NOVEMBER 2020        NUMBER 39


The Role for Understanding and Promoting Sustainable Peacebuilding

William Timpson, Robert Meroney, Del Benson and Lloyd Thomas.

Fort Collins Rotary Club

Jim Halderman, Rotary District 5450

Roy C. Bath, Fort Collins Dan Lyons Chapter of Veterans for Peace

In these newsletters of the Rotary District Peacebuilders, we want to invite readers for contributions and ideas, suggestions and possibilities for our efforts to educate others by promoting the foundational skills for promoting peace, i.e., nonviolent conflict resolution, improved communication and cooperation, successful negotiation and mediation as well as the critical and creative thinking that can help communities move through obstacles and difficulties. Visit our blog and comment if you wish: www.rotarypeacebuilder.com


Robert N. Meroney, Ph.D. is a Rotarian and an Emeritus Professor of Fluid Mechanics and Wind Engineering with a long career at Colorado State University. He can be reached at Robert.Meroney@ColoState.EDU

Fair and free elections were not always automatic or guaranteed in the United States.  Freedom of speech was curtailed, and criticism of the government, congress, or the President resulted in monetary fines and imprisonment.[1]  Between 1798 to 1801 the Federalist Party under President John Adams and leadership of Alexander Hamilton passed the Alien and Sedition Acts to punish any person who shall

…write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute…  [2]

Adams and Hamilton argued the laws were appropriate because English and American courts had long punished seditious libel under common law, and the freedom of speech must be balanced with an individual’s responsibility for false statements.  Thomas Jefferson and James Madison drafted secretly documents opposing these acts which were submitted to the Virginia and Kentucky legislatures.  If identified, they both could have been arrested and tried for treason.  

The early divisive behavior of the Federalists and the Democratic-Republican Party validated the worry of many founding fathers that eventually political factions would tear the nation apart.  Political parties in England had led to bloody civil wars during the 17th century, so many saw parties/factions as “corrupt relics of the monarchial British system.”[3]   George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, all warned against factionalism; whereas, Thomas Jefferson felt factionalism in government was inevitable, and he wrote to Henry Lee in 1824

…men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties.   1. those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.   2. those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them cherish and consider them as the most honest & safe, altho’ not the most wise depository of the public interests…

However, Jefferson idealistically also noted in the same letter that:

“like religious differences, a difference in politics should never be permitted to enter into social intercourse, or to disturb its friendships, its charities or justice.”[4] 

Even before the U.S. Constitution was ratified, James Madison wrote the tenth of the Federalist Papers, under the name “Publius”, in which he addressed the question of how to reconcile citizens with different interests that result in factionalism.  The Paper was titled “The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection.”[5] He argued that a representative republic is the most effective form to diminish the influence of partisanship and factionalism.  He felt that a decentralized national government structure would make it

“more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried.”

George Washington described his concern about party factionalism in his Farewell Address to the Nation in 1796,[6] and in particular to the rise of a populist leader,

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty..”

Winston Churchill pointed out that

“…democracy has flourished under party government. That is to say, it has flourished so long as there is full freedom of speech, free elections and free institutions. So we must beware of a tyranny of opinion which tries to make only one side of a question the one which may be heard.  Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it [free speech] is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.”… Oct 13, 1943[7]

Unfortunately, differences of opinion can often lead one to errors of confirmation bias with internal arguments like,

  • I am right; thus, (if you disagree) you are wrong,
  • I am honest and good; thus, (if you disagree) you must be bad and evil,
  • My opinions are based on religious truth; thus, (if you disagree) you must be a sinner, and
  • I am thoughtful and intelligent; thus, (if you disagree) you must be a fool.

Our concern today must be that factionalism, intolerance, and suspicion must not be allowed to endanger our rights of free expression.  At the same time, we must recognize that even the most honest and free elections may not solve all our problems and concerns. 

  • Elections do not provide black and white answers, they only support one point of view,
  • Elections do not necessarily resolve controversy, they may just extend it,
  • Elections do not assure compromise, and
  • Elections are not conclusive…there are always others in the future.

Contributing Author is a noted sinner, evil, a fool and often wrong…but, as added by the Editor, also someone who challenges others to think and rethink!


Del Benson, Ph.D. is a Professor and wildlife specialist for Extension at Colorado State University. His work is with wildlife and recreation enterprises on private land, conservation education, hunter attitudes and behavior, public input to resource management decision making and campus environmental management.  He can be reached at Delwin.Benson@ColoState.EDU

Peace starts with environmental conservation resembling trees with foundations of roots nurturing life, strong trunks to support programs, and limbs that position leaders in multiple directions.

Leaders are similar to photosynthetic processes of leaves that convert energies from air, soil and water, into growth.  Good leaders can be rated by the conservation-energy they generate, the direction of their growth, and their ability to bend with the breeze without breaking.

Selecting the best environmental presidents was easy, frustrating, and reflected coincidental dynamics of the times.  Presidents affected environmental conservation by their actions and inactions.  My short list reflects personal environmental and study of land, plants, animals, and persons as a conservationist. Political parties of each president are: Republican (R) and Democratic (D).  First and last entries are favored bookends of Presidents Roosevelt, who had different views, political parties, and legacies.

Four links to add to your thinking follow:

Theodore Roosevelt (R) is my enthusiastic first choice. He loved nature, hunted, wrote about it, led conservation movements, and was perhaps the first environmental president.  His conservation organizational leadership helped to create the first national park in the World, Yellowstone in 1872, under President Ulysses S Grant and provided a citizen and political legacy with lasting significance.

Theodore as President set aside major portions of land in the US most notably in the West and protected them in the public interest by the National Forest Service agency managing 150 national forests. That movement set the stage for lands adjacent to Forest Service lands to be set aside in 1946 by the Bureau of Land Management long after Roosevelt’s early successes. 

He created the first 18 National Monuments through the Antiquities Act, such as Muir Woods, Grand Canyon, and Devil’s Tower.  Over 50 national wildlife refuges, 4 national game preserves, and 5 national parks added to his protection of approximately 230 million acres of public land.

Richard Nixon (R) did not reflect enthusiasm for environmental matters, but many and major accomplishments were signed by him that were developing in the 1960s. The spread of influential environmental groups in the 1960s and Rachael Carson’s book Silent Spring in 1962 about poor environmental health prompted governments, agencies, and leaders to act on environmental concerns. Months before the first earth day in 1970, Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency which provided institutional personnel, policy, and the use of environmental impact reviews and formal integrated management statements for federal projects. It also provided environmental standards reaching into state and local environmental management policies and programs. Nixon also ushered in the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Who deserves the next spot? Emma Bryce reported in The New York Times environmental blog, a rating system of what conservation organizations thought about presidents. They rated Theodore Roosevelt dominantly first with 28 points followed by Richard Nixon with 15 points and Jimmy Carter next with 13 points.  Other presidents rated, dropped to 7 points with Obama and down to 1 point for Clinton. 

Jimmy Carter (D) was environmentalist at heart and pushed Congress and the Executive Branch to strengthen the Environmental Protection Agency, consolidate agencies to form the U.S. Department of Energy, and pushed through two major bills: one protected 104 million acres of land in Alaskan wilderness; and the Superfund program cleaned up close to 400 toxic sites. 

Carter asked Americans to reduce their energy use to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren. “Stewardship of the earth, not exploitation, was our role,” he believed from his roots in the Georgia soil and with his Southern Baptist soul. Did his environmental stewardship depart from the Judeo-Christian theology of “being fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Gen. 1:27-28)? Perhaps dominion meant sustainable conservation to Carter.

Ronald Reagan (R) signed the 1985 Farm Bill that continues today to reduce soil erosion and air pollution from marginal agricultural lands.  The bill funded programs and mangers to help wildlife living on private agricultural landscapes.  Private lands occupy about 2/3rds of the U.S. giving this legislation potential for broad implications.  Unfortunately, he also gutted the Environmental Protection Agency, fired the Superfund chief leading to an exodus of employees, and repealed the Clean Water Act.  He benefitted economically and politically when the oil embargo from middle east was lifted making oil and gasoline abundant and less expensive ushering in more consumption that “trickled down.”

Barack Obama (D) was president when climate change became a major issue and a controversy with his political opponents.  He asserted environmental attitudes and ideas in the U.S. and globally.  The polarity among political leaders increased during his years and since, making collaborative decisions about environmental policy very difficult.

Franklin Roosevelt (D) is placed in the final spot since he was not rated highly in the survey, but for me he was second only to Theodore Roosevelt.  Franklin created the “New Deal” addressing unemployment and repair of environmental damage after the Great Depression and Dust Bowl.  The Civilian Conservation Corps employed three million men over nine years to conserve land and natural resources and raised public awareness of the outdoors and active management.

Conservation groups flourished in the 1930s and helped Franklin to create the Soil Conservation Service, now called Natural Resources Conservation Service, to manage private agricultural lands after the Dust Bowl.  The most valuable bill ever created to fund, research, manage and share scientific education about wildlife conservation was the Pitman Robinson Bill in his term.  It earmarked excise taxes on hunting and shooting equipment which the US Fish and Wildlife Service used to provide matching money for state wildlife agencies.

Professionalism flourished because users of the money had to do research and management, publish and share reports, and state legislators could not siphon funds from the state agency for other purposes if they used these federal dollars.  He added over one-quarter of the 411 areas in today’s national Park Service system by expanding the National Park Service with parks, monuments, national cemeteries, memorials, and military parks.  He believed that history, culture, and nature all played roles in the exceptional saga of the United states.

I share that interrelationship!


William Timpson, Ph.D. has been a professor, now retired, at Colorado State University in its School of Education and a member of the Fort Collins Rotary Club. He can be reached at william.timpson@colostate.edu.

In my 2019 book, Learning Life’s Lessons, I note that in early colonial New Zealand, as in other European societies, women were excluded from any involvement in politics. However, public opinion began to change in the latter half of the nineteenth century and inspired by the effort by activists over many years, in September of 1893, New Zealand became the first self-governing colony in the world in which all women had the right to vote in parliamentary elections. In the U.S. it would require another 27 years for the 19th Amendment to pass in 1920 and women would be allowed to vote. The following “tip” is adapted from some of my work on the principles of sustainability in promoting healthy and viable democratic systems of government.

In Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age, Bill McKibben (2003) identifies Gandhi as someone who is widely revered for challenging the world to use nonviolent noncooperation as a mechanism for resistance to powerful oppressors. Yet Gandhi also represented much more. “It is no coincidence that Gandhi was also the most powerful twentieth-century spokesman for the proposition that less is more, that human satisfaction lies in respecting material limits, in opening yourself to the claims of others, in backing away from the hyper-individualism of the West” (p. 217). Are there any leaders who support sustainability, equity and social justice already in place in your community? How do we identify and unleash the leadership potential among students?

RECOMMENDATIONS: Given the changes needed for a more sustainable future that balances environmental, economic, and societal needs, we need to find leaders at every level of society and in every community, men and women, who will spearhead these changes and inspire others to follow their lead. Make a list of individuals who could lead this redirection. Identify leaders from the past who had the qualities needed today.

 In the summer of 2003, I had the opportunity to visit with Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Mairead Corrigan Maguire, at the Peace House, a Belfast building that now serves as a base for various groups and projects working toward a sustainable peace in Northern Ireland. Election results continue to support the Good Friday Peace Accord.  


Lloyd Thomas, Ph.D. is a longstanding member of the Fort Collins Rotary Club, a licensed psychologist and a life coach with a long history of writing regular columns. He can be reached at ljtdat@aol.com.

For the past few weeks, over and over again we have heard, “Voting is the responsible thing to do.”  If we haven’t already done so, in 7 days, we have this responsible “thing” to do.  So today, I want to write about being “responsible” and being “helpless.”

Responsibility is defined as “being able to respond from within and doing so in accordance with one’s own and others’ expectations.”  Living in a democratic nation, we are expected to engage in voting as the “responsible thing” to do.  Yet for many reasons many of us feel “helpless” to do so.

When you were young, your responses to environmental stimuli were based upon inborn reflexes.  You reacted to sensory stimulation.  As you matured, you learned to manage and control your reactions in accordance with what you found to be pleasurable or painful.  Those reactions that you regularly repeated became unconscious habits.  Many of those habits are continued long into adulthood.  Reactivity usually becomes the standard way people function in the world.  Responding reactively sends the message that you are “helpless” to act differently…on your own.  As an adult, do you really want to send such a message?

That great Stoic Philosopher, Epicetus, wrote, “It is our attitude toward events, not the events themselves, which we can control.” When you were a teenager, you may have heard questions like, “Why can’t you be more responsible?”  Or you may have heard, “I can’t trust you with the car until you become more responsible.”  You probably became convinced that being responsible was something in which you were grossly deficient.

Many adults believe that responsibilities are the reactions or behaviors that were expected of them by someone else.  For instance, the responsibilities of walking the dog or taking out the trash, or getting good grades in school, are behaviors that fulfilled the expectations of parents and teachers.  Engaging in these responsibilities may or may not meet your own adult expectations or desires. Personal responsibility is not blame, nor is it exercising good judgment.  It is neither duties nor liabilities.  It is much more important than these.  How you choose to habitually respond, forms the foundation of your personal integrity as well as your lifestyle.  Your current mental, emotional and behavioral habits are what create your future.

Consistently reacting to external stimulation essentially makes you a victim of circumstance.  Reactivity robs you of choice.  When you consistently react to others, you give them all the power to determine how you behave.  On the other hand, consciously choosing how you want to react makes responses out of your reactions.  Responses are chosen.  Reactions are reflexive or habitual.  Being response-able is about freely choosing how you want to respond in any given situation.  Taking full responsibility is breaking the dependent, reactive habits of childhood (and victimhood).  It is exercising your freedom to respond in any way you want to any circumstance you’re in.

When I put myself in a position of being fully responsible for my choices (behavior), a wonderful thing happens…it frees you because you have no responsibility for how I choose to respond. Taking responsibility for all my attitudes, actions and choices empowers you!  It allows you to become “response-able” (able to respond).  My being able to respond to life strengthens your autonomy and allows you to consciously create your future.  I can’t blame you. I can’t blame God. I can’t blame anything or anybody.  When I assume full responsibility for my own behavior, my own despair, my own tears, my own joy, my own attainments and, I hope, my own happiness, I realize I’m no longer helpless victim. That is personal responsibility.  That is personal power!

In his book, Man’s Search for Meaning, Victor Frankl describes his experiences in no less than 5 death camps during World War II.  During that time, he realized that his captors could take away his liberty, but they could not take away his freedom to respond to his situation in whatever way he chose.  Becoming response able or able to respond moves you out of the role of victim.  It is taking autonomous control of your way of being in the world.  Taking personal response-ability for all that you think, say and do, frees you to choose your own way of being in the world.  It allows you to choose new responses to old circumstances.  It allows you to re-program your unconscious habits according to your current, conscious choices.  It brings you the freedom to design and create your current lifestyle and your future.

Winston Churchill once said, “The price of greatness is responsibility.”  This week, become great by choosing to vote.


Roy C. Bath has been active in the Fort Collins Rotary Peacebuilder Fellowship. He is a former Marine with combat service in Vietnam who then worked with public defenders in Colorado. He is the Coordinator of the Fort Collins Dan Lyons Chapter of Veterans for Peace.

He can be reached at royboy1947@me.com

On November 11, just after the election here in the U.S., we celebrate Veteran’s Day. As a former Marine and a combat veteran of the Vietnam War, I have concerns about where our elected leaders have taken us. Today, it seems to me that war permeates almost every aspect of our society. Despite the many problems we face as a nation, we continue to give 15% of our federal tax dollars to the military and roughly half of discretionary federal spending as reported by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.[i] In terms of international comparisons, the U.S, spends more on the military than the next ten nations combined, as reported by the National Priorities Project.[ii] We have the military at our colleges and universities; they recruit in our schools. They recruit our youth and send them to war, declared or not.

This Armistice day, let us call on our elected leaders to rethink these priorities and renew our commitment to peace. Let us look at the COVID-19 crisis, the existential crisis facing our planet, the income inequality crisis, our health-care crisis, and our “war problem” as opportunities to create a more peaceful world. Colorado State University is home to many who have served in the Peace Corps. The Philosophy department teaches a course on peace and the University has other courses that address peace. Let’s build on what is here to further promote peace. Let us honor all the Veterans who gave their lives in war by working to create peace. It’s the decent thing to do. And let’s elect those who can support us in this direction.

Human decency demands that we do more to end war and the costs of military preparedness. I do not believe that this is a left or right issue, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democratic. Ending war and the excesses of military expenditure are really about honoring humanity, about our empathy and respect for others, trust and communication with others. Human decency is also about reverence and respect for our planet, our home, the earth and all who live upon it. Human decency demands that we work seriously to promote peace. Our children’s future depends upon it. Electing leaders who embrace this vision is essential.

The problems that we face are formidable: Are we going to have a democratically based government or an authoritarian government? Are we going to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change? Are we going to use scientific evidence to guide our response to the pandemic? Are we going to make healthcare a right?

Or are we going to continue to ignore the underemployed and the unemployed? Are we going to tackle the income inequality? Are we going to investin our youth by giving them an education that will enable them to develop their talents and abilities so that they can contribute to the overall development of our society? In short are we going to work for the betterment of our people; or will we continue to spend over a trillion dollars a year for war?

To understand the cost of war more accurately, let us take a look at the Cost of War Project at Brown University. 


The Role of Rotary in Promoting Democratic Principles Through Peacebuilding

Jim Halderman teaches court ordered, private, and prison-oriented anger management and communication skills.  A Rotarian of 29 years he is a Past District Governor, district peace committee chair, and ombudsman for District 5450. He can be reached at jimspeaker@comcast.net.

            “I have no hesitation in saying that world peace could be achieved

            and made permanent if reared on Rotary’s firm foundation of

                                    friendliness, tolerance, and usefulness”

                                                                        Paul Harris, Message to 1940 RI Convention

Recently in an unpublished paper submitted for peer review, Professor Goldstone, a sociologist, and Peter Turchin, an expert on mathematical modeling of historical societies, have concluded that the U.S. is “headed for another civil war”. The conditions for civil violence, they say, are the worst since the 19th century – in particular, the years leading up to the start of the American Civil War in 1861. The reason for this is trends that began in the 1980s.  “With regard to inequality, selfish elites and polarization have crippled the ability of the U.S. government to mount an effective response to the pandemic disease,” they write.  “This has also hampered our ability to deliver an inclusive economic relief policy and exacerbated the tensions over racial injustice.” We also currently have a stock market at an all-time high while one-half of the nation is food insecure, rent insecure, and one major auto repair away from walking.

After pages of graphs explaining their work, they do end with optimistic possibilities.  First, awareness of the issues brings potential resolutions.  Second, Goldstone believes the present has also brought out the best in some Americans.  “There’s something good in America that is still very much alive,” he said.

It is my sincere belief that Rotarians now stand in a position to be the forerunner of a positive change.  Rotary is “something good in America”.  Paul Harris began Rotary to be an alternative to the unethical business practices which had become the way of operation in Chicago.  As individuals, as communities, and as colleagues, most have endured challenging times before that ended positively.

The tools for Rotarians are extensive.  As any carpenter knows, most require training, practice, and conscious awareness.  So what is in our toolbox? Let’s start with the 4-Way Test.  

  1. Does Truth serve as the way we live at all times?  Are we comfortable calling out obvious lies we hear around us in a positive constructive manner?  Do we demand consistency of our leaders or are we OK when the lie benefits us?  Have we developed a habit of lying to avoid negative feelings? 
  • Fairness requires sensitivity to others around us.  Fairness deals with equality, justice, and consistency. 
  • The third test deals with goodwill and better friendships.  Every word we utter, action we take, or expression we make either builds our relationships or defeats a positive connection.  Do we always broadcast a positive demeanor even in front of negativity? 
  • And last, is it Beneficial to all Concerned?  If we were to take four seconds to ask ourselves these questions prior to responding to a negative event, it could positively change the outcome.

In the second drawer of our toolbox are Rotary’s Core Values of Leadership, Integrity, Service, Diversity, and Fellowship.  Rotarians are recognized for their leadership ability; they take action, and are committed to completion.  For example, Rotary is continuously recognized for the leadership and commitment shown in its efforts to eradicate polio.  Integrity was the original reason Rotary exists and remains a critical element.  “Service Above Self” is our motto and what we do.  The concept of fairness, goodwill, and beneficial to all has no limits to whom it should apply.  Rotarians are made up of great diversity throughout the Rotary world.  It is in the process of fellowship that leaders join, share ideas, and take action.

One of the newest and very exciting tools in Rotary’s toolbox as of 2017 is the relationship with the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP).  IEP is an independent, non-profit think tank dedicated to shifting the world’s focus to peace as a positive, achievable, and tangible measure of human wellbeing and progress.  It quantifies and measures what works towards the development of peace.  After analyzing over 4,000 markers in 166 countries, eight pillars consistently stood out as essential to peace.  They are:

  • Well-functioning Government
    • Equitable Distribution of Resources
    • Free Flow of Information
    • Good Relations with Neighbors
    • High Levels of Human Capital
    • Acceptance of the Rights of Others
    • Low Levels of Corruption
    • Sound Business Environment

All of these function equally well on the macro or micro level.  Whether it is our neighbor next door, community, or world, all are essential to a peaceful environment.  They also point out the greatness of Rotary International’s 4-Way Test.  If we embrace this test and our core values, then these eight pillars are assumed, predictable, and automatic.  Aristotle said that a virtue is a trait of character manifested in habitual action.  Are the virtues of our magnificent toolbox always a habit with us? 

When Rotarians live to be beneficial to others, attempt to expand goodwill through better friendships, and live with integrity, they will defeat the angst and turmoil taking place in front of us. Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan mentions we all want to live as well as possible, but none of us can flourish unless we have a peaceful, cooperative social order.  And we cannot have a peaceful, cooperative social order without rules.  The moral rules, then, are simply the rules that are necessary if we are to gain the benefits of social living.  Rotary’s toolbox is filled with the most powerful moral rules.

The role, now more than ever, is for Rotarians to promote democratic principles through social living, allowing the 4-Way Test to become habit, and embracing our core values.  We must recognize our security, our peace, comes not from carrying the biggest club as someone will always find a larger one, but from the power of compassion, from love, from creating goodwill and understanding.  When taking the time to truly listen and understand another’s point of view, it is always amazing how much commonality we can discover.  As Goldstone said: “There is something good in America that’s still very much alive.”  That “good” is innate in Rotarians.  Let’s go wage peace!



See the RI website: https://my.rotary.org/en/learning-reference/about-rotary/our-priorities If you would you like to respond to one of the pieces in this newsletter, check out our blog  www.rotarypeacebuilder.com and join the conversation! If you would like to contribute to a future newsletter, visit www.rotarypeacebuilder.com/submit/. You can find some of our past issues at the Rotary District 5440 website: https://www.rotary5440.org/sitepage/peace-building-newsletters. Future issues may explore the following: DECEMBER—(Timpson) A Peace Park and Peacebuilder’s Trail. JANUARY—(Timpson) Transforming Conflict. If you have ideas for future topics, please send them to any of our writer.


[1] Alien and Sedition Acts, History.com, March 2020   https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/alien-and-sedition-acts  

[2] An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/sedact.asp

[3] The Founding Fathers Feared Political Factions Would Tear the Nation Apart, History.com, March 2019  https://www.history.com/news/founding-fathers-political-parties-opinion

[4] Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 10 August 1824, Founders Early Access, University of Virginia Press, 2009-2020 https://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=FOEA-print-04-02-02-4451

[5] Federalist Paper No. 10, written by James Madison in 1787 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10 

[6] George Washington Farewell Address, 1796 https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

[7] 1943 October 13, Hansard, United Kingdom Parliament, Commons, Coalmining Situation, Speaking: The Prime Minister (Winston Churchill), HC Deb, volume 392, cc920-1012  http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1943/oct/13/coalmining-situation#S5CV0392P0_19431013_HOC_288

[i] See:  https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-military-forces-fy-2020-strategic-and-budget-context?gclid=Cj0KCQjw8rT8BRCbARIsALWiOvQENTxSfsyuUdX-8uYNZACxjpZaXMrE0X-pVim1lT6UedsnhBhe4wgaAtBmEALw_wcB

[ii] See: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/us-military-spending-vs-world/  

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s