A Country Divided

 Is the current conflict gripping the news media really the worst situation that has confronted the country? To hear the media's talking heads you would think so. But, all it takes is a little search back into history to realize that this country has almost been in a constant state of conflict and divided loyalties since it's beginning. About the only time we have been close to a totally unified nation in thought is during times of great conflict with a foreign power, i.e. WWII.

Just contemplate the beginning of the country. The Revolutionary War was not fought because we had acrimonious relations between those who wanted to remain loyal to the British crown, the  Tories, and those that wanted American independence. The country was deeply divided and were killing each other over that issue.

It wasn't long after the Revolution that the British incensed the President, Madison, so much that he was moved to ask the congress to declare war against them. But, the country was deeply divided over that decision. It became known in America as the War of 1812.

From Wikipedia: I don't mind plagiarizing. 

Opposition to the War of 1812 was widespread in the United States, especially in New England. Many New Englanders opposed the conflict on political, economic, and religious grounds. When the Embargo Act of 1807 failed to remedy the situation with the United Kingdom, with Britain refusing to rescind the Orders in Council (1807) and the French continuing their decrees, certain Democratic-Republicans known as war hawks felt compelled to persuade the United States government to declare war on the British. A number of contemporaries called it, "The second war for independence." Henry Clay and John Calhoun pushed a declaration of war through Congress, stressing the need to uphold American honor and independence. Speaking of the impact of the depressed cotton trade upon his fellow Southerners, Calhoun told Congress that:

They see, in the low price of their produce, the hand of foreign injustice; they know well without the market to the continent, the deep and steady current of supply will glut that of Great Britain; they are not prepared for the colonial state to which again that Power [Great Britain] is endeavoring to reduce us. The manly spirit of that section of our country will not submit to be regulated by any foreign Power. 

Vehement protests against "Mr. Madison's War" erupted in those parts of the country where the opposition party, the Federalists, held sway, especially in Connecticut and Massachusetts. The governors of these two states, along with Rhode Island, refused to place their state militias under federal control for duty outside the territory of their respective states. In the ensuing 1812 and 1813 United States House of Representatives elections, some members of Congress who voted for the war paid the price. Eight sitting New England congressmen were rejected by the voters, and several others saw the writing on the wall and declined to seek re-election. There was a complete turnover of the New Hampshire delegation.

The conflict over the question of slavery, a continual conflict until the Civil War settled it, and it's expansion was never more evident than the sentiments surrounding the Mexican-American War.

Again, a plagiarism from Wikipedia: 

Opposition to the war

Abraham      Lincoln in his late 30s as a Whig member of the U.S. House of Representatives, when he opposed the Mexican–American War.

Ex-slave and prominent anti-slavery advocate Frederick Douglass opposed the Mexican–American War.

Henry David Thoreau spent a night in jail for not paying poll taxes to support the war and later wrote Civil Disobedience.

In the United States, increasingly divided by sectional rivalry, the war was a partisan issue and an essential element in the origins of the American Civil War. Most Whigs in the North and South opposed it; most Democrats supported it. Southern Democrats, animated by a popular belief in Manifest Destiny, supported it in hope of adding slave-owning territory to the South and avoiding being outnumbered by the faster-growing North. John L. O'Sullivan, editor of the Democratic Review, coined this phrase in its context, stating that it must be "our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions."

Now we come to the greatest conflict that happened on American soil since the Revolution. The American war between the states, otherwise known as the Civil War. The conflict of opinions about two major issues drove the people to kill each other by the hundreds of thousands. One was overriding the issue of slavery and the other one of the sovereignty of the individual states and their right to succeed from the union. The conclusion of that war is well known and it's aftermath existed in large measure until the civil rights movement in the 50's and even beyond.

Following the Civil War the southern states enacted a whole series of laws and other restrictions to prevent blacks from participating in the political process or even to gain a little prosperity. If you think that the black population enjoyed that status you haven't been aware of history. From the end of the Civil War for the next hundred years the arguments over the rights of non-white citizens was continually a source of conflict. Lynchings, rapes, murder and beatings were common to the southern blacks during this time, largely out of the sight of middle class white Americans.

Then came the Great War. The War To End All
Wars. Otherwise known as World War One. 

There was significant opposition to that war among the American people, especially in the beginning. The Hearst news syndicate pushed for the war with every means at their disposal and was instrumental in turning a great number of people's minds. However, there was still opposition to the war after our entry into it. Draconian measures were instituted to silence that opposition.

Many countries jailed those who spoke out against the conflict. These included Eugene Debs in the United States and Bertrand Russell in Britain. In the US, the Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918 made it a federal crime to oppose military recruitment or make any statements deemed "disloyal". Publications at all critical of the government were removed from circulation by postal censors, and many served long prison sentences for statements of fact deemed unpatriotic.

Of course that war had major consequences in much of the world. The only major country Monarchy left standing after that war was that of Britain. Germany, Austria and Russia all fell to the consequences of that war. 

Leading up to World War II the mood of the country was clearly antiwar. There were rallies and marches to support that desire. Lindbergh was an outspoken antiwar advocate. Of course all that came to an end with Pearl Harbor. That brought the country together like no time in history. One goal, to win that war. 

Now comes the rise of of what has been tagged the radical left. This group calls themselves liberals, but they are far from classic liberalism. To the classic liberal the foundation of free speech, exercise of one's religion, and a free unbiased press are bedrocks of their belief system. The classical liberal would defend the right enunciated by Hamilton who said "I might not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it". 

On the contrary they have infiltrated our schools, especially our universities, and have preached the virtue of socialism and determined that anyone not getting on board is to be silenced. They have taken that mandate to heart. While socialists are invited to speak on campus, conservatives are shouted down if they try to speak, but mostly they aren't invited.

The political landscape in Washington ever since the end of World War II has been decidedly globalist. We have negotiated trade agreements with foreign nations much to our detriment. We almost single handed built China into a global super power and an unrelenting enemy. We have exported our technology to them and imported their goods in huge amounts. Almost every thing you use, wear or come in contact with is made in China. We firmly believed that all that was important was trade and importing goods at the best possible price. In the process we have run up a huge trade deficit with China. While American companies are not allowed to build in China without controlling interest being Chinese, they can and do build and buy American real estate at will. In addition the subject of the environment has become central to the thinking of the left wing. Oil was to be phased out, coal mines and factories closed, all in the name of the environment.  As result we exported vast number of American jobs overseas and created what has become known as the rust belt in the USA. We abandoned the core citizen that built this country, the blue collar working class. We closed the coal mines and prevented the country from drilling for oil or even harvesting the oil that we knew was there. We allowed immigrants to cross the border and fill the low paying jobs that at one time would have been filled as the entry jobs for young citizens. Of course with the flood of immigrants across our borders came criminals, drugs and other bad things. 

Then along came Trump. He tapped into the frustration of the forgotten masses and vowed to bring the jobs back to America. He vowed to close the borders to illegals, bring manufacturing back to the country, open the oil fields and coal mines and strengthen our military. He preached America first. He vowed to renegotiate trade agreements that favored foreign counties and make the members of NATO pay the share of expenses that the agreement said they should. NATO was almost completely funded by the USA. The only problem was that Trump has an abrasive personality and rubs a lot of  people the wrong way, especially the elite in Washington. 

Of course what Trump was preaching was heresy to the left. He was a real danger to everything they had invested in. The high tech companies of Silicon Valley, the big retailers, academia and of course the Hollywood crowd lined up against him. So, they went after him in a big way. He was elected as President and that just ramped up the opposition to him and his programs.

He then presided over one of the greatest economic booms in the history of our country. He got tax cuts and took a machete to regulations that were hampering industrial growth. Unemployment fell to all time lows, especially among blacks and other minorities. The stock market was at 19000 when he took office and now it has surpassed 30000 just four years later. 

The left dominates the media and the civil service in Washington, including the Justice Department. That is not surprising considering that they have unionized and negotiated fat salary, benefits and retirement packages for themselves. They don't want that to end. They like the power they have in Washington.

 The top FBI and DPJ officials made it their priority to get rid of him starting during the campaign and following through into his Presidency. They went after him with trumped up charges and allegations with no evidence in support. A document generated by the Clinton campaign was used as a pretext to get a FISA warrant for phone tapping and other surveillance against Trump and his associates. A special commission was formed and spent millions of dollars and over a year of time trying to find some crime in the election that Trump had committed. They found none. The Democrat run house went so far as to pass articles of impeachment, based on nothing more than they didn't like him. He underwent 4 years of opposition from almost all the media including the NY Times, CNN, MSNBC and all the social media platforms. The state of NY opened it's own investigation hoping to find something to charge him with. They went after his income tax records hoping to find fraud or something to get him with. 

During this time several actual and perceived incidents happened concerning police exerting excessive force against blacks including murder. Some were legitimate, some were not. Trump was a strong backer of law enforcement and did not immediately jump on the band wagon and condemn the whole police force for the actions of a few. He fought back against the defund the police movement that started to rise. A rift between the police and the black and liberal community widened to new heights.  

Ant-police and Anti Trump protests sprung up in cities that were run by Democrats that turned violent. Stores were burned and looted. Police were attacked and even killed. The Democratic Mayors of these large cities did nothing about it. Declaring that this was all Trump's fault. The mainstream media downplayed the violence and pronounced that the protests were peaceful and that any violence was the fault of the police or Trump or both. And, the protests were justified, even the small amount of violence because Trump and the police were such a bad guys.

His millions of supporters saw what was going on. They aren't stupid. Trump lashed out at the news media and the Democrat Mayors and Governors because of their bias. He sent federal officers in to prevent damage to federal property and was severely criticized by the media for creating a police state. So a divide started in the country. On one side were the Globalist left dominated Democrats and even a few Republicans and on the other side the blue collar Populist Trump supporters. 

Trump attacked the press calling them fake news organizations, which really wasn't very smart, whether true of not. That made the media even more determined to get rid of him. He had a bad habit of not letting anything pass that he perceived as an insult. He lashed out on Twitter and in person. He wasn't bashful about hurling insults at any body who displeased him. He dominated the news cycle, especially those of cable news. He also was not always as fully truthful as he might have been, that led to the charges of lying by the media, who fact checked every statement he made and made much of any exaggeration or misstatement. 

The hostility between Trump, his supporters and the anti-Trump folks became bitter. Trump supporters were hounded out of their jobs, harassed on the streets and attacked by the supporters of the left. Little of this was reported on CNN or the NY Times, so the general public knew little about. All this in spite of the fact that Trump supporters constitute about one half of the country. But, the main stream media and many members of congress called his supporters racists, ignorant and uneducated, even traitors and treasonous, and they should listen to their betters, i.e. the intellectuals about how to think. After all the halls of academia are filled with the brightest minds in the world. Of course those bright boys never held a real job, never had to build a thing, never ran a business and had no experience out in the real world. Academia is the most isolated group you can imagine.

From the beginning of the election cycle 2020 Trump said that the Democrat machine will try to steal the election. Given his history with the Dems and Washington who can blame him for thinking that. During the counting of the votes after the election there were numerous instances of ballot manipulation and other verifiable suspicious events. Mysterious ballots showing up, Republican monitors not allowed in the room while Democrats were. Dead people voting, no signature verification, counting unsigned ballots and on and on the process went. But, nothing happened that would stand the test of the legal system. Although suspicious things were clearly happening, there was no legal proof of fraud. So the courts threw the cases out and Dems rejoiced. They alleged that it is proven that there was no fraud. 

Trump, I think, really lost his mind at this point. He saw that the election results were not going to be reversed in spite of spending huge amount of money on lawyers and challenges in the courts. Cases he was never going to win. He started to make statements that are construed by the media and the Dems to be inflammatory and resulted in a raid on the capitol to halt the certification by congress of the election of Biden as President. Trump was mad. He was certain that the election had been stolen and he reacted like he always did when opposed. He lashed out. He could have played it cool and thought about 2024. But, now he has given the Democratic controlled congress an excuse to impeach him once again. If the impeachment stands in the Senate, a good chance it might, then he would be barred from ever running for office again. That doesn't mean he will retire quietly to his golf course and real estate. He will continue to have a large following, so it isn't clear what role he will play in the future.   

Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and the other social media have all taken steps to silence any voice from the right. Where this is going it isn't clear. Perhaps the courts or congress will step in and do something. We'll see. 

Yes we have deeply divided country. 

 

The immediate future for the Biden Presidency.

We have a new President. Trump can kick and scream all he wants, and he has  reasons to do so, but he has lost this election. He can look in the mirror and see the reason. One friendly analyst opined that he lost the election because of his poor performance in the first debate. He obviously didn't come prepared for a debate and Joe Biden did. He proved himself to be a poor debater. Any high school student on the debate team would have done better. I think it was more than that. The Biden campaign was able to pin a lot of the fault for the deaths and spread of the corona virus on him. They charged him repeatedly with poor handling of it. And, it seemed to stick. He was not able to shake that image. His continual public denial of the seriousness of the virus got him into trouble and kept him there, even though he knew it was serious and is on record as knowing it.

That there is voter fraud is a given. I'm sure there has never been a election where that didn't happen. There were political machines in the big cities in the not to distant past, especially New York and Chicago that are legendary. They were all Democratic machines, designed to make sure that not only did the party prevail, but to make sure the right person was the candidate. FDR was associated with Tammini Hall in his early career and JFK probably owes his election to the Chicago mafia. Almost all the big cities on the east and west coast are controlled by Democrats. They set up the polling places, decide the rules for the election and end up being in charge of the counting. It has been alleged, by a guest on Fox, that 160,000 ballots showed up mysteriously one night when everybody in the counting room has gone home. It was up to the representative for the Democratic Secretary of State whether they would be counted. Of course they don't see anything wrong that 100% of the ballots are for Biden. There is no way to trace any thing like that after the ballots are separated from the envelops. After all the ballots themselves are anonymous. Proving fraud is darn near impossible. And, they see nothing wrong with banning Republican Party observers into the hall where the votes are being counted, in spite of the law that allowed for that. 

 So what does the near term future look like for President Biden and the Democratic Party?

First of all Biden will come into office with top people in the government not trying to get him removed before he is even sworn in. He will not face a large hostile civil service. There will be no calls for impeachment. He will not face top officials in the FBI doing everything they can to find criminal activities concerning him and his top people. They will not try to trap his people in a lie so they can prosecute for perjury. He will not be at war with the media. They love him. He will get favorable press for everything he does and doesn't do. In short he will enter a very friendly environment to start his term as opposed to the situation Trump found himself in.

Maybe the division within his own party might very well be his biggest problem. The house seems to be dominated by the far left and they are on a straight line to a socialist  agenda. All kinds of ideas are spouting from their mouths. De-fund the police to the point of eliminating them altogether, open the borders and let anyone in, forgive all student loans, provide a free public education all the way through university, institute strict environmental laws including the total elimination of fossil fuels and free medical care for every one, even illegals, among others.  How they are going to pay for all of that is not addressed. Somehow taxing the rich seems to be the pat answer for some. But, they are not the whole party, just the most vocal.

On the plus side, Biden is deemed a negotiator. He seems to be well liked by people on both sides of the isle. He is well versed in the politics of Washington, having been involved in it for most of his life. He will probably be successful in getting some of his agenda through, in spite of the left leaning House and a Republican Senate.

He is not likely to say things off the cuff that will get him in trouble. He's been around too long to make the dumb statements that Trump was so prone to make. The openness to the President that the press enjoyed under Trump is something he will not do. Trumps hourly tweets kept the media busy and gave lots of things for them to discuss. The press will get what the Biden team wants them to get, when they want them to get it, and it will be carefully vetted and scripted. They will have to work to find something to write about. Most of the press will just publish the press releases. If they follow Obama's lead there will be very few press conferences and only carefully staged interviews with friendly moderators.

A split government might be the best thing for Biden. It will give him the excuse he needs to fight off the left wing of his party who are going to be ferocious in the pursuit of getting their agenda into law. If he gets a Democratic Senate due to the run off races in Georgia, then the left will pressure him unmercifully. Woe if something happens to Biden and Harris becomes President. Then you will see a real war between parties.

A byproduct of his election is his ability to put people in key positions to stop any investigation in the mess involving his son. The Senate will have to be careful as not to confirm some one who has an agenda to open up that can of worms surrounding the allegations against Trump that have been going on for 4 years by the Dems. There are people who would love to do that.

At this time it looks like the Republicans will still control the Senate. That will put a stopper on a lot of the left wing fancies. Joe's promise of a large increase in taxes will not fly. Of course he can propose them and then blame the Republicans when they don't get passed. After all, according to him, he will only tax the rich and the greedy corporations.

The Senate will also put a stop to extreme left wing appointments to the cabinet and the Judiciary. 

The Majority leader of the Senate will set the Republican agenda for the next four years. With a Republican President he took a back seat. Now the Majority Leader will step up as the top Republican in the government. The Senate has a lot of power. More so than the house. Treaties, cabinet and judicial appointments run through the Senate. 

Biden actually comes in at a good time for him. A vaccine for the virus is on the way and will be probably available to the public sometime in the first or second quarter of next year. When that happens, that will unleash the economy and there will be a dramatic upturn. In addition, medication for those infected are being developed with a lot of success. Restaurants, sporting events, bars and all kinds of businesses will open and start doing business again. It will take a few years to fully recover, but it will happen on Biden's watch.  And, just as God made little green apples the Democrats will take credit for the recovery. The only thing that will stop it, is for the left wing to get their agenda through and kill the recovery or, Biden repeals all the regulatory reductions that Trump put into place or both.

The one thing that will likely be on the table and successfully negotiated will be the subject of medical coverage. I think that the Republicans would be more than willing to come to a agreement with Biden on medical coverage if the he can get the Democratic house to go along. Which is questionable. They want government controlled universal health care. Can Biden control the Speaker.

The Dems will have to do some really stupid things to not have a good chance at their party winning another term in as President. They can be riding the wave of the benefits put in by Trump that resulted in a world class economy, a face up to China, Russia and Iran, bringing jobs back home, making America an oil exporting nation instead of buyer and negotiating more favorable trade deals for the United States among other things. All Biden has to do is, do nothing. But, if the Dems are stupid enough to select one of the radical left as their candidate in 2024 then all bets are off.

Although the second term will likely not be Biden. His age will probably limit him to one term. The favorite candidate for the office for the next election is always the current VP. Of course four years is a long time and other Dems may very well rise to the forefront. Who the Republicans choose is up for grabs. The betting would be for a woman, but I'm not so sure that either Harris or whoever the Republicans pick is a lock. Many a candidate has come out of the woodwork before. We'll see.

   

Trump vs Biden

 I watched the Presidential debates almost all the way through. It was really hard to do. But, here are a few observations I have on that debate.

First, it is clear to me that Biden came prepared for that debate and the  President didn't. I think Trump believed his own hype and thought he could crush Biden by over powering him and making him mad. He thought that he could cause Biden to commit a couple of major mistakes. But, Biden didn't play along. He came in prepared with rehearsed sound bits that would could be played on CNN and the other media to his favor. No matter what the question, he had a small speech ready for airing, largely ignoring the question if it didn't suit him, and there were quite a few of those. Once, when asked a question he didn't want to answer, he launched into a speech on everybody should get out and vote. A sound bit that will play well in the media.

Trump didn't win a single undecided voters approval by his tactics. I have no doubt about that. He acted the part of a bully, constantly interrupting Biden. He was playing to his base, but I don't think that will get him elected. It was clear that even Fox news, generally friendlier to the President than the general media, was critical of his tactics. Of course, CNN, MSNBC and the larger media are having a field day.

It has been said that Trump is a great debater. That is far from the truth.  In fact he is a  poor debater, He had many opportunities to site his record on the economy, his strongest position, but wasted those opportunities by his usual personal attacks on Biden. The facts and figures were on his side, but he really didn't methodically go through the list. 

On the virus questions he had many opportunities to site exactly what he actually done and the times he did them and methodically compare that record with Biden's own pronouncements at the same time. When he closed down travel from China. When he ordered the production of masks and ventilators. The steps he has taken to speed the development of a vaccine and the corresponding steps to make sure a supply of vaccine is rapidly available when one or more of the ones under trial now are approved. He has really nothing to be ashamed of on the the things he did, but he didn't hammer that point home. Instead, he attacked Biden. 

In short, I think Biden actually won the debate, even though he didn't do all that well himself. Because of the bar being set so low by Trump himself, all Biden had to do was survive to win. I don't know whether a second debate will swing any voters at this stage. But, Trump had better be better prepared for it.  I don't think he will. He is of the belief that the way he did it in 2016 will work again. Maybe it will. We'll see.

The Legacy of the Coronavirus

      It is evident that the Coronavirus will have a long and devastating effect upon the future after the virus is long gone. 

    Massive government spending to mitigate the effects of the virus upon the people of the United States is leaving a public debt that will influence the tax policies as well as the budgets for years into the future. 
     The public debt before the virus hit was just over 20 trillion dollars and rising, which was bad. It was soaking up something like 7 percent of the budget just to pay the interest. We have just added over 2 trillion to that number in one fell swoop with more to come.  
  

 

The taxpayer and their children and children's children will be paying for this forever. 

      It will change the way we shop and it might well spell the doom of whole lot of brick and mortar retailers, if they do not adapt rapidly and successfully to the realities of the new dynamics. In any event it will cost thousands of jobs in retail that will never return.  Sears, which already on life support, is likely not going to be able survive.  Several other big name stores are questionable. The virus has caused a really rapid change toward online buying, a trend that was happening anyway, but it has just accelerated the process.  

In spite of the government actions, a lot of small businesses will not survive. While the government handouts continue to pay wages of employees of small business, it can't do anything about the actual decline in business.

     The entertainment industry is not only suffering big time now, but will likely be effected for some time into the future. Movie houses are closed as well as sporting events not being held. I have heard talk of playing the beginning of the baseball season in Arizona to empty stadiums, depending on television coverage for revenue, I suppose. I don't know how that would work. It could be that they will end up copying what has happened to boxing. The games may be pay per view. The high salaries of the players as well as all the expenses associated with a major league baseball team have to be paid if they play.

     It is possible the the major studios will have to follow that same format. First run movies will be streamed to the individual homes for a fee. Again I have no idea if that is workable, in an economic sense, considering the cost of a big screen epoch. Of course HBO produced the Game of Thrones, which must have really expensive to produce, for viewing by it's membership. There is no way of knowing if the series would have paid for itself if it had been offered as a pay per view.  HBO did it to enhance their image and attract new customers. As televisions become larger and hopefully the sound systems become better, the move to big screen TV away from movie theaters may be the wave of the future. It probably was going in that direction anyway. The virus just accelerated the process.In fact it already been done with one major release and is apparently very successful.

     Airlines are in real trouble with no one flying.  As a result of that and with the expansion of electronic conferencing, the move away from traveling for business may well be accelerated. It is a lot cheaper and companies may well decide having people in the same room for face to face conferencing isn't all that important. 

     Grocery stores are hurting because so many of their customers are not leaving the house. The alternative is to have the groceries delivered. That is already happening. But, it is expensive. The common way for the delivery companies to make money is for them to charge more for an article  than they have to pay to the grocer. For instance, a case of cokes at Costco costs about $12.40 and the delivery service, Instacart, charges the customer about $14.50. 

     

The effect of the Coronavirus

       The effect of the Coronavirus

     As the Corona virus spreads and results in the disruption of the supply chain from China, it has becoming alarmingly clear just how dependent on that country the world economy has become. 
     That is very true for the United States.  The shutdown of the manufacture and shipping of the materials that we import from China threatens to impact the manufacturing of this country to a major extent. The wall street gurus recognized this and the results are shown in the decline the the stock market. 
     It turns out the almost every essential thing you buy has a part or all of it manufactured in China. They are into every thing. 
     Cars can't be built because critical parts are manufactured in China. 
    If your television isn't outright made in China, critical parts of it is
     Look around you. Almost everything you see was made wholly of partly in China. Your appliances, the clothes on your back, your lap top or desk top computer, that IPhone (Smart Phone) that you can't live without and everything else are all linked into the China pipeline one way or another.  
    The pharmaceutical products marketed at your local drug store all seem to have all or part of their ingredients manufactured in China. When you go to he drug store to fill your prescription, you will be out of luck. They can't make that medicine you need.
    And, the most disturbing thing is, that critical parts of most of the equipment built for the military is manufactured in China. That includes our most advanced weapon systems.  There is no source for these parts in the United States. If the China pipeline is shut down the military would take a significant blow.  
     You know very well why and how we got into this mess. We kept looking for cheaper prices as consumers and it was cheaper to invest billions and trillions of dollars in to manufacturing facilities in China than to build in the United States. We exported jobs to China as well as technology and was the principle driver behind China's rise into world power in such a short time. In return that blender you bought costs less as does those blue jeans you love so much. Building cost less because steel imported from China costs less than American produced steel. And the story goes on.
     To make matters worse we gave China sweetheart trade deals that levied little of no import taxes on products brought into the United States and at the same time as China levied large and restrictive taxes and restrictions on American products. China can own outright property in the United States without any additional restrictions or costs than those born by the American citizen, but an American can not wholly own property or manufacturing in China. They must have a Chinese party who owns the controlling interest in the facility.
    The outbreak of the Coronavirus and it's potential impact on the supply chain from China has just high lighted the dependence on the stuff we import from that country. Of course, we have a large trade imbalance with China that has been going on for years. With no end in sight. 
    President Trump has tried his best to address some of the these problems, using the only tool he has. A raising of the tariffs imposed on Chinese goods.  Of course the dems screamed bloody murder about that. They always yelled that these problems should be solved through diplomacy. But, several administrations have tried that approach, to no avail.  It seems that no matter what Trump does, the dems are going to scream about it, just because he did it. 
     And, the beat goes on. 
     Sooner of later, the virus will be brought under control and normal shipping and manufacturing in China will return to normal, and everything will go on as before. Nothing will change, and we will be facing the reality that China has emerged as the worlds dominate power. Militarily and economically.
      

The American Stone Age man

     I find it curious that in the whole western hemisphere no single genius arose and developed some breakthrough technology that would start the movement out of the stone age, which was the level of development that Columbus and the European followers found when they landed on the Americas shores in the early 16th century.
     This in spite of the fact that the Western Hemisphere was rich in natural resources, far richer than Europe. Iron, Copper, Coal, Oil, abundant timber and other metals were all here and easily exploited, if one of the indigenous natives had discovered a way to extract the metal from the earth. They had been able to fashion the soft metal, Gold, which did not require much in the way of technology, but no one ever made the leap from the soft metal to copper and then to iron.
     Fertile land was abundant in north America, but the natives, especially those that lived in what is now the USA and Canada,  remained primarily a Hunter/Gatherer society, except, perhaps,  the cliff dwelling people.  They knew how to plant corn and grow some crops but, they never transitioned that knowledge into an agricultural economic civilization. Because of that they had never developed the concept of owning land.
    They never developed the wheel and thus they never had any reason to develop roads. But, they participated in extensive trading over vast distances, all done by foot over trails.
     The early inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere were not stupid as can be attested to the clever ways that they adopted to the land they lived on. 
    At least three great civilizations rose up in this hemisphere, the Aztecs, the Mayans and the Incas. Usually when a lot of people are brought together, ideas begin to flourish, resulting in some new concept. But, that never happened. All these empires came and went without producing any breakthrough technology that might have changed the history of the Americas.
      Why did that happen? Perhaps some scholars doing research for a doctoral thesis has come to some conclusions, but, for me it is just curious.

My brief histoy of Jesus as Told in the Gospels Part 4 John

     Who was John, the supposed author of the fourth book of the Gospels? John the Apostle was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus according to the New Testament,  Generally listed as the youngest apostle, he was the son of Zebedee and Salome or Joanna. His brother was James, who was another of the Twelve Apostles. The Church Fathers identify him as John the Evangelist, John of Patmos, John the Elder and the Beloved Disciple, and testify that he outlived the remaining apostles and that he was the only one to die of natural causes. 
     Church tradition has held that John is the author of the Gospel of John and five other books of the New Testament — the three Epistles of John and the Book of Revelation, although that is highly disputed.  The writing style is significantly different. But, it serves the church's ends to pin Revelations on one of the disciples and John happened to have the right name.  
      The Gospel according to John differs considerably from the Synoptic Gospels, (Matthew, Mark and Luke) which were likely written decades earlier. The bishops of Asia Minor supposedly requested him to write his gospel to deal with the heresy of the Ebionites, who asserted that Christ did not exist before Mary. This topic was in great debate for centuries following the death of Jesus. It is very important, as it flavors all the writing in the Gospel of John. John probably knew and undoubtedly read and approved of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
     Until the 19th century, the authorship of the Gospel of John had been attributed to the Apostle John. However, most modern critical scholars have their doubts. Some scholars place the Gospel of John somewhere between AD 65 and 85; John Robinson proposes an initial edition by 50–55 and then a final edition by 65 due to narrative similarities with Paul. Other scholars are of the opinion that the Gospel of John was composed in two or three stages. Most contemporary scholars consider that the Gospel was not written until the latter third of the first century AD, and with an earliest possible date of AD 75. Other scholars think that an even later date, perhaps even the last decade of the first century AD right up to the start of the 2nd century (i.e. 90 - 100), is applicable.
        The gospel of John is primarily a continuous sermon, just moving from one place to another, with a collection of the saying, prophesies and parables which is akin to that of Matthew. There is a different flavor to the writings of John. It is concentrated on the spiritual Jesus and not so much on Jesus as a man. Jesus's travels seemed to be for the sole purpose of getting him into a situation where he can preach another sermon. That doesn't make for an interesting history. In fact makes little real attempt to relate Jesus's history. He is much more concerned with establishing his divinity. 
    (John 1:1) "In the beginning was the Word, and Word was with God, and the Word was God". And so John begins.  He, like Mark, did not tackle the birth of Jesus or his early life in his story.
     Jesus came to John the Baptist to be baptized. As he was leaving on the morrow John was standing with two of his own disciples (John1;36-40) "and he looked upon Jesus as he walked, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God! And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. And Jesus turned, and beheld them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? And they said unto him, Rabbi(which is to say, being interpreted, Teacher), where abideth thou? He saith unto them, Come, and ye shall see. They came therefore and saw where he abode; and they abode with him that day: it was about the tenth hour. One of the two that heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother".
    Then Jesus collected Peter, Phillip and Nathanael as the first apostles. After that Jesus roamed around preaching.
     At one point Jesus attended a wedding where he turned water into wine. The marriage was in Cana of Galilee and Jesus's mother was there. At one point his mother told Jesus that they had run out of wine. Jesus's answer was a bit strange. (John 2:4) "And Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come." 
    Mary then told the servants to do whatever Jesus told them to do. Jesus told them to fill six water pots with water to the brim and take them to the ruler of the feast. As every who has heard the story knows, the water pots were now filled with wine. This was the first of his signs.
    After that he went to Capernaum with his mother, his brethren and his disciples and stayed for many days. 
    Passover was coming up so Jesus and his gang went to Jerusalem. When he got there he went into the temple and you know the story of what happened. Bedlam broke loose as Jesus got really violent (John 2:15) "and he made a scourge of cords, and cast all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen; and he poured out the changers' money and overthrew their tables;". This is a story that is told in all the Gospels, but each seems to have it set at a different time. 
    Now John made a strange observation. (John 2:23-25) "Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, during the feast, many believed on this name, beholding his signs which he did. But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, for that he know all men, and because he needed not that any on should bear witness concerning man; for he himself know what was in man."
    Here John establish that Jesus existed before he was born of Mary. John 3:16-17) "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life, For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him". 
    Jesus went back to Cana of Galilee, where he had done the water into wine trick. A nobleman approached Jesus and said his son was sick at Capernaum and he asked Jesus to come to his home and heal his son who was near death. (John 4:48-50) "Jesus therefore said unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will in no wise believe. The nobleman saith unto him, Sir, come down ere my child die. Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way; the son liveth. The man believed the word that Jesus spake unto him, and he went his way." 
  Guess what? When the man was on his way, his servants met him and told him his son lived. He asked them at what hour his son started to mend and they answered that it was the seventh hour yesterday when his fever broke. That, of course, was the time that Jesus had told him that his son will live. This, according to John was the second sign that Jesus did.
    Jesus went back into Jerusalem to celebrate passover. There he performed another miraculous healing upon a man that been infirm for thirty eight years. But, this got Jesus in trouble again because this happened on the sabbath, which was against the law. (John 5:16-18) "And for this cause the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did these things on the sabbath. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh even until now, and I work. For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the sabbath but also called God his own Father, making himself equal to God." Again John, more than any of the other Gospels, sets up  the Jews as a whole, as the enemy of Jesus. The earlier Gospels pointed to the Pharisees and the high priests more. John was clearly on a mission to distance the new religion from the Jews and embrace the gentiles.  
    Jesus then went to the sea of Tiberias with a great mob following him, a lot imploring that he heal them of sickness. He went up to a mountain with his disciples. Passover was nearing. Jesus then turned to Philip and asked how are they to buy bread for the mob so they may eat. Philip answered that two hundred shillings worth of bread is not enough to feed this multitude. Then Andrew told Jesus that a lad had five barley loaves and two fishes, but that isn't enough for this crowd.  Jesus told them to sit down, and they did. About five thousand it says. You know the story from here. He fed the five thousand with only five loaves of bread and 2 fishes, with twelve baskets of broken pieces left over. 
    When the evening came, his disciples went down to the sea, but Jesus didn't come with them. A great storm arose and they were terrified. Then they saw Jesus walking on the water and coming to the boat. As soon as Jesus stepped into the boat they were on the land where they were going. 
    At the end of chapter 6 John introduces the idea of a future betrayal. In a discussion with his twelve disciples, (John 6:70) "Jesus answered them, Did not I choose you the twelve, and one of you is a devil?"    
    John made a point of including Mary, his mother in the women that were following Jesus at this point. Something the other Gospels didn't do.   
    John is clearly writing for the Gentile audience. He blames the Jews for the hatred for Jesus and his crucifixion. Where Matthew and Mark put the blame on the Pharisees, the scribes and the high priests, John starts to lay the blame on the Jews directly.  An example is: (John 7:1) "And after these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him".
    Jesus frequently emphasized that his teaching was not his, but the one who sent him. (John 7:28-29) "Jesus therefore cried in the temple, teaching and saying, Ye both know me, and know whence I am; and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. I know him; because I am from him, and he sent me" 
    Jesus was preaching in the temple, stirring up his following with his usual lesson that he was sent by God. Many in the multitude believed in him and that wasn't taken well by the Pharisees and the priests. (John 7:30) "They sought therefore to take him: and no man laid his hand on him because his hour was not yet come."   
    At one time the Pharisees brought a woman taken in adultery.  They said that Moses decreed that the woman be stoned, what would Jesus say to that?  (John 8:6-7) "And this they said, trying him, that they might have wherefore to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground. But when the continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."  Everybody knows the story from here. No stone was cast.
    Jesus saw a man blind from birth. The disciples asked what sin he or his parents had committed to cause him to be blind. (John 9:3) "Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him."  Jesus spate on the ground and made clay which he put on the mans eyes. He told the man to go wash the clay off in the pool of Siloam and guess what? He could see again. But, Jesus was in trouble again, because he did this on the sabbath. 
    There were doubters who went to the parents of the man asked who cured him. They denied that they knew who opened his eyes, ask him, they said. They said that because they feared the Jews.  The Jews believed that the man was blind because of some sin. The Jews cast the man out of the synagogue.  
    The story of Lazarus of Bethany is told in Chapter 11. This was the village of Mary (not his mother) and her sister Martha. Mary's brother Lazarus was sick. Jesus loved Martha and her sister. When Jesus heard that Lazarus was sick he stayed for two days where he was and then he said that they should go to Judaea where Lazarus was. The disciples didn't like that idea and they warned Jesus that the Jews "were but now seeking to stone thee" if you go there. 
    Then Jesus said that our friend Lazarus has fallen to sleep and he should go to wake him. His disciples noted that if Lazarus had fallen asleep, he will recover. But, Jesus said that he will not awaken from this sleep, for he is dead.
    So Jesus went to Lazarus's tomb where he had lain for four days. He told Martha to remove the stone that covered the tomb. Then he told Lazarus to come forth, and he did. Of course everyone was dumbfounded and worshipful. Who wouldn't be, they just saw a man raised from the dead.
    Six days before passover they went to where Lazarus was and ate supper with him. It was noted that Mary, Martha's sister, took a pound of ointment of pure nard, very precious, and anointed Jesus's feet and wiped his feet with her hair. The common people came, not to see Jesus but to see Lazarus, a man who had been raised from the dead. 
    The chief priests didn't like that much. That made many of the common people believe in Jesus and they figured to put Lazarus to death along with Jesus. 
     Jesus entered Jerusalem on an ass. How he got that ass isn't detailed in John, it's just there. The Last Supper for John, like everything else in this book, is a long sermon. He does make note of the future betrayal of Peter and Judas, but that is not given a lot of weight. 
    Now the story takes on familiar grounds. Jesus took his disciples over the brook Kidron, where there was a garden. At that point in the story Judas acted to betray Jesus. (John 18:3-5) "Judas then, having received the band of soldiers, and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. Jesus therefore,knowing all the things that were coming upon him, went forth, and saith unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus saith unto them, I am he, And Judas also, who betrayed him, was standing with them."
    They seized him and bound him and then (John 18:13) "and led him to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, who was high priest that year".  
    At this point in the story is where Peter started his denial of Jesus. After some questions, Annas sent Jesus to Caiaphas, the high priest. The high priest then sent on to Pilate. Pilate told them to take him and judge him according to their own laws. The Jews then noted that Jewish law didn't allow executions.
    Pilate said again, he saw no crime in him, but he saw a way out of this mess. (John 18:39-40) "But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews? They cried out therefore again saying. Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber".
    Pilate then took Jesus and scourged him. (Whatever that means). Note: I don't think a Roman governor would stoop to actually applying a whip to anyone.  The soldiers crowned him with a thorns and arrayed him in a purple garment. But, Pilate again said that he would return him to the Jews because he saw no crime in him.  But, the chief priests and officers cried out that they wanted him crucified. It says that Pilate was afraid after hearing them. Note: That isn't likely that a Roman governor would be afraid of any Jewish mob.  
     After some more questioning, Pilate wanted to release him again. Then the Jews played their trump card. (John 19:12) "Upon this Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou release this man, thou art not Caesars friend: every one that maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar."  Now Pilate gave in and ordered the crucifixion. Damned clever these Jews.
    John, unlike the other Gospels, has Jesus bearing the cross to the crucifixion himself. No Simon in his tale.  There they crucified him with two others. No atonement for one of the others in John's tale. That was strictly a Luke invention. They wrote JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS  on the cross.
     The scene on the cross is pretty consistent among the Gospels, few deviations. John, like the other Gospels makes a point of the women standing by the cross. Mary his mother, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene. A little different group. Now we have three Mary's that are featured in the story.
    Jesus said that he was thirsty. (John 19:29-30) "There was set there a vessel full of vinegar: so they put a sponge full of vinegar upon hyssop, and brought it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up his spirit."  
    Now John changes the story some. (John 19:31) "The Jews therefore,, because it was the Preparation, that the bodies should not remain on the cross upon the sabbath (for the day of the sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away." Note there are three bodies.
    So the soldiers broke the legs of two of the executed, but when they came to Jesus they saw he was dead and didn't break his legs. But, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and it says that there came out blood and water. That is interesting as a dead body is not likely to bleed, especially if the body is vertical. The blood will pool at the lower extremities. This leads to the conjecture that Jesus wasn't really dead.
    Joseph of Arimathaea asked Pilate if he could take the body of Jesus and Pilate said yes. Then Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds and he took the body of Jesus, bound it in linen cloth with spices.
    John 19:41-42) "Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new tomb wherein was never man yet laid. There then because of the Jews' Preparation (for the tomb was nigh at hand) they laid Jesus."  Every one of the Gospels seems to have a different take on the exactly where Jesus was entombed. 
    On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early while it was still dark and saw that the stone was rolled away. She then ran to Peter and "the other disciple whom Jesus loved" and told them that somebody had taken Jesus's body. 
    Peter and the other disciple went to the tomb. The other disciple got there first and noted that the linen cloths were just laying, but he did not enter. Peter arrived and went into the tomb. Jesus was missing. 
    (John 20:9-10) "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. So the disciples went away again unto their own home."  This really strange because he had been telling them this for some time. 
    Now John really deviates from the other Gospels. Mary Magdalene was standing outside the tomb weeping. She stooped and looked into the tomb. What she saw was two angels in white just sitting there, one at the head and the other at the feet of where Jesus had lain. They asked why she was weeping. She answered that they had taken away her lord and she didn't know where they had him. Then she tuned back and there was Jesus, but she didn't recognize him. She thought he was the gardener and asked him where they had taken Jesus. Then (John 20:16) "Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turneth herself, and saith unto him in Hebrew, Rabboni; which is to say, Teacher."  
    Of course Mary was thrilled because she now recognized Jesus, but he told her not to touch him, for he has not yet ascended, but to go to his brethren and tell them "I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God." (John20:17).
    So Mary took off and told the disciples what she had seen and what he had said to her. That evening, with the doors shut for fear of the Jews, Jesus came into their midst. He showed them his hands and his side. The disciples were impressed. But. Thomas wasn't there.
    Now comes the kicker. (John 20:21-23) "Jesus therefore said to them again, Peace be unto you: as the Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit: whose sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."  So here it is, the one sentence in the gospels that propelled the Catholic Church, and it's priesthood, into great power and wealth. The church assumed the authority to not only forgive sin, but to cast a soul into everlasting hell. It was taken as a given, that the authority given to the disciples extended to those that were ordained by them subsequently. A position they held for over a thousand years, until Martin Luther posted some things on the door. They can thank John alone for this authority, because  Mathew, Mark nor Luke gave them that power, at least as far as I have found. 
    After eight days the scene was basically repeated, except Thomas was there. Thomas apparently was a doubter (Doubting Thomas). Jesus told Thomas to exam his hands and his side so that he would believe. Thomas was convinced. Then Jesus said that because he had seen him he believed, but blessed are they that did not see him and yet believed. John noted that there were many other signs that Jesus did that are not written in the Gospel. 
    Peter, Thomas and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee (James and John) and two other of his disciples were together. Peter said that they should go fishing, and they did that night. 
    They fished through the night and morning was breaking they saw a man standing on the beach. The man was Jesus, but they didn't know him. Jesus asked if the had anything to eat and they told him that they didn't. Fishing hadn't been good. Jesus then told them to cast their nets into the sea again. They did and hauled out a multitude of fish. The disciple, who Jesus loved, said to Peter that the man is the Lord. Peter heard that it was the Lord, he "girt" (put on) his coat and cast himself into the sea. (Don't know why, but that is what it says). Another interesting thing that keeps coming up in John, is the reference to the disciple that Jesus loved. Never identified. There is conjecture that Mary Magdalene is the one Jesus loved. One must admit that Mary Magdalene plays a big part in the story of Jesus. However, it seems clear that the disciple mentioned in this Gospel was John.
    The other disciples rowed the little boat ashore dragging a net full of fish. When the got to land, they saw a fire of coals with fish cooking and bread.
     Jesus told them to bring the fish and they did, a hundred and fifty three. Wow! Thirty of forty years later the number is still remembered.
    Jesus then turned to Peter and asked him three times if he loved him more than the others. All three times Peter said yes he did. Jesus then said to Peter that he should "Feed my Lambs", "Tend My sheep", and "Feed my sheep" after each answer. 
     John closes with (John 20-25) "Peter turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; who also leaned back on this breast at the supper, and said, Lord who is he that betrayeth thee? Peter therefore seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto to him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me. This saying therefore went forth among the brethren, that the disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, that he should not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? This is the disciple that beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things, and we know that his witness is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if the should be written ever one, I suppose that even the world it self would not contain the books that should be written". This is kind of a strange question. Every one of the disciples knew that Judas betrayed Jesus.
    So Ends John.
     And, so ends my own journey into the life of Jesus as told in the Gospels. I thought it was an interesting trip and I am sorry if it offended any reader when I pointed out the discrepancies and related events in the first four books of the New Testament.             
    Whether one believes that the Gospels actually relate a true story of a man called Jesus, and how much is nothing but the imagination of the writer, is up to the individual.  But, no matter what your personal beliefs, it is clear that this one man had a profound impact on the world. His teachings are the basis for the major religion of Christianity, no matter how much those teachings have been bent and corrupted by men seeking power and riches. I doubt seriously that Jesus would recognize the church which bears his name today. But, that's a story for another time. 
     I will close this on that note. Thanks for reading the four papers and comments are welcome.
     
    
    
   
    
    
   
    
  
        
    

    


   
    
    
   
   
    

     

My brief history of Jesus as told in the Gospels, Part 3 Luke

     Now we come to the Gospel According to Luke. 
I guess we should first establish who this Luke really was. And, what connection did he actually have to the events told in the book that bears his name. 
    With the help of Wikipedia:
     Luke was one of the Four Evangelists, who is accredited with writing the Gospels.  The early church fathers ascribed to him authorship of both the Gospel according to Luke and the book of the Acts of the Apostles, which would mean Luke, or people writing in his name, contributed over a quarter of the text of the New Testament, more than any other author. When one considers the amount of work contributed by Paul, it turns out that Luke and Paul wrote a lot of the New Testament. These are two People that never knew Jesus, nor witnessed any of the events they described.
     The New Testament mentions Luke briefly a few times, and the Pauline epistle to the Colossians refers to him as a physician (from Greek for 'one who heals'); thus he is thought to have been both a physician and a disciple of Paul. 
     Some commentators believe Luke was a gentile. To scholars who study this stuff, they contend that the Gospel of Luke is actually being directed at the Gentiles. Perhaps Paul and Luke came to the conclusion that spreading Christianity among the Jews was a losing proposition and decided that the Gentiles were a more fertile ground. It seems that John came to the same conclusion. It turns out they were right. 
     The Gospel of Luke does not name its author. The Gospel was not written and does not claim to be written by direct witnesses to the reported events.
     The earliest manuscript of the Gospel, dated circa AD 200, ascribes the work to Luke; as did Irenaeus, writing circa AD 180, and the Muratorian fragment from AD 170.
     Luke at best, was a disciple to Paul, who himself never knew Jesus. Go figure how he became an authority on the birth, life and death of Jesus. Frankly, I think that Luke, or whoever, had a great imagination and a creative mind.
     The authors of Luke's tale begins with the birth of John the Baptist. It seems that in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, a priest named Zacharias, had a wife, Elisabeth, who had no children. It says they were stricken in years. I.e. they were old.
    While he was burning incense at the temple, there appeared an angel standing on the right side of the incense alter. This shook Zacharias up a bit and he was afraid. Zacharias had been praying for a son and the angel said that his prayers had been heard and that his wife will bear him a son and you will call him John.
    Zacharias informed the angel that he and his wife were old. The angel informed Zacharias that he was Gabriel and to believe him, but to be silent until things come to pass. 
    Of course, Elisabeth conceived and hid herself for five months.
    Now, here it gets interesting: On the sixth month the angel, Gabriel, went in the city of Nazareth and came to a young virgin named Mary. She happened to be betrothed to Joseph, of the house of David. 
    The angel informed her that she had been chosen to bear a son and he should be called Jesus.  Of course Mary had a problem with that as she "Knew not a man".  Gabriel informed her that this would be no problem for the son will be begotten by God. So she became pregnant as Gabriel had said.
    So where did Mary go next? She went into the hill country to the city of Judah and went to see Zacharias and Elisabeth.  She entered the house of Zacharias and saluted Elisabeth.
    (Luke 1:41-42) "And it came to pass, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy spirit; and she lifted up voice with a loud cry, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit if thy womb". Luke established a link between Jesus and John the Baptist even before they were born.
    Now here is where Luke differed significantly from Matthew. A decree came from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. Enrolled for what isn't clear but, the popular notions is that Caesar wanted a census. According to Luke, that compelled Joseph to travel to Bethlehem from Nazareth because he was of the house and family of David. Mary was really pregnant at this time but, Joseph was still betrothed to her. So off to Bethlehem they went. No marriage as of yet. Jesus was due to be born out of wedlock according to Luke. Not sure why he deviated from Matthew so much, but it could be that he wanted to insure the idea that Mary was a virgin, even up to the birth of Jesus. In fact, it isn't clear that Joseph ever married Mary. It could be that the idea of Mary remaining a virgin for her entire life appealed to Luke.
    Next follows the most popular version of the tale, where Mary gave birth to Jesus, wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was not room for them in the inn.
    At this time there were shepherds in the field and angel came to them "the glory of the Lord shone round about them". They were scared out out of their minds. I don't blame them. So, the angel told them not to be afraid, that he brings them great tidings of joy. That this day in the city of David a Saviour (their spelling) is born, who is Christ the lord. He told them where they could find the baby (Luke 2;13-14) And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to god in the highest, And on earth peace among men in whom he is well pleased".
     Luke's version of the birth of Jesus is usually the one portrayed in the plays and pageants put on by religious groups. But, that doesn't make it the more accurate one. It is just a better story. It certainly fits the image of a divine birth better than Matthew.
    Sometimes there is an attempt to merge the two stories together, but that is really a farce, as they don't mesh well without sacrificing a lot of authenticity. The other clinker in the pot is, there is no record of the Romans demanding a census at this time. And, that is not the way they conducted a census anyway. The ones they did take were done in place. The Romans were very good record keepers. Luke's tale is highly suspect as it is told.
    When Jesus was twelve years old his parents took him, as they did every year, to Jerusalem at the feast for the passover. When they were returning they noticed that Jesus was staying behind and they didn't know where he was. When they found him after three days of searching, he was sitting in the midst of teachers,both hearing them and asking them questions. Can you imagine missing your twelve year old son for three days?
    (Luke 2:47-49) "and all that heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. And when they saw him, they were astonished: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? knew ye not that I must be in my Father's house?"
    The next time Jesus appears on the scene is at his baptism by John. When he was baptized the heaven was opened. 
    (Luke 3:22) "and the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son: in thee I am well pleased".
    Then Jesus begin to teach. Luke says he was about thirty years old at the time. Then he goes through of litany of ancestry to establish Joseph's linage all the way back to Adam.
    Now Luke relates the tale of trial where Jesus was led into the wilderness where he didn't eat for forty days and was tempted by the devil with all kinds of worldly stuff if he would just switch sides. Of course he didn't fall for it.
    Jesus then traveled around doing Jesus things, but mainly preaching.
    He starting collecting his twelve disciples. The first was Simon and then James and John.
    (Luke 6:12-16) "And it came  to pass in these days, that he went out into the mountain to pray; and continued all night in prayer to God. And when it was day, he called his disciples; and chose from them twelve, whom also he named his apostles: Simon, whom he also named Peter and Andrew his brother and James and John, and Philip and Bartholomew, And Matthew and Thomas and James the som Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor". One should question; what happened to Thaddaeus and where did the other Judas, son of James come from. Luke has a little different set of disciples.
    It is noteworthy that a special note is made in Luke 8:22 that women are following Jesus around and that three are mentioned specifically. Mary Magdalene, Joanna the wife of Chuzas, Herod's steward and Susanna.
    Jesus continued roaming the land healing the sick, casting out demons and performing other miracles. 
    (Luke 10:1) "Now after these things the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself was about to come."  Here us where Luke introduced the additional apostles not mentioned in Matthew or Mark. He bestowed upon the them the power to heal the sick, cast out demons, tread upon serpents and scorpions.
    Jesus was always in trouble for performing healing on the sabbath. (Luke 13:10-14) "And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath day. And behold, a woman that had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years; and she was bowed together, and could in no wise lift herself up. And when Jesus saw her, he called her, and said to her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. And he laid his hands upon her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God. And the ruler of the synagogue, being moved with indignation because Jesus had healed on the sabbath, answered and said to the multitude, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore, come and be healed, and not on the day of the sabbath." Sounds like a parable in Mark. 
    In chapter 15 Luke relates the well known parable about the lost sheep and the one concerning the woman who has 10 pieces of silver and having lost one, is rejoiced when she finds it. He couples this parable with the story of the prodigal son.
    Jesus talked to a man that was very rich (Luke 18:24-25) "And Jesus seeing him said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to enter in through a needles eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."  Sound familiar?
    Jesus came close to Bethphage and Bethany at the mount of Olivet, he sent two of disciples to get him a colt. He said that they will find the colt and for the disciples to just take it. If anyone asks, just say that the Lord needed it. The owners came out and challenged the disciples about stealing his colt. The disciples then informed the owner that the Lord needed it. So, they took it, brought it back to the mount and it says that they threw their garments on it and Jesus set thereon. (Luke 19:29-35).
    The famous scene where Jesus cast out the sellers and money lenders upon his entrance to Jerusalem during passover, isn't the only time Jesus got irate about desecrating the temple. (Luke 19:45-46) "And he entered into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold, saying unto them, It is written, And my house shall be a house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of robbers.
    Another of the famous sayings by Jesus appears in Luke. He was asked, is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? His answer was: (Luke 20:24-25) "Show me a denarius, Whose image and superscription hath it? And they said Caesar's. And he said unto them, Then render unto Caesar the things are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's".
    The Last Supper varies little among the Gospels. However, how Jesus decided on the place for the feast of Passover is interesting. He told Peter and John to go into the city and they will meet a man bearing a pitcher of water. They are to follow him to his house. (Luke 22:11) "And ye shall say unto the master of the house, The Teacher saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?" The owner showed them a large upper room and they made it ready. 
   Leading up to the execution of Jesus is pretty constant among the tellers. The betrayed of Jesus with a kiss by Judas, the denial by Peter and so forth.
    First they took Jesus to the high priests house, (Luke 22:63) "And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and beat him.) Then they took him to their council, consisting of chief priests, scribes and elders of the people. They then asked if he was the son of God and he said that he was. That pretty much condemned him. (Luke 22:71) "And they said, What further need have we of witness? for we ourselves have heard from his own mouth." 
    Then they brought him before Pilate. They then appealed to Pilate saying that this man is perverting our nation, forbidding tribute to Caesar and saying the he himself is Christ the king. After questioning him, Pilate said he found no fault in this man.
    They then pleaded urgently saying that he was stirring up the people and teaching throughout Judaea and Galilee. Pilate then said that this was in Herod's jurisdiction and sent him there.  Jesus didn't fair much better with Herod and Herod sent him back to Pilate. Jesus was being to feel like a  ping-pong ball about this time. 
    Pilate called together the council again and said again that he found no fault in this man and therefore, I will chastise him and release him. 
    Not familiar with law at that time I'm not sure what happened next, but (Luke 23:17) "Now he must needs release unto them at the feast one prisoner."  (The book of John clears that up a little). They were holding a murderer named Barabbas in prison. The crowd shouted that they release him instead of Jesus. Pilate again wanted to release Jesus, but the crowd wanted him crucified. Pilate then said for the third time he say no cause of death in this man and therefore he will chastise him and release him. 
   But the crowd wasn't happy and shouted for him to be crucified, so Pilate gave in and passed the sentence they wanted. So he released Barabbas and sentenced Jesus to be crucified. 
    So they led him away and laid a cross upon Simon of Cyrene to bear it for him. A great multitude of people and of women followed him and "bewailed and lamented " him. 
   Jesus turned to them and told not to weep for him but rather for themselves and their children. And then they came to the place called The skull, where they crucified him.
    On the cross before he died, there were two malefactors that were being executed. One of them spoke, saying (Luke 23:42) "And he said, Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom. (Luke 23:43) "And he said unto him,verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise". This is a twist to the story not told by Matthew or Mark. It does however, emphasize the power of atonement, which is probably the reason Luke included it. 
    Luke(23:46) 'And Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, Father into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said this, he gave up the ghost." 
     A man named Joseph went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus, took it down and wrapped in linen, laid him in a tomb hewn in stone. Little different from the tale told by Matthew.
    The women who had come with him from Galilee, followed after and say where they entombed the body. As was the custom, the prepared spices and ointments to use on Jesus's body.
    They came to the tomb and found the stone rolled away. They then entered and noticed that the body was missing. (Luke 24:4) "And it came to pass, while they were perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel: (Luke 24:5-6) and as they were affrighted and bowed down their faces to the earth, then said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee". Luke added an angel to the story. 
    Luke now identified the women as Mary Magdalene, Joanna and Mary, mother of Jesus and other women. They ran from the tomb and told the eleven, and to all the rest. They disbelieved them. Note, suddenly Luke has Mary the mother of Jesus in the story, something that Matthew and Mark didn't do. I guess it was to enhance the divinity of Mary. Or, he thought it must have been that way.
    But, Peter ran to the tomb and saw for himself that the body was missing. This left Peter perplexed. 
    There were two of the disciples walking and Jesus appeared before them. They didn't recognize him. One of them named Cleopas (one of the seventy?) asked Jesus if he was traveling to Jerusalem alone and did he not know of the things that had been going on these days?
    After some discussion they came to where they were going, but Jesus seemed to be going further.  They invited him to stay with them for the evening, so he did. He sat down to eat with them, took the bread and blessed it, and breaking it gave it to them. Suddenly they knew who he was. He promptly vanished out of their sight.
    They returned to Jerusalem and told the eleven what had happened. While they were relating their tale, Jesus appeared among them and said "Peace be unto you".
    At that they were scared and supposed that they were looking at a spirit. He asked them, why are you troubled?  Don't you see me?
    Then he asked if they had anything to eat. They gave him a piece of broiled fish and he ate it with them.
    Then he reminded them of the things he had said and the prophecies. He opened their minds so they could understand the scriptures.
    He then blessed them, departed and was carried to heaven.
    They worshiped him, and returning to Jerusalem went continually in the temple, blessing God.
    So ends the tale of Luke.