like me wouldn't panic and try to save his own face. Well, they had me figured all wrong." JFK was realizing that the CIA posed a monumental threat to American democracy. As the brigade faltered, he told Arthur Schlesinger that he wanted to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." The next confrontation with the defense and intelligence establishments had already begun as JFK resisted pressure from Eisenhower, the Joint Chiefs and the CIA to prop up the CIA's puppet government in Laos against the communist Pathet Lao guerrillas. The military wanted 140,000 ground troops, with some officials advocating for nuclear weapons. "If it hadn't been for Cuba," JFK told Schlesinger, "we might be about to intervene in Laos. I might have taken this advice seriously." JFK instead signed a neutrality agreement the following year and was joined by 13 nations, including the Soviet Union. His own instincts against intervening with American combat forces in Laos were fortified that April by the judgment of retired Gen. Douglas MacArthur, America's undisputed authority on fighting wars in Asia. Referring to Dulles' mischief in Southeast Asia during the Eisenhower years, MacArthur told JFK, "The chickens are coming home to roost, and [you] live in the chicken coop." MacArthur added a warning that ought to still resonate today: "Anyone wanting to commit American ground forces to the mainland of Asia should have his head examined." About six months into his administration, JFK went to Vienna to meet Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev with high hopes of beginning a process of détente and mutual nuclear disarmament. Khrushchev met his proposals with bombast and truculent indifference. The Joint Chiefs and the CIA, which had fulminated about JFK's notion of negotiating with the Soviets, were relieved by the summit's failure. Six weeks later, military and intelligence leaders responded by unveiling their proposal for a pre-emptive thermonuclear attack on the Soviet Union, to be launched sometime in late 1963. JFK stormed away from the meeting in disgust, remarking scathingly to Secretary of State Dean Rusk, "And we call ourselves the human race." As JFK's relationship with his military-intelligence apparatus deteriorated, a remarkable relationship with Khrushchev began. Both were battle-hardened war veterans seeking a path to rapprochement and disarmament, encircled by militarists clamoring for war. In Kennedy's case, both the Pentagon and the CIA believed war with the Soviets was inevitable and therefore desirable in the short term while we still had the nuclear advantage. In the autumn of 1961, as retired Gen. Lucius Clay, who had taken a civilian post in Berlin, launched a series of unauthorized provocations against the Soviets, Khrushchev began an extraordinary secret correspondence with JFK. With the Berlin crisis moving toward nuclear Armageddon, Khrushchev turned to KGB agent Georgi Bolshakov, a top Soviet spy in Washington, to communicate directly with JFK. Bolshakov, to the horror of the U.S. State Department, was a friend of my parents and a frequent guest at our home. Bolshakov smuggled a letter, the first of 21 declassified in 1993, to JFK's press secretary, Pierre Salinger, in a folded newspaper. In it, Khrushchev expressed regret about Vienna and embraced JFK's proposal for a path to peace and disarmament. On October 27th, Gen. Clay made an unauthorized armed threat to knock down the Berlin Wall using tanks equipped with dozer plows, seeking to provoke the Soviets into some action that would justify a nuclear first strike. The Kremlin responded with its own tanks, which met Clay's forces at the border crossing known as Checkpoint Charlie. A 16-hour face-off ensued. Through my father, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, and Bolshakov, JFK promised that if Khrushchev withdrew his tanks within 24 hours, the U.S. would pull back 20 minutes later. Khrushchev took the risk, and JFK kept his word. Two weeks later, with tensions still running, Khrushchev sent a second letter to JFK: "I have no ground to retreat further, there is a precipice behind [me]." Kennedy realized that Khrushchev, too, was surrounded by a powerful military and intelligence complex intent on going to war. After the confrontation, Gen. Clay railed against JFK's unwillingness to "face the risk of nuclear war" against the Soviets. One year later, on October 16th, 1962, Kennedy saw aerial photographs proving that the Soviets had installed nuclear missiles in Cuba capable of reaching much of the eastern U.S. seaboard. The next 13 days were the most perilous in mankind's history. From the outset, the Pentagon, the CIA and many of JFK's advisers urged airstrikes and a U.S. invasion of the island that, as a Soviet military commander later revealed, would have triggered a nuclear war with the Soviets. JFK opted for a blockade, which Soviet ships respected. By October 26th, the standoff was de-escalating. Then, on October 27th, the crisis reignited when Soviet forces shot down a U.S. reconnaissance plane, killing its pilot, Maj. Rudolf Anderson. Almost immediately, the brass demanded overwhelming retaliation to destroy the Soviet missile sites. Meanwhile, Castro pushed the Kremlin military machine toward a devastating first strike. In a secret meeting with Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin, my father told him, "If the situation continues much longer, the president is not sure that the military will not overthrow him and seize power." U.S. marshals appeared at our house to take us to government bunkers in western Virginia. My brother Joe and I were anxious to go, if only to see the setup. But my father, who'd spent the previous six nights at the White House, called to say that we needed to be "good soldiers" and show up for school in Washington. To disappear, he told us, would cause public panic. That night, many people in our government went to sleep wondering if they would wake up dead. On Monday, October 29th, the world moved back from the brink. An artfully drafted letter my father wrote with Ted Sorensen pledging that the U.S. would not invade Cuba – plus JFK's secret agreement with Khrushchev to withdraw obsolete Jupiter missiles from Turkey – persuaded the Kremlin to back down. Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/john-f-kennedys-vision-of-peace-20131120#ixzz2lJas7fwz Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | alan Phillips THE EIGHTH PROPOSITION, DO NOT VIOLATE MUTUAL TRUST WITH ALLIES, JOHN F. KENNEDY, SPEECH AT NATO HEADQUARTERS, NAPLES, JULY 2, 1962 Today’s Europe along with some othernations of the world seem to view the United States as a malicious digital invader and recorder of their confidential national data, voice, andtransmission of privileged or confidential information. America though the secret efforts of agencies lacking apparent detailed Congressional oversight including the D.I.A., N.S.A., C.I.A, and other entities have captured without various nation’s permission myriads of conversation from international leaders. Most violated countries have demanded from America detailed explanations as to government motivation for this continuing violation of mutual trust. When the late President Kennedy addressed various international officials and the leadership of N.A.T.O. he enunciated eight principles that he had observed that gave the alliance great strength and promise for the future. Yet, it is his eighth observation that provides guidance and direction to our nation during this time of international mistrust and valid suspicion. “Eighth, and finally, it is increasingly clear--and increasingly understood--that the central moving force of our great adventure is enduring mutual trust. I came to Europe to reassert--as clearly and persuasively as I could--that the American commitment to the freedom of Europe is reliable-not merely because of good will, though that is strong--not merely because of a shared heritage, though that is deep and wide--and not at all because we seek to dominate; we do not. I came to make it clear that this commitment rests upon the inescapable requirements of intelligent self-interest--it is a commitment whose wisdom is confirmed both by its absence when two great wars began and by its presence in 18 years of well-defended peace. The response which this message has evoked--from European citizens, from the press, and from leaders of the continent--makes it increasingly clear that our commitment--and its durability-are understood. And at the same time, all that I have seen and heard in these 10 crowded days confirms me in the conviction-which I am proud to proclaim to my own countrymen--that the freemen and free governments of free Europe are also firm in their commitment to our common cause. We have been able to trust each other now for nearly 20 years. And we are right to go on. One hundred and fifteen years ago this month, Giuseppe Mazzini addressed a mass meeting in Milan with these words: We are here ... to build up the unity of the human family, so that the day may come when it shall represent a single sheepfold with a single shepherd--the spirit of God.... Beyond the Alps, beyond the sea, are other peoples now ... striving by different routes to reach the same goal--improvement, association and the foundations of an authority that shall put an end to world anarchy.... United with them-they will unite with you. Today, Italy is united as a free nation and committed to unity abroad. And beyond the Alps in the capitals of Western Europe, beyond the sea in the capitals of North America, other nations and other peoples are also striving for new association and improvement. By building Western unity strengthening the ties of solidarity that can deter further wars in the future. In time, therefore, the unity of the West can lead to the unity of East and West, until the human family is truly a ‘single sheepfold’ under God.” The absolute primacy of enduring mutual trust was the nexus of America’s relationship with European nations. This level of trust sought permission prior to institutional snooping and unauthorized data and information collection. At a minimum restoration of confidence with our allies to a position of mutual trust could take years. Agencies must have strong accountability and Congressional oversight it we are even in our homes to avoid an Orwellian ethos that uses spare time to collect innocent telephonic transmissions, mail and emails. We must heed the words of President Kennedy or sit idly as we watch our constitutional freedoms erode. Dr. Alan G. Phillips, Sr.

OPED, JOHN KENNEDY, ISRAEL

JOHN KENNEDY’S LEGACY IN FOREIGN POLICY NEGOTIATIONS AND ISRAEL’S APPARENT LACK OF SOLID WHITE HOUSE SUPPORT President Kennedy’s Special Counsel Theodore Sorenson advised his leader on many domestic matters throughout a very short presidency. The President’s approach in dealing with foreign affairs is recorded in Sorenson’s notes made by his listening to occasional references by Kennedy himself. Some of the President’s words are vital to an individual’s understanding of the world’s difficulties in arriving at relative peace amidst anger and chaos among nations. His search was an avid pursuit of peace during times of challenge and belligerence. I present them in this narrative hoping to assist other diplomats in finding answers. Some early quotes from President Kennedy on Foreign Affairs provide to any reader an early insight into his guiding principles for approaching Foreign Affairs. Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate. __Inaugural address, 1961 On the Presidential coat of arms, the American eagle holds in his right talon the olive branch, while in his left, he holds a bundle of arrows. We intend to give equal attention to both. __First State of the Union, Message, 1961 Our policy must blend whatever degree of firmness and flexibility is necessary to protect our vital interests, by peaceful means if possible, by resolute action if necessary…While we do not intend to see the free world give up, we shall make every effort to prevent the world from being blown up. __University of North Carolina, 1961 We must face up to the chance of war, if we are to maintain the peace….Diplomacy and defense are not substitutes for one another….A willingness to resist force, unaccompanied by a willingness to talk, could provoke belligerence—while a willingness to talk unaccompanied by a willingness to resist force, could invite disaster…. While we shall negotiate freely, we shall not negotiate freedom….In short, we are neither ‘war mongers’ nor ‘appeasers’ neither ‘hard’ not ‘soft.’ We are Americans. __University of Washington, 1961 President Kennedy was well aware how dangerous the world had become. Technology had guaranteed that the United States and its chief adversary could destroy each other very quickly. This fact had altered the world’s fragility. Kennedy felt that many people failed to understand that if the day of a massive exchange occurred then the world would end….150 million fatalities in the first eighteen hours, literally 500 World War IIs in less than a day. Really neither the Soviet Union nor the United States could ‘win’ a nuclear war. It would not matter who fired first or was obliterated last there would not be any winners. The world must function and proceed with care in an age when people can obliterate themselves. Kennedy pointed out to many that the United States and Europe through misjudgments made on all sides brought about great devastation. This now being a thermonuclear age could witness through misjudgment more devastation in a few hours than had occurred in all previous wars. This fact changed his attitude toward communism and co-existence. Although Kennedy abhorred communism he had decided that Khrushchev could pursue what his government believed though repugnant to the President, yet what his government did in the world was the world’s business. President Kennedy believed that peace was a long haul with every man, woman, and child living under the sword of Damocles, hanging by the thinnest of threads, capable of being cut any moment by accident, miscalculation or insanity. Man needed to match his strides in weaponry and technology with equal progress in social and political development. If not, our strength like that of the dinosaur would become incapable of control, and man, like the dinosaur, would vanish from the earth. The Presidential seal was needled into the design of the carpet in the oval office. Later the President strengthened the olive branch in one of the Eagle’s talons. That talon represented peace. Every waking moment found the President’s attention focused on that objective, peace. All negotiations were occupied with the focus of saving the earth from mass destruction and war. Peace through strength and delicate negotiations took most of the President’s time. The United States, Kennedy proclaimed, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want or anticipate a war. This generation of all Americans has already experienced more than enough of war and killing. We shall be prepared for war, if others desire it. Yet we shall always be vigilant to stop it. We shall also do our part to build a world community where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task nor intimidated by its success. Confident and unafraid we journey on—not toward a strategy of destruction but toward a day of peace. Now the Prime Minister of Israel has revealed to the world the possible construction of a “bad deal” about to be configured in Geneva that would consummate Iranian demands in nuclear negotiations without Israel’s strong diplomatic involvement. Have we forgotten the history of the Nazi takeover of Czechoslovakia when England and France acquiesced in Munich. Are we abandoning Israel and its legitimate concerns to Rouhani personality ploys? We need once again the negotiating skills of John Kennedy or his clone whoever that might be. Are we abandoning the middle east and our friends to chaos and destruction? I leave diplomats with President Kennedy’s words to ponder: However close we sometimes seem to that dark and final abyss let no man of peace and freedom despair. For he does not stand alone….Together we shall save our planet or together we shall perish in its flames. Save it we can, and save it we must, and then shall we earn eternal thanks of mankind and, as peacemakers, the eternal blessing of God.* *KENNEDY, Theodore C. Sorenson, Harper & Row, Publishers, New York, NY, p. 522