Showing posts sorted by relevance for query taxes. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query taxes. Sort by date Show all posts

Monday, January 16, 2012

"Taxes and Fees" Extortion!


Have you noticed the exorbitant "taxes and fees" on international flights over the past several years? For instance, here is a quote from expedia.com on a flight to Israel.

Summary
1 Ticket / Roundtrip
JFK New York to TLV Tel Aviv
Leave: Sun 27-May
Return: Fri 29-Jun
1 adult $590.00
Taxes & Fees $492.00
Total $1,082.00

The taxes and fees are $492.00! making a $590.00 flight $1,082.00. This is very excessive taxation: over 83%! I wonder why nobody is doing anything about this airway robbery!

Ticket prices have not gone up, it is the "taxes and fees" in many instances which artificially raise the bottom line price on travel. There should be a reasonable ceiling to these extra charges for air travel which is no longer a luxury for most people. The taxes and fees should never exceed 10% of the ticket price!

Sunday, October 26, 2025

Dilexi te, Francis (English/Spanish)


October 26, 2025

In my previous article, I addressed the form of the apostolic exhortation Dilexi te, since it constitutes the first official document of our new pope. My focus was chiefly on the biblical quotations—beginning with the very title, drawn from the Book of Revelation—where one perceives a deliberate effort to make Scripture say whatever serves the intention of the document. And no, it does not make a good impression to see the sacred text being forced in that way. When Scripture is treated so, there is no longer any certainty that one understands something as simple as the Gospel itself. That this method has become the Vatican’s new exegetical style inspires not the slightest confidence. Such was my concern in my earlier commentary on the form of the exhortation.

Turning now to the content of the document, upon reading and rereading it I have been left with the disquieting impression that I was before an intentionally discreet and moderate justification of the now-defunct Liberation Theology—one in which Pope Francis himself was once deeply immersed; to a lesser extent the current pope, and generally much of the Latin American clergy, with the Society of Jesus conducting the orchestra. Hence I cannot rid myself of the thought that, in truth, Dilexi te is directed not to us, but to the previous pope—Francis.

Why do I hold such an impression? Simply because this discourse of “assistance to the poor” has long since been exhausted; it is clearly not the front on which the Church must fight to spread the Gospel. The Church’s charitable service, from her foundation, had full meaning when no one else attended to the needs of the poor. In that context, mere material aid was, in itself, a sublime function—even when deprived of the animating soul of Christian charity that should have given it life.

Even in more modern times, the Church’s “charitable” approach retained some sense when it served as a lever for evangelization. But once the Catholic Church found herself facing the competition of Protestants, Anglicans, and others—and, above all, once she confronted the competition of the welfare state (so elegantly styled the Social State)—her purely assistential function, stripped of the spirit of fraternal charity born of love for God and from God, entirely lost its reason for being. All the more so after Pope Francis’s categorical admonition that the members of the Church should flee from proselytism—that is, from evangelization itself—thus depriving the poor of the greatest gift the Church can offer them: the Gospel in all its richness. It is worth recalling this point, given that the document was purportedly authored by Francis, while his successor, Leo XIV, merely revised and ratified it with his signature. It sounds, unmistakably, like a gesture of fidelity to Francis.

And I believe this document arrives far too late. The care of the poor is now administered by governments, funded by taxes, and by unreliable NGOs led by such philanthropists as Soros, Bill Gates, Rockefeller, and others of similar intent. In my view, the Church has no place in that competition—hardly transparent, to say the least—among the actors of secular “solidarity.” The Church’s presence makes sense only if her distinguishing mark is charity: a charity that attends not only to material needs but to spiritual ones as well—chief among them, offering the poor God Himself, our Redeemer made man. Otherwise, it is a waste of time for priests—few as they now are—to devote themselves to such material functions, which the State performs more effectively, while so immense a spiritual task remains at their charge. In the early Church, the care of the poor was entrusted to the diaconate. Have we already forgotten that? Thus the document appears gravely misdirected and ill-suited to the Church’s present moment. It is not the materially poor who are lacking today.

The situation is further aggravated by the transformation of Caritas—a once deeply Catholic institution of charity—into a mere provider of social assistance, now serving as an intermediary for European Union funds, to such an extent that certain municipalities seek to expel the Church from its own creation. The bulk of what Caritas distributes today comes from those sources. And in order not to offend the recipients of aid, who are only a minority Catholic, most Caritas centers—lest they disturb non-Catholics—have removed crucifixes and all religious symbols. Evangelization and proselytism are, of course, excluded, in obedience to the will of the pope who authored most of this apostolic exhortation. The obvious question then arises: what role has the Catholic Church in this activity, if lay and secular bodies are already handling it? What are priests doing there, when their numbers are too few even to fulfill their strictly spiritual duties?

It is true that the Church pioneered social assistance and maintained its most effective institutions with Catholic personnel—especially religious sisters. But she was also the founder of hospitals, and yet no longer insists on leading them (save for the Brothers of St. John of God, whose institutions grow ever less Catholic). The Church was likewise the originator of the Montes de Piedad—charitable loan houses—in which she played an important role until less than a century ago. But no one today demands her return to that sphere. She was once a pillar of education, too, when public institutions could not meet that need, and evangelized intensely through her schools: every teacher a religious man or woman. But today, it would be absurd to reclaim the Church’s role in education, which has been reduced to a mere business for religious orders—devoid of the slightest evangelizing intent or capacity—and all of them now in visible decline. Under such conditions, what sense would it make to reclaim education for the Church?

Thus, to demand today that the Church act once again as a distributor of aid to the poor, without insisting on the indispensable condition of Christian charity—that is, evangelizing charity—is to situate oneself wholly outside reality. It would be as anachronistic as demanding the Church’s return to her long-extinct role in education.

And this, precisely, is what the exhortation Dilexi te by Popes Francis and Leo sounds like to me: an anachronism. Worse still, the text bears the stale imprint of the now obsolete conception—within the Church—of social justice as the only legitimate form of charity toward the poor: not to relieve their suffering, but to help them overturn the social order. This was the battle horse of Liberation Theology—led, of course, by the Jesuits!—with all the political confrontation it entailed, even to the taking up of arms. Yes, to impose by the sword (sometimes wielded by zealous clergy) the Christian “charity” of the so-called “preferential option for the poor.” What a monstrosity!

Leaving aside the doctrinal content of the document, it stands as Pope Leo XIV’s clearest proclamation urbi et orbi that, for the present (and God will decide the future), Leo XIV represents a direct continuity with Francis—Dilexi te: “I have loved you, Francis.” Yet Francis was not distinguished by his work for unity within the Church; he opposed mission itself, which Pope Leo proclaims as one of the pillars of his pontificate. At least this is what appears from the new pope’s brilliant maneuver of endorsing a document of his predecessor whose doctrinal content, by its strong mark of continuity, hinders the Church’s unity. In any case, we must concede that he knows the Church’s state better than we do; and perhaps this, despite everything, and for the moment, is the only course open to him—not the best, but the only one. God knows.

It is most enlightening, after a careful reading of Dilexi te, to listen again to the first words spoken by Leo XIV after the Habemus papam: continuity and coherence—Leo XIV with himself and with Francis. It will be difficult to maintain peace (the new pope’s first words), when his predecessor loved it so little.

Virtelius Temerarius

(Translation by Chat GPT)

__

Original Spanish text.

Me ocupé, en el artículo anterior, de la forma de la exhortación apostólica Dilexi te, por tratarse del primer documento oficial de nuestro nuevo papa. Y atendí básicamente a las citas bíblicas, empezando por el propio título, sacado del Apocalipsis, en las que se hace evidente el esfuerzo por hacerle decir a la Biblia todo lo que conviene a la intención del documento. Y no, no causa buena impresión ver cómo se fuerza el sentido de los textos bíblicos. Así no hay manera de estar seguro de que uno entiende algo tan sencillo como el Evangelio. Y que éste haya acabado siendo el nuevo estilo exegético del Vaticano, no nos inspira la menor confianza. Bien, eso en cuanto a la forma, de la que me ocupé en el artículo anterior.
Pero en cuanto al contenido del documento, al leerlo y releerlo, he tenido la impresión desagradable de que estaba ante una justificación intencionalmente discreta y moderada de la extinta Teología de la Liberación en la que estuvo sumergido el papa Francisco; en menor medida el actual papa, y en general todo el clero de Hispanoamérica, además de la Compañía de Jesús llevando la batuta. Con lo que no se me quita de la cabeza lo de que en realidad, el Dilexi te está dirigido al papa anterior, a Francisco.
¿Por qué he tenido esa impresión? Pues sencillamente porque ese discurso asistencial de la asistencia a los pobres, está ya totalmente quemado; y no es, evidentemente, el frente en el que ha de luchar la Iglesia para difundir el Evangelio. El mero servicio asistencial de la Iglesia desde su fundación, tuvo su plena razón de ser cuando no había nadie más que atendiese a las necesidades de los pobres. En ese contexto, la mera asistencia material tenía una función que resultaba de por sí sublime, aunque estuviese desprovista del alma de la caridad con que tenía que ser vivificada.
Incluso en tiempos más modernos, el estilo “asistencial” de la Iglesia, aún tenía algún sentido cuando era la palanca para la evangelización. Pero desde que la Iglesia católica se enfrentó a la competencia de los protestantes, los anglicanos y demás; y sobre todo desde que se enfrentó la Iglesia con la competencia del Estado Asistencial, conocido con el elegante nombre de Estado del Bienestar, la función meramente asistencial de la Iglesia, sobre todo despojada de su sentido de “caridad” entre hermanos, emanada del Amor de Dios y del Amor a Dios, perdió totalmente su razón de ser. A mayor razón, a partir de la postura tajante del papa Francisco, de que los miembros de la Iglesia tenían que huir del proselitismo, ¡es decir de la evangelización!, negándoles a los pobres el mayor don que puede ofrecerles la Iglesia, que es el Evangelio con todos sus dones. Y claro, es pertinente recordar ese detalle, teniendo en cuenta que supuestamente es el papa Francisco el autor del documento; y lo que ha hecho en él su sucesor León XIV ha sido retocarlo y ratificarlo estampándole su firma. Suena a clara opción por Francisco.
Y creo que este documento llega muy fuera de tiempo, cuando la asistencia a los pobres es administrada por los Estados, con cargo a los impuestos, y por Oenegés nada fiables, como las de los filántropos Soros, Bill Gates, Rockefeller, y algunos más de parecidas intenciones. Mi visión personal es que la Iglesia no pinta nada en esa competición (nada transparente, por decir lo menos) entre esos actores de la solidaridad. Sólo tiene sentido la concurrencia de la Iglesia si su distintivo es la caridad. Una caridad que debe atender tanto a las necesidades materiales como a las espirituales: entre ellas, ofrecerles Dios a los pobres. Nuestro Dios Redentor hecho hombre. Si no es así, es una pérdida de tiempo que sobre todo los sacerdotes se dediquen a esa función material (mucho mejor cubierta por el Estado), cuando es tanta, tantísima la labor espiritual que tienen a su cargo. En la Iglesia primitiva, la atención a los pobres se puso a cargo del diaconado. ¿Lo hemos olvidado ya? Por eso el documento suena gravemente desenfocado e inapropiado para el momento actual de la Iglesia. No son los pobres materiales lo que le falta hoy.
Pero no va por ahí la cosa. Resulta que una institución originalmente caritativa, tan de marca católica como Cáritas, se está dedicando a la mera asistencia; está ejerciendo de intermediaria de las aportaciones de la Unión Europea; tanto, que los ayuntamientos se han propuesto expulsar de ella a la Iglesia. Es que el grueso de lo que distribuye Cáritas tiene esa procedencia. Y para no molestar a los receptores de la ayuda, minoritariamente católicos, la mayoría de locales de Cáritas, por no ofender a los no católicos, han sacado las cruces y cualquier otro símbolo religioso. Y por supuesto, nada de evangelización ni proselitismo, por no contrariar la voluntad del papa que escribió la mayor parte de esta exhortación apostólica. La pregunta obvia a partir de esa realidad, es: ¿qué pinta ahí la Iglesia católica, si ya se ocupan de esa actividad laicos y laicistas? ¿Qué hacen ahí los curas, siendo ya tan pocos que no alcanzan a cubrir su función estrictamente religiosa?
Claro que la Iglesia fue la iniciadora de la asistencia social, y claro que mantuvo las más efectivas instituciones con personal católico, especialmente monjas. Pero también fue la iniciadora de los hospitales; y sin embargo, no se empeña en liderarlos (le quedan los de San Juan de Dios, cada vez menos católicos). También fue la Iglesia, la iniciadora de los Montes de Piedad, en los que tuvo un papel importantísimo hasta hace menos de un siglo. Pero nadie reivindicará el lugar de la Iglesia en esa área. Y fue también un gran puntal de la enseñanza cuando las instituciones públicas eran incapaces de atender este servicio. Y evangelizaron intensamente desde sus colegios. Religiosos y religiosas eran todos los maestros y maestras que atendían esos colegios. Pero hoy sería absurdo reivindicar el papel de la Iglesia en la enseñanza, que ha quedado como mero negocio de las órdenes religiosas que se dedicaron a él, sin el menor gesto evangelizador, ni intención ni capacidad evangelizadora. Y, por cierto, todas ellas en vía de extinción. ¿Qué sentido tendría en esas condiciones reivindicar la enseñanza para la Iglesia?
Por eso, reivindicar hoy el papel de la Iglesia como distribuidora de ayuda a los pobres, sin insistir en la condición sine qua non de la caridad cristiana, caridad evangelizadora, para dedicarse a esos quehaceres, es situarse totalmente fuera de la realidad. Pues como sería reivindicar su ya extinguido papel en la enseñanza. Puro anacronismo.
Y es a eso a lo que me suena la exhortación “Dilexi te” de los papas Francisco y León, a anacronismo. Con el agravante de que ese texto suena al formato, ya caduco por lo que respecta a la Iglesia, de justicia social como única forma de caridad de la Iglesia para con los pobres. No socorrer a los pobres en sus necesidades, sino ayudarles a darle el vuelco al sistema social. Éste fue el caballo de batalla de la Teología de la Liberación. Liderada por los jesuitas, ¡claro! Con lo que ese empeño comportó de enfrentamiento con las instituciones políticas; un enfrentamiento que llegó a las armas. Sí, imponer con las armas (empuñadas en algunos casos por fervorosísimos clérigos) la caridad cristiana de la “opción preferencial por los pobres”. ¡Menudo engendro!
Al margen del contenido doctrinal del documento, es la más clara proclamación urbi et orbi de León XIV, de que hoy por hoy (del mañana dispondrá Dios) León XIV es una clara continuidad de Francisco (Dilexi te, te he elegido, Francisco), que no se distinguió precisamente por trabajar en pro de la unidad en el seno de la Iglesia y que se pronunció contra la misión, que proclama el papa León como uno de los ejes de su pontificado. Esto, al menos, se trasluce de la brillante operación del nuevo papa, de suscribir un documento del anterior pontífice con una carga doctrinal que, con esa fuerte marca de continuidad, dificulta la unidad de la Iglesia. En cualquier caso, hemos de reconocer que él sabe mejor que nosotros cómo está la Iglesia; y quizá sea ésa, a pesar de todo, y de momento, la única posibilidad a su alcance. No la mejor, sino la única. Dios sabrá.
Es muy aleccionador escuchar de nuevo, después de la lectura atenta de Dilexi te, las primeras palabras pronunciadas por León XIV tras el Habemus papam. Continuidad y coherencia de León XIV consigo mismo y con Francisco. Así es difícil mantener la paz (primeras palabras del nuevo papa), de la que era tan poco amante su predecesor. 

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

How Castro and America are the Same



Both violently oppose Catholic culture (e.g. USA abortion taxes, HHS anti-Catholic contraception mandate).

The Castro's eliminate the Catholic aristocracy, we neuter it, with similar effect: deliberate destruction of the Church and it's Christian culture.

Anti-Catholic sentiment is PC; not only tolerated, but encouraged and even promoted, at every level of society.

In the US, self-hating Catholics (i.e. those who question and even oppose the Church's doctrinal or moral teaching), are routinely applauded and promoted, even, at times, within the ranks of the Church Herself. Cf. The American Anti-Catholic Conspiracy.

Cf. Coincident Disasters: Urban America and Cuba

Saturday, July 13, 2013

Ryan Air: The Best Airline for Travel Within Europe


Bueno, Bonito, y Barato.  That's how we say it in Spanish: good, attractive, and cheap!  That's Ryan Air.  I took the flight from Frankfurt, Germany to Rome, Italy a few weeks ago and I found the airline to be most efficient, punctual and professional in every regard and all for around $50!  I then took a return flight and found it to be equally good, same price.  It is the no frills airline.  I love it!

This airline has found a way to eliminate the exorbitant taxes and fees commonly attached to air fares.  Of course there are antagonists.

Would that some airline in the US should do the same as Ryan Air!  Flying today should not cost any more than taking the bus or the train!  And the prices should not fluctuate according to every marketing scheme!  It is an ordinary and necessary form of transportation and the fares should be standard and low as in all other ordinary and necessary forms of mass transit.  Exorbitant prices are a simple way of excluding the poor from freedom to travel the airways!

On a somewhat related issue I have noticed that the among the flying population the Latinos and Africans are largely absent, and that is because of immigration, naturalization and passport/visa policies which are discriminatory (usually in the name of "security").  "Security" should never be an excuse to discriminate entire populations of people.  Every innocent citizen of any nation should have the right to travel freely through any other nation.  Even within the United States the illegal immigrant cannot fly!  That is outrageous.  Surely this is no question of security with all of the airport security in place.  It is a sneaky form of discrimination.

So, high prices exclude the poor and unjust laws exclude the immigrant.  Thereby the airways are kept artificially "white!" even today in our supposedly integrated and tolerant world.

Friday, March 27, 2020

Beware a Government of Fear


What good are constitutional rights if they are violated when Americans get sick?

By Andrew P. Napolitano - - Wednesday, March 25, 2020  Washington Times

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
— Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

One of my Fox colleagues recently sent me an email attachment of a painting of the framers signing the Constitution of the United States. Except in this version, George Washington — who presided at the Constitutional Convention — looks at James Madison — who was the scrivener at the Convention — and says, “None of this counts if people get sick, right?”

In these days of state governors issuing daily decrees purporting to criminalize the exercise of our personal freedoms, the words put into Washington’s mouth are only mildly amusing. Had Washington actually asked such a question, Madison, of all people, would likely have responded: “No. This document protects our natural rights at all times and under all circumstances.”

It is easy, 233 years later, to offer that hypothetical response, particularly since the Supreme Court has done so already when, as readers of this column will recall, Abraham Lincoln suspended the constitutionally guaranteed writ of habeas corpus — the right to be brought before a judge upon arrest — only to be rebuked by the Supreme Court.

The famous line above by Benjamin Franklin, though uttered in a 1755 dispute between the Pennsylvania legislature and the state’s governor over taxes, nevertheless provokes a truism.

Namely, that since our rights come from our humanity, not from the government, foolish people can only sacrifice their own freedoms, not the freedoms of others.

Thus, freedom can only be taken away when the government proves fault at a jury trial. This protection is called procedural due process, and it, too, is guaranteed in the Constitution.

Of what value is a constitutional guarantee if it can be violated when people get sick? If it can, it is not a guarantee; it is a fraud. Stated differently, a constitutional guarantee is only as valuable and reliable as is the fidelity to the Constitution of those in whose hands we have reposed it for safekeeping.

Because the folks in government, with very few exceptions, suffer from what St. Augustine called libido dominandi — the lust to dominate — when they are confronted with the age-old clash of personal liberty versus government force, they will nearly always come down on the side of force.

How do they get away with this? By scaring the daylights out of us. I never thought I’d see this in my lifetime, though our ancestors saw this in every generation. In America today, we have a government of fear. Machiavelli offered that men obey better when they fear you than when they love you. Sadly, he was right, and the government in America knows this.

But Madison knew this as well when he wrote the Constitution. And he knew it four years later when he wrote the Bill of Rights. He intentionally employed language to warn those who lust to dominate that, however they employ governmental powers, the Constitution is “the Supreme Law of the Land” and all government behavior in America is subject to it.

Even if the legislature of the State of New York ordered, as my friend Gov. Andrew Cuomo — who as the governor, cannot write laws that incur criminal punishment — has ordered, it would be invalid as prohibited by the Constitution.

This is not a novel or an arcane argument. This is fundamental American law. Yet, it is being violated right before our eyes by the very human beings we have elected to uphold it. And each of them — every governor interfering with the freedom to make one’s own choices — has taken an express oath to comply with the Constitution.

You want to bring the family to visit grandma? You want to engage in a mutually beneficial, totally voluntary commercial transaction? You want to go to work? You want to celebrate Mass? These are all now prohibited in one-third of the United States.

I tried and failed to find Mass last Sunday. When did the Catholic Church become an agent of the state? How about an outdoor Mass?

What is the nature of freedom? It is an unassailable natural claim against all others, including the government. Stated differently, it is your unconditional right to think as you wish, to say what you think, to publish what you say, to associate with whomever wishes to be with you no matter their number, to worship or not, to defend yourself, to own and use property as you see fit, to travel where you wish, to purchase from a willing seller, to be left alone. And to do all this without a government permission slip.

What is the nature of government? It is the negation of freedom. It is a monopoly of force in a designated geographic area. When elected officials fear that their base is slipping, they will feel the need to do something — anything — that will let them claim to be enhancing safety. Trampling liberty works for that odious purpose. Hence a decree commanding obedience, promising safety and threatening punishment.

These decrees — issued by those who have no legal authority to issue them, enforced by cops who hate what they are being made to do, destructive of the freedoms that our forbearers shed oceans of blood to preserve and crushing economic prosperity by violating the laws of supply and demand — should all be rejected by an outraged populace, and challenged in court.

These challenges are best filed in federal courts, where those who have trampled our liberties will get no special quarter. I can tell you from my prior life as a judge that most state governors fear nothing more than an intellectually honest, personally courageous, constitutionally faithful federal judge.

Fight fear with fear.

• Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is a regular contributor to The Washington Times. He is the author of nine books on the U.S. Constitution.

Friday, November 20, 2015

New York City Contraception Campaign Con't


New York City blanketed with taxpayer-funded ads pushing dangerous IUDs

NEW YORK CITY, October 6, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – "You spent the night in Brooklyn, but you left your birth control in Staten Island. Maybe the IUD is right for you." So goes New York State's latest campaign promoting a dangerous contraceptive/abortifacient for young women.
The promotional campaign, dubbed by the NY Department of Health "Maybe the IUD," is funded by taxes and comes from the department's partnership with the City University of New York.
Posters pushing the IUD are all over New York subways, bus shelters, social media, and elsewhere, with a dedicated website assuming that "every woman" should use contraceptives.
The state's "Maybe The IUD" promotional campaign is one part of a five-year plan to promote "sexual and reproductive justice."

Image

Michael R. Long, state chairman of the Conservative Party, commented toLifeSiteNews, "With all the serious health issues facing the city of New York, wouldn't the Department of Health better serve women by encouraging them to abstain from sexual activity?"
Long criticized the tax-funded IUD promotional campaign, adding, "This program 'Maybe the IUD' does nothing more than promote promiscuity and that sends the wrong signal to all women. "
In the past, the state Department of Health created and issued a mobile app called "Find Condoms NYC," which scans their list of 3,000 sites that distribute free condoms and uses a smartphone's GPS to list and map the five closest spots.
An IUD is a T-shaped device wrapped in copper, which is toxic to sperm, or containing birth control chemicals. The chemical IUD is billed as a contraceptive, but it actually most often works as an abortifacient, changing the uterine wall so as to prevent implantation of an already conceived human. The Mirena hormonal IUD's instructions admit, "Mirena may stop the release of your egg from your ovary, but this is not the way it works in most cases."
Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE
Side-effects of IUD use include Pelvic Inflammatory Disease – a bacterial infection that may cause infertility, ectopic pregnancy, and constant pelvic pain. In serious cases, a hysterectomy is needed. Other side-effects of IUDs include ovarian cysts, life-threatening sepsis, the IUD attaching to the uterine wall, and/or the IUD perforating the uterus –causing scarring, infection, and damage to other organs. 
Another complication of IUD use is the fact that fully ten percent of users find their IUD "expelled," or pushed out of their uterus.
Hormonal IUDs have their own serious risks, including irregular bleeding, vaginal dryness, flushing, migraines, hair loss, nausea and acne, weight change, hirsutism (male pattern hair growth), mood changes, skin discoloration and breast tenderness, back pain, arthritic-type pain in the legs and joints, fatigue, depression, panic attacks, chest pain, and vaginal odor.
A risk unique to the copper IUDs is that excess copper causes bone/joint and connective tissue disturbances, cardiovascular degeneration, accelerated aging, depigmentation and dermatitis, anemia and neurological impairment. Too much copper produces free radicals, which lead to cell death. Other side-effects include anemia, increased cramps, pain during intercourse, extended PMS, weight gain, acne, and breast tenderness. 
The FDA lists long-term health dangers associated with an IUD named Essure, which include ectopic pregnancies, unintended pregnancies resulting in severe complications and miscarriages, pelvic complications, pain, migration of the metal inserts through the fallopian tubes into the abdomen, and many others.

Sunday, November 2, 2014

Routine Airport Civil Rights Violations


"Big Brother" is here and watching and recording your every move, and what is most disturbing, no one seems to mind.

Take flying, for example. There are legally required violations of everyone's:

  • anonymity
  • privacy (unwarranted searches, x-rays, pat downs)
  • private property (confiscation of goods without any system of reimbursement)
  • economy (the price war games)
  • taxation (exorbitant taxes and fees frequently amounting to over 100% increase to the real price of the ticket!)
  • contract (time changes and cancellations with no compensation)
  • ticket ownership (cannot cancel, change, transfer to another, etc. causing unjust surrender of purchased service)
All this in the name of "security."

The best "security" is the consistent and constant defense of each citizens fundamental civil liberties.

Why doesn't the ACLU do something about this and about the cameras on all our streets, etc., etc., etc.!



Sunday, July 12, 2015

The Cuban Catholic Hero, Savior of Ireland: Eamon de Valera

Éamon de Valera's parents were Juan Vivion de Valera, a sculptor who had emigrated from Cuba, and Catherine Coll, an Irish immigrant to the United States. He was born in midtown Manhattan and spent the first two and a half years of his life in America under the care of his father, mother, and an employed minder, Mrs Doyle. Thereafter, his uncle Patrick Coll, brought him to the family home in Bruree, Co. Limerick. Just over three years later, de Valera began his primary level education by attending Bruree National School. He spent eight years here, and was taught by John Kelly for at least one year. Kelly was described as a [14]:-
... young teacher and a brilliant mathematician who made a great impression on his famous pupil.
At this time though primary education was free, most second level education was fee paying. As de Valera's family were labourers, the fees required for attending a private school were beyond their means. The best way for progressing in life and education was to attend one of the Christian Brothers Schools (C.B.S.) which provided 'people, irrespective of social status, the opportunities of a higher education' in the hope of winning an exhibition or scholarship which would enable a student to attend one of the private second level institutions.
De Valera began his second level education at Charleville C.B.S. in 1896 and the following year he successfully won an exhibition worth £20, retainable for three years. The results he obtained were a pass with honours in all the subjects he had taken, namely: Greek, Latin, English, French, Arithmetic, Euclid and Algebra. He was accepted in Blackrock College, Dublin in 1898, and he was described as a 'fanatic for mathematics'. This irked his Greek teacher, John Maguire, CSSp, to such an extent that he ordered de Valera to write a Greek sentence in his mathematics copybook. When de Valera protested saying he had a separate copy for Greek, Maguire rejoined [6]:-
You do as you are told, young man. Have at least one bit of Christianity in the midst of that Abomination of Desolation!
Not all of the teachers, however, held Maguire's opinion towards mathematics, and his arithmetic teacher, Tim O'Sullivan, inspired him to such an extent that he came first in his class. He was also placed first in Euclid, and when all results were combined it was discovered that de Valera ranked highest in the class, winning him Student of the Year. Considering his compatriots included John D'Alton, a future Primate of Ireland, and the illustrious O'Rahillys, both of whom distinguished themselves in the academic sphere, Tomás becoming the first director of the school of Celtic Studies in the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies (DIAS) and Alfred becoming Professor of Mathematical Physics in University College, Cork (UCC) and later Registrar and President of the same College, it was a good achievement, as the standards were particularly high.
At this time, the Royal University of Ireland held open examinations, which meant students could sit examinations irrespective of college attendance. As a result, some second level institutions, such as Blackrock, decided to offer third level training to students. When de Valera completed Senior Grade and had matriculated successfully, he entered University College Blackrock with the intention of pursuing a degree in mathematics and mathematical physics. In his final year, he received the offer, which he accepted, of teaching in Blackrock's sister College in Rockwell, Co. Tipperary. It was reported that de Valera was a very talented teacher, and therefore, he was entrusted with teaching both Senior Grade students and undergraduate degree students, though he still had to finish his own degree! The pressures of a full teaching load left him little time to study and as a result, had to be contented with a pass degree.
This made further study difficult for him; however, he benefited from the public lectures given by University College Dublin (UCD) lecturers' Arthur Conway and Henry MacWeeney, and lectures given by the Astronomer Royal, E T Whittaker. After meeting Conway, de Valera's interest in quaternions began to grow. He began to study them in depth and Conway reported that [17]:-
... he [de Valera] has in the past two years [1910-1912] gone deeply into the subject of Quaternions, and is at present prosecuting an important original research in them which promises to be of considerable interest.
During this time, de Valera was engaged by several of the top Dublin schools to teach higher mathematics and mathematical physics classes. Without application, he was offered a post lecturing mathematics in Carysfort Teacher Training College. This was an all-female third level institution which was dedicated to preparing girls as primary teachers. Arising from this, and his friendship with Conway andWhittaker, de Valera's confidence grew and he applied for the Chair of Mathematical Physics in University College, Cork, in 1912. A reference, written by Whittaker, describes de Valera's knowledge as both 'broad and deep', and additionally, Whittaker wrote he was impressed by [18]:-
... the intellectual vigour with which he ... interested himself in the most difficult problems of natural philosophy.
After all the applications were assessed the Governing Body took a straw vote to decide who they would recommend to the National University of Ireland (NUI) Senate for the position. In this vote de Valera secured 11 votes, two higher than the nearest competitor, E H Harper. However, in the actual vote they both scored 10 and the two names were sent along with the results of the final vote. Harper was elected to the chair, and de Valera managed to secure a post teaching mathematical physics in the recognised College of the NUI in Maynooth, Co. Kildare.
De Valera had for many years been a supporter of reviving the Irish language. In 1913 he had joined the Irish Volunteers, a revolutionary group opposed to British rule. The group were armed with German weapons which had been smuggled into the country in 1914. In 1916 the Irish Volunteers organised the Easter Uprising which proclaimed the birth of the Irish Republic in Dublin. Due to de Valera's participation in this uprising, his formal study of mathematics stopped. The uprising was quickly put down by British forces and its leaders were sentenced to death. Because of de Valera's American birth he escaped execution. He was imprisoned, but released in 1917. In May of the following year he was arrested again and sent to prison in England. Although still in prison, he was elected President of the Sinn Féin Party which won an overwhelming majority of the vote in December 1918.
In February 1919, de Valera escaped from Lincoln Prison. In doing so he used his mathematical knowledge to help him.
Due to de Valera's participation in the 1916 rising, his formal study of mathematics stopped. He did, however, maintain an interest in the subject throughout his life and in some scenario's actively used mathematics to solve political problems. One instance of this can be found in his escape from Lincoln Prison in 1919. At the time de Valera and other leading members of the republican movement were interred under the defence against the realm act, in a very dubious 'German Plot'. In order to publicly humiliate the British forces, and promote propaganda for the Republican side, de Valera decided to escape from prison.
He considered various plans, but he felt the best choice was to copy the prison key. De Valera used his background in mathematics to geometrically copy the chaplain's key in wax during mass, and he used his knowledge of projective geometry to copy this to paper. When the copied key, delivered in a cake made of plaster Paris, came it was found to be too small. De Valera then compared it with the drawing they had of the key, and it fitted perfectly. His mathematician's mind was not long in figuring out the problem. He had allowed the wax to harden while still in the plug tobacco box with the result that in the shrinkage caused by the cooling of the wax the impression became uniformly smaller than the original key.' A copy of the key, which fitted the locks, was eventually made, and de Valera, accompanied by others, escaped on 3rd February 1919.
After visiting the United States to seek funding for the Irish republican cause, he returned to Ireland. A truce was called in 1921 and de Valera began the process of persuading the Dáil to accept his proposals for the future of Ireland. He used a mathematical approach to argue for the type of treaty he thought would be acceptable to all sides.
After a truce had been declared in July 1921, de Valera set about devising a concept which would satisfy both Irish and British aspirations and as a result, formulated his theory of external association. The concept entailed Ireland maintaining her sovereignty at home, i.e. controlling all domestic and international affairs while still retaining a connection with the Commonwealth. Under this compromise, Ireland would guarantee to remain neutral during any war in which Britain was a participant, and in return Britain would renounce any right to govern Ireland or legislate for it. One of the main problems he would encounter in the Dáil was getting all members to accept the proposals.
Although not all accepted his proposal, uncompromising republicans like Brugha and Stack, though not enamoured with it, were eventually won over by de Valera's mathematical explanations, which were based on set theory.
During the Dáil Éireann debates, de Valera drew a Venn diagram to explain his theory and explained it as follows:
The British Commonwealth was represented by a large circle within which were five smaller circles, each representing one of the self-governing countries of that group of nations. The President[de Valera] sketched in Ireland as a circle outside the large circle but touching it.
Although each of the states is represented by a circle, which would lead one to believe that they were sets, they were more likely to represent elements. Therefore, though it may appear that each country is a subset of a larger set called the British Commonwealth (BC), the countries are probably elements of the set, BC.
Some difficulties arise when one tries to decide if de Valera meant the sets to be open or closed. A circular disc which is open does not contain the circumference; however, a circular disc which is closed contains the circumference, i.e. (BC, Ire) does not contain the tangent point; however, [BC, Ire] does. It is unclear whether he viewed the discs as open or closed.
Thus, it is difficult to ascertain whether the intersection of {Self-Governing Commonwealth Countries} and {Ireland} is empty or non-empty. If we are to assume it is a closed set and the point where Ireland is tangent is common to both, is this what de Valera envisaged when he proposed External Association? If so, to whom does the point belong, if it is a physical entity? Does it belong to both equally or not? In political terms, did de Valera want the connection to exist, but have no meaning or power? The idea he was trying to explain was that Ireland would be associated with the Commonwealth but not a member of it, i.e. Ireland would be tangent to the Commonwealth, but would not have any elements in common with it and most importantly, would not be an element of the Commonwealth as was the case with the other five states mentioned.
This is the most common example which was reported in the media and covered in biographies, but de Valera also drew other diagrams, depending on the political perspective of his audience. At the time, set theory was still a relatively new branch of mathematics, and though it may not have been covered in schools, it seems the Dáil members understood de Valera's explanation well enough to vote for it. Though de Valera had not been studying mathematics formally for some time, through instances such as this one it is clear he still used mathematics as a tool for solving problems.
The treaty, however, still had to be negotiated with the British government. When the treaty was ratified in 1922 forming the Irish Free State, de Valera, opposed it on the grounds that it still required an oath of allegiance to Britain. He then led a military movement against the new government of the Irish Free State. He was imprisoned by the government of the Irish Free State but released in 1924 after which he founded the Fianna Fáil Party. In 1927 de Valera persuaded members of Fianna Fáil to take the oath of allegiance so they could enter the Dáil. There they argued to have the oath of allegiance abolished and argued against taxes payable to Britain. Fianna Fáil gained seats in 1932 and, with Labour support, gained power. De Valera began the process of making Ireland independent from Britain. He produced proposals for a new constitution in 1937 creating Eire in place of the Irish Free State. It was ratified in a referendum.
In 1948 de Valera lost power when he refused to enter a coalition. He then began a world tour to gain support for the unification and independence of Ireland. Full independence was granted when Britain recognised its new status in April 1949, but the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland was required before unification could occur. De Valera returned to power in 1951 but failed to gain sufficient support in 1954 to continue. However, in March 1957 he again achieved an overall majority. He resigned his role as head of the government and head of Fianna Fáil in 1959 so that he could stand for the presidency. He was elected president and reelected in 1966. He retired to a nursing home near Dublin in 1973 where he died in 1975.
The most important contribution de Valera made to mathematics both in Ireland and internationally was the foundation of the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies (DIAS) in 1940. The institute initially consisted of two schools namely, the School of Celtic Studies and the School of Theoretical Physics, and in 1947 a third school, the School of Cosmic Physics, was added. It was the result of consultation between de Valera, his past professors Arthur Conway and E T Whittaker, as well as with the foremost American mathematician of the time, G D Birkhoff.
Before the foundation of DIAS, de Valera explored the possibility of securing the services of a world renowned mathematical physicist. The Institute, as proposed, would be under the guidance of these men or women who, it was hoped, would be able to begin in the Institute once it was established. The three names originally mentioned were ConwaySchrödinger, and WhittakerMax Born and Albert Einsteinwere also mentioned; however, both had recently accepted positions - Born at Edinburgh and Einstein at Princeton. Contacting Schrödinger to offer him a position in the yet-to-be-established Institute was a cloak and dagger affair. Whittaker, in a letter to de Valera, wrote that since Schrödinger was 'much disliked' by the Nazis, any attempt to contact him outright would be 'frustrated', and that the Nazis, rather than dismiss him, might kill him. As a result, Whittaker contacted the German physicist, Max Born, who in turn contacted a associate of his, Professor Baer, who then telegraphed a mutual friend of his andSchrödinger's, who promised to meet Schrödinger if at all possible. Less than four months later on the 16th of September, a letter was received from Schrödinger accepting the offer to come to Ireland. Once DIAS was founded, it was discovered that only Schrödinger could accept a position. Conway had been recently made President of University College Dublin, and Whittaker felt he could not leave his university post due to the outbreak of World War II.
Upon founding the Institute, de Valera hoped that Ireland would [15]:-
... achieve a reputation comparable to the reputation which Dublin and Ireland had in the middle of the last century
which, it appears was the case according to former director, J L Synge, who maintained that [21]:-
... former scholars are to be found in chairs in many parts of the world, and the school may feel reasonably proud that Ireland has, with profit to herself, made an international contribution to physics.
The foundation of DIAS, among other acts, culminated in de Valera's election as an honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of London in 1968.
Throughout his life, he maintained an avid interest in mathematics and even during his Presidency (1959-1966), his secretary, Máire N’ Cheallaigh, recounted:-
... the President's great regret is that the time he can devote to maths is necessarily very limited. However, he has read from time to time articles on modern physics -- atomic particles, quantum dynamics ... the president uses dark green linoleum, covering the top of his large desk in his private study here in Arus an Uachtarain [sic.], as a blackboard on which with chalk he draws geometrical figures and pursues such algebraical expressions as he might find difficult to visualize otherwise.
During this time de Valera's poor sight had deteriorated, and using dark linoleum was the only way he could practice mathematics. After he retired from politics, one of de Valera's official biographers, Néill, wrote to J L Synge detailing de Valera's continuing interest in mathematics. An extract from this letter reads:-
[ Néill] can remember well ... the way in which he would agree to take a walk, on doctor's instructions, only when his secretary had read to him a mathematics problem which he could ponder over as he walked. Indeed I heard him bargain with her! He would agree to do at once some of the less agreeable chores of answering letters or autographing books etc. if she would read some mathematics afterwards.


Bibliography

Books:
  1. A Christian Brother, Centenary souvenir of the death of Edmund Ignatius Rice founder of the Christian Brothers of Ireland born 1 June 1762, died 29 August 1844 (Bray Printing, Dublin, 1944).
  2. J Bowman, De Valera and the Ulster Question, 1917-1973 (Oxford University Press 1982).
  3. T P Coogan, De Valera : Long Fellow, Long Shadow (Hutchinson, 1993).
  4. T P Coogan, Eamon De Valera : The Man Who Was Ireland (Harpercollins, 1995).
  5. O D Edwards, Eamon De Valera (Political Portraits) (University of Wales Press, 1987).
  6. S P Farragher, Dev and his Alma Mater (Paraclete Press, Dublin, 1984).
  7. D Ferriter, Judging Dev : A Reassessment of the Life and Legacy of Eamon De Valera (Royal Irish Academy, Dublin, 2007).
  8. C FitzGibbon and G Morrison, The Life and Times of Eamon de Valera (Macmillan, New York, 1973).
  9. D Hannigan, De Valera in America : The Rebel President's 1919 Campaign (O'Brien Press Ltd, 2008).
  10. F P Longford and T P O'Neill, Éamon de Valera, (Gill & Macmillan, Dublin, 1970).
  11. W Moore, Schrödinger, Life and Thought, (Cambridge, 1989).
  12. M Moynihan, Speeches and statements by Eamon de Valera, 1917-73 (St Martin's Press, Dublin, 1980).
  13. T Ryle Dwyer, Eamon de Valera (Gill & Macmillan, 1980).
  14. M Seoighe, From Bruree to Corcomohide: the district where world statesman Éamon de Valera grew up and where the illustrious Mac Eniry family ruled (Bruree/Rockhill Development Association, Limerick, 2000).
Articles:
  1. Dáil Eireann Deb. vol. 76 col. 1970 (06 July 1939).
  2. W McCrea, Eamon de Valera, Erwin Schrödinger and the Dublin Institute, in C W Kilmister (ed.), Schrödinger, London, 1987 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987), 119-135.
  3. NUIA, De Valera's application for a professorship in Mathematical Physics (21 May 1913).
  4. Papers of Eamon de Valera, IE UCDA P150/620 (University College Dublin).
  5. Papers of Eamon de Valera, IE UCDA P150/2609 (University College Dublin).
  6. E L Stark, Als Mathematiker vom Revolutionär zum Staatspräsidenten: Eamon de Valera auf irischer Briefmarke, Praxis Math. 25 (5) (1983), 154-155.
  7. J L Synge, The Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, Nature 218 (5144) (1968), 838-840.
  8. J L Synge, Eamon de Valera, Biogr. Memoirs Fell. Roy. Soc. 22 (1976) 634-653.

EAMON DE VALERA

The Fianna Fáil Party evolved from Ireland’s struggle for independence. Eamon de Valera founded Fianna Fáil on 23 March 1926. The Party’s name, Fianna Fáil - the Republican Party, was adopted on 2nd April 1926. The name Fianna Fáil had a double purpose: it suggested continuity with recent history (as the Irish name for the Volunteers) and also with ancient Irish history. The name Fianna Fáil means ‘Soldiers of Destiny’ and is taken from Old Irish. It has connotations with the Fianna, the warriors of Fionn Mac Cumhaill.

Born in 1882 in New York, but brought up in Limerick, Eamon de Valera studied mathematics at the Royal University. In 1908 he joined the Gaelic League and remained dedicated to the Irish language. He joined the Irish Volunteers in 1913 and during the rebellion of 1916 commanded the 3rd Battalion at Boland's Mill. Sentenced to death, de Valera was reprieved.
On his release from prison in 1917, de Valera was elected MP for East Clare – a political relationship with the Banner County that endured for over forty years. In February 1919, having escaped from Lincoln jail, de Valera was elected president of the first Dáil. In June of that year he went to America and raised over $5 million for the republican cause.
29 June 1919 - De Valera’s first public meeting on USA tour,
Fenway Park, Boston.
The period of the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 and the ensuing civil war were difficult times in the life of the country. De Valera realised that in order to make a substantial difference, he would have to take an active part in the political life of the nation. Thus, in 1926, he formed a new party, Fianna Fáil. In 1927 de Valera entered the Dáil (reluctantly taking the oath of allegiance, describing it as an empty formula) and spent the following five years building Fianna Fáil into a formidable machine. 
Fianna Fáil Party elected June 1927.

The first general congress (Árd-Fheis) of the Fianna Fáil Party took place in November 1926. De Valera pledged the party to pursue the ending of partition and the peaceful re-unification of the country. The Árd-Fheis laid down Fianna Fáil’s constitution and aims (which were updated in 1995). These were:
1. To secure the unity and independence of Ireland as a Republic.
2. To restore the Irish language as the spoken language of the people, and to develop a distinctive national life in accordance with Irish traditions and ideals.
3. To make the resources and wealth of Ireland subservient to the needs and welfare of all the people of Ireland.
4. To make Ireland, as far as possible, economically self-contained and self-sufficing.
5. To establish as many families as practicable on the land.
6. By suitable distribution of power to promote the ruralisation of industries essential to the lives of the people as opposed to their concentration in cities.
7. To carry out the Democratic Programme of the First Dáil.
In 1932, less than six years after its foundation, Fianna Fáil was elected to government. In successive general election victories the party remained in office until 1948. De Valera’s first concern as President of the Executive Council (this title was changed to that of Taoiseach in 1937) was to dismantle the imperial connection and to secure, in every way he could, the complete independence of the country. He introduced the Bill to abolish the Oath of Allegiance to the British King in April 1932. De Valera also abolished the office of Governor-General representing the British monarch in Ireland.
Under Eamon de Valera a new Constitution was created in 1937, Bunreacht na hÉireann. This was voted upon by the people in a referendum. The Constitution was the first to be given to the Irish people completely by themselves without a British overview. It has been a remarkably successful and flexible document, an adaptable instrument over the years in a changing nation. The 1937 Constitution made Ireland a republic in all but name - the office of the Presidency was established and the founder of the Gaelic League, Douglas Hyde, became the first president in 1938.
The first Fianna Fáil Government which took office on March 9, 1932.


Under de Valera Fianna Fáil engaged in a concerted campaign of social reconstruction. In the 1930s the Fianna Fáil government moved people out of the slums and tenements. In an eight year period (between 1932 and 1940), 133,220 houses were built or reconstructed. Social services and social welfare were greatly developed and new hospitals were built. Childrens’ Allowances and Widows’ and Orphans’ Pensions were introduced for the first time.
De Valera oversaw the development of Irish agriculture through founding research stations which sponsored a scientific approach to farming and encouraging maximum farm production rather than reliance on imports. The British Government refused international arbitration on the land annuities question - a payment of about five millions pounds a year to the British Treasury negotiated by the Cumann na nGaedheal government in 1926. When de Valera refused to pay the annuities, the British imposed tariffs and the Economic War broke out. It was ended in 1938, the same year that de Valera negotiated the return of the Irish ports (which under the Treaty Britain could use in the event of war). Historians view de Valera’s achievement in the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1938 as one of the most crucial periods of his political career.
The return of the Treaty ports meant that de Valera was able to adopt a policy of neutrality despite great pressure from Britain, the United States of America and Germany during the Second World War.
British garrison leaving Spike Island 11 July 1938 as Britain hands back the Treaty ports.

Neutrality was also a further demonstration of independence and it led to the adoption of a political outlook which has been the State’s official position ever since. Maintaining neutrality in the face of great danger to Ireland in World War II was one of de Valera’s finest achievements. He later gave the classic reason why a small nation such as Ireland should maintain its policy of principled neutrality: A small nation has to be extremely cautious when it enters into alliances which bring it, willy-nilly, into those wars. As I said during the last war, the position was that we would not be consulted in how war would be started - the great powers would do that - and when it was ended, no matter who won, suppose the side on which we were won, we would not be consulted as to the terms on which it should end.
Taoiseach Eamon de Valera and
Winston Churchill, 1953.
Elsewhere in foreign affairs, at the League of Nations de Valera was president of both the council and the assembly during the 1930s. This further strengthened the role that he played on the international stage, and showed that a small nation such as Ireland could play an important part in world affairs.
During the decade from 1948 to 1957 there were successive changes of government. Fianna Fáil returned to power from 1951-54. In 1952, the party introduced a Mother and Child scheme which had caused the downfall of the previous inter-party government. Fianna Fáil convincingly won the 1957 General Election and remained in power until 1973. In the final two years of de Valera’s political career the First Programme for Economic Expansion was implemented.
In 1959, after thirty-three years at the head of Fianna Fáil, Eamon de Valera resigned as leader and Taoiseach and was elected President of Ireland (succeeding Sean T. O’Kelly), a position he held until 1973.
In total Eamon de Valera had been head of the government for twenty-one years and President for fourteen - with such experience, there is no doubt that this was a man who was the dominant figure in twentieth century Irish political life.
Eamon de Valera is seen as perhaps the most consistent and influential figure with regard to the shaping of Ireland, its profound nationalism, and sense of self-determination. It is widely held that great leaders and nation builders often emerge from moments in time and their intuitive ability to seize and shape them - Eamon de Valera is most surely among those leaders.

EAMON DE VALERA: TIMELINE

1882: Born in New York on 14 October.
1885: Sent by his mother to live with her family in Ireland.
1904: Graduates from the Royal University of Ireland.1908 Joins the Gaelic League.

1910: 8th January. Marries Sinéad Flanagan.
1913: 25th November. Joins Irish Volunteers.
1916: 24th April. Commander in Bolands Mills during the Easter Rising. Later sentenced to death for participation but death sentence rescinded.
1917: Joins Sinn Féin and replaces long-time leader Arthur Griffith as president. Elected MP for East Clare in a bye-election but refuses to take his seat in the House of Commons.
1918: Re-elected MP in 1918 general election.
1919: 1st April. Elected Príomh Aire (chief minister) of the new Dáil Éireann, the assembly formed by a majority of Irish MPs. Forms his first government. In May de Valera travels to the United States to lobby on behalf of Irish republicanism, raising $5 million in the process.
1921: December. The Dáil, against de Valera's advice, approves Anglo-Irish Treaty. De Valera resigns as president.
1922–1923: Irish Civil War.
1926: 23rd March. De Valera forms a new political party, Fianna Fáil.
1927: Faced with disqualification from contesting elections, de Valera takes the Oath of Allegiance (describing it as an empty formula) and enters the Dáil.
1932. Forms his first Free State government.
President de Valera with
Princess Grace of Monaco and her
daughterCaroline.
1937. Enactment of new constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann. De Valera becomes Taoiseach for the first time.
1951. Re-elected as Taoiseach.
1957. Re-elected as Taoiseach for the last time.
1959. Elected as President of Ireland.
1966. Re-elected as President.
1973. De Valera retires from public office.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...