Politics
It is a tradition in the United States, that every four years on January 20, there is a transition of power. The incoming president is sworn in and afterward, the outgoing president leaves the White House…or sometimes the outgoing president leaves before the swearing in of the new president. Unfortunately, not every transition is an amiable one or even a peaceful one. I suppose that is because neither side likes to lose. In fact, when the opposing party takes over the White House these days, it usually isn’t a peaceful transition. Often there are protesters and sometimes things get out of hand…and of course, there is plenty of blame to go around. The truth is often very obscured, and the blame is laid on the wrong party. You can like what I say, or not, but the reality is that there is plenty of proof concerning the January 6th event of 2021, and the wrong people were accused.
We all have our own opinion on the 2020 election, and I won’t dispute that or its outcome, but now the people of this nation have spoken…again, in a truly fair election, and we are about to put President Donald J Trump back in the White House. The transition actually began when he won the United States presidential election on November 5, 2024, becoming the president-elect. Because of our system, his formal election came when the Electoral College voted on December 17, 2024. The results were certified by a joint of Congress on January 6, 2025, and the transition is scheduled to conclude with Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2025.
I think this country is so ready for the changes President Trump will bring back. His first term in office showed 
the people just how prosperous the country could be. We were almost energy independent; gas prices were low, patriotism was high, and things made sense. All that went away when Biden took office. It was as if the whole country went crazy. Now that President Trump is coming back, things are turning around so quickly that it is awe inspiring. The whole feel of things in this country is taking a 180° turn…overnight. It is amazing. The people he has chosen for his cabinet totally add to the air of excitement. And of course, we are very excited with his vice-presidential choice. Vice President JD Vance came up from poor roots, but worked hard to make something of himself, and I think he will be an amazing vice president. This president will bring back common sense.
Trump became the presumptive nominee of his party on March 12, 2024, and formally accepted the nomination at the Republican National Convention in July. On August 16th, Trump announced the formation of the transition team with Linda McMahon, Trump’s former head of the Small Business Administration, and Howard Lutnick, the billionaire CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald and BGC Group, officially named as co-chairs. Vice presidential nominee JD Vance, along with sons Donald Jr. and Eric Trump, were designated as honorary co-chairs. The effort beginning at this time was considered unusually late, as historically, most transition efforts start in late spring. Nevertheless, this team is very capable, and they will have everything in readiness. Attorney Robert F Kennedy Jr and former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard were added as honorary co-chairs on August 27th. Both are former Democrats who had recently endorsed Trump. Kennedy had initially launched an independent presidential campaign before withdrawing to endorse Trump. Kennedy is reportedly in for a Cabinet position in this administration.
Watching the inauguration today felt like the opening of prison doors. The nation has been under such oppression, and negativity. The future seemed hopeless, but all that changed at 12:01pm in the Capitol Rotunda in Washington DC. President Trump outlined the things he plans to do, and with each on, we began to 
feel hope again. He is so sharp, and when he sees something that is wrong, he goes after it. He works to correct the problem and repair the situation. President Trump is a very hands-on, go get ’em kind of guy, and he is not politically correct, an action that has had a crippling effect on this nation. With President Trump’s return to the White House comes dignity, hope, patriotism, transparency, honesty, and truthfulness. I say bring it on President Trump. We are ready for you!!
In 1800, President John Adams approved legislation that appropriated $5,000 to purchase “such books as may be necessary for the use of Congress.” The initial collection of books, ordered from London, arrived in 1801. These were stored in the US Capitol. The books were the library’s first. The inaugural library catalog, dated April 1802, listed 964 volumes and nine maps. The library was President Adams’ pride and joy. In 1814, in what was a largely symbolic maneuver, the British entered Washington DC and burned down the capitol and the library. The fire was dramatic, but really had little relevance, because the city didn’t have an especially large population and, since much of the US government had fled before the British could overtake them, there was little strategic value in the destruction. Nevertheless, the about 3,000 books were lost in that fire.
The Library of Congress must seem like an institution that is unable to be defeated, but the reality is that while it has been there practically forever, acting as the nation’s biggest library, it has been almost destroyed three times. The Library of Congress is one of the largest libraries in the world, with over 170 million items in its collections at present, according to the Library of Congress itself. It possesses a world class collection of rare books and holds the largest known collection of audio recordings, maps, and films, among other materials. It is accessible not only to the Congressional representatives who work nearby in the Capitol, but also to all Americans and members of the public. That was not always the case, however. At its inception, the Library of Congress was for congressional use only.
Once the fires of the British died down, they left Washington, and the American lawmakers returned. As has always been the way of Americans, they knew it was time to rebuild. While Congress was putting itself back together, it became clear that most wanted the Library of Congress to return as well. At that point, former president Thomas Jefferson stepped in. He offered to sell his own library to reconstitute the one lost in 1814. It is certainly logical that Jefferson was one proposing such a deal. According to the Library of Congress, he was an avid book reader and lifelong learner with an extensive personal library. While he committed to the notion of an informed, intellectual Congress, Jefferson may have also empathized on a deeper level. In 1770, his own home had burned, and Jefferson, gazing at the ashes, most acutely felt the loss of his books. Later, he would come to possess the largest private library in the United States.
The Library of Congress faced at least three fires in its fight to exist. In fact, its existence as an institution has been challenged numerous obstacles throughout its more than 200 years of existence. The Library of Congress faced space shortages, understaffing, and lack of funding, until the American Civil War increased the importance of legislative research to meet the demands of a growing federal government. Then, in 1870, the library gained the right to receive two copies of every copyrightable work printed in the United States. It also built its collections through acquisitions and donations. Between 1890 and 1897, a new library building, which has now 
been renamed the Thomas Jefferson Building, was constructed. Two additional buildings, the John Adams Building (opened in 1939) and the James Madison Memorial Building (opened in 1980), were later added. In total, the Library of Congress has faced major fires at least three times in its history.
According to the United States House of Representatives, the 1825 fire occurred on the evening of December 22nd. Massachusetts Representative Edward Everett, who was leaving a nearby party, noticed a strange light coming from the library windows. When he informed a Capitol police officer, who did not have a key, Everett dismissed the situation. However, as the glow intensified, it became increasingly difficult to ignore. Eventually, more officers, along with Librarian of Congress George Watterson, discovered the dreadful truth: Library of Congress was on fire…again!!
Both representatives and firefighters fought the blaze, including’s fellow Massachusetts representative, Daniel Webster, and Tennessee politician Sam Houston. They extinguished fire before it spread to the rest of the Capitol. Ultimately, it was determined that the cause was a candle left lit in the room. The damage was not nearly as extensive as the 1814, though some books and a rug were lost.
On December 24, 1851, what is thought to be the most devastating fire destroyed 35,000 books, two-thirds of the library’s collection, and two-thirds of Jefferson’s original transfer. In 1852, Congress appropriated $168,700 to replace the books but not to acquire new materials. By 2008, the librarians of Congress had found replacements for all but 300 of the works documented as being in Jefferson’s original collection. This marked the beginning of a conservative period in the library’s administration under librarian John Silva Meehan and joint committee chairman James A. Pearce, who restricted the library’s activities. Meehan and Pearce’s views on limiting the Library of Congress’s scope were shared by members of Congress. As a librarian, Meehan and perpetuated the notion that “the congressional library should play a limited role on the national scene and its collections, by and large, should emphasize American materials obvious use to the US Congress.” In 1859, Congress transferred the library’s public document distribution activities to the Department of the Interior and its international book exchange program to the Department of State.
These days, the library is open for academic research to anyone with a Reader Identification Card. The library items may not be removed from the reading rooms or the library buildings. Most of the library’s general collection of books and journals are in the closed stacks of Jefferson and Adams Buildings. Specialized collections of books and other materials are in stacks in three main library buildings or stored off-site. Access to the closed stacks not permitted under any circumstances, except to authorized library staff and occasionally to dignitaries. Only reading room reference collections are on open shelves.
Since 1902, American libraries have been able to request books other items through interlibrary loan from the Library of Congress, if these are not available elsewhere. Through this system, the Library of Congress has served as a “library of last resort,” according to former librarian of Congress Herbert Putnam. The Library of Congress lends books to other libraries with the stipulation that they be used only inside the borrowing library. In 2017, the Library of Congress began development of a reader’s card for children under the age of sixteen.
During World War II, as with other wars, things that were needed for the war effort had to be rationed. Things like metal, gasoline, even food made sense to me, but while I was listening to a book called “The Monuments Men” and shorter skirts were mentioned. My first thought was, “How did shorter skirts help the war effort? The men’s morale maybe, but seriously…how?” Well, it turns out that morale had nothing to do with it. The reasons lay elsewhere. Apparently, wool and silk were in high demand to make uniforms and parachutes. For manufacturers, that meant using materials like rayon and viscose (a semi-synthetic type of rayon fabric made from wood pulp that is used as a silk substitute. It has a similar drape and smooth feel to the luxury material) to make most civilians clothing.
In addition to the types of material, the manufacturers had to find a way to actually conserve the amount of fabric being used, so to conserve fabric, dressmakers and manufacturers began designing shorter skirts and slimmer silhouettes. In the book, the comment was made that because so many people walked to work, the women had shapely legs, so I guess the men appreciated the new styles, much like when the miniskirt came into style in the 70s. Although, the women of the World War II era didn’t wear miniskirts. The dresses were just about knee length or slightly longer. The use of shoulder pads ended in World War II as well, although it has made periodic comebacks over the years. Another way that the manufacturers found to conserve fabric, was 
the elimination of the cuff on men’s slacks. Oddly, that change was not as much appreciated by the men in World War II, although these days, cuffs on pants are a rarity, if you see them at all. Mostly these days, you might see pant legs rolled and that mostly on women, but not a real cuff.
Dress hemlines have been known to fluctuate with the times. The pre 1900s showed women with long full dresses that even dragged the ground, full slips and absolutely no ankles or feet showing. I suppose anyone showing an ankle or foot would be considered…loose. By the 1900s, the era of my Spencer great aunts, the skirts were still very long, but with a slimmer cut and fewer full slips to carry around. One of the oddest style came in 1910, when the Hobble Skirt came out. Of course, variations would be the pencil skirt. The roaring 20s, brought a carefree attitude and long cumbersome skirts were replaced with short, knee length (and maybe slightly shorter) skirts, suitable for rather wild dancing. With the stock market crash of 1929, the Crashing 30’s began, and skirts were again long and very conservative. There was no need for flashy dancewear, and there was not much dancing going on. Then, came World War II. Our men were fighting and we…the ones back at home had to make some sacrifices, So, came the shorter skirts made of rayon and such to save the normal materials for our “boys, fighting over there.” When the war ended, the ration weary women went back to their fuller, and slightly longer skirt, because…well they could. And then came the 60s…the era of free love and free expression. The miniskirt arrived, much to the horror of our parents. The Beatles were the rage, and the skirts grew (or shrank) to ever 
shorter lengths. By the late 70s, the midi and maxiskirts had arrived. And so came the Hippie era. Everything was “free flowing and filled with flowers.” To me, it seems that since that time, skirts have been a mix of lengths, from the micromini to the maxi, but in reality, many women gave up skirts completely for jeans, short shorts (hot pants), capris, or whatever else suited our “fancies” because it was all available. I suppose a day could come again, when fashion would change because of war, politics, or personal preference. Styles often repeat. Time will tell that story.
I’ve been listening to an audiobook called the “The Germans In Normandy.” Of course, I’m not a fan of the Germans in World War II, but this book talks about the German perspective about that battle. We all think that the German soldiers went blindly into battle, faithful to their leader…or at least most of them, but the German soldiers all had doubts. They all thought Hitler was about half crazy, but they were afraid to say anything…for the most part anyway.
As I’ve listened to the book, the Hitler Youth came into the story, and I began to wonder, not only how the Hitler Youth felt about Hitler and the Third Reich, but how many of them stayed faithful to Hitler’s ideals and how many of them turned from Hitler’s ideals. So, I did a little research.
Hitler believed that by conditioning young people in groups as the Hitler Youth, they “never be free again, not in their whole lives.” While many young individuals were profoundly influenced by these organizations, support for the Hitler Youth was not as extensive as Nazi leaders had hoped. The youth initially joined and were very excited about their participation, but as time went on, their interest declined. Many young people skipped certain meetings and activities, despite mandatory attendance requirements, resulting in inconsistent loyalty. The reasons behind their declining enthusiasm for Hitler Youth activities were not solely political or moral at times, young individuals simply grew weary of the numerous obligations or became bored. In 1939, the Social Democratic Party, which had been banned by the Nazis and operated covertly, published a report on German 
youth that highlighted some of this frustration. Young people are notorious for promoting change, and that was what they thought they were doing. The restrictions placed on them by the organizers of the Hitler Youth made many of the youth want to walk away.
Of those who did walk away was Hans Scholl, along with Alexander Schmorell, one of the two founding members of the White Rose resistance movement in Nazi Germany. The White Rose was a non-violent, intellectual resistance group in the Third Reich. The group was led by Hans Scholl, and his sister, Sophie, along with several other former Hitler Youth members. The students attended the University of Munich. Their objective was to raise awareness through anonymous leaflets and a graffiti campaign that called for active opposition to the Nazi regime. the anonymity of their actions, Third Reich had spies everywhere. Hans became disillusioned because he had assembled a collection of folk songs, and his young charges loved to listen to him singing, accompanying himself on his guitar. He knew not only the songs of Hitler Youth but also the folk songs of many peoples and many lands. He loved how magically a Russian or Norwegian song sounded with its dark and dragging melancholy. And he thought about what it told of the soul of those people and their homeland! Then, Hans was told the songs were not allowed. He had aways thought that people should be able to pursue the things that interested them, but now the Hitler Youth program was no longer what he thought it was, and he walked away.
Hans and Sophie Scholl, along with Christoph Probst, were prominent members of the core group. The activities of The White Rose in Munich began on June 27, 1942, and ended in the arrest of the group by the Gestapo on February 18, 1943. Those apprehended now faced death sentences or imprisonment in show trials conducted 
by the Nazi People’s Court (Volksgerichtshof). During the trial, Sophie interrupted the judge multiple times, but her remarks went unacknowledged. The defendants were not given the opportunity to speak. They had no means to defend themselves and were declared guilty during the “trial.” They were executed by guillotine four days after their arrest, on February 22, 1943. The group, which had only been active for eight months, had never committed any violent acts. They were sentenced to death. Hitler’s regime regarded them as a greater threat due to their pamphlets and art than if they had killed people.
I would think that the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 17, 1989, would have signaled the end of an era of oppressive treatment of people in the area. Nevertheless, just nine days after the fall, and approximately 200 miles south, a large group of students descended into Prague, Czechoslovakia, to protest against the communist regime in their area. This demonstration sparked the onset of the Velvet Revolution, which was the peaceful overthrow of the Czechoslovak government. It was part of a wave of anti-communist revolutions that developed in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
This wasn’t just a random protest. Protesters selected November 17th to coincide with International Students Day, marking the 50th anniversary of a Nazi assault on the University of Prague. That attack had resulted in nine deaths and the imprisonment of 1,200 students in concentration camps. The area was governed by a single communist party aligned with Moscow since World War II’s conclusion, the Czechoslovak government permitted very little anti-government expression and severely repressed opposition. Strangely, the government authorized the march on International Students Day. In recent years, as the Soviet Bloc’s economy faltered and democratic movements toppled communist governments in Poland and Hungary, anti-government sentiment has grown increasingly pronounced.
Students shouting anti-government slogans filled the streets of Bratislava and Prague. There were confrontations with the police, but officially, no fatalities were reported. Despite police crackdowns, the protests overflowed into other cities and increased rapidly. Theater employees transformed their stages into public debate platforms, and the movement swelled to encompass a diverse cross-section of society. On November 20th, half a million demonstrators gathered in Prague’s Wenceslas Square.
Shortly after the initial protests, it became clear that one-party rule in Czechoslovakia was ending. The Communist Party’s leadership stepped down on November 28th, and by December 10th, an anti-communist government had taken office. Václav Havel, a renowned writer and dissident, was elected president on December 29th, serving as Czechoslovakia’s final president. Subsequently, the Czech and Slovak regions amicably parted ways in the so-called Velvet Divorce, and in 1993, Havel became the first president of the newly established Czech Republic.
It was an amazing feat for the students. Somehow, they managed to pull off a peaceful regime change. The oppressive regime they had always known, was replaced with two free nations and peace. Peaceful revolutions 
are pretty much unheard of. Dictatorships hate to relinquish their power over their helpless citizens, and typically, the students just don’t have much pull in government, although that may be changing. Nevertheless, in a time when they shouldn’t have been able to pull it off, the students of Prague, Czechoslovakia managed an unbelievable feat.
Yesterday, Americans went to the polls to elect our next president. We do this every four years, and whether your candidate wins or loses, it is a right that belongs to every US citizen over the age of 18 years. It isn’t a right that should be taken lightly. There are nations who do not have this right…and unfortunately, there are people who don’t vote and therefore forfeit their right. I understand that many people thing that their vote doesn’t matter, but every vote matters…every vote counts. I don’t care if you live in a state that is so completely red or so completely blue that you don’t think that your vote could possibly make a difference, it can. Change often happens slowly, but when enough people see a need for change, and they vote, change eventually happens. Take for example the states that flipped from Democrat to Republican in this election. People wanted change, and they went out to vote so they could get it.
Of course, sometimes things have to get so bad that if makes people go out to vote. That can be the hardest part, because things do have to get pretty bad. Nevertheless, the people living in this era were born “for such a time as this.” We may not know it, but it is the truth. Each of us has face the times we are in, and we have decided whether we like what is going on or not. Then we act…but only if we get out and vote. Being angry, frustrated, or just done with it, will not create change. Only voting can do that…well, voting and much prayer. I’m sure you can tell which side of the coin I fall on, and that’s ok. I may be for one side or the other, but I firmly believe that people from both sides have a say, and a right to choose. 
Of course, along with the right to vote, comes the right not to vote, and that too, is your right, but in my opinion, that is not the best way to go. My candidate may or may not win, as president, or any other office, but by voting, I have had my say in the matter. Sometimes, a win that is completely unexpected happens, because the voters turn out. You have tremendous power. That vote carries weight. It says, “I am making a stand!! This is how I see things…like it or not!! It’s my vote…and mine alone!! No one can make me vote one way or the other…or at all, but if I don’t vote, my voice is silenced.”
On October 24, 1945, the United Nations Charter, adopted and signed on June 26, 1945, came into effect. The United Nations (UN) emerged from a “perceived” need for a mechanism superior to the League of Nations in arbitrating international conflicts and negotiating peace. The escalating Second World War prompted the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union to draft the initial UN Declaration, which 26 nations signed in January 1942 as an official stance against the Axis Powers of Germany, Italy, and Japan. It all seemed like a good idea, and perhaps was drafted with good intentions, but it is my opinion that the UN has failed miserably to accomplish any of the goals it set out to achieve.
The foundational principles of the UN Charter were initially shaped during the San Francisco Conference, which began on April 25, 1945. This conference established the framework for a new international organization intended to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.” The Charter further outlined two additional vital goals. They were to maintain the principles of equal rights and self-determination for all peoples…initially intended to safeguard smaller nations at risk of being overtaken by the larger Communist powers emerging after the war, and to promote international collaboration to tackle worldwide economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian issues.
Following the war’s end, the responsibility of negotiating and maintaining peace was assigned to the newly established UN Security Council, which included the United States, Great Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and China. Each member possessed veto power. Winston Churchill implored the United Nations to employ its charter to promote a new, united Europe…a unity characterized by its opposition to communist expansion in both the East and the West. Yet, given the composition of the Security Council, achieving this proved more challenging than anticipated. I suppose that the distain felt by many people, for the United Nations, could have arisen from an impossible task, but more likely it came from flawed people who placed their own agenda ahead of the real needs of the people.
The United Nations is subject to criticism for a variety of reasons, including its policies, ideology, equality of representation, administrative practices, enforcement of decisions, and perceived ideological biases. Critics often cite a lack of success within the organization, noting failures in both preventative measures and in de-escalating conflicts ranging from social disputes to full-blown wars. Additional criticisms involve accusations of antisemitism, appeasement, collusion, promotion of globalism, inaction, and the exertion of undue influence by 
powerful nations within the General Assembly, as well as corruption and misallocation of resources. In my opinion, and that of many other people, that the UN should be dissolved, or at the very least, that the United States should withdraw and expel the United Nations from this nation. While some may disagree, this is my viewpoint.
Each American presidency is marked by a defining moment, an event that encapsulates its tenure. For John F. Kennedy’s presidency, the Cuban Missile Crisis stood as that pivotal event. The most intense phase of the crisis, often referred to as the “13 Days,” spanned from October 16, 1962, when President Kennedy was informed of the Soviet missile sites being built in Cuba, to October 28, 1962, when Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev declared the dismantling of the missiles. On October 22, 1962, when it came time to tell the American people about the situation, President Kennedy revealed in a televised address of profound significance, that American spy planes had detected Soviet missile bases in Cuba. This represented a very dangerous situation for the United States. The missile sites were still under construction, but they were close to completion, and they contained medium-range missiles with the capacity to hit several major US cities, including Washington DC.
Kennedy declared he was imposing a naval “quarantine” on Cuba to block Soviet ships from delivering additional offensive weapons to the island. He stated that the United States would not accept the current missile sites’ presence. The president emphasized that America was prepared to take military action to eliminate what he described as a “secretive, irresponsible, and provocative threat to global peace.”
The Cuban Missile Crisis, as it became known, began on October 14, 1962, when US intelligence, analyzing data from a U-2 spy plane, discovered that the Soviet Union was constructing medium-range missile sites in Cuba. The following day, President Kennedy convened a secret emergency meeting with his top military, political, and diplomatic advisers to address the grave situation. This group came to be known as ExComm, an abbreviation for Executive Committee. Opting against a surgical air strike on the missile sites, ExComm instead chose a naval blockade and demanded the dismantling and removal of the missiles. It was then, on the evening of October 22, that President Kennedy disclosed his decision on national television. Tensions continued to mount over the ensuing six days, to a critical point, and placing the world on the edge of nuclear warfare between the two superpowers.
On October 23, the United States initiated a naval “quarantine” of Cuba. However, President Kennedy opted to allow Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev additional time to contemplate the US maneuver by moving the quarantine line back 500 miles. By October 24, Soviet vessels bound for Cuba, capable of transporting military cargo, seemed to have decelerated, changed course, or turned around as they neared the quarantine zone, except for one ship…the tanker Bucharest. Following appeals from over 40 nonaligned countries, UN Secretary-General U Thant made private overtures to Kennedy and Khrushchev, imploring their administrations to “avoid any actions that might worsen the situation and pose a risk of war.” Under orders from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, United States armed forces escalated to DEFCON 2, the most critical military readiness level ever achieved in the postwar period, while commanders readied for an all-out conflict with the Soviet Union.
On October 25, the aircraft carrier USS Essex and the destroyer USS Gearing tried to intercept the Soviet tanker Bucharest as it breached the US quarantine of Cuba. The Soviet vessel did not comply, but the US Navy refrained from taking it by force, judging that it was unlikely to be carrying offensive weapons. On October 26, Kennedy was informed that construction on the missile bases continued unabated, and ExComm contemplated a US invasion of Cuba. The Soviets apparently felt the tension of their actions, because on that same day, they offered a deal to resolve the crisis: they would dismantle the missile bases in return for a United States guarantee not to invade Cuba.
The following day, Khrushchev escalated the situation by publicly demanding the removal of US missile bases in Turkey, influenced by Soviet military leaders. As Kennedy and his advisors deliberated over this perilous shift in negotiations, a U-2 spy plane was downed over Cuba, resulting in the death of its pilot, Major Rudolf Anderson. It looked like thing might have reached the boiling point, but despite the Pentagon’s dismay, Kennedy prohibited any military response unless further surveillance aircraft were targeted over Cuba. To alleviate the intensifying crisis, Kennedy and his team decided to dismantle the US missile installations in Turkey at a subsequent time, to avoid provoking Turkey, who was an essential NATO ally.
On October 28, Khrushchev declared his government’s decision to dismantle and remove all offensive Soviet weapons from Cuba. Following the broadcast of this public announcement on Radio Moscow, the USSR affirmed its readiness to adopt the resolution secretly suggested by the Americans the previous day. That afternoon, Soviet technicians started dismantling the missile sites, averting the imminent threat of nuclear war. The Cuban Missile Crisis had effectively ended. In November, Kennedy lifted the blockade, and by year’s end, all offensive missiles were removed from Cuba. Later, the United States discreetly withdrew its missiles from Turkey.
At the time, the Cuban Missile Crisis appeared to be a definitive triumph for the United States. In this, Cuba gained a heightened sense of security following the crisis. The withdrawal of obsolete Jupiter missiles from Turkey did not negatively impact the United States’ nuclear strategy. Nevertheless, the crisis spurred the USSR, feeling humiliated, to initiate a substantial nuclear arms expansion. By the 1970s, the Soviet Union had achieved nuclear parity with the United States and developed intercontinental ballistic missiles with the capability to target any city within the United States.
The presidents that followed Kennedy upheld his promise to refrain from invading Cuba, and the relationship with the communist nation, located a mere 80 miles off the coast of Florida, continued to challenge United States foreign policy for over half a century. Finally, in 2015, representatives from both countries declared the official normalization of United States-Cuba relations, encompassing the relaxation of travel bans and the establishment of embassies and diplomatic offices in each nation.
For Kennedy, this pivotal moment in his administration showcased his ability to manage a high-stakes international crisis. His decision to implement a naval blockade and negotiate with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev helped avoid a potential nuclear war. It also demonstrated his leadership and diplomatic skills, as he balanced military readiness with diplomatic negotiations, which ultimately led to the removal of Soviet missiles from Cuba. The successful resolution of the crisis significantly boosted Kennedy’s public image, portraying him as a strong and capable leader who could protect the United States from external threats. The crisis was a defining moment in the Cold War, highlighting the intense rivalry between the United States and the 
Soviet Union. Nevertheless, it also led to the establishment of a direct communication line between Washington and Moscow, known as the “hotline,” to prevent future crises. In summary, the Cuban Missile Crisis was a defining event that not only tested Kennedy’s presidency, but it also shaped his legacy as a leader who could navigate the complexities of international relations during one of the most dangerous periods of the Cold War.
We have all heard about the importance of thinking ahead. It’s important in many situations, but unfortunately, it isn’t always appreciated. One case of forward thinking that rather backfired is the case of Robert G Heft. Heft, who went by Bob, was in high school in 1958, when his history teacher, Stanley Pratt, asked his class to make anything they wanted and bring it in for a show-and-tell. Heft took a little bit different approach than his classmates, and it rather backfired. While most of his classmates designed a conventional approach for their class project, Heft decided to do something a little more ambitious.It was a noble effort, and definitely forward thinking, but when Heft brought his flag to school, his teacher was not impressed. Years later, Heft recalled, “He told me, ‘Why you got too many stars? You don’t even know how 
many states we have.'” Heft received a B- for his project. Nevertheless, he was offered an opportunity to enhance his grade by persuading the US government to adopt his flag design. Despite the slim chances, Heft was determined. He initiated a campaign, writing letters and placing calls to the White House, urging the president to consider his flag.
Two years after Alaska and Hawaii were admitted as states, Heft was surprised with a call from President Dwight D Eisenhower, informing him that his design had been selected for the new 50-star flag. On July 4, 1960, Heft was honored with an invitation from President Eisenhower to attend a flag-raising ceremony at the US Capitol in Washington DC. Even Heft’s history teacher was impressed, saying, “I guess if it’s good enough for Washington, it’s good enough for me. I hereby change the grade to an A.” Well, that took a fair amount of decency on the part of the teacher. He could have let it go, but he didn’t.
Since that time, Heft’s banner has established a new record as the longest-serving U.S. flag. Heft pursued a career as a professor at Northwest State Community College in Archbold, Ohio, and held the position of mayor in Napoleon, Ohio. He gained recognition as a motivational speaker and made 14 visits to the White House. Anticipating future changes, Heft also crafted a 51-star American flag in the event that Washington DC, or Puerto Rico achieves statehood. His 51-star flag design features six alternating rows of stars with nine and 
eight stars each.
Heft, born in Saginaw, Michigan on January 19, 1942. He left Michigan following his parents’ separation when he was around a year old. He returned upon retiring from his professorship at Northwest State Community College in Archbold, Ohio. Robert G Heft, who passed away on December 12, 2009, at a hospital in Saginaw, Michigan, at the age of 67, will always be remembered as the student who created the 50-star American flag design.
The USS Cole, an American naval destroyer, captained by Commander Kirk Lippold, arrived in Aden, Yemen at the southern end of the Arabian Peninsula for refueling, en route to join US warships enforcing trade sanctions against Iraq. At 12:15pm local time, a motorized rubber dinghy filled with explosives created a 40-by-40-foot hole in the port side of the ship, while it was docked for refueling in Aden. How could it have been that easy? The attack, which resulted in the death of seventeen sailors and wounded thirty-eight, was perpetrated by two suicide terrorists believed to be affiliated with Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network.
The blast resulted in significant flooding aboard the warship, causing it to list slightly. Nevertheless, by nightfall, the crew had successfully halted the water flooding in, thereby keeping the Cole afloat. Following the assault, President Bill Clinton directed US vessels in the Persian Gulf to evacuate the area and proceed to the open sea. He then dispatched large contingent of American investigators to Aden for a thorough inquiry. The group included FBI agents dedicated to probing potential connections to Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden had already been indicted in the United States for orchestrating the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, which claimed the lives of 224 individuals, among them 12 Americans, so it was not a far stretch to think he would have a hand in this attack too.
The USS Cole’s brief four-hour stopover indicates that the terrorists had inside information about its unscheduled visit to the Aden fueling station. The small boat used by the terrorists merged seamlessly with other harbor vessels aiding the Cole’s mooring process and managed to get close to the US warship undetected. Upon detonation of their dinghy, a substantial explosion ripped through the Cole’s port side, causing extensive damage to the engine room, mess hall, and living quarters. Witnesses aboard the Cole reported seeing both terrorists stand up moments before the blast, typical of suicide bombers.
In all, six individuals were suspected of involvement in the Cole attack. They were quickly detained in Yemen, but due to the lack of cooperation from Yemeni officials, the FBI has been unable to definitively connect the 
attack to bin Laden, even though we all know that he masterminded it. This kind of attack was so typical of the type of attack that would later make bin Laden well known as a major player in attacks against American targets. As for Americans, these leaks and the inability of the FBI to resolve the issue are some of the biggest reasons that many Americans don’t trust the FBI today.
