The Battle of Agincourt

“The Triumph of the Long Bow”

October 25, 2015

(Edited by Richard J. Garfunkel)

The Battle of Agincourt is well documented by at least seven contemporary accounts, three of them eyewitnesses. The approximate location of the battle has never been in dispute and the place remains relatively unaltered even after 600 years. Immediately after the battle, Henry summoned the heralds of the two armies who had watched the battle together, and with the principal French herald, Montjoie, settled on the name of the battle as Azincourt, after the nearest fortified place.

Henry V (King of England) invaded France following the failure of negotiations with the French. He claimed the title of King of France through his great-grandfather Edward III, although in practice the English kings were generally prepared to renounce this claim if the French would acknowledge the English claim on Aquitaine and other French lands (the terms of the Treaty of Bretagne). Early on the 25th, Henry deployed his army (approximately 1,500 men-at-arms and 7,000 long bowmen) across a 750-yard (690 m) part of the defile. The army was organized into three “battles” or divisions: the vanguard, led by the Duke of York; the main battle led by Henry himself; and the rearguard, led by Lord Camoys. In addition, Sir Thomas Erpingham, one of Henry’s most experienced household knights, had a role in marshalling the archers. It is likely that the English adopted their usual battle line of longbow men on either flank, with men-at-arms and knights in the center. They may also have deployed some archers in the center of the line. The English men-at-arms in plate and mail were placed shoulder to shoulder four deep. The English and Welsh archers on the flanks drove pointed wooden stakes, or palings, into the ground at an angle to force cavalry to veer off. This use of stakes may have been inspired by the Battle of Nicopolis of 1396, where forces of the Ottoman Empire used the tactic against French cavalry.  Henry, worried about the enemy launching surprise raids, and wanting his troops to remain focused, ordered all his men to spend the night before the battle in silence, on pain of having an ear cut off. He told his men that he would rather die in the coming battle than be captured and ransomed.

The French force was not only larger than that of the English, their noble men-at-arms would have considered themselves superior to the large number of archers in the English army, whom the French (based on their experience in recent memory of using and facing archers) considered relatively insignificant. For example, the chronicler Edmond de Dyntner stated that there were “ten French nobles against one English”, ignoring the archers completely. Several French accounts emphasize that the French leaders were so eager to defeat the English (and win the ransoms of the English men-at-arms) that they insisted on being in the first line; as one of the contemporary accounts put it: “All the lords wanted to be in the vanguard, against the opinion of the constable and the experienced knights.

The French were arrayed in three lines or “battles”. The first line was led by Constable d’Albret, Marshal Boucicault, and the Dukes of Orléans and Bourbon, with attached cavalry wings under the Count of Vendôme and Sir Clignet de Brebant. The second line was commanded by the Dukes of Bar and Alençon and the Count of Nevers. The third line was under the Counts of Dammartin and Fauconberg.^[26] The Burgundian chronicler, Jean de Wavrin, writes that there were

8,000 men-at-arms, 4,000 archers and 1,500 crossbowmen in the vanguard, with two wings of 600 and 800 mounted men-at-arms, and the main battle having “as many knights, esquires and archers as in the vanguard”, with the rearguard containing “all of the rest of the men-at-arms”.^[27] The Herald of Berry uses somewhat different figures of 4,800 men-at-arms in the first line, 3,000 men in the second line, with two “wings” containing 600 mounted men-at-arms each, and a total of “10,000 men-at-arms”,^[28] but does not mention a third line.

The French cavalry, despite being somewhat disorganized and not at full numbers, charged towards the longbow men, but it was a disaster, with the French knights unable to outflank the longbow men (because of the encroaching woodland) and unable to charge through the forest of sharpened stakes that protected the archers. John Keegan argues that the longbows’ main influence on the battle at this point was injuries to horses: armored only on the head, many horses would have become dangerously out of control when struck in the back or flank from the high-elevation long range shots used as the charge started. The mounted charge and subsequent retreat churned up the already muddy terrain between the French and the English. Juliet Barker quotes a contemporary account by a monk of St. Denis who reports how the wounded and panicking horses galloped through the advancing infantry, scattering them and trampling them down in their headlong flight from the battlefield.

The plate armor of the French men-at-arms allowed them to close the 300 yards or so to the English lines while being under what the French monk of Saint Denis described as “a terrifying hail of arrow shot”. A complete coat of plate was considered such good protection that shields were generally not used, although the Burgundian contemporary sources specifically distinguish between Frenchmen who used shields and those who did not, and Rogers has suggested that the front elements of the French force may have used axes and shields. Modern historians are somewhat divided on how effective the longbow fire would have been against plate armor of the time, with some modern texts suggesting that arrows could not penetrate, especially the better quality steel armor, but others suggesting arrows could penetrate, especially the poorer quality wrought iron armor. Rogers suggests that the longbow could penetrate a wrought iron breastplate at short range and penetrate the thinner armor on the limbs even at 220 yards (200 m). He considers a knight in the best quality steel armor would have been more or less invulnerable to an arrow on the breastplate or top of the helmet, but would still have been vulnerable to shots hitting the limbs, particularly at close range.^[49] In any case, to protect themselves as much as possible from the arrows, the French had to lower their visors and bend their helmeted heads to avoid being shot in the face—the eye and air-holes in their helmets were among the weakest points in the armor. This head lowered position restricted both their breathing and their vision. Then they had to walk a few hundred yards through thick mud, a press of comrades and wearing armor weighing 50–60 pounds, gathering sticky clay all the way. Increasingly they had to walk around or over fallen comrades.

The surviving French men-at-arms reached the front of the English line and pushed it back, with the longbow men on the flanks continuing to shoot at point-blank range. When the archers ran out of arrows, they dropped their bows and using hatchets, swords and the mallets they had used to drive their stakes in, attacked the now disordered, fatigued and wounded French men-at-arms massed in front of them. The French could not cope with the thousands of lightly armored longbow men assailants (who were much less hindered by the mud and weight of their armor) combined with the English men-at-arms. The impact of thousands of arrows, combined with the slog in heavy armor through the mud, the heat and lack of oxygen in plate armor with the visor down, and the crush of their numbers meant the French men-at-arms could “scarcely lift their weapons” when they finally engaged the English line. The exhausted French men-at-arms are described as being knocked to the ground by the English and then unable to get back up. As the mêlée developed, the French second line also joined the attack, but they too were swallowed up, with the narrow terrain meaning the extra numbers could not be used effectively. Rogers suggests that the French at the back of their deep formation would have been attempting to push forward and quite literally add their weight to the advance, without realizing that they were hindering the ability of those at the front to maneuver and fight, actually pushing them into the English formation of lance points. After the initial wave, the French would have had to fight over and on the bodies of those who had fallen before them. In such a “press” of thousands of men, Rogers finds it plausible that a significant number could have suffocated in their armor, as is described by several sources, and is also known to have happened in other battles.

The French men-at-arms were taken prisoner or killed in the thousands. The fighting lasted about three hours, but eventually the leaders of the second line were killed or captured, as those of the first line had been. The English Gesta Henrici describes three great heaps of the slain around the three main English standards. According to contemporary English accounts, Henry was directly involved in the hand-to-hand fighting. Upon hearing that his youngest brother Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester had been wounded in the groin, Henry took his household guard and stood over his brother, in the front rank of the fighting, until Humphrey could be dragged to safety. The king received an axe blow to the head, which knocked off a piece of the crown that formed part of his helmet.

Thousands of troops appear to have been in the rearguard, containing servants and commoners whom the French were either unable or unwilling to deploy. Wavrin gives the total French army size as 50,000: “They had plenty of archers and crossbowmen but nobody wanted to let them fire [sic]. The reason for this was that the site was so narrow that there was only enough room for the men-at-arms. A different source says that the French did not even deploy 4,000 of the best crossbowmen “on the pretext they had no need of their help.”

The lack of reliable sources makes it impossible to give a precise figure for the French and English casualties (dead, wounded, taken prisoner). However, it is clear that though the English were outnumbered, their losses were far lower than those of the French. The French sources all give 4,000–10,000 French dead, with up to 1,600 English dead. The lowest ratio in these French sources has the French losing six times more men than the English. The English sources vary between about 1,500 and 11,000 for the French dead, with English dead put at no more than 100. Barker identifies from the available records “at least” 112 Englishmen killed in the fighting, including Edward of Norwich, 2nd Duke of York, a grandson of Edward III.

One widely used estimate puts the English casualties at 450, not an insignificant number in an army of about 8,500, but far fewer than the thousands the French lost, nearly all of whom were killed or captured. Using the lowest French estimate of their own dead of 4,000 would imply a ratio of nearly 9 to 1 in favor of the English, or over 10 to 1 if the prisoners are included.

The French suffered heavily. Three dukes, at least eight counts, a viscount, and an archbishop died, along with numerous other nobles. Of the great royal office holders, France lost her Constable, Admiral, Master of the Crossbowmen and provost of the marshals. The heads of nine major northern towns were killed, often along with their sons, relatives and supporters. In the words of Juliet Barker, the battle “cut a great swath through the natural leaders of French society in Artois, Ponthieu, Normandy, Picardy.”  Estimates of the number of prisoners vary between 700 and 2,200, amongst them the Duke of Orleans (the famous poet Charles of Orleans) and Jean Le Maingre (known as Boucicault) Marshal of France. Although the victory had been militarily decisive, its impact was complex. It did not lead to further English conquests immediately as Henry’s priority was to return to England, which he did on 16 November, to be received in triumph in London on the 23rd. Henry returned a conquering hero, in the eyes of his subjects and European powers outside France, blessed by God. It established the legitimacy of the Lancastrian monarchy and the future campaigns of Henry to pursue his “rights and privileges” in France. Other benefits to the English were longer term. Very quickly after the battle, the fragile truce between

The English longbow, also called the Welsh longbow, is a powerful type of medieval longbow (a tall bow for archery) about 6 feet long used by the English and Welsh for hunting and as a weapon in medieval warfare. English use of longbows was effective against the French during the Hundred Years’ War, particularly at the start of the war in the battles of Sluys (1340), Crécy (1346), and Poitiers(1356), and perhaps most famously at the Battle of Agincourt (1415). They were less successful after this, with longbow men having their lines broken at the Battle of Verneuil (1424), and being completely routed at the Battle of Patay (1429) when they were charged before they had set up their defensive position.

The earliest longbow known from England, found at Ashcott Heath, Somerset, is dated to 2665 BC, but no longbows survive from the period when the longbow was dominant (c. 1250–1450 AD), probably because bows became weaker, broke and were replaced, rather than being handed down through generations. More than 130 bows survive from the Renaissance period, however. More than 3,500 arrows and 137 whole longbows were recovered from the Mary Rose, a ship of Henry VIII‘s navy that sank at Portsmouth in 1545.

As for the longbow- The longbow decided many medieval battles fought by the English and Welsh, the most significant of which were the Battle of Crécy (1346) and the Battle of Agincourt (1415), during the Hundred Years’ War and followed earlier successes, notably at the Battle of Falkirk (1298) and the Battle of Halidon Hill (1333) during the Wars of Scottish Independence.

The longbow was also used against the English by their Welsh neighbors. The Welsh used the longbow mostly in a different manner than the English. In many early period English campaigns, the Welsh used the longbow in ambushes, often at point blank range that allowed their missiles to penetrate armor and generally do a lot of damage.

Although longbows were much faster and more accurate than the black-powder weapons which replaced them, longbow men always took a long time to train because of the years of practice necessary before a war longbow could be used effectively (examples of longbows from the Mary Rose typically had draws greater than 637 N (143 lb_f)). In an era in which warfare was usually seasonal, and non-noble soldiers spent part of the year working at farms, the year-round training required for the effective use of the longbow was a challenge. A standing army was an expensive proposition to a medieval ruler. Mainland European armies seldom trained a significant longbow corps. Due to their specialized training, English longbow men were sought as mercenaries in other European countries, most notably in the Italian city-states and in Spain. The White Company comprising men-at-arms and longbow men and commanded by Sir John Hawkwood, is the best known English Free Company of the 14th century. The powerful Hungarian king, Louis the Great, is an example of someone who used longbow men in his Italian campaigns.

 Sources regarding the history of warfare can be found in the writings of:

Max Hastings

John Keegan

Bernard Law Montgomery, Viscount of Alamein

Anne Curry

The 4^th of July

Richard J. Garfunkel

7-4-16

 The key to the American Revolution is the second paragraph in the Declaration of Independence, and it states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” This phrase is not limited to whites or to men or to just Christians, or the wealthy. That is the rub between the so-called moral equivalency of the conservatives and the liberals. This was a “LIBERAL” document, not a conservative one. This language meant all of humankind, the rich and the poor, and for sure, believers and non-believers in G-d. It didn’t delineate race or religion. The collective of men, most assuredly meant women also. Freedom is not owned by some who can afford it. The desire for liberty and the “pursuit of happiness” is not limited to one class, race or religion. Eventually the right-wing revisionist will understand how this American Revolution came about and what it stood for.

 If one actually believed that both parties are morally equivalent and both equally deserve the blame for American problems, think again! The GOP Conservatives and their Dixiecrat allies have been opposed to every advance in our long history. Many called it the progressive evolution of our society, but the small government acolytes seem to think that word progressive is a euphemism for left-wing socialism. As a long-time student of history, political person, and writer and lecturer on mid-20th Century history, it is not a stretch to see what side both parties fall. The right-wing has opposed: the following

The Bill of Rights, Anti-trust laws- Sherman and Clayton Acts Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid Labor unions and their right to collectively bargain- the Wagner Act Wages and Hours Law Child Labor laws and regulation- Triangle Shirtwaist and other disasters The Minimum wage Civil Rights- Integration- anti-lynching laws The Security Laws of 1933, 4, and 1940, affirmative action Pure Food and Drug laws Almost all environmental regulation on clear water and air Women’s Rights, sexual choice The right of choice Birth control access and information Equal pay for equal rights The Establishment Clause- separation of church and state Gun control Graduated Income Tax- taxes in general Inheritance Taxes Federal housing- urban renewal Public education Aid to Great Britain before WWII

 What have they supported?

 Restrictive Immigration: Chinese Exclusion Act 1882, National Origins Immigration Act of 1924 Property rights over individual rights Censorship Monopoly, trusts, Inter-locking directorships Unrestricted gun ownership Flat-taxes, sale’s taxes, State’s Rights Public funding for private schools Red-lining Segregation, White Citizen’s Councils, the KKK Privatization of services Union-busting Off shore banking shelters The market place cures all ills The Oil Depletion allowance Private schools

 In other words, what in hell have the right-wing ever supported that was in the public’s interest?

Political Perspective – 2016

Richard J. Garfunkel

July 30, 2016

As a life-long registered and active Democrat, I have always been fascinated by why people vote the way they do.  It may surprise most Americans that the Democrats have not captured the white male vote since 1944. In that year, soldiers were allowed to vote, and even the Republicans of that day, opposed their right to vote, the Roosevelt Administration fought for that right and prevailed. Some have forgotten that in those days, one had to be 21 to vote, and many soldiers in 1944 were not 21. But the young men who did serve, probably remembered no president other than FDR, and he was a heroic figure who was their Commander–in- Chief. Of course, in the next three elections, the white male vote was split four ways, in 1948, between Truman, Dewey, Wallace and Thurmond. Obviously, a great many Southern white males voted for the Thurmond the Dixiecrat. In the two Eisenhower victories over Stevenson, Ike did well with the large veteran vote, as the former WWII, European Theater Commander. Of course, the Democrats had won five straight presidential elections, and controlled Congress from 1930 until 1946. Even though they lost Congress for a two year period, the Democrats would regain their legislative domination until Ronald Reagan.

Since the end of the Truman Era, what happened to the demographics of the electorate? Well during the Depression, laboring men were able to unionize more easily and collectively bargain. Most women went along with how their husbands voted, African-Americans were disenfranchised in the South and Northern Blacks shifted from the Party of Lincoln to the Democrats after 1936. Interestingly, many women voted for Warren Harding in 1920. New England and the South were the most solid bastions of white Protestant English-heritage voting blocs. In their midst were Welsh, Scots, Dutch and Germans, with a smattering of Catholics and a tiny amount of Jews. The Southern States were States’ Rights Democrats, and often Republicans did not even have Electors (the Electoral College) on the ballot. The New England states, along with northern NY and rural Pennsylvania were dominated by white Protestants and Republicanism. In the cities, where immigrants had flocked since the late 1840s, there were the Catholics, first dominated by the Irish and then by the 1880s there was a new influx of Jews, Italians, Greeks, Slavs and Russians. These folks became the nucleus of the new Democratic electorate. In the sparsely settled West Democrats actually dominated many of the rural states and Republics ruled in California.

In most cases, the Republican Party dominated American politics from Lincoln in 1860 to FDR in 1932. In between the Democrats won four elections with Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson. In those years they benefitted by splits in the Republican electorate, corruption and the need for reform.

Today we are in the midst of a new revival of Nativism. The first period was in 1850s with the Know-Nothings, or the American Party. They were xenophobic, anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant and for sure racist.  The second period came in post WWI Era when severe and draconian laws were passed to limit immigration and restrict Jews, Southern European Catholics, and Eastern European Slavs and Russians from entering the country.  The old Republican cry of the 1880s, accusing Democrats of “Rum, Romanism and Rebellion was echoed in the Harding Era immigration laws of 1921 and 1924.  The ruling class had seen enough of the type of immigrants from the period of the 1880s through 1914. They were sickened by WWI and feared internationalism. This fear would be dominant up until the beginning of WWII.

The Immigrants and their Descendants from the Great Immigration 1880-to 1917

8-11-16

Richard J. Garfunkel

I am constantly amazed at the virulence of the “new” ethnic-based Eurocentrics. I can almost understand the Southern Baptists and the States’ Rights advocates who are descended most directly from the earliest white settlers; English, Scottish, Welsh, Dutch and German Protestants, who were enamored with the white man’s burden and learned of that supremacist tradition at their mother’s knee and in the churches. It existed all over the English-dominated World from India to the American colonies, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Burma, the Middle East, Singapore and Micronesia. The Raj ruled with an idea and rationale of moral, racial and intellectual superiority.  That is what they knew and believed. They saw the culture and habits of Native peoples, and on one hand, despised, feared and looked down upon them, and on the other hand, ruled by “divide and conquer.” That existed certainly in India until 1947 and here until 1776.  They learned from their defeat here!

But, what of the later immigrants? First in the late 1840’s, were the next wave of Germans, who were quite often Catholics, escaping from revolutionary Europe and the policy of “Kultur Kampft” (culture’s struggle) under Bismarck and then the Irish Catholics escaping the potato famine and the oppressive British rule. The Germans were used to conservatism and many became the backbone of the new Midwestern Republicanism. Culturally they were used to a strong, male-dominated family and thus supported a strong central government. They were hard working and felt comfortable with other citizens of British and Dutch orientation. Also, the country had many Germans (Lutherans) living here from the time of the Revolution, when many had come here as soldiers for hire, or mercenaries (the Hessians from Hesse-Cassel, and others from outside the most militarized state in Europe)). As for the Irish, they hated the British and became the immigrant heart of the Eastern Cities and gravitated to the Democratic Party and eventually took over Tammany Hall in NYC and virtually reinvented politics in America.

What amazes me is that many of the grandchildren of the last great European immigration from Eastern and Southern European immigrants have forgotten their roots. The heart of these people, who are mostly Catholic, along with some Jews, were helped and assisted by the Democrats from Wilson to FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ and beyond, are now the “New” Republicans.  They forgot the Wagner Act, which allowed unions to collectively bargain, they have ignored the efforts of the Democrats and the unions to end discrimination regarding housing, education, and the work place, where their grandfathers and fathers couldn’t get a job in a Fortune 500 company, a law firm, or practice in a hospital. They have ignored the efforts of the liberals who opened the doors of education for them and for their daughters. Who supported Social Security, Medicare, the Minimum Wage, anti-discrimination in the work place, the fight for equal pay for equal work, Choice, and women’s healthcare, Ttile ( and hundreds of other benefits that helped the children of immigrants? They have ignored the age-old efforts of the Democratic Party in opposing the exclusion of these people from all of our “closed” institutions. This history has been chronicled in 10’s of thousands of books and millions of articles. But, how often do I read from some of these same people that the Democrats keep the poor in economic shackles. How short are their memories! Isn’t ironic, that the South, which was the home of home of Southern-based, Jefferson branch of the Democratic Party, which supported slavery and sustained Jim Crow is now the new home of the most conservative Republicans and the reddest states in the Union.  Many of these people seemed to have forgotten discrimination and bigotry and where it has stemmed from.  What happened? Do these children of immigrants now think that it is their turn to be the next generation of bigots and haters who believe in Social Darwinism, “the end justifies the means,” and “divide and conquer?” it is a sorry state of affairs when they forget the remarks of George Santayana, who sagely wrote, “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” 

Supreme Court and the 2^nd Amendment

Richard J. Garfunkel

8-11-16

Speaking of the Constitution, I have been reading how the Right-Wingers are the last bastion to avoid the shredding of the Constitution.  I answered one of these arm chair geniuses!

It is interesting how the right-wing dunderheads are now experts on the US Constitution. I am always amazed when the average citizen starts to opine on Constitutional Law.  I’m sure that these “novitiate” experts know the difference between “Strict Construction,” and “Loose Construction.” Of course they know the history and the impact of Marbury v Madison, Dartmouth College v Woodward, McCullogh v. Maryland. Of course, they understand the nuances of the Heller Decision or McDonald V. Chicago? Maybe they understand the impact of Scalia and the 5-4 decisions on gun ownership, and the fact that in the “strict” analysis of the Founder’s debates on the Bill of Rights, there is no mention of the right of an individual to own a firearm.

 In other words, it wasn’t discussed.  But these brilliant “legal beagles” would know that the compromise on the Constitution was over the fear of a Federal “standing” army, and thus the rights of the states to organize their militias. In fact, few people could afford to own arms in 1789, and when the Militia “mustered” arms were passed out and strictly regulated and returned. There is nothing said about individual firearms or the innate right to own them.  Maybe that is how Justice Scalia saw it, but there have always been gun control laws from Dodge City to the Firearm’s Act of 1934. Or if you need clarification, read about the Hughes Act. If anyone was a “loose Constructionist,” it was Justice Scalia, who re-wrote the “originalists” concept of gun ownership.  But, if you don’t believe me, read Federal Period historian, Professor Carol Berkin’s book, “A Brilliant Solution,” Inventing the American Constitution. While you are at it, maybe you should be curious about “search and seizure,” Fourth Amendment Rights, and then learn the meaning of Escobedo v. Illinois, and Miranda v. Arizona.

Why don’t you write Professor Yale Kamisar at the University of Michigan Law School , who co-authored the “Criminal Justice in Our Times,” and is the co-author of the definitive American law school text book, “Modern Criminal Procedures,<” in its 12^th edition.  But, what about your expertise on schools, starting with the impact of Plessy v Ferguson, to the Rowley Case, Myers v Nebraska to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka? Maybe you understand the “free exercise” clause and the “exclusionary rule?”

But what of executive power and orders.  Maybe folks believe that President Obama has used his Executive Orders to violate the Constitution. Well Obama’s EOs were 244, the lowest for a two-term president since William McKinley. You maybe interested in the fact that here are the following list of Executive Orders going back to FDR: Bush 43 291, Clinton 364, Bush 41 166, Reagan 381, Carter 320, Ford 169, Nixon 346, Eisenhower 484, Truman 907, and FDR 3721.  By the TR used the EO 1083 times. But you are protecting the Constitution!  

Trump: Unqualified and Unhinged!

9-26-16

Richard J. Garfunkel

Donald Trump, a self-proclaimed billionaire and tribune of the people, who has an unparalleled record of making unfulfilled and phony promises and claims about his accomplishments, his business acumen and his charitable giving in the first debate, had his proverbial “feet held to the fire.” As the poet has said, “talk is cheap,” but, in his case, his specious remarks have contained hundreds of examples of fraudulent claims, broken promises, and unexplained reversals. In the tradition of Charles Ponzi and Barnard Madoff, we have learned that his so-called foundation raises money from others and is a vehicle for him to pay for trinkets and services he wants, under the aegis of charitable giving. As for his claims of generosity, in investigation after investigation, there is little, or no, evidence of any example of personal generosity. Of course, maybe there is some evidence contained in his income taxes filings, but, it seems we have to take his word about it, because he believes that his filings are none of the public’s business, and therefore remain a deep, dark, secret. The public should ask about his connections to Chinese Debt and his connections to Russia’s Putin. Maybe in those tax returns is the key to his connections!

As for his business practices, aside from his numerous bankruptcies, the seizure of many of his properties, the 4000+ times he has been in court, what about the economic wreckage he has left in the wake of his failures and scams? There is ample evidence that he has defrauded numerous investors, partners, vendors, customers and clients?

But, aside from Trump’s outlandish and specious claims about his education, his economic brilliance and farcical and unrealistic economic plans, what of the man, his character, sincerity, morals or his vision of America? We have been able to peek into his nefarious business career and partially pierce the chrysalis, which has protected the truth around his so-called generosity. But, is his economic empire just a “House of Cards?”

As for his character, it has been on view for many years and as a result of this recent campaign alone, hundreds of well-known, and publicly responsible, Republicans have defected from supporting their party’s flag bearer. Has any Republican candidate ever experienced that in the past? Almost never in memory. Which newspaper in the whole country will endorse him? Any? So far, we have seen of his two of his most vocal backers, Newt Gingrich and Chris Christie, prime examples of flawed personalities. Gingrich, who was basically removed as Speaker of the House, and Christie, who may yet face impeachment, are two of the few. But, what of Senator Ted Cruz, who excoriated him in the primaries?  Trump slandered his wife and his father, and Cruz endorsed him. What a triumvirate of vexatious and insincere public servants. Could anyone want worse?

But, what of his sincerity? He has been insincere on his on his positions regarding; Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Choice, trade, and imports. At times, he heaped praise upon, the Clintons, Colin Powell, and even President Obama. But, expediency is Trump’s middle name and his reversals are so many, that even the media has become bored with their recital. Now, after almost eight years of being the leading exponent of “Birther Issue,” he has again reversed himself. Trump told us that he was having “his people” look into the past of President Obama. He constantly fanned the flames of the specious complaint that the Barack Obama was an “illegitimate” president, because he wasn’t born here. Not only did he make and repeat that spurious and empty smear, but he also challenged the president’s faith as a Christian. But, what of Trump’s real faith? Has he ever gone to church, except to be married? Where is evidence of his Christian morality? Is it with his multiple marriages and affairs? Is it with his faux charity or even his intemperate use of language and insults? What makes him a G-d fearing individual? I would like to see one iota of evidence.

So, the issue of truthfulness and veracity has come up often in his outrageous campaign, which has been laced with vituperation, insults, and mocking references to women, the disabled and minorities. Has any candidate, in the collective memory of any living American, been so often caught in lies by the fact-checkers? It is almost become a worn out cliché with regards to his disregard for the truth, established history, his own personal conduct, and recorded statements. Even when he is confronted by his own image giving testimony, he and his own campaign ignore that reality! When has that ever happened in the past? The editorial pages of the country’s leading newspapers have chronicled his unparalleled mendacity to the extent that most Americans have heard enough. It seems, his idolaters couldn’t care less. No matter what he says or does is irrelevant to them.

Therefore, how can any sane American support this brigand, con man, serial adulterer, sexual predator and mendacious liar? Almost every candidate for the presidency has been a decent person with an accomplished record of achievement and public service. Often the choice comes down to political party or vision of the future. We entrust a person of either party with the idea that our future is in stable hands, no matter what their philosophy is. But, what is Trump’s philosophy? Does anyone really know? Again is there a sincere bone or nerve in this man’s whole body or mind? That is the question that should be asked by every voter. He is not a Republican or a Democrat. He is not a Liberal or Conservative. He is not a protectionist or a free trader. He is not an internationalist or an isolationist. But, he is a valueless demagogue who believes in nothing but power, control and self. It is all our choice, let’s not blow it.

Donald Trump and his Willing Executions in the Visual Media?

Richard J. Garfunkel

8-26-16

If one wants to know why the country allowed the rise of Donald Trump, a con man, a swindler, a sexual predator, a fraud, a serial adulterer and mendacious exploiter of half-truths. Just look at the mainstream visual media and look at how they have cravenly sought ratings, ignored the truth of this character, refused to do the research, and were unprepared with the answers to their own questions. Who were the enablers? Joe Scarborough and his feckless, moronic collection of nobodies, the self-important Chris Matthews, who is so over-the-hill it has stopped being funny, and people like Jake Tapper and Anderson Cooper. Just last night Cooper confronted Trump with his nefarious background of racism with regards to his business practices on housing.

Was Cooper prepared? Of course not. He asked Trump about the charges of red-ling and racism with regards to his rentals. Trump, of course, answered with bald-faced lies, protestations of innocence, a false narrative that not only begged the issue, and acted like it was a tempest in a teapot that happened decades ago. Cooper instead of being prepared with the real facts about Trump, his violations, the citations, and the fact that the Trump companies ignored their own agreements and had to be sued again by the government, just folded like an empty suit. Trump talks of being able to reform the system. He talks about his fairness, his friendship and support of minorities. He talks of political reform. But, where is the media on his admissions of buying political votes and favors? Where is the media regarding the reality that Trump has perverted the system? Where are the questions on his politic contributions, like his $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation? Does that smack of hypocrisy and outright mendacity?

This has been going on for months. Not only have so-called news people, who are just high paid talking heads, ignored the reality of this character, they have given him a  “pass” on almost all that he has written and said. In fact, he is treated like a rational person, who is reflecting the true, inner feelings of a significant percentage of the public. But, is he really rational? Have they really explored his duplicity, which has almost reached the level of schizophrenia? What of the truth about his draft physical and the possibility of his phony 1Y status, regarding his so-called bone spurs at age 21? What of his “recent” doctor’s letter, which asserts that he would be the “healthiest man” ever to serve as president? That letter has more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese. Why were there no real questions about the doctors, their certification, when it was written, and is it really legitimate? What of his wives and the real stories of his first divorce, which is in the public record? What of his current wife’s Sapphic photos, her illegal work in America with a visitor’s VISA, her phony resume, and her plagiarism? Doesn’t all of that count? Can one imagine if this happened with Michelle Obama?  What of his phony books and his specious, ghost-written tome, “The Art of the Deal,” where he talks of his sexual exploits and his totally invented business background? Did the media spend more than five minutes with his ghost writer, Tony Schwartz, who even though he signed a non-disclosure, and was willing to tell the public about the “real” Donald Trump? What of his phony claims of charity? Where are the records? Who was promised “what,” and was “what” ever really delivered? Why has it been left to the Washington Post, the NY Times and other print media to reveal his double-dealing  with his so-called charity, his collapsed gambling empire, his phony Trump University and Institute, his 4000 litigations, his 169 times in Federal court, his father’s arrest in a KKK riot, his father’s slumlord empire in Queens, NY, and their business history of racial profiling, red-lining and discrimination? He even has made phony claims about what benefits he offers his employees. Are there any follow up and research into those lies?  Has anyone really focused on his former investors, partners, suppliers, and clients, and how they have been stiffed? Isn’t his business practices and history a reflection of his character and honesty? That is his record, why isn’t that a “free-fire” zone which should be exploited? Isn’t that information the key to his qualification for office? Where are the talking heads on these issues? This is a man who has lied about his marriages, his four bankruptcies, his business practices, and his previous political and social positions. He and his handlers even deny and constantly spin and amend his own statements. He started his campaign with a thug as his campaign manager. He then went to Paul Manafort, who has been connected to illegal cash payments, an avoidance of taxes, connections with Putin, the Ukraine, and the Russian Mafia. Finally when the heat was raised to furnace proportions he dumped him. But, what of the business connections between Manafort, Putin and Trump? Where has that issue gone? He now has as the head of campaign management team, an out-and-out racist and misogynist, in the personage of right-wing’s prime hitman, Steven Bannon of Breitbart. Who will be next?  Of course, one of the last pieces to this Trump puzzle, is in the words of Winston Churchill about Russia, “…(Trump) It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; …” Isn’t that the real issue of this campaign, aside from the fact that Trump is a bigot, unqualified, and unhinged. The real Trump is hidden in his “House of Cards,” debt-ridden, financial empire and taxes. That is where the connections, the obligations, and the duplicity will eventually be revealed. The sooner the better.

An Open Letter on Politics

October 14, 2016

An Open Letter to my Friends,

Linda and I are working hard on this most critical campaign. We are the Precinct Captains in our community, the Cascades. We have 50+ volunteers, who are making calls, vetting Democrats and Independents, and leafleting their separate villages, which we did this morning. They will be working at early voting sites (15 in Palm Beach County), and will be handing out palm cards at our polling place. In between, Linda has been handing out applications for vote by mail (VBM) ballots, and encouraging people to “early vote.” Vote by Mail has started in Florida. Early voting begins October 24^th and lasts two weeks.  In the wake of Hurricane Matthew, the Governor refused to extend registration. By court order, reflective of a suit by the LWV, the registration period was extended by six days. It was another effort, in the long litany of voter suppression, authored by the Republican Party, in state after state.

This isn’t just an effort to an elect another Democrat. This isn’t just a contest between both parties and two mainstream advocates for their philosophical positions. This is not even a contest for the “heart and soul,” of America. This may be the most important election since 1860, which decided whether we would dissolve as a nation or 1940, whether we would remain an isolationist nation, and allow the fascist brigands in Europe and Asia to enslave all of Europe, Africa, and Asia.

This is a struggle against a person, who is neither a Democrat, nor a Republican. This is a contest between Hillary Clinton (aside from one’s personal feelings), who is one of the smartest, most experienced and most exceptionally qualified individual to run for office, since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Hillary Clinton has the patience, fortitude, experience, the strength of character, and the judgment we can trust. She faces an opponent, who has no personal barriers, who has no political philosophy, except self, who has no knowledge of the domestic needs of our people, who has trashed our Allies, our treaties, our trade agreements, our trading partners, our armed forces and the leaders of his own, so-called, party. Anyone who gets in his way; hundreds of former members of Republican administrations, going back to Nixon, women who have accused him of improprieties, and thousands of partners, investors, vendors and customers, have felt his anger and wrath, through verbal abuse and threats of litigation. He has been threatening people into silence for generations. But, his reputation as a con man, draft-dodger, tax cheat, swindler, serial adulterer, and a sexual predator are well known. What is really dangerous about this man is that he is unprincipled, unfit, unqualified and unhinged. Therefore, to place this man in charge of our Justice Department, near the nuclear button, or to make an appointment to the Supreme Court, is not only dangerous, but frightening. He has courted the support of American Nazis, the KKK, White Supremacist hate groups and dangerous elements of the gun community. He is now making allusions to a conspiracy amongst International Bankers, code words for age-old anti-Semitism. He has fostered hatred and violence towards minorities, immigrants, women and religious groups around the world. He has no answers of plans for job creations, healthcare, education or our infrastructure.  He has two ideas; tax cuts for the wealthiest, and that he alone can solve all our problems! 

I hope that all of you would write a personal letter to 100 of your friends and colleagues and tell them the criticality of this election. I would also suggest that in your letter, you ask these friends to send out a letter to their own circle of friends and colleagues. The choice is clear, the danger is great, and the time to act is now.

Speaking of American Elections!

Richard J. Garfunkel

10-23-16

From 1900 through 2012 there have been 29 presidential elections. In those 29 elections, the average winning percentage was 52.86%. In the first 15 elections, from 1900 thru 1956 the average winning % was 54%. In those 29 elections, the 10 highest winning percentages were: 61.1%, 60.8%, 60.7%, 60.3%, 58.8%, 58.2%, 57.4%, 56.4%, and 55.2%. Of the top 10 winning races, the average was 58.6%.

In the first 15 elections from 1900 through 1956, seven of these “landslides” happened, with largest of them by FDR in 1936 and 1932, Harding in 1920, Hoover in 1928, and T. Roosevelt in 1904. From 1960 through 2012, in 14 elections, the average victory was 51.6%. Since 1960, three of the top 10% victories, were LBJ in 1964, Nixon in 1972 and Reagan in 1984.

Since 1988, the winning percentages, in the last seven elections, or approximately 25% of our elections since the beginning of the 20^th Century, has been 49.74%. Therefore, on an average, there were more votes, collectively, against the seven winners.

As for incumbents since 1900, there have been 19 elections when there was an incumbent, either by winning the election, succeeding the incumbent because of the death of the president, or in the case of Gerald Ford, the resignation of Richard Nixon. In those 19 elections, the incumbents (including FDR’s three races as an incumbent) received 50.3% of the vote. This included the defeat of Taft in 1912 (23%), Hoover in 1932 (39.7%), Carter in 1980 (41%), and Bush #41 in 1992 (37.4%). Where there has not been an incumbent, there have been ten races. The average victory since 1900 in those races has been 52.46%. Barack Obama, in 2008, won with 52.9% of the vote.

Of course, there are issues of whether 3^rd party races have affected the outcome of some races or whether there have been questionable results in a state, or states, which have affected the outcome of a specific election. In the case of two of the four elections, where an incumbent lost, the 3^rd party challenge had a significant affect. In 1912, with Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Party, his vote certainly helped Woodrow Wilson (41.8%) defeat WH Taft with 23% of the total vote. In 1992, the 3^rd Party challenge of Ross Perot (18.9%) helped Clinton, who defeated G HW Bush with 43% of vote. Perot also drew 8.4% in 1996, but that would not of affected Clinton’s victory.  In 1980, Jimmy Carter received only 41%, and 3^rd party candidate, John Anderson’s 6.6% vote would not affected the outcome.  In other races, as 1968, where Nixon beat Humphrey by less than 1% of the popular vote and won the Electoral College vote 301 to 191, George Wallace polled 13.5%. Neither candidate was an incumbent, both were former Vice-Presidents, and the Wallace vote was a Southern, segregationist, anti-northern Democratic vote. One could assume, that if Wallace was not in the race, the majority of that vote probably would have stayed home or gone to Nixon. In 1960, John F. Kennedy won a very close race by less than .5%. Some people claim that his 8,858 vote victory in Illinois was questionable. Interestingly, the Social Labor candidate had 10,560 votes in that state, approximately 22% of his national total of 47,522 votes. Who is to say whether that the 8, 858 votes were fraudulent, or whether the 3^rd party candidate took votes from Kennedy! He also won Texas by 46, 257, a much larger number. If he had lost the electoral votes (27) in Illinois or Texas (24), he still would have just over the 270 Electoral College vote, winning threshold.

In 2000, GW Bush lost the popular vote .5% against Al Gore and won the Electoral College vote with 271 votes. Most experts believe that the 500+ vote margin in Florida was affected by the infamous hanging “chads,” and the idea that these votes would have been cast for Pat Buchanan, in a heavily Democratic and Jewish precinct is quite questionable. By the way, the 3^rd party candidacy of Ralph Nader only polled 465,000 vote or less than a 3^rd of a percent, but in Florida he polled 32,971, or about 7% of his national total, and the most votes he received in any state of the Union. More concerns were expressed in 2004 when GW Bush won re-election by 2.5%, but, only edged Gore in Ohio by 14,676 votes. There were many questions about that vote, and if those 20 Electoral votes would have been shifted to John Kerry, he would have with the same 271 Electoral College votes.

The bottom line with most of these races are that they are usually pretty close. In fact, except for a few cases in the last 66 years, most races (11 out of 14) have been decided by a majority vote of less than 53.5%.

I am voting for Hillary!

An Open Letter on Healthcare Coverage

Richard J. Garfunkel

10-20-16

Our healthcare coverage is the best in the world and it is the most expensive in the industrialized world. Until Medicare, healthcare was unaffordable to most seniors. People were healthy until they died. When they got sick they died. Until comprehensive healthcare plans, with groups, only people working for firms had health care coverage for hospitalization. Medicare and company-sponsored healthcare coverage made doctors wealthy.

1)      Medicare is a single payer system for seniors

2)      Every industrialized country in the world has a single payer system for all their citizens

3)      Healthcare insurance has always been expensive and it is expensive today

4)      There are 267 million non-elderly Americans

a)      56% are covered through their employers and that coverage could range from $16,000 to $30,000 per family. The majority of those covered pay a co-premium of 25% and many have high deductibles. This coverage is not inexpensive and premiums continue to increase

b)      18% are not insured

c)       21% receive coverage through Medicaid and other public programs

d)      6% have individual or family plans

5)      Obamacare has made coverage available to millions who cannot afford coverage

6)      Healthcare coverage is provided by private companies, and their CEOs are incredibly well compensated.

a)      The top 20 executives in for sectors made an average of the following:

1)      Insurance $15 million per year!

2)      Provider $21 million

3)      Services $20 million

4)      Supply chain $30 million

7)      Of the leading insurance companies here are the top CEO’s compensation:

a)      Centene Corp $19 million

b)      Aflac $15 million

c)       Aetna $15 million

d)      Cigna $14 million

e)      Anthem $13.5 Million

8)      Obamacare (ACA) is coverage from insurance companies not the government

9)      Obamacare (ACA) upgraded many policies which were not doing the job that was promised

10)   Healthcare coverage in the years after the passage of Obamacare (Affordable Care Act,) the pace of the cost of healthcare slowed to its lowest pace in 50 years

11)   Company provided healthcare plans have traditionally raised premiums at 2 to 3 times the rate of inflation.

12)   Healthcare is a right for all Americans

13)   The GOP has no answer to healthcare coverage for the 23 million covered by the ACA

14)    They have no answer for 10s of millions denied coverage by Red State governors

15)   No one is forced to take Obamacare (ACA).  All Americans have right to search the market.

16)   Obamacare (ACA) needs to be adjusted  as was Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid

Therefore, no one can expect, under a privately-based system of healthcare, inexpensive plans which have coverage without caps, exclusions, and limitations. No one in our privately-based system