The first popularly elected president saw himself as the champion of the “common man” who set out to expand Americans’ access to the nation’s democratic process. Andrew Jackson’s problem often lay not with his intent but with his uneven and usually controversial execution, leaving in doubt the legacy he and his supporters worked so hard to cultivate.   The New Democracy Portrait of President Andrew Jackson by Ralph Eleazer Whiteside Earl. Source: White House Historical Association   According to one of the 20th century’s most celebrated American historians, James Morgan, Andrew Jackson’s presidency deserves to be called the third American Revolution. According to his book Our Presidents (1969, 3rd Edition, p. 63), the first revolution in 1776 left the country under colonial aristocracy’s rule; the Jeffersonian revolution of 1800 brought to the political discourse the masses’ opinions, but it would be the Jacksonian revolution of 1828 that changed Jefferson’s party’s values and name from Republican to Democrat. The Jackson era “threw open to all citizens the doors of the Government, and admitted Tom, Dick, and Harry indiscriminately to the sacred precincts of public honor and political power.”   The change began much earlier than Jackson, and some may argue that it was what brought the self-made man into office. He built upon the principle of liberated democracy—freedom from the clutches of the wealthy (mostly Northern and Eastern) elites. The new West’s strength gave the Tennessee man his voting base and set the path for the first Westerner not from the original 13 states to reach the White House.   Historian David S. Muzzey pointed out in Our Country (1943, p. 288) that by 1828, nine of the twenty-four states of the Union lay west of the Allegheny Mountains and contained more than one-third of the country’s 12,600,000 inhabitants. Due to the new states’ liberal suffrage laws and constitutions, initially intended to instigate Western expansion, the common folk were now granted political rights of which their forefathers only dreamed.   Coupled with the growing working class in the East Coast’s manufacturing and industrialization boom that emerged from the War of 1812 and the relaxation of property requirements for voting as more men and women entered factory jobs instead of agriculture, the commoners had more political say than ever. All they needed was a champion.   Age of the Common Man Election ticket for the 1828 election, which people would fold and place inside a voting box. Source: Library of Congress   Andrew Jackson’s role in the transition from the caucus to the convention system is complex. The former emerged in the late 1700s as the nation’s first official method of selecting party candidates for presidential office. Because early American political parties were not regulated and were mainly informal organizations, congressmen often met outside formal duties to discuss and pick candidates for the executive office. By 1800, this caucus process had become more formalized as the congressional caucus was now dominated by party elites and those in power on Capitol Hill who essentially picked the nominees from their respective parties.   The same caucus system was already in decline in the 1820s. It was criticized for excluding the broader electorate when calls for the convention system, more favored among the disenfranchised white voters, were first heard. Under the proposed system, local and state party delegates could participate in the nomination procedures—democratizing the election process.   The failed 1824 election that galvanized Jackson’s support and the future president’s exploitation of the public’s anger toward the caucus for his political gain only further popularized the calls for a more democratic convention system. More of a spark to an ongoing issue than its cause, the catalyst for change was the tumultuous presidential election in which all four candidates ran on the same Republican ticket.   Jackson won the popular vote but failed to secure a majority in the Electoral College, throwing the election to the House of Representatives, which, through the undemocratic caucus system involving members of Congress from the same party meeting in private to nominate their presidential candidate, elected John Quincy Adams.   A young Andrew Jackson as General of the American Army by John Wesley Jarvis, 1819. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York   The controversial outcome, dubbed in the press by Jackson’s allies as a “corrupt bargain,” led to widespread discontent and public disillusionment with the caucus. Four years later, in 1828, Jackson and his followers, comprised of those who saw the wealthy elites stripping them of their constitutional democratic rights and who, like the Tennessee man himself, came from humble beginnings, mobilized a grassroots presidential campaign, a first of its kind.   The populist movement that Jackson joined and then embraced came out of the new West, where pioneer communities abandoned the differences in social rank. Through new suffrage laws that allowed uneducated men of the frontier to vote for the first time, their voice and opinion were worth as much as any aristocrat, merchant, or planter from the East. The Northern labor class, Southern tenants, and small farmers, whose voting rights were often restricted in favor of property-owning white males, felt excluded from political participation awarded to their Western brethren. Yet, they felt connected to them through their shared view of the federal government as composed of and favoring elites.   Through economic manipulation favoring the wealthy planters, bankers, and merchants, Washington DC’s powerful elites ensured that the commoners, the somehow lesser Americans, could never amass enough money and social prestige to have an equal say in the economy and politics. Loans were denied, and taxes and tariffs were raised to protect the industry and the wealthy planters—all while the “common man” suffered.   Inauguration of US President Andrew Jackson, March 1829 by Allyn Cox, 1973. Source: Library of Congress   It was an “us versus them” mentality that Jackson had now seized upon. Born in 1767 in the Waxhaws region of the Carolinas, Andrew Jackson’s early life, like that of many of his followers, was shaped by hardship. Orphaned at a young age, the young man sought solace in the US military during the American Revolution. He rose to national prominence as the leader of the Tennessee militia who beat the British at the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812. Jackson entered politics using this newfound national platform, serving in the House of Representatives and Senate.   The same Washington elites that had disfranchised and suppressed economic opportunities from the “common man” had also wronged Jackson. The self-made man from Tennessee, who toiled the soil and worked his way up from under the clutches of the corrupt politicians, would now become the masses’ champion—the leader of farmers, artisans, laborers, and all others who felt alienated from the established political order.   Jackson’s use of popular campaigning to sell his image as a self-made man solidified his position as a transformative figure in American politics and spelled the end of the caucus system. Jackson’s campaign embraced mass mobilization techniques such as rallies and parades to drum up support and excitement, galvanizing his base while pressuring political elites to consider public opinion in their decision-making process for the first time. Posters, pamphlets, and leaflets spread the Democratic leader’s message from the Allegheny Mountains to the streets of New York City; all full of slogans and imagery designed to appeal to the emotions of voters who believed they were being wronged by those in power.   Jackson’s inauguration, during which the furnishings of the White House were destroyed by the rowdy crowd. By Robert Cruickshank, 1841. Source: Library of Congress   When it was all said and done and Jackson had won his election, the caucus system was all but obsolete. By the next election in 1832, all major parties, including Jackson’s Democratic Party, had held their first national conventions to select the person to represent them on the ticket come November.   By all other metrics, Andrew Jackson was the first American president popularly chosen. According to Morgan (p. 64), “His was the first presidential election to arouse the interest of the multitude, the people in nearly every village setting up a hickory pole and around it a rallying to the support of ‘Old Hickory (Jackson’s nickname).’”   Jeph J. Story, a justice of the Supreme Court during Jackson’s time in office, stated that during the presidential inauguration, “the reign of king mob seemed triumphant,” with “crowds of all sorts of people, from the highest and most polished down to the most vulgar and gross in the nation.”   Just as shocking as it was for Washingtonians of the time to have who they saw as an uncultured, Western backwoods man who did not belong in the ruling class now stand in the nation’s capital, the former general’s supporters also saw in him a reflection of themselves. If Jackson could reach the highest levels of American politics, perhaps so could they. Jackson fervently believed this, firing many of his predecessor’s appointees and replacing them with those faithful to his party, regardless of qualifications. Thus, the federal government promoted a spoils system (granting political jobs based on party loyalty) because, according to Jackson, the government jobs were “so plain and simple” that they could easily be rotated at will and given to supporters.   Making Government Accessible Andrew Jackson painted by D.M. Carter and engraved by A.H. Ritchie, c. 1860. Source: Library of Congress   While previous presidents viewed themselves as “executives” carrying out the will and the laws of Congress, the primary representative body of the American people, Jackson took a different approach. He was the people’s choice, selected by individuals from all over the United States, unlike congress members who only represented various geographical and social regions.   Muzzey put it best when he posited that Jackson considered his own will to be the will of the American people, where they had chosen him to be their spokesman (p. 292). “He liked to think of himself as a Roman tribute, the officer elected by the masses of plebeians to sit by the door of the aristocratic Senate and shoot his veto of laws injurious to the interests of the commoners.”   Jackson employed the veto twelve times, doubling all previous presidents’ total number combined. While the president’s detractors accused him of acting like a king, Jackson’s supporters saw him as a champion of the people, taking on powerful interests. In retrospect, the seventh president expanded the power of the executive beyond what it was likely ever intended to be, in turn, setting a precedent for future presidents to use the veto more frequently as a tool of political leverage.   According to the new president, whose patriotism and character were beyond reproach, the United States was paramount to everything else, and only a strong Federal government could protect the people’s true will. When Vice President John C. Calhoun of South Carolina threatened to nullify new federal tariffs on foreign goods because they would harm his state’s foreign cotton trade, Jackson threatened South Carolina with military occupation through the passage of the 1833 Force Bill. Jackson’s stance against nullification showcased not only the American president’s new status but also reinforced the principle of federal supremacy over states’ rights.   Policies Toward Native Americans A political cartoon lithograph from 1833 ridiculing Andrew Jackson’s Native American policy by John Bufford. Source: Library of Congress   Arguably, the defining and most controversial aspect of Andrew Jackson’s presidency was his policy toward Native Americans, marked by the forceful approach to their removal. In line with championing the cause of the “common man” and democracy, the Tennessean reasoned that removing Native Americans from their lands opened vast tracts of land for white settlers, expanding the electorate and potential democratic participation. Yet, this expansion of democracy came at a tremendous human cost, regardless of Jackson himself calling the forced removal during his time in office a “benevolent policy… steadily pursued for nearly thirty years… approaching to a happy consummation.”   Jackson’s policy fell under the umbrella of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which granted the president the right to negotiate with Native American tribes for their ancestral lands in exchange for territory west of the Mississippi. The reality was far grimmer. When tribes resisted, the Jackson and later Van Buren administrations forced their relocation at gunpoint and with terrible consequences, as with the latter president’s forced displacement of 60,000 people to newly designated Indian reserves, which would come to be known as the Trail of Tears. To this day, history books point out the hypocrisy of the forced displacement of Native American tribes, which undermined the principles of self-government and individual rights, the cornerstones of the very democracy Jackson championed.   War on the Bank Edward Clay’s lithograph praises Jackson for terminating the Second Bank of the United States circa 1832. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Another controversial use of Jackson’s presidential authority came in 1832 when he vetoed the bill to recharter the Second Bank of the United States. The president envisioned a more democratic economy, which assisted and not hindered the common man’s pursuit of participatory democracy. Recognizing that those with access to wealth and status transcended mere voting rights to hold positions in government, Jackson attempted to free the national bank from the clutches of the wealthy elites and provide easier access to its funds for the commoners who could then use them to better their economic, social, and hence political positions in their local, then state and federal governments.   The president saw the wealthy elite controlling the bank and manipulating the economy to their advantage at the expense of ordinary citizens when denying them the loans needed to improve the lower class’ economic situation. In contrast, their wealthy and politically powerful counterparts grew in influence through easily accessible loans. According to Jackson, the federally chartered bank undermined individual states’ sovereignty and ability to regulate their economies. A decentralized banking system would foster competition, leading to lower interest rates, better services to the public, and a more localized and personalized banking experience favorable to commoners.   In 1832, Congress passed a bill to renew the bank’s charter, but Jackson vetoed it based on unconstitutionality. Following his reelection in 1832, the president followed this up by ordering the withdrawal of all government funds from the bank and depositing them in state-run banks. As with all other vetoes, his supporters reveled in having a champion in the White House as his critics accused him of abusing presidential power. Ironically, the actions led to the failure of the national banking system, economic instability, and the financial Panic of 1837, after Jackson had already left office.   Andrew Jackson: A Complicated Legacy One of the only surviving pictures of Andrew Jackson in old age, circa 1845, the year of his death. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The presidency of Andrew Jackson has left a deeply contested legacy. Often hailed as the champion of the “common man” and the first president to emerge from humble origins through a truly grassroots populist movement, the Tennessean shifted American politics away from the elites and toward a more participatory democracy. Yet, this democratic revolution and expansion was far from universal. While the white commoner had expanded suffrage and undeniably broadened political access, the Jacksonian Era saw the rights of Native Americans, African Americans, and women severely curtailed, whether by omission from the democratic process or, as with the former, direct action.   Jackson’s presidency began a trend, which, while controversial, continues to this day, of an assertive executive branch, a president who, for most American people, is the embodiment of the American Federal Government, for better or for worse.

  Many monarchs throughout history have reigned for an impressive number of years. Queen Elizabeth II, who spent seventy years on the throne, is the most recent example.   But there was another European monarch who reigned for even longer: King Louis XIV of France, whose reign lasted seventy-two years, from 1643 to 1715.   Louis’s influence was vast, both at home and abroad, and his reign continues to be a source of fascination for those interested in European history.   Louis XIV: The Boy Who Became a King Louis XIII, King of France by Philippe de Champaigne, 1655. Source: Museo Nacional del Prado   After more than two decades of marriage and several stillbirths, King Louis XIII and his wife, Queen Anne, welcomed a baby boy into the world on September 5, 1638.   Also named Louis, the baby was the heir apparent to the French throne, often referred to as the Dauphin. During his earliest years, Louis developed a close bond with his mother. His father, on the other hand, died of tuberculosis on May 14, 1643.   Louis, though only four years of age at the time, automatically became the new king of France. In line with traditional royal protocol, his first duty was to show himself to the people of Paris. So, perched on a pile of cushions, the little king was escorted through the French capital in a horse-drawn carriage.   Later, he was received at the Palais de Justice by politicians, councilors, and the presidents of the High Court. He was then carried into the hall and lifted onto his throne. But despite these formalities, the king was much too young to make any serious decisions on his own.   Contrary to her dead husband’s wishes, Anne became the sole regent of France and exiled some of the late king’s ministers. However, she did select Cardinal Mazarin to be her chief minister, a position Mazarin had also held during her husband’s reign.   Cardinal Mazarin Cardinal Mazarin by Pierre Mignard, c. 1658. Source: Château de Chantilly   At the time of Louis XIII’s death, France was involved in the Thirty Years’ War. Though the war started as a local conflict in Bohemia, it eventually spread throughout Europe, leading to a massive death toll of eight million. France joined the war in 1635.   Mazarin played a significant role during the negotiations at the end of the war. The treaties (collectively known as the Peace of Westphalia) benefited France, with the country gaining the province of Alsace and the three bishoprics of Toul, Metz, and Verdun in Lorraine.   As well as being a competent administrator, Mazarin provided the young Louis with a rich education. He didn’t focus on traditional subjects like linguistics and the arts. Rather, Mazarin told Louis about French history, monarchy, and military affairs.   But he also had other matters to attend to. The price of war, high taxation, and bad harvests had put France in a perilous economic position. Hunger was widespread throughout the country, and people were enraged by the establishment.   These factors, in tandem with Mazarin’s continuation of the policies of his predecessor, Cardinal Richelieu, led to the outbreak of a war collectively known as the Fronde. Louis and the royal family took refuge in the Saint-Germain-en-Laye, while Mazarin exiled himself to the Rhineland and communicated with Anne and Louis by writing letters.   In contrast to the English Civil War (1642–1651), the rebellion in France was unsuccessful, and Mazarin kept his role as Louis’s chief minister.   Coronation, Conflict, & Marriage María Teresa (1638–1683), Infanta of Spain by Diego Velázquez, c. 1654. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York   Louis’s coronation was held on June 7, 1654, at Reims Cathedral. Wearing the crown of Charlemagne and carrying a scepter and the Hand of Justice, Louis sat upon the Throne of Dagobert, and the crowds outside cheered the crowning of their king.   Mazarin, meanwhile, was doing his utmost to repair the country’s economic woes. But it was difficult, for improvements continued to be hindered by harsh winters and crop failures. With the help of the Secretary of State for War Michel Le Tellier, Mazarin also worked to reorganize the army to deal with the threat of Spain.   Following France’s alliance with Oliver Cromwell, the French and the English defeated the Spanish at the Battle of the Dunes in June 1658. This led to the signing of the Treaty of Pyrenées, putting an end to the Franco-Spanish War. To reinforce the peace, Mazarin arranged for Louis to marry Maria Theresa, the daughter of King Philip IV of Spain.   Mazarin died a year after the wedding ceremony, marking the end of an impressive political career. Louis replaced him with Jean-Baptiste Colbert, an intelligent man who had been educated as a lawyer and worked under Mazarin.   Colbert’s political highlights include expanding France’s merchant and military navy, improving roads, bridges, and canals, reforming the police, and assisting the arts and sciences by creating the Academies of Fine Arts, Music, and Science. He also set up the Observatory, better known as the Paris Observatory.   Louis’s Military Might The Battle of La Hogue by Benjamin West, c. 1778. Source: National Gallery of Art, Washington DC   When it came to military matters, the king was highly ambitious and wanted to impose French influence on the continent. After the death of his father-in-law in 1665, Louis believed he was entitled to the Spanish Netherlands, justifying his claim on account of his marriage to Maria Theresa.   This led to the War of Devolution (1667–1668). The war started successfully for Louis, with France taking many fortresses in the spring and summer of 1667. The fighting came to a close approximately a year later owing to the Triple Alliance, a military union between England, Sweden, and the Netherlands. This led to the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle (sometimes known as the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle), forcing Louis to halt his military ambitions.   But Louis had no intention of stopping indefinitely, and the Franco-Dutch War followed soon after, concluding after six years with the Treaties of Nijmegen. France acquired Franche-Comté along with numerous fortified areas in the Spanish Netherlands. Some smaller conflicts followed in the 1680s, such as the War of Reunions against Spain, the French naval campaigns against the strongholds of Algiers and Tripoli, along with Louis’s bombardment of Genoa.   Louis XIV (1638-1715), King of France by Hyacinthe Rigaud, 1701. Source: Musée du Louvre, Paris   More significant was the Nine Years’ War, a wider European conflict that began in the late 1680s and lasted throughout much of the 1690s. The war involved many European powers—including England, Spain, the Dutch Republic, and the Holy Roman Empire—uniting against French aggression and forming the Grand Alliance.   The conflict was triggered by France’s invasion of the Rhineland in October 1688. Louis wanted to expand his territory while the Holy Roman Empire was engaged in a war with the Turks. The French scored victories in the Battle of Fleurus (1690) and the Battle of Landen (1693). France also engaged in conflicts overseas, fighting against the English in North America during King William’s War.   The war concluded with the Treaty of Ryswick (also known as the Peace of Ryswick) in 1697. Louis retained some of his gains, including Alsace, but was forced to return Lorraine and the territory he’d acquired on the east bank of the Rhine.   Triggered by the death of King Charles II of Spain, the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714) was the last significant war in Louis’s lifetime, concluding a year before his death. This was yet another huge conflict involving an array of European powers, with fighting taking place on the European continent and overseas in the Americas. The war concluded with the Peace of Utrecht, marking the end of Louis’s plans for French hegemony in Europe.   A Power-Hungry King Half-Length Portrait of Louis XIV (1638-1715) by Pierre Mignard, c. 17th century. Source: The Walters Art Museum, Baltimore   Historians often regard Louis as an example of absolutism. While certain figures like Mazarin and Colbert played significant roles during Louis’s reign, the king had a tyrannical streak that set him apart from most European monarchs.   Back in the 1630s, royal agents known as intendants were introduced as an emergency measure to curtail disobedience. During his reign, Louis increased the power of the intendants, expanding their influence to every sphere of administration. They informed the crown about local politics and economics, supervised courts, and oversaw the taxation system.   In 1667 and 1670, Louis introduced reforms to law and order. These reforms made legal procedures more uniform, reopened the Paris Law School, formalized the inspection of prisons, and ensured prisoners were questioned within twenty-four hours of arrest. These reforms improved the general administration of justice throughout France.   Louis’s reign also witnessed religious changes, most notably the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. (Introduced in 1598, the Edict of Nantes had given civil rights to French Protestants. The Protestants were a religious minority, heavily outnumbered by the Catholics.)   Without the Edict of Nantes to protect them, the French Protestants—also known as the Huguenots—were threatened with imprisonment unless they converted to Catholicism. Approximately a quarter of the Protestants rejected these options, choosing to flee the country instead.   The Palace of Versailles View of the Château de Versailles from the Place d’Armes by Pierre Denis Martin, 1722. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York   Yet Louis’s greatest—and most long-lasting—contribution to French society would have to be the Palace of Versailles. Major construction began in 1661, and the creation of Versailles took more than fifty years. At one time, 36,000 workers were employed on the site!   The palace was a hotbed of luxury, featuring the King’s Grand Apartments, the Hall of Mirrors, tapestries, oriental rugs, paintings, silk armchairs, crystal chandeliers, and lots of silver and gold. The vast gardens featured clipped hedges, flower beds, lakes, terraces, and waterworks.   Life at Versailles was a far cry from the life of a French peasant. Louis and his courtiers enjoyed balls, concerts, feasts, operas, theatrical performances, and gambling with their wealth. In addition to the aristocracy, many musicians, writers, and performers took up residence in Versailles, uniting their work and home life.   The beauty of Versailles enthralled European royalty across the continent, with many citing it as the Eighth Wonder of the World.   Louis XIV’s Death & Legacy Louis XIV of France by Hyacinthe Rigaud, 1701. Source: Museo Nacional del Prado   Louis died on September 1, 1715 in the Palace of Versailles, just four days shy of his seventy-seventh birthday. He had reigned for seventy-two years and outlived both his son and his grandson. Consequently, his great-grandson was the next in line to the throne.   Louis was a monarch with an unquestionable sense of ambition. Determined to expand France’s territory, he played a pivotal role in kickstarting some of the bloodiest conflicts of the early modern period. Though he did make some territorial gains, the human and financial cost of these conflicts was huge. His mistreatment of the Huguenots is also an obvious point of criticism.   Despite this, Louis’s impact at home was generally more positive. The Palace of Versailles may have been a symbol of wealth and privilege, but it was still a staggering achievement, embodying the beauty of French architecture. Louis also deserves credit for the reforms he made to law and order, bringing greater efficiency and uniformity to the justice system.   Though Louis certainly wasn’t the most virtuous of individuals, his reign remains one of the most fascinating chapters in French history.

  These words were written in the Eastern Confession of the Christian Faith of 1629, signed, by Orthodox Patriarch Cyril Lucaris: “The righteousness of Christ, being applied to the penitent, alone justifies and saves the faithful.” The confession does not call itself Protestant — but the language therein seems explicitly so.   How could this statement have been signed under the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople, the most honorable office in the Eastern Orthodox Church? Some Orthodox Christians have historically denied Lucaris’ authorship, suggesting that the signature was a scheme concocted by his Jesuit opponents. Who was Cyril Lucaris, and how did he become associated with the Protestant movement?   Who Was Cyril Lucaris?  The cover of one of the seminal works on Cyril Lucaris’ life: Protestant Patriarch, by George Hadjiantoniou, 1962. Source: Center for Reformation Anglicanism   Cyril Lucaris (1572-1638) was the Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church in Alexandria (from 1601-1620) and then Constantinople (1620-1638). He is one of the most controversial—though historically obscure—figures in the story of the Reformation in Eastern Europe. He had many enemies, so much so that his patriarchate would resemble the Church Father Athanasius’ career; he was exiled and reinstated no less than six times before his death. His life met a brutal end as he was accused of treason against the Ottoman Empire and was killed by Ottoman authorities during his patriarchate in Constantinople.   View of Constantinople, after Style of Antoine de Favray, 18th century. Source: The Art Walters Museum   The full scope of the controversies and complexities of the life of Cyril Lucaris are beyond the scope of this article. For our purposes, we will benefit most from studying Lucaris in light of the Eastern European Reformation, as an Orthodox bishop living in a tug-of-war between Protestant and Catholic communities in Poland; this experience affected his mindset later in life.   Lucaris’ ministry in Poland was the most formative period of his life and it developed his theological framework and set the tone for his interactions with Protestants. Eastern Europe—primarily Poland—is the fundamental place of interest for understanding this patriarch.   Cyril’s Early Life Cyril Lucaris’ alma mater, the University of Padua. Source: The University of Padua   In 1572, Cyril (then Constantine) Lucaris was born on the island of Crete. He was known to be a precocious young child, and he began to study in Venice with Bishop Maximos Margunios at twelve years old. Several years later, Lucaris continued his education at the University of Padua and studied philosophy there. He remained in frequent contact with his old teacher, and we possess letters passed between them, ranging from philosophical discussions to Margunios’ reprimand of Lucaris for his sloppy handwriting.   Lucaris would study at Padua for six years, and it is probable that this period (according to Stephanie Falkowski’s work on Lucaris) was his first exposure to Protestant thought, for the university was home to many Protestant students from Western Europe. The Catholic Church in Padua was nowhere near as influential as it was in virtually every other region of Italy; there were even occasions when Jesuits were banned from teaching religious matters at the school. Thus, it is a safe assumption that at Padua Lucaris received a comprehensive education in philosophy, an exposure to Protestants and their ideas, and perhaps even a new antagonism toward the church of Rome. Lucaris would be ordained into the Orthodox priesthood soon after graduating at Padua and henceforth would be known as Cyril Lucaris.   Cyril Allies With Eastern Protestants to Preserve Orthodoxy’s Independence  A map showing the geographic split in the church known as the “Great Schism” of 1054. Source: Britannica   The newly-ordained Cyril lived for a time with an Orthodox community in Padua but was soon ordained into the bishopric. He was sent to serve a small Orthodox parish at Brest-Litovsk in the Kingdom of Poland. While there, he attended the second session of the Council of Brest, an episode in Polish church history in which several Orthodox bishops voted to unify with the Roman Catholic Church (in a religious and political movement known as “unia”). Lucaris adamantly opposed this union and sought to protect the independence of his Orthodox churches, and thus looked to the Polish Protestants for an ecumenical effort against the Catholic domination of Poland.   Lucaris corresponded with numerous Calvinist communities in the cities of Lublin and Vilna. There was even a Protestant faction at the second session of Brest which sided with Orthodox Christians against unifying with Rome, led by Prince Constantine Ostrogski, an Orthodox prince and avid supporter of Protestantism. Ostrogski placed Lucaris under his provision. Thus, it is clear that by this time Lucaris viewed Protestant communities as being his allies against the church of Rome.   Cyril’s Protestant Ideas Brought Education to Orthodox Laypeople The Printing Press, plate from New Inventions of Modern Times, c.1600. Source: The MET Museum   Many Reformation scholars have noted that the Protestant Reformation democratized education for all laypeople, and Cyril Lucaris perfectly embodied this movement. Cyril’s collaboration with Prince Ostrogski also included a successful effort to create Orthodox schools and set up printing houses in Poland. Thus, it is clear that by this time Lucaris viewed at least some Protestant communities as allies in his efforts to reinvigorate and educate a suppressed Orthodox people and compete with Jesuit influence.   In 1601, Lucaris was granted the opportunity to bring these reforms to a global stage as he received a letter which virtually promised him succession of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, and he gladly accepted. As Patriarch, Lucaris immediately reorganized the church’s finances and started an initiative to reform schooling in Alexandria. Steven Runicman in his monograph The Great Church in Captivity notes that Lucaris’ interactions with western religious thought in Padua and Poland no doubt influenced his ambition for major reforms in his own church.   Icon of Cyril Lucaris. Source: The Orthodox Times   Among Cyril’s greatest reformation achievements, though, came following his appointment as the Patriarch of Constantinople. Lucaris made his last trip to Constantinople as a visitor in 1620, when the Patriarch of Constantinople died. The people of the city saw Lucaris as the clear choice for a successor. The Orthodox community there lauded Lucaris for his strong faith and his reforms in Alexandria and hoped he would do the same for Constantinople. Lucaris sought to fulfill their expectations and more, but his full initiative to reform the church in Constantinople did not go as planned, as he was deposed and reinstated six times during this period due to difficulties with the Jesuits and the Ottoman authorities.   Lucaris sought to serve the educational needs of his community by establishing the Academy of Constantinople in 1627. This academy sought to give religious education to Orthodox Christians as well as to educate people in the natural sciences. The Academy was also fitted with the first printing press in the Greek world, staffed by a Protestant printer from London. At this press, Lucaris famously published the first New Testament in his contemporary Greek so that, as Lucaris said, “the faithful would be able to read the Bible alone and by themselves.” Thus, Lucaris’ Protestant-minded initiative in Constantinople was to put the Bible in the hands of all the laity and to provide a robust education system that would be a viable Orthodox alternative to the Jesuit schools.   Cyril’s Protestantism Reintroduced Patristic Studies to Western Europe Icon of St. Clement of Rome, by Aiden Hart. Source: Aidenharticons.com   Meanwhile, Lucaris in his private life continued to immerse himself in Protestant literature as he received books from the English ambassador Thomas Roe, who referred to Lucaris as a “pure Calvinist.” He communicated with Roe frequently and would often receive Protestant books from him for his reading pleasure. Most notably, it was through Roe that Lucaris sent the Codex Alexandrinus to King James I. The codex was an early 5th century manuscript of the Greek Bible which contained the Old Testament, the Deuterocanonical books, the New Testament, and 1 and 2 Clement.   While 1 and 2 Clement were known and appreciated in the early church (primarily in Corinth and in the letters of Clement of Alexandria), they did not circulate very widely in the Middle Ages. Thus, the original texts of 1 and 2 Clement were virtually unknown in Europe prior to Lucaris’ gift of the Codex. Several years after the codex arrived in England, the patristics scholar Patrick Young worked from the codex to publish his first editions in 1633. Those studying the letters of 1 and 2 Clement today hold Lucaris in their debt.

  Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has provoked an intense debate about the origins of Russia and Ukraine. While Russia lays claim to the legacy of the medieval state of Kievan Rus’, from which it gets its name, modern Russia was created by the principality of Muscovy in the 15th and 16th centuries. Moscow’s rise from frontier town to hegemon was by no means inevitable and owed much to historical contingency and the Machiavellian policies of Moscow’s princes.   Tsar of All Russia Ivan the Terrible, by Viktor Vasnetsov, 1897. Source: Wikimedia Commons (State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow)   On January 16, 1547, the 16-year-old Grand Prince Ivan IV of Moscow was crowned Tsar of All Russia at a ceremony in the Dormition Cathedral in the Moscow Kremlin. Ivan, later known as Ivan Grozny or Ivan the Terrible, had been Grand Prince of Moscow since he was three years old. After attaining his majority, he became the first man to be crowned Tsar of Russia, a title derived from the Roman Caesar.   With his new title, Ivan claimed to be the sole ruler of the lands of Rus’—rendered as Russia in Latin sources—the medieval state that ruled over much of Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia. Ivan’s claim was not uncontested, and in the 1570s, he fought the costly and ultimately unsuccessful Livonian War in the Baltic in an attempt to seize territories that were once part of the Rus’.   Ivan was more successful in his conquests of the Tatar Khanates of Kazan and Astrakhan, successor states of the Mongol Empire. In the 1580s, near the end of Ivan’s reign, the Cossack leader Yermak Timofeyevich crossed the Urals and conquered the Khanate of Sibir (western Siberia), which became part of Russia.   Before Ivan, the Russian principalities were wholly European, although many had experienced two centuries of Mongol rule. After Ivan, the Russians continued their eastward expansion to become a Eurasian power. While Ivan’s reign marked the transformation from Muscovy to Russia, Moscow’s rise was by no means inevitable.   Rus’ Before Moscow Dormition Cathedral, Vladimir, photograph by Jimmy Chen, 2015. Source: Jimmy Chen   According to the 12th-century Primary Chronicle, the medieval state of Rus’ was founded in 862 CE by the eastern Viking chieftain Rurik in the region of Novgorod in northern Russia. By the 880s, Rurik’s successor, Prince Oleg, conquered the city of Kyiv on the Dnipro River, which became the capital of Kievan Rus’.   Prince Oleg made two unsuccessful attempts to conquer Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, but after making peace, the Kievan state flourished by controlling the trade route between the Baltic Sea and Constantinople. Under Byzantine influence, Grand Prince Vladimir of Kyiv converted the Rus’ to Christianity in 988.   Vladimir’s son and successor, Grand Prince Yaroslav, nicknamed Yaroslav the Wise, pacified the realm after a civil war and took Kievan Rus’ to new political and cultural heights. Upon his death in 1054, Yaroslav divided his realm between his three sons, who could expect to inherit the Grand Principality of Kiev upon the death of their elder siblings.   Yaroslav’s lateral succession policy initially proved effective, but successive generations of Rurikid princes frequently fought against each other, and central authority in Kyiv declined. In 1169, Andrey Bogolyubsky, Prince of Vladimir (around 100 miles east of Moscow), sacked Kyiv, and the center of political power in Rus’ shifted from Kyiv to Vladimir. Kyiv’s decline continued after the Mongol conquest in the 1230s, while Novgorod in the north adopted an accommodative policy towards the Mongols, enabling them to become a wealthy merchant republic.   Claiming the Inheritance Equestrian Monument of Yury Dolgoruky, Moscow, photograph by Jimmy Chen, 2015. Source: Jimmy Chen   Moscow’s first mention in the chronicles dates from 1147. At that time, it was a minor frontier town in the Principality of Vladimir, then ruled by Prince Yury Dolgoruky (Andrey Bogolubsky’s father). Although a settlement on the site could have existed earlier, Prince Yury is regarded as the founder of Moscow and built a fort on the banks of the River Moskva on the site of the Moscow Kremlin.   Muscovy gradually increased in significance, and following Grand Prince Alexander Nevsky’s death in 1263, his youngest son Daniil (then two years old) was named Prince of Moscow. After establishing himself as an independent ruler in the early 1280s, Daniil strengthened his state by inheriting the powerful principality of Pereslavl-Zalessky to the north and defeating the principality of Ryazan in the southeast.   Daniil died in 1303, one year before his elder brother and rival, Andrey of Gorodets, who ruled as Grand Prince of Vladimir between 1293 and 1304. Andrey was succeeded by his cousin Prince Mikhail of Tver, whose appointment as Grand Prince was confirmed by Toqta Khan, ruler of the Golden Horde.   Under the terms of Yaroslav’s succession law, any Rurikid prince whose father died before becoming Grand Prince would be excluded from the line of succession. This meant that Daniil’s eldest son, Prince Yury of Moscow, could never hope to become Grand Prince of Vladimir. The ambitious Yury resented his exclusion and sought to challenge Mikhail’s authority as Grand Prince.   Battle for Hegemony Prince Mikhail of Tver equestrian monument, Tver, photograph by Jimmy Chen, 2015. Source: Jimmy Chen   Although Moscow and Tver had been allies in the internecine wars of the late 13th century, Yury instigated a struggle for hegemony between the two states that would last several decades. While Mikhail was confirmed as Prince of Novgorod in 1307, Yury gained control of Nizhny Novgorod and strengthened his grip on Ryazan, effectively surrounding the Principality of Vladimir from all sides.   Mikhail’s eastern campaigns against the Muscovites were mostly unsuccessful, and by 1311, the Novgorodians rose up against Mikhail’s governors, leading to a protracted civil war during which the city passed between the Muscovites and Tverites on several occasions.   In the meantime, Toqta Khan had died in 1313 and was succeeded by his nephew Uzbeg Khan. The latter summoned Mikhail to his court at Sarai on the Lower Volga to renew his yarlyk, or patent of office. Mikhail enjoyed the support of the new Khan and persuaded the other to summon Yury to Sarai in 1315, hoping to take advantage of his absence to defeat the Muscovite armies.   Instead, Yury took advantage of a long stay at Sarai to persuade the Khan that Mikhail had been withholding tribute due to him. The Khan abandoned the Horde’s policy of non-intervention in Russian succession practices and threw his weight behind the Muscovites. By the time he returned to Moscow in 1317, Yury had married the Khan’s sister and had a large Tartar army to support his military campaigns. Most importantly, Uzbeg Khan gave him the yarlyk, appointing him Grand Prince of Vladimir, forcing Mikhail to relinquish the title.   The Khan’s Tax Collector The Moscow Kremlin at the time of Ivan Kalita by Appollinary Vasnetsov, 1921. Source: Wikimedia Commons (Museum of Moscow)   Mikhail returned to Tver, strengthened the city’s defenses, and decisively defeated Yury’s attempt to take the city in battle. His Tartar wife became a prisoner and died unexpectedly the following year. After learning of his sister’s death, the Khan summoned both Yury and Mikhail to Sarai for an investigation. Yury successfully persuaded the Khan that Mikhail had poisoned his wife, and Mikhail was executed on November 22, 1218.   After eliminating Mikhail, Yury assumed the duties of Grand Prince, but he continued to face opposition from Mikhail’s son, Dmitry of Tver. In 1222, Dmitry successfully deposed Yury after persuading the Khan that the Muscovites were withholding tribute, and in 1225, Yury was killed on his way to face trial in Sarai.   It was not until 1332 that Yury’s younger brother Ivan managed to regain the title of Grand Prince. Ivan was an effective military leader and maintained the Khan’s support by defeating his Russian rivals in battle and forcing them to make payments, which were forwarded to the Khan. Ivan’s efficiency as the khan’s tax collector earned him the nickname Ivan Kalita, or Ivan Moneybags. Weaker Russian principalities who complained about the rapaciousness of the Muscovites were told, “Moscow does not believe in tears,” a folk saying that became the title of a classic 1979 Soviet film.   Overthrowing the Khan Dmitry Donskoy at the Battle of Kulikovo (fragment) by Adolphe Yvon, 1921. Source: Wikimedia Commons (Great Kremlin Palace)   Ivan Kalita successfully persuaded the Khan to make the title of Grand Prince hereditary among the Muscovite princes, and upon his death in 1340, he was succeeded by his son Simeon. Moscow continued to be challenged by the Tverites, who allied with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which ruled over much of the former Kievan Rus’, including Kyiv itself.   In 1363, Prince Dmitry of Moscow, Ivan Kalita’s grandson, became Grand Prince of Vladimir at the age of 13. Grand Duke Algirdas of Lithuania sought to take advantage of the Muscovite prince’s youth and led three campaigns against Moscow, but the latter prevailed and concluded a favorable peace with the Lithuanians in 1375.   After fending off the Lithuanians, Dmitry turned his attention towards his Tartar overlords. The Golden Horde had collapsed into civil war, and Dmitry stopped making payments to Sarai. In 1378, Dmitry defeated a punitive invasion of Muscovy led by the Tartar general Mamai. Two years later, he took the offensive and led a coalition of Russian princes to victory over Mamai at the Battle of Kulikovo on the banks of the Don River on September 8, earning himself the epithet Dmitry Donskoy.   Despite Dmitry Donskoy’s victory at Kulikovo, Moscow was unable to throw off the Mongol yoke for good. In 1382, Mamai’s rival, Toqtamysh, defeated the Muscovites and sacked the city, forcing Dmitry’s submission. Nevertheless, when Dmitry died in 1389, his son Vasily assumed the title of Grand Prince of Moscow—transferring the title from Vladimir—without consulting the khan.   Gathering of the Rus’ Lands Dormition Cathedral, Moscow Kremlin, photograph by Jimmy Chen, 2017. Source: Jimmy Chen   In 1392, Grand Prince Vasily formed an alliance with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to strengthen himself against the Golden Horde. However, by the early 1400s, Vasily was at war with his father-in-law, Grand Duke Vytautas, in a struggle for control over the Rus. When the two sides made peace in 1408, the status quo was broadly maintained.   After Vasily I’s death in 1425, his son Vasily II was embroiled in a bitter struggle for succession with his cousin Dmitry Shemyaka. Although Vasily had been blinded by his rival in 1446, he was eventually restored to the throne in 1453. Vasily’s son Ivan III succeeded to the Muscovite throne following his father’s death in 1462. Ivan’s prestige was enhanced in 1472 when he married the Byzantine princess Sophia Palailogina, asserting Muscovy’s claim to the Byzantine inheritance after the Fall of Constantinople in 1453.   During his 43-year reign, Ivan aggressively expanded Moscow’s territory in pursuit of what he called “the gathering of the Rus’ lands,” his attempt to bring all the principalities of Rus’ under Muscovite rule. In 1478, he brought the Novgorod Republic under his control, extending his domains to the Arctic, and in 1485, Moscow annexed its former rival Tver. A few years earlier, in 1480, he had definitively overthrown Tartar overlordship at the so-called Great Stand on the River Ugra. The Muscovite and Tartar armies observed each other from opposite banks of the river for a month until both sides withdrew due to lack of supplies.   A Divided Rus’ Bohdan Khmelnytsky equestrian monument, Kyiv, Ukraine, photograph by Jimmy Chen, 2015. Source: Jimmy Chen   As a result of his expansion of Muscovy and his assertion of independence from the Tartars, Ivan came to be known as Ivan the Great. Nevertheless, although Ivan had assumed the title Sovereign of All Rus’, he had only managed to conquer eastern Rus’, and Ukraine and Belarus remained in Lithuanian hands.   Russian tsars and emperors would spend the next three centuries fighting against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (formed in 1569) to expand into western Rus’. The Cossack warlord Bohdan Khmelnytsky rebelled against Polish rule in the 1650s and established a nominally independent state in Left-Bank Ukraine (east of the Dnipro), though he was effectively a vassal of his Russian ally Tsar Alexei I.   Following the Partitions of Poland in the late 18th century, Russia acquired Belarus and most of western Ukraine, though the province of Galicia went to the Habsburg Empire. During the same period, Russia conquered Crimea and south-central Ukraine from the Ottoman Empire.   The collapse of the Russian Empire after the 1917 Revolution saw the emergence of an independent Ukraine, but Ukraine and Belarus were soon incorporated into the Soviet Union alongside Russia. Ukraine and Belarus regained independence in the early 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union.   As part of his justification for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Vladimir Putin indicated that the gathering of the Rus’ lands is Russian state policy once again. As this article has shown, Rus’ has more often been divided than united, and modern Russia does not have sole claim to the legacy of the Kievan Rus’.

What is the foundation of your life? "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock." – Matthew 7:24-25   On November 25, 1895, a cornerstone of ice was laid in Leadville, Colorado-the beginning of the largest ice palace ever built in America. In an effort to bolster the town's sagging economy, the citizens staged a winter carnival. On New Year's Day of 1896, the town turned out for the grand opening. The immense palace measured 450 x 320 feet. The towers that flanked the entrance were 90 feet high. Inside was a 16,000-square-foot skating rink. But by the end of March, the palace was melting away, along with the hopes of Leadville. You see, the tens of thousands of visitors who were anticipated to come did not, and those who did come spent very little, leaving the town's economy in shambles. Many Christians today also build their own "ice palaces" that eventually melt away. Perhaps they've trusted in money for their security. Maybe they've become codependent with another person to the point where they trust in them for everything. Or, it's possible they've allowed their possessions-their home, their car, or their "toys"-to become their idols. Each of these things will melt away when summer comes. Money won't last forever; people will let you down; and your possessions won't follow you to heaven! So instead of building castles of ice, build your life on the rock of Jesus Christ so that when summer comes, you'll be standing strong!  Prayer Challenge Ask God to reveal to you things you've built your life on that have no eternal significance. Questions for Thought What are some "ice palaces" that many people build their lives on today that eventually melt away? How can you be diligent to keep your life founded on the rock of Jesus Christ instead of temporary things? Visit the Senior Living Ministries website Visit the Senior Living Ministries website The post What Is the Foundation of Your Life? – Senior Living – October 17 appeared first on GodUpdates.

A viewer sent images to ABC7 News from along the Edens Spur in Deerfield, Illinois. While the station has blurred the text of the billboards (which you can see in screen shots below) because of their offensive nature, they contained violent slogans and profanity on the backdrop of a Palestinian flag. The image also said, […]

Last week, Vice President Kamala Harris attended a town hall hosted by Univision at Las Vegas, Nevada. Former President Donald Trump’s was scheduled earlier in the week but postponed due to potential impacts from Hurricane Milton. Trump’s town hall was rescheduled for tonight, at Univision headquarters in Doral. FL. There are contrasts in the town halls. In Harris’s case, she got fewer questions which on substance were simpler. Trump drew more substantive questions, as well as some which could well be considered hostile. It is also necessary to remember that this town hall was supposed to feature persons from battleground states. As with the Harris forum, there were people flown in from California and other non-swing states.  The first question of the night was on high prices and the cost of housing: First question of the Univision town hall is from Diana in Houston, TX, on high prices and the cost of living. pic.twitter.com/uo0PbBMHdI — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 17, 2024 The first immigration question was about the deportation of farm workers. Trump suggests here that the initial focus may be on criminal migrants: When asked about hypothetically deporting farm workers, Trump makes clear that criminals are the priority, and emphasizes an orderly immigration system pic.twitter.com/MQkReTTSVv — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 17, 2024 The next question is on housing and job creation: Next question is on housing and job creation: pic.twitter.com/N0QCiGhzx2 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 17, 2024 Trump gets asked about the national debt, proposes growth as a solution to debt. He floats Elon Musk as Efficiency Czar. Next question is on the national debt: Growth as a solution to debt. @elonmusk to be made in charge of govt efficiency. Shoutout to Starship booster chopsticks grab. pic.twitter.com/8KaWWrktOS — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 17, 2024 The next question is on immigration, and on the failed Senate bill. This “independent” from Chicagoland sure sounds like a Harris leaner: A question on the border, and the failed Senate bill: Trump focuses on the border. The question suggests Harris leaner. pic.twitter.com/Z90TNH9ZCY — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 17, 2024 The Springfield “cats and dogs” question, from an Arizona voter. Trump gets the cats and dogs question. Strong response on Springfield. Tougher questions than what Harris got. pic.twitter.com/y7ooD94laS — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 17, 2024 Here’s where the game is given away: They bring back a questioner from the Harris forum. His tone and question were much sharper to Trump than to Harris. Univision brings back the Tampa construction worker. His question to Kamala, in Spanish, was about hurricane response. To Trump, in English: J6, Covid, and administration dissenters. Doesn't strike me as very undecided. pic.twitter.com/IpBOMI8DNA — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 17, 2024 Another “swing voter” from Illinois, with a left-framed gun control question.  So much for "Hispanics from swing states". Two people from Illinois, along with two from California. This "undecided" with a left-framed gun control question. I told you so. https://t.co/cIXaz3KGRl pic.twitter.com/C1IOgUpCVG — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 17, 2024 Florida Man with a climate change question. Good on Trump to pivot to the Green New Deal. Another non-swing state resident, with a climate change question. Good pivot to the Green New Deal. pic.twitter.com/D2u1q7DJfW — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 17, 2024 The obligatory abortion question, couched as a wedge against Melania: Voter from North Carolina on whether Trump agrees with Melania on abortion: pic.twitter.com/szJVHhdDMk — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 17, 2024 Another person traveling to both events: Carlos from Arizona asks Trump whether he has any regrets from his previous stint in The White House. Another double dipper: Carlos from Arizona, who asked Kamala what she'd do differently than Biden on the border, asking Trump to name a regret or learning opportunity. Trump's response: personnel. pic.twitter.com/vo0peTJmPn — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 17, 2024 Eloy from Wisconsin asks Trump what steps he’d take in order to unite the nation. Eloy from Wisconsin asks Trump what steps he'd take to unite the nation. TRUMP: We are very divided. We were united. People had jobs, were doing great. Dems want men in women's sports and transgender operations on minors. Success will bring this country together. pic.twitter.com/xdOnrI0dzw — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 17, 2024 To end the town hall, the same final question from the same person that asked Kamala to name three positive attributes about their opponent. Kamala named 1 such attribute. Trump named 3. The last question, same questioner as in the Harris town hall: Name 3 virtues you acknowledge in Kamala Harris. TRUMP: That's the toughest question. She's done horrible damage to the country. BUT: 1. Ability to survive 2. Longtime friendships 3. Nice way about her pic.twitter.com/xLw86ae6kq — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 17, 2024 There were 13 audience questions for Trump to Kamala’s 10. Trump’s questions were sharper in comparison to Kamala’s. As was the case with Kamala’s town hall, anchor Enrique Acevedo maintained a hands-off approach, which allowed the candidates to engage the audience directly. Per reports, Trump met with attendees after the conclusion of the event.  Might this event move the needle for Hispanics with Trump? It’s hard to say definitively, but it can’t hurt any time Trump has a mic and is in front of a crowd. Media strategies are going to get very interesting over the next three weeks.  

U.S Strikes Houthi Installations in Yemen With Stateside-Based B-2 Bombers

Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris faced a more challenging interview than she’s used to on Fox News’ “Special Report” Wednesday evening, resulting in her handlers […]