#The hero rankings are announced in November I think. So he waited a year

[tonya-the-chicken]

Doing research

[girlactionfigure]

The British Schindler

He saved 669 children.

Nicholas Winton was a young British stockbroker who rescued 669 Czech Jewish children from being sent to Nazi death camps. He never told anybody of his heroism, and the story only came out 50 years later after his wife found an old briefcase in the attic containing lists of children he’d saved.

Nicholas was a 29 year old clerk at the London stock exchange getting ready for a ski trip to Switzerland when he received an urgent call from his friend Martin Blake. Known to be passionately opposed to Nazism, Martin urged Nicholas to cancel his vacation and come to Prague immediately. He told Nicolas, “I have a most interesting assignment and I need your help. Don’t bother bringing your skis.”

It is a testament to Nicolas’ sterling character and strong moral compass that he didn’t waver for a moment. It was an easy decision to sacrifice his fun and relaxing ski trip and instead travel to a dangerous place on a mysterious mission.

Two months earlier, in October 1938, Nazi Germany had annexed the Sudetenland It was clear that the Nazis would soon occupy all of Czechoslovakia. When he reached Prague, Nicholas was shocked by the huge influx of refugees fleeing from the Nazis. In early November, the Kristallnacht pogrom occurred in Germany and Austria. Jews were killed in the street and hundreds of synagogues burned down, as well as Jewish-owned businesses. This horrifying event shocked the Jewish community in eastern Europe, and thousands were now desperate to flee.

Born to Jewish parents, Nicholas was actually Jewish himself. However, his parents changed their name from Wertheim and converted to Christianity before he was born. Nicholas was baptized and raised as a Christian, and he didn’t consider himself Jewish (although was doubtless aware that Hitler would.)

In Prague, organizations were springing up to help sick and elderly refugees, but Nicholas noticed that nobody was trying to help the children. In his words, “I found out that the children of refugees and other groups of people who were enemies of Hitler weren’t being looked after. I decided to try to get permits to Britain for them. I found out that the conditions which were laid down for bringing in a child were chiefly that you had a family that was willing and able to look after the child, and fifty pounds, which was quite a large sum of money in those days, that was to be deposited at the Home Office. The situation was heartbreaking. Many of the refugees hadn’t the price of a meal. Some of the mothers tried desperately to get money to buy food for themselves and their children. The parents desperately wanted at least to get their children to safety when they couldn’t manage to get visas for the whole family. I began to realize what suffering there is when armies start to march.”

Nicholas knew something had to be done, and he decided to be the one to do it. He later remembered, “Everybody in Prague said, ‘Look, there is no organization in Prague to deal with refugee children, nobody will let the children go on their own, but if you want to have a go, have a go.’ And I think there is nothing that can’t be done if it is fundamentally reasonable.”

Nicholas decided to find homes for the children in the UK, where they would be safe. He set up a command center in his hotel room in Wenceslas Square and his first step was to contact the refugee offices of different national governments and see how many children they could accept. Only two countries agreed to take any Jewish children: Sweden and Great Britain, which pledged to accept all children under age 18 as long as they had homes and fifty pounds to pay for their trip home.

With this green light from Great Britain, Nicholas did everything possible to find homes for the children. He returned to London and did much of the planning from there, which enabled him to continue working at the Stock Exchange and soliciting funds from other bankers to pay for his work with the refugees. Winton needed a large amount of money to pay for transportation costs, foster homes, and many other necessities such as food and medicine.

Nicholas placed ads in newspapers large and small all over Great Britain, as well as in hundreds of church and synagogue newsletters. Knowing he had to play on people’s emotions to convince them to open their home to young strangers who didn’t even speak English, Nicholas printed flyers with pictures of children seeking refuge. He was tireless in his efforts and persuaded an incredible number of heroic Brits to welcome the traumatized young refugees into their homes and hearts.

The office in Wenceslas Square was manned by fellow Brit Trevor Chadwick. Every day terrified parents came in and begged him to find temporary homes for their children. Despite Nicholas’ success in finding places for the kids to stay, British and German government bureaucrats made things difficult, demanding multiple forms and documents. Nicholas said, “Officials at the Home Office worked very slowly with the entry visas. We went to them urgently asking for permits, only to be told languidly, ‘Why rush, old boy? Nothing will happen in Europe.’ This was a few months before the war broke out. So we forged the Home Office entry permits.”

The first transport of children boarded airplanes in Prague which took them to Britain. Nicholas organized an amazing seven more transports, all of them by train, and then boat across the English Channel. The children met their foster families at the train station and Winton took great care in making the matches between children and foster parents.

The children’s transport organized by Nicholas Winton was similar to the later, larger Kindertransport operation, but specifically for Czech Jewish children. Nicholas saved an astounding 669 children on eight transports. Tragically, the largest transport of all was scheduled for September 1, 1939 – but on that day, Hitler invaded Poland and all borders were closed by Germany. Winton was haunted for decades by the remembrance of the 250 children he last saw boarding the train. “Within hours of the announcement, the train disappeared. None of the 250 children aboard was seen again. We had 250 families waiting at Liverpool Street that day in vain. If the train had been a day earlier, it would have come through. Not a single one of those children was heard of again, which is an awful feeling.”

Nicholas joined the British military and spent the rest of the war serving as a pilot in the Royal Air Force, attaining the rank of Flight Lieutenant. After the war, Nicholas worked for the International Refugee Organization in Paris, where he met and married Grete Gjelstrup, a Danish secretary. They moved to Maidenhead, in Great Britain, and had three children. Their youngest child, Robin, had Down Syndrome, and at that time children with the condition were usually sent to institutions. However Nicholas and Grete wouldn’t consider it and instead kept their son at home with the family. Tragically, Robin died of meningitis the day before his sixth birthday. Nicholas was devastated by the loss, and became an active volunteer with Mencap, a charity to help people with Down Syndrome and other developmental delays. He remained involved in Mencap for over fifty years.

Humble – and perhaps traumatized by the children on the train he wasn’t able to save – Nicholas rarely talked about his wartime heroism and his own family didn’t know the details. It was only in 1988 that Nicholas Winton became widely known. His wife found an old notebook of his containing lists of the children he saved. Working with a Holocaust researcher, she tracked down some of the children and located eighty of them still living in Britain. These grown children, some with grandchildren, found out for the first time who had saved them.

The BBC television show called That’s Life! invited Nicholas to the filming an episode that became one of the most emotional clips in TV history. With Nicholas in the audience, the host told his story, including photos and details about some of the children he’d saved. Then the told Nicholas that one of those children was the woman in the seat next to him! They embraced, teary eyed, and the host announced there were more grown children in the audience as well. She asked everybody who owed their life to Nicholas Winton to stand up. The entire audience stood up, as Nicholas sat stunned, wiping away the tears.

After that, Nicholas was showered with honors, including a knighthood for services to humanity. Known as the British Schindler, he met the Queen multiple times and received the Pride of Britain Award for Lifetime Achievement, both for saving refugee children and working with Mencap to improve the lives of people with cognitive differences. There are multiple statues of him in Prague and the UK, and his story was the subject of three films.

Nicholas Winton died in Britain in July 2015, at age 106. Today there are tens of thousands of people who owe their lives to Nicholas Winton.

For saving hundreds of Jewish children, we honor Nicholas Winton as this week’s Thursday Hero.

Accidental Talmudist

[bountyofbeads]

Trump Clears Three Service Members in War Crimes Cases https://nyti.ms/2CPN4qu

Trump is once again abusing his authority and presidential authority, signaling to those who defy Congress or break the law, that he'll pardon them. THIS IS SHAMEFUL AND DISGUSTING!!!

Trump Clears Three Service Members in War Crimes Cases

The moves signaled that as commander in chief, Mr. Trump intends to use his power as the ultimate arbiter of military justice.

By Dave Philips | Published Nov. 15, 2019 Updated 7:44 PM ET | New York Times | Posted November 15, 2019 |

President Trump cleared three members of the armed services on Friday who have been accused or convicted of war crimes, overruling military leaders who had sought to punish them. All three have been championed by conservative lawmakers and commentators, who have portrayed them as war heroes unfairly prosecuted for actions taken in the heat and confusion of battle.

In a statement released by the White House late Friday, Mr. Trump announced that he was ordering the full pardon of Clint Lorance, a former Army lieutenant, from the military prison at Fort Leavenworth, where he is serving a 19-year sentence for the murder of two civilians.

He ordered the full pardon of Maj. Mathew L. Golsteyn, an Army Special Forces officer who was facing murder charges for killing an unarmed Afghan he believed was a Taliban bomb maker.

And he reversed the demotion of Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who was acquitted of murder charges but convicted of a lesser offense in a high-profile war crimes case over the summer.

“The President, as Commander-in-Chief, is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the law is enforced and when appropriate, that mercy is granted,” the White House statement said. “As the President has stated, ‘when our soldiers have to fight for our country, I want to give them the confidence to fight.’”

The moves signaled that as commander in chief, Mr. Trump intends to use his power as the ultimate arbiter of military justice in ways unlike any other president in modern times.

Top military leaders have pushed back hard against clearing the three men. Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy have argued that such a move would undermine the military code of justice, and would serve as a bad example to other troops in the field, administration officials said.

Mr. Trump’s actions were first reported by The Washington Post. They were previewed last week on the Fox News show “Fox & Friends” by one of the hosts, Pete Hegseth, who said he had spoken to the president and described him as having “fidelity to the war fighter.”

“The president looks at it through that lens, a simple one, and important one,” Mr. Hegseth said, adding, “The benefit of the doubt should go to the guys pulling the trigger.”

A Navy official said SEAL leaders first learned of the plans from the Fox News broadcast, and since then have lobbied against clearing Chief Gallagher.

The three men have been portrayed in conservative media outlets and social media posts as dedicated warriors battling enemies who wear no uniforms and follow no laws of war, only to be unfairly second-guessed by military lawyers and commanders far from the scene of battle.

Mr. Trump echoed their frustration on Twitter in October, saying about Major Golsteyn, “We train our boys to be killing machines, then prosecute them when they kill!”

Experts were unable to name any other recent case of a member of the American armed forces receiving a presidential pardon for a violent crime committed in uniform, except for one granted by Mr. Trump in May. And it was strikingly unusual, they said, to clear a soldier of murder charges before the case is tried.

“I’m not sure it’s ever been done,” said Gary Solis, a retired military judge who served as an armor officer in Vietnam.

Referring to the only soldier convicted in the gruesome My Lai Massacre of civilians during the Vietnam War, Mr. Solis said: “People think Nixon pardoned Lieutenant Calley, but he didn’t. Calley was paroled.”

Presidents all the way back to George Washington have granted pardons to tens of thousands of American troops, but nearly all were young men who deserted or who evaded a draft, and received clemency after the fighting ended.

While the new pardons are a stark departure from tradition, they are in line with Mr. Trump’s many statements during his campaign and in office, arguing that to beat unconventional enemies like the Taliban and ISIS, the American military should loosen the reins on how troops behave in conflict zones.

“You have to play the game the way they are playing the game,” he told NBC News in 2016.

The specific circumstances of the three men’s cases defy easy characterization. In one, a decorated captain admitted to a killing in a job interview. In the other two, platoon leaders’ illegal actions were reported not by superior officers or Pentagon lawyers, but by their own platoons.

Troops who testified in those two cases, against Lieutenant Lorance and Chief Gallagher, voiced disappointment and disbelief over Mr. Trump’s plans for clemency before they were announced.

“The tragedy of pardoning Lorance isn’t that he will be released from prison — I’ve found room for compassion there,” said Patrick Swanson, a former Army captain who was Lieutenant Lorance’s company commander in Afghanistan. “The tragedy is that people will hail him as a hero, and he is not a hero. He ordered those murders. He lied about them..”

Mr. Lorance was a rookie Army lieutenant who had been in command of a platoon in Afghanistan for two days in July 2012 when he ordered his troops to fire on unarmed villagers who posed no threat, killing two men. He then called in false reports over the radio to cover up what had happened. He was immediately turned in by his own men.

Mr. Lorance, whose story is the subject of a new documentary series, was convicted of second-degree murder by a court-martial in 2013, and he has been in prison since then, serving his sentence at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas.

Major Golsteyn was charged in 2018 with premeditated murder over a killing that took place in 2010, when he was a captain in the Army Special Forces leading a team during Operation Moshtarak, one of the biggest combat operations of the war in Afghanistan. He admitted in a job interview with the C.I.A. the following year that, during the battle, he had killed a suspected bomb maker who had been captured and released, saying he had done so to protect civilians and his own men.

An initial Army investigation resulted in a reprimand but no charges. However, after Major Golsteyn publicly admitted the killing during a 2016 interview on Fox News, the Army reopened the case and charged him with premeditated murder.

Chief Gallagher was charged by the Navy in 2018 with shooting civilians in Iraq, killing a captive enemy fighter with a hunting knife, and threatening to kill fellow SEALs if they reported him, among other crimes. The charges stemmed from a 2017 deployment in Iraq when he was a chief petty officer leading a SEAL platoon.

After a tumultuous trial, he was acquitted by a military jury in July of all charges except one minor count: bringing discredit on the armed forces, by posing for a photo with the corpse of the captive he was accused of killing.

Though Chief Gallagher could have been demoted to the lowest rank in the service as a result, the top admiral in the Navy decided in October to demote him by just one step, to petty officer first class.

Mr. Trump had already intervened in the Gallagher case, ordering him moved to less restrictive confinement to await trial, and has posted supportive messages on Twitter. The Gallagher family has repeatedly urged the president in social media posts to step in again.

“Given his service to our Nation, a promotion back to the rank and pay grade of Chief Petty Officer is justified,” the White House statement said.

The Navy had been planning additional punishment for Chief Gallagher. Timothy Parlatore, one of Chief Gallagher’s lawyers, said the chief was told to appear before SEAL commanders on Nov. 1 at Naval Base Coronado near San Diego so they could remove his Trident pin, signifying that they were officially kicking him out of the SEAL teams. Navy leaders also planned to take away the Tridents of three officers who knew of the platoon’s allegations against Chief Gallagher but did not report them.

But Chief Gallagher waited all day at the base while commanders sought approval for the action from top Navy officials and the White House, which never came, according to a Navy official briefed on the meeting. Plans to punish all four of the SEALs are now on hold, the official said.

Mr. Parlatore welcomed the president’s intervention.

“It shows leadership,” he said, because SEAL commanders had become “so blinded by their unhealthy fixation on Eddie Gallagher, and it was time for an adult in the room to stand up and say, ‘Enough.’”

The White House initially made preparations to issue more pardons on Memorial Day but held off after encountering fierce resistance from military leaders and prominent veterans. Among them was a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, who wrote on Twitter: “Absent evidence of innocence or injustice the wholesale pardon of US servicemembers accused of war crimes signals our troops and allies that we don’t take the Law of Armed Conflict seriously. Bad message. Bad precedent. Abdication of moral responsibility. Risk to us.”

The men cleared by the president offered thanks Friday. On his Instagram account, Chief Gallagher, who a year ago had been facing the prospect of life in prison, thanked his family and thousands of supporters, and praised the president.

“I truly believe that we are blessed as a Nation to have a Commander-in-Chief that stands up for our warfighters, and cares about how they and their families are treated,” he wrote. “Our military is the best in the world, and with steadfast and supportive leadership; like we have in this president, our fighting force will only get stronger.

🍁🍞🍂☕🍁🍞🍂☕🍁🍞🍂☕🍁🍞

I Served in the Army. Trump’s War Crimes Decisions Are Not Pro-Military.

By intervening, the president undermines the moral standing of the armed forces.

By Benjamin Haas, Mr. Haas is advocacy counsel at Human Rights First | Published Nov. 15, 2019 | New York Times | Posted November 15, 2019 |

President Donald Trump on Friday cleared three military service members of war crimes, even after being reportedly advised against doing so by Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy. Mr. Trump interceded on behalf of Army Maj. Mathew Golsteyn, who had been charged with murdering an Afghan man; Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who was convicted in connection with posing for a photo with the corpse of a fighter in Iraq; and Army First Lt. Clint Lorance, who, after nine fellow unit members testified against him, had been convicted of murdering two civilians in Afghanistan.

Mr. Trump may believe that intervening pays respect to those who have served in uniform, that it shows he’s “pro-military.” But if this is his view, he’s wrong. In reality, Mr. Trump’s meddling undermines the military’s institutional values, risks endangering American service members, and disrespects the honorable service of the overwhelming majority of veterans.

The military strives to ensure that its members adhere to the laws of war and respect human rights. Service members are trained, for example, to avoid civilian casualties by understanding rules of engagement and following the proper steps for escalation of force. They also learn the appropriate ways to treat detainees, and interrogators are trained to employ only the approved, legal methods.

During my two deployments to Afghanistan, my intelligence work helped lead to the capture of insurgent leaders. Sharing responsibility for their capture and as a recipient of the intelligence produced by their interrogations, I had a sense of moral reassurance in the understanding that my colleagues handled and interrogated the detainees humanely — just as they had been trained.

The lessons service members learn about the laws of war are not an afterthought. Rather, they are central, emphasized time and again — from training sessions and exercises, to military ethics discussions, to actual combat deployments. The Army’s official values, after all, demand that soldiers “do what’s right, legally and morally” and “treat others with dignity and respect,” making no exceptions for civilians or even enemies.

The military requires its members to operate in accordance with the laws of war for good reason. Disregarding the laws of war — which Mr. Trump has done by intervening in these cases — jeopardizes mission accomplishment and the safety of service members;  excessive civilian casualties, for example, can stimulate further violence, turn local populations against American forces, and discourage allies from collaborating with the United States. Mr. Trump should realize that the laws of war actually serve to benefit our armed forces.

Against this backdrop, Mr. Trump’s intervention on behalf of those convicted or accused of conduct falling short of the military’s crucial legal requirements and moral expectations undermines the training in which the military rightly invests so much effort. It trivializes the values the military spends so much time fostering. He could be endangering United States service members deployed to combat zones by handing their enemies propaganda and recruitment material and by degrading support among local populations.

To be sure, war is complex, and service members accordingly face difficult moral choices under extraordinary pressure. But their preparation helps them make sound decisions in these tough situations, and the military justice system considers the factual circumstances of each case and the intent of the actor.

Mr. Trump appears to be following in the unfortunate footsteps of President Richard Nixon. In the wake of Lt. William Calley’s murder conviction in connection with the Vietnam War’s My Lai Massacre, President Richard Nixon intervened on behalf of Mr. Calley. In a response to Mr. Nixon that rings true today, Capt. Aubrey Daniel, the military prosecutor in the case, wrote:

“Your intervention has, in my opinion, damaged the military judicial system. … I would expect that the president of the United States, a man whom I believed should and would provide the moral leadership for this nation, would stand fully behind the law of this land on a moral issue which is so clear and about which there can be no compromise.”

Mr. Trump, to the detriment of the United States Armed Forces, remains fixated on condoning the aberrant conduct of those convicted or accused of flouting the laws of war. He should have left the military justice system do its job. But perhaps this is not surprising, considering that Mr. Trump himself has recently advocated a war crime — the appropriation of oil in Syria.

______

Benjamin Haas served as an intelligence officer in the Army and was deployed to Afghanistan twice.

🍁🍞🍂☕🍁🍞🍂☕🍁🍞🍂☕🍁🍞

Trump issues pardons in war-crimes cases, despite Pentagon opposition to the move

Dan Lamothe | Published November 15, 2019 at 7:30 p.m. ET | Washington Post | Posted November 15, 2019 |

President Trump intervened in three military justice cases involving war-crimes accusations Friday, issuing at least two full pardons that will prevent the Pentagon from pursuing future charges against the individuals involved, according to two of their lawyers and a U.S. official.

The service members involved were notified by Trump over the phone late Friday afternoon, said the lawyers, who represent Army Maj. Mathew L. Golsteyn and former Special Warfare Operator Chief Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL. Golsteyn faced a murder trial scheduled for next year, while Gallagher recently was acquitted of murder and convicted of posing with the corpse of an Islamic State fighter in Iraq.

The third service member involved, former 1st Lt. Clint Lorance, was expected to be released from the U.S. Military Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas as soon as Friday night. He was convicted of second-degree murder in 2013, and sentenced to 19 years in prison for ordering his soldiers to open fire on three men in Afghanistan.

It was not immediately clear whether Lorance will receive a full pardon or have his sentence shortened through commutation.

The calls were made at the tail end of a day dominated by impeachment hearings against Trump, and after days of efforts by some senior Pentagon officials to change his mind, according to three U.S. officials. The officials, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that some commanders have raised concerns that Trump’s move will undermine the military justice system.

Other U.S. officials and advocates for the service members involved have said that adopting the president’s desires in the military justice system should not be difficult. It typically has commanders overseeing the process in the military’s chain of command, with Trump serving at the top of that system as commander in chief.

In all three cases, advocates for the service members had blasted the Pentagon for its handling of their cases, detailing what they saw as questionable actions by prosecutors and investigators. Their cases have been featured on conservative media frequently in recent months, as they also prepared cases for the president behind the scenes.

Golsteyn, who went from being decorated with a Silver Star for valor in Afghanistan to facing years of investigation and a court-martial in the 2010 death of a suspected bomb maker on the same deployment, said in a statement that his family is “profoundly grateful” for Trump’s action, and that they have lived in “constant fear of this runaway prosecution” by the Army.

“Thanks to President Trump, we now have a chance to rebuild our family and lives,” Golsteyn said. "With time, I hope to regain my immense pride in having served in our military. In the meantime, we are so thankful for the support of family members, friends and supporters from around the nation, and our legal team.”

Gallagher’s lawyer, Tim Parlatore, said that his client received a phone call from the president with Vice President Pence also on the line.

“He told Eddie that he had certainly watched the case and that this was certainly the right thing to do given his years of service," Parlatore said. "The president was very familiar with the prosecutorial misconduct associated with the case. I think that certainly plays into his decision.”

🍁🍞🍂☕🍁🍞🍂☕🍁🍞🍂☕🍁🍞

[itsfinancethings]

November 21, 2019 at 09:11PM

Will Rey (Daisy Ridley) turn to the Dark Side? What’s the deal with Emperor Palpatine’s (Ian McDiarmid) return? How are we supposed to cope with Princess Leia’s (Carrie Fisher) final scenes?

As fans wait for The Rise of Skywalker, the third and final chapter in the Star Wars sequel trilogy, to hit theaters on Dec. 20, there’s been ample time to discuss these questions and conjure up theories about what’s to come in Episode IX.

The J.J. Abrams-helmed Rise of Skywalker will bring closure to the saga’s new generation of heroes. But don’t worry—from Disney+ Star Wars series The Mandalorian to Last Jedi director Rian Johnson’s upcoming film trilogy, there are plenty more Star Wars projects in the works.

Here are five of the most compelling theories about what we can expect from Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.

Rey will turn to the Dark Side

Lucasfilm

Thanks to the shot of Jedi-in-training Rey rocking a Sith-style hooded cloak and wielding a red double-sided lightsaber that was featured in the Rise of Skywalker trailer from Disney’s annual D23 Conference, some fans are more convinced than ever that Rey is fated to turn to the Dark Side.

When we last saw Rey in The Last Jedi (2017), she rejected Kylo Ren’s (Adam Driver) proposal to rule together without allegiance to either the Dark Side or the Light before rescuing the Resistance’s severely depleted forces from Crait. But that doesn’t mean she can’t still be swayed.

Whether or not it’s actually true, Rey was clearly disturbed by Kylo Ren’s revelation that her parents were nobodies who sold her for drinking money on Jakku and are buried in a desert grave there. Now she’s in a vulnerable place.

And with the return of Emperor Palpatine confirmed by Abrams, Rey could be a prime target for an Anakin-esque fall from grace.

There will be more Force ghosts

Lucasfilm

In the wake of Yoda reappearing to offer Luke some cheeky guidance in The Last Jedi, some fans are convinced that Emperor Palpatine and Luke’s roles in The Rise of Skywalker — both Ian McDiarmid and Mark Hamill are confirmed players in Episode IX — will be that of Force ghosts. When we last saw Palpatine in Return of the Jedi, he was hurtling down the Death Star’s reactor shaft (seemingly to his death) after a timely change of heart by Darth Vader.

As for Luke, he became one with the Force in Last Jedi after projecting a manifestation of himself to the site of the Resistance’s stand-off with the First Order on Crait. This manner of death in the Star Wars universe usually signals that the character has the ability to reappear in the world of the living as a Force ghost. Not to mention that Hamill himself has basically already confirmed that Force ghost Luke is a go.

“I had closure in the last one, you know?” he told the Associated Press when asked if Rise of Skywalker would be his last Star Wars movie. “The fact that I’m involved in any capacity is only because of that peculiar aspect of the Star Wars mythology where if you’re a Jedi you get to come back [and] make a curtain call as a Force ghost.”

However, since Palpatine was a Sith Lord not a Jedi and we also didn’t see the exact moment that he met his end (or didn’t), his inclusion as a Force ghost remains a little more ambiguous.

Rey is a clone

Lucasfilm

Kylo Ren straight up told Rey that her parents were nobodies, deadbeats who traded her for drinking money, in The Last Jedi. But some fans have since grown convinced that Rey’s parents may quite literally be nobody — because she’s a clone. Clones have played an integral part in the Star Wars universe since the prequel trilogy revealed that the original Stormtroopers were all clones. The Rey-is-a-clone theory, however, rests on the idea that Emperor Palpatine recovered the hand that Darth Vader cut off Luke Skywalker in Empire Strikes Back and used his DNA to make Rey in a secret lab on Jakku.

“Rey is a clone of Luke made from his hand that got cut off in Empire Strikes Back,” Reddit user vadrr21 posited earlier this year. “The clone was made by Palpatine in one of his labs in Jakku. Two Junk traders found Palpatine’s lab and were scavenging for goods they could have sold off for ‘drinking money.’ They found Rey and sold her off to Unkar Plutt.”

That all might seem far-fetched if it weren’t for the fact that in Chuck Wendig’s Star Wars: The Aftermath Trilogy, a novel series that’s considered canon in the Star Wars universe, Palpatine does in fact have a secret lab on Jakku. And it’s located under a plateau known as the Plaintive Hand. J.J. Abrams has also said “there’s more to the story” of Rey’s parents and confirmed that Palpatine is returning, in some capacity, in Episode IX.

Rey being a product of Luke’s DNA would also explain the connection she has with both him and the Force as well as, potentially, the title The Rise of Skywalker.

The Skywalker in question isn’t one person

Lucasfilm

When Lucasfilm announced that Episode IX would be called The Rise of Skywalker, fans immediately started theorizing about the identity of the titular Skywalker. But while some think that Rey will somehow still turn out to be a member of the Skywalker family, others believe that the name Skywalker will come to signify a new order of Force-users who walk the line between light and dark — a.k.a. the so-called Gray Jedi.

Since famous Skywalkers have led both the Dark (Anakin) and Light Sides (Luke and Leia) at different points in time, it would make sense for the family name to be chosen to represent those who occupy the middle ground between Jedi and Sith. However, since the true mark of a Gray Jedi is possessing both light and dark abilities without surrendering to the stronger pull of the dark, it remains to be seen which of our heroes will be able to be counted among their ranks.

Balance will finally be brought to the Force

Lucasfilm

Before the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker, Jedi prophecy foretold that a Chosen One, “born of no father,” would be the one to bring ultimate balance to the Force. When Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson) discovered Anakin, a young slave boy who both possessed extraordinary Force abilities and was a child of immaculate conception, he came to believe that Anakin was the Chosen One and presented him as such to the Jedi High Council.

As we all know, Anakin was later seduced by the Dark Side and became Darth Vader before redeeming himself in his final moments by tossing Palpatine down the Death Star’s reactor shaft to save Luke, an act that some viewed as fulfilling the prophecy.

However, thanks to the first two movies in the sequel trilogy, we know that the Light and Dark Sides of the Force have yet to reach an ultimate equilibrium. And as actor Freddie Prinze Jr., who voiced the Jedi character Kanan Jarrus in the animated series Star Wars: Rebels, aptly explained during an appearance on Jeff Dye’s Friendship Podcast earlier this year, it’s not people who bring balance to the Force, it’s the Force itself.

“Luke’s skill doesn’t dictate whether he wins or loses. The Emperor doesn’t dictate whether he wins or loses. The Force dictates who wins and loses based on balance,” Prinze Jr. said.

Now, how exactly the Force will go about instilling balance in itself with the remaining players on the board is still up in the air, but considering Episode IX is slated to be the final installment in the Skywalker saga, balance finally being achieved pretty much seems like a foregone conclusion.