OPEN LETTER OF APOLOGY TO OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES: WE’RE SORRY
As our narcissistic rageaholic president throws one tantrum after another, I send an open letter of apology to our European allies – we’re sorry we elected him. Really. Too bad he has all this power. As Trump increasingly seeks to escalate the war in Iran; our European allies, after another, are refusing to grant airport landing privileges to American military planes. Good for them. They are apparently developing the backbone to say No! to our president. Too bad the Republican senate can’t do the same thing. Meanwhile, Pete Hegseth was seen riding into the Pentagon wearing full knight’s armor, a surcoat emblazoned with Christ, the Warrior King and clutching a copy of Walter Scott’s – Ivanhoe under one arm. Interestingly enough, more knights are falling in battle as one Republican senator after another chooses to not seek re-election. Either they see the rising blue tide coming and don’t want to have their asses handed to them in a teacup; or, they have tried again and again to talk some reason to this president and have given up. They are reading the room; something Trump can’t seem to do. Probably because he gets rid of anyone who disagrees with him on any point. (“Don’t wear that, Mr. President, it makes you look fat.” “Shut up!”) This list of retiring senators is greater than any year since 2012: Republicans: Armstrong, OK, Daines, MT, Lumin, WY, Ernst, IA, Tillis, NC, Tillis, KY; Democrats: Dubin, IL, Shaheen, NH, Smith MN, and Peter, MI. What surprises me the most is that so many of these senators are central US states, the mid-west and northeast. Wow! Trumpland, Is the ground moving? Also, the number of Europeans who are saying no to Trump: Poland, Italy, Spain and France. Just like the member of the Senate who state that Trump never discussed the war with them before launching attacks, they are indicating NATO was never asked or included in any discussions about this war. There was no risk of imminent attack from Iran and therefore, they have no duty to assist. Yeah for them!!!!!! It is the greatest wish of a lot of people that the blue tide will sweep the Senate and they will in turn, sweep out the orange man. Sadly, a lot of damage has been done and will continue to be done under this administration. There will be a whole lot of apologies and fence rebuilding to do once he is gone. Sigh. Cew 4/26
The United States is Deliberately Sabotaging its Image Abroad by Gutting USAGM
Posted By Matthew Wallin on Mar 21, 2025 – ASP – American Security Project
In his second inaugural address, President Donald J. Trump proclaimed, “America will reclaim its rightful place as the greatest, most powerful, most respected nation on earth, inspiring the awe and admiration of the entire world.” While this may be the president’s stated intent, the actions thus far undertaken in pursuit of this goal are completely counterproductive.
Last Friday, the Trump administration issued a new executive order effectively gutting the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), dismantling America’s long-standing international broadcasters like Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia. These institutions, which championed American principles, provided hope and aspiration to people in countries full of despair, and have been fundamental in supporting efforts to strengthen democracy and understanding of America all around the world. They have been key elements in generating the global respect for the United States that Trump champions. By informing the world about America, and providing quality journalism for people in countries without strong or independent media, these entities were essential to the United States’ victory in the Cold War and promoted the establishment of functioning democracies and allies for our country.
There are countless stories and data documenting people who received or still get their news from America’s government-funded broadcasters, and who can personally attest to their importance and influence. Charged with providing accurate news and information to people who otherwise might not have it, these catalysts of American influence have left an indelible impression on people yearning for real news and information. With USAGM audiences numbering greater than 400 million worldwide, the reach was enormous. But apparently, the Trump administration does not consider this worthwhile, even as China spends “at least $3 billion per year on international media” compared to the relatively meager $950 million budget request by USAGM for FY2025. Without USAGM, the U.S. is effectively ceding the information space to the oppressive regimes of Russia, China, and Iran.
This is, of course, just the latest in a deliberate effort to disarm America’s soft power capabilities and sabotage its image abroad. Russia, China, and Iran are engaged in a massive international effort to make the world safe for autocracy, and the United States just decided to disband its most effective forces against this endeavor. With the destruction of USAID, and the Congress’ refusal to stand up for the budget that it previously approved to support its vital mission, it’s as if China had succeeded in convincing the U.S. government to surrender all its best tools for commanding respect, goodwill, and influence abroad. Meanwhile, China continues to seed and cultivate its own influence through the Belt and Road, all while America looks the other way.
America’s soft power is what makes it different from its adversaries. Rather than coercing, cajoling, and corrupting countries around the world, American foreign policy should be based on attracting, asking, and advising. The United States should attract because there is inherent good and value in our system and working with the United States is preferable to falling prey to authoritarian interests. Asking (not telling) signals respect to those our country wishes to influence—by listening and demonstrating that the U.S. genuinely values them as partners, we create lower-risk environments that build life-long trade and security relationships. By advising, we offer our own expertise to improving quality of life and governance abroad, instilling American values to create partnerships that ultimately make the world a safer and more secure place. The alternative is infinitely more expensive and deadly—just ask Russia.
You’re reading The Briefing, Michael Waldman’s weekly newsletter. Click here to receive it in your inbox.
The presidency has seen its fair share of political retribution and self-dealing. John Adams prosecuted political dissenters. Richard Nixon had an enemies list. Joe Biden pardoned his son.
All that may pale in comparison to what we’ve seen over the past few days.
There was President Trump’s public demand that the attorney general prosecute New York Attorney General Letitia James, former FBI Director James Comey, and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA). When a top federal prosecutor did not bring charges against James and Comey, Trump pushed him out.
Meanwhile, there was the MSNBC story of Tom Homan, now the immigration “tsar,” videotaped accepting $50,000 from undercover FBI agents last year in a bag from the fast-casual chain Cava. (I’ll have a bowl of greens, please.) Trump officials shut down the investigation. Homan, yesterday, did not deny the handoff but insisted, “I did nothing criminal.”
Not to mention the New York Times report about a White House deal with the United Arab Emirates and a $2 billion investment in the Trump family crypto firm. And a new Brennan Center analysis exposing how donors have received pardons and special favors in recent months.
Some 50 years ago, Watergate featured bags of cash and the firing of a prosecutor. That took two years to unfold, not a week.
Often, but not inevitably, reform follows scandal. After Watergate, Congress passed legislation to curb abuse and constrain the imperial presidency. They ranged from special prosecutor laws to new budget powers for Congress. Nixon’s Republican successor Gerald Ford established a tradition that the Justice Department should have considerable independence in order to avoid a repeat of political prosecutions.
A half-century eroded those constraints. The Supreme Court gutted the campaign finance laws and narrowed the definition of bribery. During Trump’s first term, it became clear that the guardrails were flimsy. In this term, they might as well not exist.
Will these newest transgressions become a major issue? Endless cacophony can distract from scandal. Who can even keep track? But voters do seem to understand the link between self-dealing, abuse of power, and rights violated. In just a few months, corruption has quickly emerged as a hot issue again.
Yet it won’t be enough for politicians to merely orate about restoring the rule of law. Leary voters think, “Everyone does it.” The only way to overcome that skepticism is with action.
That’s why it is encouraging that some lawmakers have begun to stir.
Last week, Schiff reintroduced the Protecting Our Democracy Act. Passed by the House in 2021, the bill would limit contacts between the White House and the Justice Department. It would bring transparency to the pardon process. It would create clear standards for enforcing the Constitution’s emoluments clauses — the provisions, so important to the founders, that prevent presidents from receiving bribes from foreign governments. It would restore Congress’s role as a check against the kind of presidential abuse of emergency powers that has become a hallmark of this administration. And it would bolster Congress’s oversight role and reinforce its power over the purse. It was a strong measure to curb abuse of power.
The bill draws on key recommendations from a 2017 Brennan Center nonpartisan task force — led by former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara and former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman — and from Brennan Center recommendations for reforming the National Emergencies Act.
This reintroduced bill is a promising start. But reforms should keep evolving, growing stronger to address the magnitude of today’s new Gilded Age. One example: Tighter rules should be put in place to prevent the weaponization of the Justice Department against political enemies. It is illegal for presidents to order a tax audit of an individual, so they should not be able to order a criminal prosecution either. Perhaps individuals could be given standing to sue if they have been selectively prosecuted for political reasons.
As a reform era takes shape, we must all now grapple with a new and disturbing factor: a Supreme Court that previously constrained executive branch action through the “major questions” doctrine but now seems ever more eager to expand presidential power. After all, this administration’s impunity follows last year’s ruling giving presidents vast immunity from prosecution. Now we see the consequences of a judicially created lawless zone.
It might be tempting for those who are appalled by today’s abuses to quietly growl, but refuse to act, on the theory that they don’t want to limit their own power once they’re in. “After all, Trump did it, so why shouldn’t his successor?” That cynical take sounds savvy but is misguided.
The Protecting Our Democracy Act failed to pass even when the White House and Congress were in unified Democratic hands. Biden White House officials made it clear that they were not wild about a bill that would tie their hands even a bit. Count that as one more failure to harden the system against future abuse.
Wise constitutional constraints are not some self-defeating noblesse oblige. They are a key part of what makes our republic strong. Done right, enforced strongly, they constrain potential abuse not just now but into the future.
When (if!) this era of abuse ends, leaders from both parties will be called upon to enact new reforms to ensure this cannot happen again. Upon taking office, President Ford said that the end of the Watergate crisis was proof that “Our Constitution works” and “our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men.” We must make sure the same is true today.
“American working men and women have much of which to be proud. Our democracy is based on their good sense and commitment to liberty. It was the hard work and skill of working people that turned a vast American wilderness into the world’s most powerful economy.”
“The great safeguard of our liberty is the totality of the constitutional system, with no one part getting the upper hand.”
“Indeed, I believe that the world of the future can be just that — a world of liberty, a world in which human rights are respected in the political and economic spheres alike.”
Strong leaders don’t fear criticism, but weak ones do.
Support free speech before we start looking like our communist neighbors!!!!!!
China’s rise in the world market led the Chinese diaspora in Africa to make contact with relatives in their homeland. Renewed relations created a portal through which African demand for low-price consumers goods could flow.[18] Chinese businessmen in Africa, with contacts in China, brought in skilled industrial engineers and technicians such as mechanics, electricians, carpenters, to build African industry from the ground up.[19]
The 1995 official Go Global declaration and the 2001 Chinese entry into the WTO paved the way for private citizens in China to increasingly connect with, import from, and export to the budding Sino-African markets.
Expansion of military presence (1990 to the present)
Africa does not stand at the center of China’s security strategies, yet the continent has been and remains a major source for China’s commodity stocks. Africa was also seen as an important bid for international legitimacy against the eastern and western blocks. In the 1960s, China contributed to Africa’s military power by assisting and training liberation groups, such as Mugabe‘s ZANU.
The Chinese military presence in Africa has increased since 1990 when China agreed to join in UN peace-keeping responsibilities.[21] In January 2005, 598 Chinese peace keepers were sent to Liberia. Others were sent to Western Sahara as part of Operation MINURSO,[22]Sierra Leone, the Ivory Coast and the DRC.[21] This was a carefully handled and largely symbolic move, as China did not want to appear as a new colonialist power overly interfering in internal affairs.
China currently has military alliances with 6 African states, 4 of which are major oil suppliers: Sudan, Algeria, Nigeria and Egypt.[21] On the whole, however, China’s influence remains limited,[23] especially when compared with Western powers such as France, whose military involvement in the 2004 Ivory Coast conflict and the 2006 Chad conflict was significant. China is particularly unable to compete with the ex-colonial powers in providing military training and educational programs, given the latter’s continuing ties via military academies like Sandhurst in the UK and Saint Cyr in France.[23]
In 2015, despite growing economic interests in Africa, China has not yet settled any military base on the continent. However, with a naval logistics center is planned to be built in Djibouti raises questions about China’s need to set military bases in Africa. China’s increasing reliance on Africa’s resources warrants it to hold a stronger military position.[24]
Effects of the global economic downturn (2007 to the present)
Since 2009, a switch has been noticed in China’s approach to Africa. The new tack has been to underline long-term stability in light of the worldwide economic crisis.[25]
Some major projects get stopped, such as in Angola, where 2/3 of a US$4 billion CIF fund disappeared, it is unclear where this money went.[26][27] Following this, a major Chinese-backed oil refinery project was scrapped by Angolan officials, with unclear reasons, causing problems for Sino-Angolan relations.[27]
At the dawn of the 21st century, while Africa suffered from China’s withdrawal, it is less dependent of external powers to build a self-reliable economy.[28]
The China Africa Research Initiative estimated that there were over 88,371 Chinese workers in Africa in 2022, down from a high of 263,696 in 2015.[29]
Based on recent reports, several Republican representatives from Arizona voted in favor of a budget resolution that included cuts to Medicaid:
Juan Ciscomani: Representative Ciscomani, representing Tucson, voted for the legislation despite concerns and even co-signing a letter asking for no cuts to Medicaid. He has stated that the bill strengthens and protects Medicaid by tackling waste and fraud, implementing work requirements and stronger eligibility verification.
David Schweikert: Representative Schweikert, whose district includes Scottsdale, voted for the bill despite pressure from constituents to oppose it.
Eli Crane: Representative Crane, representing the Navajo Nation, voted for the cuts, which could leave a significant portion of his constituents at risk of losing coverage.
These votes have drawn criticism, particularly due to the potential impact on vulnerable populations and rural hospitals that rely on Medicaid funding. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has identified these districts as potentially vulnerable in upcoming elections.
It’s important to note that the term “Trump’s anti-Medicaid bill” is a characterization used by opponents of the legislation. Supporters argue that the bill includes measures to strengthen and protect Medicaid by tackling waste, fraud, and abuse.
compare 5 points in donald trumps speeches with those of adolf hitler
ChatGPT said:
Comparing speeches by Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler is a sensitive and complex task. It’s important to note that while rhetorical techniques may sometimes overlap across political figures (e.g., appealing to nationalism or using populist language), the historical contexts, ideologies, and outcomes of their leadership are vastly different.
That said, here’s a comparative look at five rhetorical or thematic points often discussed in academic or journalistic analyses — not equating the two figures, but rather examining rhetorical parallels.
1. Nationalism and “Making the Country Great Again”
Trump: Frequently used slogans like “Make America Great Again” to evoke a return to a perceived better past, often emphasizing American exceptionalism.
Hitler: Promoted “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer” (One People, One Empire, One Leader), focusing on reviving German pride and power after WWI and the Treaty of Versailles.
Similarity: Both appealed to national pride and a nostalgic vision of a lost golden age.
2. Scapegoating of Outsiders
Trump: Spoke harshly about illegal immigrants, particularly from Mexico, labeling them as criminals and calling for a border wall.
Hitler: Blamed Jews, communists, and others for Germany’s problems, using them as scapegoats to unify the majority.
Similarity: Both used scapegoating to create a sense of “us vs. them” and to rally support around a common enemy.
3. Attacks on the Press
Trump: Repeatedly called the media “fake news” and “the enemy of the people,” undermining trust in journalism.
Hitler: Called the press the “lying press” (Lügenpresse) and took steps to control and censor the media after gaining power.
Similarity: Both discredited the press as a tool of opposition, portraying it as dishonest or dangerous.
4. Populist Appeal
Trump: Framed himself as a voice for the “forgotten” American, criticizing elites and positioning himself as an outsider to Washington politics.
Hitler: Spoke as a man of the people against the political establishment of the Weimar Republic, claiming to restore the will of the common German.
Similarity: Both used anti-elitist language to appeal to mass dissatisfaction and presented themselves as the solution.
5. Strongman Persona and Law-and-Order Messaging
Trump: Emphasized “law and order” during civil unrest and portrayed himself as a tough leader who would restore order.
Hitler: Promised strict control, discipline, and the end of chaos under the Nazi regime, emphasizing authority and militarization.
Similarity: Both emphasized strength, order, and control in the face of perceived chaos or disorder.
ElevenLabs and News Over Audio (Noa) using AI narration. Listen to more stories on the Noa app.
To support The Atlantic’s journalism, please consider subscribing today.
Rhetoric has a history. The words democracy and tyranny were debated in ancient Greece; the phrase separation of powers became important in the 17th and 18th centuries. The word vermin, as a political term, dates from the 1930s and ’40s, when both fascists and communists liked to describe their political enemies as vermin, parasites, and blood infections, as well as insects, weeds, dirt, and animals. The term has been revived and reanimated, in an American presidential campaign, with Donald Trump’s description of his opponents as “radical-left thugs” who “live like vermin.”
This language isn’t merely ugly or repellent: These words belong to a particular tradition. Adolf Hitler used these kinds of terms often. In 1938, he praised his compatriots who had helped “cleanse Germany of all those parasites who drank at the well of the despair of the Fatherland and the People.” In occupied Warsaw, a 1941 poster displayed a drawing of a louse with a caricature of a Jewish face. The slogan: “Jews are lice: they cause typhus.” Germans, by contrast, were clean, pure, healthy, and vermin-free. Hitler once described the Nazi flag as “the victorious sign of freedom and the purity of our blood.”
Stalin used the same kind of language at about the same time. He called his opponents the “enemies of the people,” implying that they were not citizens and that they enjoyed no rights. He portrayed them as vermin, pollution, filth that had to be “subjected to ongoing purification,” and he inspired his fellow communists to employ similar rhetoric. In my files, I have the notes from a 1955 meeting of the leaders of the Stasi, the East German secret police, during which one of them called for a struggle against “vermin activities” (there is, inevitably, a German word for this: Schädlingstätigkeiten), by which he meant the purge and arrest of the regime’s critics. In this same era, the Stasi forcibly moved suspicious people away from the border with West Germany, a project nicknamed “Operation Vermin.”
This kind of language was not limited to Europe. Mao Zedong also described his political opponents as “poisonous weeds.” Pol Pot spoke of “cleansing” hundreds of thousands of his compatriots so that Cambodia would be “purified.”
In each of these very different societies, the purpose of this kind of rhetoric was the same. If you connect your opponents with disease, illness, and poisoned blood, if you dehumanize them as insects or animals, if you speak of squashing them or cleansing them as if they were pests or bacteria, then you can much more easily arrest them, deprive them of rights, exclude them, or even kill them. If they are parasites, they aren’t human. If they are vermin, they don’t get to enjoy freedom of speech, or freedoms of any kind. And if you squash them, you won’t be held accountable.
Until recently, this kind of language was not a normal part of American presidential politics. Even George Wallace’s notorious, racist, neo-Confederate 1963 speech, his inaugural speech as Alabama governor and the prelude to his first presidential campaign, avoided such language. Wallace called for “segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” But he did not speak of his political opponents as “vermin” or talk about them poisoning the nation’s blood. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps following the outbreak of World War II, spoke of “alien enemies” but not parasites.
In the 2024 campaign, that line has been crossed. Trump blurs the distinction between illegal immigrants and legal immigrants—the latter including his wife, his late ex-wife, the in-laws of his running mate, and many others. He has said of immigrants, “They’re poisoning the blood of our country” and “They’re destroying the blood of our country.” He has claimed that many have “bad genes.” He has also been more explicit: “They’re not humans; they’re animals”; they are “cold-blooded killers.” He refers more broadly to his opponents—American citizens, some of whom are elected officials—as “the enemy from within … sick people, radical-left lunatics.” Not only do they have no rights; they should be “handled by,” he has said, “if necessary, National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military.”
In using this language, Trump knows exactly what he is doing. He understands which era and what kind of politics this language evokes. “I haven’t read Mein Kampf,” he declared, unprovoked, during one rally—an admission that he knows what Hitler’s manifesto contains, whether or not he has actually read it. “If you don’t use certain rhetoric,” he told an interviewer, “if you don’t use certain words, and maybe they’re not very nice words, nothing will happen.”
His talk of mass deportation is equally calculating. When he suggests that he would target both legal and illegal immigrants, or use the military arbitrarily against U.S. citizens, he does so knowing that past dictatorships have used public displays of violence to build popular support. By calling for mass violence, he hints at his admiration for these dictatorships but also demonstrates disdain for the rule of law and prepares his followers to accept the idea that his regime could, like its predecessors, break the law with impunity.
These are not jokes, and Trump is not laughing. Nor are the people around him. Delegates at the Republican National Convention held up prefabricated signs: Mass Deportation Now. Just this week, when Trump was swaying to music at a surreal rally, he did so in front of a huge slogan: Trump Was Right About Everything. This is language borrowed directly from Benito Mussolini, the Italian fascist. Soon after the rally, the scholar Ruth Ben-Ghiat posted a photograph of a building in Mussolini’s Italy displaying his slogan: Mussolini Is Always Right.
The Atlantic Daily: The atmosphere of a Trump rally
These phrases have not been put on posters and banners at random in the final weeks of an American election season. With less than three weeks left to go, most candidates would be fighting for the middle ground, for the swing voters. Trump is doing the exact opposite. Why? There can be only one answer: because he and his campaign team believe that by using the tactics of the 1930s, they can win. The deliberate dehumanization of whole groups of people; the references to police, to violence, to the “bloodbath” that Trump has said will unfold if he doesn’t win; the cultivation of hatred not only against immigrants but also against political opponents—none of this has been used successfully in modern American politics.
But neither has this rhetoric been tried in modern American politics. Several generations of American politicians have assumed that American voters, most of whom learned to pledge allegiance to the flag in school, grew up with the rule of law, and have never experienced occupation or invasion, would be resistant to this kind of language and imagery. Trump is gambling—knowingly and cynically—that we are not.
As Trump pushes to remove the US from the armed conflict in the Ukraine, the European nations under the banner of ‘Coalition of the Willing’ scramble to find men, material and resources to fill the gap if and when the US withdraws.
The arguments for the US this are many and mostly center around the enormous cost of continuing a war that looks to have no end in sight.
Should Americans be forced to foot the bill for a war on the other side of the world, regardless of our sympathies for the Ukrainian people?
The answer may be yes and no.
Most European nations have a lack of trained military personnel and weapons. They have been largely depending on the US military to supply that. While it is true that we have probably the best trained, supplied and weaponized army in the world; should we give all this away for free?
It may be time to put out the US Army for hire. This would not be a ‘security force’ or ‘security company’ but the actual US Army hired out to individual nations to continue their peace keeping efforts. Places like Germany, Sweden, the UK and France might have more in the way of money than actual military resources. Under the joint command of European/US command, the army can be ‘on loan’ for a fee. The conditions of what they either do or do not do can be ironed out in advance. A win-win situation; the American people, the president and Congress can all be happy that we are recouping some of our losses (unlikely to be a profit maker) and the other countries involved get the additional resources they desperately need and quickly too. All of this requires some real thinking outside the box, but it is probably time and maybe over-time to consider.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a list of militaries that recruit foreign applicants. This includes any individuals who are aliens of the polity whose armed forces they are being recruited to join by professional recruiters. The foreigners do not need to be legal residents of that nation, but may gain legal residence status by joining the armed forces. More than 90 states have implemented such recruitment policies between 1815 and 2020.[1]
Permanent residents who can prove they have applied for citizenship. Or permanent residents who are ineligible to apply for Australian citizenship as long as they are prepared to apply for citizenship within 3 months of commencing service (or 6 months if in the ADF Reserve). If permanent residents refuse citizenship or fail in their application, their ADF service will be terminated. On July 5, 2024, New Zealanders, followed by other foreigners who have legal residency status for one year and has no record for working in a foreign military for two years (previously) can join the ADF and be awarded Australian nationality.[2]
The forces in Bahrain are made up of Sunni foreigners, mainly Arabs and Pakistanis serving within them. This has become a topic of debate; the majority Shia Bahrainis are not happy with foreigners in the positions of power while the native Bahrainis are barred from them.[6][unreliable source?]
Canadian Armed Forces – On November 11, 2022, the CAF announced that Canadian permanent residents are eligible to join.[11] Prior to this, PRs were allowed to be recruited through the Skilled Military Foreign Applicant (SMFA) program.[12]
Croatian Armed Forces – Any ethnic Croat or a person of partial Croat ancestry has the right to obtain Croatian citizenship, thus becoming eligible to join the Croatian Armed Forces. This practice has been commonplace for ethnic Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, upon enlistment, potential personnel are required to renounce their dual citizenship with Bosnia & Herzegovina, in case they hold one.[citation needed]
Danish Defence – Foreign nationals already living in Denmark or in another EU country may apply to join the Danish armed forces. Rumors have circulated[clarification needed] that it’s required that they have lived one year in Denmark if applying within or six years if applying within an EU country. However, they must be fluent in Danish and must be able to write it as well.[14]
Hellenic Armed Forces – Ethnic Greeks accepted to the military academies for officers or non-commissioned officers of the Greek armed forces (according to the special law governing each school) or who enlist in the armed forces as volunteers (according to the law governing each branch) acquire Greek nationality automatically from the time they enter the academies or are enlisted. Knowledge of Greek language at fluent level is required.
Indian Army – Recruits Nepalese and Bhutanese citizens, and refugees from Tibet who intend to permanently settle in India.[17] Recruits of Indian origin who have migrated from Pakistan, Burma, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Thailand, Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia, Malawi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, and Vietnam with the intention of permanently settling in India may also join.[17]
Overseas: A serving member of another military can join the New Zealand Defence Force. The requirements are to be a current or recently serving (within 6–12 months) member of the UK, Australian, US or Canadian Armed Forces, have been a citizen of either the UK, Australia, US, or Canada for a minimum period of 10 years, or have been living in NZ for a minimum period of 5 years, be eligible for release from current service within 18 months of applying, and meet current vacancy criteria at the time of application.[24]
The Russian Armed Forces accepts foreigners of any country to their ranks. Under a plan, posted on the ministry’s web site in 2010, foreigners without dual citizenship are able to sign up for five-year contracts – and are eligible for Russian citizenship after serving three years. According to the amended law, a citizen of any foreign country aged 18–30 with a good command of Russian and a clean record can sign an initial five-year contract to join the Army.[26][27]
Singapore has always made use of Gurkhas to help with special military and police roles. During the colonial days, many soldiers were brought to Singapore from other British colonies. From 2011, Second-generation male permanent residents are bound by Singapore’s conscription laws to the same extent Singaporean citizens are, and therefore must do the standard active and reserve service in the military, police, or civil defense force.[28]
Slovakia allows some foreigners to join, on the condition that they are citizens of an EU member state or a state that is a member of an international defence organisation from which Slovakia is a member.[29]
Any person of demonstrable Ukrainian heritage descent can become a citizen through military service. According to the website of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine,[31] the foreigners of age 18–45 (in exceptional cases up to 60 years old) can be contracted by Ukrainian Army for the 3–5 years term, depending on qualification. The legislation was in place since 2015.[32] It has been reported that EU, UK,[33] Georgian and Belarusian citizens have been serving in the Ukrainian Ground Forces since the outbreak of the Russo-Ukrainian War.[32]
There are people from other Arab or nearby Muslim countries, who have served in the UAE, mainly in non-uniformed positions. This was mainly after independence from the UK in 1971, when the UAE government was still evolving.[34] Prior to that, the UK stationed their own troops and equipment in the region (known as the Trucial States)[citation needed]
British Armed Forces – The British Army has continued the historic practice of recruiting Gurkhas from Nepal to serve in the Brigade of Gurkhas. They are selected and recruited in Nepal, and are expected to keep their Nepali citizenship throughout the length of their service.[35]
Vatican City’s sole armed forces, The Swiss Guard, is made up entirely of Swiss Catholics; however, Swiss Guards are granted Vatican citizenship while they serve.[43]
I hate to date myself; I really do, but guess I have to.
In my lifetime, I have met three people who had suffered from polio infections. All three were women. One a friend, had fortunately only gotten it in one leg. She walked a bit stiffly on that leg, but that was the only noticeable thing. Another women had gotten it in both legs. She was able to reeducate other muscles in her legs. However, she took up running, over-worked the legs and eventually was back on crunches and her husband left her (creep.)
The third was a woman in our church. She had gotten a full body infection and it affected every part of her body to include her organs. She was a small woman, never in very good health and constantly beleaguered with health problems. Each of these individuals were a bit older than me and had contracted the illness in the late 40’s before the Salk vaccine was available.
I remember being in kindergarten when the Salk vaccine was administered at our school. We all lined up in the cafeteria and the nurses had little white cups, each with one sugar cube each, and the vaccine had been dropped on the sugar. We all ate our sugar cubes. I feel comfortable saying I have never known anyone in my generation to contract polio.
Two years ago, I was working with a church group that was assisting individuals from Mexico and Central America coming to this country on sponsorships. All individuals at that time were tested for Covid before they were allowed to enter. I remember that one entire bus came up positive.
About that time, there was also a report of a active case of polio being reported from an immigrant person residing in New York. It was then I went to Walgreens and asked for a polio shot. I was told insurance would not cover it as ‘polio isn’t a problem in this country.’ I told them to give me the shot anyway as there is some concern that the vaccines we given as children might not still be effective. I paid the money and was glad to do so.
As soon as I heard that JFK, Jr., the anti-vaxxer, had been approved as Health Secretary, I dialed up my Walgreen’s account and checked on my vaccines. I have a short list of boosters for this year. I will be sure to get them soon before Medicare starts to tell the pharmacies, “those aren’t covered.”
The advantage for someone like me is that: 1) I have the resources to cover the vaccines even if Medicare doesn’t pay, 2) I know full well what happens to people who don’t get the shots and I will get them regardless.
Not everyone has either this knowledge or these resources. I fear that we are heading into the waters of misery that few of us have ever known. It will be very difficult to re-invent the wheel in these situations. Unfortunately, it is usually the most vulnerable of our society: children and low-income folks who end up paying the price. What’s new.
webby1dotnet 